High-end 2K or Low-end 4K Monitor ?

Defiance

Defiance

Green and Hairy
Messages
2,096
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone,

I'm buying a monitor to hook up to my laptop. It's a Dell XPS9550 with 4K, a GTX960 Graphics card and Thunderbolt 3 port.

The monitor will be used primarily for photo and video editing and I'm looking at 27" Screen. I have the full Adobe photo and editing suite.

Here's the question that would appreciate views and advice on:

Would I be better with a higher end 2K monitor e.g. Dell U2715H or a lower end 4K monitor (defined as less than £500) ?

What are you experiences with either or both ?
 
An top end 1920x 1200 16:10 panel around the £300 mark is where it be looking.

Having said that, an IPS 4k panel with a spider or sorts (colour checking and calibrating device) can also yeild great results.

To be fair, any IPS panel screen that allows to be adjusted on screen and then tweaked in software is going to look great so on second thoughts go with a 4k panel and get a calibration tool. It may extend on budget but you'll then have a panel for life (or as long as it's reasonably expected to last).
 
Don't forget to think about, how various software looks, on a higher resolution 4k display, i.e. size of panels, text, in Lightroom, etc.
 
johnnypanic said:
Don't forget to think about, how various software looks, on a higher resolution 4k display, i.e. size of panels, text, in Lightroom, etc.
Click to expand...

Very true. I notice this now on the 15" laptop screen, particularly with CC as it's can scale but isn't perfect i the execution. Scaling does seem to help and would presume it looks larger on 27" than 15"?
 
Defiance said:
Dell U2715H
Click to expand...

I certainly wouldn't consider sRGB monitor as "high end". For web only application it will be OK. For now. Its a bit like being the last person to buy VHS system.

Andrew Moore said:
An top end 1920x 1200 16:10 panel around the £300 mark is where it be looking.

Having said that, an IPS 4k panel with a spider or sorts (colour checking and calibrating device) can also yeild great results.

To be fair, any IPS panel screen that allows to be adjusted on screen and then tweaked in software is going to look great so on second thoughts go with a 4k panel and get a calibration tool. It may extend on budget but you'll then have a panel for life (or as long as it's reasonably expected to last).
Click to expand...

QHD has visible pixelation. Full HD will be totally awful at 27".

Defiance said:
lower end 4K monitor
Click to expand...

Bare minimum IPS type panel with 99% sRGB or you might as well take up painting.
 
Thanks everyone.

Agree HD is not going to be enough at 27". Have had iMacs in the past and they have been great at 2k and 27", bearing in mind i'm not a pro and don't print commercially.

2K IPS at 100% sRGB (c. £250-300) or cheap IPS 4k (c. £450), although the reviews of the latter are much more inconsistent than the 2k reviews.
 
I've had both 2k and 5k 27" iMacs and aside from the better colour accuracy in the newer screens I actually find 5k a bit of overkill for photo editing - you have to zoom to 200% to see any detail.

2k and good colour accuracy would be a good choice I think.
 
2k IS 1920x1080/1200 so with that in mind all I am seeing is contradictions here. It's either good enough or it isn't.

2.5k is 2560x1440/1600.

UHD is 3840x2160.

4k if we are going to get into the picky nature of this post is classed as UHD, (mentioned above) or DCI. DCI is 4096x2160 and that's what I use with an Eizo 31inch production monitor.


As has been said, if the monitor supports SRGB to a high percentage or goes beyond any range defined by 100% then that monitor with antweak from a screen calibration device will be fine.
 
Nawty said:
I've had both 2k and 5k 27" iMacs and aside from the better colour accuracy in the newer screens I actually find 5k a bit of overkill for photo editing - you have to zoom to 200% to see any detail.

2k and good colour accuracy would be a good choice I think.
Click to expand...

Thank you, that's a very helpful real world perspective on the differences. It's the scaling in 4k and the immaturity of it still that puts me off.


Andrew Moore said:
2k IS 1920x1080/1200 so with that in mind all I am seeing is contradictions here. It's either good enough or it isn't.

2.5k is 2560x1440/1600.

UHD is 3840x2160.

4k if we are going to get into the picky nature of this post is classed as UHD, (mentioned above) or DCI. DCI is 4096x2160 and that's what I use with an Eizo 31inch production monitor.


As has been said, if the monitor supports SRGB to a high percentage or goes beyond any range defined by 100% then that monitor with antweak from a screen calibration device will be fine.
Click to expand...


It's a funny one. Literally it's 2.5k, although the market generally calls it 2K or QHD or 1440p when marketing the monitors. It's QHD 2560 x 1440p with 100% sRGB that i'm looking at.
 
Most of the production facilities I've been to and seen operated have the 1080/1200 panels at 24" or they seem to use 27/31" panels at UHD/4k.

I couldn't comment on sole traders though as they (and I mean this as nice as I possibly can without trying to sound like an ass) just aren't worth my time due to the commercials surrounding what is a benefit in terms of visit/time spent with a customer relative to return on investment.

The matrix systems that get rolled out are either 1080p, 1080p dual screen and used for monitorint or are 4k with the facility to work with DCI 4:4:4:4 10bit+ quality levels over a network.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top