So, does you eyesight warrant a 4k monitor for editing. Monitor size, resolution and your eyesight.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 вер 2024
- Why for some uses, a 4k monitor at 27" is just too much detail for what you need. Why depending on your uses and eyesight - the 'best' monitor may not be best for you. How size, use and resolution can matter. When is 4k or more a good thing?
Following on from my review of the BenQ SW272U
• BenQ SW272u monitor re...
and 32" SW321C
www.northlight...
For a full index of all my videos, see:
www.northlight...
-----------------
If you'd like to make a small donation, I have a Kofi page:
"Buy me a coffee" ko-fi.com/keit...
-----------------
My articles and videos are always free to access.
Any help with running this channel is gratefully received.
-----------------
I also have some affiliate links which earn me a commission if used.
US Amazon photo/print gear: amzn.to/3l9vJC6
B&H Photo: www.bhphotovid...
Adorama: www.adorama.co...
![3 steps when printing your photos. What's so difficult? Really - I'd like to know [AMA request]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UgCn63JZK7Y/mqdefault.jpg)
I feel your pain Mr Cooper! So many working or viewing distances requiring different strengths of reading glasses!
The problem is always remembering which ones live in the office and not wandering about the house with the wrong ones and leaving them elsewhere... :-)
Sharpening in Photoshop for printing should be done at "print size" after having calibrated the PSP prefs to the monitor pixels per inch. As sharpness is an impression that is heavily psychological it helps to see the file displayed in the same real dimensions as the intended print.
Ah, if only it were that simple ;-)
I wasn't referring to print sharpening in this video at all - purely screen.
I've have lots of other stuff on print sharpening, but sorry I didn't make this clearer
Glasses:)...I hit 45yrs with as good as it gets eyesight, still. At 60 I now need multiple glasses for fine work (remember I know what good eyesight is). Good vid. I think many so many believe the sales guy over their optician.
Yes - my local optician asks me about camera lenses, so is very helpful ;-)
Very interesting indeed. I currently have a 27" iMac which is 1440x 2560 and it does great but I want a new monitor to connect to my new MacBook , was seriously considering a 4k monitor(Benq) 27" but now I'm thinking pay a bit more and get a 32", my eyesight was great until about the age of fifty, that was ten years ago and I now need reading glasses ! I like the idea of being able to view my images larger and in higher resolution, my iPad Pro with it's very high resolution has spoiled me a bit, lol. Anyway I've given a like and subscribed to your channel, looking forward to seeing some more of your films. Cheers and all the best (thanks for sharing your thoughts re monitors) Tony.
Thanks - The bit I find really useful with big screens is bing able to zoom the screen with the mouse wheel and control key.
It means I can use my screen distance glasses for everything, but if I'm not wearing them or some others, I can just zoom in to see tiny text and the like. 32" just works better with my eyesight than a 27" 4k
I've used a lot of different monitors. As stated in the video - there is no exact answer, but I'm generally for more pixels as long as the operating systems handle high res monitors well. That said, IMO there are resolutions that's basically good enough for a certain size. Going above will to an extent make the screen look sharper, but at least for me there is very hard to say that the increased resolution add much to the screens "usability".
4K: Had a 15" laptop with a 4K screen. It was super sharp, but without scaling everything on the UI was just too small. For me 4K starts being really useful at 27-28" and above.
QHD (2560x1440): IMO this is a really useful compromise for medium sized monitors, typically 21-27". Works for smaller screens too, but little advantage over Full HD in usability.
Full HD (1920x1024 and 1920x1200): Good for screens up to around 20", but for the 17-20" I prefer QHD even if OS UI elements tend to get smallish.
Of course, phones and to a certain extent pads are usually held much closer to the eye and benefit from higher res than a computer screen.
Yes - 'big' wins out for me if I want resolution. My eyesight makes phones virtually useless for me unless I've remembered the correct glasses [never a given]
My main monitor is a 32" BenQ 4K You can change text and icon sizes, even the cursor, it should not be an issue. Colour matched or whatever they call it. But my hobby is more 3d computer modelling. I can render out at full pixel count, or any size. Bigger is just better, so long as it goes hand in hand with smaller pixel sizes. Whenever I have upgraded, over the years I have increased the pixels per inch at the same time as the screen dimension. I look at my screen at that close distance all the time.
Once you have a bigger monitor with better resolution as well, you wonder how you put up with a smaller one! How long before 8K becomes common?! Quadruple the pixels, indistinguishable by any eyes and add a few inches to the screen size. :) Be a while yet I suspect, lol.
Display photos on such proper sized screens and you never need to print again.
Yes, if you have a use for getting close, it matters, but that is not a common for photo/printing. It also depends on eyesight...
Have a 2K monitor which has served me well, if I want more detail I zoom in, especially if sharpening, adjusting noise reduction etc. Thank you for another great video.
Thanks - Yes, finding what works for your own uses is key
Thanks for that very timely broadcast Keith! I have been using an Iiyama 24" 1920x1200 monitor which is now over a decade old and am currently on the lookout for a 28" or 32" 4k monitor. I've heard that the Samsung M7 smart monitor (with built in telly) has a nice contrasty VA display with great image depth for a mere 280 quid on the *ahem* South American river website that I'd better not name! But the internet tells me that IPS displays offer better colour range. It's difficult to tell which would be best for photo editing in Lightroom and Photoshop.
Basically, a good TV screen tend not to be good for editing.
If I'm editing photos, I don't want 'a nice contrasty display' - whatever you're using a calibrator will always help a lot.
You edit a photo for your nice contrasty screen, it will look flat on my more ordinary screen. Might be hard to print, too.
@@oneeyedphotographer Thanks for your replies. I suppose calibration is key, so that our prints look as near as identical to the images on our monitor!
Keith I just ordered the Benq SW272U. Because I need details. So I can’t stand with a normal full HD. I was in need 4K. Better having a new technology for the next’s 5/7 years..
Yes, I'm not saying 4k is not worthwhile, just to have a think about it, especially if your eyesight has issues.
I have 2 monitors. One is a 27" LG 4k monitor, the other is a 24" Samsung HD monitor. I also have 3 of pairs of glasses, for reading, computer monitor and distance. The native display resolution of my 4K monitor is 3840×2160, but I use it at 2560×1440, which is perfect for my eyesight. The resolution can be changed in Windows settings or the graphics card interface, and there is no difference in visual quality between the resolutions that I can see. And I profile both monitors with an old X-Rite spectrophotometer (same one I use for paper and ink) for a luminance of 80 cd, which would be useless for 4k video anyway. Anything above 80 cd I find too bright for photo editing - especially if I want to print images. Having the editing monitor too bright is probably the main reason why printed images look too dark.
The reason I got the 4k monitor wasn't for the high display resolution or 4K. It was for the colour bit-depth, 10-bits per channel, which is enabled though the Nvidia graphics card interface. I do all my Photoshop work in 16-bit colour rather than 8-bit.
Yes, it can be a complex mix to find just what works best
I tend to read and write a lot on my monitor (programmer ...). At 27" / 4k the text seems cleaner and smooth i.e. I can't see the pixels making up the characters. I suspect it helps with eye fatigue.
Yes, although that is very eyesight dependent ;-)
Not only do I "need" a 4K monitor, but I (as one of "similar age" - ha ha) find 27" too small (and I sit closely--I can reach the monitor from a sitting position). I don't wear glasses for close vision, so I went with a 32" Benq and sometimes wish it were even larger! Especially when editing vertical (portrait mode) images, I prefer the image on screen to be at least the size of an A4/letter-sized print (plus the bigger the better for a more immersive flight simulation experience--more to life than editing!)... That said, I think 4K's more than enough for just about any current application (especially at any reasonable viewing distance), so I've no interest in anything beyond that as that's already at the limit of human visual perception (another reason I'm happy with the prints I get from MFT and very rarely use high-res mode). I can't begin to understand how anyone could possibly edit on a laptop or tablet, much less a phone (unless details don't matter)!
Yes - big monitors have won out for me for over 30 years [when they were 2-3 feet deep and would heat a medium size office ;-) ]
Me to. I got the 32" 4K BenQ monitor and am super happy with it. When I first got it, it looked absolutely huge, but I'm used to it now and also feel like it could be bigger at times ! I'm certainly never going back to anything smaller. My previous monitor was a 24" Dell with 1920x1200 resolution and images on the BenQ look significantly crisper.
I've been very happy with my Benq SW 24" 1080P to date. For me colour accuracy is more important to me than absolute resolution particularly when printing. I shoot mostly 45.7 MP images these days so I get plenty resolution from my images. I don't feel I need a 4K monitor to view my photos. Likewise I wear reading glasses so I dont think I'd benefit much from sitting close to a super high rez screen. 😉
Yes - personally I find screens that size difficult to work on, but as ever it's what you're used to. 4k at that size would be excessive ;-)
Another good video Kieth
Thank you!
When I replaced my iMac 27 “ 2011 for a retina 27“ 2020 it was like I was finally able to see my photos as they really were. Well maybe it’s just not the resolution as I have a cheap 4K obviously not as a good as the iMac screen. Nevertheless, even with glasses I prefer 4K. But I agree on the fact that it’s important to have the right glasses.
Yes, getting the right glasses is vital
Regarding the instruments in Photoshop, etc... you can actually "outsource" them to a secondary screen.
Depends on what setup I'm using - with a 27" I'd prefer to, but my main editing setup is a pair of 32" 4k monitors so fine with tools etch at the edges.
I've never liked [since it first appeared with OS-X] the default dock position on Macs - I have it auto-hide at the left edge of the screen - confuses many Mac users trying to use my machine :-)
I have tried a 28" 4K monitor, and in Windows 10 or 11, everything is just too small. And many applications don't scale properly to a 4k screen.
But 27" 1440p screen is just perfect. If you would offer your videos in 1440p or 4k, your viewers would appreciate that.
I'd need a better camera setup for the video than I use...
4k is a step too far for any kit I've got - I'm a photographer not a video maker ;-)
Maybe once the channel hits 50k subs...
@@KeithCooper OM-D E-M1 Mark II des 4K. Pair it with a 12-40 F2.8 They're pretty cheap these days. If you get the E-M1x or Mark III you have PD charging via USB-C.
There are cheap used Lumix G cameras that do 4K video too.
Maybe so - However, buying kit and software to edit 4k just for this is not really on any to-do list of mine at the moment.
I'd also want to get something which works with lenses I've already got.
@@KeithCooper I understand that, but don't rule it out. Sun Studios,a Canon Australia subsidiary, is asking around $4,000 for RF 24-70 and 70-200 F2.8 lenses. You should be able to buy an OM-D E-M1 II + 12-40 (or OM-D E-M1x) for less than half the the price of either one.
They are primarily cameras for professional stills photography, but they are also very good for video. You could well find yourself taking it on holiday.
I purchased a used Apple Thunderbolt Display like new, for the princely sum of 200 euros(mind you it cost me 50 odd euros on fuel to drive and collect it) still a bargain in my eyes at least.
Its 27 inch and 2560 x 1440 resolution and apparently they were very accurately calibrated from factory for colour accuracy.
It has been a revelation for both my editing and printing as what I get on screen is what I get from printing, it is paired to my late 2013 21 inch iMac fairly base model which supports the higher resolution of the Thunderbolt Display.
I might upgrade to a Mac Mini or Studio at some stage knowing that the display will be more than good enough for my old eyes🥸
Just my thoughts incase someone is in a similar dilemma about screen displays😇
A bargain...
@@KeithCooper Yes Keith it was, it was purchased by the lady from her workplace when they were upgrading they're systems and all she wanted was what she had paid for it to the firm, as she found it to heavy to move around the house and was using a laptop mostly. She also informed me that it was rarely switched on at work and mostly on her desk with the cover on it, hence the great condition
For a 27-32" 4k makes a huge difference. I actually am desperately waiting for a pro grade 8k monitor. I've seen Dell, and it is good, but it was so ahead of the time... I am a GFX user, so I want to have polygraphic quality 33mp display.
8k is just too fine for my eyesight - even when editing GFX files...
Just in time for people faced with dealing with Apple's 4.5K/5K enigma.
Yes - my feeling is that it just won't matter to many people ;-)
I'm about to get a new display but deliberating over what I want.
Tempted by the 4k BenQ SW272U, but I just returned a 32 inch Asus Proart for being too big from 2 ft away.
I'm also long sighted, but predominantly a Windows user, so I might be better with their scaling.
Yes - the scaling may be of more help
@@KeithCooper I've also got a 4k iMac and noticed that the screen resolution is set to 2k by default -- if I set it to 4k it almost becomes unreadable, with no option to scale it like you can in Windows.
It's a shame Apple hasn't caught up with this option yet -- they'll probably announce it at a keynote speech in a few years, as if they've just invented it. 🤣
Yes - it's been a complaint of mine for years :-(
Hello Keith. Great videos you produce ... and many thanks for doing so. Very informative. I'm learning lots and have even purchased that book you mentioned in another video of yours ... "Real World Color Management". Even more to learn!!!
In regards to monitors, have you any experiences utilizing Eizo brand monitors?
Thanks
They are good monitors, but it's several years since I last looked at one.
48" oled running at 4k is great, you get consumer prices and great picture. Perfect pixel density.
OK - just bit too big for me and my desk...
Reliability of profiling would be an issue for me, but yes, if you want big... :-)
Hi Keith, what if you are printing your pictures , as big as 60x40” , would the 2k resolution be a better representation of the print ? Thanks as always Rick
Depends on the picture and what you are used to - my absolute biggest picture was produced on an sRGB Apple Cinema Display... :-)
2K is the sweet spot for an 27" editing monitor😉
Yes - I certainly find that with my own eyesight
I have a Dell 40" 4k IPS studio grade monitor. It was with every penny, because I don't need my glass 😊 The 32" 4k was still a bit dense for me. I do keep a 2nd 1080p monitor as well though. Cheers.
Thanks - I've two 32" side by side and the fill the desk - 40" sounds nice ;-)
Colour.Do you trust your eyes? Should you?
A few years ago, I had a cataract removed from one eye. Suddenly, with no yellow filter across my eyes some colours became much brighter, particularly purple and blue.
I have two sons in law, I am taller than they, slimmer than they, older than they (usual, but not always the case). They have better vision Oh, and I eat hotter food.. And have a more complete head of hair. It's getting sparse, but no baldness.
Those are all easily measured. I see no reason to expect that they, you and I perceive colour and sound the same. Or the taste and smell of food. I think we do perceive the world around use differently AND that that influences our taste in drink and food and art
So I don't fuss over colour so much any more. This would be different for you because your imagery has to suit particular people, for me, I can do what I like, I will find an audience provided I find some consistency. I think it matters that my screens are around about "right," but when I do black and white, does it really matter? If I do weird colour, what then? Do I calibrate your eyes to your vision?
My BENQ SW2700PT is in the next room. Mostly, I use a Lenovo UHD monitor from my (very) local office products supplier. It has a high P3 specification, FHD on my ASUS notebook and whatever is on my Surface Pro 6.
The monitor is currently beyond my reach, my sight has varied a lot over the years consequent on a succession of corneal transplants. Right now, I think I can legally drive without corrective lenses, for the second time in sixty years.
Yes - hence regular eye tests and use of test prints here
I have what I have a 24" EIZO.And replace it when it does not work anymore to a 27". I will update my spare laptop that I use for financial work this year from i5/8G ram to i7/32G Ram and my PS Desktop in 1-2 year and that will cost me allot not sure what I need yet.
best wait - it will be cheaper/better most likely ;-)
@@KeithCooper I will get a new Eizo when I cannot calibrate the monitor. Uncertain if it will be 24" or 27" it depend om my economic situation, that is not good after upgrading my photo equipment during the last 3 years. The curse of being a low-paid amateur
That was timely. After Apple's announcement of new M3 iMacs, but no sign of a 27" version, I'm wondering what to do when my 27" 5K Retina iMac drops off support sometime in the next 1-2 years. Whatever replacement Mac I end up with, it will almost certainly need a 3rd party monitor for photographic purposes and I have been assuming that it would be 4K, but maybe not...
Apple may even have more robust support for differing display resolutions by then...
don't you just wish we could get zoom glasses!!
I have some opera glasses on my desk...
Actually, on Macs I use the ctrl key with mouse wheel to zoom the screen as needed
If one is using 4k monitor is there any issue with using the system Display scaling to adjust viewing size?
What display scaling?
If using a lower than default resolution, results are rarely that good [on macs - all I use]
Interesting, I guess I really don't understand Scaling in terms of viewing Photographs. I use the Mac Studio with a 4K display. I scale the viewing resolution to the 2560x1440 display setting while working with Lightroom and Photoshop... Prints look great. I don't believe I'm losing anything by not working with the 3840x2160 setting .. Am I missing something?... Thanks
If you're OK with it then great...
Not all displays scale well in these settings@@user-bw3yj3ty9k
Thanks for your speedy input...appreciate your time.