Non-tech technical advice on a monitor...

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/05/2019 11:20:06 AM · #1

I am *not* technically savvy, but I'd like to think I have pretty good common sense and am pragmatic. Between different locations, I have seven different monitors I look at when viewing images. None of them are less that 3-4 years old. Each one is slightly different in its rendering of images. Then I go to my printer's and his monitor displays it slightly different yet. I can deal with his monitor once I have my own images being rendered consistently and well on my main work monitor. What I want is one monitor on my "main" work station that I will use for the lion's share of my editing. I will *NOT* spend $1000+ on a monitor when I can by perfectly suitable monitors for everyday use from places like Tiger Direct for $100-$200. But I do realize I should spend more money on a monitor that will reliably represent my images for editing. If I could get an idiot's primer on all the gibberish that comes in the blurb for a monitor on a website, I would very much appreciate it.

Here's a monitor I saw mentioned as a good low end editing monitor: Dell UltraSharp

Kinda looking to have this stuff identified.....

Dell UltraSharp 24" LED Monitor
1920x1200 Resolution
16:10- This means widescreen, correct?
IPS Panel
300 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio 1000:1
8ms
LED Backlit-I like this type of screen for viewing....is it recommended?
Built In USB Hub -Why do/would I need this?
DVI-D -Hookup Port
VGA -Hookup Port
DisplayPort-U2412M Hookup port?

Thanks in advance to anyone willing to walk my dumb ass thru this stuff. LOL!!!

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

11/05/2019 12:46:46 PM · #2

Here's a go at it...

1920x1200 Resolution - this is usually referred to as "full HD" although it is a little different (full HD is actually 1920x1080). This is relatively low resolution for today's monitors. 4k (3840x2160) is the standard for better monitors, and there are some at intermediate resolutions, e.g. 2560x1440.
16:10- This means widescreen, correct? Yes, but slightly different than the 16:9 that is normal for television. This is the ratio of width to height. If you divide 1920 by 1200, you get the same number as if you divide 16 by 10.
IPS Panel - This refers to "In-Plane Switching" which is just the type of LCD panel. IPS is the panel type you want for image editing. It has slower response than other types, but much better off-axis viewing performance. With other types, the gamma will tend to shift the futher your viewing angle is from straight-on.
300 cd/m2 - the brightness of which the monitor is capable. 300 is an acceptable number, though many newer monitors are reaching 400 or above.
Contrast Ratio 1000:1
8ms - The response time, in milliseconds (thousandths of a second). For image editing, you don't care about this.
LED Backlit-I like this type of screen for viewing....is it recommended? - Modern monitors are nearly all LED-backlit. The older LED-backlit monitors had reduced color gamut, but this is not true anymore. Pay attention only to the available color gamut. Ideally, >100% sRGB. Beter monitors approach 100% of Adobe RGB
Built In USB Hub -Why do/would I need this? - You don't.
DVI-D -Hookup Port - This is an older digital connection. Some older desktop graphics cards still have this
VGA -Hookup Port - This is an *old* analog connection, and something that you should not use
DisplayPort-U2412M Hookup port? - DisplayPort is one of the newer connection technologies, and most recent graphics cards support it

If I were in the market for a mid-range photo editing monitor, I would look at something with the following specs:
- 27" diagonal size
- IPS panel
- >100% sRGB, preferably > 97% Adobe RGB
- 4k, or minimally 2560x1440 resolution note: your graphics card must support 4k if you go that direction
- Inputs compatible with what's available on my graphics card (for me this is DisplayPort)

Edit to add: I see that the monitor you linked to states 16.7 million colors." That's an indication that it is at very best an 8-bit monitor, and likely doesn't even support an internal look-up table, which means that color rendition likely is going to not be stellar. If you're investing in something that will be mainly used for editing images, I would look up-market a little ways. There are monitors in the Dell UltraSharp line that do meet the grade.

Message edited by author 2019-11-05 12:57:25.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

11/05/2019 12:55:00 PM · #3

Thanks -- it appears to me that (for photo editing) presence of IPS Panel and adequate color gamut are the only really critical factors ...

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

11/05/2019 03:49:31 PM · #4

Originally posted by kirbic:

Here's a go at it...

If I were in the market for a mid-range photo editing monitor, I would look at something with the following specs:
- 27" diagonal size
- IPS panel
- >100% sRGB, preferably > 97% Adobe RGB
- 4k, or minimally 2560x1440 resolution note: your graphics card must support 4k if you go that direction
- Inputs compatible with what's available on my graphics card (for me this is DisplayPort)

This is perfect! Exactly what I was hoping to get. Thanks ever so much!

Originally posted by kirbic:

Edit to add: I see that the monitor you linked to states 16.7 million colors." That's an indication that it is at very best an 8-bit monitor, and likely doesn't even support an internal look-up table, which means that color rendition likely is going to not be stellar. If you're investing in something that will be mainly used for editing images, I would look up-market a little ways. There are monitors in the Dell UltraSharp line that do meet the grade.

So.....what you're telling me is that I managed to pick the turd out of the lot? LOL!

I am *so* good at that!

Is there a monitor that you would subjectively recommend that I can save my pennies to buy?

I am working with a 24" monitor now and I was hoping to go up in size a tad at least. I was looking at some 31s, but......$$$$$

Other thing is, I don't want to throw away $400. If I'm better off waiting 'til I have $800+ and getting the right monitor that will work well for a few years, I'd rather go that route.

Yo_Spiff

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

11/05/2019 08:05:19 PM · #5

Here's what I have. Very Happy with it. [url=BenQ 27" 2560x1440 QHD IPS Designer Monitor (PD2700Q), 100% Rec. 709 and sRGB, CAD/CAM, Animation, Darkroom, Low Blue Light, Flicker-Free , 60Hz refre https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01K1INYWG/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apap_VJ3t9oTW6RT6m]BenQ pd2700q[/url]

Message edited by author 2019-11-05 20:05:53.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

11/06/2019 02:27:19 PM · #6

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

Thanks, Steve! That looks right up my alley.

P-A-U-L

Canon EOS R6

11/07/2019 05:28:36 AM · #7

Question for those with the knowledge.

I have read that a 4K monitor may cause everything to be really small and some software may not support it. Is this a big concern?

I use a dual monitor set up at the moment with 2 x 24inch LG basic monitors. If I wanted to get a 4K 27 inch monitor am I right in thinking I won't be able to use it in conjunction with one of the 24 inch LG monitors?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/07/2019 07:44:13 AM · #8

Originally posted by P-A-U-L:

Question for those with the knowledge.

I have read that a 4K monitor may cause everything to be really small ...

I don't know about the software compatibility question, but the operating system should let you set the monitor resolution -- you should be able to make the image displayed larger, but possibly(?) lose some quality/detail in doing so.

On my (very) old Mac I can display fewer pixels (larger image, sometimes have to scroll around) but GAIN color gamut.

bjoern

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/07/2019 09:56:08 AM · #9

Originally posted by P-A-U-L:

I have read that a 4K monitor may cause everything to be really small and some software may not support it. Is this a big concern?

That depends mainly on the size of a single pixel of the monitor/the number of pixels per inch. An icon with a size 100 x 100 pixels looks smaller on a monitor with 99 PPI than it does on a monitor with 72 PPI. That applies to photos as well - they look smaller on a monitor with a higher resolution. The same is true for text on the screen, but the operating system usually allows to adjust the size of the text so you can read it well.

Originally posted by P-A-U-L:

I use a dual monitor set up at the moment with 2 x 24inch LG basic monitors. If I wanted to get a 4K 27 inch monitor am I right in thinking I won't be able to use it in conjunction with one of the 24 inch LG monitors?

That depends on the graphics card. You should check the specs of your card (or on board graphics) to find out the highest resolution (i.e. number of pixels) a monitor may have for it to work properly, and also the highest resolution combination when using two monitors. It is usually not required for two monitors to have the same resolution (such as 1920 x 1080 or whatever), but the specs of the card will tell you what you can connect to it.

Message edited by author 2019-11-07 09:57:58.

P-A-U-L

Canon EOS R6

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

11/07/2019 10:51:24 AM · #10

Thank you Paul and Bjoern - that is really helpful

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

11/07/2019 12:14:34 PM · #11

To add to

bjoern's info, if you are running a modern OS (either Win10 or latest MacOS) the OS interface should scale nicely without you having to intervene. I have no problem at all on a 15.6" laptop screen with Win10 and 4k resolution.
Apps can be another thing, specifically apps from smaller developers or open-source applications that rely on a group of volunteer developers. Some of the applications are not updated frequently for advances in display resolution, and the user interfaces can get buggered. This is not nearly the problem it was a couple or three years ago. Most apps now scale very nicely.