Using a 4K TV as a monitor is like going from APS to FF (in away)

On 23/03/2016 12:49, RichA wrote:
The dot-pitch on a 4K TV (say 42") isn't much different than something like an HD 24" monitor, around 0.23mm. So resolution per linear inch isn't any different, but, the area shown (as with a particular lens on FF versus APS) is much greater. You can put a larger percentage of the image on the screen at the same magnification, which is handy.

The difference is more like going from 4/3 format to 35mm, assume the
same (sensor) pixel pitch and output (screen) size and you'd have double
the linear resolution with 35mm.

I keep getting tempted to buy a 4kTV, despite limited content. But when
I look at UHDTV of the maximum size I'd be prepared to pay for - about
60", then step back to the viewing distance I'm comfortable with (for
viewing movies etc) on a 60" 1080p TV, most of the advantage has gone -
there's bugger-all visible difference even when comparing two TVs side
by side (and I've got excellent eyesight - apart from being a bit
colour-blind). Kids do sit right in from of screens - probably not
great for their eyesight long-term though.
If I get an UHDTV, it needs to be 80 inch or so - I'll wait until
hopefully they're not at present crazy prices. 65 inch seems to be a
sweet spot for prices, but that's not big enough IMO.
OTOH, a 4KTV which could be well colour-calibrated, and large enough -
perhaps 30" or so, would be great for photo work.

In article , Me says...

On 23/03/2016 12:49, RichA wrote:
The dot-pitch on a 4K TV (say 42") isn't much different than something like an HD 24" monitor, around 0.23mm. So resolution per linear inch isn't any different, but, the area shown (as with a particular lens on FF versus APS) is much greater. You can put a larger percentage of the image on the screen at the same magnification, which is handy.

The difference is more like going from 4/3 format to 35mm, assume the
same (sensor) pixel pitch and output (screen) size and you'd have double
the linear resolution with 35mm.

I keep getting tempted to buy a 4kTV, despite limited content. But when
I look at UHDTV of the maximum size I'd be prepared to pay for - about
60", then step back to the viewing distance I'm comfortable with (for
viewing movies etc) on a 60" 1080p TV, most of the advantage has gone -
there's bugger-all visible difference even when comparing two TVs side
by side (and I've got excellent eyesight - apart from being a bit
colour-blind). Kids do sit right in from of screens - probably not
great for their eyesight long-term though.
If I get an UHDTV, it needs to be 80 inch or so - I'll wait until
hopefully they're not at present crazy prices. 65 inch seems to be a
sweet spot for prices, but that's not big enough IMO.
OTOH, a 4KTV which could be well colour-calibrated, and large enough -
perhaps 30" or so, would be great for photo work.

You could use a 24" or 27" 4K screen instead of a 60" TV.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 24/03/2016 10:35, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Me says...

On 23/03/2016 12:49, RichA wrote:
The dot-pitch on a 4K TV (say 42") isn't much different than something like an HD 24" monitor, around 0.23mm. So resolution per linear inch isn't any different, but, the area shown (as with a particular lens on FF versus APS) is much greater. You can put a larger percentage of the image on the screen at the same magnification, which is handy.

The difference is more like going from 4/3 format to 35mm, assume the
same (sensor) pixel pitch and output (screen) size and you'd have double
the linear resolution with 35mm.

I keep getting tempted to buy a 4kTV, despite limited content. But when
I look at UHDTV of the maximum size I'd be prepared to pay for - about
60", then step back to the viewing distance I'm comfortable with (for
viewing movies etc) on a 60" 1080p TV, most of the advantage has gone -
there's bugger-all visible difference even when comparing two TVs side
by side (and I've got excellent eyesight - apart from being a bit
colour-blind). Kids do sit right in from of screens - probably not
great for their eyesight long-term though.
If I get an UHDTV, it needs to be 80 inch or so - I'll wait until
hopefully they're not at present crazy prices. 65 inch seems to be a
sweet spot for prices, but that's not big enough IMO.
OTOH, a 4KTV which could be well colour-calibrated, and large enough -
perhaps 30" or so, would be great for photo work.

You could use a 24" or 27" 4K screen instead of a 60" TV.

Yes. I'm almost tempted to give it a go, some of the smaller very cheap
chinese UHDTVs have VA panels, the main complaint with them seems to be
that they have crappy connectivity features and outdated electronics (ie
laggy/slow D/A conversion giving unsmooth motion at 4k resolution) and
poor upscaling of lower res (ie 1080p) content. For still image editing
that doesn't matter, they might be okay - at least if they can be
calibrated - even if not perfectly.

In article , Me wrote:

Alfred Molon:
In article , Me says...

RichA:
The dot-pitch on a 4K TV (say 42") isn't much different than
something like an HD 24" monitor, around 0.23mm. So resolution
per linear inch isn't any different, but, the area shown (as
with a particular lens on FF versus APS) is much greater. You
can put a larger percentage of the image on the screen at the
same magnification, which is handy.

Me:
The difference is more like going from 4/3 format to 35mm,
assume the same (sensor) pixel pitch and output (screen) size
and you'd have double the linear resolution with 35mm.

I keep getting tempted to buy a 4kTV, despite limited content.
But when I look at UHDTV of the maximum size I'd be prepared to
pay for - about 60", then step back to the viewing distance I'm
comfortable with (for viewing movies etc) on a 60" 1080p TV,
most of the advantage has gone - there's bugger-all visible
difference even when comparing two TVs side by side (and I've
got excellent eyesight - apart from being a bit colour-blind).
Kids do sit right in from of screens - probably not great for
their eyesight long-term though. If I get an UHDTV, it needs to
be 80 inch or so - I'll wait until hopefully they're not at
present crazy prices. 65 inch seems to be a sweet spot for
prices, but that's not big enough IMO. OTOH, a 4KTV which could
be well colour-calibrated, and large enough - perhaps 30" or so,
would be great for photo work.

Alfred Molon:
You could use a 24" or 27" 4K screen instead of a 60" TV.

Yes. I'm almost tempted to give it a go, some of the smaller very
cheap chinese UHDTVs have VA panels, the main complaint with them
seems to be that they have crappy connectivity features and outdated
electronics (ie laggy/slow D/A conversion giving unsmooth motion at
4k resolution) and poor upscaling of lower res (ie 1080p) content.
For still image editing that doesn't matter, they might be okay - at
least if they can be calibrated - even if not perfectly.

VA can't be satisfactory calibrated for photo editing. At work I have dual
Philips 40" 4K VA-panels and they are quite off when it comes to color
calibration. Which is ok by me since I just code on them, but for photo
editing, they wouldn't fit as well as a top-tier IPS display

--
Sandman

On 24/03/2016 19:15, Sandman wrote:
In article , Me wrote:

Alfred Molon:
In article , Me says...

RichA:
The dot-pitch on a 4K TV (say 42") isn't much different than
something like an HD 24" monitor, around 0.23mm. So resolution
per linear inch isn't any different, but, the area shown (as
with a particular lens on FF versus APS) is much greater. You
can put a larger percentage of the image on the screen at the
same magnification, which is handy.

Me:
The difference is more like going from 4/3 format to 35mm,
assume the same (sensor) pixel pitch and output (screen) size
and you'd have double the linear resolution with 35mm.

I keep getting tempted to buy a 4kTV, despite limited content.
But when I look at UHDTV of the maximum size I'd be prepared to
pay for - about 60", then step back to the viewing distance I'm
comfortable with (for viewing movies etc) on a 60" 1080p TV,
most of the advantage has gone - there's bugger-all visible
difference even when comparing two TVs side by side (and I've
got excellent eyesight - apart from being a bit colour-blind).
Kids do sit right in from of screens - probably not great for
their eyesight long-term though. If I get an UHDTV, it needs to
be 80 inch or so - I'll wait until hopefully they're not at
present crazy prices. 65 inch seems to be a sweet spot for
prices, but that's not big enough IMO. OTOH, a 4KTV which could
be well colour-calibrated, and large enough - perhaps 30" or so,
would be great for photo work.

Alfred Molon:
You could use a 24" or 27" 4K screen instead of a 60" TV.

Yes. I'm almost tempted to give it a go, some of the smaller very
cheap chinese UHDTVs have VA panels, the main complaint with them
seems to be that they have crappy connectivity features and outdated
electronics (ie laggy/slow D/A conversion giving unsmooth motion at
4k resolution) and poor upscaling of lower res (ie 1080p) content.
For still image editing that doesn't matter, they might be okay - at
least if they can be calibrated - even if not perfectly.

VA can't be satisfactory calibrated for photo editing. At work I have dual
Philips 40" 4K VA-panels and they are quite off when it comes to color
calibration. Which is ok by me since I just code on them, but for photo
editing, they wouldn't fit as well as a top-tier IPS display

I've got an old Sony 40" 1080p TV with VA (Samsung) panel - now confined
to the spare room.
Not only did that calibrate very well, but with everything set to
neutral and "features" like auto backlight and auto dynamic range turned
off, it was actually remarkably good, IIRC Delta E was about 3 or so -
before hardware calibration. However that was CCFL backlit - not LED.
I've lost track of who uses what (panel wise) these days, but Philips
used to continue to use some LG IPS panels after they sold out of the
Chinese mainland JV with LG - and I don't think LG made any VA panels -
at least not large ones, but who knows where Philips buys panels these days.
I'm actually happy to edit on anything /reasonably/ well calibrated. I
keep a very well calibrated IPS panel monitor on a desk next to my
R3880, and will do a final check and tweak before printing using that.
Resolution of that monitor really doesn't matter - colour and
particularly contrast tweaks do. A 32" 4k monitor would be nice for
this, as the screen size roughly matches A2 output size - it would be
nice to be able to stand back and see on screen a trustworthy life-size
soft-proof before committing to print. I've made A2 prints of photos
which looked fantastic on smaller screens, no technical or resolution
problem, but they just don't cut it as large prints.

Alfred Molon:
You could use a 24" or 27" 4K screen instead of a 60" TV.

The 5K, 27" display on my iMac isn't too shabby.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 3/23/2016 4:52 PM, Me wrote:
On 23/03/2016 12:49, RichA wrote:
The dot-pitch on a 4K TV (say 42") isn't much different than something
like an HD 24" monitor, around 0.23mm. So resolution per linear inch
isn't any different, but, the area shown (as with a particular lens on
FF versus APS) is much greater. You can put a larger percentage of
the image on the screen at the same magnification, which is handy.

The difference is more like going from 4/3 format to 35mm, assume the
same (sensor) pixel pitch and output (screen) size and you'd have double
the linear resolution with 35mm.

I keep getting tempted to buy a 4kTV, despite limited content. But when
I look at UHDTV of the maximum size I'd be prepared to pay for - about
60", then step back to the viewing distance I'm comfortable with (for
viewing movies etc) on a 60" 1080p TV, most of the advantage has gone -
there's bugger-all visible difference even when comparing two TVs side
by side (and I've got excellent eyesight - apart from being a bit
colour-blind). Kids do sit right in from of screens - probably not
great for their eyesight long-term though.
If I get an UHDTV, it needs to be 80 inch or so - I'll wait until
hopefully they're not at present crazy prices. 65 inch seems to be a
sweet spot for prices, but that's not big enough IMO.
OTOH, a 4KTV which could be well colour-calibrated, and large enough -
perhaps 30" or so, would be great for photo work.

A few months ago I treated myself to a 28* Asus 4k monitor. (Up from a
21" Viewsonic.) Most of my competition prints are 12 x 18. This monitor
is more than adequate for me. I had been thinking about the NEC, which
covers a much higher percent of the RGB color space, but since somewhere
along the line, only the sRGB space is used for my photo printing, and
most monitors are not capable of viewing that high a percent of the RGB
gamut, I saw no point in paying almost three times the price.


--
PeterN

On 3/24/2016 2:12 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 3/23/2016 4:52 PM, Me wrote:
On 23/03/2016 12:49, RichA wrote:
The dot-pitch on a 4K TV (say 42") isn't much different than something
like an HD 24" monitor, around 0.23mm. So resolution per linear inch
isn't any different, but, the area shown (as with a particular lens on
FF versus APS) is much greater. You can put a larger percentage of
the image on the screen at the same magnification, which is handy.

The difference is more like going from 4/3 format to 35mm, assume the
same (sensor) pixel pitch and output (screen) size and you'd have double
the linear resolution with 35mm.

I keep getting tempted to buy a 4kTV, despite limited content. But when
I look at UHDTV of the maximum size I'd be prepared to pay for - about
60", then step back to the viewing distance I'm comfortable with (for
viewing movies etc) on a 60" 1080p TV, most of the advantage has gone -
there's bugger-all visible difference even when comparing two TVs side
by side (and I've got excellent eyesight - apart from being a bit
colour-blind). Kids do sit right in from of screens - probably not
great for their eyesight long-term though.
If I get an UHDTV, it needs to be 80 inch or so - I'll wait until
hopefully they're not at present crazy prices. 65 inch seems to be a
sweet spot for prices, but that's not big enough IMO.
OTOH, a 4KTV which could be well colour-calibrated, and large enough -
perhaps 30" or so, would be great for photo work.

A few months ago I treated myself to a 28* Asus 4k monitor. (Up from a
21" Viewsonic.) Most of my competition prints are 12 x 18. This monitor
is more than adequate for me. I had been thinking about the NEC, which
covers a much higher percent of the RGB color space, but since somewhere
along the line, only the sRGB space is used for my photo printing, and
most monitors are not capable of viewing that high a percent of the RGB
gamut, I saw no point in paying almost three times the price.

I understand your rationale, and if the monitor works for you, 'nuff
said. However, my $.02 anyway.

I've used NEC monitors for all of my graphics work for over 30 years,
and all of my current monitors are pro-level NECs running 32-bit color
depth. I can readily see the difference in images between them and 4k
monitors of any brand (probably due to learning to see those things over
the years). When editing, the advantage is that if there are color
corrections to be made, it is much easier to do so when you can see more
of the gamut as well as any undesirable impacts on other colors within
the sRGB space.

Admittedly, this may be overkill if one's needs are limited to personal
uses.

--
Best regards,

Neil

On 2016-03-24 18:12:15 +0000, PeterN said:

On 3/23/2016 4:52 PM, Me wrote:
On 23/03/2016 12:49, RichA wrote:
The dot-pitch on a 4K TV (say 42") isn't much different than something
like an HD 24" monitor, around 0.23mm. So resolution per linear inch
isn't any different, but, the area shown (as with a particular lens on
FF versus APS) is much greater. You can put a larger percentage of
the image on the screen at the same magnification, which is handy.

The difference is more like going from 4/3 format to 35mm, assume the
same (sensor) pixel pitch and output (screen) size and you'd have double
the linear resolution with 35mm.

I keep getting tempted to buy a 4kTV, despite limited content. But when
I look at UHDTV of the maximum size I'd be prepared to pay for - about
60", then step back to the viewing distance I'm comfortable with (for
viewing movies etc) on a 60" 1080p TV, most of the advantage has gone -
there's bugger-all visible difference even when comparing two TVs side
by side (and I've got excellent eyesight - apart from being a bit
colour-blind). Kids do sit right in from of screens - probably not
great for their eyesight long-term though.
If I get an UHDTV, it needs to be 80 inch or so - I'll wait until
hopefully they're not at present crazy prices. 65 inch seems to be a
sweet spot for prices, but that's not big enough IMO.
OTOH, a 4KTV which could be well colour-calibrated, and large enough -
perhaps 30" or so, would be great for photo work.

A few months ago I treated myself to a 28* Asus 4k monitor. (Up from a
21" Viewsonic.) Most of my competition prints are 12 x 18. This monitor
is more than adequate for me. I had been thinking about the NEC, which
covers a much higher percent of the RGB color space, but since
somewhere along the line, only the sRGB space is used for my photo
printing, and most monitors are not capable of viewing that high a
percent of the RGB gamut, I saw no point in paying almost three times
the price.

LG has 2 interesting 4K monitors a 27" which covers 99% of the sRGB
gamut and a 31" which covers 99.5% of the Adobe RGB gamut.
http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-27UD88-W-4k-uhd-led-monitor
http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-31MU97-B-4k-ips-led-monitor

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 3/24/2016 3:43 PM, Neil wrote:
On 3/24/2016 2:12 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 3/23/2016 4:52 PM, Me wrote:
On 23/03/2016 12:49, RichA wrote:
The dot-pitch on a 4K TV (say 42") isn't much different than something
like an HD 24" monitor, around 0.23mm. So resolution per linear inch
isn't any different, but, the area shown (as with a particular lens on
FF versus APS) is much greater. You can put a larger percentage of
the image on the screen at the same magnification, which is handy.

The difference is more like going from 4/3 format to 35mm, assume the
same (sensor) pixel pitch and output (screen) size and you'd have double
the linear resolution with 35mm.

I keep getting tempted to buy a 4kTV, despite limited content. But when
I look at UHDTV of the maximum size I'd be prepared to pay for - about
60", then step back to the viewing distance I'm comfortable with (for
viewing movies etc) on a 60" 1080p TV, most of the advantage has gone -
there's bugger-all visible difference even when comparing two TVs side
by side (and I've got excellent eyesight - apart from being a bit
colour-blind). Kids do sit right in from of screens - probably not
great for their eyesight long-term though.
If I get an UHDTV, it needs to be 80 inch or so - I'll wait until
hopefully they're not at present crazy prices. 65 inch seems to be a
sweet spot for prices, but that's not big enough IMO.
OTOH, a 4KTV which could be well colour-calibrated, and large enough -
perhaps 30" or so, would be great for photo work.

A few months ago I treated myself to a 28* Asus 4k monitor. (Up from a
21" Viewsonic.) Most of my competition prints are 12 x 18. This monitor
is more than adequate for me. I had been thinking about the NEC, which
covers a much higher percent of the RGB color space, but since somewhere
along the line, only the sRGB space is used for my photo printing, and
most monitors are not capable of viewing that high a percent of the RGB
gamut, I saw no point in paying almost three times the price.

I understand your rationale, and if the monitor works for you, 'nuff
said. However, my $.02 anyway.

I've used NEC monitors for all of my graphics work for over 30 years,
and all of my current monitors are pro-level NECs running 32-bit color
depth. I can readily see the difference in images between them and 4k
monitors of any brand (probably due to learning to see those things over
the years). When editing, the advantage is that if there are color
corrections to be made, it is much easier to do so when you can see more
of the gamut as well as any undesirable impacts on other colors within
the sRGB space.

Admittedly, this may be overkill if one's needs are limited to personal
uses.


Yep. I could see the difference. If I was a graphics professional, there
is no doubt that I would have gotten either the NEC, or an Eizo. The NEC
is a great monitor, but I just couldn't see the need, for my purposes.



--
PeterN