New Monitor Advice / Re Assurance.

[ajohnw]

I've wondered about 4K monitors for some time but didn't want to fall into the too fine dpi trap. So I'm currently sitting in front of a 4K 40" monitor. Aim more screen space.

I've used Dell's for some years and they have a pretty matte screen. This one is more reflective. If I view my own reflection in it I can see that I have eye sockets but no real detail. My watch is clearer. I can't make my mind up if this is likely to effect pp. I viewed all 95 monthly winners. Where deep black is used I can see slight reflections but only if I look at and focus on them so all seems ok.

It's an MVA panel. I was concerned about viewing angles. Actually as it turns out they aren't too bad side to side but are much worse than IPS up and down. I have the screen centred to my eyes so up and down doesn't look to be a problem. I can see white fall off over say 2 or 3 inches of screen at each corner but that's of no real interest for photo editing as I feel that this will only be done in the central region but it looks like images can be larger than they could be on a 27" and the extra space is very useful for the editors I use.

I'm on my 3rd calibration. Initially all was ok apart from the recommended limit on combined grey scale. The grey scale itself was well within limits. The software I use allows black point correction. I have used that in the past to correct this. It tends to reduce contrast ratio but that was 5,000:1 now down to 3,000:1 with a worst de of 1 part way up the grey scale. Colour de's are all low. This is at 122 cd/m^2.

The contrast level is way higher than what I have achieved before. I managed to find a few of my own shots on here. Maybe but only just maybe they have a little more punch. It's truly hard to be sure. Not easy to check on monthly winners as photo's tend to depart from a natural look anyway. Looking around though all seems ok with a very slight but.

I've calibrated for colour temperature as found. Currently that is 6,700K. I'd normally get a bit closer to 6,500K but have a humble opinion that 200K really is neither here nor there. I will try to get closer to 6500K but may find I'm stuck over that for excellent colour calibration. As I see things that is more important. The monitor also more or less passes this test shot. Maybe some white and black crushing but it's a very extreme test. The extreme black is tricky but I suspect that is an eye problem.

https://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/...nsitivity.html

Any comment on all of my "observations" would be more than welcome. Now is the time to send it back but I feel inclined to put up with the slight problems and keep it. What I don't want though is my photo's appearing differently on other well calibrated screen. Both reflectivity and contrast ratio may do that. 6700K - i don't think so. However I do wonder about the over all wisdom of buying it.

John
-

[xpatUSA]

Any comment on all of my "observations" would be more than welcome. Now is the time to send it back but I feel inclined to put up with the slight problems and keep it. What I don't want though is my photo's appearing differently on other well calibrated screen. Both reflectivity and contrast ratio may do that. 6700K - i don't think so. However I do wonder about the over all wisdom of buying it.

John
-

My apologies up front for a technical response, which may or not be relevant to your situation.

While 4K seems attractive for many, the human visual acuity does come into it for myself. I am myopic and, even with "computer glasses" on, I don't see that well. Add to that the fact that my computer desk only has room for a 24" monitor which I view from about half a meter and it becomes quite clear to me that 4K is a waste of money, and that WUXGA (1920x1200) is quite satisfactory for me.

If the above casts any doubt, I'd send it back and do some more research before jumping in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity

Must be nice to have space for a 40" monitor; what's your viewing distance usually?

[Black Pearl]

My apologies up front for a technical response, which may or not be relevant to your situation.

While 4K seems attractive for many, the human visual acuity does come into it for myself. I am myopic and, even with "computer glasses" on, I don't see that well. Add to that the fact that my computer desk only has room for a 24" monitor which I view from about half a meter and it becomes quite clear to me that 4K is a waste of money, and that WUXGA (1920x1200) is quite satisfactory for me.

If the above casts any doubt, I'd send it back and do some more research before jumping in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity

Must be nice to have space for a 40" monitor; what's your viewing distance usually?

I think the main difference is the pixels become invisible with a 4k or 5k screen so text etc looks cleaner. I'm not saying a 2k screen isn't sharp its just that a 4k one is sharp and smooth.

As to a 40" screen then I simply don't understand how you can use that as a desktop monitor John as the 27" one I have fills my vision and sometimes its like watching a tennis match as you work from side to side on stuff. Add to that your fall-off issues and I don't see it as a viable editing monitor.

[ajohnw]

There are imho a lot of myths about 4k screens. The dpi on a screen behaves the same way as 300dpi on a 10x8 print. It's fine if viewed from a certain distance. The usual Dell and others have a dpi of around 104. This 4k screen has a dpi of 114 so as far as vision goes resolution is more or less the same as it was on my 27" Dell. The screen is just bigger. As I see it a 4K 27" monitor would be a waste of time unless some on works with their nose rather close to the monitor. The software will scale the view to what it would be on a circa 100dpi monitor anyway. I work with the monitor about 27" from my eyes. Just a touch too close really,

I'd agree 100% with Robin that I can't use all of the screen for editing. I do use a couple of editors that have control windows that can be moved around though. On the 27" it was difficult to keep all of them clear of other windows. Throw in a browser and email and the desktop was pretty cluttered and things needed moving around to bring them into focus. There is no problem viewing emails or folder views etc in the corner of the screen or the control windows. I also use a package that has a PS like interface, panels on either side and the image in the middle. It doesn't matter how far from centre the panels are.

I use my PC for all sorts of things and had concluded that 16:9 isn't a good aspect ratio for general pc work even for things like reading pdf's. It's not unusual for whole pages to not scale to an easy reading size. That means that if I changed it would be a 16:10. I also noticed that Dell's premier editing monitor is 16:10. I think there is good reasons for that. The usual photo aspect ratios don't fit in well in 16:9. I then started thinking maybe 40" 4K, That gives me 2160 vertical pixel. Don't need to use all of that but it means that any photo aspect ratio can be shown easily without cramping it down due to the screens aspect ratio. Less zooming in other words. There will still be Robin's tennis effect - up and down as well but side to side can be the same as a 27". I am seeing signs that the image can be bigger but would need to do a lot more work to be sure.

Text does look a tad sharper than it did on my Dell but there was slight signs that software wasn't scaling it correctly. The sharpness control on the monitor is greyed out so don't think that is doing anything and when I reduce and sharpen images the changes look to be the same. So I guess that effect is down to technology and better scaling by the software. However if the monitor is sharpening it would be a good reason to send it back.

I did wonder about colour accuracy. Turns out that it's pretty good. This report will be here for a month or so.

https://filebin.net/45u2t0oxi4rfqgup

I may still be able to improve on that.

John
-

[ajohnw]

Not sure what tinypics will do with this but I'm pretty sure I could work on an image this size even squared up and the extra real estate is shown. It's a full screen shot.



She's 12 weeks old and if I had moved to frame her she would have too. Bad choice of lens etc on camera too. I wanted her whole head sharp.

Its reduced, here is the full sized shot

https://filebin.net/imwof0pjkhel92f4

John
-

[Black Pearl]

There is a visible difference between a Full HD (2k) screen and a 4/5k screen even at typical viewing distances. Its not so much that images etc look sharper (you do view then in a different way) but the fact you can't see the individual pixel at all so text is absolutely smooth.

When I bought my 21.5" iMac back in 2010 the screen was amazing - certainly the best I had used - and while I was aware of the pixels, seeing them wasn't a 'thing' at the time as it was just the norm. Scroll forward a few years and having got used to high pixel density screens on mobile devices I became aware of the pixelation more and more. My current 27" 5k screen is breathtaking in its clarity and I find text, even very small fonts, perfectly clear and easy to read. To get an idea this screen shot - downsampled massively but you get the overall idea - shows how small the icon for my mail app is. There is a little grey stamp on the bottom right corner of it that has text on its rim - I can read the text as even at that size it is pin sharp. Now the question could be asked whether you need to and I'd have to say no, but the fact that I can is down to the 218ppi from those 14.7 million pixels.

[ajohnw]

I'd agree with that Robin. The text on my screen does look very slightly pixelated but no different to what I am used to. My concern about shifting too far from 100dpi was photo's. They need to be a certain size to work on them and they would be smaller if they go "pixel to pixel". The other reason for sticking with it and also going 40" is work space. That is working out well. If too much up just have to click on them to bring them up. No moving them around other than my clever new window screen positioning software - it always goes for an empty space. Some use 2 monitors and I have wondered about that too.

My only concern is the panel really and hoped some one who does use a slightly reflective display would chime in especially the capable contributors on here. I've more or less disregarded MVA viewing angles. It's usable. 3,000:1 contrast ratio set correctly for photo work - not sure about but having scanned lots of shots on here other than were PP has had a lot of reasons for a monthly winner I'm happy. They aren't what I try to get anyway. More normal stuff looks fine. I'm pleased about how it shows that drycreek test shot and I have just done a calibration to 6550K. Deep blacks are rather hot but that doesn't seem to show visually. Ordinary calibration software I have seen wouldn't even report it. Lots of really low colour errors too.

One bad point. It's an Iiyama. They had a good name in crt days. In the case of lcd types it's the only brand I have ever had that failed to turn on one day. I decided to risk it because of an ex photographers review on amazon and disregarded another saying it was impossible to do colour work on it. I'd guess they were trying shots filling the screen or didn't calibrate it. As supplied the calibration was crap. The reviews on Dell's 4k screens aren't too good - flicker at low light levels so that ruled that out. I looked around for info and reviews on MVA panels and it's clear they have improved in the viewing angle area. I had to stick it on a TV desk stand to raise it to eye level and leave space for my speakers. No tilt adjustment now though but the centre is at eye level.

We'll probably be seeing OLED monitors eventually.

John
-

[ajohnw]

I thought it might be interesting to crop Robins screen size out of a 4K 40" monitor with a more normal dpi to see the difference.



Can't be exact as I've assumed 2560x1440 27" at 104 dpi this is that sized crop at 114dpi. Can't tell yet but suspect I'm using a finer font.

I had a moved or deleted message twice - now upload failed. Any ideas why?
John
-

[ajohnw]

Same again. Reduced to 1600x900 as per Robin

[Manfred M]

If this is the unit you are looking at:

https://iiyama.com/gb_en/products/prolite-le4041uhs-b1/

Two or three "danger" flags pop up when I look at the spec:

1. No where does it say that the panel is sRGB or AdobeRGB compliant. It hints at 1.07G colours, but that is not going to be of much use unless you know the gamut of the panel. While it says it is 10-bit; is it really a native 10-bit or the 8+2 configuration where the final two bits are created by dithering.

2. Duty cycle of 12 hours per day. That would definitely be a show-stopper for me. My computer can easily exceed that.

[ajohnw]

Hi Manfred
sRGB coverage calibrated is circa 99.3%. It's missing a tiny bit of blue but exceeds it on red and green. Also blue but the gamut is tilted a touch. Gamut volume is well over sRGB. 124% from memory.



I'm not concerned about the excess as I understand the calibration will take care of that aspect just as it does when an aRGB monitor is run in sRGB. It is an area that I will enquire further about due to an odd warning during calibration concerning the LUT bit depth.

From what I can gather it is a 10 bit panel but it would be hard to be sure without dismantling and looking on the manufacturers web site. As I have mentioned in the past I have a phobia concerning "dithering" due to early PC days. No signs of any problems and I have spent solid periods of over 4hrs using the screen.

12hrs - Interesting. Mine is usually on for around 14hrs a day and as the puppy wakes us up at the moment around 15. On the other hand 12hrs suggests suitable for general business use. Other than my comment about an Iiyama failing rather a long time ago I don't think I am too concerned about that. I am about the fact that one failed.

The link doesn't match my monitor exactly. Control buttons are different and I think it's 60Hz refresh full stop.

Thanks for the post. It's given me another thought - check that an extended test chart produces similar results to the long one I posted.

John
-

[ajohnw]

It looks ok via extended verification as well. I'd expect that to hone in on some error peaks.

https://filebin.net/17smilt8euh2ipbj

Temperature is a different to when I ran the last one which will cause some changes but a lot of those readings are "better" than many colorimeters can be expected to be really - including mine and some would say all of them. The colour patches in the report are split 50 - 50. What came out and a correction that's as near as possible to what should come out.

For some reason I can't upload the duplication of Robin's shot. Pity but it is less clear. My taskbar icons are tiny. Much smaller than my son's mac. I can also drop the task bar and just have icon's but am happy as it is.

Part of the problem I am having is that I partly thought I was mad buying it. Reluctant in other words. All sorts of things can be read about but things move on and the only way to really find out - diy.

Would I advise some one else to buy one - only for the adventurous. I might take that comment back if a verification run was moderately ok uncalibrated. Not sure if the software will let me do that.

John
-

[ajohnw]

It's not that bad as it comes. Colour accuracy is better than Dell's I've had. Grey scale worse, That explains the large de. This is in normal colour mode. Other settings in that area can give better results but only in cool mode at 8200K.

https://filebin.net/4etxj0hl1a5ex2n3

John
-

[ajohnw]

Time will tell but I'm keeping it. Manfred's comment made me wonder about mapping sRGB into what is a wider colour gamut on the monitor. I was sure that the profiling would do that but started wondering about the graphics card LUT. I think it's safe to assume that the pc side software has adequate precision but had a nasty feeling that an 8bit deep LUT in the card wouldn't be good enough to be sure of a correct sRGB display from an sRGB image. Checking this took some time but it's using a 10 bit LUT which I feel should be ok.

John
-