They look like (W)QHD monitors, rather than 4K. If you want to future-proof the choice, getting a 4K monitor might be a better choice.
Myself, I found a lightly used ASUS VG289Q for about $150 CAD, locally. Not a pro monitor but very good for amateur/enthusiast photo/video editing use, not to mention gaming as well.
Braindrain232 wrote:
They look like (W)QHD monitors, rather than 4K. If you want to future-proof the choice, getting a 4K monitor might be a better choice.
Myself, I found a lightly used ASUS VG289Q for about $150 CAD, locally. Not a pro monitor but very good for amateur/enthusiast photo/video editing use, not to mention gaming as well.
Yeah, I was getting a 2K monitor due to both costs and the fact that other FM posts indicated 2K might be better for photo editing than 4K
I don't own (nor have used) a 2K monitor, but I can't see why 2K would be "better". icons/text is smaller, for sure, on a 4K but you can increase the size of fonts on your screen. Other than that, clearly 4K offers more detail.
Braindrain232 wrote:
I don't own (nor have used) a 2K monitor, but I can't see why 2K would be "better". icons/text is smaller, for sure, on a 4K but you can increase the size of fonts on your screen. Other than that, clearly 4K offers more detail.
Many legacy programs don't scale graphic icons/graphic text well so the user experience is either aiming the mouse at a tiny spot or looking at a blurry larger representation. Either way is sort of miserable. I'd rather have 5K or 6K for native modern programs and the ability to run legacy programs at 200%.
Interesting. TBH, I don't have any legacy programs with that issue. Mind you, the oldest legacy program that I run is probably Handbrake, which has probably been updated enough to run well enough on modern OS, with appropriate scaling.
I'd suspect Win11/MacOS and the appropriate video drivers would have enough oomph to do proper scaling. But, again, I'm hardly the expert when it comes to legacy programs.
But, back to @Ming-Tzu's Q, with modern photo editing software, I cannot see how 2K would be better than 4K.
Braindrain232 wrote:
Interesting. TBH, I don't have any legacy programs with that issue. Mind you, the oldest legacy program that I run is probably Handbrake, which has probably been updated enough to run well enough on modern OS, with appropriate scaling.
I'd suspect Win11/MacOS and the appropriate video drivers would have enough oomph to do proper scaling. But, again, I'm hardly the expert when it comes to legacy programs.
But, back to @Ming-Tzu@'s Q, with modern photo editing software, I cannot see how 2K would be better than 4K.
I think the whole 2k vs 4k debate is sort like Windows vs Apple. Each side will have its opinions. But, from what I've read on here numerous times, I think one opinion is that a 2k monitor shows pixels one-for-one, while a 4k monitor will need zooming in for the same magnification, and artifacts will show up because of that? Someone more knowledgeable can chime in.
Ming-Tzu wrote:
I think the whole 2k vs 4k debate is sort like Windows vs Apple. Each side will have its opinions. But, from what I've read on here numerous times, I think one opinion is that a 2k monitor shows pixels one-for-one, while a 4k monitor will need zooming in for the same magnification, and artifacts will show up because of that? Someone more knowledgeable can chime in.
Interesting explanation. I'm not actually looking for an argument. I'm just trying to understand this reasoning.
The average resolution on a 2K (QHD) monitor is 2560 x 1440. An average 4K (UHD) monitor is 3840 x 2160. The aspect ratios are the same, so that doesn't seem to be a factor.
My Panny GX9 (m43) outputs max resolution at 5184 x 3888 and I always shoot RAW. If I zoom at 100% (your 1:1 ratio), then there is some compression on a 4K monitor. If I do the same on a 2K monitor, there is even more compression and, IMO, increasing the likelihood of artifacts. I would hypothesize the compression would be even more pronounced on higher MP cameras.
This topic interests me, so I did some searching around on the topic. The only reasonable explanation that I could find was that, if you were to output to a print, then the 2K picture would probably match the print better (depends on the size of the print, absolutely) since the ppi would be more closely matched.
The only reason relating to artifacting that I can think of is if someone takes a pic at a lower resolution than UHD, then yes, viewing at 1:1 would probably yield a worse result than viewing at QHD.
I'm not an engineer so I could be missing something else completely.
Ming-Tzu wrote:
Update:
For now, I think I've settled on a dual monitor setup. One 2k for editing ($300) and another 4k for media consumption ($300)
Yeah, I'm no expert on the whole 2k vs 4k debate either. But rely on others on here that know more than me. I don't print photos so the reason that sort of swayed me towards 2k was that there might be more people who view the image on a non-4k resolution screen than not. So editing on a 2k would allow me to see how these other people see it since they most likely won't be on a 4k screen.
That tidbit along with the whole 2k resolution argument is what made me want to get a 2k monitor
If you're doing any photo editing and I'd image want good color accuracy you want to look at what % of adobe rgb the monitor can display. I think that Asus is about 85% adobe rgb which is not wide enough for any serious color work.
The U3219Q is < 80% which is limited but may not matter as much for a media consumption machine. Wanted to point that out just in case you care about color accuracy.
Picture This! wrote:
If you're doing any photo editing and I'd image want good color accuracy you want to look at what % of adobe rgb the monitor can display. I think that Asus is about 85% adobe rgb which is not wide enough for any serious color work.
The U3219Q is < 80% which is limited but may not matter as much for a media consumption machine. Wanted to point that out just in case you care about color accuracy.
According to the Asus website, this monitor has the following Color Space:
Color Space (sRGB) : 100%
Color Space (DCI-P3) : 95%
I don't plan on printing at all so maybe Adobe RGB doesn't matter as much? I'm not really sure. If printing isn't really my concern, do I even care about 2k monitors @ 27 inch? Or 2k vs 4k? Should I just get a 32 inch 4k monitor and be done with it? I'm really not sure since all the 2k vs 4k posts I've read seems to be concerned with printing photos
Ming-Tzu wrote:
According to the Asus website, this monitor has the following Color Space:
Color Space (sRGB) : 100%
Color Space (DCI-P3) : 95%
I don't plan on printing at all so maybe Adobe RGB doesn't matter as much? I'm not really sure. If printing isn't really my concern, do I even care about 2k monitors @ 27 inch? Or 2k vs 4k? Should I just get a 32 inch 4k monitor and be done with it? I'm really not sure since all the 2k vs 4k posts I've read seems to be concerned with printing photos
For general and non-pro work, it's fine. Google says it covers 83% adobe rgb.
I mean, you could certainly go for 99% coverage, but will it matter TO YOU?
The ProArt specs are exactly the same as my VG289Q. I'm a non-pro, and I'm fine with it. It's already worlds ahead of my old 1080P Dell Ultrasharps.
Ming-Tzu wrote:
I don't plan on printing at all so maybe Adobe RGB doesn't matter as much? I'm not really sure. If printing isn't really my concern, do I even care about 2k monitors @ 27 inch? Or 2k vs 4k? Should I just get a 32 inch 4k monitor and be done with it? I'm really not sure since all the 2k vs 4k posts I've read seems to be concerned with printing photos
If all the comments around 2K vs 4K are focused on printing, and you don't plan on printing "at all", then why are even getting a 2K monitor?
You could use those extra funds towards a 32inch 4K 99% Adobe RGB monitor, although I think computer hardware is like camera stuff. It's way too easy to buy far more than you need.
I just cancelled my Asus monitor purchase and leaning towards the Dell UP3017. 30 inches, 2k, and (if I am reading it correctly) 99% Adobe RGB and 99% sRGB. And I can get a great copy on Ebay for less than the Asus.
As for why I am not getting 4k, I figure that I've survived on a 1920 screen for 10+ years so 2k should be a significant upgrade. I'll trust the FM folks and try out the 2k for photo editing. If I "need" a 4k down the line, I can get it later on. For now, the 2k should be good for me!
I just cancelled my Asus monitor purchase and leaning towards the Dell UP3017. 30 inches, 2k, and (if I am reading it correctly) 99% Adobe RGB and 99% sRGB. And I can get a great copy on Ebay for less than the Asus.
Seeking color accuracy over resolution for your use case is the more prudent decision imo.I would do the same. Of course 4k is going to be sharper, especially if you're doing a lot of text work etc but...
I have a 10 year old HP zr30w that I use to this day for my photo editing. Similar specs to the UP3017. Still going strong and photos looks absolutely amazing. 99% adobe RGB coverage.
