Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 16 posts | 
by Gib Robinson on Sun Dec 18, 2016 9:53 am
Gib Robinson
Forum Contributor
Posts: 403
Joined: 1 Oct 2007
I will pick up my upgraded desktop later this morning. Now I want to find a new monitor. I had  hoped that NEC might produce a 24" or 27" version of their high-end 32" UHD color accurate desktop monitor. No luck, but really that level of color accuracy is a bit ridiculous for someone like me who is red/green colorblind :). Instead, I've been shopping a bit down market and looking at this NEC:

 
24" UHD Widescreen Desktop Monitor w/ IPS Panel and SpectraViewII Color Calibration Solution


That seems sufficient for my needs and in line with what I can spend, but I wanted to check in to see whether there are other monitors I should consider.

Thanks, as always, for the consulting help.
 

by Royce Howland on Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:42 am
User avatar
Royce Howland
Forum Contributor
Posts: 11719
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Member #:00460
Gib, look at the recent threads discussing BenQ's new colour critical monitors, including the SW2700PT. Essentially they offer high display quality (including some features one expects from high spec displays like NEC), but for a more budget price.
Royce Howland
 

by Scott B on Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:19 pm
Scott B
Forum Contributor
Posts: 64
Joined: 30 Mar 2016
Interesting topic my monitor went out today. I agree with Royce for the BenQ seems to be the best value considering price to quality.
 

by Gib Robinson on Mon Dec 19, 2016 6:59 am
Gib Robinson
Forum Contributor
Posts: 403
Joined: 1 Oct 2007
Thank you. The price of the BenQ [font=Arial, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, sans-serif]SW2700PT is jaw dropping. On the BenQ site it's currently $599, literally half the NEC 24", and the reviews are good. I am hesitating largely because I just upgraded my graphics card to the GTX 1080 thinking I would enjoy my first look at images at [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif]3840 x 2160 which the BenQ doesn't provide. While I'm red/green color blind, my eyesight is good. Will I miss the resolution? Hard to say without seeing them side by side, which I can't do. Royce and others, what do you think?[/font]
 

by Royce Howland on Mon Dec 19, 2016 8:44 am
User avatar
Royce Howland
Forum Contributor
Posts: 11719
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Member #:00460
If you're determined to go for a 4K display, BenQ has announced they will ship the SW320 in January. It's not a 24" display like the NEC EA244UHD I believe you're looking at, rather the BenQ is 31.5". It also has a fully spec'ed set of colour critical features beyond what that NEC 24" model offers. The price sounds like it will be similarly amazing, probably about the same as the lower-spec'ed 24" NEC. (In other words, about 1/3 of the price of the NEC PA322UHD 32" 4K monitor that it directly competes against.)

As for the SW2700PT, it provides an excellent visual display for a monitor in the 2560x1440 class. Whether you'd miss or benefit from the extra resolution of a 4K monitor is hard to say. I'm running a pair of NEC PA302W 30" displays and one of the BenQ SW2700PT's, all with 2560 pixels across. Personally I wouldn't want a monitor of this resolution in a smaller physical size like 24". I plan to get ahold of a BenQ SW320 in the near future and evaluate it... it looks highly appealing.
Royce Howland
 

by Gib Robinson on Mon Dec 19, 2016 6:27 pm
Gib Robinson
Forum Contributor
Posts: 403
Joined: 1 Oct 2007
Thanks, Royce. The SW320 looks very appealing, and I can certainly wait.
 

by Jens Peermann on Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:00 pm
User avatar
Jens Peermann
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5155
Joined: 5 Apr 2004
Location: Lake Tahoe area of Nevada
Just curious, would it make sense to get a BenQ SW 2700 PT as a second monitor for an iMAc or is the graphics card on that computer not suited for such a monitor?
A great photograph is absorbed by the eyes and stored in the heart.
 

by avery on Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:54 pm
avery
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4
Joined: 7 Sep 2016
The Dell Ultra Sharp monitor is a fine monitor and should serve you well.
 

by avery on Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:55 pm
avery
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4
Joined: 7 Sep 2016
Check these monitors http://thedigitalcamera.net/best-monito ... otography/
 

by Ed Okie on Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:21 pm
Ed Okie
Forum Contributor
Posts: 124
Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Location: Central Florida
Royce Howland wrote:If you're determined to go for a 4K display, BenQ has announced they will ship the SW320 in January. It's not a 24" display like the NEC EA244UHD I believe you're looking at, rather the BenQ is 31.5". It also has a fully spec'ed set of colour critical features beyond what that NEC 24" model offers. The price sounds like it will be similarly amazing, probably about the same as the lower-spec'ed 24" NEC. (In other words, about 1/3 of the price of the NEC PA322UHD 32" 4K monitor that it directly competes against.)

As for the SW2700PT, it provides an excellent visual display for a monitor in the 2560x1440 class. Whether you'd miss or benefit from the extra resolution of a 4K monitor is hard to say. I'm running a pair of NEC PA302W 30" displays and one of the BenQ SW2700PT's, all with 2560 pixels across. Personally I wouldn't want a monitor of this resolution in a smaller physical size like 24". I plan to get ahold of a BenQ SW320 in the near future and evaluate it... it looks highly appealing.
Royce offers noteworthy 4K insight, he obviously "has been around the block more than once," well seasoned, beyond seeking the latest-greatest promise-land offering simply because it's new. 4K monitors remain a relatively new item in the marketplace. As Royce eloquently says, "Whether you'd miss or benefit from the extra resolution of a 4k monitor is hard to say..."

Here's my experience: I've had the NEC 32" 4K monitor for about nine months - plenty of hands-on use and experience. Professional photography is the prime intent with the 4K monitor connected to a high-end Puget Systems workstation (Display Port cable; Nvidia GeForce GTX 980 Ti 6GB video card). Adobe CC LightRoom and Photoshop are key photo-tools. It is a system that also gets used with "normal" software such as Quicken, Foxfire, word processing, e-mail, etc... as likely occurs with almost everyone else. Versatility is necessary. Window-10 Pro 64-bit is the operating system.

Two 4K viewpoints: 1. Photographic.  2. Daily use with other software.
The 32" 4K screen is impressive... but it is somewhat overwhelming on the physical desk. Viewing distance is 26" while wearing glasses corrected specific for that distance, 20/15 vision (slightly better than 20/20). NEC's literature recommends sitting as close as 19" to get the full value from the 4K resolution. Spoken in reverse, the screen as viewed from say 36" away... won't look a bit different than a normal Hi-Def display of the same 32" screen size (and likely about half the cost or even less expensive). The very same factor applies with 4K televisions - to get the "immersive effect" you need to sit as close as 5-6' away from a big 65" 4K screen. Same 4K TV viewed from a typical distance of 12-15'... the image is no different than that of a regular high-def TV.

The 26" viewing distance as applied to the 32" screen - it may be "immersive" but I continue - after nine months use - to find it somewhat uncomfortable; an exaggerated left-right viewing experience - either the eyeballs or neck movement is required to adsorb content on the screen. A 36" viewing distance would likely be "comfortable." But entirely lost is the pixel-gain of a 4K display; a regular monitor won't look any different! I'm inclined to suggest that a 27" monitor is "best-choice." Likewise not recommend a 4K display.

The benchmark: Can I post-process - better - on the 32" 4K monitor (driven at 3840 x 2160), compared to the old Eizo 24" ColorEdge CG241W running at 1920 x 1200 resolution?  Not really!  Yes, "the big image" is more impressive, especially to someone walking by, but then again the same image is even more impressive when viewed on a 65" high-def 1920 x 1080 TV.

Second (and equally important) viewpoint: When the 32" 4K monitor is used with other daily-use software there's a Catch-22 lurking in the shadows: virtually no software is written specifically for 4K displays. Text size is the first thing to suffer - readability and comprehension. Window-10 Pro has a few size-compensation text adjustments to accommodate 4K's... more of a band-aid patch rather than a genuine 4K solution. The text-size adjustments are better than what is/was available with Win 7 Pro. But annoyances continue: Every time Microsoft "auto-updates" Win-10... all the text-size compensation adjustments are lost, they have to be reset. Simple to do, but annoying. (Adjustments beyond Win-10's recommended 150% display sizing).  Though larger-text is preset, some software still doesn't recognize it at all... grab your magnifying glass! Text-size and 4K displays - it's a can of worms! Thread lightly.

NEC 32" SpectraView 4K tech-support (several hookup and calibration issues encountered, and as you well might expect, a typical "user-manual" that's less than clearcut).  In context that this is a $3,000 monitor one might assume a concierge-level phone number/support is automatic. Dream on. NEC's website usability likewise leaves something to be desired.

The $64 question: If starting over would I buy it again?  Not likely. The cost-value equation is out of balance. I would definitely look at a 27" monitor; the 32" screen atop a physical desk is a bit overwhelming (even after nine months use). Large vertical screen size likewise requires a defined eye-ball move up or down to consume information, visual fatigue may result. Neither a chair-height adjustment nor a screen-tilt change solves the underlying issue.

An aside:  I do recommend buying - single vision - glasses configured to a 26" viewing distance (and definitely anti-reflective coated), i.e., the entire lens used to view the large 32" screen. Though I do have daily-use glasses that are "tri-focal" (the mid-range ban is 26") it is - far more comfortable - to use the single vision glasses, far less neck movement required.
 

by Eia on Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:54 am
Eia
Forum Contributor
Posts: 789
Joined: 9 Dec 2009
Location: Southwest
Would the Spyder 5 express work on the BenQ? I read that the elite is not necessary with the BenQ. 
~AnnaMaria~
 

by Royce Howland on Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:47 am
User avatar
Royce Howland
Forum Contributor
Posts: 11719
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Member #:00460
What you need really is just the hardware device, because the BenQ Palette Master software will take care of everything else. With the Spyder5, the "express", "elite", etc. is just differences in their bundled software, which you won't use anyway. So save your money and just go for the cheaper package...
Royce Howland
 

by bsmith@elkmeadowimages.com on Thu May 25, 2017 7:59 am
bsmith@elkmeadowimages.com
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2
Joined: 13 Dec 2016
okie wrote:
Royce Howland wrote:If you're determined to go for a 4K display, BenQ has announced they will ship the SW320 in January. It's not a 24" display like the NEC EA244UHD I believe you're looking at, rather the BenQ is 31.5". It also has a fully spec'ed set of colour critical features beyond what that NEC 24" model offers. The price sounds like it will be similarly amazing, probably about the same as the lower-spec'ed 24" NEC. (In other words, about 1/3 of the price of the NEC PA322UHD 32" 4K monitor that it directly competes against.)

As for the SW2700PT, it provides an excellent visual display for a monitor in the 2560x1440 class. Whether you'd miss or benefit from the extra resolution of a 4K monitor is hard to say. I'm running a pair of NEC PA302W 30" displays and one of the BenQ SW2700PT's, all with 2560 pixels across. Personally I wouldn't want a monitor of this resolution in a smaller physical size like 24". I plan to get ahold of a BenQ SW320 in the near future and evaluate it... it looks highly appealing.
Royce offers noteworthy 4K insight, he obviously "has been around the block more than once," well seasoned, beyond seeking the latest-greatest promise-land offering simply because it's new. 4K monitors remain a relatively new item in the marketplace. As Royce eloquently says, "Whether you'd miss or benefit from the extra resolution of a 4k monitor is hard to say..."

Here's my experience: I've had the NEC 32" 4K monitor for about nine months - plenty of hands-on use and experience. Professional photography is the prime intent with the 4K monitor connected to a high-end Puget Systems workstation (Display Port cable; Nvidia GeForce GTX 980 Ti 6GB video card). Adobe CC LightRoom and Photoshop are key photo-tools. It is a system that also gets used with "normal" software such as Quicken, Foxfire, word processing, e-mail, etc... as likely occurs with almost everyone else. Versatility is necessary. Window-10 Pro 64-bit is the operating system.

Two 4K viewpoints: 1. Photographic.  2. Daily use with other software.
The 32" 4K screen is impressive... but it is somewhat overwhelming on the physical desk. Viewing distance is 26" while wearing glasses corrected specific for that distance, 20/15 vision (slightly better than 20/20). NEC's literature recommends sitting as close as 19" to get the full value from the 4K resolution. Spoken in reverse, the screen as viewed from say 36" away... won't look a bit different than a normal Hi-Def display of the same 32" screen size (and likely about half the cost or even less expensive). The very same factor applies with 4K televisions - to get the "immersive effect" you need to sit as close as 5-6' away from a big 65" 4K screen. Same 4K TV viewed from a typical distance of 12-15'... the image is no different than that of a regular high-def TV.

The 26" viewing distance as applied to the 32" screen - it may be "immersive" but I continue - after nine months use - to find it somewhat uncomfortable; an exaggerated left-right viewing experience - either the eyeballs or neck movement is required to adsorb content on the screen. A 36" viewing distance would likely be "comfortable." But entirely lost is the pixel-gain of a 4K display; a regular monitor won't look any different! I'm inclined to suggest that a 27" monitor is "best-choice." Likewise not recommend a 4K display.

The benchmark: Can I post-process - better - on the 32" 4K monitor (driven at 3840 x 2160), compared to the old Eizo 24" ColorEdge CG241W running at 1920 x 1200 resolution?  Not really!  Yes, "the big image" is more impressive, especially to someone walking by, but then again the same image is even more impressive when viewed on a 65" high-def 1920 x 1080 TV.

Second (and equally important) viewpoint: When the 32" 4K monitor is used with other daily-use software there's a Catch-22 lurking in the shadows: virtually no software is written specifically for 4K displays. Text size is the first thing to suffer - readability and comprehension. Window-10 Pro has a few size-compensation text adjustments to accommodate 4K's... more of a band-aid patch rather than a genuine 4K solution. The text-size adjustments are better than what is/was available with Win 7 Pro. But annoyances continue: Every time Microsoft "auto-updates" Win-10... all the text-size compensation adjustments are lost, they have to be reset. Simple to do, but annoying. (Adjustments beyond Win-10's recommended 150% display sizing).  Though larger-text is preset, some software still doesn't recognize it at all... grab your magnifying glass! Text-size and 4K displays - it's a can of worms! Thread lightly.

NEC 32" SpectraView 4K tech-support (several hookup and calibration issues encountered, and as you well might expect, a typical "user-manual" that's less than clearcut).  In context that this is a $3,000 monitor one might assume a concierge-level phone number/support is automatic. Dream on. NEC's website usability likewise leaves something to be desired.

The $64 question: If starting over would I buy it again?  Not likely. The cost-value equation is out of balance. I would definitely look at a 27" monitor; the 32" screen atop a physical desk is a bit overwhelming (even after nine months use). Large vertical screen size likewise requires a defined eye-ball move up or down to consume information, visual fatigue may result. Neither a chair-height adjustment nor a screen-tilt change solves the underlying issue.

An aside:  I do recommend buying - single vision - glasses configured to a 26" viewing distance (and definitely anti-reflective coated), i.e., the entire lens used to view the large 32" screen. Though I do have daily-use glasses that are "tri-focal" (the mid-range ban is 26") it is - far more comfortable - to use the single vision glasses, far less neck movement required.

I'm looking at both the BenQ SW320 and the Asus PA329Q. Very similar specs, but the Asus is $400 less. I've seen this monitor in use, wondering if anyone has used the BenQ as yet?

I was leaning towards the 32" 4K monitor in hopes that I would be able to see more of my image on screen at once at say 50% size vs 30% on a lower resolution monitor... but the discussion above leads me to believe it may not be that much benefit...
 

by DChan on Thu May 25, 2017 10:51 am
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2206
Joined: 9 Jan 2009
Re 4K, okie's post reminded me of an article I read some time ago about 4K TV. It basically says you need a TV set that is larger than 55" and sit closer to really see the difference. Another article about 4K monitors also says to see the details in your photos you should be zooming in 200% now (I guess it's for when you're sitting at your normal distance away from your monitor). All these seem to suggest, if you really want to enjoy 4K, you need a large monitor. Looks like even a 32" won't cut it. Then again, with all the details that you can see on your 4K monitor, do they really show up in your final prints and visible to viewers from a normal viewing distance??
 

by Ed Okie on Fri May 26, 2017 12:13 pm
Ed Okie
Forum Contributor
Posts: 124
Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Location: Central Florida
DChan wrote:Re 4K, okie's post reminded me of an article I read some time ago about 4K TV. It basically says you need a TV set that is larger than 55" and sit closer to really see the difference.
Context is required:
   Yes, 55" is the generally advised smallest TV size to buy to see value from the higher resolution 4K TV; likewise the need to sit closer - 5 to 6 feet away - from the screen compared to your current distance away (which is likely farther). "Closer to" provides the immersive viewing effect, the need to look left and right to adsorb image action, a "you are there" feeling... same as occurs outdoors when viewing a landscape.
   But I'm not sure where you're trying to go with the information, tangled assumptions about a 4K computer monitor... and what seems to hold as a subtle viewpoint that "4K is bad," disregard technical progress.
   One might assume you already have a 65" high-definition TV and have taken a reasonable effort to color-calibrate, tune it for better color balance. Since you're participating in a somewhat technical forum of photo enthusiast - your interest lies in getting something better, TV, computer monitor, image print or viewing.
  First thing to upgrade with a TV is not the Hi-Def -vs- 4K choice, but that of sound: are you still using the tiny tinny speakers built into the skinny TV set? Improve the audio portion and that alone will make a huge difference! Using a center speaker that mimics a surround-sound system is a worthy approach without further equipment investment. ZVOX is a well known speaker brand offering excellent value and price. Their recently announced AccuVoice Speaker can do wonders to make TV dialogue crystal clear. Costs a token $250.
   Higher in price level, $1300, is a MartinLogan Cadence soundbar center channel which approaches 5-channel surround with simplicity, even a calibrated microphone and tripod comes with the package.  Stepping up slightly higher, add a subwoofer. GoldenEar is an excellent highly-regarded brand.
 
   4K computer monitor
"Another article about 4K monitors also says to see the details in your photos you should be zooming in 200% now (I guess it's for when you're sitting at your normal distance away from your monitor). All these seem to suggest, if  you really want to enjoy 4K, you need a large monitor. Looks like even a 32" won't cut it."

  
You're confusing issues, tangling facts... reading about, but apparently not actually using the equipment. A 32" 4K computer monitor is plenty big, even a bit too large. If you're not willing to also buy top-notch "computer vision" glasses you're wasting money with the 4K monitor, quality isn't the goal. Personal choice; financial issues may dictate... or, maybe genuine motivation is missing. Are you shooting say, 700-1,000 image files per month and post-processing?
   My NEC 32 SpectraView 4K reveals 2,120 hours of accumulated use. The image is cleaner, sharper. 24" Eizo ColorEdge CG241W was used previously (now a side monitor). The "should be zooming in 200%" relates to Sharpening, being able to see the initial presence of ugly white edges from "too much sharping" applied.
   With a normal high-def monitor (1920 pixel width) 100% viewing is the same standard used for sharpness viewing. Having the advantage of 4K plus a 200% view allows more precise tweaking. Drop it back to 100% and the image often is mouthwatering lush.

 "Then again, with all the details that you can see on your 4K monitor, do they really show up in your final prints and visible to viewers from a normal viewing distance?"

 
You could ask the doubting-Thomas question another way:  Will a $2000 Prime lens outperform a similar looking $400 zoom version by the same brand maker? Many people wouldn't notice a difference. So be it!
   Again, if quality isn't an objective - camera, camera lens, TV, etc, and large photo-prints are not desired... stick with Walmart-type products and small 4x6 prints. The choice isn't wrong. Acceptable, but definitely not exceptional!
  Will Royce Howland jump-for-joy when receiving an image file at his photo print shop sent in by a customer, tweaked to near perfection coming from a color-calibrated 4K monitor? He'll jump for joy, appreciate it enormously; it'll motivate him to work even harder to print and deliver as perfect a print as is possible. Win-win!
  Will that large print look much different than the Walmart poster special when viewed from 30' away? Not really.
  But go up close or hold it in your hands and savor the details, subtleties, tonal range, sharpness. To-die-for! Yes, it's absolutely worth it. Pride and quality involved throughout the entire process. Ideally, tomorrow I'll try to do even better!
 

by DChan on Fri May 26, 2017 4:18 pm
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2206
Joined: 9 Jan 2009
okie wrote:
DChan wrote:Re 4K, okie's post reminded me of an article I read some time ago about 4K TV. It basically says you need a TV set that is larger than 55" and sit closer to really see the difference.
[snip]
   But I'm not sure where you're trying to go with the information,...
May be because you're over-thinking? :lol:

A colleague of mine used to have a huge TV at home. Like you said, for him to see what happened on the screen sometimes he needed to turn his head to "see the whole picture" That you-are-there feel like you said. Guess it was fine for him for a while but, in the end, he had to dump that big TV for a smaller one. Why? For a simple reason: his neck started to hurt :wink:
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
16 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group