dclark Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Wide Gamut Monitor, DCI-P3 or still Adobe RGB? | |
Scott Stoness wrote:
Great post
- and I will summarize it for myself - an approximate 100 dpi monitor is optimal for those that sit at a normal distance from the screen editing and have normal eyesight. Those who lean in [so they are only seeing a portion of the screen] and have higher acuity (the young) might be able to use a higher dpi in editing.
[As you have said, photography is not about line pairs and the 100-150 dpi range is likely high for photography editing. Lets assume 80% resulting in 80-120dpi is optimal given most people do not have 20/20 vision and we are not editing line pairs much. eg Anyone over 45 on this forum is likely using progressives and editing photos]
- A 2560 x 1440 27" delivers ~100 dpi in a space that you can see the whole picture at once from a normal viewing distance
...Show more →
Thanks for your comment.
The formula is 286/distance(ft), so if normal viewing distance is about 2 feet, a normal eye can resolve 143 PPI, but somewhat less for photos. If your normal viewing distance is less than 2' that number is higher. For example I normally view from about 20" and for normal eye acuity that means I can resolve 172PPI. Dropping from 143-172 all the way to 100 is pretty far. I don't think I would go that far, and I would not go to 80PPI for normal vision.
A 2560x1440 27" delivers ~109PPI. For this discussion let's assume the normal eye can resolve 109PPI in a contone photographic image when viewed from 2'. That should be about right.
That assumption means if I use a 27" 2K display zoomed to 100% and view it at 2', it is a perfect match to my eye acuity for photos. But I am only viewing 3.7MP of the image. If I lean closer to the display I am not likely to see any additional detail. I just see the image pixelated. In this case the photographer needs to scan around the image, zooming to 100% to inspect detail (hit the Z key in LR).
Consider using a 27" 4K display, which has 166PPI. If I inspect an image zoomed to 100" I see 8.3MP of the image. It looks sharper because the image details are smaller. I can lean forward by a factor of 109/166 to 1.3' from the screen before I starting seeing pixelation of the image. The detail I see from 1.3' is the same as the detail I see at 2' with the 2K display, and the amount of the image I am able to see up close is probably the same I see from 2' with the 2K display. This requires less scanning around the image and zooming, but requires a lot of moving in and out. Many photographers prefer that way of operating. I don't. When I use a 4K display I set up to zoom 150-200% rather than moving in and out. One has to be a bit careful about how the zooming in samples the image since 200% does not mean the image is presented in 2x2 blocks. IMO any effect from sampling is negligible.
Also we need to consider that the 27" 4K display will probably look better than the 2K display for graphics and fonts, even at the normal viewing distance.
It's possible to do this kind of analysis for different pixel densities, screen sizes, viewing distances, and individual eyesight to decide what works best for each of us. I hope this discussion is helpful, not confusing.
|