New NEC PA302W Been too long...

[smahn]

What's wrong with 4K?

Sorry, just seeing this.

Yeah, everything is too small requiring scaling/interpolation.

Even in Photoshop, where I do a lot of e-commerce product work, 100% mag is too small to comfortably do detailed retouching on. I found myself working at 200% mag for a similar view.

It's not that one can't work around this stuff, I just didn't find it a "feature". Would much prefer panel uniformity, correct gamma, neutral grayscale, etc, over "lots of tiny", as Andrew said.

It's kinda like being told there's this great new feature of your newspaper: they can now fit twice as much print on every page, all you gotta do is use these awesome magnifier glasses to read it. Not really as awesome as it's made out to be.

That said, that's just my experience for my needs. Totally get if people working globally on huge images, etc, feel otherwise. For them it may be a great feature; but again probably somewhere down the line of uniformity, gamma, grayscale, etc.

[Doug Gray]

However, I'm worried that doing output sharpening on a 4K display that's any smaller than 30" will cause under-sharpened prints because the screen image always appear too sharp compared to the print due to the display's high pixel density.

It not only can, but will. Printer's have their own rolloff characteristic as do monitors. Lower DPI monitors roll off images more than high DPI monitors. This is because monitors do not have point source pixels but they are spread over an area. Lower DPI spreads them over more area producing more rolloff. But even then, low resolution monitors (say 1200x800, 20 in) still are somewhat sharper than prints of the same. Printers also spread the colors they print over an area in order to print millions of different colors with a limited ink set.

I explored the printer side a bit here:

https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=126683.0

If you click on the image here it will bring it up in the browser and you can see the effects of printer rolloff.
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=126683.msg1068991#msg1068991

[texshooter]

But even then, low resolution monitors (say 1200x800, 20 in) still are somewhat sharper than prints of the same.

So what screen PPI do you think is optimal for output sharpening a 25 megapixel full-frame image?  What about 50mp?   Also, it is worth warning readers to always edit photos at the monitor's native resolution, regardless of its pixel density.

[Doug Gray]

So what screen PPI do you think is optimal for output sharpening a 25 megapixel full-frame image?  What about 50mp?   Also, it is worth warning readers to always edit photos at the monitor's native resolution, regardless of its pixel density.

I prefer high density monitors. They reduce a lot of artifacts because, even though lower DPI may somewhat better match the built in rolloff of printers they also produce stepping with abrupt changes from pixel to pixel. Using high density monitors is fine but, getting prints to match what you see on monitors requires soft proofing sure, but it also requires the printed image is sharpened in such a way to compensate for rolloff intrinsic to the printing process. Soft proofing largely addresses color accuracy but does nothing to match the rolloff of the printing process. It would be nice if there was some way to incorporate that when viewing soft proofs. It's difficult because the correction required varies depending on print size. Printer rolloff is not much of an issue when printing large prints at 180 DPI. But printing small prints at maximum (720 DPI on my Epson) will induce significant print rolloff with a start difference between the way an image appears on a 4K monitor at 100 zoom and the print as the link I posted above demonstrates.