Thoughts after moving to a 5K display

Got a new 27" iMac recently. The 5K screen is a joy to behold. At about 218ppi, it is literally print quality. I imagine 4K displays are similar.

However I've noticed that several of the so-called "issues" that I used to worry about when unrealistically viewing at 100% on an HD screen (1920 x 1080 on a 21.5" iMac = about 100ppi) simply are no longer visible. Subtle differences in sharpness, noise, halos... just gone. Comparison images I used to take with my DP2M, SDQH, and other cameras (5D3, 5DSR, 5D4, X100S) now show little or often zero advantage for the Sigma. I think this is a great sanity check for pixel peepers. In many cases we've been wringing our hands over nothing this whole time. Thoughts?

Just for fun here's a 5K sized image:

On my 4k 40 inch VA display(1:5000 contrast ratio), I find merrill images the best by far. Quattro about same level as high resolution FF images, and any APS-c or smaller sensor with bayer or x-trans layout are inferor. However from 24MP X-trans sensor I saw surprising good results. At the end of the day Foveon advantage become diminish, but Merrill give me the unique look that I like most.

Lukacs85 said:

On my 4k 40 inch VA display(1:5000 contrast ratio), I find merrill images the best by far. Quattro about same level as high resolution FF images, and any APS-c or smaller sensor with bayer or x-trans layout are inferor. However from 24MP X-trans sensor I saw surprising good results. At the end of the day Foveon advantage become diminish, but Merrill give me the unique look that I like most.

Click to expand...

At 40" and "only" 4K (3840 x 2160), you're at 110ppi. This is not print quality, and not comparable to my 27" 5K display (5120 x 2880) at 218ppi. I'm not surprised you're still finding Foveon superior.

JackM said:

Lukacs85 said:

On my 4k 40 inch VA display(1:5000 contrast ratio), I find merrill images the best by far. Quattro about same level as high resolution FF images, and any APS-c or smaller sensor with bayer or x-trans layout are inferor. However from 24MP X-trans sensor I saw surprising good results. At the end of the day Foveon advantage become diminish, but Merrill give me the unique look that I like most.

Click to expand...

At 40" and "only" 4K (3840 x 2160), you're at 110ppi. This is not print quality, and not comparable to my 27" 5K display (5120 x 2880) at 218ppi. I'm not surprised you're still finding Foveon superior.

Click to expand...

At what distance do you view the 5K Mac screen and how good is your close vision compared to the average human?

My view distance is 40 inch, I bet yours is less than 30. You should take view distance in consideration, not only ppi.

Lukacs85 said:

My view distance is 40 inch, I bet yours is less than 30. You should take view distance in consideration, not only ppi.

Click to expand...

Point taken, but I will still take greater ppi every time. I'm not in front of it right now, but I would guess I sit about 24" to 30" from it.

JackM said:

Got a new 27" iMac recently. The 5K screen is a joy to behold. At about 218ppi, it is literally print quality. I imagine 4K displays are similar.

However I've noticed that several of the so-called "issues" that I used to worry about when unrealistically viewing at 100% on an HD screen (1920 x 1080 on a 21.5" iMac = about 100ppi) simply are no longer visible. Subtle differences in sharpness, noise, halos... just gone. Comparison images I used to take with my DP2M, SDQH, and other cameras (5D3, 5DSR, 5D4, X100S) now show little or often zero advantage for the Sigma. I think this is a great sanity check for pixel peepers. In many cases we've been wringing our hands over nothing this whole time. Thoughts?

Just for fun here's a 5K sized image:

Click to expand...

Something worries me about this trend to high resolution. It threatens to become VR.

What do I mean? I recently acquired a set of Oculus Go VR googles. Interesting things, processors are built in so no need to tether to a PC. One of the most interesting applications for me is 360 degree spherical panos. The goggles allow you to sit on a swivel chair and spin round and examine the scene from any direction including up and down. It's kind of like being there. Sort of. The resolution is nowhere near print quality even with 50MP stitched files but that doesn't really matter. It's good enough to get the essence across

And that is the problem. I think of photography not just for memories or records but also as an art. That means images are not just VR reproductions of being there, there also has to be a vision, selecting a moment in time, a slice out of the landscape and rendering it artfully. That is very different from recreating the holodeck experience. The way things are going with our 50" 8K screens the holodeck or something like it can't be many years away. Then we will be able to experience those memories all over again in glorious fidelity. And that will be it for many people. But I have yet to see a 360 pano that was art - it is too realistic, too literal, too much a straight record.

I think as the ability to render images ever more realistically increases, we also risk losing the selectiveness and unrealness of the artistic view.

--
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/ (2018 - website revived!)
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

xpatUSA said:

At what distance do you view the 5K Mac screen and how good is your close vision compared to the average human?

Click to expand...

I'm not in front of it now but I would guess 24-30". Vision is fine, I do not wear lenses. At my peak (20 years ago, lol) I was measured at 20/16 (better than 20/20).

Lukacs85 said:

My view distance is 40 inch, I bet yours is less than 30. You should take view distance in consideration, not only ppi.

Click to expand...

Indeed, the proper viewing distance is said to be one diagonal (27"). And if that gives a cpd of over 50 then the "Merrill advantage" can't be seen without a magnifying glass. ;-)

So 1/218 divided by 27 comes to a sample angle of 1.7 milli-radians. One cycle is two samples which is 3.4 mrad. That's 2943 cycles per radian which is 51 cycles per degree (cpd).

Hmmm ...


From https://webvision.med.utah.edu/book/part-viii-gabac-receptors/visual-acuity/

:-D

--
Ted

DMillier said:

Something worries me about this trend to high resolution. It threatens to become VR.

What do I mean? I recently acquired a set of Oculus Go VR googles. Interesting things, processors are built in so no need to tether to a PC. One of the most interesting applications for me is 360 degree spherical panos. The goggles allow you to sit on a swivel chair and spin round and examine the scene from any direction including up and down. It's kind of like being there. Sort of. The resolution is nowhere near print quality even with 50MP stitched files but that doesn't really matter. It's good enough to get the essence across

And that is the problem. I think of photography not just for memories or records but also as an art. That means images are not just VR reproductions of being there, there also has to be a vision, selecting a moment in time, a slice out of the landscape and rendering it artfully. That is very different from recreating the holodeck experience. The way things are going with our 50" 8K screens the holodeck or something like it can't be many years away. Then we will be able to experience those memories all over again in glorious fidelity. And that will be it for many people. But I have yet to see a 360 pano that was art - it is too realistic, too literal, too much a straight record.

I think as the ability to render images ever more realistically increases, we also risk losing the selectiveness and unrealness of the artistic view.

Click to expand...

I mostly agree with your thoughtful post, but I don't agree that 360/spherical/VR or the holodeck are going to replace single photographs or the art of photography completely. They will for certain applications. There will always be a place for a well lit, well seen, well composed piece of art.

JackM said:

xpatUSA said:

At what distance do you view the 5K Mac screen and how good is your close vision compared to the average human?

Click to expand...

I'm not in front of it now but I would guess 24-30". Vision is fine, I do not wear lenses. At my peak (20 years ago, lol) I was measured at 20/16 (better than 20/20).

Click to expand...

Thanks. I was typing while you were, see my other post please.

JackM said:

Got a new 27" iMac recently. The 5K screen is a joy to behold. At about 218ppi, it is literally print quality. I imagine 4K displays are similar.

However I've noticed that several of the so-called "issues" that I used to worry about when unrealistically viewing at 100% on an HD screen (1920 x 1080 on a 21.5" iMac = about 100ppi) simply are no longer visible. Subtle differences in sharpness, noise, halos... just gone. Comparison images I used to take with my DP2M, SDQH, and other cameras (5D3, 5DSR, 5D4, X100S) now show little or often zero advantage for the Sigma. I think this is a great sanity check for pixel peepers. In many cases we've been wringing our hands over nothing this whole time. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

My thought is that you need to see things on a 50" 4K screen. I'm talking slightly less total pixels, but almost four times the area. In other words the pixels are about twice the size of the ones on your display. THEN you'll have a problem.



Think 85" screens (4K for now, but that will probably change in a few years to 8K). Those giant screens are coming down in price. Already we can buy them for under $5,000, and a 75" TV is normally available today for about $2,000. There's even a 100" TV available from Sony now:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...100z9d_xbr_z9d_series_100_class_4k_smart.html

The Samsung Q9S is 8K, but not quite here yet. 8K is around the corner . . . maybe.

https://www.product-reviews.net/2018/01/10/samsung-q9s-8k-tv-release-date-price-excitement/

Big screens are the future. Almost every home will have a giant screen over 80" one day in the next few years. With screen-casting becoming more and more popular, and being a feature included in smartphones and televisions, people will control what's on their TV by showing a 4K (and eventually 8K) video feed from their phone to the giant screens in their living rooms, dens, even their bedrooms. Not only will they watch Netflix, Prime, Hulu, cable, and YouTube on their TV, but they'll use that huge screen to access the Web when they're at home. When they see a nice photo on your website, they'll want to view it full-screen. Unless you're compressing your photos dramatically (and I don't suggest that), then if your photos are noisy or have major halos it will be immediately visible to most people, even when sitting or standing a few feet from that giant screen . . . and it will be obvious in your prints too, if you print really big (and I think more and more people will do that in the future, as people get used to seeing images huge on their TV screens).

JackM said:

Just for fun here's a 5K sized image:

Click to expand...

--
Scott Barton Kennelly
http://www.bigprintphotos.com

xpatUSA said:

Lukacs85 said:

My view distance is 40 inch, I bet yours is less than 30. You should take view distance in consideration, not only ppi.

Click to expand...

Indeed, the proper viewing distance is said to be one diagonal (27"). And if that gives a cpd of over 50 then the "Merrill advantage" can't be seen without a magnifying glass. ;-)

So 1/218 divided by 27 comes to a sample angle of 1.7 milli-radians. One cycle is two samples which is 3.4 mrad. That's 2943 cycles per radian which is 51 cycles per degree (cpd).

Hmmm ...


From https://webvision.med.utah.edu/book/part-viii-gabac-receptors/visual-acuity/

:-D

Click to expand...

Milli-radians are not my cup of tea Ted, but on an 85" screen I'm pretty sure I'd be able to see the noise or halos at 100% view pretty easily, since I can often see it on my 13" screen at 100% view, without moving in closer. I don't have particularly good vision, so someone with 20/20 vision can probably see such things on an 85" 4K screen from a mile away (figuratively speaking).

I know how bad noise and halos look on a 50" 4K screen, and 80" is a LOT bigger. (I know, I know, we're talking about Apple 27" screen iMacs . . . but as you know, that's not the only type of screen out there.) Not many people use giant screens with computers yet, but more and more it's happening, now that curved screens exist to make it work better. Maybe 8K and higher resolution cameras will help cure the "problem" of noise and halos in photos, but I'll stick to making the best low-ISO photos I can for now . . . and the foreseeable future.



--
Scott Barton Kennelly

Not really interested in a 36" plus monitor, but interesting info.

fwiw Nice image, but did "notice" the sharpening halos. Maybe one of your Foveon sensors could have produced better pixel level sharpness without them.

quite frankly think all this 4K and up is great for selling even more boxes, albeit tv's and with enough to handle such file sizes (i'm coming from a video perspective, but it applies to stills to think).

have done a fair amount of research into 4k, let alone anything higher, and my by no means scientific are summed up as:

a. if the image is of interest then people will appreciate it no matter what

b. 'most' viewers have no interest/idea about resolution and can probably tell but certainly not 'good' from 4k under normal circumstances

c. manufacturers are fast running out of 'improvements' we must have - 3d failed yet again, 8k is basically hype, and it seems everyone is eager to believe that there's no limit to where we can go.

really enjoyed this video regarding 4k:







of course, ymmv, but since i'm a professional i look to satisfy my clients needs, and have yet to have a client even think about 4k tv production, and my stills clients, more than happy with standard poster size prints from my sdq.

Yeah, well 4K as a computer monitoris WAY better if the screen is at least 50" or bigger. I tried it with a 40" screen, and menus and stuff were just too small. Even with the 50" screen they're pretty small and hard to read. The OS manufacturers may have fixed that by now, but I don't know, because I don't keep the OS updated. The computer I use with the 50" screen has El Capitan on it, rather than Sierra or High Sierra.

Do I agree with him about 4K? Well, sort of . . . but I can tell you I'm confident that the monster 75" 4K TV my dad got on sale at Costco a few months ago is awesome, and the videos we watch on it look awesome . . . even though I'm pretty sure they're only 1080p videos, because it's Netflix and YouTube and stuff like that. We've watched some DVDs too, and they look pretty good too, even though they aren't even 1080p.

I still think the World will switch to 8K eventually though. The first 8K TV exists already, and a year or two from now I'm pretty sure there will be plenty of 4K content. In a few years the first wave of 8K TV screens will hit the market, and while they'll be expensive, like the first wave of 4K TV screens were, they'll sell, and a couple of years after that a second wave of those things will hit the market, and those will be a lot more affordable.

I haven't done any surveys, but when I look at what TV screens are available in 4K I see a lot today. Sure, there are still plenty available with standard HD, which can only show 1/4 of the pixels, and they can probably scale down 4K content, so they'll work for many years to come, but some day 8K content will come along - maybe 5 or 6 years from now, but possibly up to 10 or 15 years away. At that point there will be many 8K screens out there, no doubt. Just so you know, I've been watching 4K content for years . . . on YouTube. It's been available, but you need a fast computer and a fast connection to the Internet. I've got both handy now, though the computer isn't really that fast, considering it's only a dual-core i5, and the internet connection is the slowest available from AT&T in my area (still it's over 50 Mbit for downloading - I've tested it with various methods).

So the Internet is fast enough for 4K, and there are lots of 4K TV screens available at reasonable prices. The "average" user probably wants to spend less than $500 on a new TV, if they're forced to get one, so 4K is quite affordable. B&H has a 50" Samsung that's LED and 4K for $400. The 43" version of that TV is $350. I think 4K is becoming ubiquitous around about now, so even though he posted that video just a year ago, I think he's probably already wrong. Just about everyone buys 4K TV screens now, and who doesn't get a new TV every couple of years? If he's not wrong now, he'll probably be wrong next year or the year after. At B&H there are 188 TV screens that are 4K, but only 48 that are 1080p. (They have 23 of those old 720p screens too.) After 4K will be 8K.

Sure it'll take a while to step up to 8K. They don't even have 8K screens available from B&H at the moment. In a year or two from now I think they will . . . and then a year or two after that a bunch of them will be available. Still, they'll be for fanatics and experimenters. Five years from now might be a bit too soon to think we need 8K photos for those huge screens, but maybe a couple of years after that I'll have an 8K TV myself. If so, I'll be wishing ALL my photos and videos were shot in 8K resolution . . . the way I feel now about 4K resolution. (My photos from my SD-14 look a bit sad on the 4K screens.)

Who wants to shoot low resolution photos, when they figure it could be in as little as 10 years that we'll be wishing our photos were made for 8K screens? I shot photos with a Canon 5 D just 10 years ago. That thing was only 12 MP. I'm wishing I had bought a Nikon D3x or a Sony A900 back when they were a year old. At least I did eventually upgrade though. I don't plan to stick with what I've got now though. When I can get more resolution, I'm going to go for it. I think he's right about 8K not being just around the corner, but it IS coming. I don't think it'll take 20 years for it to get here either.

--
Scott Barton Kennelly
http://www.bigprintphotos.com

JackM said:

Got a new 27" iMac recently. The 5K screen is a joy to behold. At about 218ppi, it is literally print quality. I imagine 4K displays are similar.

However I've noticed that several of the so-called "issues" that I used to worry about when unrealistically viewing at 100% on an HD screen (1920 x 1080 on a 21.5" iMac = about 100ppi) simply are no longer visible. Subtle differences in sharpness, noise, halos... just gone. Comparison images I used to take with my DP2M, SDQH, and other cameras (5D3, 5DSR, 5D4, X100S) now show little or often zero advantage for the Sigma. I think this is a great sanity check for pixel peepers. In many cases we've been wringing our hands over nothing this whole time. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I had much the same experience when switching from a 25" 1440p display to a 27" 2160p 4K display. The difference from fullscreen to "100%" viewing became very small, and a lot of the "wow factor" from seeing a Merrill image at 100% went away.

I still think my Merrill outperforms my Sony A6300, but now it's more a matter of colors and the lens being very sharp at all apertures and in the corners where my A6300 lenses are lacking behind.

"Almost every home will have a giant screen over 80" one day in the next few years."

Almost every rich home, maybe.

There are still a great many people living on a couple of dollars a day. Even in rich countries, there are unemployed people and pensioners who don't have the money for giant TVs.

My Merrill's photos started to live on the 40" UHD display. However I have to admit Merrill's micro contrast has lot of advantage on lower resolution displays because gives the feel of high resolution. 5k display outresolves Merrill's vertical resoluton (5120 vs 4700 pixels), where a 24MP image has a resolution advantage without zooming.

But Merrills ha another advantage, corner to corner sharp fixed lenses. At least with DP2m and Dp3m, but DP1m is not as worse, it wipes up the floor with my 17-50 f2.8 at 17mm. This new high resolution monitors are merciless with cheap lenses, most mid and some high range lenses are struggle with corners. The 35 and 50 Art lenses can compete with dp's fixes at f2.8 but with lot of weight and price disadvantage. Also I found 50 f1.4 Art very sharp from f1.8, but if you like shallow DOF the best go with medium format.

"Yeah, well 4K as a computer monitoris WAY better if the screen is at least 50" or bigger. I tried it with a 40" screen, and menus and stuff were just too small. Even with the 50" screen they're pretty small and hard to read. The OS manufacturers may have fixed that by now, but I don't know, because I don't keep the OS updated. The computer I use with the 50" screen has El Capitan on it, rather than Sierra or High Sierra."



Mac OS has had this issue fixed for quite some time, I would assume since the first 4K/5K iMacs. It's pretty smart. Text, menus, icons etc are scaled. Images are displayed using the full 4K/5K.

50" 4K is no longer high resolution, it's 117.5ppi.