Alan321 Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · pros/cons of 4k display vs color accurate NEC display | |
Alan321 wrote:
4k cons:
- mostly what you've already encountered with your retina screen. The high pixel density makes photos look smaller and sharper but most programs don't give us good, independent control of visual elements such as pictures, text, icons, scroll bars, tool bars, etc.
- most don't have wide gamut
- most or all don't have in-built high-bit processor that the NECs do
- up-market graphics card required to handle the pixel count, the dual screen processing (two halves, left and right), the need for better drivers and perhaps a need for better ports such as display port.
- a graphics card may not support your 4k screen plus your present screen.
4k pros:
- sharper looking photos.
- smaller looking photos, closer to print size.
- no visible gaps between pixels. This lets you concentrate on the pixels rather than the fly wire screen and provides a better perception of image sharpness.
- can have wide gamut if you shop around.
- you can see more of the picture without using the equivalent of a cinema screen.
- easier to take it all in for a given pixel size because of the smaller angle of view.
- less chance of colour shift caused by angle of view if the monitor is physically smaller, even without uniformity control - but uniformity control is better still.
- high-ppi screens withstand the magnifying effect of reading glasses better than low-ppi screens do. sooner or later you'll appreciate this unless you die young.
For me the pixel density of the NEC screens is not uncommon in down-market screens but too low. i prefer at lease 130 ppi and preferably 180ppi or more. However, you can have too many ppi, in which case you cannot physically see some of the finer details within the image. A 24" 4k screen offers 180ppi. it looks great but some screen elements are hard to manage in some software - especially if they use bit-mapped fonts instead of true-type or equivalent vector fonts, and lines with a fixed pixel count instead of a specified real length. Eventually the better software will catch up. PS and Lr already have primitive scaling options that help somewhat.
FYI, Windows expects a screen to have about 96ppi, and OS X expects 110ppi.
- Alan
...Show more →
ben egbert wrote:
Good analysis and why I want my next NEC to have high pixel density, my current NEC 26090 WUXi at native res shows my 5DS images as if they were 90 inches wide.
But one problem with a wide gamut monitor is that it is hard to tell what people in the sRGB world are seeing when you do web presentations.
Not so, Ben. It is dead easy to switch your monitor to sRGB when required. It should look much the same anyway, except that you'll lose or alter the out-of-gamut colours. The main trick is to save a version of the file for sRGB and embed the sRGB profile in it for good measure. Keep your own version of the file as Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB or whatever it is you like to use. I would suggest Adobe RGB for jpg files and ProPhoto for raw files.
What makes aRGB files look so garish on sRGB monitors is not being aware of the colour profile and/or not being able to utilise it. Some browsers can handle non-sRGB files so long as the profile is embedded in the file; if nothing else they'll map it to sRGB which is probably close to what their monitor profile should be. Windows just cannot be helped because it is too colour-dumb, but OS X utilities are colour profile aware.
- Alan
|