Buying a new display for Windows... what is a reasonable budget?

[earlybird]

Hi,
 I have commisioned a new Windows Photoshop workstation that should arrive soon. Initially, I planned to buy a 27" 5k display, but became concerned that Windows GUI scaling issues will be problematic at such high PPI, so now I am shopping for a 32" 4K monitor which has a PPI that is very similar to the scaling I am currently using, and have never really been disatisfied with.

 I have considered various monitors, including a Samsung 32" ViewFinity S7 (S70D) 4K that only costs $279, as well as an Asus ProArt Display OLED PA32UCDM that sells for $1899.

 I have a ten-year-old iDisplay Pro somewhere in my equipment room.

 I wonder how today's budget monitors compare to the professional designer grade.

 It seems like none of the monitors can display a full color gamut, while almost all offer higher contrast and brightness than any print can achieve.

 I usually convert my .CR2 files to a 16-bit ProPhoto colorspace, edit in Photoshop, and output to sRGB.

 I have also considered other monitors priced in between these extremes. Many seem to offer extra 'smart" features that I am not interested in. I am open to other 32" 4k monitor suggestions.

 I live in a tiny town in the middle of nowhere and have no practical way to view a selection of monitors firsthand.


 Will I be just as satisfied with a $279 Samsung instead of a $1899 Asus after I adopt a display calibration file produced by the iDisplay procedure?


 Thank you.

 

 

 

 

[earlybird]

I'm thinking the ASUS ProArt Display 32” (31.5" viewable) Professional Monitor (PA329CRV) at $579 might be a good compromise.

Does the fact that I intend to resuscitate my iDisplay offer any benefit?

[degrub]

EIZO if you need something that just works.

Have you looked at BENQ and DELL Precision monitors ?

The NEC PA series was solid with their spectraview puck and software. Discontinued now, but you may find some new in box old stock somewhere.

[earlybird]

Hi,
 Thank you for the suggestions.

 I have only glanced at BenQ monitors.

 The Eizo I lust after is almost $6k. I can not justify spending that much money. I'm retired and make landscape photographs for the pleasure of it.

 I currently have a 2560x? Dell, which came with a calibration certificate, was premium-priced at the time, and never seemed all that great. I'm not bashing Dell, I am just thinking you get what you pay for, and today's bleeding edge becomes yesterday's news all too quickly.

 All the specs I see at various brands seem to align with the price points. It's almost like everyone buys their screen from the same factories.

 It seems that higher-priced monitors have on-board firmware features intended to circumvent the need for a third-party calibration device. Many of the features are for quickly switching between definitions and LUTS that I do not have an interest in. The Eizo's have networked sync... that's super cool, but I don't need that.

 It appears that there is a pricing ceiling where the rendition specs reach their limit, and after that, the expanded feature set dictates the higher pricing.

 I am primarily trying to edit still photos in prophotoRGB to display or print with sRGB.

 I spent 35 years working in visual media with national and global distribution, although I worked in the provinces rather than the-big-city. I never saw a production house using a $6,000 desktop PC monitor, but my uncle, the retired dentist who greatly enjoyed attending the local photo club meetings, had two.


 I'm wondering what the sweet spot budget for a photo editing monitor is.

 I will appreciate any specific recommendations, info, or insights.

 Thanks a bunch.



 

 

[digitaldog]

Discontinued now, but you may find some new in box old stock somewhere.

https://officewonderland.com/products/nec-pa302w-30-color-accurate-desktop-monitor-white?com_cvv=8fb3d522dc163aeadb66e08cd7450cbbdddc64c6cf2e8891f6d48747c6d56d2c&srsltid=AfmBOopY00H9qv3VnLtzjrYIb4mSc89dtpQSx8a70zylac1QKg5W-mKx1Zs

[marvpelkey]

I can only add, my (expensive when bought) NEC, which I have had for a thousand years and was a great monitor, recently died, so approximately a month and a half ago, I purchased one of the SW (photographer specific) BenQ models (mid-level price).

After waiting almost a week to arrive to the store, I picked it up/set it up, only to find it had noticeable vertical color banding and I had to return/exchange it (and upgraded the replacement model). It has been two weeks and I have yet to receive the replacement and have heard crickets from the store.

If I was to do it all over again, I would likely get a brand which has a good quality control history, and would probably force me to spend a bit more than I did.

I would also suggest that you get a model which can be hardware rather than software calibrated.

[earlybird]

I would also suggest that you get a model which can be hardware rather than software calibrated.

Do you mean hardware integrated with the monitor, or hardware such as a third-party Colorimeter?

Thank you.

[digitaldog]

Do you mean hardware integrated with the monitor, or hardware such as a third-party Colorimeter?

Hardware calibration within the panel electronics instead of using a LUT. Only a few displays provide this.

[earlybird]

With 32" 4k as a priority for me, that leaves the $6,000 Eizo as the primary choice.

I'm going to have to live with a compromise.

[earlybird]

The $1899 32" 4k Asus that I mentioned in the initial post also advertises onboard hardware calibration, but seems to require that you supply the colorimeter.

Does that equate to what has been recommended above?

[marvpelkey]

The monitor I picked up (when it arrives....) is the BenQ SW242q. I only have room for a 24", which it is, but it has Hardware capability. They also have a 27" with similar Hardware abilities, but I am unfamiliar with anything larger in their lineup. The 27" is less than a thousand, if memory serves. And yes, one has to purchase/have a colorimeter.

[Chris Kern]

The $1899 32" 4k Asus that I mentioned in the initial post also advertises onboard hardware calibration, but seems to require that you supply the colorimeter.

ASUS offers at least one 32-inch wide gamut monitor with a rather ingenious built-in colorimeter, the PA32UCXR, but it is currently selling for U.S. $1K more than the model you mentioned.  I acquired one recently because I became interested in HDR imaging.  (I.e., the type of HDR that requires a very bright display rather than the traditional technique of compressing the highlights and shadows to squeeze them into a printable tonal range.)  The firmware has default presets for both SDR and HDR modes of operation and the user can create custom calibration targets; one of the first things I did was to make one to use when soft-proofing in Lightroom for printing.  The calibration process is relatively straightforward, but I'm not sure I would recommend that model to anyone who wasn't interested in creating HDR images.  If I were in the market for an SDR monitor, I would be tempted to follow the suggestion above to look for one in the discontinued NEC PA series—maybe even a used one.  I have two of them and they've been chugging away reliably for years.

[earlybird]

I stumbled my way over to the DisplayCAL forum while looking for info that detailed rather than generalized the benefits of hardware versus Operating System calibration.

I found there was a general disdain for most of the OEM software that interfaces with most of the OEM hardware.

It seemed that Eizo was the only OEM that did not receive the scorn of many users.

BenQ, Asus, and others were all seemingly disparaged as offering inadequate and problematic hardware calibration.

It left me thinking I could be very happy with a $600 monitor, rather than becoming frustrated that my $1900 monitor was not as good as a $6000 version.

Maybe if/when the option to buy a 43" 5k monitor becomes available, I will try a step up in anticipated quality.