FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

QHD or UHD monitor

Author
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 9581
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: QHD or UHD monitor
    Posted: 07 July 2019 at 18:49
My HP LP2475w is showing its age and it is about time to replace it. It seems two BenQ monitors are the best value options at the moment: the SW271 and the SW2700.

The SW271 is the higher specked monitor: 4k (3840x2160px v. 2560x1440px) and HDR. There are some minor (?) differences, like the 271 has a USB-C connector, HDMI 2.0 (v. 1.4) and DPI 1.4 (v. 1.2). Reviews for both are great, both have a 10-bit display and LUT.

So, the difference is 4K and HDR - is that worth 300?
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
 



Back to Top
Winwalloe View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 17 September 2007
Country: France
Location: Paris
Status: Offline
Posts: 2919
Post Options Post Options   Quote Winwalloe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 July 2019 at 22:05
UHD is all good and not even just for photography. Not sure one would activate HDR when working on photographs though?

Do check your current graphic card capabilities. A new one could add to the expense.
See my webpage!
A-mount stuff, and few 43 stuff.
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 9581
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 July 2019 at 22:35
I have a Nvidia 1070ti and it can handle HDR 4K over HDMI 2.0.
HDR probably is of little use for photography - at least for now. Also, my graphics card will not be able to make full use of the 10 bit colour.

UHD is 4K, so, you would prefer the SW271 - thnx!
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
jvandegr View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 07 April 2008
Country: United States
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Posts: 964
Post Options Post Options   Quote jvandegr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 July 2019 at 00:24
If your budget affords it, I can't recommend the 27" iMac enough for photo editing. It really has been a game changer for me. 5.1K in a P3 color space gets me as close as I've ever been to seeing on my monitor what will emerge from my printer.
Jon Van de Grift
Geographer and Documentary Photographer
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 9581
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 July 2019 at 09:22
I have a perfectly fine computer, so, an iMac is not an option. If Apple was selling a separate monitor, I would consider it, but I doubt it would be better then the BenQ's.

Also, I have no wish to move to Apple, I am perfectly happy with Windows 10.

But your happy with 5k, so, you also would opt for the 4k panel.
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
jvandegr View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 07 April 2008
Country: United States
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Posts: 964
Post Options Post Options   Quote jvandegr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 July 2019 at 14:45
Good to hear - glad you have a system that's working for you. Yes, I would definitely opt for as much resolution as you can get. Of course it gives you more editing space for your tools, but it also gets you closer to 1:1 editing, meaning you're doing less zooming with your viewer and seeing more of your composition while you edit. As I mentioned, it also benefits the printing process because the resolution of the screen and print are similar (not identical though).
Jon Van de Grift
Geographer and Documentary Photographer
 



Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Posts: 2489
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 July 2019 at 16:00
27" panels seem too small to me after using larger screens and going back to a 27".

Around 40" sounds about right for 4k--like having four 20" 1080p panels.

Edited by QuietOC - 08 July 2019 at 16:08
Sony A68 A77II A6000 A7II LA-EA3 LA-EA4 MC-11
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 9581
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 July 2019 at 17:05
I am coming from 24".
40" sounds like stupidly big for a desktop monitor. I could always use my 4K television if I want something that big
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
jvandegr View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 07 April 2008
Country: United States
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Posts: 964
Post Options Post Options   Quote jvandegr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 July 2019 at 17:49
A 40" inch monitor would likely be counter-productive, unless you have a specific, identifiable need. For example, you frequently need to view several images or documents at once. Much like large televisions, you lose composition and this will force you to zoom out when editing. This negates any real benefit for a desktop monitor of that size. Also, you will lose resolution, defined as the number of pixels per inch. With Apple Retina monitors, such as the 27" iMac, you are approaching the resolution of print and 1:1 editing, which has helped me significantly.

My colleagues and I have been discussing the announced Apple 32" monitor at length. They work in a pro lab that can quite easily budget for several of these, even with the absurdly expensive stand. However, they have concerns about it being too large for individual desktop use. Likely, we'll demo one and get a good feel for it before committing to more. In one of the production areas, the desktops are larger to accommodate additional peripherals and here I could see it working because they have a 38" depth instead of the traditional 29" depth.
Jon Van de Grift
Geographer and Documentary Photographer
Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Posts: 2489
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 July 2019 at 17:55
Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:

I am coming from 24".
40" sounds like stupidly big for a desktop monitor. I could always use my 4K television if I want something that big

I am not sure about the size either. I currently own 20", 24", 27", and 32" 1920x1080 monitors. I gave my 34" 21:9 display to someone who wanted it. I do somewhat miss it, but it didn't offer anything better for photo editing. It is smaller than the 32" 16x9 monitor. The larger 1920x1080 displays are mainly beneficial for group viewing, but the 32" works fine as a desktop monitor. I'd use a 24" 1920x1200 display over any 1080 monitor, though prices often reflect that too.

TV's often don't support full chroma resolution, which makes them not very good for desktop use.

Edited by QuietOC - 08 July 2019 at 18:00
Sony A68 A77II A6000 A7II LA-EA3 LA-EA4 MC-11
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 9581
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 July 2019 at 19:02
Originally posted by jvandegr jvandegr wrote:

A 40" inch monitor would likely be counter-productive, unless you have a specific, identifiable need. For example, you frequently need to view several images or documents at once. Much like large televisions, you lose composition and this will force you to zoom out when editing. This negates any real benefit for a desktop monitor of that size. Also, you will lose resolution, defined as the number of pixels per inch. With Apple Retina monitors, such as the 27" iMac, you are approaching the resolution of print and 1:1 editing, which has helped me significantly.
Well, my phone has 631 ppi, I am covered

My colleagues and I have been discussing the announced Apple 32" monitor at length. They work in a pro lab that can quite easily budget for several of these, even with the absurdly expensive stand. However, they have concerns about it being too large for individual desktop use. Likely, we'll demo one and get a good feel for it before committing to more. In one of the production areas, the desktops are larger to accommodate additional peripherals and here I could see it working because they have a 38" depth instead of the traditional 29" depth.
Only the stand is as expensive as the SW271

Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

I am not sure about the size either. I currently own 20", 24", 27", and 32" 1920x1080 monitors. I gave my 34" 21:9 display to someone who wanted it. I do somewhat miss it, but it didn't offer anything better for photo editing. It is smaller than the 32" 16x9 monitor. The larger 1920x1080 displays are mainly beneficial for group viewing, but the 32" works fine as a desktop monitor. I'd use a 24" 1920x1200 display over any 1080 monitor, though prices often reflect that too.
I have thought about 32" but I am not ready for it. 24" is not yet too small, but it also is not as big as it used to be. I think 27"is a nice compromise for me.

Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

TV's often don't support full chroma resolution, which makes them not very good for desktop use.
It was not a serious consideration

By the way, thank you both for your insights!
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
Winwalloe View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 17 September 2007
Country: France
Location: Paris
Status: Offline
Posts: 2919
Post Options Post Options   Quote Winwalloe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 July 2019 at 22:30
By the way: after using a 4K screen for a while, be prepared to hate HD screens

The panel size should take consideration of your desk depth I guess. My desk at home isn't very deep, the screen is 28": I think with a bigger screen I'd be unconfortable.

At the office I've fullHD screen, about 27", but close enough to my face that I could count the pixels
See my webpage!
A-mount stuff, and few 43 stuff.
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 9581
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 July 2019 at 22:20
Got the SW271 - because with the SW2700 I would always second guess myself.
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Digital Darkroom

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.