• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • I'm editing on a $5,600, souped-up, maxed-out, MacBook Pro laptop with its 16-inch display. Dunno if I'd buy one again, but that's another story and I'm committed.

      But I have display envy for the YouTubers I see with big, multiple monitors, so it feels like the natural thing to do is spend my monies, crowd my house and destroy the planet with a big one for me. Makes sense, right?

      So I figured I'd better get a good one, big, 4K, with accurate color. Except I notice they go up to $7,000 and my comfort zone is more like $1,400ish. So what's the diff? Is it just accuracy of color? Isn't this $1,400 version of the Asus ProArt accurate enough? Who buys the $4,000 or $7,000 monitors? Hollywood?

      Another question: Ultrawide sounds convenient on paper but limited vertical resolution, right? So not good for editing 4K video? More for gaming?

    • Are you planning to edit HDR content? Because you're paying that money for the 1000 nits brightness of HDR10.

      If not or if that's not your biggest concern there are cheaper while still color accurate options out there.

      As for ultra wides they're great for productivity as well as gaming. I can't comment on video editing too much but at least for photo work I prefer multiple monitors. Also the curve of most ultrawides might be an issue but that's personal preference.

    • Speaking only of photo editing, accuracy is better than size.

      Of course, it is possible to over-obsess on accuracy but it would be better to get a smaller monitor with accuracy than a large monitor that has calibration issues.

    • Good topic! In the back of my mind (wait is that my adsense or amazon, I forget) I have had this for quite a while...

      Samsung 49-Inch CRG9 Curved Gaming Monitor (LC49RG90SSNXZA) – 120Hz Refresh, Ultrawide Screen QLED Computer Monitor, 5120 x 1440p Resolution, 4ms...

    • Well... I was torn between a 4K monitor, which has more vertical pixels, or the curved widescreen ones that have more horizontal pixels. The main thing for me is editing video in Premiere.

      A friend eventually talked me into the widescreen version and I just set it up. I'm really feeling the loss of more vertical pixels to see the photos and videos bigger. On the other hand, I get a wider timeline. Right now I have buyer's remorse but maybe I'll get used to it. One thing I don't like is it badly needs calibration. The blacks are washed.

    • Well calibrate the thing! It's a 5 minute job.

      And yeah - all that layout is doing is spreading it out and making you look further without adding any room. I typically run out of space vertically before width-wise. Those timelines can rack up height, even worse in FCP. Width is the lesser problem.

      I'd have some desktop showing with access to other resource windows as well. Make it like 2 monitors.

      Then I'd say "Dear, I've bought a killer TV upgrade for the bedroom," and go again. :-)

    • I really wish that there were 3:2 monitors that were 4k on the long end, once you use that aspect ratio it spoils you especially having to go back to 16:9 all the time. It would come out to 3840x2560 which isn't too bad especially next to 5k's 5120 × 2880.

    • hey Chris, I recently wrote a review for BenQ SW321C, which is around $2K USD. I moved from an MSI laptop with ~60% Adobe RGB coverage and still it was a huge move. Here is the review.

      With all that said, after talking to BenQ guys, they said there's no difference in colour accuracy between this model and some other 27" model (I think it was SW271), which also has 99% Adobe RGB. And if it's just for photo editing, I'd get that 27" one for about what you were after. Not so sure about video editing as I'm not doing that. Hope this helps.

    • Thank you, Anton. Great review. I got curious about you and read several of your reviews, including the SmugMug site builder review. Your collection of screen savers and landscape photography from around the world is stunning.

      I've been editing on my wide screen monitor and I seriously regret the purchase. Not enough vertical space for video. I dunno what to do now. Sell it, I guess, and spend the time re-packing and shipping. Ugh.

      One thing I'm unsettled about is editing in Adobe RGB and then converting to sRGB. They're both 8-bit color spaces, so same number of colors, but the colors covered in Adobe tend to have finer gradations in the blues and broader coverage to more shades of blue. So great for landscapes and architecture like you shoot. But sRGB is better with finer gradations in skin tone-related colors, no, so better for people, right?

      The thing that bothers me is you take all the bits you have in RAW and smash them down to Adobe RGB, having to pick nearest colors, and then you have to do it again in converting to sRGB for display. So it seems like you increase your losses with the double conversion, especially if you have portraits of varied skin tones, no?

      Everybody ought to see your free wallpapers. I got the waterfall. It's stunning:

    • I could be mistaken on the technical details, but I think the only time it's really converted from the raw color space is when you export the file. Until that point, everything is done in the raw color space and what you see on screen is just a rendering. So nothing is lost until the final export, which would be separate processes that stem from the raw file for each color space you export to.

    • hi Chris, I'm happy you found my review helpful and my wallpapers nice :)
      You don't double your losses, it's opposite. The idea is that you edit in a wider space keeping all the data around and convert to a smaller space only as the last step. This way you'll avoid the banding and have smoother gradients. You may edit in ProPhoto, which is much larger than Adobe RGB but I see no benefit in that if your screen is showing 99% Adobe RGB.
      Regarding vertical space, are you editing vertical videos or you just need a bit more space and that's it? In case of a vertical video, these photography monitors can be rotated in a portrait mode. Otherwise, if the screen is 4K, just use part of the screen for editing and the rest for your tools. Btw, never heard about sRGB being better for skin tones (I get your 8-bit reference here but still).

    • That's what proofing is for. You do all your editing normally and then when you're getting ready to export for say two different types of printer, you can do a soft-proof targeting the color space of the destination and it simulates it on screen for you. Then if you need to make any tweaks for it to look right in that color space you can do so. Anton may be able to say more about that than I can. I suspect he has much more experience than I do.

    • You'll be able to shoot RAW on the new camera though.

      I can now with the Z6 and Atomos Ninja 5 recorder. I tried a few shoots and decided my production values aren't that high.

      For online publishing I'm not as obsessive about colour output as I once was. Get it best on my main screen and go. It looks different on all the different types of display out there anyway.

      For magazine work, main display is calibrated against hard copy. Even then your best efforts can be sabotaged by the demon Press.

    • Your concern about emulating the viewer’s experience is valid and important. My question is how do you know what color space your viewer will have? That is to me the best option is to stay non destructive with RAW and then export to a format rhat matches what the viewing system will be. The idea is to keep as much information intil you have to down convert.

      It is one of the reasons that Adobe has some many output/rendering options. As an example, I have found rendering out movies from Premier or After Effects in 4K and then allowing my playback device (Apple TV) down convert to HD look very different. The main reason is that the dynamic range and color spaces are not matched. If I render out a 4K and an HD version they look much closer as the Adobe software has better encoders and does not have to do it in real time.

      In terms of the curved monitors, that Samsung is actually designed for work environments. It is the “equivalent” of two side by side monitors but with no frame in the middle.

      What I found works for me is one nice large screen with as large a color space as I can afford, such as P3 or Rec 2020. They I have two cheap monitors for tool palettes and also as render targets. One is HD sRGB, the other is 4K RGB.

      Now if it was me and had no limits I would really want to edit with a 4k 120 fps Rec 2020 laser project at 5K lumens in a dark room on a 16 foot wide screen. Then when not editing you can also have a great home theater for watching movies. I also have found the transmissive property of projection is easier in my eyes.