Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: ‘Ultra’ High-Resolution Displays  (Read 754 times)
Chris Kern
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 91


« on: January 08, 2014, 07:18:21 PM »
ReplyReply

I notice that several 3840-pixel-×-2160-line (4K, UHDTV, etc.) monitors have been introduced at CES in Las Vegas at quite aggressive price-ponts, including a $700 28-inch Dell unit that is scheduled to begin shipping later this month.

I'm less interested in these for post-processing than as a possible transmissive display device with high dynamic range that could serve as an alternative to printing.  Has anyone out there tried this?  How would you compare the visual quality with, say, a competent ink-jet print?

(There are obviously some purely mechanical issues, such as concealing cable runs and crafting an attractive wall mount, but at this point I'm primarily curious about how the images appeared on a high-resolution display.  Up to now, all I've seen is canned presentations in TV showrooms, where the still photographs are so oversaturated and oversharpened that it's difficult to make a judgment about how a well-processed image would look.)
Logged
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 646



« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2014, 09:40:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I notice that several 3840-pixel-×-2160-line (4K, UHDTV, etc.) monitors have been introduced at CES in Las Vegas at quite aggressive price-ponts, including a $700 28-inch Dell unit that is scheduled to begin shipping later this month.

I'm less interested in these for post-processing than as a possible transmissive display device with high dynamic range that could serve as an alternative to printing. Has anyone out there tried this? How would you compare the visual quality with, say, a competent ink-jet print?

Bingo! I'm also not that interested from an editing POV but very interested presentation-wise. I'd like to see the diagonal size go up to at least 40" before I'd consider putting one on a wall. I imagine this is more likely to be a TV than a monitor per se. It's early days for 4K, though.

IMO a transmissive display delivers a much bigger bang per pixel than a print of the same size. A 55" 3840x2160 display oughta be mighty impressive.

-Dave-
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2014, 09:47:58 PM »
ReplyReply

IMO a transmissive display delivers a much bigger bang per pixel than a print of the same size. A 55" 3840x2160 display oughta be mighty impressive.

I have several opportunities to see the Sony 82in, 65in and 55in 4K TV. The content was probably a bit overdone, but the images were very impressive nonetheless!

It is of course not quite as defined as a print the same size, but the impact is undeniable.

I guess that the guy who wrote this 5 years ago was maybe right... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/disembodiment.shtml

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 09:50:53 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 646



« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2014, 05:03:25 PM »
ReplyReply

"The days of prints are gone. Fine art screens have the upper end. The revolution is here.

"There is room for photographer to lead this transformation and shape it in a way that technology becomes an enabler instead of being seen as a threat. A suitable framework should be defined to discuss and drive the future of fine art photography and interact with the various technological providers."


I'd say your crystal ball was tuned to the right station. (Note: the above was written by Bernard in August 2008.)

-Dave-
Logged
PhotoEcosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 545



« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2014, 04:21:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I still have one niggling worry about using ultra-high resolution displays for post-exposure photo-processing.

If I process an image to what I think looks "best" on such a screen, is there not a danger that a competition judge, using a "normal" monitor to assess my entry, will see a poorer image than I saw on my super-duper screen?

Let's not forget that Apple Mac users girn about this all the time as (it seems) they see their photos as more vivid images than the competition judges see or club projectors project (and they appear to have an aversion to calibrating their screens to display a duller image).

And, at the other end of the spectrum, is there really much point in me seeing a "better" image on my screen than my printer can print? At the moment, the twin Dell 27" ultrasharp monitors that I use seem to be cross-calibrated pretty-well perfectly with my Epson R3000 printer (in the sense of "what I see is what I get"). I would hate to have to buy an even more expensive printer to match even more expensive monitors!
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 04:23:53 AM by PhotoEcosse » Logged

************************************
"Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol."
Alternatively, "Life begins at the far end of your comfort zone."
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3010


« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2014, 06:15:12 AM »
ReplyReply

I still have one niggling worry about using ultra-high resolution displays for post-exposure photo-processing.

If I process an image to what I think looks "best" on such a screen, is there not a danger that a competition judge, using a "normal" monitor to assess my entry, will see a poorer image than I saw on my super-duper screen?

Yes. But that also means you are not using targeted output sharpening. The optimal sharpening may differ (from somewhat to a lot) depending on the final output resolution (measured in angular resolution, so also viewing distance dependent).

It is not possible to produce optimal output sharpening for multiple viewing conditions, but one can try and optimize for more than one situation. Images also do not become suddenly crappy when viewed at a slightly different angular resolution than where it is optimized for, so there is some leeway.

You can use the first section of my (DoF) Output Quality Planner tool to get an idea as to what to look for. When e.g. the viewing distance and output size of the display is entered as intended output parameters (assuming full image viewing, not pixel peeping), you will get an indication of the actual PPI resolution of your source data at those dimensions.

If your source data has e.g. 4x the PPI potential at the actual display dimensions, then one can divide the 4x oversampling potential by 2 and get the radius required for a High-pass output sharpening pass that boosts all relevant spatial frequencies at the display size. Smaller radii are not very effective, larger radii will affect larger structures.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8030



WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2014, 09:10:41 AM »
ReplyReply

If I process an image to what I think looks "best" on such a screen, is there not a danger that a competition judge, using a "normal" monitor to assess my entry, will see a poorer image than I saw on my super-duper screen?
Yes and +1 to what Bart wrote. Further I've seen some pretty silly recommendations from some competition's about submission of images for display, I wonder how well (or poorly) each parties displays are calibrated, how they are setup to be viewed etc. That's possible with a print to a far lesser degree. We would hope the judges take that into account but who really knows.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad