Thoughts on this monitor

Messages
6,817
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
I've used imacs for years so my knowledge of standalone monitors is hopelessly out of date. Moving to a macbook air M1 and a separate monitor so need to choose one. Most of the time it will be used for my Mrs' work which is general MS office type stuff but it will also be my photo editing computer and other half does the odd bit of video editing.

Current imac is 27" but pre retina.

Search so far has been centred on 4k IPS panels of 27" +

Been considering this as it seems to offer good value and features.


But have some concerns about going for something as large as this for day to day use. Maybe unatural at typical viewing distances? Also, I guess with something so large, some 'crispness' will be lost. Response time seems higher than some but I'm not sure how important this is.

The appeal of that one is that it has built in speakers and usb-c power through connection so we would not need a separate hub and speakers which is appealing in terms of reducing clutter.

But maybe we'd be better with a separate hub and a more sensibly sized monitor? Which actually might also be cheaper overall.
 
OP
gad-westy
Messages
6,817
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
You'll just have to sit back further. Like 1m away which is not a bad thing... at 4k it's not that detailed so you will have no choice. Colour gamut is more concerning at just merely around srgb
Cheers. I'm clueless on colour gamut. What should I be aiming for?

This Ben Q model is also on the radar. Don't think it does through charging for USB-C but I'm coming to the conclusion that a separate external hub is going to be more practical for us anyway.

 

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
15,759
Name
[Censored] Fruitcake
Edit My Images
No
Cheers. I'm clueless on colour gamut. What should I be aiming for?

This Ben Q model is also on the radar. Don't think it does through charging for USB-C but I'm coming to the conclusion that a separate external hub is going to be more practical for us anyway.

IF you do any printing or want future proofing you should be aiming as close as possible to 100% adobeRGB and / or DCI-P3 (they are pretty close).

The Benq is VA, not IPS. It was always regarded as a far inferior option; I am not sure if they caught up but wouldn't want to risk at that price point. The rest of the specs would be OK. There is one terrible review on amazon and sounds like they know what they are talking about while the rest are like gamers...

It looks like the choice is quite poor this year, and the middle of the road editing displays from LG and their rebadged copies have pretty much disappeared. You still have overpriced options like Dell PremierColor or HP Z line. It sounds like you may have to make compromises on either features, quality or price.
 
OP
gad-westy
Messages
6,817
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
Just a thought.....if you have to sit further away from the monitor because its so big, will you be able to reach the desk to operate the mousse? (Obviously there's a typo there but it looks quite amusing)
Yeah. I'm not sure. I can se the appeal for games and probably photo editing but day to day emails, spreadseets, word docs etc. I'm starting to feel its not a great idea.I maybe a got a bit carried away as that monitor looked like good value next to smaller alternatives.

Perhaps better to focus on 27-32" options. but would't mind a steer on what the key specs to look for are.
 

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
18,798
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
I'd really focus for editing much more on colour gamut and less on size and resolution. You are far better off with a 27inch QHD resolution if it gets you 99% plus aRGB coverage over say a 32inch 4 screen which doesn't. You can always drive a second, or third screen if your GPU allows it. Remember, if you use adobe you are using the pro photo colour space - which is a lot wider even than sRGB - sadly I am not sure of any screens that give full pro photo space



Colour gamut (range) is everything.

QHD is fine, even on 27inc screens. 32inch I'd want 4k given the extra size, 43 inch I wouldn't thank you for for computing unless I was gaming.

I've heard mixed reviews re BENQ quality control so I went all out for this Eizo...


No 4k though but using a 27inch QHD screen and pixelation is not a problem at a normal viewing distance. I have to ram my nose into the screen to actually see them. If you need to check sharpness, quality of focus, you will always preview the image at 100% on whatever imaging software you use.

If you need 4k this

 
Last edited:
OP
gad-westy
Messages
6,817
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
Cheers Steve. Primary use is really Mrs' work so I need to be a bit careful not to go overkill here. The photo editing is important to me but I don't want to get too carried away. Been using a 2011 imac for 8+ years and not really had much to complain about so I would think most modern IPS panels would seem a good step up. 4K probably more important to us for video than photo editing but I can't justify £1400 on a monitor or I may as well just wait for Apple to bring out new ARM imacs and save some money.

So, in context so I can get a feel for the scale, 95% gamut of the Ben Q linked to earlier will be a dissapointment? But it looks like our current iMac is rated at only 75% ish.

Maybe something like this at more sensible money. Claimed 100% range.
 

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
15,759
Name
[Censored] Fruitcake
Edit My Images
No
I am not sure of any screens that give full pro photo space
Absolutely none. It is a container space to stop it "spilling over" during editing. It is unlikely it will be challenged by the displays or printers any time soon. Rec2020 is what you are looking for in the more distant future.

Remember, if you use adobe you are using the pro photo colour space
and obviously it doesn't work like that. adobe is adobe and that is that.

QHD is fine, even on 27inc screens.
Acceptable is the term I would use, and just barely. I would not want to go back to that arrangement. Apple has been at and over 4K for around a decade now. I just figure there is a reason for that.

32inch I'd want 4k given the extra size,
It is an absolute minimum. Sadly as I found out the OS support is abysmal for that combination on either mac or windows. It is OK for editing, but generally you will have to get used to considerably smaller text and everything else... or else your editing will be so crippled you wished you bought the nearly 20 yo QHD 27" design.

Ideally 32 should be 6k to be retina grade. The benefits are also that you can edit full res 4K video inside it. Now that doesn't happen till you pay car money for it.
 

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
15,759
Name
[Censored] Fruitcake
Edit My Images
No
Cheers Steve. Primary use is really Mrs' work so I need to be a bit careful not to go overkill here. The photo editing is important to me but I don't want to get too carried away. Been using a 2011 imac for 8+ years and not really had much to complain about so I would think most modern IPS panels would seem a good step up. 4K probably more important to us for video than photo editing but I can't justify £1400 on a monitor or I may as well just wait for Apple to bring out new ARM imacs and save some money.

So, in context so I can get a feel for the scale, 95% gamut of the Ben Q linked to earlier will be a dissapointment? But it looks like our current iMac is rated at only 75% ish.

Maybe something like this at more sensible money. Claimed 100% range.
How about 2021 IMAC? It will have a nearly free pro level screen built in.
 
Messages
1,562
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
Yes
Fwiw I’m using two screens, a BenQ 4K screen a the general desktop and a second hand Eizo for detailed edits. Both calibrated, the Eizo even though old is better, the BenQ is pretty good.
 
Messages
5,864
Name
Lewis
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm in a similar situation and the two frontrunners for me are LG 27UL850-W and Dell U2720Q.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,000
Edit My Images
Yes
Acceptable is the term I would use, and just barely. I would not want to go back to that arrangement. Apple has been at and over 4K for around a decade now. I just figure there is a reason for that.
It's more for video editors than stills I think.
So using final cut Pro for example on a 5K iMac you can run your video at full-res @4K and have your controls on the side.

QHD is perfectly fine/acceptable at 27inch having ran it side-by-side with my 5K iMac which is really the highest size I'd personally go for (unless it's one of those ultra wide curved ones).
But if one can afford a higher Res screen with a good colour support then no reason not to go for one. Much better for future proofing as you put it above.
 
Last edited:
Messages
21
Name
Adrian
Edit My Images
Yes
I had to use my 32 inch tv as a monitor for a short while and found that it was great for games at the usual tv distance, However when it came to doing work with it and sitting the usual distance from it as I would from a monitor, it was way too big to take the whole screen in. Sitting at normal tv distance to do the work I had problems seeing the words on the screen, Although you can increase the document size to a readable level the real issue for me was the wording for each icon function.

Hope that makes sense and helps
 

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
15,759
Name
[Censored] Fruitcake
Edit My Images
No
It's more for video editors than stills I think.
So using final cut Pro for example on a 5K iMac you can run your video at full-res @4K and have your controls on the side.

QHD is perfectly fine/acceptable at 27inch having ran it side-by-side with my 5K iMac which is really the highest size I'd personally go for (unless it's one of those ultra wide curved ones).
But if one can afford a higher Res screen with a good colour support then no reason not to go for one. Much better for future proofing as you put it above.
I think you don't want to rule out properly editing 4K video at this point, let alone rule out watching 4K content... 4K is now a mainstream spec... it is not a good idea to miss it. 5K is the fancy upgrade. Only shame about apple's mirror gloss.

Re curved ones. Terrible. Terrible. Terrible. Why is that even a thing? Why would you sacrifice your perfect geometry and for what precisely?

I had to use my 32 inch tv as a monitor for a short while and found that it was great for games at the usual tv distance, However when it came to doing work with it and sitting the usual distance from it as I would from a monitor, it was way too big to take the whole screen in. Sitting at normal tv distance to do the work I had problems seeing the words on the screen, Although you can increase the document size to a readable level the real issue for me was the wording for each icon function.

Hope that makes sense and helps
There is a distance for everything. 32" ones are quite good around 50-60cm away. As I said the text is a bit too small but still readable. In some apps you can increase it. Just leave the overall scaling (i.e. for graphics) well alone. Higher res / retina doesn't have the same issue so there comes the 5K/ 6K or even 8K for such large displays.

Today you could probably find some half decent older options like this acer https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Acer-Pro...617195?hash=item1a92a7c12b:g:1ugAAOSwq4leHcz6
or LG https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LG-32UD9...538723?hash=item4db8c71d63:g:bGEAAOSwlPleRB5A
I probably wouldn't recommend my own Acer BM320 because they cut corners with build quality and there is like only 1 setting where is calibrates properly but luckily it is the one that perfectly suits the editing needs. There is like not a single new display under 2K that I would even remotely consider. May as well get the imac then.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,000
Edit My Images
Yes
I think you don't want to rule out properly editing 4K video at this point, let alone rule out watching 4K content... 4K is now a mainstream spec... it is not a good idea to miss it. 5K is the fancy upgrade. Only shame about apple's mirror gloss.

Re curved ones. Terrible. Terrible. Terrible. Why is that even a thing? Why would you sacrifice your perfect geometry and for what precisely?
Definitely wouldn't want to rule it out.

From the experiences I have heard and read apparently they do feel "more natural" to use especially when you are staring at the screen for extended periods of time. Apparently it's more ergonomic for the way your eyes work.
I have never used one to comment on one way or the other. May be it's just a gimmick.

Then there a bunch of talk of curved sensors making things for optics. So that kinda makes think these is something in these curved monitors.

Do you have any experience?
 

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
15,759
Name
[Censored] Fruitcake
Edit My Images
No
Do you have any experience?
I've seen one at my client's. 32" awful cheap low res samsung. The curvature is very strong and you'll have to stare at it from 20cm and feel dizzy how nothing looks sharp. I will never ever consider anything that deforms the view. I very well remember the days when TFT LCD took over from curveball CRT and it was a revolution. Flatness was the main driver. Ever since then some oddball model would come out trying to curve it the other way round and it was never accepted mainstream.
 

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
18,798
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
I've seen one at my client's. 32" awful cheap low res samsung. The curvature is very strong and you'll have to stare at it from 20cm and feel dizzy how nothing looks sharp. I will never ever consider anything that deforms the view. I very well remember the days when TFT LCD took over from curveball CRT and it was a revolution. Flatness was the main driver. Ever since then some oddball model would come out trying to curve it the other way round and it was never accepted mainstream.
I have a friend with a curve screen TV and I categorically refuse to watch TV on it. I loathe the thing with all my being. It makes for an awful TV view experience, a dreadful gaming thing (I played Forza on it once and packed it in. The screen is basically bent and it actually has the affect of shrinking your viewing size.

To even consider any sort of editing on one of these things...no way jose...

For a monitor I wouldn't bother with anything bigger than 32 and honestly the pixel pitch of QHD 27 is fine for still editing.

For a TV though - even 4k or 8k 85 inch money no object.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,000
Edit My Images
Yes
The screen is basically bent and it actually has the affect of shrinking your viewing size.
I think that's the point. It gives a normal view in 3D as supposed to a distorted stretched view of a flat screen. So it's easier on your eyes. Just as most things you are used to it won't feel natural upfront.
The same ideology applies for curved sensors whereby you'll need less optical corrections to make a flat image circle projection.

We definitely don't live in a 2D/flat world. So I can see the logic behind such things. But without having tried it for a few days or a week or so I can't bring myself to invest in one.

I've seen one at my client's. 32" awful cheap low res samsung. The curvature is very strong and you'll have to stare at it from 20cm and feel dizzy how nothing looks sharp. I will never ever consider anything that deforms the view. I very well remember the days when TFT LCD took over from curveball CRT and it was a revolution. Flatness was the main driver. Ever since then some oddball model would come out trying to curve it the other way round and it was never accepted mainstream.
Hmmm yes good point. Flatness in screen was definitely desirable. I remember my parents buying a flat screen TV for the first time.
May be it's just a gimmick but one I'd like to at least try for a few days before making up my mind.
 

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
15,759
Name
[Censored] Fruitcake
Edit My Images
No
I think that's the point. It gives a normal view in 3D as supposed to a distorted stretched view of a flat screen. So it's easier on your eyes. Just as most things you are used to it won't feel natural upfront.
The same ideology applies for curved sensors whereby you'll need less optical corrections to make a flat image circle projection.

We definitely don't live in a 2D/flat world. So I can see the logic behind such things. But without having tried it for a few days or a week or so I can't bring myself to invest in one.
The whole IT thing is essentially still 2D. And it's flat by design. The txt editor simulates a flat sheet of paper although that is perhaps the area where it matters the least (you can bend the paper too). Moving on to photography all our output is mounted flat on the wall. The cameras project images on flat sensor. Most sensible TVs are flat. Now why would you want to make your life difficult and edit via distorted geometry? Makes no sense just like using TN monitor for the same. I hope I don't have to explain in detail.

You can get the horrible experience of curved in some cinema theatres. Well maybe now you cant. Made me feel sick last time I had to sit through one. Perhaps it's cheaper tech, but it's damn awful.

Companies make all sort of stupid products in attempts to differentiate and grab some quick new market share. And some customers rush into bad decisions. Likewise we still have mirror glossy displays (apple I'm looking at you) and they create real usability issues, but perhaps look better in-store and hence sell well
 
Messages
9,432
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
Yes
Cheers Steve. Primary use is really Mrs' work so I need to be a bit careful not to go overkill here. The photo editing is important to me but I don't want to get too carried away. Been using a 2011 imac for 8+ years and not really had much to complain about so I would think most modern IPS panels would seem a good step up. 4K probably more important to us for video than photo editing but I can't justify £1400 on a monitor or I may as well just wait for Apple to bring out new ARM imacs and save some money.

So, in context so I can get a feel for the scale, 95% gamut of the Ben Q linked to earlier will be a dissapointment? But it looks like our current iMac is rated at only 75% ish.
I swapped from using a 2010 iMac to using a Win10 box with this Benq monitor. Very happy with it. It's bright and sharp though a little bluer than other screens.. IMO for most real world use it's a great monitor.

(I've mentioned before that most of my photographic work ends up on office computer screens so I prefer a monitor that looks like what my average client has rather than full photo accuracy - if you're doing a lot of high accuracy printing then you may want to look at a more pro pec monitor. If it looks great on the Benq it will look great in an office)

This will give you an idea - bear in mind there's a window just out of shot on the left of the screen and the light is filtered through cream coloured blinds which is probably causing more colour shift on the left hand than the monitor itself :) Other monitors are elderly Dells

20210102_111931.jpg
 

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
15,759
Name
[Censored] Fruitcake
Edit My Images
No
I swapped from using a 2010 iMac to using a Win10 box with this Benq monitor. Very happy with it. It's bright and sharp though a little bluer than other screens.. IMO for most real world use it's a great monitor.

(I've mentioned before that most of my photographic work ends up on office computer screens so I prefer a monitor that looks like what my average client has rather than full photo accuracy - if you're doing a lot of high accuracy printing then you may want to look at a more pro pec monitor. If it looks great on the Benq it will look great in an office)

This will give you an idea - bear in mind there's a window just out of shot on the left of the screen and the light is filtered through cream coloured blinds which is probably causing more colour shift on the left hand than the monitor itself :) Other monitors are elderly Dells

View attachment 304054
Is this after calibration?!
 
Last edited:
Top