New monitor options

[benji1867]

Hi guys

I currently do all my edition on my laptop (Toshiba Satellite C855-1j2) but i am constanly uploading shots and then checking on my ipad for a better grasp of what they actually look like. Ive edited a few times with my laptop HDMI linked to my HD Tv which i prefer but is awkward in positioning. Im undecided weather to buy a monitor (hd/4k?) or a (HD/4k?) TV and mount that above my desk and use that. Can anyone offer any insight or offer and ideas of their own. Budget would be around the £300 mark.

cheers chaps

Ben

[POL]

Buy a monitor, make sure it's IPS and supports sRGB. Then get a Spyder to calibrate it.

You're not going to get a decent 4K monitor for less than £300, so start looking for a 1440p 27" Dell or Iiyama.

[benji1867]

this any good?

http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/p ... 684935.htm

Ben

[POL]

I wouldn't, colour representation isn't great :/

[benji1867]

thats what id like but not sure i can really stretch to that

http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/p ... 586003.htm

Ben

[benji1867]

Also does 4k really make that much difference over full HD, and how much am I really missing out if I bought a 4K TV and HDMI connected u laptop and edited on the 42" TV?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[POL]

It's all about the number of pixels on the screen. Bigger resolution = more pixels = visually sharper and clearer image (when it comes to TVs at any rate)

"4K": 3840 x 2160 = 8294400 pixels
"WQHD"/"1440p": 2560 x 1440 = 3686400 pixels
"Full HD"/"1080p": 1920 x 1080 = 2073600 pixels
"HD ready"/"HD"/"720p": 1280 x 720 = 921600 pixels

There are some things to consider though; firstly is that buying a 40" 1080p monitor won't give you any more screen real estate than a 17" 1080p laptop screen. My phone is 1080p (though it's actually 1080x1920 as it's vertical, obviously) and if I compare the Fighter Control homepage on my PC and on my phone, I can see exactly the same thing. Therefore you need to go for a bigger resolution, so...

TVs usually have a "PC mode" that, regardless of the TV resolution, will downscale to 1920 x 720, or even smaller, thus meaning it's pointless having bought a 4K TV for your PC. 4K monitors will not have this issue, but you have to ask yourself, if you're planning on finishing with an image that's 1600px wide, do you really need a monitor that you could put two of those images side by side and have room left over? Another thing to think of is if the image out of your camera is 3500px wide, you'll be able to see all of it at 100% zoon (width-wise), so zooming in becomes less effective as it's not as big on the screen - you'll need to zoom further to see things, etc.

Pixel density is also important, more pixels closer together combine for a better image;

4K @ 40" = 110dpi
4K @ 28" = 157dpi
4K @ 24" = 183dpi
WQHD @ 40" = 73dpi
WQHD @ 28" = 105dpi
WQHD @ 24" = 122dpi
Full HD @ 40" = 55dpi
Full HD @ 28" = 79dpi
Full HD @ 24" = 92dpi
HD Ready @ 40" = 36dpi
HD Ready @ 28" = 52dpi
HD Ready @ 24" = 61dpi

The final thing is will your laptop support 4K? Does it have a graphics adapter that'll allow you to run it at 4K? HDMI isn't known for its accurate colour representation, either. You'd be better off using the in-built VGA port (do laptops still have those?) and buying a DVI-VGA adapter and using that.

So, again, I'd consider a 1440p monitor; 99% of laptops will run it, the cost is good, the size is good, it'll do everything you need and there's a bit more space than a 1080p screen.

Ideally, if you had the money, you'd go for this: http://www.scan.co.uk/products/27-dell- ... 001-6ms-us

However, for a £300 budget, go for this: http://www.scan.co.uk/products/25-dell- ... idp-2xhdmi(mhl

Then get the Spyder to calibrate it (as I said in my first post)

[benji1867]

Chris, i feel like ive stepped into another world. a lot more to consider than i first thought. Thanks very much for the comprehensive walk through and i will look at the suggestions. gunna see if i can stretch the budget to £350ish and see what i can get for that.

Cheers for your time and patience.
Ben

[benji1867]

One last query Chris i promise, in your opinion would you recommend this, http://www.scan.co.uk/products/29-asus- ... s-speakers with it being AH-IPS?

Ben

[POL]

AH-IPS supposedly offers better colour reproduction (though I've not seen it for myself to say whether it's true or not!) I do like the idea of ultrawide monitors, especially for watching media, and it's an excellent middle-ground between 1080p and 4K.

I'm not sure I could recommend it, purely because the last Asus monitor I had decided it preferred to be a barbeque, but looking at the spec list it looks good for the price. I'd still rather have the U2515H I posted earlier though.

[Sparts99]

Very interesting thread. Do these screens offer any discernable advantage over the displays on macbook pros and imacs ? My 15" macbook is 2013, 21" imac a few years bit older. I've tried various computer style monitors with different inputs and so far been unimpressed.

[POL]

Off the top of my head, Macbooks use IPS panels, iMacs used calibrated TN panels. You should be able to see a difference between the MacBook and iMac, but I doubt it's massive.

The previous 27" 1440p Thunderbolt display used the same panel as the Dell U2711 (which was around £500 cheaper and could still be connected to your iMac or MacBook, just not with Thunderbolt) so they would have looked exactly the same. I'm not too sure what Apple use now, I think it's Samsung display panels?

[Sparts99]

Thanks. As I said I tried a few external monitors, only on my macbook, and those within my price range looked worse, desaturated, lower resolution, and blacks that weren't really black. To match or improve the mac screen would've cost an awful lot, I was wondering if my comparisons were invalid in some way but I suspect not. This does assume the image isn't processed in some way in the macbook to make it look better on its own screen, and I had to use an adaptor to get out of the thunderbolt port, so another variable there I suppose.

[POL]

All depends on what you tried really, a monitor for less than £200, in my opinion, will most likely have poor colour reproduction. Only once you get over that you start looking at decent colours.

[Black Mike]

Chris,

Appreciate the comments as I am also looking at a monitor at the moment.

cheers,
Mike

[POL]

Just had a PM regarding what I've said here and asking if it's still valid, so thought I'd share my response in case anyone else is interested!

For me Dell continue to offer the best screens for the money, especially their UxxxxH Ultrasharp range. Depending on what size of screen you want (the number in inches is the diagonal width of the panel, bottom left to top right) you have a couple of options:

• 24" U2414H https://www.scan.co.uk/products/24-dell ... lack-silve (£191.99)- I have two of these and one of the predecessor model at home and they're all amazing
• 25" U2515H https://www.scan.co.uk/products/25-dell ... ack-silver (£266.48)- I used to use these at work until I moved offices, they're just as good as the above, but a little bit bigger!

In terms of the relationship between pixels, density, and screen sizes...

• Pixels are the dots of light on the screen that flash different colours to show you the image/what you're looking at. Simply put, more pixels means a sharper or crisper image. They are, amazingly, 1 pixel in width and in height.
• Density is the number of pixels on a panel. For example, a 20" screen at 1920x1080 would have 2,073,600 pixels on it, at a density of 110 pixels per inch, whereas a 40" TV at 1920x1080 would have a density of 55.07 pixels per inch. This is why, if you get up close and personal with a 40" "full HD" TV, things are actually quite blurry.

In the two screens above, pixel density is as follows:

• U2414H: 1920x1080 at 24" is 91.79 pixels per inch
• U2515H: 2560x1440 at 25" is 117.49 pixels per inch

There's more pixels in a smaller space on the 25" screen, so the image will be crisper.

You should never be at the point where an image is squashed to fit on a screen, with lower resolutions you would usually just have to scroll around the screen to see more of the image. However, at 1920x1080 you'll find you'll be able to see an image at 1024x768 without needing to scroll, whereas at 2560x1440 you'll be able to see an image up to 1600x1200 without scrolling.

As for file size, I export my images from Adobe Lightroom at 1600x1200px at 72dpi, it sometimes differs but that usually equates to each image being 1MB in size.

I can't really say which screen is the best for you, as there's other factors like desk size (I nabbed the spare bedroom and got a 6ft long desk for my three monitors!) and budget to consider, but if you have the extra £75 and the extra room on your desk, I'd say go for the 25" screen!

[Thunder]

Very informative Chris

[Supra]

I'm out just after 6pm tonight, so I'm gonna say thanks to Chris now at 'nearly' one year after the gem of information was posted at two items above this!
I was so impressed with the advice & technical spec' comparison, I bought the 25 inch model.... & that impressed me even more!

[Fat Bob John]

Was thinking about a new monitor, so this is very timely and very informative. Thank you

[chrisov]

Very interesting discussion. The u2515h seems to be end of life but seen a u2713h around the £350 ish mark.
Assume just a bigger newer version?
Would the advice still be the same but go for the 27 model?
Thanks.