Why 4K quality ? (Page 3): There is no "standard" - especially not these days. My guess is that less than 1% maybe even less than .1% of pictures today EVER get printed on paper -...

ChristianHJensen

lamiaceae wrote:

The "standard" for judging still images ... (show quote)

There is no "standard" - especially not these days. My guess is that less than 1% maybe even less than .1% of pictures today EVER get printed on paper - most get viewed electronically only. The world of photos have changed radically

ChristianHJensen

cambriaman wrote:

From what I have read using a 4K monitor to view v... (show quote)

Not even close. a 27-32" monitor is by far better in 4K than 2K - I would say even a 24" is noticeable better in 4K than 2K. Hell even the 15" 4K display on my laptop is striking compared to a 2K laptop.

the optimal viewing distance for a 4K display is about the dioagonal size so for your 42" TV is actually best viewed at a 3 1/2'-4' distance. For 2K monitors/TVs the ideal viewing distance is about 2x the diagonal

Properframe Loc: US Virginia

Some important photography related stats to consider are the % of the color gamut the monitor can exhibit, the bit depth ie 10 bit (the colors displayable ie 1 Billion), the brightness, the contrast ratio, In-Plane switching. The 4k is not the end all answer but what you may find is that to get the other specs you will end up with a 4k monitor. Sort of like you want a fast sports car but cloth seats - you have to take the leather because they all come with. And be prepared when you get the monitor and review some of your old processing you will want to smack your forehead when you see an accurate rendition of what you thought looked good before. You will have to go back and have another go at them.

therwol Loc: USA

ChristianHJensen wrote:

That is scaling of menus for readability (size purely)- doesn't affect the resolution of the display at all

The point was that if you have a relatively small display and can't read anything on a 4K display, Windows will magnify everything so you can. Of course, it doesn't affect the display resolution. Even on this 27 inch monitor that I'm using, I can't read anything comfortably without adjusting the scaling. They're putting 4 K displays on laptops. Why? Because they can.

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

A few years ago a friend who is a DP cinema shooter got the Red Camera. I played with it and
it had great dynamic range and a crisp picture. For his work it was great.
I shoot video now and have no use for 4k. The files are bigger. My editing Final Cut Pro X
is pushed to the extreme. I see it as looking over sharpened at times. For feature films and
commercials it is very useful. A producer can reframe a crop in on a shot in a edit.
When I first saw HD in a store I was impressed. Where this is going I dont know.
I like good 10 bit footage like Sony's hybrid video settings.
It will not go away. Some people want the picture for their TV viewing and gaming maybe.
Most of my video production now winds up on the internet.
Having it in your camera just makes it more valuable.
What interested me was 4k frames pulled off of a high end camera. Some cameras now
have the ability to pull frames off of the footage. I screen grab all the time and just the
frames that are good for PR releases by clients.
Good luck.

MiroFoto

I would like to thank to all of you who tried to educate me.
However nobody answered my $$ question:
Will I get a 4K resolution on 4K monitor from the computer having HDMI 1.4 output?" (do I have to have HDMI 2.0 ?

I have read that it is good for photos & videos 30 fps , but not for films & videos 60 fps. ????
I understand the graphical card is important ...but sellers say HDMI ...no further spec . I do not need a special hi speed gaming laptop . Only 4K output to external monitor .

I also think the color is dependent more on Monitor quality than the card. ( I do not need the scientific % gamut details...just the practical shot) I will use it for wieving , not a serious work.

Thank you

ERay

One reason some shot 4K video is that it allows you to crop in video processing and still produce 1080 or 720 output video. You can even fake a 2 camera shot this way. If you have a shot with two people talking to each other, you can use one 4K video camera and have them face each other. You can frame the shot with them on opposite sides of the frame. You can then cut from one to the other simply by cropping and have no audio sync problems.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

MiroFoto wrote:

I am asking the UHH friends to help me answer one ... (show quote)

When my HP computer died--they don't like to be dropped-I replaced it with a Dell Inspiron. Lighted keyboard-touch screen-8Meg 1 Tb hard drive- $550. I love it. so does the wife. Is it perfect, no --If you are looking for a laptop, this one is hard to beat- You have to spend a lot more to beat it.

therwol Loc: USA

MiroFoto wrote:

I would like to thank to all of you who tried to e... (show quote)

I don't see that you asked that question. You can get 4K output from HDMI 1.4 with limitations, including color bit depth.

From the article in the link. https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/what-is-hdmi-2-0/

"HDMI 1.4 supported 4K resolutions, yes, but only at 24 or 30 frames per second. That works fine for movies, but isn’t useful for gaming and many TV broadcasts, which require 50 or 60 fps. Also, HDMI 1.4 limited 4K Ultra HD content to 8-bit color, though it is capable of 10- or 12-bit color. HDMI 2.0 fixed all of that because it could handle up to 18 gigabits per second — plenty enough to allow for 12-bit color and video up to 60 frames per second."

MiroFoto

therwol, Thanks for the article and some explanation which brought one more question....and I am done.

If 1.4 HDMI supports / limits the color spectrum to 8 bit, do I really need more? I guess TVs are 8 bit machines. But I will NOT care about this. My ONLY concern is that I may limit 4K monitor when watching Photos. - in practical way . I will be watching, not tweaking and requiring 100% Gamut like profi photographers.

If I have to have 2.0 , so bee it. If I do not need it -good. I just do not want to spend $ on monitor and not being able to utilize it .

I hope this time I asked right.....

Thanks

ChristianHJensen

MiroFoto wrote:

I would like to thank to all of you who tried to e... (show quote)

HDMI 1.4 supports 4k 8 bit color at 30 fps max

If that was all you needed to know - try google instead of UHH - you will get the answer without all the unrelated (and many uninformed) comments

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

ChristianHJensen wrote:

There is no "standard" - especially not these days. My guess is that less than 1% maybe even less than .1% of pictures today EVER get printed on paper - most get viewed electronically only. The world of photos have changed radically

Then you can't say your image is even worth viewing on an analog tube TV. Most "photographers" today are not artists. True few people print gallery prints, but some do. Some of us have "standards" for all sorts of aspects of photography. As some have pointed out you need a monitor with as close to 100% RGB as possible.

therwol Loc: USA

MiroFoto wrote:

therwol, Thanks for the article and some explanat... (show quote)

I seriously doubt if there would be any limitation on static images. I believe the 8 bit limitation only applies to certain kind of video.

ChristianHJensen

lamiaceae wrote:

Then you can't say your image is even worth viewing on an analog tube TV. Most "photographers" today are not artists. True few people print gallery prints, but some do. Some of us have "standards" for all sorts of aspects of photography. As some have pointed out you need a monitor with as close to 100% RGB as possible.

I am not what point you are trying to make here. Analog tube tv is pretty low resolution - highest tube TVs were 720P certainly not enough resolution for showing photos - unless the screens were tiny. Off course you need a full color gamut if you want to view photos as there are supposed to look