[BigMackCam]

The thing I noticed more than anything at first were the win10 icons on the taskbar or start menu. Very bold colours. The foxy firefox was positively glowing. But the eyes adjust very rapidly and as i said above I just don't see it now, so don't let that concern you.

On the plus side, if ever you do a firefox reinstall you can't possibly forget to update those colour management settings. One glance at a web page (especially PF with its red colours) and you will soon notice !!

OK... thanks. I'm intrigued to see the difference, and have my fingers crossed that I'll become accustomed to it

Also for quick picture viewing, download FastPictureViewerPro. The default Windows 10 Photos app is not colour managed.

Great, thanks. Will do. I run Linux Mint most of the time these days, and I only view my photos either in the colour-managed processing / editing software, or in Firefox with the appropriate colour-managed configuration options. But starting with this new PC I'll be running dual-boot Windows 10 and Linux Mint. I'll still spend most of my time in Linux, but will use Windows 10 for those applications (mostly hobby related - and not just photography) not available under Linux. I also intend to install my Lightroom 6 stand-alone instance so I can compare and contrast results with Darktable on occasion...

[TonyW]

....
I'm soon to take delivery of an HP mobile workstation PC with HP's 15.6" DreamColor display, which has UHD 4K resolution and covers 100% of both sRGB and AdobeRGB gamuts. I'm quite excited by the prospect as this will be new territory for me, but I have some questions.

Congratulations on you new tool High resolution and Wide gamut, very nice

Firstly, regarding the gamut and profiling:

Once I've calibrated the display using the workstation's built-in calibration device (or my existing colorimeter), and configured my operating systems and colour-managed applications to use that profile, will this be suitable for both photo editing and regular day-to-day work such as web browsing, productivity apps etc.? Or will I need to set up multiple profiles for different use cases?

Yes to both questions - maybe. Once calibrated and the profile in use by windows it should be very suitable for photo editing (colour savvy app such as PS/LR or other). Web browsing should be fine as long as you make sure your browser is colour managed and switched on (should be default but check anyway). Productivity apps should be OK but I have seen some that suffer having been designed originally for sRGB (colour can take a hit displaying on an Adobe RGB gamut monitor, but liveable). If you find anything particularly problematical you should be able to switch the monitor to sRGB emulation anyway. You may want to occassionally switch to sRGB if and when you need to see that others (with colour managed systems) are seeing what you are seeing with your images.

It is quite feasible to build several profiles relating to different needs and uses. Some users will actually profile the monitor to exactly match paper white and contrast for printing (not me yet!). Only time will tell if you want or need to make other profiles. I have several profiles I can change to when needed as can be seen on the screen shot below most of the time I stay on the highlighted on as it suits me for general purpose and also printing.

Secondly, regarding the UHD 4K resolution:

I'm having trouble getting my head around the impact the extra resolution will have on my image editing and viewing activities. On my existing 17" FHD laptop, I tend to carry out most of my raw processing at 50% or 100% reproduction. For noise reduction and sharpening, I always work at 100% reproduction.

I'll now be moving to a slightly smaller 15.6" display with much higher resolution. Both of those factors will mean that everything will look much smaller when the same 1:1 scaling is used.

I know that I can configure my operating systems (Windows 10 and Linux Mint 18.3 / 19) to make user interface elements a suitable size. Which leaves me with some questions:

- By configuring scaling in my operating system, does this affect only the user interface elements (text in apps, icons etc.) or everything, including web browser content, images displayed in photo editing software etc.?

- If only the user interface elements are scaled by the operating system, presumably I can configure my preferred browser (Firefox) to scale content?

- For photo processing and editing, will I need to use a higher reproduction level (say, 200% instead of 100%) to assess noise and sharpness in my photos?

I'm sure these are all total "noob" questions, but this is completely new territory for me. I hope you folks will be gentle, but I appreciate any and all input. Also, if there are any other "gotchas" I should be aware of, I'd love to hear them.

Many thanks in advance

Although you will probably eventually yearn for larger screen real estate the advantages of high resolution should not be underplayed I believe the resolution is 3840 x 2160. You should see several differences such as your images should actually appear sharper (the poor lens you may have thought you had may not be as bad as first seen). You should also notice that troublesome noise is not quite as bad as you thought. Most of this should have been apparent when you printed except you probably edited the noise signature anyway

You do not have too much resolution for a person with 20/20 vision you could even manage more at your screen size.

When you worked at 100% zoom you were looking at probably an equivalent of a 300% enlargement of a print (pixel for pixel for a 300 PPI output device) not ideal and quite difficult to make accurate judgement to limit the degree of noise reduction needed and also the degree of optimal sharpening for print. Now you have better resolution to play with and once you have measured and set screen ppi correctly in Photoshop (assume you have) then when you click on print size not only will you see a 1:1 image (limited by screen real estate) you will also see a better representation of the noise and sharpness of the image as it will be in print (close but no real cigar as it will still be less than 360 PPI, but better for sure). Rough calc suggest a screen width around 13.8” and with 3840 pixel your Screen will display just less than Canon standard print resolution 278 ppi vs Canon 300/600 ppi or Epson’s required resolutions. A person with 20/20 vision will have no trouble perceiving added detail and the figures may be doubled without issue as it is believed that we can potentially resolve much higher 720plus ppi to over 1000 ppi suggested

Icons and text in applications can be an issue if not scaleable and Adobe PS was problematical in this respect (I believe things have improved with newer CC versions but no personal experience)

[BigMackCam]

Congratulations on you new tool High resolution and Wide gamut, very nice

Thank you, Tony Every aspect of the machine I ordered - with the exception of the screen resolution - was chosen quite carefully. It's the first time I've been so specific in choosing a PC, and it's a significant investment (for someone like me) that I'm hoping to get 5+ years out of, hopefully more. Intel i7-8750H, Nvidia Quadro P2000, 16GB fast RAM (upgradeable, of course), 512GB PCIe NVMe SSD, 2TB HDD and the UHD 3840x2160 anti-glare DreamColor screen with built-in calibration, and on-site next-day warranty / service. I've had to make some minor sacrifices in other areas of my life to justify and afford buying it, but as I said, it's a fairly long-term and well-thought-through proposition

Yes to both questions - maybe. Once calibrated and the profile in use by windows it should be very suitable for photo editing (colour savvy app such as PS/LR or other). Web browsing should be fine as long as you make sure your browser is colour managed and switched on (should be default but check anyway). Productivity apps should be OK but I have seen some that suffer having been designed originally for sRGB (colour can take a hit displaying on an Adobe RGB gamut monitor, but liveable). If you find anything particularly problematical you should be able to switch the monitor to sRGB emulation anyway. You may want to occassionally switch to sRGB if and when you need to see that others (with colour managed systems) are seeing what you are seeing with your images.

It is quite feasible to build several profiles relating to different needs and uses. Some users will actually profile the monitor to exactly match paper white and contrast for printing (not me yet!). Only time will tell if you want or need to make other profiles. I have several profiles I can change to when needed as can be seen on the screen shot below most of the time I stay on the highlighted on as it suits me for general purpose and also printing.

Fantastic, I'm good with all of that. If the machine allows me to switch to sRGB emulation, that would be excellent. I could probably live without it unless non-colour-managed applications look truly awful, but I would like to be able to see how others might view my photos and documents on narrower gamut monitors, so if that emulation option exists, it would be useful. My productivity work is limited to word processing and spreadsheets, plus the occasional PowerPoint-style presentation, and some software development. I guess I'll have to read the documentation and play around when it's delivered in a few days' time. I do have various display options at home so I'll be able to test how files look on a number of screens.

you will probably eventually yearn for larger screen real estate

For sure, and in fact before I've even received the machine, I know I'd like to acquire a larger external high resolution screen of similar gamut specs. Financial cricumstances and priorities will guide that, though, as with everything

the advantages of high resolution should not be underplayed I believe the resolution is 3840 x 2160. You should see several differences such as your images should actually appear sharper (the poor lens you may have thought you had may not be as bad as first seen). You should also notice that troublesome noise is not quite as bad as you thought. Most of this should have been apparent when you printed except you probably edited the noise signature anyway

So, this is where I start to get a little confused or hazy. Why would sharpness and noise appear differently - is it simply because they're being rendered at a smaller physical size? If I scaled the photo to an equivalent physical size on-screen, wouldn't both aspects appear to be equally as good or bad as when viewed on my old FHD screen, but with an additional downside of being scaled beyond 1:1 resolution?

When you worked at 100% zoom you were looking at probably an equivalent of a 300% enlargement of a print (pixel for pixel for a 300 PPI output device) not ideal and quite difficult to make accurate judgement to limit the degree of noise reduction needed and also the degree of optimal sharpening for print. Now you have better resolution to play with and once you have measured and set screen ppi correctly in Photoshop (assume you have) then when you click on print size not only will you see a 1:1 image (limited by screen real estate) you will also see a better representation of the noise and sharpness of the image as it will be in print (close but no real cigar as it will still be less than 360 PPI, but better for sure)

This makes sense. So for images that I intend to print (where print dpi is typically much higher than screen dpi), I'm in a better position with the higher resolution screen so long as I ensure I've set my ppi correctly in the final output software to allow accurate preview of destined-for-print images. Have I understood that correctly?

Icons and text in applications can be an issue if not scaleable and Adobe PS was problematical in this respect (I believe things have improved with newer CC versions but no personal experience)

OK, sure. I've gone into this part, at least, with my eyes open I'm expecting a few issues here, but will figure those out or learn to live with them. My preferred raw processing software (Darktable) scales well with 4K monitors. I'm not so sure about digiKam 5 which I use for library management, nor GIMP 2.8 as my photo editor, but I can figure those out as required...

Tony, thank you very much for such a detailed and helpful response. It's much appreciated

[stevebrot]

Thanks, Steve. Can I ask you to elaborate on the reasons for that deficiency a little? Is it because I'll have to use a higher reproduction ratio for dealing with noise and sharpening, and therefore I'll have to sit further back to counter the effects of pixelation? Or is there another reason I'm missing?

In case it is not clear, it is not the resolution per se, it is the pixel pitch of the display that is the killer. My laptop has a 14" display running at 1366x768 (~114 px/in). 1080 HD would be nice (in theory), but would look about the same as what I am currently running. If it were 4K, the pitch would be 333 px/in and still look the same as 1080 HD. If I can't tell the difference, how can I possible edit at that pixel pitch?

I know that is a simplistic explanation and some optical sharpie is going to weigh in here and tell me on what points I am wrong and what penance shall be extracted (are Pentax users exempted from purgatory?), but it is the best I can do at the moment.

BTW...I have 20/15 vision.


Steve

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 11-27-2018 at 05:36 PM.

[stevebrot]

I don't have more to add except to congratulate you on your new computer and to give my best wishes that the migration goes well. If the attached monitor works well for you for photo editing, that is super. If not, then cross that bridge when you get there.


Steve

[BigMackCam]

In case it is not clear, it is not the resolution per se, it is the pixel pitch of the display that is the killer. My laptop has a 14" display running at 1366x768 (~114 px/in). 1080 HD would be nice (in theory), but would look about the same as what I am currently running. If it were 4K, the pitch would be 333 px/in and still look the same as 1080 HD. If I can't tell the difference, how can I possible edit at that pixel pitch?

I know that is a simplistic explanation and some optical sharpie is going to weigh in here and tell me on what points I am wrong and what penance shall be extracted (are Pentax users exempted from purgatory?), but it is the best I can do at the moment.

Thanks, Steve. I understand the pixel pitch aspect you describe, and your overall explanation. Based on that, I guess my remaining question, then, would be - how much of a disadvantage would I experience by having to scale my images to more than 100% reproduction during processing for things like noise and sharpening adjustments? No answer required, necessarily - I expect this is something I'll have to figure out for myself in time

I don't have more to add except to congratulate you on your new computer and to give my best wishes that the migration goes well. If the attached monitor works well for you for photo editing, that is super. If not, then cross that bridge when you get there.

Thanks again - much appreciated Whatever the pros and cons of the system I've chosen, I'll have to make it work as all bets have been placed I know it will be better in some respects than what I've been used to, yet perhaps not quite so good - or, at least, more challenging - in others. I suspect how well it works will eventually be down to me and how I leverage its good and bad points

[pschlute]

If the machine allows me to switch to sRGB emulation, that would be excellent. I could probably live without it unless non-colour-managed applications look truly awful, but I would like to be able to see how others might view my photos and documents on narrower gamut monitors,

I am sure your screen can easily switch between AdobeRGB and sRGB. I use a Eizo monitor and the the setting is on the monitor control itself.

As far as "seeing how others will view your images", if you are creating an image that you intend to post to a website such as this one, or your own web hosting platform, you want to be producing that image with a tagged sRGB profile. So you should convert the profile from your "working" profile to sRGB profile at the end of your editing workflow. In any colour managed application such as Photoshop or LR you will then be seeing what others who are are not using a wide gamut monitor will see. No need to change the monitor display to sRGB as your application will be only using the sRGB colour range.

[TonyW]

....
So, this is where I start to get a little confused or hazy. Why would sharpness and noise appear differently - is it simply because they're being rendered at a smaller physical size? If I scaled the photo to an equivalent physical size on-screen, wouldn't both aspects appear to be equally as good or bad as when viewed on my old FHD screen, but with an additional downside of being scaled beyond 1:1 resolution?

Well, I am definitely no optical sharpie (hopefully someone who IS expert in this field will weigh in at sometime) and I would not try to weigh in other than to offer an opinion based on long user experience, including there being no purgatory if you make a mistake

Pixel pitch (distance between pixels) IS a measure of resolution. To resolve something needs at least 2 pixels. What we do not want to see (sorry I will correct that, what I do not want to see) at any viewing distance is individual pixels.

My 24” Eizo measures 20.5” in width with the graphic card output is 1920x1200 (coinciding with LED native resolution). This means my pixel pitch is close enough to 94 ppi. I cannot see individual pixels unless I get too close to comfort to the screen. Still there are not enough pixels to represent my image on screen at print size – my printers output at 300/600 ppi and 360/720 ppi

What this means is, as mentioned earlier is that when I view my images zoomed at 100% I am looking at a much magnified image of a print at 1:1. So not really a good representation of how my print will appear rendering detail. Now if I select view print size (and I have set my application to record my printers required ppi) I see an image or portion of an image that represents 1:1 of my chosen print size for a particular printer. Now my problem is that I am only looking at an image comprised of 94 ppi and the zoom ratio is now 31.33% this limits resolvable detail; my Epson requires 360 ppi or even more if available natively. So I do not really now optimal sharpening or noise reduction until I test print although experience will help to mitigate this.

So what I need ideally is a monitor that will contain pixels that are much closer to my needs of 300 - 360 ppi (I can live without 720 ppi for now) where I can get a better view of how printed output will appear in terms of noise and detail. Accepting that needs and YMMV, particularly if you rarely print.

BTW I do not even have 20/20 vision (not actually sure where I am at) and also waiting for my second eye cataract op and I still with the aid of my reading glasses can appreciate the editing enviroment and usefulness for printing that increased pixel count brings to the table

[beholder3]

Secondly, regarding the UHD 4K resolution:
I'm having trouble getting my head around the impact the extra resolution will have on my image editing and viewing activities. On my existing 17" FHD laptop, I tend to carry out most of my raw processing at 50% or 100% reproduction. For noise reduction and sharpening, I always work at 100% reproduction.

I also use a 4k screen and can say that daily life depends on how well the applications you use have been programmed.
Because some programms either do not scale at all or parts do and others not.
E.g. windows OneDrive here for a long time completely overscaled some windows (I'd say 300% of what it should). Same with the installer programs for my graphics drivers.

You'll need to check/test, what works.

With photos I expect you will have to use much larger magnifications now, to spot the details you used to see. 100% will not cut it.

Do yourself a favour and consider adding an external larger (than 15") screen. 4k TV sets are quite cheap these days and can be easily connected by HDMI or DP to laptops.

[kaseki]

Here is a bit of my oar.

I have a "4K" OLED 55-inch diagonal TV (LG). I am long past the time when my eyes could accommodate to various focal lengths and have had both eye lenses replaced. I have to deliberately get close to the TV screen with suitable "reading" glasses to see the pixels. The 2K 24-inch HP IPS monitor is am typing on is also pretty fine; I need at least two diopters of positive correction to notice that there are pixels at a 2 ft. range. I can't imaging seeing pixels on a 4K 15-inch monitor unless I had at least 4 diopters of correction.

Yes, the eye and brain processing can see detail below the generally accepted resolution limit (around 150 microradians per line pair under ideal conditions), but only when the detail is extended in one dimension (line like). So I think it is fair to say that given the ability due to youth or glasses to focus on the screen from a foot or two range, one can sense a difference in detail between 2K and 4K. However, I would expect that pixel peeping would require magnification to where the image pixel covers several screen pixels.

[stevebrot]

So what I need ideally is a monitor that will contain pixels that are much closer to my needs of 300 - 360 ppi (I can live without 720 ppi for now) where I can get a better view of how printed output will appear in terms of noise and detail. Accepting that needs and YMMV, particularly if you rarely print.

Human vision is the problem, even at highest acuity. Most of us have a physical limit at a pixel pitch of 0.6 - 0.9 arc-minutes.* To do better requires higher cone cell density on our fovea. That is why I suggested increasing viewing distance to simulate higher screen resolution.**

As for print resolution, that is a recurring subject of discussion on this site with a few long-time members reliably asserting that they are able to successfully print big at resolutions as low as 100 dpi. The assertion is quite true since most large prints are viewed at greater distance than small ones allowing for 150 dpi to be adequate. That being said, a native resolution of 300 dpi for higher-end printers is quite the norm and with appropriate paper (low ink spread), that number is quite attainable, allowing for a 20x13" print from a 24Mpx capture having detail that may be appreciated even with a magnifying glass. That is truly impressive and might well improve viewer experience. I can't say, however, that I would like needing a magnifying glass to take advantage of my monitor resolution while evaluating edits at 1:1. A resolution that more closely matches my vision seems more useful. That being said, I am not everyone and as you note, YMMV.


Steve

* Visual acuity - Wikipedia

** It is not immediately obvious that an 1200x800 px image on a 4K display has its lineal dimensions halved compared to same image at 1920x1200 unless up-sampled. The two have the same absolute resolution, but the 4K version is just too teeny.

[stevebrot]

With photos I expect you will have to use much larger magnifications now, to spot the details you used to see. 100% will not cut it.

Yes, this will work by essentially allowing each image pixel to span many display pixels, assuming that the magnification does not include up-sampling.


Steve

[TonyW]

Human vision is the problem, even at highest acuity. Most of us have a physical limit at a pixel pitch of 0.6 - 0.9 arc-minutes.* To do better requires higher cone cell density on our fovea. That is why I suggested increasing viewing distance to simulate higher screen resolution.**

No problem with the physical limits you quote, however there has been a shed load of research pointing out the whys and wherefores of resolution including such as Dr Roger Clark, Jeff Schewe and even Martin Evening. Clark suggests somewhere over 720 ppi.

Visual Acuity and Resolving Detail on Prints
How many pixels are needed to match the resolution of the human eye? Each pixel must appear no larger than 0.3 arc-minute. Consider a 20 x 13.3-inch print viewed at 20 inches. The Print subtends an angle of 53 x 35.3 degrees, thus requiring 53*60/.3 = 10600 x 35*60/.3 = 7000 pixels, for a total of ~74 megapixels to show detail at the limits of human visual acuity.
The 10600 pixels over 20 inches corresponds to 530 pixels per inch, which would indeed appear very sharp. Note in a recent printer test I showed a 600 ppi print had more detail than a 300 ppi print on an HP1220C printer (1200x2400 print dots). I've conducted some blind tests where a viewer had to sort 4 photos (150, 300, 600 and 600 ppi prints). The two 600 ppi were printed at 1200x1200 and 1200x2400 dpi. So far all have gotten the correct order of highest to lowest ppi (includes people up to age 50). See: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/printer-ppi

As for print resolution, that is a recurring subject of discussion on this site with a few long-time members reliably asserting that they are able to successfully print big at resolutions as low as 100 dpi. The assertion is quite true since most large prints are viewed at greater distance than small ones allowing for 150 dpi to be adequate. That being said, a native resolution of 300 dpi for higher-end printers is quite the norm and with appropriate paper (low ink spread), that number is quite attainable, allowing for a 20x13" print from a 24Mpx capture having detail that may be appreciated even with a magnifying glass. That is truly impressive and might well improve viewer experience. I can't say, however, that I would like needing a magnifying glass to take advantage of my monitor resolution while evaluating edits at 1:1. A resolution that more closely matches my vision seems more useful. That being said, I am not everyone and as you note, YMMV.

Print resolution is obvioulsly not well understood by many (paraphrasing Jeff Schewe). As can be seen by the often mention of DPI when referring to print resolution and requirements they are two differrent things. Once again you need to understand that you are not viewing a print that has been printed at 50, 100 or 200 PPI as your printer produces a bit map where it interpolates from your native file size to its required and declared PPI which may be 300 or 360 PPI. In short it takes your image data of whatever you have and produces a bit map using nearest neighbour interpolation

Again very well documented and proven. I have no problem with whatever PPI you want to send or are thinking you are sending further I have no problem with the fact that you can send 150 PPI to the printer. But I would prefer to deal with facts and can only relate my own experience.

I have no wish to argue (or face snitty comment) and I am open to discussion but it may prove useful to provide some links from recoginised authorities to further any discussion

[stevebrot]

I have no wish to argue (or face snitty comment)

Me neither, I consider yours to be the last word.

Steve

(...neither agitated nor annoyed...)

[normhead]

- For photo processing and editing, will I need to use a higher reproduction level (say, 200% instead of 100%) to assess noise and sharpness in my photos?

My wife has a 21 inch 4k iMac. We deem it unacceptable for final processing. Thats close to 200 dpi. We find that too small for adequate image evaluation. My old 27 inch iMac is better for 1:1 viewing at 2650x 1600 or closer to 110 dpi. My experience suggests that's about optimal for editing.

However, I do like editing on the on a 28 inch Samsung 4k monitor bought for use with my MacBook which I suspect is around 160 DPI. So our experience would suggest for monitor and TV use from viewing distance of 24 inches, which is as close as we are likely to look, somewhere between 110 and 160 DPI is going to be practical.

But for viewing, we have our QLED 55 inch 4k, and our normal viewing distance is about 8 feet, 96 inches. Sitting in the Lazy Boy, you can't really tell the difference between a 1920x1080 file and 4k file after resizing by the TV. They are the same size and appear to be the same quality until you move in closer.

You are actually limited in this case, you by the number of pixels the screens, but by the number of pixels your eye can detect, which is estimate to be about 6MP while a 4k picture is 8MP. So in this case, it doesn't matter how many pixels you put up there, your eye doesn't have the capacity to differentiate if you are taking in the whole image. From a normal viewing distance 8k and 4k should look the same.

So my 55" TV at approximately 48 inches across has a density of 80 pixels per inch, which works great from a normal viewing distance and is quite acceptable from couple feet away.

Another take on this topic.
https://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/17/why-you-dont-need-a-4k-tv/

Foremost, the eye can take in only a finite amount of resolution. From a good 6 to 10 feet seating distance, you won’t see a significant difference between a 1080p TV and a popular size 4K TV.

In my estimation, somewhere around 130 DPI is probably the best for editing. That will allow you to see accurate focus etc. at 1:1. Again our judgement call, but 200:1 doesn't. And we base that on being 24 inches from the screen. In my experience, natural 1:1 viewing is better than going to 2:1 for editing on a denser dpi monitor.

As for the 10 inch viewing distance used above, that's just too close.