zenpmd Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 I'm thinking of splashing some cash on a self-calibrating Eizo monitor. But am thinking ahead to 4k. Is there any point in a 4k monitor that should mean I should wait? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 Eizo monitors are the absolute best in terms of colour accuracy and calibration. Best monitors I've ever used. They're simply stunning, but they are 2.5K (i.e, retina/I mac resolution). If I am spending money on a monitor for video editing right now, I would definitely want it to be 4K for it to be a long-term investment and something that I'll use for years to come, where 4K will definitely be the standard and I'd want to view and edit 4K natively sooner or later. My vote is to look for a high-end colour-accurate 4K monitor, it's the wise investment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronChicago Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 Good 4K monitors are crazy expensive right now. Dell and ASUS make some lower end ones for under $1200 but they have pretty poor reviews for graphic/photo use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnymossville Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 I really want a 4k monitor and a 4k TV now that I have my GH4, but the reality is I think we are a year away from really good options at decent prices, especially for 4k computer monitors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenpmd Posted August 14, 2014 Author Share Posted August 14, 2014 But what is the real benefit of a 4k monitor? Can't we rely on upscaling for image and video review? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyWill Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 But what is the real benefit of a 4k monitor? Can't we rely on upscaling for image and video review? Depends on where the work is destined to be shown, anyone making video for youtube through to HD broadcast can probably make do with 2k monitors (EDIT: or less). If your work is for a 4k screen/projection then you should be reviewing the actual frames, not an electronic approximation of them mushed into a different resolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 Yes I haven't looked into that market yet. Are there really not any good 4K monitors yet at decent prices? I just really don't want to be investing in an editing monitor that cannot display 4K right now. What are the viable options for a 4K editing monitor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgharding Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 I use an ordinary 2.8k monitor for working on, but a 1600 x 1050 (approx) JVC DTV series one for grading. It looks sharper than normal 1080 monitors and is colour accurate. In other words, if you can't afford a huge 4k monitor that's colour accurate, use a cheaper 4k or so for edit (or just your current one) and a lower res colour accurate for grading is a budget option... I've never had to work at 4K really so at the moment I wouldn't be future-proofing that much. Of course you may have different needs. Cinema DCP is still 2K, so is most online streaming (well 1080p) so I'll leave that market to mature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 Jg: Good advice. One can use one of these EIZO monitors for colour grading (which are really the best/most colour accurate displays on the market) and use a cheap 4K monitor for editing. That's a great option I haven't thought of. Question: is there a disadvantage to using a 4K monitor to display 1080p content? I mean wouldn't it have to upscale the 1080p image to fit the 4K panel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunyata Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 The redshark writer David Sharpton is making a convincing argument for a nice 4k monitor as your primary desktop display, but he's leaving out one factor: speed. It's gonna slow down your overall OpenGL performance, rt simulations, and I would expect refresh issues. I think you're totally fine getting a < 4k Ezio monitor for many years to come. From discreet's DKU 8.0.2 (2014 products) -- you can customize, but this is the default config for your main monitor: # Screen 0 "Screen Lustre / EIZO CE24xW 6000 SDI 1920x1200" 0 0 # Screen 0 "Screen EIZO CG24xW K6000 SDI 1920x1200" 0 0 # Screen 0 "Screen Lustre / EIZO CE24xW FX5800 SDI 1920x1200" 0 0 # Screen 0 "Screen Lustre / EIZO CE24xW FX5600 SDI 1920x1200" 0 0 # Screen 0 "Screen Sony SDM-P234 / EIZO CE240W FX4500G 1920x1154" 0 0 # Screen 0 "Screen Sony SDM-P234 / EIZO CE240W FX5500G 1920x1154" 0 0 # Screen 0 "Screen Sony SDM-P234 / EIZO CE240W FX4500G 1920x1200" 0 0 # Screen 0 "Screen Sony SDM-P234 / EIZO CE240W FX5500G 1920x1200" 0 0 # Screen 0 "Screen Default 1920x1200 EDID" 0 0 # Screen 0 "Screen Default 1920x1200 NO-EDID" 0 0 The Eizo CE 24" CG 24" and Sony SDM-P234? w/ various cards are indicated, nothing running higher than 1920x1200. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.