# Are 4K computer screens worth it



## BananaRepublic (May 25, 2016)

Hello again,

Following on from my thread, iMac for all Occasions, Advise please !!! , I would like to find out if 4K screens are actually suitable for photo editing I read somewhere that the Mac 4K, and I presume other makes, are not entirely suitable for image editing as they don't display in Adobe Rgb. 

I mean I know I will be able to see the image but is the reason for forking out misguided or have I got the wrong end of the stick. My current Mac Pro doesn't have an " all hail Sir Henry Von Retina Display" and  I don't think my images have suffered cause of it.

Opinions Please


----------



## waday (May 25, 2016)

As I said in your other thread, I personally don't think the more expensive screens are worth it, especially if you're budget conscious.

That said, I don't know much about screens, so.... here's a link to a website that looks like the person knows what they're talking about (it should jump to the 4K section). How to choose a monitor for photo editing by Arnaud Frich


----------



## smoke665 (May 25, 2016)

I connect via HDMI cable to my 4k Vizio tv when I want to see my images in large detail. Works great. Just a thought if you want to get an idea of the difference.


----------



## Antithesis (Jun 2, 2016)

I use a large HD screen on my desktop and have a 4K, 100% adobeRGB screen on my laptop. Images on my laptop look three dimensional... they look much sharper and have so much more depth. Editing is much more rewarding, and the images almost look like a print compared to a 72DPI monitor. 

The trade off is that it can require a lot more processing power to view the previews in Lightroom.


----------



## KmH (Jun 3, 2016)

Does anyone still make 72 PPI computer displays?

Dell's cheapest ($225) UltraSharp UZ2315H display is 87 PPI on the width (1920 pixels x 1080 pixels).
1920 pixels (pixels - not dots) @ 22 inches wide = 87 PPI.

Dell's $1800 UP3216Q - 3840 pixels x 2160 pixels - is 130 PPI on the width.

Consider the display type - TN, PVA, IPS - and backlight type instead of focusing on 4K, or not.
*4K is just a marketing buzzword*.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jun 10, 2016)

KmH said:


> Does anyone still make 72 PPI computer displays?
> 
> Dell's cheapest ($225) UltraSharp UZ2315H display is 87 PPI on the width (1920 pixels x 1080 pixels).
> 1920 pixels (pixels - not dots) @ 22 inches wide = 87 PPI.
> ...



I know that but with these 4 and 5k screens are part of iMacs


----------



## Braineack (Jun 10, 2016)

you will notice a display that has greater than 1080p.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 10, 2016)

I definitely noticed a difference with my 5K display.

If you are a Windows user you might want to read this however. 
Pixel problems: Living with a 5K monitor isn’t all it’s cracked up to be (yet)


----------



## unpopular (Jun 10, 2016)

KmH said:


> Does anyone still make 72 PPI computer displays?
> 
> Dell's cheapest ($225) UltraSharp UZ2315H display is 87 PPI on the width (1920 pixels x 1080 pixels).
> 1920 pixels (pixels - not dots) @ 22 inches wide = 87 PPI.
> ...



A 10" VGA monitor would be about 72ppi, and I think that this is where that came from. But you're absolutely correct. The notion that monitors display at a given pixel pitch is not accurate unless you're editing photos on a Mac Classic. I remember doing this math back in the late 90s and reaching the same conclusion. Most monitors are closer to 80-90ppi, and obviously smaller monitors with similar resolution will have a higher pitch.



> Consider the display type - TN, PVA, IPS - and backlight type instead of focusing on 4K, or not.
> *4K is just a marketing buzzword*.



This isn't to say resolution shouldn't be considered.

Another thing to think about is aspect ratio. I have a ultrawide monitor (slightly greater than 2K), it's not the best monitor ever, but it's really nice to use, especially if you're working on several projects at once, spend a lot of time (and money) on tutorials, or work with time-based media.I don't think i'd ever want to go back to 16:9 after switching to 21:9. I'd highly recommend a nice ultrawide.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 25, 2016)

Just ordered a new 4K monitor for my b-day.  Ill let you know how it is--remember you need a GPU that can support it as well.

Going from 21.5" 1080p to 28" 2160p

1920 x 1080 = 2,072,600 pixels
3840 x 2160 = 8,294,400 pixels

*4 times the pixels is marketing buzz!  Just like the Canon 5Dr.*


----------



## bribrius (Jun 25, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> I connect via HDMI cable to my 4k Vizio tv when I want to see my images in large detail. Works great. Just a thought if you want to get an idea of the difference.


What I do but to be honest usually too lazy for even that and just edit off the laptop


----------



## tecboy (Jun 26, 2016)

Can't wait for Super Ultra HD like 8K or 16K.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 2, 2016)

*Marketing Buzz:*




 
*
*
1080p screen compared to 2160p screen.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 2, 2016)

or how about looking at a picture at 1:1?


----------



## tecboy (Jul 2, 2016)

I bought a new 1080 monitor.  The 4K gives me eyes strain, for some reason.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 2, 2016)

Um, wouldn't you need a 4k display to be able to actually tell the difference?  Just curious.  

I personally love my 27" 5K display. (2880p)


----------



## tecboy (Jul 2, 2016)

I'm happy with 1080p.  Personally,  I can't tell the difference from 1080p and 4K.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 2, 2016)

tecboy said:


> I'm happy with 1080p.  Personally,  I can't tell the difference from 1080p and 4K.


Bet your 2 month old nephew can.  That's why you need to buy him a 4k monitor when you give him that DSLR.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 2, 2016)

tecboy said:


> I'm happy with 1080p.  Personally,  I can't tell the difference from 1080p and 4K.


impossible.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 2, 2016)

Braineack said:


> or how about looking at a picture at 1:1?
> 
> View attachment 124234
> 
> View attachment 124235



THIS!

It's not so much about image quality, but rather screen real estate.


----------

