Did this coupon
work for you?
work for you?
Product Name: | LG 34BL850-W 34" 21:9 HDR FreeSync IPS Monitor |
Product Description: | The LG 34BL850-W 34" 21:9 HDR FeeSyc IPS Moito is built fo uses who wat plety of scee eal estate fo multitaskig, wokig with lage speadsheets, o eve a moe immesive expeiece whe watchig movies o playig games. Specs-wise, it's built o a Nao IPS pael featuig a 3440 x 1440 WQHD esolutio, a 1000:1 static cotast atio, a 350 cd/m² bightess atig, ad suppot fo up to 1.07 billio colos. Should you decide to play games o it, it also suppots AMD Radeo FeeSyc techology fo a smoothe gamig expeiece. Coectivity optios iclude HDMI, DisplayPot, ad Thudebolt 3, ad it has a vesatile stad that ca be adjusted to fit you viewig pefeece. Alteatively, uses ca istall a optioal VESA mout, stad, o am if eeded. |
Model Number: | 34BL850-W |
Product SKU: | 1478388 |
The link has been copied to the clipboard.
47 Comments
Your comment cannot be blank.
Featured Comments
Full HDR10 spec is far above HD400. HDR400/600 was created as a subset of HDR10 because a large portion (read: IPS) of PC monitors are incapable of the HDR10 spec, and VESA wanted these budget-friendly options to have some sort of HDR capability.
HDR10 was later subdivided into 400/600/1000/1400, 400 True Black, and 500 True Black, however the HDR10 spec on TVs has always abided by HDR1000 at minimum as that was the first true, ratified spec before the sudivisions were created (and even before a subdivision for OLED came about, because OLEDs back then could not produce 1000 nits, and still to this day their True Black spec does not specify, instead opting for 0.0005 nits black level, which I personally prefer). Note that plenty of TVs advertised HDR although few every really had full HDR10, notably LG (again, due to IPS, but also due to their refusal to have full array backlighting).
The big difference between original TV HDR10 spec you're pointing to and HDR400 is peak brightness. HDR10 specifies 1000 nits. Yes, 1000. HDR400 specifies a mere 400 nits. Maximum black level for HDR10/1000 is 0.05 nits. HDR400? 0.4 nits. Also, HUGE difference: HDR400 specifies only SCREEN-LEVEL dimming, not zone/local level dimming.
Other stuff retain similar specs, such as wide color gamut, meta data, etc.
TL: DR; HDR400 is bottom-barrel, absolutely useless garbage spec created for IPS monitors. Original, full HDR10 spec found on TVs is literally over an order of magnitude better.
Edit: just looked up some other stats. The WCG on HDR400 is actually less than all other HDR subdivision specs. 95% ITU-R BT.709 vs 99%. Bit depth remains 10 bit processing/8 bit pixel driver though. So yes, HDR400 is even worse than I thought.
This monitor is compatible with the HDR 10 and DisplayHDR 400 standard, supporting specific levels of color and brightness. The HDR Effect setting transforms non-HDR content into HDR-like content with its picture quality algorithm."
Features page says HDR400 but specs say HDR10. Not sure which to believe.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
"HDR 10 Support, VESA DisplayHDR 400, & HDR Effect
This monitor is compatible with the HDR 10 and DisplayHDR 400 standard, supporting specific levels of color and brightness. The HDR Effect setting transforms non-HDR content into HDR-like content with its picture quality algorithm."
Features page says HDR400 but specs say HDR10. Not sure which to believe.
"When connected, it can charge your laptop at a voltage up to 60W"
From LG's product page
This monitor is compatible with the HDR 10 and DisplayHDR 400 standard, supporting specific levels of color and brightness. The HDR Effect setting transforms non-HDR content into HDR-like content with its picture quality algorithm."
Features page says HDR400 but specs say HDR10. Not sure which to believe.
Ah, nice catch
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
This monitor is compatible with the HDR 10 and DisplayHDR 400 standard, supporting specific levels of color and brightness. The HDR Effect setting transforms non-HDR content into HDR-like content with its picture quality algorithm."
Features page says HDR400 but specs say HDR10. Not sure which to believe.
From having done some research into this before it's my understanding that with HDR it's not just about compatibility but also brightness matters a ton. At 350 its brightness is not anything special. I believe because of this HDR content is going to look not that amazing. Do people think this even is a good price? My off the cuff thought is it isn't that great.
edit:. did a quick search. it's not sold many places, which seems a bit odd to me but those that are do have a $700 pricetag on it (which seems like a crazy price for what it is).
EDIT: As corrected below, from the MFR site:
"it can charge your laptop at a voltage up to 60W,"
So this should charge most.. FWIW, some laptops like the XPS 15 (and perhaps macbook pros) might complain that they're hooked up to a 60W adapter and that they can only "slow charge".
Here's a couple more that do: the U3818DW [dell.com] and U4919DW [dell.com]
edit:. did a quick search. it's not sold many places, which seems a bit odd to me but those that are do have a $700 pricetag on it (which seems like a crazy price for what it is).