[TonyW]

For a given display size, there's less pixelation. Just because you increase the monitor resolution doesn't mean the image has to shrink.

Absolutely, and worth noting that even an 8k monitor (7680x4320) will not exceed normal human visual acuity.

A rough example. Assume a 27" monitor with a screen width of 24.5". This equates close to 327 Pixels Per Inch which in turn gives us a minimum viewing distance of around 12" for someone with a 'normal' visual acuity of 20/20.

[Mooncatt]

I have never used a 4k screen, but surely viewing any image at over 100% will give pixelation of some degree ?[COLOR="Silver"]

I haven't used one yet (it's next on my list to upgrade), but the feedback I've received from others in the past was mostly positive when coming from 1080p. My understanding of zooming in is the benefit isn't about viewing beyond 100%, but that you can see a lot more of the image at 100%. That makes it easier to judge the image as a whole with less panning around checking for artifacts.

I will concede that 4K may be overkill right now for most people. It seems many like 1440p/2k. My reasoning for wanting 4K is two fold. My current setup is old and 1080p is about the best it can do. A 4K monitor can scale 1080p directly, without cutting pixels. A 1440p monitor would have to scale in my case, which would cause display related artifacts. The other reason is simply future proofing for when I do upgrade my computer.

[stevebrot]

This equates close to 327 Pixels Per Inch which in turn gives us a minimum viewing distance of around 12" for someone with a 'normal' visual acuity of 20/20.

If you are viewing your 24" monitor at 12", you are sitting too close; either that or you need glasses.


Steve

[stevebrot]

I will concede that 4K may be overkill right now for most people. It seems many like 1440p/2k.

I think that most users on this site want to use their monitors for still photo editing. As such, very fine pixel pitch works against one. The effect is the same as using one's standard HD TV as a monitor at 8' distance. (I tried that once...never again...)


Steve

[TonyW]

If you are viewing your 24" monitor at 12", you are sitting too close; either that or you need glasses.

Steve

No that is an incorrect assumption. The distance is based on viewing an 27" 8k monitor at an optimal distance to see the benefit of a high resolution monitor for a viewer with 20/20 visual acuity. The further away you get from this distance and you will not see the benefit a high resolution monitor brings

So this screen has a width of say 23.5" and a pixel count of 7680, therefore the PPI of this monitor = 326 PPI. The visual acuity distance can be calculated roughly by dividing 3438 by the monitor PPI
3438/326 gives a viewing distance of 10.5" roughly. Closer than my original guess of 12"

Now take the same size monitor but this time a 4k version with a resolution of 3840 x 2160. This monitor has 163 ppi. Visual acuity distance 3438/163 viewing distance around 21"

I am too busy to look up my notes on the calculations for this but you may wish to plug the figures in to a viewing distance calculator such as:

TV Monitor Viewing Distance Calculator – Starico

You really need to sit closer to High resolution TV screen or Monitor than most estimate to see the benefits the added resolution brings.

[pschlute]

The K1 delivers 7360×4912 images, well in excess of the 3840×2160 typical 4K monitor size

True, but when I produce an image for the web I stick to resolution that most web pages can display without a lot of downsizing.

If you upload a 7360x4912 image directly to this site, it will be downsized severely by the forum software to I believe 900 pixels on the tall side, possibly resulting in a less sharp image.

If you upload a 7360x4912 image to a web host that will display it at full size, you are now relying on the average viewers computer software to downsize the image so it can be displayed on the average monitor.

[stevebrot]

No that is an incorrect assumption.

I suggest you try it sometime.* The issue is ergonomics and eyestrain. If you want to sit that close, be prepared to end your shift with a sore neck and a headache.

Addendum: suckered again by off-topic posts...when will I learn...


Steve

(...spent most of the last 25 years working at the computer...the last fifteen, usually with 27" monitors in a 2x or 3x spread...)

* Assuming that 12" distance is not your practice for one reason or another. I had a friend who was extremely myopic and even with his glasses had to have his monitor quite close to read the text.

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 12-22-2020 at 01:31 PM.

[Wheatfield]

I have left my K3 and K1 in default sRGB color space mode, but both have the larger AdobeRGB space available. Most of my images are viewed on a screen only, but occasionally I want to print one that turns out particularly striking.

What do you do: sRGB or AdobeRGB? And why? Does it affect file size? What are the implications for post processing and in particular for printing?

I leave the camera in sRGB. I normally shoot raw and assign pro photo RGB at conversion. If I am taking a jpeg out of the camera for use, sRGB is probably what I want to end up with.

[stevebrot]

I normally shoot raw and assign pro photo RGB at conversion.

If I archive off to 16-bit TIFF, I assign Prophoto RGB as well. There is no sense coercing down until absolutely needed.


Steve

[stevebrot]

I always compare the colors after the color space switching of the raw.

That is one of the nice features in Lightroom. It allows one to soft-proof to a selected colorspace or ICC profile for direct comparison.

When printing, I understand that sRGB is the safest way due to hardware compatibility issues.

That may be true if sending your work out for printing, say with Costco or an Internet print service. If printing yourself there is value to using a color profile specific to your printer and paper choice. If working with a service bureau or high-end print service, they may have specific instructions regarding color space.


Steve

[TonyW]

I suggest you try it sometime.* The issue is ergonomics and eyestrain. If you want to sit that close, be prepared to end your shift with a sore neck and a headache.

Addendum: suckered again by off-topic posts...when will I learn...


Steve

(...spent most of the last 25 years working at the computer...the last fifteen, usually with 27" monitors in a 2x or 3x spread...)

* Assuming that 12" distance is not your practice for one reason or another. I had a friend who was extremely myopic and even with his glasses had to have his monitor quite close to read the text.

Not only have I tried it I have spec. and supplied 5 and 8 Mp monitors for use of radiologists for long sessions. Correct luminosity levels (not super bright out of box) and taking the recommended breaks from screen will eliminate neck, back strain and headaches.

My current 24” monitor resolution is about 94 PPI therefore approx 20” optimal

[Paul the Sunman]

So, in the end I ordered a 2K BenQ SW270C monitor in the Boxing Day sales, with a saving of almost $300. On advice from this thread, I decided 4K was unnecessary. The 99% AdobeRGB coverage, excellent colour management and stability, 10-bit colour depth with 16 bit LUT, available portrait orientation, USB-C connectivity and a 3-yr warranty were all deciding factors. It may take a few weeks to arrive as it is temporarily out of stock, but I'm not in a rush. It will be a big step up from my current low-level 24" LG, which will be repurposed by my wife as a second monitor for CAD.

[TonyW]

Congratulations, sounds like a bargain buy.
Specs. look good. I am sure you will be delighted.
Don’t forget a calibration device if you want to get the best out of monitor and colour managed software

[Paul the Sunman]

Don’t forget a calibration device if you want to get the best out of monitor and colour managed software

I have my eye on the SpyderX Pro. But the monitor comes individually calibrated, so it should be good for a while at least.

[TonyW]

I have my eye on the SpyderX Pro. But the monitor comes individually calibrated, so it should be good for a while at least.

The individual calibrated at factory claims while I am sure correct are misleading. They refer to calibration to BenQ standards and as such are not too relevant to your photography work.

If your need is to match print to screen or even to get some guarantee that a viewer (working with a calibrated monitor) will see what you are seeing (within the limits of their monitor) then you will definitely require calibrator and in your case using the BenQ calibration software which I think is called Palette Master? to set your aim points for brightness in cd/m2, White Point, contrast etc


Set up color calibration setting for color management | BenQ UK