98% sRGB 4K or 100% sRGB 2K?

Started 7 months ago | Questions
husseinhorack
husseinhorack New Member • Posts: 4
98% sRGB 4K or 100% sRGB 2K?

The 4K screen is 28", 2K is 27", but I'm wondering how big the 2% colour accuracy difference is. Does it matter? If I remember correctly my brother's 2014 MacBook Pro has only 98% colour accuracy and it seems great to me. But I've got a MacBook Air at the moment, so I'm comparing it with much...

Basically, will the 2% difference in colour accuracy affect me in any way? Will I notice it?

Just a note: the 4K display has a higher refresh rate and goes up to 75Hz... the 2K display has the typical 5ms and 60Hz.

Monitors in question:

Acer 27" H277HU (2K)

Samsung 28" LU28E590DS (4K)

ANSWER:
This question has not been answered yet.
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner Forum Pro • Posts: 20,149
I say 4k
1

husseinhorack wrote:

The 4K screen is 28", 2K is 27", but I'm wondering how big the 2% colour accuracy difference is. Does it matter? If I remember correctly my brother's 2014 MacBook Pro has only 98% colour accuracy and it seems great to me. But I've got a MacBook Air at the moment, so I'm comparing it with much...

Basically, will the 2% difference in colour accuracy affect me in any way? Will I notice it?

Just a note: the 4K display has a higher refresh rate and goes up to 75Hz... the 2K display has the typical 5ms and 60Hz.

Monitors in question:

Acer 27" H277HU (2K)

Samsung 28" LU28E590DS (4K)

More resolution is I think always preferable over slightly wider color gamut... if it were a lot wider, like AdobeRGB that would be one thing but probably the 2% difference will not be that noticeable, especially since neither of those monitors are targeting super-accurate color.

 Kendall Helmstetter Gelner's gear list:Kendall Helmstetter Gelner's gear list
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG HSM Sigma 50-500mm F4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM +4 more
bmoag Senior Member • Posts: 1,784
Re: 98% sRGB 4K or 100% sRGB 2K?
1

My daily experience comparing raw image processing in 4k and 2k in monitors of slightly different gamut is that the differences in resolution at normal nose to monitor distances are more apparent than the differences in gamut. If you only work with jpeg images I presume you understand that the distinction between the monitor gamuts is largely a moot point.

I have a 4k sub sRGB panel and a wider gamut 2k panel sitting next to each other when I run PS, both monitors calibrated by the same software/hardware to the same brightness.

If you only use PS/LR to apply global adjustments to a raw image, sort of as an out of camera jpeg machine, the added definition of a 4k panel may not do as much for you as it does for me. If you are overwhelmed by the minor gamut difference in identically calibrated monitors then your choice is clear.

If you like to pixel peep a 4k monitor will definitely float your boat.

As a practical point I find regional adjustments in a Photoshop layer, something I do as a matter of course with most images, far easier to accomplish with the added resolution of a 4k monitor--practical pixel peeping. In truth those kinds of things are easier to do on a larger panel of any resolution.

When processing raw images in Prophoto at 16 bits regardless of which panel was used to guide processing or soft proofing, regardless of whether I think I see a difference in the images  comparing the two monitors, images coming out of the printer seem indistinguishable regardless of the monitor on which they were processed or soft proofed--a printer can only print what it can print. Ditto for images then converted to sRGB and more so for the latter when distributed to view on random monitors/tablets/cell phones. So for image distribution in prints or sRGB I can not find any practical difference using panels of slightly different gamut.

I presume there are times when processing an image on a wider gamut monitor will yield a subjectively better print but I just don't encounter that with my two printers or I don't see the difference (and have wasted too much expensive ink trying to demonstrate a difference). On 27 inch panels the differences in resolution are easy to discriminate between 4k and 2k but that might not be so easy on smaller panels as the size of the pixels are already pretty small.

graybalanced Veteran Member • Posts: 6,285
Re: 98% sRGB 4K or 100% sRGB 2K?
1

husseinhorack wrote:

The 4K screen is 28", 2K is 27", but I'm wondering how big the 2% colour accuracy difference is. Does it matter? If I remember correctly my brother's 2014 MacBook Pro has only 98% colour accuracy and it seems great to me. But I've got a MacBook Air at the moment, so I'm comparing it with much...

Basically, will the 2% difference in colour accuracy affect me in any way? Will I notice it?

The reason it will not matter is that they don't say which 2% of the colors is the difference, so it's useless to use as a comparison. Maybe there's a 2% difference in total volume, but what if the 2% is in a color you never use? Then you won't notice it. What if the other monitor has 2% less overall, but more coverage in the colors that you do use? Then the one with 2% less overall, is better!

Percentage marketing claims of gamut should always be suspect because of this. Gamuts are not square or circular, and the gamuts of our images are not either, so overall percentages have no meaning. What you really want to know is how the gamuts of your personal images match up to the gamuts of any particular monitor. The only way to know is to do a 3D gamut plot, but although the applications and equipment to compare them are out there, who's got them?

The main thing we can rely on is the relative sizes of gamuts in general. We know that sRGB is a lot smaller than Adobe RGB or P3, and that Adobe RGB and P3 are similar sized but in different areas of color. Those are the important differences. We know not to be impressed by 100% sRGB vs 95% Adobe RGB because we know 95% of Adobe RGB is bigger than 100% sRGB.

But saying 99% vs 96% sRGB, or 95% Adobe RGB vs 96% P3 is basically meaningless without knowing which colors are covered by each.

How you buy your monitor is going to rely on all the other specs (refresh rate, sRGB vs wide, price, resolution etc.), but definitely not percentage differences of one gamut.

husseinhorack
OP husseinhorack New Member • Posts: 4
Re: 98% sRGB 4K or 100% sRGB 2K?

Thanks very much for your detailed reply. Sorry that I'm only reading this so late - my situation changed and it turned out I can't get a monitor at this time. But after reading your advice I am pretty sure I'll go for a 4K display as I'll be doing a lot of writing as well as graphic design, which will benefit from the greater pixel density. And the 2% colour gamut difference won't affect my work, at least not at this stage as I'm only 18 and not world-class at anything I do!

Thanks again

husseinhorack
OP husseinhorack New Member • Posts: 4
Re: 98% sRGB 4K or 100% sRGB 2K?

Wow, you've got a really good point. I had no idea about these intricacies at all. Definitely, something to think about! Considering the level at which I work and my other requirements besides colour gamut percentages (haha), I've decided I'll try and get a 4K monitor. The extra pixel density will benefit me very much and I do notice the extra detail in even everyday use.

Thanks a lot for your insightful comment!

Schrodingers_cat Senior Member • Posts: 1,114
Don't matter

For a couple of reasons, one of which was mentioned by gray balanced.

The other is that you have to be operating at a pretty high level for this sort of consideration to be worth considering.  If you fall into the into the small group for whom this is an important issue you/ll already know what you need.

-- hide signature --

"Good judgement is generally the result of experience. Experience, unfortunately, is generally the result of bad judgement" - attributed to a whole bunch of folks

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads