LG Ultrafine 5K Display

[hjulenissen]

...So it doesn't help that you think it should have been done in a different way when it isn't

I am still trying to parse what you are saying.

A looks like resolution chosen in the monitor preferences on a 4K display as 1920x1080 will let the app display pixel data at 3840x2160 which maps perfect to the psysical screen.

So pixel-perfect (unscaled) images is possible on a 4k display connected to a mac?

If a better looking (in terms of font size) scaling is chosen at 2560x1440. Then the graphics will be rendered into a virtual screen space at 5120x2880 (which happens to 5K) and then scaled to the physical screen at 3840x2160. This creates the blur.

So if you want text and other elements at a different size that that implied by the native display resolution and the inherent 2x2 assumption of Apples "retina", then highDPI image output will also be scaled? Interesting. Does this show with crosshair test images?

Am I right that the basis for your claim that:

The reason a big 4K screen is not ideal on a Mac is the way scaling works

Rests upon the sole expectation that your preferences for font sizes, display size and viewing distance is the same as the rest of us? If I actually think that setting the "as if" resolution to 1080p gives me good UI proportions, then Lightroom and friends would work perfectly for that display?

-h

[Hans Kruse]

I am still trying to parse what you are saying.So pixel-perfect (unscaled) images is possible on a 4k display connected to a mac?
So if you want text and other elements at a different size that that implied by the native display resolution and the inherent 2x2 assumption of Apples "retina", then highDPI image output will also be scaled? Interesting. Does this show with crosshair test images?

Am I right that the basis for your claim that:Rests upon the sole expectation that your preferences for font sizes, display size and viewing distance is the same as the rest of us? If I actually think that setting the "as if" resolution to 1080p gives me good UI proportions, then Lightroom and friends would work perfectly for that display?

-h

I'm sorry to say that I have that I have explained in detail all these things in previous threads.

On the last part 1080P resolution would be fine for a smaller display like a 21" but would be way too big on a large display like 27" and larger. I use 2560x1440 and I'm sure many would prefer the next step up at 3008x1692. The bigger the "looks like" is set the smaller pixel level 100% or 1:1 is displayed on the screen. When people understand this, they can make an informed decision about whether a 4K display makes sense for them or not.

[kers]

Hans,
I read that Lloyd Chambers prefers his 2560x1600 NEC better to work on images while he likes his 5K mac display better for display purposes.
What is your view on it?
Pieter Kers

[Hans Kruse]

Hans,
I read that Lloyd Chambers prefers his 2560x1600 NEC better to work on images while he likes his 5K mac display better for display purposes.
What is your view on it?
Pieter Kers

I'm not like Lloyd as he is more nerdy than I am. He also does a lot of tests and reviews which I think makes him do things I find not worth while or not needed given what I do.

So my view is quite simple actually. When I get the 5K display the DPI of the screen will be the same as on the MBP. This is around 220 DPI. If you print a 50MP file from the 5DSR I have at about 1 meter wide it will have a PPI of about 220. So if I zoom into 1:1 in Lightroom on an uncropped image and I'm happy with the details then I should be equally happy with the details in a print 1 meter wide given proper print sharpening. That would be at a viewing distance equal to what I have in front of the monitor which is about 50cm or so. I probably would not view a print at that distance. I would stand a bit further back. For prints from the D810 the PPI would be slightly less. I use a standard set of parameters in the detail section in Lightroom and I hardly ever change them. I do sometimes change the detail slider to 100 for images at f/16 and there is a tiny difference, but I'm not anybody would be able to see it.

So in my view there is no real need to study on a pixel level on a screen with 4x less resolution. I believe in good enough to a certain degree and at least for me it is practical compromise. I could have a second monitor on my desk also driven by the MBP so I could see the 5K screen and a standard 2560x1440 display at the same time. I think it is overkill to do that. But that's just me

As a little side comment: I visit photo clubs from time to time to give a talk about my photography and show my pictures. Sometimes somebody brings subjects up like which lens I like and why I don't use prime lenses. One person then says, oh he likes this Zeiss lens so much because it is so sharp into the corners and he does not find any zoom lens that can give him that. Although I appreciate good lenses and quality, I also do have the opinion (just mine) that I'd rather compromise a bit to get the shots I want rather than fewer and possibly lesser shots because I have to spend time on changing prime lenses and maybe spend quite some time working on making the composition I want work with focal length of the lens I have to use. So sometimes I say a little provocative, it you notice the lack of sharpness in the corner maybe it's not such a great shot I had primes lenses in the past but sold them all except one macro lens and haven't looked back. I'm not intending to start a discussion about prime lenses versus zoom lenses, but make the point that for me a lot of things in photography is a compromise and we all need to find the ones that work for us.

[kers]

Hans, thank for your respons.
In some ways i am even more nerdy than Lloyd... and often disagree with him...
At the same time i like his - i am right! - attitude that notices things i was not aware off.

But you are right and it is not necessary to be too technical to make good photographs...
I know a lot of good photographers that know just enough to work. They are less distracted than i am by technical nonsens...
That said i do architecture and i cannot have unsharp corners... so i have to be a little nerdy...
(BTW it is some of the Zeiss Milvius line that that has unsharp corners until f8 !- very strange)

Back to displays,
I am on an old 2560x1600 Dell that serves me well for already 8 years...! very constant in colour during the years and one of the first adobe RGB gamut screens.

PK

[deanwork]

 I went to the LG website to read user reviews about the 4K 32"" LG and all of the user reviews ON Their Own Website were horrible. Many even hostile.

I saw one of these at a computer store yesterday next to an Apple 27" I Mac 5K and the LG looked terrible and no where the resolution or tonal clarity with the same image as the Imac. Only thing I liked about it was the matt screen. Maybe they had it adjusted badly but it just looked terrible.

Yes I know that LG makes the gloss screen displays for all the Apple Imacs and mac pros right now, but they are different screens.

I wouldn't get near one personally after reading about the QC issues. Read the review on this site put up yesterday about the BenQ 32" That is where I'm going if I can find a graphics card for my old macs to drive it.

john

Sure, it does, but it is good to know how it works I'm sure there are similar scaling on Windows that that it would be good to know when choosing screen monitor and resolution.

[DennisG]

My LG 5K arrived today.  I'm using a mid 2015 MacBook Pro with the Radeon graphics option, fully loaded.  Since 2009, I've only used my laptops, & made print decisions based on what I see on the 15" screens. What surprised me is that the Preferences screen indicates a full 5K resolution, contrary to the Apple support documents.  So I went to the local Apple store & took screen shots of an 27" 5K iMac, & also a Mac mini & Mac Pro, both with the new LG displays (see attached pics).  Notice that the mini correctly identifies the 5K display as running 3200x1800, but my MacBook Pro & the Mac Pro, both using a TB3-TB2 adapter indicate 5K.  I pointed this out to the store guru, & his only reply was that the display must be wrong, because TB2 does not support 5K.  So what am i seeing:  4K or 5K? 

[Hans Kruse]

My LG 5K arrived today.  I'm using a mid 2015 MacBook Pro with the Radeon graphics option, fully loaded.  Since 2009, I've only used my laptops, & made print decisions based on what I see on the 15" screens. What surprised me is that the Preferences screen indicates a full 5K resolution, contrary to the Apple support documents.  So I went to the local Apple store & took screen shots of an 27" 5K iMac, & also a Mac mini & Mac Pro, both with the new LG displays (see attached pics).  Notice that the mini correctly identifies the 5K display as running 3200x1800, but my MacBook Pro & the Mac Pro, both using a TB3-TB2 adapter indicate 5K.  I pointed this out to the store guru, & his only reply was that the display must be wrong, because TB2 does not support 5K.  So what am i seeing:  4K or 5K?

I just tried to connect the LG 5K I got today with the 2015 MBP and it does run 5K - 5120x2880. Remember to use 2560x1440 as "looks like" resolution in the scaling options in the monitor preferences.

[Hans Kruse]

I went to the LG website to read user reviews about the 4K 32"" LG and all of the user reviews ON Their Own Website were horrible. Many even hostile.

I saw one of these at a computer store yesterday next to an Apple 27" I Mac 5K and the LG looked terrible and no where the resolution or tonal clarity with the same image as the Imac. Only thing I liked about it was the matt screen. Maybe they had it adjusted badly but it just looked terrible.

Yes I know that LG makes the gloss screen displays for all the Apple Imacs and mac pros right now, but they are different screens.

I wouldn't get near one personally after reading about the QC issues. Read the review on this site put up yesterday about the BenQ 32" That is where I'm going if I can find a graphics card for my old macs to drive it.

john

The 4K screen you mention is a different one from the one that is co-developped by Apple and LG which is a 5K screen and 27". If you had seen that screen next to the iMac 5K you would have seen the same resolution. I got my new LG 5K screen today and it looks very good.