Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 20 posts | 
by Aaron Jors on Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:07 pm
Aaron Jors
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1144
Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Location: Wisconsin
I am in the market for a new monitor and have some questions as well as looking for some advice/opinions.  I currently use a 24" HP LP2465 which I don't think is really anything special.  I am looking to get something similar or better but not worse.  I'd like this monitor to be my monitor for as long as possible (i.e. don't want to get something and then have the desire to upgrade in a year or two).  From the research I have done and other posts on this forum I am leaning towards a BenQ either SW2700PT or SW320.

1.  What are the benefits of a 4K monitor in terms of photo editing?  This is the feature that concerns me the most as I don't want to get a non 4K monitor only to want a 4K monitor in a year or 2.  I have a GeForce GT640 2GB video card can this run a 4K monitor.  By looking at the digital resolution it says it can output 4096x2160 so that leads me to believe yes.

2. I'm considering either a 27",30", 32".  I'm concerned the 27" might be to small since it is not that much larger than the 24" I have.  Ideally I think I'd prefer 1 larger monitor rather than 2 smaller.  So in this case 1 - 32" vs. 2' 27" but I have never used 2 monitors before.  Any pluses or minus to these options?

Any other input would be appreciated.
http://www.aaroncjors.com
 

by E.J. Peiker on Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:34 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
The 2465, while a good monitor 15 years ago, is not a photo editing quality monitor these days. I'm surprised it's still working.

1. While that card can render a 4K image, the performance will be relatively poor compared to a more modern card. That card is about 8 years old. You would want at least a GTX 9xx card and preferably a card like a GTX 1080 and anything under 4GB of memory on the card will slow you down. I had a 3GB GTX 760 and that choked on 100 megapixel files output to just a 2560x1920 30" monitor when doing things like painting in layer masks - it got a bit too laggy.

2. You'd be surprised how much bigger 27" is compared to 24" but in a 4K display I would go with a 32" monitor, you could actually use your old monitor as a second monitor for the different palettes and controls if you wanted to.

Realize if you are still using CS6 or earlier, the menus and fonts will be tiny as that program predated 4K monitors and wasn't designed to scale to that. there are workarounds and hacks that can fix the small font problem but it requires hacking some CS6 files and registry entries. CC is designed to handle it.
 

by Royce Howland on Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:43 am
User avatar
Royce Howland
Forum Contributor
Posts: 11719
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Member #:00460
I've been running the BenQ SW2700PT and SW320 for a few months now, alongside my much-beloved 30" NEC PA302W's. The BenQ calibrated display quality so far is good enough for my needs, which are somewhat demanding and nit-picky. :) I'd say the BenQ's compete very favourably with the NEC's for display quality, at a price tag that's much lower between roughly equivalent models. The only thing I don't really know is long-term reliability. For BenQ to be cutting the price this much, even if they expect to ship massively more volume than NEC does, I suspect they're also using a quality of components and manufacturing that could affect longevity. But I guess I'll find out as time goes by.

If you go with the SW320, I agree with E.J. that you likely will want to upgrade your video card. Your old card can technically pump out enough resolution to drive the SW320, but performance probably will be slow and laggy to the point you'll be annoyed by it. I've observed this on one machine that's running an nVidia card that's a few years old, when I put the SW320 on it.

I often use my SW320 for client consultations at the print shop. It's common for people to ask what the heck they are looking at while we're going through edit sessions on their files. They frequently remark that they can see their images in ways they simply can't on their own monitors. (Some of that is just subjective impression of course, because the SW320 is large and looks impressive with the hood on it. And many folks' work environments are not ideally suited to image editing for reasons besides the monitor in use.)

Sure, you could edit photos on a lower res display, we all have done so for many years. But after seeing 4K, I suspect you wouldn't want to use anything less. I bought the SW2700PT first because it came out first and I wanted to try a more budget-priced high spec monitor. If the SW320 had come out first I would have bought it, and then not bought a SW2700PT because I'd have bought another SW320. :) Having said that, even with the SW320 on the machine it lives on, I run a secondary display as well to put web browser, Photoshop tools, etc. there.

The benefits of 4K for editing are the obvious ones -- much more screen real estate in a package that takes up barely more physical desktop space than a 30". This provides a big area to zoom in and work at detailed levels while still seeing a bunch of the surrounding image context, or the ability to zoom out and see a lot of the image with very fine-grained, smooth rendering due to the small pixel pitch. Basically the same kinds of reasons we would want more resolution out of a camera, or a printer... given a certain base level of quality, more pixels at higher pixel density provides better image rendering.
Royce Howland
 

by DChan on Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:48 am
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2206
Joined: 9 Jan 2009
I use SW2700, too, and so go get one because you'd be happy with it :-) And if I do get a 32" 4K monitor, I'll get the GTX1080 or better video card.

With that out of the way, I have a question: How big a print of the photograph does one need before one can see the difference between two prints with one edited with the help of a 30" 4K monitor and the other one a monitor with resolution of only 1920X1080?

I am sure the images look impressive with all the details showing on a large, 4K or higher resolution monitor. But, many a time, what's on the screen of the monitor is the final products. Personally I would like to think that if a 4K monitor is necessary or not depends on if it really makes a difference in the final products, i.e., the prints or the images show on an e-album. I have a feeling it does not matter if our final prints are kind of small and perhaps the viewing distance also is a factor, too (not to mention our eyesight I'd say).

Having said that, if a 4K or higher resolution makes you happier, go get one :-)
 

by Aaron Jors on Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:13 pm
Aaron Jors
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1144
Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Thanks for the input everyone.  E.J. your point about CS6 is very helpful as I am still using that and was planning to for at least a while yet.  Unfortunately I think this rules out a 4K for now.  I'm probably best off waiting for the 4k monitor until I am due for a PC upgrade.

I understand where you are coming from about the HP LP2465 however I struggle to see why I need anything more.  I've been happy with the results I've gotten from using this monitor.  If I wanted to find a new 27" that is comparable to the HP LP2465 are there options out there?  I assume I would just look for monitors that have the similar specs which seem to be Active Matrix TFT, 1000:1, 500 cd/m2, 178 degree viewing, 6ms response, 16.7 million colors.

These seem like comparable options?
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... creen.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... _with.html
http://www.aaroncjors.com
 

by E.J. Peiker on Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:25 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
I'd go with the BenQ out of those two if it were me.

Like I said, there is a workaround to get CS6 to work on a 4K monitor though. It just takes a bit of work to do it. You have to replace a couple files, one for Bridge and one for PS and then you need to change a registry entry using the Windows registry editor. It is very doable but a bit scary for those that have never hacked an OS before... :) By the way, the hack still works even on Win 10.
 

by ChrisRoss on Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:23 am
ChrisRoss
Forum Contributor
Posts: 13182
Joined: 7 Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
I seem to recall helping someone out with a small pixel pitch display using the hack and found that while it scaled the menus to be big enough to read it didn't render the image all that well. Though this may have been an earlier method of doing it??

Just looking at specs won't get you the same quality, they are very rubbery and vary wildly between manufacturers who have different methods of measuring. Basically it comes down to buying a monitor that is "recognized" as colour accurate, which would be the NEC's mentioned or a BenQ. If it were me I would still go with a standard pixel pitch as I'm staying with CS6. I'm quite happy with my PA-302W. If your budget is limited you could look at spending a little more than the BenQ for an NEC 27" PA series.

The thing I like about the 30" NEC is that it's 16:10 and gives you more vertical real estate, which I like, the 16:9 seems long and thin in comparison. Once you've used a 30" it's hard to think of using something smaller.
Chris Ross
Sydney
Australia
http://www.aus-natural.com   Instagram: @ausnaturalimages  Now offering Fine Art printing Services
 

by Royce Howland on Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:36 am
User avatar
Royce Howland
Forum Contributor
Posts: 11719
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Member #:00460
DChan wrote:With that out of the way, I have a question: How big a print of the photograph does one need before one can see the difference between two prints with one edited with the help of a 30" 4K monitor and the other one a monitor with resolution of only 1920X1080?
The quality / size of the monitor has very little to do with the size at which one prints, or even if one prints at all. It does have a lot to do with the efficiency & effectiveness of the digital editing workflow, the ergonomics and ease-of-use of editing, and dare I say with the enjoyability of staring at a screen for hours per week. None of us is getting any younger, and generally our eyesight doesn't improve with age, either. Any advancement that makes my on-screen editing time more productive overall, less likely to induce eyestrain, more enjoyable, etc. is a good thing in my calculations.

Font scaling is the biggest single issue with the 4K class of displays, so sticking with older software might be a concern there. But to my way of thinking, just as the optic on the camera is the lens through which all images are captured, the monitor is another critical lens through which all images are developed. I would not compromise on the monitor if I was at a point of upgrading and making a choice intended to last for 5+ years, simply because I'm trying to stick with old software that doesn't support current advances in other areas (such as monitor pixel pitch). I would solve both problems at the same time, however made sense for me. My solution was to buy into the Adobe subscription model years ago so I can stay current on my chosen toolset. Others wish to resist that, which is fine, but it will certainly mean a software change as CS6 or whatever other old apps no longer support current gen systems at some point.

That's just my take, keying off of Aaron's notes such as "I currently use a 24" HP LP2465 which I don't think is really anything special", "I'd like this monitor to be my monitor for as long as possible (i.e. don't want to get something and then have the desire to upgrade in a year or two)", "as I don't want to get a non 4K monitor only to want a 4K monitor in a year or 2" and "Ideally I think I'd prefer 1 larger monitor rather than 2 smaller.  So in this case 1 - 32" vs. 2' 27" but I have never used 2 monitors before."

Of course this is somewhat contradicted in a later post where Aaron said "I understand where you are coming from about the HP LP2465 however I struggle to see why I need anything more." So Aaron, perhaps you need to consider some needs, wants & priorities to shed light on which direction to go. Otherwise the rest of us throw around recommendations that (as is usually the case) reflect our own priorities... :)
Royce Howland
 

by Justin C on Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:30 pm
Justin C
Forum Contributor
Posts: 840
Joined: 1 Feb 2004
Location: U.K.
I've been using an HP LP2475w 24" monitor (I'm not sure if that's the same one as the 2465 but with a different UK model name) for the last five years as my main monitor with a small 19" one as a secondary screen. My secondary screen packed up so I decided to buy a 27" BenQ SW2700PT and relegate the older HP to secondary monitor. Having been using the BenQ for about 8 months I've been very happy with it and can certainly recommend it.
Personally I was always perfectly happy with the HP and still am after 18,300 backlight hours. I wouldn't say there is that much noticeable difference in image quality when viewing an image on the HP or the BenQ, which I wasn't expecting anyway as I always found the HP very satisfactory in that regard. The slightly larger screen of the BenQ is a bonus but I wouldn't say it's a big step up from a 24" screen. The height is very similar and whilst the extra width is nice to have and certainly a bonus, it's not a major step up from 24" if you're used to using dual monitors for the extra real estate.
One thing where the BenQ has excelled and far surpassed the older HP is with regards to calibration and matching screen to print. This may be due to the monitor, the calibrator or the calibration software, or a combination of all three. I was using an older Gretag Macbeth EyeOne Display 2 with the HP monitor and whilst the screen to print match wasn't bad, it was never spot on, especially the reds. Having upgraded to the XRite Eye One Display Pro and used on the BenQ monitor along with the BenQ Pallette Master Element software the difference is very noticeable and vastly improved. I would describe the screen to print match as being excellent and certainly as good as I would ever need.
So, to summarise. I would say the BenQ SW2700PT is an excellent monitor with a very attractive price tag compared to the likes of NEC or Eizo. It's certainly a step up from the HP monitor but the screen size difference between 24" and 27" isn't hugely significant IMHO. For a real step up in screen real estate the larger BenQ 320 may be worth considering if budget and desk space allow.
Justin
 

by Aaron Jors on Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:50 pm
Aaron Jors
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1144
Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Royce Howland wrote: That's just my take, keying off of Aaron's notes such as "I currently use a 24" HP LP2465 which I don't think is really anything special", "I'd like this monitor to be my monitor for as long as possible (i.e. don't want to get something and then have the desire to upgrade in a year or two)", "as I don't want to get a non 4K monitor only to want a 4K monitor in a year or 2" and "Ideally I think I'd prefer 1 larger monitor rather than 2 smaller.  So in this case 1 - 32" vs. 2' 27" but I have never used 2 monitors before."

Of course this is somewhat contradicted in a later post where Aaron said "I understand where you are coming from about the HP LP2465 however I struggle to see why I need anything more." So Aaron, perhaps you need to consider some needs, wants & priorities to shed light on which direction to go. Otherwise the rest of us throw around recommendations that (as is usually the case) reflect our own priorities... :)
Royce yes I did sort of contradict myself however after my initial post my intent changed with the information provided by E.J. and yourself.  While I'd like to upgrade my monitor at this point and ideally go with a solution that would last into the future the reality is that I'm not ready to upgrade to Adobe's subscription model or upgrade my computer.

So while the 32" BenQ may be the way to go if I would do both of those things it is really not an option right now unfortunately.

So that's when I changed my path a bit and started considering a larger monitor that is comparable or slightly better than the HP I have right now but at a more budget friendly price than the [font=Arial, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, sans-serif]BenQ SW2700PT and SW320.  This way I still get a bigger monitor and don't have as much tied up in the monitor making it easier to upgrade in a few years when/if I'm ready to upgrade to the subscription model and upgrade my PC.  [/font]
http://www.aaroncjors.com
 

by Ed Okie on Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:02 am
Ed Okie
Forum Contributor
Posts: 124
Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Location: Central Florida
Royce Howlan wrote:...Font scaling is the biggest single issue with the 4K class of displays, so sticking with older software might be a concern there. But to my way of thinking, just as the optic on the camera is the lens through which all images are captured, the monitor is another critical lens through which all images are developed.

I've had the NEC 32" Spectraview II 4K PA322UHD in daily use for almost two years and image-wise it is excellent; it is possible (skill level dependent) to tune a given image a bit better because of 4K plus the impressive 32" size. (24" Eizo ColorEdge 1920 x 1280 was the prior monitor in daily use).
   But there's not a day that goes by that "Font Scaling" and Win 10 Pro butt heads in terms of readability. I, like many others, use my monitor with other software outside the picture arena. Font size is a constant nuisance; none is written for 4K displays. Worse, every time Microsoft issues another "update," often (new) size-display text issues pop up.
   BreezBrowser Pro as an example has a checkbox for "Enable high DPI mode for high DPI displays" (under Preferences). It doesn't work! Akin to reading 6-point type... which is possible on a high end 4K monitor. But it's uncomfortable, less than ideal. Quicken, Foxfire, etc, take your pick - font-scaling invariably has size issues.
   In Royce's instance of pure photo-viewing and production (and for impressing customers in his high-end print shop) the 4K is a wise and correct choice. But everyone must remember that "the 4K pixel advantage" is visually lost if your eyeballs are much farther away from the screen than 30" maximum; closer is better.
   Contradiction #2 enters the arena: the 32" width almost becomes too wide in terms of eye-sweep required when seated 24-26" from the screen; it approaches a physical head turn required to see L-R.
   I'm inclined to suggest that 27" screens may well be an ideal mid-point choice. (Plus consume less desktop space; the NEC is BIG!) Given the very high cost of the NEC monitor (even higher is an Eizo), Royce's use and experience with the BenQ version - plus relatively very low price, seems like a perfect choice, 4K or not.
   If there's a choice I'd be inclined to stick with a monitor that has a more square format, rather than the skinny widescreen 16:9 layout. The image format coming direct from our digital camera files fully fits the 1920 x 1200 ratio (vs 1080) which I was accustomed to with the old 24" Eizo. In most instances a monitor with more vertical space used with any software is more usable than the 16:9 layout (a spinoff fromTV screens).
  Royce's wisdom brings forth another significant aspect: "...the monitor is another critical lens through which all images are developed."
We spend thousands for cameras, lenses, tripods, etc.... then are inclined to spend "cheap" when it comes to buying a monitor!
   My two-cents worth
 

by Aaron Jors on Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:56 am
Aaron Jors
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1144
Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Location: Wisconsin
So after much consideration I have decided to go with a BenQ SW2700PT, one for now but hopefully another to come in the near future. So my question is what video card will suffice for running 2 of these monitors? I was looking at GeForce GTX 1070 but given that these monitors are not 4K is that video card still needed?
http://www.aaroncjors.com
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:43 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
I think that card would do a great job.  There's more to it than just the 4K aspect which you don't care about.  Today's imaging software is more and more GPU aware and will use it to offload the system processor.  The performance difference between a good fast GPU in a system vs. not on a lot of imaging software is quite noticeable.  If you can swing it, you might think about a 1080 or 1080Ti.
 

by pdschu on Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:05 pm
User avatar
pdschu
Forum Contributor
Posts: 175
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Location: Orlando, Florida
I have a NEC PA 271W which has reached its end of life as far as being able to be calibrated with Spectraview II. The fluorescent backlight cannot be adjusted any further. So I am looking for a replacement for photo editing, etc.
I have a Puget Systems computer with a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 card. The company says it is capable of 4K. I am happy with the NEC in general. Would like a larger screen but not prepared to pay $2200 for a 30 in NEC. Considering the MODEL: EA271U-BK-SV. Not sure of the difference between this one and MODEL: EA275UHD-BK-SV. This one does not seem available on the NEC website. Discontinued vs. out of stock? Will probably keep the current one for a second screen.
I would appreciate current advice on this vs. other monitors.
Thanks
Paul Schumacher
Schumacher Photography
 

by Royce Howland on Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:38 pm
User avatar
Royce Howland
Forum Contributor
Posts: 11719
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Member #:00460
Paul, both of those NEC monitors appear to have very comparable specs. The display itself appears to be pretty much the same, in terms of functional specs. The panels are different but they appear to put out the same level of contrast & colour, 4K resoluation, etc. The EA271U has slightly different ports on it, for one thing it has a USB-C connector which the EA275UHD lacks. Other than that, probably nothing much to compare between them.

The -SV version of either model will be compatible with SpectraView II software for calibration. However, on that note...

Do be aware that both of these monitors are only sRGB-class devices for colour gamut, unlike your PA271W which was a near-Adobe RGB display. Also unlike the PA series, the EA series (which are designed for business rather than colour-critical use) do not have the internal 14-bit LUT that your old monitor had. So while SpectraView II can calibrate the EA's, they will not have quite the same level of grey neutrality and clean colour gradients as the PA series, because the calibration curves will be done in 8-bits in the video card. That may or may not matter to you... speaking personally, I'd be more concerned about dropping back down to sRGB for colour gamut.
Royce Howland
 

by pdschu on Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:04 pm
User avatar
pdschu
Forum Contributor
Posts: 175
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Location: Orlando, Florida
Royce Howland wrote:Paul, both of those NEC monitors appear to have very comparable specs. The display itself appears to be pretty much the same, in terms of functional specs. The panels are different but they appear to put out the same level of contrast & colour, 4K resoluation, etc. The EA271U has slightly different ports on it, for one thing it has a USB-C connector which the EA275UHD lacks. Other than that, probably nothing much to compare between them.

The -SV version of either model will be compatible with SpectraView II software for calibration. However, on that note...

Do be aware that both of these monitors are only sRGB-class devices for colour gamut, unlike your PA271W which was a near-Adobe RGB display. Also unlike the PA series, the EA series (which are designed for business rather than colour-critical use) do not have the internal 14-bit LUT that your old monitor had. So while SpectraView II can calibrate the EA's, they will not have quite the same level of grey neutrality and clean colour gradients as the PA series, because the calibration curves will be done in 8-bits in the video card. That may or may not matter to you... speaking personally, I'd be more concerned about dropping back down to sRGB for colour gamut.

Which series/models would be compatible with the Adobe RGB gamut? Any other brands comparable? 
Thanks!
Paul Schumacher
Schumacher Photography
 

by E.J. Peiker on Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:17 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
pdschu wrote:Which series/models would be compatible with the Adobe RGB gamut? Any other brands comparable? 
Thanks!
https://www.monitornerds.com/the-best-a ... -monitors/
 

by pdschu on Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:35 pm
User avatar
pdschu
Forum Contributor
Posts: 175
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Location: Orlando, Florida
Any experience/thoughts on Asus PA32UC? BenQ SW320?
I guess what I really want to know is what 32" monitor that is more affordable than NEC would have adequate performance for photo editing and can be calibrated.
Paul Schumacher
Schumacher Photography
 

by Royce Howland on Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:35 pm
User avatar
Royce Howland
Forum Contributor
Posts: 11719
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Member #:00460
I have both the BenQ SW2700PT and SW320. People report some quality control issues with BenQ, which makes some sense because it's primarily a consumer level company and its high spec monitors compete with NEC and Eizo on paper but cost half as much. That cost savings is going somewhere. :)

Still, I've been happy with both of mine since I got them, over a year on the SW320 and something like a year and a half on the SW2700PT. Their display quality is the real deal, and they support most of the high end stuff I'd normally want like non-reflective surface, Adobe RGB gamut, in-monitor 14-bit LUT, attachable hoods in the box, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if panel brightness uniformity is technically not as good on the BenQ's compared to NEC, since that's an area NEC (and Eizo) have invested a lot of work in. Part of the extra price in the NEC monitors is coming from their backlight control, and I doubt the BenQ has put in the same level of sophistication. But in practice I'm not seeing the difference is big enough to be concerned with so far. Running them side-by-side with NEC, I have no display quality issues with the BenQ's.

The BenQ PaletteMaster software can be a little quirky to use, but in the end it gets the job done properly. (I believe the core of it is licensed from X-Rite, probably comparable to the engine found in the i1Display Pro calibration software.)

If people wanted something bullet-proof and had the budget, I'd still say NEC (or Eizo if money is no object). But for high spec colour critical work at a more budget-friendly price, I'm happy with BenQ. The 32" 4K SW320 in particular offers impressive screen real estate in a package that is actually lighter than my NEC PA 30" monitors, shallower in depth on top of my desks, and only negligibly wider. At the print shop, I've switched to the SW320 as my primary working display, since I tend to work on monster files and can use the real estate.
Royce Howland
 

by pdschu on Tue Jan 01, 2019 2:18 pm
User avatar
pdschu
Forum Contributor
Posts: 175
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Location: Orlando, Florida
Thanks Royce.
I do not use my images or computer for commercial purposes so anything that can get me close to printing on my 3880 and have it close to the screen Image would be good. I see the Sw320 is down to $1393 at B&H so I’ll probably go that direction unless someone has good advice in another direction.
Paul Schumacher
Schumacher Photography
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
20 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group