Optics & feel:
The screen is modern and "quality" therefore - from the haptics ago he might have a firmer stand. If you wobble on the screen, so the plastic base can all do not suppress completely and the screen goes something with. But even if you can not call it a rock solid stand, so the screen is secure and is also quite to vibrations of the subsoil (JMD scandalizes the desk or running in front of it) immune.
Image Quality:
The most important criterion - good color, sharpness, a decent picture and Co are essential in a screen.
And usually applies: I get the quality for which I pay. Thus, with a snapper as the LG29UN65, certainly cherish his doubts as to whether this is good because even! But I would like to express fully the quality of the model!
LG has opted here for an IPS panel. The scope of such panels is usually at photographers and designers - IPS-typical model provides powerful and faithful colors and a great view. You can see everything without restrictions almost the complete 180 °. Contrast and black levels are also good.
The image quality is therefore great - what's in this price range is anything but self-evident. Unlike my old TN panel (24 ") is a quantum leap forward. The screen is non-reflective (matte) but lost here by the very strong lighting (LED) hardly brilliance one. The image quality is all in all very good!
The only downer is ultimately the Hertz number - unfortunately the screen provides only a Bildwiderholrate of 60Hz. For quick shooter - just in the professional area - the screen is not quite consequently. This is not to be expected with such a price, however.
Response time:
IPS brings but also disadvantages: the most "worst" is the relatively high response time of 5ms. But only comparatively - the 3-4 ms fall ultimately not really significant. Since Pingschwankungen are much clearer to remember - therefore no deduction from me at this point.
Power consumption:
Another shortcoming with IPS panels is the increased power consumption. But again, LG has a solution: The screen is illuminated with LEDs. Even if the black level of the screen here, as measured by the price is good, so the lighting is not very homogeneous. It comes sporadically to "Clouding". Who calls a LED TV its own, knows this problem already - even from well known manufacturers such as Samsung or Sony. For me, not a criticism - Who cares though, the this is given on the way.
Back to the ecological aspect: The increased power consumption is compensated somewhat by the LED lighting. Ultimately, it is not enough to be more than a 'B' retract. So quality has ultimately its price.
Consumption: 37W or 54 kWh / year.
Everyone needs to know for himself, but since PC games for me is a hobby I take the increased consumption for the excellent quality which are exposed to my eyes almost every day, happy to accept it. Therefore, no deduction from me - but a little food for thought for consumption-oriented buyers.
Connections / scope:
See photos, description, other reviews. This point was not important - I just needed a HDMI connection and has the screen.
Sound:
Again, I can only refer to other places - I used two active nearfield monitors to my PC.
Conclusion:
The screen offers a good image quality at the expense of smaller defects. This is so at a price but garkein problem: On the contrary! Who is on the picture arrives is completely served here. But that probably only noticed when my own personal conclusion.
Those who value consumption, operation, ergonomics and scope must be well again in more detail so sat apart must.
