[BigMackCam]

I have a couple of questions about monitors that I hope you folks can help me with.

For many years, I've been using desktop and laptop PCs with screens that display less than, or at best, close to 100% of the sRGB gamut at FHD resolution. For the last five or six years, my daily workhorse PC has been a decent consumer-grade 17" FHD laptop which displays close to 100% sRGB.

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.

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?

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

[pschlute]

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?

I am no expert , but have been using a wide gamut monitor for a while. i only use one profile. Applications that are colour managed work fine... Photoshop; Lightroom; Silkypix; FastPicture Viewer; Firefox Browser (with the correct settings). Applications that are not colour managed will show oversaturated colours including the default picture viewer. If that is a problem your screen should be able to switch between AdobeRGB and sRGB through the monitor controls if it presents a problem.

I think you just use 100% viewing as you did before. If you start looking at an image beyond its 100% scaling you are going to be pixelating it.

[BigMackCam]

I am no expert , but have been using a wide gamut monitor for a while. i only use one profile. Applications that are colour managed work fine... Photoshop; Lightroom; Silkypix; FastPicture Viewer; Firefox Browser (with the correct settings). Applications that are not colour managed will show oversaturated colours including the default picture viewer. If that is a problem your screen should be able to switch between AdobeRGB and sRGB through the monitor controls if it presents a problem.

Thanks. The over-saturation in non-colour-managed apps was my concern... I suspect HP will have provided for that in the screen hardware / firmware, or possibly in Windows 10. If the latter, it'll be interesting to see how (or even if) I can deal with that under linux...

I think you just use 100% viewing as you did before. If you start looking at an image beyond its 100% scaling you are going to be pixelating it.

And I guess therein lies another question... If I just use 100% viewing as before, due to the higher resolution / smaller dimensions / smaller pixel size of the screen, details - including noise and sharpening aspects - are going to appear much smaller and potentially less significant. Which, in turn, means that I may not see any problems so obviously as with my existing screen. In a sense, that means the 4K resolution could actually work against me. At least, that's how I'm interpreting it... but somehow that just doesn't sound right. Can I really be at a disadvantage using a higher resolution screen??

[stevebrot]

I'll now be moving to a slightly smaller 15.6" display with much higher resolution.

You're going to need a larger monitor, much larger, to allow for the higher resolution. While the pixels may be there, most (all?) people's eyes are not able to resolve detail at that fine a pixel pitch on a 15.6" display. This will be true even at 100% (1:1 pixel mapping). For example, I currently use a 24" monitor running at 1920x1200 with a viewing distance of about 26" and can barely discern the individual pixels at that pitch of ~96px/in. To do the same with a 4K monitor would require about 40" horizontal at the same viewing distance. Yes, that is silly, but if it were me, I would be aiming at one of the popular 27" displays.

Edit: I might also seriously consider a more modest resolution if the computer will not be used for watching movies or gaming, say a wide gamut 1920x1200 24".


Steve

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 11-27-2018 at 03:35 PM.

[BigMackCam]

You're going to need a larger monitor, much larger, to allow for the higher resolution. While the pixels may be there, most (all?) people's eyes are not able to resolve detail at that fine a pixel pitch on a 15.6" display. This will be true even at 100% (1:1 pixel mapping).


Steve

Thanks, Steve...

Given that, what's the point of a 4K 15.6" screen, if any?

Frankly, I didn't select this screen for the resolution, but for the colour gamut. I'd have been just as happy - happier, perhaps - if I could have chosen an FHD resolution screen with the same gamut, but such an option wasn't available on this or any other laptop I considered. So I'm OK with the fact that I might not get any advantage from a higher resolution screen of this physical size. But I'm hoping that I haven't actually reduced the quality of my photo editing experience by choosing it...

[pschlute]

Given that, what's the point of a 4K 15.6" screen, if any?

Watching videos and gaming

[BigMackCam]

Watching videos and gaming

OK... gaming isn't of interest to me... I grew up when Space Invaders and Asteroids were high tec, and I've never advanced (or wanted to advance) further than that

But then, my last question still stands:

Can I really be at a disadvantage using a higher resolution screen for photo editing? At least, a 15.6" one?

[pschlute]

Thanks. The over-saturation in non-colour-managed apps was my concern... I suspect HP will have provided for that in the screen hardware / firmware, or possibly in Windows 10. If the latter, it'll be interesting to see how (or even if) I can deal with that under linux

At first I found it a distraction, but got used to it very quickly. I just don't see it now. The important thing is your colour managed aps will be displaying correctly. You use firefox so follow these instructions to set colour management correctly: How to configure Firefox color management

[stevebrot]

Frankly, I didn't select this screen for the resolution, but for the colour gamut.

I edited my comment with the suggestion that a broad gamut 24" (1920x1200...1080 is not enough) might have greater utility if not gaming or watching movies. Such would not be a laptop screen (obviously), but something you would use at home with a docking station or some such.


Steve

[rgknief60]

Congrats on your purchase.


There are times I really like my high DPI laptop display, especially when viewing video. But I'm not as much of a fan as I thought I'd be. It's sort of a love/hate relationship.


I have a older workstation with 3200x1800 resolution, 15". I got it primarily for it's processing power. It is not a panel for pixel peeping, even though the color calibration is far superior to the old 1920x1200 laptop panel. The dot pitch is so fine it is hard for me to evaluate image sharpness. Part of the issue may be my aging eyes.


If I enlarge an image, I now have several pixels displaying the single pixel that was displayed on my older 1920x1200 17" laptop display. Makes things softer. I purchased a 4K display to replace the 3200x1800 display on the laptop but never installed it as I found that programs like Adobe Photoshop CS6 are not high DPI aware, and the text and icons in those programs are at the limit of what I can discern.


I just went the opposite direction and got a external 24" 1920x1200 Cyber Monday monitor for editing.


I emailed a few images to work edited or viewed on my 3200x1800 display for wallpaper on my work 1920x1080 display. It was somewhat of a shock. The images were not nearly as even in tone and sharp as I thought. Makes me wonder what the images I've posted on Flickr and here on the forum look like to folks with a regular display.

A year ago I helped Dad purchase a 43" 4K TV to use as a monitor for regular office work. He is very happy with it. His previous display was 1280x1024, 16 or 17". He is so happy he can open multiple windows! If I could afford a 4K 40" color calibrated monitor for photo editing, that is where I would be.


Hopefully you have excellent eyes capable of discerning detail at the pixel level on a display that fine!

Cheers!

Roger

[BigMackCam]

At first I found it a distraction, but got used to it very quickly. I just don't see it now. The important thing is your colour managed aps will be displaying correctly. You use firefox so follow these instructions to set colour management correctly: How to configure Firefox color management

Thanks for that.

I already profile my existing laptop's display (and my external monitor) and configure my apps - including Firefox - to use those profiles, so I'm used to that aspect, at least

[stevebrot]

Can I really be at a disadvantage using a higher resolution screen for photo editing? At least, a 15.6" one?

Yes, you will be quite deficient when doing sharpening and also when evaluating for artifact. Think of using your current setup at a distance of at least twice where you normally sit.


Steve

[aaacb]

It could be an advantage because you'll see noise and details closer in terms of ppi to how it would look printed (a guess I'm making without calculating). Or you could set the new monitor to render 1080p, and check if scaling makes it blurrier than it would be on a 1080 display?

[pschlute]

Thanks for that.

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 !!

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

[BigMackCam]

There are times I really like my high DPI laptop display, especially when viewing video. But I'm not as much of a fan as I thought I'd be. It's sort of a love/hate relationship.


I have a older workstation with 3200x1800 resolution, 15". I got it primarily for it's processing power. It is not a panel for pixel peeping, even though the color calibration is far superior to the old 1920x1200 laptop panel. The dot pitch is so fine it is hard for me to evaluate image sharpness. Part of the issue may be my aging eyes.


If I enlarge an image, I now have several pixels displaying the single pixel that was displayed on my older 1920x1200 17" laptop display. Makes things softer. I purchased a 4K display to replace the 3200x1800 display on the laptop but never installed it as I found that programs like Adobe Photoshop CS6 are not high DPI aware, and the text and icons in those programs are at the limit of what I can discern.


I just went the opposite direction and got a external 24" 1920x1200 Cyber Monday monitor for editing.


I emailed a few images to work edited or viewed on my 3200x1800 display for wallpaper on my work 1920x1080 display. It was somewhat of a shock. The images were not nearly as even in tone and sharp as I thought. Makes me wonder what the images I've posted on Flickr and here on the forum look like to folks with a regular display.

Roger, thank you... You've more-or-less perfectly summarised my concern regarding the resolution aspect. It sounds like I have some experimentation and adaptation ahead of me I do wish there had been an option on my chosen laptop for a wider gamut but lower resolution display...

Yes, you will be quite deficient when doing sharpening and also when evaluating for artifact. Think of using your current setup at a distance of at least twice where you normally sit.

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?

It could be an advantage because you'll see noise and details closer in terms of ppi to how it would look printed (a guess I'm making without calculating). Or you could set the new monitor to render 1080p, and check if scaling makes it blurrier than it would be on a 1080 display?

Thank you. So this is another aspect I was considering... I assume (though I don't know if this is correct) that I'll be able to select lower resolution rendering at the operating system level so that everything - OS and apps - are displayed at that lower resolution rather than making use of the screen's native resolution. But I also assume this would give a rather inconsistent and potentially inaccurate rendering of both user interface elements and images?

I guess my main concern in all of this is: I want to process my images on this new machine and its built-in 15.6" 4K screen, and be sure that they'll look good when I view them on FHD screens too. Is that even possible, or will I have to edit on a lower resolution screen to ensure things display well on both FHD and UHD 4K?