LG on Wednesday announced its new flagship display with a UHD 4K resolution, DCI-P3 color gamut, as well as HDR10 support. The LG 32UD99 will be aimed at creative professionals, prosumers and gamers, which suggests more or less reasonable pricing as well as some allowances to handle Microsoft Windows' quirky color management (through support of sRGB). The monitor will be demonstrated at CES next month and will hit the market some time in 2017.

The LG 32UD99 will a 32” display featuring a 10-bit IPS panel that can reproduce 1.07 billion colors and cover over 95% of the DCI-P3 color space, while LG has said nothing about the sRGB and the Adobe RGB color spaces. The monitor will support 10-bit HDR capabilities, but LG is not disclosing details about its LUTs (look-up-tables) and so on. Finally, LG says that the 32UD99 will be able to connect to computers using a single USB Type-C cable (using DisplayPort Alternate Mode) that will also support charging capabilities. Other notable features that LG mentioned in its press release are thin bezels as well as “slim” stand.

Preliminary Specifications of the LG 32UD99
Panel 32" IPS
Resolution 3840 × 2160
Refresh Rate 60 Hz (?)
Viewing Angles 178°/178° horizontal/vertical
Color Saturation Over 95% DCI-P3
Display Colors 1.07 billion
3D-LUT supported
Inputs 1 × USB-C
1 × HDMI 2.0a (?)
Audio Stereo speakers featuring LG RichBass technology

The manufacturer is positioning its 32UD99 for different types of applications. Specifically, the company says that the monitor is “well-equipped” to support HDR-capable game consoles, which suggests that it can at least connect them using an HDMI 2.0a port because Sony’s PlayStation 4 Pro and NVIDIA’s SHIELD ATV (the only HDR-capable game consoles available today) do not have a USB-C header. Moreover, neither game console currently support DCI-P3 color space, which means that the display would need to support sRGB alongside HDR10.

Meanwhile, the support for DCI-P3 and HDR10 means that the display will appeal to professionals from the gaming, digital cinema, home theater and software industries. The consumer standard for DCI is used by a number of consumer electronics devices as well as a variety of Apple devices (and has good prospects to be adopted for televisions as well), and while LG isn't confirming that they're going with the consumer version (as opposed to the digital projection version with its different white point and gamma), it's reasonable to assume that like their other DCI-capable monitors, the 32UD99 will follow the consumer standard as well. Though it may very well be that HDR becomes the most distinctive feature, as HDR support in monitors is currently few and far between. Now, since the LG 32UD99 covers “over 95%” of the DCI-P3 color space (and not 98 – 99% like many professional-grade monitors like LG’s own 31MU97 do), the manufacturer does not straightforward say that the 32UD99 is going to be its new flagship model for creative professionals, but rather points to prosumers and demanding gamers.

Since LG made a preliminary announcement of the monitor this week, it naturally did not disclose all of its specifications leaving many questions unanswered. Nonetheless, it looks like the 32UD99 will be a considerably more universal display than LG’s UltraFine lineup of monitors designed solely with Apple’s macOS and Mac hardware in mind.  

Today, LG only announced plans to demonstrate its 32UD99 display at CES, which is why it did not touch upon its pricing and estimated availability timeframe. While it is logical to expect the LG 32UD99 to hit the market sometimes next year at a price that will be above that of average 32” UHD models, that is all we can share at this point.

Related Reading:

Source: LG

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • close - Sunday, December 18, 2016 - link

    @niva, I'm not arguing whether or not others should use one specific format. Just that "real estate" means what it means and that meaning doesn't change based on our personal preference, so the remarks about diagonal and AR are very contradictory. Also a comparison becomes more irrelevant the more parameters you change. So to keep it relevant you change one, like diagonal, resolution, refresh rate, etc. Of course he's going to pick the "bigger and better" screen and he'll do it regardless of AR, he just doesn't now it yet.

    But I have to agree with him in one respect: reading the post again I realize that it's only about what he personally likes, not about objectiveness or relevance. Of course, I am in no position to contradict him on what he likes.
  • alistair.brogan - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link

    That is only true with small screen sizes. I don't want to wreck my neck using a 16:10 32 inch display.
  • HollyDOL - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link

    My observations are same... while 24" 1920x1080 16:9 feels a bit short (tbh, narrow as well), I never noticed same issues on 27" 2560x1440 16:9 screen... using both screen sizes daily. So I guess you get beyond the break line somewhere in between those two screens...
  • Molor - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link

    16:9 isn't bad for a single monitor, but when I put 3 together for my office setup I really start to notice how short they are compared to 3 16:10.
  • Azethoth - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link

    LOL, so if I multiply an issue by 3 then it becomes obvious? You are talking about 16:27 vs 16:30 which is totally irrelevant here. The guy already said I don't want to kill my neck but here you are tripling the neck breaking.

    I say this as someone with a 32" UHD that first tried a 36" UHD. The 36 was stupid on the neck. The 32 is just about perfect, not too large, not too small. 16:10 would suck, too much vertical head travel because your eyeballs need head movement at that point.
  • close - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link

    I will start by stating the obvious: 16 is the long (horizontal) side so when putting three 16:9 or 16:10 screens together you will end up with 48:9 vs 48:10... I haven't yet met that person that would pivot all 3 screens vertically so 16:27 or 16:30 would mean stacking 3 screens on top of each other.

    Higher ARs are chosen simply because at any diagonal they provide less screen area so less manufacturing costs. This is why manufacturers are trying to push the even more unholy 21:9 AR now, as if you're working on a cinema screen. When 16:9 became commonplace it wasn't because it's optimal for large diagonals.

    And your 32" vs. 36" issue is more one of diagonal and sheer size rather than of AR. In other words there's probably no 36" screen that most people can use comfortably as a computer screen regardless of AR. Most computer desks were never designed to be used with a screen this size. And when you factor in the high resolution that that without scaling forces you to "get in there" you have a recipe for an uncomfortable experience. Just remember that even for older 17"-24" screens the recommended viewing distance is 20" to 40".
  • Morawka - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link

    I know right... whens the last time you've watched a movie on your computer monitor? last time for me was when Netflix first went digital. Most film's are 21:9 anyways
  • programcsharp - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link

    When are we going to see 4k @ 120hz? Going to 4k is a big investment across 2 or 3 monitors, I want to make sure that lasts.
  • Huacanacha - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link

    4K 120hz OLED ~30" with smooth motion tech (BFI or other to mitigate/avoid sample-and-hold effect) and I'd be prepared to make a sizeable investment. Until then it's best value for decent specs to hold me over. Btw. single cable support for 4k@120hz would require a new Dislayport (or less likely hdmi) standard with higher bitrate.
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link

    4k@120 or 5k@60 single cable are supported by DP1.3, which has been available since the new GPUs started coming out this summer. Fitting 30bit HDR in too would require DP1.4's compression or dropping back to to only 100hz.

    OTOH Displayport is still using 8/10 bit encoding instead of 128/130 bit like in PCIe3 or 128/132 like in USB3, which means it's still leaving almost 20% of its theoretical bandwidth on the table. I'm a bit surprised that the most recent DP standards haven't followed other ultra high bandwidth data links in adopting a more efficient encoding scheme. Doing so would've allowed lossless single cable 4k/120hz/30bit or 5k/70hz/30bit displays.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now