Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: 4K vs non-4K displays for printing  (Read 2215 times)

giatropoulos

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
4K vs non-4K displays for printing
« on: July 11, 2019, 04:36:14 pm »

I recently watched a "Mastering Printing" video where Nick Page interviewed Mark Metternich and Robert Park. They stated that a 4K monitor would not be the ideal solution for printing. I honestly don't recall the details about the reasons - (I'll probably watch the interview again to refresh my memory about the details) - but wondered if anyone here had any opinion on this perhaps controversial statement.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: 4K vs non-4K displays for printing
« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2019, 04:44:26 pm »

They never gave a logical reason, more like a "trust me, I know" reason. Given that it was supposed to be a video, you'd think they would easily demonstrate what they were talking about, but no, there was just a dead sign across the screen while they were talking.

giatropoulos

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Re: 4K vs non-4K displays for printing
« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2019, 05:07:02 pm »

Am listening to the podcast again now (erroneously called it a video) - the discussion about the monitors starts around 15:10
They do discuss in some detail their reasons and as best as I can understand most of them have to do with the risk of oversharpening because the display is so much more detailed than a print. They stated that in their opinion, the best monitors would be those with pixel radius 0.22 to 0.25. A 27 inch QHD would be the .22 and a 30 inch would be the .25 radius. In any event it's an interesting interview.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=AwrC5pYFnCddAXEAj3j7w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTBncGdyMzQ0BHNlYwNzZWFyY2gEdnRpZAM-;_ylc=X1MDOTY3ODEzMDcEX3IDMgRhY3RuA2NsawRjc3JjcHZpZAMwZHp6alRFd0xqSHY1V29pWFNlUG53SVVNall3TVFBQUFBQ2thNlhpBGZyA21jYWZlZQRmcjIDc2EtZ3AEZ3ByaWQDQ1ouV3Z0UE5UdGVRaHFrd002MlRJQQRuX3JzbHQDNjAEbl9zdWdnAzAEb3JpZ2luA3ZpZGVvLnNlYXJjaC55YWhvby5jb20EcG9zAzAEcHFzdHIDBHBxc3RybAMEcXN0cmwDMzYEcXVlcnkDaW50ZXJ2aWV3JTIwd2l0aCUyMG1hcmslMjBtZXR0ZXJuaWNoBHRfc3RtcAMxNTYyODc2OTgz?p=interview+with+mark+metternich&ei=UTF-8&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av%2Cm%3Asa&fr=mcafee#id=2&vid=c58eb6198a86144cb2be650baef6dfcc&action=view
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: 4K vs non-4K displays for printing
« Reply #3 on: July 11, 2019, 05:57:27 pm »

Typically displays are low resolution devices (mine, a SpectraView output's 109PPI). So you're not seeing close to the sharpening for output. In theory, a higher resolution display gets you closer. But it's far, far from WYSIWYG (far from say soft proofing, a far more important use of the display IMHO). Further, sharpening that makes a great looking print can still, on any display, look ugly and over sharpened. So I don't see the point of suggesting a 4K display is 'for printing' although it's closer. Close only counts in...... Fill in the blank.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

lhodaniel

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 132
Re: 4K vs non-4K displays for printing
« Reply #4 on: July 11, 2019, 09:17:08 pm »

I'm on a NEC PA322 now. It is one of the heavily-discounted refurbs that happened when the monitor was discontinued. That's the only reason I have it, believe me. 4k is a nuisance on a Mac. 1:1 previews are not 1:1 (smaller) unless you run the display at 4k (too small) or at 1080p "retina" (too large).  That's one reason why I just switched back to Windows.

That being said, if the opportunity came to get a PA302 at anywhere near the same deal I would swap in a minute. I came from a PA241 and the 302 has about the same pixel pitch. I also have a 27" Viewsonic 4k (will be sold) that is a beautiful monitor but has too many limitations of its features when hardware calibrated. I tested what a 2560x1440 27" monitor would look like on that screen and find that even 109 ppi is a bit small for me with text.

Lloyd
Logged

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3263
Re: 4K vs non-4K displays for printing
« Reply #5 on: July 11, 2019, 09:40:02 pm »

On a 27" 5K iMac the selectable resolutions are:

- 1600 x 900
- 2048 x 1152
- 2560 x 1140 (Default)
- 2880 x 1620
- 3200 x 1880

I find no advantage in photography using resolutions beyond the default

I will use 5K resolution for 4K video to critically review a 4K output. 

YMMV
Logged
Regards,
Ron

lhodaniel

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 132
Re: 4K vs non-4K displays for printing
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2019, 12:21:49 am »


I find no advantage in photography using resolutions beyond the default


No, and there are disadvantages. Those higher resolutions would mess up 1:1 on LR and most other software. The default on a 5k screen still shows 1:1 correctly because you are using an integer divisor for the scaling. You still get 2560x1440 which is proper for a 27" screen. With a 4k screen that integer divisor becomes 1080p which is big on a 27 and huge on a 32. I'm sure that's why Apple standardized on 5k for the large iMacs when no one else has. I would prefer them to fix MacOS scaling instead.

Lloyd
Logged

bwana

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 309
Re: 4K vs non-4K displays for printing
« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2019, 04:34:42 pm »

I would like a larger monitor instead of more pixel density. Currently using an older NEC PA 301W and the resolution is great . I just wish I had more screen real estate.
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4388
    • Pieter Kers
Re: 4K vs non-4K displays for printing
« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2019, 06:36:36 am »

I like the 2560x1600 format. 30 inch. I bought this first Dell with it already 11 years ago it is very constant in its color and covers about adobe RGB.
If it would die on me i would consider a replacement, maybe the NEC spectraview with the software.
For showing photos i would like a big 4K (TV)screen- probably a calibrated oled.
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

smahn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 284
Re: 4K vs non-4K displays for printing
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2019, 11:58:44 am »

I would like a larger monitor instead of more pixel density. Currently using an older NEC PA 301W and the resolution is great . I just wish I had more screen real estate.

Get a PA302W as a primary monitor and use your 301 as a secondary and you'll be in pixel heaven.
Logged

sbay

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 225
    • http://stephenbayphotography.com/
Re: 4K vs non-4K displays for printing
« Reply #10 on: July 15, 2019, 11:58:23 am »

If the hiDPI display is a problem for sharpening because the pixels are too small, why not just view it at 200% allowing for an integer scaling of the pixels. I.e. 1 pixel becomes a 2x2 square. Would this not make the display functionally equivalent to the lower DPI screens that were recommended?

However I could see this being a problem if the display did not actually use pixel doubling and did some kind of smoothing of tones across the 2x2 pixel square with adjacent pixels. That seems to be what the speakers in the podcast are implying.

I tested this on my 5k iMac by taking screenshots of the display at 2:1. The outcome is that the display is mostly just taking the 1 pixel and converting it into a 2x2 square but there is a tiny amount (not visually noticeable) of alterations to the pixel values. E.g. a 2x2 square might have almost exactly the same RGB values but the individual R,G,B components could be off by 1 depending on placement in the 2x2 square.

elliot_n

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1219
Re: 4K vs non-4K displays for printing
« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2019, 12:12:39 pm »

If the hiDPI display is a problem for sharpening because the pixels are too small, why not just view it at 200% allowing for an integer scaling of the pixels. I.e. 1 pixel becomes a 2x2 square. Would this not make the display functionally equivalent to the lower DPI screens that were recommended?

However I could see this being a problem if the display did not actually use pixel doubling and did some kind of smoothing of tones across the 2x2 pixel square with adjacent pixels. That seems to be what the speakers in the podcast are implying.

I tested this on my 5k iMac by taking screenshots of the display at 2:1. The outcome is that the display is mostly just taking the 1 pixel and converting it into a 2x2 square but there is a tiny amount (not visually noticeable) of alterations to the pixel values. E.g. a 2x2 square might have almost exactly the same RGB values but the individual R,G,B components could be off by 1 depending on placement in the 2x2 square.

This got me puzzled too. So they're talking nonsense?

All I've heard recently is that retina screens are not good for printing. I'm stuck on a 27" 2560 x 1440 monitor, but I yearn for more resolution. Surely if you're preparing, say a 12x16 inch print, it will look much better, much more print-like, when displayed 'fit screen' on a retina monitor, compared to my low res monitor?
Logged

sbay

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 225
    • http://stephenbayphotography.com/
Re: 4K vs non-4K displays for printing
« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2019, 03:12:20 pm »

This got me puzzled too. So they're talking nonsense?

All I've heard recently is that retina screens are not good for printing. I'm stuck on a 27" 2560 x 1440 monitor, but I yearn for more resolution. Surely if you're preparing, say a 12x16 inch print, it will look much better, much more print-like, when displayed 'fit screen' on a retina monitor, compared to my low res monitor?

Well they are pretty well known and one of them is the owner of Nevada Art Printers who do a lot of large prints. So I'm wondering if (A) I'm missing something or (B) perhaps the algorithms in Mac OS X (or perhaps LS/PS) for displaying image pixels on retina screens has changed since they investigated it.

ghostwind

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Re: 4K vs non-4K displays for printing
« Reply #13 on: October 16, 2019, 12:04:02 am »

Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up