27" 5K vs 31-32" 4K monitor?

[Scott Pultz]

I currently use a 27" 2560x1440 display.

I went to see the 5K iMAC and I brought some stills to view on it. They had it side-by-side with the 2560x1440 version.

To be honest I wasn't as blown away by the difference as I thought that I would be. Yes it looks better and in particular text in UIs looks nicer. But the photos were a closer call at a normal viewing distance (not putting the nose right against the screen).

So I'm wondering if a 32" 4K display would actually be more impressive and useful. Many more pixels than I have now and a significantly bigger screen.

For those of you who have used the 5K screens, what are your thoughts?

 

[Linda Barzini]

As you stated, some of the text is smoother, and a few more details in the icons, like Safari; not really a big deal. As far as image quality, it is really only noticeable when zooming in. If this is important to your workflow, then it may be helpful.

Some other things to consider. The price of the same 5k monitor is currently still the same as an entire iMac. Also, the current GPUs are designed to support 4096 x 2160, so connectivity is a problem.

It seems like the 31" LG 31MU97 has been getting great reviews. It is 4096 x 2160 at 60 Hz with a good graphics card. It is $1,399.

It seems to me there is little to be gained above the 2560 x 1440 monitors for another 6 months or so until monitors start coming out with HDMI 2.0.

I was at Best Buy today and compared the iMac and 5k iMac for about 20 minutes. I came to the same conclusion you did. It made me think I may be better off with a good 2560 x 1440 monitor for a year, then possibly upgrading. I love my iMac monitor.

What part of the usual workflow (PP, AE, and Resolve) would the extra pixels be helpful?

 

[Scott Pultz]

Connectivity is a problem for me even with a 4K display as I need a cable length longer than 6' and I haven't found a solution for this yet.

I would be using the monitor for more than work in that I also want a lovely display to look at my photographs with for enjoyment.

Would love a 5K monitor with a 3:2 aspect ratio but don't have my hopes up

 

[Eric Santiago]

Call me old school but I only want to use (any) 4K and up display for playback and thats all.

I have a slew of Cinema 30s that I found more than enough real estate for even After Effects (screen hog app of the decade).

Now when you were doing the test with graphics, were you looking at 1:1 pixels?

That would be the litmus test, especially for Photoshop users.

 

[Scott Pultz]

Call me old school but I only want to use (any) 4K and up display for playback and thats all.

I have a slew of Cinema 30s that I found more than enough real estate for even After Effects (screen hog app of the decade).

Now when you were doing the test with graphics, were you looking at 1:1 pixels?

That would be the litmus test, especially for Photoshop users.

I had resized my images to be pixel-perfect fullscreen photos.

 

[Eric Santiago]

I had resized my images to be pixel-perfect fullscreen photos.

As in the image on the older iMac compared to the image on the new iMac.

One way is to have Photoshop on both systems.

Open same image and do 100% view on both at same time.

Curious to see how they look.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

For me, the new 5K screens are awesome. I would have already bought one, like the Dell, if the interface wasn't such an issue -- sops up two TB2 headers on a Mac Pro cylinder or requires a GPU with two discrete DP 1.2 outputs for full 5K 60Hz operation. The new iMac is great, but I don't need another iMac right now... I'll probably replace my 2011 iMac with a new one when we get the next refresh and Broadwell CPU.

There's 4X the number of pixels on the screen, so you can see a full 4K image and still have room for controls and other window info. You can work on most DSLR images in Photoshop without having to pan around much or see the whole thing at 50~60%. When setting comfortably 4 feet or so from a 27~30" 2.5K monitor, I still see the pixels. This is a hugely welcome advancement for me. Anyone doing page layout work will benefit hugely from the extra resolution, vector graphics are sharp. I love working on my 4K displays or MBP retina display for writing code -- the text is razor sharp and a lot easier on the eyes. Right now, my two favorite desktop screens are the 24" 3840x2160 screen from Dell and the 5K LG panel used by Dell and the new iMac. When DisplayPort 1.3 arrives in the coming months and we can connect a monitor like the Dell 5K with a single interface cable/ port, I'll probably replace a few of my old 30" 2560x1600 displays. I have a couple of those that are 8 years old now! It's time.

 

[Eric Santiago]

Jeff you are THE ONE!!

 

[Mike Nagel]

the problem is that there is a threshold of the detail the eyes are able to perceive... so when these screen manufacturers increase the resolution but then make the screen size smaller, that means much smaller pixels and that means your eyes will have a problem actually seeing the detail in these pixels...

IMO, rather useless for some workflows unless the screen size is a min of 32" for 4K...

now, if you're "just" editing and wanna see the entire image frame and pixel detail does not matter then it's fine to go with smaller screen sizes, but dedicated color adjustments or detail based image manipulations are useless if your eyes cannot see all of the detail... ;-)

- M

 

[Ryan Hamblin]

The color accuracy of the iMac is pretty great straight from the factory. We ran the i1 display pro on it and very little changed at all

 

[Eric Santiago]

The color accuracy of the iMac is pretty great straight from the factory. We ran the i1 display pro on it and very little changed at all

Ryan, the new 5K iMac?

 

[L. Langer]

Ryan, the new 5K iMac?

All 5K iMac builds have their display calibrated by Apple.