hannu_hyvarinen

<p>Eric,<br> Yes, I absolutely agree. This kind of preparing for optimal quality for local monitor is not for the Internet. Even at modest JPG qualities these files are very large, and it would it pointless to upload them into online hosting services since their servers would automatically resample the photos into smaller size.<br> I live in a rural area in Ontario, internet speeds here vary a lot depending what kind of service you manage to get. Even at 10 Mbs or so, you would not want to handle large amounts of high res pictures up and down the Internet. <br> I look at finishing for the hi res monitor as an alternative to printing on paper. Finally we have monitors that can display the pixels produced by cameras. I got frustrated with inkjet printers etc. complications a long time ago. <br> Hannu</p>

<p>There is a important consideration when upgrading monitor to 4K. It is easy if you are a Linux or Mac user, all programs can be easily have their window decorations and menus changed to larger size and font. Much of the Windows programs will not scale. Windows 10 itself scales well for larger resolutions, Windows 7 no. Photo editing programs are hit and miss. It is better to test the scaling with your old monitor if you depend on programs like Nikon Capture NX and View NX may not adjust at all. I am not saying it cannot be done, but just out of the box, no.<br> I have a 2011 Adobe Master Suite, and so far have not found a way to make its window bars and menus readable at 3840x2160. Luckily I don't depend on it - and prefer Linux UFRAW and Gimp combination the best for my purposes. <br> As mentioned, the 2011 CS6 is very problematic, but I don't know about the newer Adobe CC versions. <br> Has anybody tried Adobe Lightroom on a 4K(5K) computer? Windows or Mac? How does that work?</p> <p>First, let’s look at an example of why display scaling is needed in most cases when using a high resolution display with a Windows 10 PC. In our example, we’re using a 27-inch 4K monitor with a native resolution of 3840×2160. With 100 percent scaling — that is, a 1:1 pixel ratio — the Windows desktop and user interface appears tiny, and is likely too small for most users.<br> Here is the instructions for Windows 10 4K display:</p> <p><a href="https://cdn1.tekrevue.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/windows-desktop-4k-native1.jpg"><img src="https://cdn1.tekrevue.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/windows-desktop-4k-native1.jpg" alt="windows 10 display scaling 4k native" width="2133" height="1767" /></a><br> To fix this problem without giving up on our 4K monitor, we can adjust Windows 10 display scaling options in Settings. With your high resolution display connected to your PC, head to <strong>Settings > System > Display</strong>.<br> <a href="https://cdn1.tekrevue.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/windows-10-settings-display.png"><img src="https://cdn1.tekrevue.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/windows-10-settings-display.png" alt="windows 10 display scaling" width="2222" height="1664" /></a><br> Here, you’ll see a slider labeled <em>Change the size of text, apps, and other items</em>. With compatible hardware, Windows 10 will attempt to automatically set this value to an appropriate percentage when connected to a high resolution display. However, you can manually adjust it by clicking and dragging the slider. Moving the slider to the left reduces the display scaling percentage, which will make things appear relatively smaller, while moving it to the right increases the display scaling percentage, making things look relatively larger.<br> In our example, we’ll move the slider to a value of 150 percent, which will give us a user interface with the same relative appearance as 2560×1440, which is a common and certainly workable resolution on a 27-inch display. To see how the math works out here, notice how 150 percent of 2560×1440 is exactly 3840×2160, our 4K monitor’s native resolution (2560*1.5 = 3840; 1440*1.5 = 2160).<br> <a href="https://cdn1.tekrevue.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/windows-desktop-4k-scaled2.jpg"><img src="https://cdn1.tekrevue.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/windows-desktop-4k-scaled2.jpg" alt="windows 10 display scaling 4k scaled" width="2112" height="1754" /></a><br> If this scaled image is still too small, we can raise the Windows 10 display scaling percentage even higher. For example, a display scaling value of 200 percent would produce an image that is proportionate to 1080p resolution, or 1920×1080 (again, just check the math to see that 1920*2 = 3840 and 1080*2 = 2160).<br> The benefit of this configuration is that you end up with a user interface that is the same perceived size as the one you’re accustomed to, except that it’s noticeably sharper because each UI element is being drawn with four times as many pixels as a standard resolution display.</p>

<p>Yes, the 4K ( and 5K even more so) is a game changer in many ways. It makes the whole processing different, because now you actually see things like noise. Before this, when working with RAWs, you would in most cases guess that there is noise in the frame, or you think you see it when the "noise" is actually noise of your monitor displaying the image magnified multiple times. WIth a 3840x2160 monitor you actually see the noise at 200%. And, of course, you will see the lack of noise, so don't apply noise filters and take detail of the image when there is no need for it. It is easy to forget the same noise reduction settings on and apply them to every image without even thinkin about this. Of course, the now seeing the images better, you may decide that the camera JPG's are just about as good as need be. <br> RawTherapee is a very good RAW working prorgram, has a lot of adjustmens. Here is a quote of the instructions:</p> <p><em>kept the luminance setting at 20 but ran the detail slider up 60, added more unsharp mask sharpening and set the gamma to 1.4 to bias the noise reduction towards the shadows. Below is another comparison with the no noise reduction image. Beside being significantly less noisy the tuned image shows as much and perhaps even more detail than the no noise reduction image. Click on the image and go to the original size if you want a better view.</em><br /> <br /><em> (note--if you download this build from <a href="http://dl.free.fr/getfile.pl?file=/unoeMxPZ">http://dl.free.fr/getfile.pl?file=/unoeMxPZ</a> RL convolution sharpening is broken, When you process an image in the queue the software grabs all the available memory and crashes when it can not find more.)</em><br> <em>To finish off this first look here are the respective noise profiles--05 detail on the top, tuned detail in the middle and no noise reduction on the bottom.</em></p> <p> </p>

<p>How about starting a new thread about the slide shows since the original headline or post of this thread does not refer to that ...</p>

<p>I did some further testing of the two possibilities mentioned in the <strong>original post</strong>. It seems that:<br> version 1,) 3840x2160<br> **************************<br> - however carefully scaled down, appears to already have jagged lines and tone loss. This in spite of export as 100% quality jpg.<br> - the advantage is that displayed in full screen mode, it looks absolutely perfect and uses a lot less disk space. <br> - the disadvantage of lesser quality would show if you later on upgraded your monitor to the 5K (iMac) or upcoming 8K.<br> - this strategy might work better if you started with a RAW, and did the down scaling, cropping, sharpening before exporting to jpg<br> version 2.) 6016x3384<br> *************************<br> - will not show any jagged lines, ghosting or tone loss even when magnified to 800%.<br> - Much of the increased file size comes from use of unsharp mask, and if file size is an issue, then this is not the way to go <br> - This is the quicker way, and more consistent, since there is no use of blurring/sharpening method which is guess work at its best<br> - in this case it is Mr. Nvidia and Mr. Samsung doing the downscaling, they may be better than I am at it. <br> ************************<br> Now, there is a third way that should be tested. Some cameras have a built-in 4K size option, Panassonics can take 3840x2160 images that would need no scaling or cropping for a 4K (3840x2160) screen. One would think that would be an advantage since you are shooting directly the monitor native resolution. Or not? There is more than resolution to this, the monitor can display millions of colors - so the more information, the better?<br> Hannu</p> <p>- </p>

<p>New high resolution monitors, 4K, 5K etc. give us a new target media possibilities for our photography.<br />How best to prepare a large image to be displayed in a 4K (3840x2160) monitor?<br /><br />Here are two strategies to consider:<br /><br />1.) SCALING DOWN with computer, for monitor native resolution<br />*******************************<br />shoot (i.e Nikon D610) jpg, fine, large 6016x4016<br /> > in GIMP or Photoshop:<br />- gaussian blur radius 0.2<br />then<br />- scale down with Sinc (Lanczos3)to 3840 long side, keep aspect<br />> crop an area 3840x2160 to achieve native res and 16:9 aspect ratio<br />> other adjustments,<br />then unsharp mask<br />radius 0.2 amount 1<br />> export to JPG<br /><br /><br />OR <br />********************************<br />2.) No SCALING DOWN, LARGE END FILE:<br />************************************<br /><br />shoot jpg, fine, large 6,016 × 4,016<br />> in GIMP or Photoshop:<br /> crop to 6016x3384 to achieve 16:9 aspect ratio<br />... no scaling down or resampling in computer, then unsharp mask 0.2 radius amount 1 then <br />> export to JPG<br />> allow monitor to resample the larger image to the native 3840x2160 as it is being displayed<br /><br /><br />I have used both strategies succesfully, but cannot tell with any consistency which approach is better ...<br /><br />Any ideas,<br />Thanks,<br />Hannu</p>