4K screen - 27" or 32"

[john_oconnell14]

I currently have a 10 year old Dell 2407 1900x1200 24" screen (it's a PVA panel I think) which is showing it's age so I'm planning to get another monitor for photo processing (I mainly use DXO Photolab and sometimes Adobe ACR CS6) and am thinking of going for a 4k screen but can't decide whether to get a 27" or 32"

 

I understand that the 32" screen would be usable with Windows 10 without scaling whereas the 27" would need scaling to be enabled in order to be able to read text but I'm not sure how big a deal having to use scaling is, but if a 4K screen needs at least 200% scaling to be readable, then is 4K worth it? Is 4K worth it for a 27" screen?

 

I regularly work from home as a software developer so bigger screen estate is always welcome for having application windows open side-by-side so that I can read them easily.

 

I'll be keeping the 24" monitor as a second screen for stuff that doesn't require high colour accuracy and both screens with be used with my MS Surface Pro and Surface Dock which I've recently acquired.

 

So 32" or 27" 4K screen? And any reasonably priced recommendations?

 

TIA

[Jochen_S]

32"!

My nick or middle name ain't "hawk(eye)". I own a 27" Samsung, that I consider nice to enjoy pictures on. To work on their pixels I'd prefer to see them almost individually, so bigger must be better.

"Readable" comes in countless font sizes and comfort levels. In doubt try it out; I am happy with a 1080x1920 24" screen for office stuff and need different glasses to substitute that with a 10" tablet. - YMMV.

[steve_dunn2]

I'd go 32". I replaced a 24" 1920x1200 with a 32" 2560x1440 and I'm happy with it - no scaling involved. I don't think I'd want to go with a dot pitch that's much smaller, and when photo editing, I don't want to have to stick my nose right up to the screen to see at a pixel level. So if I had the choice of a 4K monitor at either of the sizes you mention, I'd definitely go with the 32".

[Jochen_S]

Is 4K worth it for a 27" screen?

"Yes, absolutely", assuming you have somewhat contemporary decent digital cameras to shoot and limited funds for printing, I'd recommend an even just 27" 4K screen as an image viewing device. 250€ seem not much, compared to slide projectors and stuff.

I'll leave it open what else could be done nicely on that screen. Do we need 4K video? - I'd have to drastically upgrade my Internet connection to utilize YouTube.

4K gaming is currently "not really" supported by the rest of the somewhat usual or common hardware. A Nvidia 780Ti felt underpowered; contemporary top of the line cards might still be a bit challenged and feel too expensive to frustrate us enough to lust after upgrades.

[JPDupre]

A few months ago I went with a 4K, 27 inches Dell model U2718Q and just love it. Personally, I think 32 inches would have been too large on my desk.

[john_oconnell14]

Thanks everyone for your feedback, I’m thinking I’ll go 32” - the idea of a 27” would be appealing if all it’d be used for is to view and edit photos (with the editing/processing apps controls located in my existing 24” screen) and it’d be a cheaper proposition, but the 32” screen will provide greater flexibility.

 

The other thing I need to decide is whether I go for a display covering just the SRGB colourspace or the AbodeRGB colourspace. I do very little printing of photos and when I do it’s to an RGB printer so having AdobeRGB seems pointless, unless I’m missing something?

[paddler4]

Not sure what an "RGB printer" is. RGB doesn't identify a gamut. sRGB or Adobe RGB does. All of the photo printers I have used exceed sRGB, and I print a lot--and am very fussy about my prints--so I finally broke down and bought a wide-gamut monitor, which isn't cheap. I switch it to sRGB when editing for the screen or for outlets that require sRGB files.However, unless you print a lot, my guess is that this would be a waste for you. I found that I was able to edit most photos fine with an sRGB monitor, but I have some photos for which it is an issue.

 

Another issue is that conventional wisdom is that the minimum comfortable distance for viewing an entire screen is the diagonal of the display. I sit with my eyes about 28" from my monitor, and I currently use a 27" monitor. I think if I used a larger one I would end up viewing it piecewise. Then again, I do that anyway when photo editing.

[john_oconnell14]

Not sure what an "RGB printer" is. RGB doesn't identify a gamut. sRGB or Adobe RGB does. All of the photo printers I have used exceed sRGB, and I print a lot--and am very fussy about my prints--so I finally broke down and bought a wide-gamut monitor, which isn't cheap. I switch it to sRGB when editing for the screen or for outlets that require sRGB files.However, unless you print a lot, my guess is that this would be a waste for you. I found that I was able to edit most photos fine with an sRGB monitor, but I have some photos for which it is an issue.

 

Another issue is that conventional wisdom is that the minimum comfortable distance for viewing an entire screen is the diagonal of the display. I sit with my eyes about 28" from my monitor, and I currently use a 27" monitor. I think if I used a larger one I would end up viewing it piecewise. Then again, I do that anyway when photo editing.

I think my phone must’ve autocorrected sRGB to RGB :)

I did a bit of checking with the photo printing services I’ve used in the past, namely Photobox and Bob Books and both specify the sRGB target colour space, so I’m thinking that a wider-gamut screen would be wasted money, especially as an AdobeRGB screen generally costs double the price of an sRGB-only screen.

 

Thanks for the advice about the comfortable viewing distance, I’ll get a tape measure to work out the actual distance from my eyes to the screen

[AlanKlein]

My head moves too much if I sit too close or if the screen is too large. I use a 24" 1920 x 1200 screen which seems big enough.

[paddler4]

I think my phone must’ve autocorrected sRGB to RGB :)

I did a bit of checking with the photo printing services I’ve used in the past, namely Photobox and Bob Books and both specify the sRGB target colour space, so I’m thinking that a wider-gamut screen would be wasted money, especially as an AdobeRGB screen generally costs double the price of an sRGB-only screen.

 

Thanks for the advice about the comfortable viewing distance, I’ll get a tape measure to work out the actual distance from my eyes to the screen

 

Sorry, I thought you meant a printer of your own. I don’t use labs much, but all that I have used accept sRGB, and many accept only that. In fact, I have my monitor set to sRGB now to edit a photo book that has to be done in sRGB. If I were in your shoes, I would t spend the money for a wide-gamut monitor.

[digitaldog]

There is no such thing as an sRGB printer (or for that matter, any RGB working space printer). These are theoretical color spaces based on displays that make color using light, not ink, pigment etc. And NO printer can output all of sRGB color gamut let alone other wider gamut color spaces.

Lab's that demand sRGB are a bit clueless about color management (hence the demand). And sRGB is suboptimal for print output as seen here (and you can test this yourself if you can control the process):

 

The benefits of wide gamut working spaces on printed output:

 

This three part, 32 minute video covers why a wide gamut RGB working space like ProPhoto RGB can produce superior quality output to print.

 

Part 1 discusses how the supplied Gamut Test File was created and shows two prints output to an Epson 3880 using ProPhoto RGB and sRGB, how the deficiencies of sRGB gamut affects final output quality. Part 1 discusses what to look for on your own prints in terms of better color output. It also covers Photoshop’s Assign Profile command and how wide gamut spaces mishandled produce dull or over saturated colors due to user error.

 

Part 2 goes into detail about how to print two versions of the properly converted Gamut Test File file in Photoshop using Photoshop’s Print command to correctly setup the test files for output. It covers the Convert to Profile command for preparing test files for output to a lab.

 

Part 3 goes into color theory and illustrates why a wide gamut space produces not only move vibrant and saturated color but detail and color separation compared to a small gamut working space like sRGB.

 

High Resolution Video: http://digitaldog.net/files/WideGamutPrintVideo.mov

Low Resolution (YouTube):