Anyone looked into 4K monitors

I am still in need of up dating my monitor - been looking at buying the NEC 30" Wide Gamut LED Desktop Monitor with SpectraView II - price has dropped to about $2,000 now but they also have a NEC MultiSync EA304WMI 30" Class IPS LED Monitor which covers 99.3% of Adobe sRGB but does not have calibration included at $1,500. but to add to choices Dell has a wide gamut 32" 4K monitor at about $2,200 that covers 99% of Adobe sRGB - only seen two reviews one really bad and on good. With the new really high resolution cameras - these 4 K monitors should really start help!!  ??? Others are also starting to sell 4K monitors!!
Anyone here actually got or seen one in use!!

Just a heads up, remember one thing the 4k monitors will require you to have Photoshop CC 2014 or you will have a problem seeing the menus because they will be tiny, they do not scale properly in anything but the new version. I have a new Dell XPS 15 laptop and had the issue with Photoshop CC until they came out with CC 2014. They will NOT fix or update CS6 to what is now in CC 2014 and that fix now is called "experimental" since they are still working on improving this problem. Of course I am assuming this will be a problem with the large monitors just like it was with the 15 inch that I have but I could be wrong.

George

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_monitor

has interesting standard tables.

Are you doing projection or murals? I'm curious as to the practical use in still photography.

ronzie wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_monitor

has interesting standard tables.

Are you doing projection or murals? I'm curious as to the practical use in still photography.

Not sure what exactly your getting at? I do agree at some point more pixels is getting crazy - but since I do almost all my still photography with D800 and D810 both which are 36 MP (7360 x 4912)  camera's a 4K monitor is 3840 x 2160 or 8.3 MP. Even a 4K monitor can't come close to pixel per pixel display - big question is does that buy anything - thus my real question has anyone tried one of these and does it really help much - I have seen the big TV's in 4K and when you have a 4K content they blow HD TV away - resolution is almost un-real!! Of course there problem is very little 4K content available so why - OLED is better place to money since only monitor with true blacks and that also makes a huge difference - but for computer monitors - I have no clue - I will see shortly on small monitor since I am waiting on my Surface Pro 3 with 12" screen at 2160 x 1440 almost as high as max resolution on my old  30" dell monitor.

George DeCamp wrote:Just a heads up, remember one thing the 4k monitors will require you to have Photoshop CC 2014 or you will have a problem seeing the menus because they will be tiny, they do not scale properly in anything but the new version. I have a new Dell XPS 15 laptop and had the issue with Photoshop CC until they came out with CC 2014. They will NOT fix or update CS6 to what is now in CC 2014 and that fix now is called "experimental" since they are still working on improving this problem. Of course I am assuming this will be a problem with the large monitors just like it was with the 15 inch that I have but I could be wrong.

George

Thanks George - I do use Photoshop CC - I suppose mine is running the latest but sounds like that may be a beta version - but again I am still looking and in no hurry to spend a couple of grand!!!

ronzie wrote:I'm curious as to the practical use in still photography.

That is simple.  As one moves up in monitor resolution, one can see more of the image obtained with a modern DSLR, all of which have more than 8 megapixels.  The 4K monitor doubles the pixels from current 2560x1600, 4 megapixel, displays.  Images on a 2560x1600 30-inch monitor are stunning.  Imagine how stunning double the pixels would be on a 32-inch monitor (or larger).

Regarding use of photoshop CS6 or before on such monitors is a simple solution: run dual monitors, a 4K display for the images and a more standard (like a 30-inch 2560x1600) display for the tools.  A 32-inch 4K display has a pixel pitch of about 190 pixels/inch, a 30-inch 2560x1600 display has about 100 pixels/inch.

Roger

rnclark wrote:

ronzie wrote:I'm curious as to the practical use in still photography.

That is simple.  As one moves up in monitor resolution, one can see more of the image obtained with a modern DSLR, all of which have more than 8 megapixels.  The 4K monitor doubles the pixels from current 2560x1600, 4 megapixel, displays.  Images on a 2560x1600 30-inch monitor are stunning.  Imagine how stunning double the pixels would be on a 32-inch monitor (or larger).

The monitors don't take photographs and so how are they able to help your photography?? Even if you can see more details on your 4K monitor, how does it help the viewers of your photographs who don't see them on your or any 4K monitor? And what about the prints? Or are the 4K monitors just there for you to be amazed by the details displayed and nothing more in terms of helping your photography??

I'm also curious what the 4K monitors are for in still photography.

DChan wrote: The monitors don't take photographs and so how are they able to help your photography?? Even if you can see more details on your 4K monitor, how does it help the viewers of your photographs who don't see them on your or any 4K monitor? And what about the prints? Or are the 4K monitors just there for you to be amazed by the details displayed and nothing more in terms of helping your photography??

I'm also curious what the 4K monitors are for in still photography.

Of course monitors don't take photos, but they do display them.  If all you do is downsize to 1024x768 or similar for web display/email, then there is little need for a large display.  If one is content with editing with a small laptop or screen to make those web sized images, then there is no need to a big display.  But many photographers who have moved to big displays enjoy the large screens.  There is a big difference in 27-inch and 30-inch monitors in the impression of an image, and of course with most increases in screen size come with more megapixels.

I make large images, ranging from scanned 4x5 film to both 4x5 and DSLR mosaics, resulting in hundred plus megapixel images.  A large high megapixel display allows me to see context and details better, for example, when viewing the entire image.  That gets me closer to the detail on the final print.  Then zoomed in to 1:1 image to display pixels, I can roam around the image checking for defects or other problems (like is everything in focus) that would impact the wow factor on a large print.  The large monitor allows me to do that job faster and better.

Display: showing people, whether friends, family, or a buying client, gives a better viewing experience.  Slide shows are better with more impact on the large high resolution display.

I currently run dual monitors: a 1920x1200 pixel 27-inch monitor in portrait orientation, and 2560x1600 pixel 30-inch monitor in landscape orientation.  When I buy a 4K monitor, I'll drop the 27 inch and use the 30 inch in portrait orientation along with the 4K in landscape orientation.

Roger

+1 for Roger's reply. The monitor is your working window into everything you do between the camera and the final output (be it print or electronic). True, the camera captures the image and the printer prints it. But unless you shoot JPEG and mainly post to Facebook or print small photos in Walmart, you're doing some kind of work on a computer, looking at the image on your screen.

A better display -- finer resolution, broader colour gamut, extra video bit depth, more even panel uniformity, more neutral tone, all those things -- allows those who need it to do better work, or to do the same work faster. But it comes at a cost, and for many people the extra cost is not justified. Just like for some people, a camera phone does what they need and a DSLR of any kind would be overkill. So the argument is not that a 4K display would be for everyone, any more than I would argue that my Pentax digital medium format system is for everyone. But these components are for those who can make use of them to improve their workflow or the work itself.

I'll get a 4K display once it's practically affordable, and good ones are available. I've been holding onto my NEC 2690 (running at 1920 x 1200, i.e. 2.3 MP) for a long time because there's not a thing wrong with it, for what it does. It soldiers on and refuses to give me any problems. But the resolution is definitely slowing me down at a time when I'm shooting and developing single frames of 40 or 51 MP. While a 4K monitor would still be only 15 - 20% of the resolution of my current MF camera files, it's over 3.5 times the resolution of my current display. That would be a meaningful step up in my ability to work with a mix of overview & detail on big files.

I haven't looked at any 4K computer monitors seriously at this point because they're coming out from more consumer-oriented vendors in consumer-oriented packages. Reports I see on the first crop of 4K displays don't look that impressive, for my needs anyway. I'm not going to spend the money on something that has more resolution but otherwise is about the same as a $250 consumer display I can get at Staples. There are a lot of things that go into making a good colour critical display, resolution being one of the the easiest ones for manufacturers to talk about. (Just like the early megapixel race in digital cameras.)

NEC has a 4K monitor coming later this year, the PA322UHD. Most likely it will be eye-wateringly expensive in the beginning, which might defeat the extra resolution. But I'll look seriously at it when it's out.

I understand that a 4K monitor would help in editing photos. But, what kind of final output would benefit from those additional detailed editing? How large a print would it need to be before anyone can see the difference between a photo edited with the help of a 4K monitor? If the photo would be digitally displayed on non-4K monitor, would the viewers see any difference in that final image?

I can imagine at least for now not everyone needs a 4K monitor.

What Roger and Royce said! Once we get real photo editing monitors at this resolution like an NEC Spectraview, I'll certainly be interested in it.

Thanks everyone - based on replies so far looks like no one has actually had there eyes on one of these yet - Royce you should look into the Dell 32" that supposedly covers 99% of Adobe RGB at about $2,200 or about same cost as Nec 30" spectraveiw - which is one I am leaning towards - maybe the new NEC 4K will come out first and I can choke on what they will want for that baby!!!

As far as DChan question - I guess I would answer that if you are doing serious Photoshop work - making really good selections for masks and anything else would become more accurate and maybe biggest thing would be speeding up work flow and maybe little easier on eyes!!!!

Oh I've seen them and they look spectacular, but I haven't seen one with the color accuracy and gamut for precision photo editing yet.

This is the TFT Central review of the Dell 4K 31.5" monitor, model UP3214Q:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_up3214q.htm

It doesn't look bad in most respects, certainly a more serious contender than any of the other 4K displays that I've read up on. 4K resolution, DisplayPort support at full res up to 60Hz, essentially full Adobe RGB gamut, true 10-bit video pipeline, etc. The only downside that really stands out for me in the above review is the inability to use the monitor's luminance uniformity feature in combination with hardware calibration.

Bigger panels usually struggle to have a consistent level of brightness across the screen area, and this is borne out by the TFT Central evaluation. Out of the box, their test unit ranged from 5% above to 20% below the targeted luminance level of 120 cd/m2, in different regions. That's too great a difference for me to let it slide. The monitor does have a uniformity compensation feature but apparently, as with other Dell models, it can't be used in combination with the best calibration setup. For my purposes, that would be a deal-breaker. This is one area the NEC offering is likely to claim part of its price.