Monitor Resolution: In the market for a new computer monitor. This process has proven to be a little more complicated than expected. The basic concerns are how well a monitor will...

T_Span Loc: Northern MI

In the market for a new computer monitor. This process has proven to be a little more complicated than expected. The basic concerns are how well a monitor will represent the images taken, and keeping usable menus that old eyes can easily see. As for color space, ugh.

To date, I have only seen a monitor with just sRGB and that falls short of 100% of the sRGB space. Although the images are captured in AdobeRGB, processed mostly in LR's ProPhotoRGB and exported in sRGB. I still have only seen this through a less than 100% sRGB monitor. After reading tons of info, I am leaning towards 100% sRGB only.

Is going from 1920/1080 to 2560/1440 a big difference? Roughly 77% more pixels. And, I may very well upsize to 27" wide screen or 34" ultra wide. Anything will be a big improvement from a 7 year old Dell 23" 1920/1080.

Yeah I know about 4K, 300% more pixels. If the 4K didn't come with the text scaling problems, it would be a no brainer.

Your thoughts are appreciated.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

T_Span wrote:

In the market for a new computer monitor. This pro... (show quote)

For editing purposes, the greater the bit depth the better, for color accuracy. If you can afford a 10 bit display, ($1500 and up) that is what pros doing color critical work will use. They offer 100% AdobeRGB. You will edit in ProPhoto then output the result to ARGB or SRGB.

If that is too pricey, there are several 8 bit displays with 12 or 14 bit LUTs and FRC, which will give you almost the same editing experience as a 10 bit display - Dell's 2413 and Asus' PA249Q come to mind. These are priced under $500.

Font scaling is a pain, though a 4k or 5k monitor is nice for image display.

I use a pair of 1920x1200 displays - for 4k horizontal resolution - and they are 8 bit with FRC - for 10 bit color. They are great and with an Xrite i1 Display Pro profiler, my color is right on the money. Much better than when I used a standard gamut (sRGB only) display.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

T_Span wrote:

In the market for a new computer monitor. This pro... (show quote)

Personally, I'd lean towards an Eizo ColorEdge CG318-4K 31.1". You can't go wrong with one of those monitors.

B and H Photo sells them.
--Bob

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

For me, I chose one of Dell's ultra wide format monitions with 2560x1080 resolution so I can keep two application windows side by side. I also got a color calibrator to insure that what I produce is what I get.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

T_Span wrote:

In the market for a new computer monitor. This pro... (show quote)

I'm using a Dell P2715Q at 3840x2160 running Windows 10 Pro. Images look great on it.

Win10 allows font scaling but there are issues with a few programs.

Adobe CS6 64, Bridge 64, Nikon Capture NX-D, Nik and some Topaz plugin texts are so small they are almost unusable. Win 10 has magnify feature which can be used but its awkward.

There are probably others as well so I urge caution if you intend to go that route. 4K monitors can be run at lower resolutions but what's the point of paying for something that won't be used.

PS and LR CC and the new Topaz DeNoise work correctly.

Nikon tells me that the next release of NX-D will be 4K compatible but has no release date.

Would I buy it knowing what I know today? Absolutely; the image quality is worth it to me.

T_Span Loc: Northern MI

Thank you for your input. So many angles to this decision. Trying to balance all of the factors; resolution, technology, desk area, form factor, eyesight, financial, quantity, etc.... Yikes.

Is going from 1920/1080 to 2560/1440 a big difference? Hearing from someone who has made this upgrade would be helpful.

For anyone interested in the colorspaces, here is an overlay at wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGB_color_space#/media/File:CIE1931xy_gamut_comparison.svg

One big ultra wide or two smaller side-by-sides. Been looking between Amazon and B&H for the specs and pricing. Everywhere else for resolution and technology variables. Cripes the operating system is even coming into play. Maybe by the end of the year it will be sorted out.

Considering this for a one monitor display: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1112687-REG/dell_ultrasharp_u3415w_34_3440x1440.html

And this with the current one for side-by-side: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/996591-REG/nec_pa242w_bk_sv_24_color_critcal_wide.html

And, as one more wrench in the works, the graphics card in the desktop is supposed to run 4K at 60 hertz. Is anyone using a 4K display and able to scale the text and menus to be easily used?

T_Span Loc: Northern MI

Oops, joer posted as I was composing. Thank you Joe for your response, very helpful. I guess the 4K route would be in hopes of better scaling in the near future.

Capture48 Loc: Arizona

T_Span wrote:

In the market for a new computer monitor. This pro... (show quote)

If I were looking for a new monitor for editing purposes, I would look for a monitor that states it is "Ultra Wide Gamut" & Adobe RGB 1998. Experts believe the Ultra-Wide matters more then stepping up to 4k, or 5k monitors. Here is a look at the difference. The white gamut in the background is an Ultra-wide monitor while the front colored gamut is a wide gamut. You can see there is a Hugh difference in just about every color spectrum. I wish I had a MAC 5k monitor to compare, but I don't. Would be interesting if someone had a 5K Mac and an external ultra-wide connected to it, then MAC's can do a comparison of the two gamuts very easily.

If you have ever work for publication, you probably were required to submit photos in Adobe RGB 1998. So in my mind a monitor that states it can support Adobe RGB is more important than a Ultra-Wide Gamut

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

rmalarz wrote:

Personally, I'd lean towards an Eizo ColorEdge CG318-4K 31.1". You can't go wrong with one of those monitors.

B and H Photo sells them.
--Bob

Eizo is a good brand, but they quit supporting my 30" monitor after only 6 years and then I had to replace it as they no longer had parts.

Currently using a 32" NEC 4K monitor with good results.

One thing, on the high resolution monitors it can be hard to spot the cursor so check into how to enlarge the cursor. On the Mac it is under System Prefereces->Accesibility. I don't know where it is on Windows.

tomface Loc: California

Is going from 1920/1080 to 2560/1440 a big difference? Hearing from someone who has made this upgrade would be helpful.

That is exactly the upgrade that I did. 21 inch to 27 inch, respectively. I am very happy with it, and I didn't spend as much as I could have. I picked up an Asus for about $500.

Capture48 Loc: Arizona

BobHartung wrote:

Eizo is a good brand, but they quit supporting my 30" monitor after only 6 years and then I had to replace it as they no longer had parts.

Currently using a 32" NEC 4K monitor with good results.

One thing, on the high resolution monitors it can be hard to spot the cursor so check into how to enlarge the cursor. On the Mac it is under System Prefereces->Accesibility. I don't know where it is on Windows.

Also on the new MAC OS-X if you just shake the cursor it gets much larger. Actually not really sure when they brought that in, I just got surprised one day when I could not find the mouse on a friends computer and shook it, surprise it got much larger. Since I use a Wacom, I don't have this issue.

SwedeUSA2

[quote=rmalarz]Personally, I'd lean towards an Eizo ColorEdge CG318-4K 31.1". You can't go wrong with one of those monitors.

Which is the other one?

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

Capture48 wrote:

Also on the new MAC OS-X if you just shake the cursor it gets much larger. Actually not really sure when they brought that in, I just got surprised one day when I could not find the mouse on a friends computer and shook it, surprise it got much larger. Since I use a Wacom, I don't have this issue.

Tried that, but then learned of the Accessibility feature. Once I made it a little larger I got rid of the shakes. :lol: :lol:

zigipha Loc: north nj

i have a 27 inch dell 4k; i usually run it 2500 x 1440 but run it at 4k for video. its quick to change resolutions.

T_Span Loc: Northern MI

rmalarz wrote:

Personally, I'd lean towards an Eizo ColorEdge CG318-4K 31.1". You can't go wrong with one of those monitors.

B and H Photo sells them.
--Bob

Yeah, that is a sweet one for sure. Notice that it has a built in calibration sensor.