Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: feppe on December 14, 2013, 03:06:11 pm
-
I'm considering buying the recently announced Dell UP2414Q 24" 4K monitor with an IPS panel (http://dcse.dell.com/us/en/gen/peripherals/dell-up2414q/pd.aspx?refid=dell-up2414q) for stills photo editing, web browsing and some gaming. It ticks pretty much all the boxes when it comes to a photo editing monitor for me, including covering 99% AdobeRGB and factory calibration to deltaE of less than 2.
Dell has also announced another 32" model, and a 28" model with a different panel.
After researching, I still have a few questions, hoping you guys can help:
- It appears that a Quadro GPU with DisplayPort is required for 10-bit 4K @60Hz, since consumer cards don't support 10 bit output from Photoshop and other apps. I'm not familiar with Quadros. I don't do motion, so a model with lesser specs should be sufficient, but which one?
- Apparently Win 7 and 8.0 have very poor UI scaling, which is required to be able to read text and UI elements designed for 96dpi at native 183dpi of the UP2414Q. Even 4x scaling support is spotty and application-dependent, so running the monitor at 1080p might be necessary at non-photo editing applications - obviously not an optimal solution. 8.1 is supposedly better, so might be time to upgrade from Win7. Anyone have experience with Windows UI scaling who could shed more light on how big of an issue this is?
Disclaimer: I work for Dell, but obviously not in tech support :)
-
I am one of those "dafties" who always likes to be at the forefront of technological development and performance (within my budget) whether I really "need" it or not. Most of the time I suspect that I am indulging whims rather than meeting real needs.
But I have a wee worry about using monitors that are "too good".
Most of my photographic output is in the form of either A3+ prints or relatively low-res digital images (typically 1400x1050px) for submission to camera club competitions and international salons. My worry is that I might end up with monitors that have such a high quality picture that what I see on my screen cannot be matched by what judges see when they view my prints or examine my digital images on their own (possibly lesser quality) monitors or as projected images.
At present I use a pair of 27" Dell Ultrasharps and I feel that they currently seem to give me a decent result. I'd be concerned that upgrading them to the latest versions might actually disadvantage me in competitions in the way that many Mac users claim to be disadvantaged with their Thunderbolt displays.
.
-
Another concern is that pixels get too small on those screens. I fear that they make it harder to check for critical focus.
I understand they make sense if you edit 4k video, but I am not sure they have value for photographers?
On the other hand, they may be good at simulating printed outputs or display of images on 4k TVs, but this is still early.
No intention to invest in a 4K screen in the short future.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Small pixels for photo work is a complete non-issue. Retina Macbooks have been out for a long time and they are FAR more dense.
You don't need anything special, the entry 410 cards are more than enough for driving the display http://www.antonline.com/p_0B47075-PG_1037040.htm?sID=PG (http://www.antonline.com/p_0B47075-PG_1037040.htm?sID=PG)
10 bit support is one of the differences between the consumer and workstation cards unfortunately. But since you aren't needing the actual computational power, it's cheap :)
-
K5000 supports 10-bit UHD via Displayport.
-
Small pixels for photo work is a complete non-issue. Retina Macbooks have been out for a long time and they are FAR more dense.
Precisely, all my images look great at 100% on my 2013 13 inch retina mbp.
Including those (admitedely a rare occurence ;)) that don't look perfectly focused when looked at 100% on my 30 inch dell connected to the Mac Pro.
From this angle it may be a way to save money on lenses since cheaper one will do! :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
One issue is that different display pixel densities require different sharpening radii to have the same apparent sharpness. An image sharpened to look good on a high density display will typically look over-sharpened on a "normal" display. Conversely, images sharpened to look good on a "normal" display typically look soft on a high density display. Assuming all other display parameters are equal (they may not be) the amount of radius difference is a ratio of the pixel densities. For instance if an image needs 0.5px radius to look good on a 100 dpi display it'll need around 1px radius to look the same on a 200 dpi display. With a mix of various monitor types you can't be sure everyone sees the same thing. In addition the correct amount of sharpening required for a good print (typically over-sharpened for a monitor) will look significantly different on a high density versus a "normal" display.
-
With a mix of various monitor types you can't be sure everyone sees the same thing.
The same is true for color management. If you work on an ARGB monitor and 99.999% of everyone else is in sRGB, you're not seeing the same as they are. Even if you work in full sRGB pipeline it's a crapshoot: the patchy ICC profile support of image viewers and browsers makes worrying about it pointless, and 99.99999% of people don't even know what monitor calibration is.
Good points about sharpening.