Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Computers & Peripherals => Topic started by: feppe on February 03, 2014, 05:17:42 pm
-
Last week I received my Dell UP2414Q monitor (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&sku=860-BBCD). It is a 24-inch 4K monitor, which is video geek speak for Ultra HD resolution of 3840 x 2160, four times the pixels of Full HD, aka 1080p. There is also a 32" and 28" 4K monitor from Dell, with differing specs.
The 24" I bought has a rather impressive 184ppi, near some of the highest-resolution tablets out there. Other features include portrait mode, DP and HDMI inputs, USB ports and card reader. In addition, it covers 99% of AdobeRGB, comes factory calibrated (mine was close to or below 1 deltaE), and supports hardware calibration with i1Display Pro.
I've done some testing over the weekend on the monitor, and thought I'd share brief experiences with Lightroom and Photoshop CC versions running on Windows 7, and Gimp on Linux Mint 16. I don't have my i1Display, and haven't done thorough tweaking of the programs, yet. The only change to settings was to drop Brightness to 27, as the default 50 is way too bright for my rather dark workspace.
Full disclosure and disclaimer: I work for Dell, but this post is purely my personal views, and does not represent my employer's views. I bought the monitor myself.
First, some notes on hardware. Current HDMI spec doesn't have the bandwidth for 60Hz at 4K, so you're stuck with 30Hz if HDMI is the only output you have. Upcoming HDMI update will support 60Hz. The monitor comes with DisplayPort cable, which does go up to 60Hz if your GPU supports DP 1.2. I'm using MSI GTX760, an nVidia GPU, and 60Hz works with it. Driver and OS support for MST (DP 1.2 at 60Hz) is spotty at the moment, though, and you have to power cycle the monitor sometimes to fix the image. SST (DP 1.2 off) at 30Hz works flawlessly on both Win7 and Mint, though.
The monitor supports 10-bit output via AFRC (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/featurescontent.htm#dithering). On Windows you need a Quadro card to get 10-bit output, though. Apparently nVidia's Linux drivers allow 10-bit output even on consumer-grade GPUs, but I haven't looked into that, yet. If that is true, this would mean that nVidia's Windows drivers are purposefully crippled, just like X-Rite's ColorMunki vs i1Display Pro (same hardware, 5x faster calibration).
In any case, since Photoshop is pretty much the only software out there that supports 10 bits, and its benefits are very likely marginal, I'm not in much hurry to research this further.
I've set Windows 7 UI scaling at 150%, which is the max. Win8.1 allows it to be set to 200%, I believe, but 150% is perfectly fine for my needs. I've set Mint at 150%, although it goes to 200%, maybe higher. The extremely high ppi makes text readable at much smaller pitches than at 1080p or 2160p resolutions. And the monitor is beautifully sharp, making text extremely crisp.
Off to software. Lightroom scales extremely well. It consistently honors the UI scaling set in Win7, and the tools are easy to use. There is a lot of real estate left over for the image even when you open up both side tabs, and the widescreen high-ppi monitor really comes to life and is a joy to use with LR.
Photoshop is a different story. Menus and popups scale as expected, but none of the icons do. For example, the standard selection, eyedropper and draw tool icons are about quarter the size of an average pinky nail. No exaggeration here. I can kinda tell which one is which from normal viewing distance, partly because I know their order already. But I can see it becoming a very frustrating and eye-straining experience with any serious editing job requiring more than a passing visit to PS. Hitting the right icon with an Intuos tablet or mouse is difficult.
Finally, GIMP. I haven't used GIMP much, and won't until they come with 16-bit support. This is promised in version 2.10, which hopefully, perhaps, maybe arrives this decade. 16-bit editing has been promised for years and years, but this is another topic.
GIMP has similar issues as Photoshop, but not as bad. UI scales well with larger fonts, but icons do not. Fortunately GIMP's icons are larger than PS's, so they are a bit easier to discern and hit.
Bottom line is that all three photo editing softwares work. LR works well. Very well, in fact. But both PS and GIMP will be painful to use, I'm afraid literally after an hour or two. Adobe forums threads going back to last fall about the subject point to a blame game between Adobe and nVidia/AMD, so it's hard to say who can and will fix it, or when.
Images on the monitor look stunning, beautiful, and other superlatives. When I first saw the 32" version of the screen in our showroom, I spent a good half an hour on my website just admiring my photos, seen in entirely new light. Just like seeing 1080p for the first time 10+ years ago, that trip became quite expensive, as I just needed to upgrade to 4K - it really is that good!
And that brings to a related topic. As 4K becomes more popular, people will start demanding higher-resolution images. I upgraded my travel photography website to high def last year, but now I need to go even higher to cater to the increasing number of visitors with 4K monitors.
Full-resolution screenshots follow to give an idea of what to expect. Below Lightroom 5 CC Library module.
addendum: to pre-empt the inevitable "who needs 4K", here a handy screen resolution chart (http://www.avsforum.com/t/1433660/will-i-see-pixels#post_22489661) I've been using for years. It's for projectors, but the principle is the same. For my viewing distance of 50-60cm, I'm at or near the "full benefit" from 4K. There are more detailed calculators available which take into account visual acuity, but for most people's monitor use, 4K will bring a real and visible improvement over lower-resolution alternatives. 8K is another discussion...
-
Lightroom 5 CC Develop module
-
Photoshop CC. Note that the 21.7 megapixel image fits comfortably on screen at only 50% zoom!
-
Windows 7 UI, font scaling set at 150%.
-
GIMP (screenshot did a roundtrip from .png to .jpg)
-
reserved
-
Last week I received my Dell UP2414Q monitor (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&sku=860-BBCD). It is a 24-inch 4K monitor, which is video geek speak for Ultra HD resolution of 3840 x 2160, four times the pixels of Full HD, aka 1080p. There is also a 32" and 28" 4K monitor from Dell, with differing specs.
The 24" I bought has a rather impressive 184ppi, near some of the highest-resolution tablets out there. Other features include portrait mode, DP and HDMI inputs, USB ports and card reader. In addition, it covers 99% of AdobeRGB, comes factory calibrated (mine was close to or below 1 deltaE), and supports hardware calibration with i1Display Pro.
I've done some testing over the weekend on the monitor, and thought I'd share brief experiences with Lightroom and Photoshop CC versions running on Windows 7, and Gimp on Linux Mint 16. I don't have my i1Display, and haven't done thorough tweaking of the programs, yet. The only change to settings was to drop Brightness to 27, as the default 50 is way too bright for my rather dark workspace.
Full disclosure and disclaimer: I work for Dell, but this post is purely my personal views, and does not represent my employer's views. I bought the monitor myself.
First, some notes on hardware. Current HDMI spec doesn't allow 60Hz inputs, so you're stuck with 30Hz if HDMI is the only output you have. Upcoming HDMI update will support 60Hz. The monitor comes with DisplayPort cable, which does go up to 60Hz if your GPU supports DP 1.2. I'm using MSI's GTX760, an nVidia GPU, and 60Hz works with it. Driver and OS support for MST (DP 1.2 at 60Hz) is spotty, though, and you have to power cycle the monitor sometimes to fix the image.
The monitor supports 10-bit output via AFRC (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/featurescontent.htm#dithering). On Windows you need a Quadro card to get 10-bit output, though. Apparently nVidia's Linux drivers allow 10-bit output even on consumer-grade GPUs, but I haven't looked into that, yet. If that is true, this would mean that nVidia's Windows drivers are purposefully crippled, just like X-Rite's ColorMunki vs i1Display Pro (same hardware, 5x faster calibration).
In any case, since Photoshop is pretty much the only software out there that supports 10 bits, and its benefits are very likely marginal, I'm not in much hurry to research this further.
I've set Windows 7 UI scaling at 150%, which is the max. Win8.1 allows it to be set to 200%, I believe, but 150% is perfectly fine for my needs. I've set Mint at 150%, although it goes to 200%, mayb higher. The extremely high ppi makes text readable at much smaller pitches than at 1080p or 2160p resolutions. And the monitor is beautifully sharp, making text extremely crisp.
Off to software. Lightroom scales extremely well. It consistently honors the UI scaling set in Win7, and the tools are easy to use. There is a lot of real estate left over for the image even when you open up both side tabs.
Photoshop is a different story. Menus and popups scale as expected, but none of the icons do. For example, the standard selection, eyedropper and draw tool icons are about quarter the size of an average pinky nail. No exaggeration here. I can kinda tell which one is which from normal viewing distance, partly because I know their order already. But I can see it becoming a very frustrating and eye-straining experience with any serious editing job requiring more than a passing visit to PS.
Finally, GIMP. I haven't used GIMP much, and won't be until they come with 16-bit support. This is promised in 2.10, which hopefully, perhaps, maybe arrives this decade. 16-bit editing has been promised for years and years, but this is another topic.
GIMP has similar issues as Photoshop, but not as bad. UI scales well with larger fonts, but icons do not. Fortunately GIMP's icons are larger than PS's, so they are a bit easier to discern and hit.
Bottom line is that all three photo editing softwares work. LR works well, but both PS and GIMP will be painful to use, I'm afraid literally after an hour or two. Adobe forums threads about the subject point to a blame game between Adobe and nVidia/AMD, so it's hard to say who can and will fix it.
Images on the monitor look stunning, beautiful, and other superlatives. When I first saw the 32" version of the screen in our showroom, I spent a good half an hour on my website just admiring my photos, seen in entirely new light. Just like seeing 1080p for the first time 10+ years ago, that trip became quite expensive, as I just needed to upgrade to 4K - it really is that good.
And that brings to a related topic. As 4K becomes more popular, people will start demanding higher-resolution images. I upgraded my travel photography website to high def last year, but now I need to go even higher to cater to the increasing number of visitors with 4K monitors.
Full-resolution screenshots follow to give an idea of what to expect. Below Lightroom 5 CC Library module.
Hi thanks for sharing.
The guys at mac format found uniformity issues with the monitor.
What they did was fill the screen with a black image and with the light of observe the screen for light leaking.
Could you perform that test and share your findings?
Best regards,
J. duncan
-
Hi thanks for sharing.
The guys at mac format found uniformity issues with the monitor.
What they did was fill the screen with a black image and with the light of observe the screen for light leaking.
Could you perform that test and share your findings?
I did notice it when booting up and the screen is black. Bottom corners are slightly lighter than rest of the screen.
I haven't noticed it in daily use, and I don't know if this is similar in scope to the glow experienced in many IPS screens. While I do quite a bit of nighttime photography, I still don't spend much time watching black screens, so shouldn't be an issue :P
I can post measurements when my i1Display arrives, as I believe it includes a facility to test screen uniformity. I'm not going to bother calibrating with my current Spyder, as it's getting pretty old and doesn't support hardware calibration with the monitor.
edit: there is an OSD option for uniformity compensation. It comes factory calibrated, but it was off by default, showing improvement when turned on. I'll report back on this after I'm done calibrating the monitor.
-
I might be getting old but I'll pass until prices go way down and everything is polished and smooth to work with... for me that should be the second generation 4k imac with whatever NEC/eizo/maybe DELL has to offer at 28-32"
Aside from that I find your impressions very interesting and I'm curious to know how much hit has taken the graphics card having 4 times the resolution for everyday things (I expect none), or if you have noticed any strange thing in PS with OpenCL.
Also, if you got spare time I would love to see if capture one (heavy GPU processing for imports-exports) is any slower at 4K than with a 1080-1440 monitor.
Nice toy you have! ;)
-
I might be getting old but I'll pass until prices go way down and everything is polished and smooth to work with... for me that should be the second generation 4k imac with whatever NEC/eizo/maybe DELL has to offer at 28-32"
Maybe this is more for you, then: the 28" P2815Q (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&sku=210-ACHO) retails for $699 in the US. Note that it's an sRGB monitor with a TN panel, compared to ARGB of the 24" model with an IPS panel.
Aside from that I find your impressions very interesting and I'm curious to know how much hit has taken the graphics card having 4 times the resolution for everyday things (I expect none), or if you have noticed any strange thing in PS with OpenCL.
You are right: it doesn't make a difference. nVidia's 600- and 700-series cards can do 4k res with one GPU, and normal browsing and image editing doesn't require much from a card. Don't know about video as I don't do video.
4K gaming is a whole another matter. It looks like that even the people with really deep pockets are forgoing 4K gaming until faster GPUs in dual/triple/quad setups are available. Fortunately the 4K res means it can scale down 4:1 to 1080p for very sharp results comparable or equal to a native 1080p monitor, and much higher fps than at 4K.
Also, if you got spare time I would love to see if capture one (heavy GPU processing for imports-exports) is any slower at 4K than with a 1080-1440 monitor.
I've never used C1. I'm not sure what it offloads to the GPU, but resolution shouldn't matter for imports or exports. The whole file has to be processed no matter what res your screen is running at, so it's not the monitor resolution which impacts it, but file resolution.
It might matter if C1 uses GPU acceleration for displaying images, zooming, filters, etc., though.
Nice toy you have! ;)
The reason I was looking for a new monitor were some pretty nasty color shifts on prints, shifts which were not visible on my crappy old sRGB monitor. They were a major PITA to clean up, as I was essentially running blind. The choice was between a "low" res ARGB panel at a similar or higher price. Much of my editing is on rather large drum scanned large format captures, so I figured this is a perfect time to move to 4K.
But yes, it is a nice toy as well. Checking out some of the handful of 4K videos on youtube is a treat in itself.
-
Maybe this is more for you, then: the 28" P2815Q (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&sku=210-ACHO) retails for $699 in the US. Note that it's an sRGB monitor with a TN panel, compared to ARGB of the 24" model with an IPS panel.
The kind of monitor I will be looking at will be the replacement/4K version my current NEC PA 2712, hopefully in that price range and color accuracy once the price drops and stabilizes... until then happy to read but unwilling to buy
I've never used C1. I'm not sure what it offloads to the GPU, but resolution shouldn't matter for imports or exports. The whole file has to be processed no matter what res your screen is running at, so it's not the monitor resolution which impacts it, but file resolution.
It might matter if C1 uses GPU acceleration for displaying images, zooming, filters, etc., though.
That's what I wanted to know... how much memory or power is used to drive let's say 2 4k monitors and how it impacts performance in software that can use GPU, i suppose is just a matter of time to get some benchmarks and first hand experiences :)
-
How do you use 4K for viewing internet and word documents? Aren't they too small to read?
-
How do you use 4K for viewing internet and word documents? Aren't they too small to read?
They certainly would be at default font sizes. That's where font scaling comes into play. The 150% font scaling means that all fonts are scaled to 1.5x normal size. This is what I use, as higher scalings are too large for my taste. Win7 goes to 150%, Linux Mint goes at least to 200% as does Win 8.1. I believe 200% is plenty for almost everyone using a 24" 4K monitor.
Also, Firefox and Chrome - and probably other browsers - have their own font scaling, or you can set the default and/or minimum font sizes in settings. This can mess up some websites a bit, though.
-
I suppose I can keep my existing monitor and use that for other things beside photo editing. The desk is going to get a little crowded though.
-
How do you use 4K for viewing internet and word documents? Aren't they too small to read?
No, you set Windows to 200% mode and then it keeps the text on the web and in word and so on the same physical size as it was before BUT now it is rendered with 4x as many pixels! So instead of a blearly looking, digital-looking mess you get crisp text that looks like it was printed in a book! So web-browsing and editing text is so much nicer!
-
No, you set Windows to 200% mode and then it keeps the text on the web and in word and so on the same physical size as it was before BUT now it is rendered with 4x as many pixels! So instead of a blearly looking, digital-looking mess you get crisp text that looks like it was printed in a book! So web-browsing and editing text is so much nicer!
And what about applications that use graphical elements that does not scale well with the 200% mode?
I am all for "retina" type displays. I think it will make things a lot easier (think of the display as "paper" instead of a digital grid). But I do believe that early adopters will have some obstacles (we always do).
Watch out for "hacks" for getting 4k@60fps across links that was not designed for this. 30fps is really annoying, and obvious screen splits with tearing is no fun either.
I am running MATLAB on a retina macbook pro. Due to a bug in the Java runtime, the application is blurry on the brink of being unusable. I fail to see how this got through their QA testing.
-h
-
Screengrabs when opened at full res fill both my 26" screens. Looks very nice, but I wouldn't move to 4k until all the software I use works properly on it.
-
And what about applications that use graphical elements that does not scale well with the 200% mode?
This is indeed a problem. I provided screencaps which give an idea of the limitations.
The main issue I have with browsers are small JPEGs which are too small to begin with, as they are quarter the size most people are used to (using a 1080p monitor) or even smaller. Hopefully there will be a pixel-doubling/quadrupling feature in Firefox soon.
Also, some websites render poorly with large fonts. LL is good, but BBC News isn't, for example.
Watch out for "hacks" for getting 4k@60fps across links that was not designed for this. 30fps is really annoying, and obvious screen splits with tearing is no fun either.
Do you mean frames per second, or Hz (refresh rate)? If latter, the display is already capable of 60Hz and it works very well in Windows 7 and 8, not so well in Linux due to poor nVidia drivers. nVidia's spotty 60Hz support with 4K monitors in Linux is a known issue, related to MST implementation and randr (https://devtalk.nvidia.com/default/topic/681356/linux/can-t-enable-60hz-with-display-dell-up2414q-/).
But you do need DisplayPort since HDMI doesn't have enough bandwidth for 4k@60Hz, as described in OP. Limitation of current HDMI spec, not the display itself. I run the display at 30Hz on Linux for browsing and everyday usage, and it's fine.
If you're talking about fps, that's not dependent upon the display.
In other news, my i1Display is on its way, so should be able to get some calibration results soon!
-
Do you mean frames per second, or Hz (refresh rate)?
Saying that a display/link is running at 60Hz is equivalent to saying that it is running at 60 fps.
If latter, the display is already capable of 60Hz and it works very well in Windows 7 and 8, not so well in Linux due to poor nVidia drivers. nVidia's spotty 60Hz support with 4K monitors in Linux is a known issue, related to MST implementation and randr (https://devtalk.nvidia.com/default/topic/681356/linux/can-t-enable-60hz-with-display-dell-up2414q-/).
But you do need DisplayPort since HDMI doesn't have enough bandwidth for 4k@60Hz, as described in OP. Limitation of current HDMI spec, not the display itself. I run the display at 30Hz on Linux for browsing and everyday usage, and it's fine.
I believe that other 4k monitors supports only 30Hz/fps.
I do believe that 4k is the future.
-h
-
And what about applications that use graphical elements that does not scale well with the 200% mode?
The OS tends just tends to interpolate lots of stuff up by 2x, but yeah not all, photoshop icons are left micro-sized. And in some cases part of the UI don't scale and stuff drawn on them does and then you can get some issues. But the benefits are so awesome that I'm more than willing to put up.
I am all for "retina" type displays. I think it will make things a lot easier (think of the display as "paper" instead of a digital grid). But I do believe that early adopters will have some obstacles (we always do).
Watch out for "hacks" for getting 4k@60fps across links that was not designed for this. 30fps is really annoying, and obvious screen splits with tearing is no fun either.
Screens splits have only happened a few times and simply flicking monitor off and on has always fixed it, mostly when messing around with all sorts of changes.
-
This is indeed a problem. I provided screencaps which give an idea of the limitations.
The main issue I have with browsers are small JPEGs which are too small to begin with, as they are quarter the size most people are used to (using a 1080p monitor) or even smaller. Hopefully there will be a pixel-doubling/quadrupling feature in Firefox soon.
That's weird because with 200% set in Windows and HiDPI set on my MAC I don't get Firefox or IE showing images at 1/4 the physical size they were on my 1920x1080 monitor. They are simply being interpolated up to take up the same size as always. How do you have things set??
Also, some websites render poorly with large fonts. LL is good, but BBC News isn't, for example.
Hmm BBC News looks 100% fine in Firefox to me. Did you try to set Firefox to using larger fonts? Because you should leave the Firefox font settings alone and use the 200% setting in Windows instead (or the HiDPI setting on MAC).
-
Saying that a display/link is running at 60Hz is equivalent to saying that it is running at 60 fps.I believe that other 4k monitors supports only 30Hz/fps.
I do believe that 4k is the future.
-h
I think most of the UHD monitors support 60Hz other than for the new batch of really cheap 28" ones which are pretty bare bones and seem to have small gamuts and 30Hz max and so on. I'm not sure about HDTV, maybe they are all 30Hz locked? I'm sure the cheap ones most likely?
-
Saying that a display/link is running at 60Hz is equivalent to saying that it is running at 60 fps.I believe that other 4k monitors supports only 30Hz/fps.
No, refresh rate is different than fps, although I can see why one would think they are equivalent.
You can have 30fps on a 60Hz screen - the screen would just show each frame twice. Or on a 120Hz screen the same frame would be shown four times.
-
That's weird because with 200% set in Windows and HiDPI set on my MAC I don't get Firefox or IE showing images at 1/4 the physical size they were on my 1920x1080 monitor. They are simply being interpolated up to take up the same size as always. How do you have things set??
Hmm BBC News looks 100% fine in Firefox to me. Did you try to set Firefox to using larger fonts? Because you should leave the Firefox font settings alone and use the 200% setting in Windows instead (or the HiDPI setting on MAC).
I use Windows only for Lightroom and Photoshop. On Linux I've set OS fonts to 160%, and FF fonts to size 30. OS font setting doesn't impact browsers on Linux. I believe the reason BBC and some other sites don't render properly is because their design just doesn't work with large font sizes - no matter what your monitor is.
I haven't checked or compared, but I doubt there's any pixel quadrupling going on in FF or Chromium. I would be very surprised to hear that such a feature is present on any OS on any browser.
edit: I'll be damned. Went to Windows, and Chrome indeed does scale images along with fonts! On Linux there's no scaling of images going on, at least not by default. Warrants further investigation.
-
I use Windows only for Lightroom and Photoshop. On Linux I've set OS fonts to 160%, and FF fonts to size 30. OS font setting doesn't impact browsers on Linux. I believe the reason BBC and some other sites don't render properly is because their design just doesn't work with large font sizes - no matter what your monitor is.
I haven't checked or compared, but I doubt there's any pixel quadrupling going on in FF or Chromium. I would be very surprised to hear that such a feature is present on any OS on any browser.
There is. I'm running Firefox in such a way as I type right now. I have Windows set to 200% scaling. ALL images and text appear in my Firefox browser the same physical size on my UDH 24" monitor as they had on my 24" HD monitor. If an image was 14" across on the HD 24" monitor it is still 14" across on my UHD 24" monitor. On the UHD it got interpolated 2x in each direction (although that does give it maybe a trace less digitally crisp look compared to the HD monitor). The text doesn't get interpolated but is simply all rendered with 4x as many pixels per character so it looks awesome, 100% crisp and like in a book and the page layout still looks just perfect and just as on HD monitors.
And I see the same thing when I use HiDPI mode on MAC with Firefox.
And the same when I use IE in Windows.
Now when it comes to Chrome you are correct. Chrome on Windows either renders everything super small if you are in Windows 100% scaling or, if you are in Windows 200% scaling, it renders it's window to 1920x1080 and that entire window is interpolated 2x in each direction so the text doesn't gain detail and becomes a trace less crisp looking due to the cheap and sloppy interpolation scaling. So Chrome isn't the best for UHD. You get everything the same physical size with it as before, but the text doesn't gain any resolution.
-
And I see the same thing when I use HiDPI mode on MAC with Firefox.
Haven't heard of HiDPI mode, but did some googling, and found out that changing the value of layout.css.devPixelsPerPx under about:config in Firefox will scale everything, including images! I set it to 1.6 to align with my OS setting, took down my fonts to a more normal 12, and now the previously ugly sites render nicely. And images are as big as I want them to be.
Thank you, this was really useful!
-
Haven't heard of HiDPI mode, but did some googling, and found out that changing the value of layout.css.devPixelsPerPx under about:config in Firefox will scale everything, including images! I set it to 1.6 to align with my OS setting, took down my fonts to a more normal 12, and now the previously ugly sites render nicely. And images are as big as I want them to be.
Thank you, this was really useful!
nice
good find
-
No, refresh rate is different than fps, although I can see why one would think they are equivalent.
You can have 30fps on a 60Hz screen - the screen would just show each frame twice. Or on a 120Hz screen the same frame would be shown four times.
Aktuelly, I believe that you are wrong in that it is equivalent to claim that a pc display is natively 60 fps or that it is 60 hz. Framerate conversion is used alle over the place. A nummer of fps/Hz in, another nummer out. As you say, this is done (somewhere) when showing 24fps content on a 60fps display.
It seems that it is you who is stuck with the computer gamer idea of what fps is and is not. Pc games used the freerunning framerate of the gpu as an indication on the probability of skipped frame (assuming a display driven at a constant rate)
H
-
Aktuelly, I believe that you are wrong in that it is equivalent to claim that a pc display is natively 60 fps or that it is 60 hz. Framerate conversion is used alle over the place. A nummer of fps/Hz in, another nummer out. As you say, this is done (somewhere) when showing 24fps content on a 60fps display.
It seems that it is you who is stuck with the computer gamer idea of what fps is and is not. Pc games used the freerunning framerate of the gpu as an indication on the probability of skipped frame (assuming a display driven at a constant rate)
H
The display refreshed at a certain rate (maybe it is 30Hz or 50Hz or 24Hz or 120Hz or 240Hz or 60Hz or 85Hz) and certain graphics modes are sent out of the graphics card at a certain rate (maybe 24Hz or 50Hz or 60Hz or 85Hz) and those are usually all spoken of in terms of Hz. The game or whatnot can be rendered at all different sorts of fps.
-
Aktuelly, I believe that you are wrong in that it is equivalent to claim that a pc display is natively 60 fps or that it is 60 hz. Framerate conversion is used alle over the place. A nummer of fps/Hz in, another nummer out. As you say, this is done (somewhere) when showing 24fps content on a 60fps display.
It seems that it is you who is stuck with the computer gamer idea of what fps is and is not. Pc games used the freerunning framerate of the gpu as an indication on the probability of skipped frame (assuming a display driven at a constant rate)
This is off-topic, so all I'm going to say about this is that fps =! Hz. Believe me or WombatHorror, or Google it.
-
Received my stock i1Display Pro. The software that comes bundled can't do hardware calibration with the UP2414Q, and it only created an ICC profile although I had IDC and wide gamut enabled.
I used Dell's own version of i1Display, which comes with the monitor, or can be downloaded from Dell's website. With that you get ADC, which does hardware calibration. It also enables uniformity calibration, with a 3x3 or 5x5 grid. This is to mitigate any color shifts in different sections of the display.
ICC profile with the bundled software takes around five minutes. I hardware calibrated the monitor, and it took a good 20+ minutes despite the very fast puck, as it did two full passes, and some additional testing along with the uniformity calibration. You can save different calibrations as presets (eg. ARGB and sRGB) if necessary. Didn't play around with the options, yet; I just used 120cd brightness (equaled to roughly 22/100 Brightness in OSD) in ARGB, and the results look great.
-
Received my stock i1Display Pro. The software that comes bundled can't do hardware calibration with the UP2414Q, and it only created an ICC profile although I had IDC and wide gamut enabled.
I used Dell's own version of i1Display, which comes with the monitor, or can be downloaded from Dell's website. With that you get ADC, which does hardware calibration. It also enables uniformity calibration, with a 3x3 or 5x5 grid. This is to mitigate any color shifts in different sections of the display.
ICC profile with the bundled software takes around five minutes. I hardware calibrated the monitor, and it took a good 20+ minutes despite the very fast puck, as it did two full passes, and some additional testing along with the uniformity calibration. You can save different calibrations as presets (eg. ARGB and sRGB) if necessary. Didn't play around with the options, yet; I just used 120cd brightness (equaled to roughly 22/100 Brightness in OSD) in ARGB, and the results look great.
I just wish to heck that they gave us more than two calibration slots! That's not nearly enough! Or that they gave us the ability to save the HW calibration to a file and then load from various saved files into a slot. Like the NEC PA series only gives you a single HW calibration slow BUT it lets you load an infinite number of different saved profiles so it's so much more flexible. Considering that HW calibration of the Dell also takes very long even for matrix profiles (perhaps the Dell has only a linear 14bit LUT and not the 3D LUT of the NEC PA???) it's a pain. They really need to update some software to allow calibs to be saved to file and loaded in from file! It's the one thing that is a real pain with this monitor.
-
I just wish to heck that they gave us more than two calibration slots! That's not nearly enough! Or that they gave us the ability to save the HW calibration to a file and then load from various saved files into a slot. Like the NEC PA series only gives you a single HW calibration slow BUT it lets you load an infinite number of different saved profiles so it's so much more flexible. Considering that HW calibration of the Dell also takes very long even for matrix profiles (perhaps the Dell has only a linear 14bit LUT and not the 3D LUT of the NEC PA???) it's a pain. They really need to update some software to allow calibs to be saved to file and loaded in from file! It's the one thing that is a real pain with this monitor.
It would have been really nice to be able to switch calibration/profile automatically from the OS.
Say, as a default I'd like for the display to accurately emulate an sRGB display (making websites and videos etc look fine). Whenever Lightroom is loaded, I'd like for the display to enter an accurately profiled wide-(native)-gamut mode.
-h
-
I just wish to heck that they gave us more than two calibration slots!
New 4k NEC EA244UHD will be available very soon - worth considering as a Dell alternative. All latest EA2x4WMi models support had been silently added in excellent Spectraview II, so you can create as many calibration as you wish.
EA244UHD is build on PA series DNA, so it has 14(16)bit 3DLUT + DUC driven AH-IPS GBr LED panel with 23kHz PWM. The only drawback will be lack of Multiprofiler support, and I suppose that they won't be individually factory calibrated.
-
What it's the purpose of the NEC Profiler when I have Spectraview II and a NEC monitor?
-
What it's the purpose of the NEC Profiler when I have Spectraview II and a NEC monitor?
Can calibrate (within reason with fixed settings) without having to use a measuring instrument. Supports PIP if that's your thing as well as some 'soft proofing' which might be interesting if you're not using app's that provide that functionality. IF you have an instrument, might want to just stick with SpectraView software.
-
I have the measuring instrument that came with Spectraview so I'm ok with calibrating the monitor. Does Lightroom jab soft proofing and can you explain what it is in simple terms?
-
Does Lightroom jab soft proofing and can you explain what it is in simple terms?
What?
LR has soft proofing if that's what you're asking.
-
New 4k NEC EA244UHD will be available very soon - worth considering as a Dell alternative. All latest EA2x4WMi models support had been silently added in excellent Spectraview II, so you can create as many calibration as you wish.
EA244UHD is build on PA series DNA, so it has 14(16)bit 3DLUT + DUC driven AH-IPS GBr LED panel with 23kHz PWM. The only drawback will be lack of Multiprofiler support, and I suppose that they won't be individually factory calibrated.
Hmm they've really added internal 14bit 3D LUT to the EA series now? And SVII support? How is it not PA series then? Is it missing the uniformity compensator then I guess and that is the difference? Are EA series still all regular gamut only, maybe it lacks wide gamut?
I wrote it off since I didn't think it would have internal calibration (or uniformity control) and didn't think it would be wide gamut. I guess I was wrong about the fancy color engine control and calibration hmm. Am I wrong about the wide gamut too?
EDIT: Hmm it IS wide gamut too.
Hmm so the only thing it lacks then is the uniformity compensation? Or does it even have that too? If so why didn't they just call it the PA244UHD?
-
What?
LR has soft proofing if that's what you're asking.
jab=have
My Swype-ing on my cellphone isn't as good as it should be!
-
I'm not 100% sure about SVII, but I have accidentally noticed that EA2x4WMi series displays supported by GammaComp MD QA can also be calibrated with SVII - it's not official, so I guess you can't ask for any help in case of problems, but works. So I'm quite confident the EA244UHD will be no exception to this rule.
All I know is the information from NEC site:
http://www.nec-display.com/jp/display/business_standard/lcdea244uhd/
It states the display is equipped with the same 14bit LUT as the PA series, uniformity compensation, GBr LED backlight and 23kHz PWM dimmer. So basically it looks like the mighty PA in sheep's clothing. Probably it won't be as robust, individually calibrated, nor supported by Multiprofiler.
Hmm they've really added internal 14bit 3D LUT to the EA series now? And SVII support? How is it not PA series then? Is it missing the uniformity compensator then I guess and that is the difference? Are EA series still all regular gamut only, maybe it lacks wide gamut?
I wrote it off since I didn't think it would have internal calibration (or uniformity control) and didn't think it would be wide gamut. I guess I was wrong about the fancy color engine control and calibration hmm. Am I wrong about the wide gamut too?
EDIT: Hmm it IS wide gamut too.
Hmm so the only thing it lacks then is the uniformity compensation? Or does it even have that too? If so why didn't they just call it the PA244UHD?
-
...Does Lightroom jab soft proofing and can you explain what it is in simple terms?
I can have a jab at it :-)
Soft proofing tries to emulate (certain aspects of) the appearance of a print using your display by having accurate profiles of both display and printer/ink/paper. Thus, you can have instant feedback on your editing, instead of wasting expensive paper/ink/time for every slider move.
-h
-
EA244UHD is build on PA series DNA, so it has 14(16)bit 3DLUT + DUC driven AH-IPS GBr LED panel with 23kHz PWM.
That's some pretty impressive alphabet soup ;D
-
That's some pretty impressive alphabet soup
;D
Here's how that would sound to my wife:
"AE673OKS is build on LY series GED, so it has 23(67)bit 4KMZD + WQP driven AN-EFP DNs KOQ panel with 38mAi MZD".
<oh, mzd...that's so cute...let's have two, shall we...?>
;D
-
hmm wow, kind of bizarre they didn't just call it PA, maybe it's a way to sneak out a PA242 UHD and charge not much more than for the PA242 HD and not upset the pricing scales on the HD PA series?
Maybe it is worth waiting to see exactly how it pans out before jumping at the Dell. Oh well.
Oh I wonder though for the monitors not officially supported by SV II but where it works anyway, would SV II know to use the proper wide gamut LED backlight table for the i1 Display pro probe or might it end up using the wrong table??
I'm not 100% sure about SVII, but I have accidentally noticed that EA2x4WMi series displays supported by GammaComp MD QA can also be calibrated with SVII - it's not official, so I guess you can't ask for any help in case of problems, but works. So I'm quite confident the EA244UHD will be no exception to this rule.
All I know is the information from NEC site:
http://www.nec-display.com/jp/display/business_standard/lcdea244uhd/
It states the display is equipped with the same 14bit LUT as the PA series, uniformity compensation, GBr LED backlight and 23kHz PWM dimmer. So basically it looks like the mighty PA in sheep's clothing. Probably it won't be as robust, individually calibrated, nor supported by Multiprofiler.
-
EA244UHD is build on PA series DNA, so it has 14(16)bit 3DLUT + DUC driven AH-IPS GBr LED panel with 23kHz PWM.
:o :o
I'm going to get one of these instead!
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01459/Michael-Jackson-2_1459759i.jpg)
-
Hi everyone.its good to be here.am quite new here though and hope i wont be sounding odd here if i ask the op hw long he has been working with dell please
-
This thing is mind-blowing! It's as close as it gets to a limit between LCD and LSD :D
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19059944/PA322UHD.jpg)
-
I've used Photoshop CC now for 20 or so hours with the Dell, so sharing my experience. All of the time was editing large format drum scans, massive ~250MP 16-bit files.
Using the UI is quite difficult with the extremely tiny icons. They are easy enough to hit with a medium-sized Intuos tablet, but hovering over the icon to figure out what it does is fiddly for less often used tasks.
The screen does come to its own when editing, though. The high DPI is great especially for spotting and pixel editing the scans, colors are succulent and accurate, gamut is indeed wide, and the monitor is just a joy to use. The high DPI helps by getting much more image real estate on the screen. I haven't tried soft-proofing or printing comparisons, yet.
I also haven't done testing of proper sharpening preview settings. I recall Schewe mentioned years ago that 50% setting on screen is appropriate to compare to printing, but I have a feeling that might be reliant on screen DPI.
Overall it works, but it is tedious to use. If I edited photos as my day job I wouldn't want to use PS on this monitor until the UI scales better, but for my use (1-3 hours at a time) it is fine. I wish Adobe/nVidia would get their act together and offer proper support for 4K monitors. They've been around for a year now at reasonable prices, and are only becoming more popular.
-
I've just started to use NEC EA244UHD as a companion to my 30" NEC:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19059944/MisUHDek.jpg)
Right now I'm keeping UI elements on 30" and edit images on this mighty little bastard. But I hope OSX will get an 4k HiDPI update soon...
-
The detailness is awesome!
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19059944/MisUHDek2.jpg)
-
But what happens when you want to work at 100% for paths/details/masking etc? I use a retina MBP to shoot to and some on set retouch and have to view at 200% to get me close to a normal screens 100% view and to check sharpness. You are getting interpolation at his level and always wait until I am back on my Eizo 'normal' monitor as the bigger 100%view is easier to work with and far better to judge sharpening (though I do very little as images are for repro and I leave that to client as it's dependent on output size and media, I don't print inkjet prints)
The 100% view on a 4k monitor would be too small? Or have I got it wrong and the pixel size is the same but there's just more monitor real estate?
-
But what happens when you want to work at 100% for paths/details/masking etc? I use a retina MBP to shoot to and some on set retouch and have to view at 200% to get me close to a normal screens 100% view and to check sharpness. You are getting interpolation at his level and always wait until I am back on my Eizo 'normal' monitor as the bigger 100%view is easier to work with and far better to judge sharpening (though I do very little as images are for repro and I leave that to client as it's dependent on output size and media, I don't print inkjet prints)
The 100% view on a 4k monitor would be too small? Or have I got it wrong and the pixel size is the same but there's just more monitor real estate?
100% on a 4k monitor is smaller for a similarly sized 1080p monitor. Exactly quarter the size. This is actually a nice "feature" of 4k, as you can scale 1080p up to 4k by doubling both x and y pixel dimensions. Not very relevant to this site or what this monitor is for, but very relevant for movie viewing on a TV or projector, since blurays are 1080p and can be scaled up without any loss in detail.
Pixel size on a 24" 4k monitor is much smaller than any other non-4k monitor out there. Whether that's too small depends on the person. Some say 24" is too small to get full benefit of 4k, which is patently false for most monitor uses for people with normal vision as I argued in the OP. Nevertheless, some prefer larger screen sizes no matter the pixel pitch, and those are available from Dell and others. Possibly some find the small pixel size pointless, but can't really see how that would occur after one has used such a monitor for any length of time, UI issues with OS and PS notwithstanding. It really is that good.
As for editing, I tend to go between 12.5% and 100% for most editing, just like I did with my old 1680x1050 monitor. I find myself going to 200% or 300% for difficult masking or pixel-level editing. 200% zoom doesn't require interpolation, although I don't know (or care) what PS does under the hood to get there. In any case, there's no way any inaccuracies resulting from zooming in would be detectable on a print, or even at 100% - and not sure how they would even occur. This is from photographer perspective, not graphic designer or pixel peeping.
-
I'm in the market for a 4K HDTV for watching movies as well as display of my photos and my DVD video shows. Does anyone know how the up rez scaling is done for smaller than the native 4k size?
-
I'm in the market for a 4K HDTV for watching movies as well as display of my photos and my DVD video shows. Does anyone know how the up rez scaling is done for smaller than the native 4k size?
It all depends upon is doing the showing and how things are set. Probably not many set top boxes/external DVD or blu-ray players and such scale to 4k so mostly that stuff would be done by the TV's scaler.
Driving things off of a PC it depends on the program. Some like MPC with plug-ins let you chose between all sorts of different upscaling algorithms others like Windows Media Player or Windows Media Center are locked into whatever it is they do to scale.
And for photos it all totally depends upon the image viewing program.
-
Just like I suspected, now it's official - EA244UHD is supported by Spectraview II:
A newer version 1.1.17 is available for download.
The following changes have been made in this version:
1. Added support for Photo Research Spectroradiometers.
2. Improved the 'Update Internal Calibration' function calibration accuracy on PAxx2 series displays.
3. Added support for the EA244UHD and EA304WMi displays.
4. Added BT.1886 gamma curve preset.
5. Improved UI layout
-
After having a good time with new NEC PA322UHD (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=91411.msg743865#msg743865) I came back to EA244UHD to counteract horrible UHD withdrawal syndrome :D
A couple of words about the NEC screen surface, which is very smart, and IMHO very well adapted for photo editing work. All new NEC PA and some EA series displays (including EA244UHD) feature satin diffuser.
It reflects the light incident at a large angle:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19059944/satyna0.jpg)
...but diffuses the light incident straight on the diffuser:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19059944/satyna1)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19059944/satyna2)
Such solution gives cleaner image - there's no "clouding", "sparkling" effect, like in case of heavy matte diffusers. The screen is also less prone to flare from ambient light, that reduces the perceived contrast ratio of the display.
-
Does anyone know what the current state is with 4k for OSX? I'm really interested in getting a 4k monitor, my mac pro just arrived but:
1) Will the text and UI in OSX be too small to use in 4k resolution?
2) I also do video editing, and need to view them in 60 fps. Is there going to be a problem with that?
-
The new NEC 4K monitor came yesterday. I swapped it in ot a Win 7 x64 system, replacing a 30 inch NEC PA 301W. The old AMI display adapter, which wasn't supposed to support 4K, recognized the display and switched to full res. I changed the Windows fonts to 150%. I fired up Lr. Looked great. I launched Ps. The toolbar is really tiny. So is the top status bar. The open tools on the right are smaller, but I can deal with that.
It's hard to quickly find the right tool now, and hard to change the setting of the current tool. Anybody have any ideas, besides learning all the keyboard shortcuts? Does it work this way on the Mac?
Jim
-
What version of Photoshop are you running? It's possible they've fixed it with current releases. If not, they should.
-
Anybody have any ideas, besides learning all the keyboard shortcuts?
Preferences > Experimental Features > Scale UI 200%.
-
Preferences > Experimental Features > Scale UI 200%.
ThankyouThankyouThankyou,
Jim