Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Computers & Peripherals => Topic started by: Rajan Parrikar on December 26, 2016, 01:05:58 am
-
Anyone here with an opinion on this monitor?
http://www.apple.com/shop/product/HKN62LL/A/lg-ultrafine-5k-display
-
I've seen no reviews, but of course it's not shipping yet. It's remarkably cheap but that might just be an effect of the "special discounted price". The main thing I found interesting in the description is the heavy emphasis on the MacBook as the computer to drive it: no mention of the mini or the pro.
Jeremy
-
Jeremy,
The Mac Pro 2013 can drive it via an adapter but only for 4K.
-
Jeremy,
The Mac Pro 2013 can drive it via an adapter but only for 4K.
i think a display works best at its native resolution... or divided by 2 or 4...
-
The Mac Pro 2013 can drive it via an adapter but only for 4K.
Thanks, Rajan, but my point was really that Apple don't bother even to mention that fact. There's been a lot of discussion recently about Apple's commitment to the Mac, to the desktop range and in particular to the Pro, and the blurb didn't give me any confidence in that commitment. I find it concerning. It's irrelevant to your question, though, so I'll leave it there.
Jeremy
-
Anyone here with an opinion on this monitor?
http://www.apple.com/shop/product/HKN62LL/A/lg-ultrafine-5k-display
I ordered one a few days ago when it became available for ordering. It will be matched with my MBP 2016. I have a Dell 32" 4K display which I will sell. 4K on a large screen is not a good idea. It should either be the old 2560x1600 or 2560x1440 resolution or 5K. Currently I use the TB3 to HDMI adapter for the Dell monitor and that works fine. The only thing is wakeup from sleep which often requires the monitor to be turned ogg and then on again for it to synchronize with the MBP. I expect the LG screen to be really nice since Apple has worked closely with LG to make this display. As far as I can see this monitor will only connect via a TB3 USB-C cable so older MBP's are ruled out.
-
Jeremy,
I found out compatibility only by scrolling down at the link above to the "Question & Answers" section. See attachment.
Hans - why is 4K not good but 5K is okay on large screens?
-
Jeremy,
I found out compatibility only by scrolling down at the link above to the "Question & Answers" section. See attachment.
Hans - why is 4K not good but 5K is okay on large screens?
Here is one opinion on high DPI screens like the LG 6K screen https://diglloyd.com/blog/2017/20170107_1234-evaluating-images-pixel-density.html. As I often see Lloyd Chambers is able to contradict himself, although he also does good work ;) My opinion is simple: I don't see pixel peeping on low DPI screens useful. Especially not today with the high rez cameras we have. My reasons are that when I view an image from my 50MP 5DSR at 100% or 1:1 in Lightroom on the retina screen on the 15" MBP it corresponds to a print 1 meter wide and viewed at the distance I sit from the screen. I surely would not view a print 1m wide from that distance. It would be further back. So if I'm happy with the sharpness and details 1:1 on the screen then it is good for the print as well given proper print sharpening.
The reason a big 4K screen is not ideal on a Mac is the way scaling works. The OS scales the "looks like" resolution by a factor of 2 in each dimension (so basically 4x resolution). This means that a 4K monitor needs to be run in full HD (half resolution in each dimension) in order to display one image pixel per screen pixel. Full HD looks like resolution looks terrible on a big monitor. If you use the 2560x1440 "looks like" resolution then this maps perfectly to 5K as this is exactly 2x higher resolution in each dimension. So if you run a 4K monitor in the "looks like" resolution 2560x1440 there is a slight blur at 1:1. A smaller monitor like a 21" monitor will look good with full HD looks like resolution. SO now you see the reason for the 21" imac is 4K and the 27" iMac is 5K. The DPI of the 5K iMac and LG screen is the same as the retina MBP screen.
-
The reason a big 4K screen is not ideal on a Mac is the way scaling works. The OS scales the "looks like" resolution by a factor of 2 in each dimension (so basically 4x resolution). This means that a 4K monitor needs to be run in full HD (half resolution in each dimension) in order to display one image pixel per screen pixel. Full HD looks like resolution looks terrible on a big monitor. If you use the 2560x1440 "looks like" resolution then this maps perfectly to 5K as this is exactly 2x higher resolution in each dimension. So if you run a 4K monitor in the "looks like" resolution 2560x1440 there is a slight blur at 1:1. A smaller monitor like a 21" monitor will look good with full HD looks like resolution. SO now you see the reason for the 21" imac is 4K and the 27" iMac is 5K. The DPI of the 5K iMac and LG screen is the same as the retina MBP screen.
Maybe I'm wrong, but that it is not how I understand how it works... If the program is ready for those types 4k/5k screens like Lightroom or photoshop are... When scaling the image 1:1 the image it is displayed at 1:1 to the native screen resolution... Menus items and other gui tools are scaled... But not the images...
-
Maybe I'm wrong, but that it is not how I understand how it works... If the program is ready for those types 4k/5k screens like Lightroom or photoshop are... When scaling the image 1:1 the image it is displayed at 1:1 to the native screen resolution... Menus items and other gui tools are scaled... But not the images...
The application cannot scale to the screen resolution. Basically fronts, text, menu items are scaled to a size relative to the "looks like" resolution and pixel data are scale to the double resolution in each dimension (4x the looks like resolution) and this resolution is then scaled to the screen resolution. As I explained a looks like resolution set at full HD 1920x1080 will render text menu items etc. at a size relative to this but with 4x resolution which is 3840x2160 (4K) resolution. This means that text will be rendered sharp with the full 4K resolution. Binary data like image data will be rendered in the 4x resolution of the "looks like" resolution which means that looks like set to full HD will render image data at 4K. So therefore 1:1 in Lightroom will map one pixel in the image to exactly 1 screen pixel. Is it clear now? The application does not have the option of doing it differently.
This also means that on a 15" MBP retina display you should always set the looks like to 1440x900 and not any other scaled resolution. Btw. the MBP 2016 defaults to 1680x1050 which should not be used unless you can accept a slight blur in 1:1 in Lightroom.
See here https://9to5mac.com/2016/12/02/15-inch-macbook-pro-screen-resolution-blurry/ and the developper pages here etc.
https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/GraphicsAnimation/Conceptual/HighResolutionOSX/Explained/Explained.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40012302-CH4-SW1
I also posted this here in 2015 http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102864.0
-
Hi Hans,
Maybe I expressed myself wrong... but I wanted to say exactly what you described... I missed the part of scaled resolutions in your previous post
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
Hi Hans,
Maybe I expressed myself wrong... but I wanted to say exactly what you described... I missed the part of scaled resolutions in your previous post
http://dgpfotografia.com
Ok, thanks :)
-
The application cannot scale to the screen resolution. Basically fronts, text, menu items are scaled to a size relative to the "looks like" resolution and pixel data are scale to the double resolution in each dimension (4x the looks like resolution) and this resolution is then scaled to the screen resolution. As I explained a looks like resolution set at full HD 1920x1080 will render text menu items etc. at a size relative to this but with 4x resolution which is 3840x2160 (4K) resolution. This means that text will be rendered sharp with the full 4K resolution. Binary data like image data will be rendered in the 4x resolution of the "looks like" resolution which means that looks like set to full HD will render image data at 4K. So therefore 1:1 in Lightroom will map one pixel in the image to exactly 1 screen pixel. Is it clear now? The application does not have the option of doing it differently.
This also means that on a 15" MBP retina display you should always set the looks like to 1440x900 and not any other scaled resolution. Btw. the MBP 2016 defaults to 1680x1050 which should not be used unless you can accept a slight blur in 1:1 in Lightroom.
See here https://9to5mac.com/2016/12/02/15-inch-macbook-pro-screen-resolution-blurry/ and the developper pages here etc.
https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/GraphicsAnimation/Conceptual/HighResolutionOSX/Explained/Explained.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40012302-CH4-SW1
I also posted this here in 2015 http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102864.0
My understanding is that Apple effectively offers a 1)"legacy display API" and a 2)"native display API". The former will assume some virtual display pixel size, so that legacy/simple applications will render gui elements at a sensible size without having to be rewritten, subsequently using OS-level image scaling. The latter will allow current applications to control each display pixel how ever it pleases.
I don't understand your argument for specific display sizes. Having a small, integer scaling factor between the apparent legacy display resolution, and the real physical display resolution would allow Apple to do resizing slightly cheaper.
The long-term solution as displays approach 8k and 10k will likely be to view image resolution as "semi-continous" and "above what our eyes can see", just like digital audio, and convert sample rates as needed.
-h
-
My understanding is that Apple effectively offers a 1)"legacy display API" and a 2)"native display API". The former will assume some virtual display pixel size, so that legacy/simple applications will render gui elements at a sensible size without having to be rewritten, subsequently using OS-level image scaling. The latter will allow current applications to control each display pixel how ever it pleases.
I don't understand your argument for specific display sizes. Having a small, integer scaling factor between the apparent legacy display resolution, and the real physical display resolution would allow Apple to do resizing slightly cheaper.
The long-term solution as displays approach 8k and 10k will likely be to view image resolution as "semi-continous" and "above what our eyes can see", just like digital audio, and convert sample rates as needed.
-h
You will understand if you read the explanations in the links as well as my posts on the subject. Especially the developer pages are very clear on how it works. It's indeed very simple. The Mac OS display into a virtual display space that is 4x the resolution of the "looks like" chosen resolution (which is the default in the 2015 and previous MBP 15" models but not the 2016) and the 5K iMac. When the looks like resolution is exactly 50% pixels in each dimension of the physical resolution then the display is exactly crisp. With higher resolutions like 8K this sill be harder to see. Apple might change the scaling method for these higher resolution devices in the future.
Remember this is for the Mac OS, how Windows does it, I don't know.
-
You will understand if you read the explanations in the links as well as my posts on the subject. Especially the developer pages are very clear on how it works. ...
I had a quick glance at that article, and it seems to support my understanding.
Applications can either render to the native display resolution, or to a "virtual" display that is 1/2 the horisontal and vertical resolution.
The former provides direct access to higher resolution, while the latter provides compability for old software.
Am I missing something, or is this a more compact way of describing the situation?
-h
-
I had a quick glance at that article, and it seems to support my understanding.
Applications can either render to the native display resolution, or to a "virtual" display that is 1/2 the horisontal and vertical resolution.
The former provides direct access to higher resolution, while the latter provides compability for old software.
Am I missing something, or is this a more compact way of describing the situation?
-h
Apps optimized for retina displays work the way I described. 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. 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. This is how Lightroom and Photoshop and all graphics apps I use work and therefore the 4K screen is not ideal as I have mentioned. It seems that Lightroom or Photoshop could write directly to screen pixels at least as mentioned under advanced optimization techniques but this is not used. You can see this when doing a screen shot which dumps the virtual screen and not the scaled one. I have written about this before and nobody from Adobe has commented on this and the issues of the OS X scaling for high resolution displays are implemented.
-
Apps optimized for retina displays work the way I described. 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. 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. This is how Lightroom and Photoshop and all graphics apps I use work and therefore the 4K screen is not ideal as I have mentioned. It seems that Lightroom or Photoshop could write directly to screen pixels at least as mentioned under advanced optimization techniques but this is not used. You can see this when doing a screen shot which dumps the virtual screen and not the scaled one. I have written about this before and nobody from Adobe has commented on this and the issues of the OS X scaling for high resolution displays are implemented.
What is the basis for this statement "If a better looking (in terms of font size) scaling is chosen at 2560x1440."?
Not trying to be argumentative here, but to understand what you are saying.
If I had a 4k display and Apple (only) does 2x2 scaling, I would set my "desktop" to approximately 2000x1000 "pixels" ("points", I believe, according to Apple). I would assume that fonts of height 8 pts then would cover 8/1000 of my display height, rendered as 16 physical pixels.
If I had a 5k display, I would set my desktop to 2560x1440. I would assume that fonts of height 8pts then would cover 8/2560th of my display height, rendered as 16 physical pixels.
Effectively, for a given display size (e.g. 27"), a 5k display would give me smaller text.
I would assume that when high-end image editors shows an image, it would be directly mapped to physical screen pixels.
I don't see any other sensible way this could fly?
-h
-
I have shown in the previous thread about the scaling issue how Lightroom and Photoshop works as retina aware apps. Capture One and all other retina aware apps I know of works the same way. So I'm not sure what I can do to convince you about how this works and why a large 4K screen is not optimal for Mac. Even movie playback apps also work this way.
Here is a screen shot of my screen setting for my 4K screen. This means that 1:1 in Lightroom is displayed smaller than it should since it is 5K mapped down to 4K. But again, I have been through all that in the different threads about this previously. So it doesn't help that you think it should have been done in a different way when it isn't ;)
-
Apple... It just works... ;)
-
Apple... It just works... ;)
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.
-
...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
-
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.
-
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,
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.