Resolution confusion!!

[Stuart Carlton]

I know I have asked a similar question before but I am sorry, I am being very stupid about resolution settings so if anyone can clarify the following in non technical language I would be grateful!

Fundamentally I am trying to set my displays to give me the best opportunity in refining detail in my photographs and have read and watched a lot of stuff and am still confused.

If I have a 5K iMac set set to Default for display (looks like 2560x1440) I can comfortably read the text but am I getting the best from this display for photo editing? Will this setting give me the best detail? I guess I am confused by resolution vs detail. Should I be using a resolution closer to the native 5120x2880 (although the text is unreadable then)

I also have a MBP with an external monitor ( 27inch 4K ) which I have managed to use at 4K although occasionally do have to rescale it to enable readable text.

If I have understood this correctly, it is not possible to change the UI scale on a Mac without changing the monitor scale, is that correct? Therefore it is always a compromise between readability and image resolution depending on monitor size and native resolution.

I have obviously fallen into a black hole in understanding so any help in getting me out of it would be very welcome.

 

[robgendreau]

I know I have asked a similar question before but I am sorry, I am being very stupid about resolution settings so if anyone can clarify the following in non technical language I would be grateful!

Fundamentally I am trying to set my displays to give me the best opportunity in refining detail in my photographs and have read and watched a lot of stuff and am still confused.

If I have a 5K iMac set set to Default for display (looks like 2560x1440) I can comfortably read the text but am I getting the best from this display for photo editing? Will this setting give me the best detail? I guess I am confused by resolution vs detail. Should I be using a resolution closer to the native 5120x2880 (although the text is unreadable then)

I'm not sure what "getting the best" means. But if you use retina aware software, which is most everything except Preview, you WILL be able to see your images at a true 1:1, meaning a pixel of photo to a pixel of screen (yeah, they're different, etc, but just saying that's as detailed as you can get. Just set say Lr or Ps to 100%.

What you lose is a bit of space for that 1:1 image, since the buttons, panels, etc are still at normal "looks like 2560" size. That's because if you say measured them with a ruler on the screen, button or icon would be 1cm2 on both that 5k iMac or an older 2.5K, 2560 iMac. But look close: the icon on the 5k is MUCH more detailed. That's because it's using a different icon, a hires one, which instead of being say 150x150 pixels, it's 300x300 pixels.

Some prefer to shrink those user elements by going to a non retina type "native" setting, sacrificing the readability for more space for the photo.

On 27" I prefer the default icons etc since I've got plenty of room when I want to see my even 90MP images 1:1.

I also have a MBP with an external monitor ( 27inch 4K ) which I have managed to use at 4K although occasionally do have to rescale it to enable readable text.

If I have understood this correctly, it is not possible to change the UI scale on a Mac without changing the monitor scale, is that correct? Therefore it is always a compromise between readability and image resolution depending on monitor size and native resolution.

I think there may be some ways in Accessibility to make stuff bigger without changing the overall screen resolution.

But just as with a print, magazine, or poster, another way to do it is just to move it closer to your eyes.

And no, in the retina system it is not a tradeoff. As noted above, in the default, you can have 1:1, or 2:1 or whatever for your image in most software, while the controls remain the same size.

What software are you using? maybe there's something wrong with it.

OTOH if even web surfing, moving stuff in Finder, etc all the Mac icons and whatnot are too small because of vision problems, yes, you may need to scale that up. Here are some strategies for that: https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/make-it-easier-to-see-whats-on-the-screen-mchld786f2cd/mac

I have obviously fallen into a black hole in understanding so any help in getting me out of it would be very welcome.

I suggest you use the default, then try rearranging the interface of you photo software if it allows that, then try doing 1:1 and other views of the image itself and see if that works. I'm not sure what problem you're trying to solve, and without reference to the specifics hard to give any specific help.

 

[Stuart Carlton]

I know I have asked a similar question before but I am sorry, I am being very stupid about resolution settings so if anyone can clarify the following in non technical language I would be grateful!

Fundamentally I am trying to set my displays to give me the best opportunity in refining detail in my photographs and have read and watched a lot of stuff and am still confused.

If I have a 5K iMac set set to Default for display (looks like 2560x1440) I can comfortably read the text but am I getting the best from this display for photo editing? Will this setting give me the best detail? I guess I am confused by resolution vs detail. Should I be using a resolution closer to the native 5120x2880 (although the text is unreadable then)

I'm not sure what "getting the best" means. But if you use retina aware software, which is most everything except Preview, you WILL be able to see your images at a true 1:1, meaning a pixel of photo to a pixel of screen (yeah, they're different, etc, but just saying that's as detailed as you can get. Just set say Lr or Ps to 100%.

What you lose is a bit of space for that 1:1 image, since the buttons, panels, etc are still at normal "looks like 2560" size. That's because if you say measured them with a ruler on the screen, button or icon would be 1cm2 on both that 5k iMac or an older 2.5K, 2560 iMac. But look close: the icon on the 5k is MUCH more detailed. That's because it's using a different icon, a hires one, which instead of being say 150x150 pixels, it's 300x300 pixels.

Some prefer to shrink those user elements by going to a non retina type "native" setting, sacrificing the readability for more space for the photo.

On 27" I prefer the default icons etc since I've got plenty of room when I want to see my even 90MP images 1:1.

I also have a MBP with an external monitor ( 27inch 4K ) which I have managed to use at 4K although occasionally do have to rescale it to enable readable text.

If I have understood this correctly, it is not possible to change the UI scale on a Mac without changing the monitor scale, is that correct? Therefore it is always a compromise between readability and image resolution depending on monitor size and native resolution.

I think there may be some ways in Accessibility to make stuff bigger without changing the overall screen resolution.

But just as with a print, magazine, or poster, another way to do it is just to move it closer to your eyes.

And no, in the retina system it is not a tradeoff. As noted above, in the default, you can have 1:1, or 2:1 or whatever for your image in most software, while the controls remain the same size.

What software are you using? maybe there's something wrong with it.

OTOH if even web surfing, moving stuff in Finder, etc all the Mac icons and whatnot are too small because of vision problems, yes, you may need to scale that up. Here are some strategies for that: https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/make-it-easier-to-see-whats-on-the-screen-mchld786f2cd/mac

I have obviously fallen into a black hole in understanding so any help in getting me out of it would be very welcome.

I suggest you use the default, then try rearranging the interface of you photo software if it allows that, then try doing 1:1 and other views of the image itself and see if that works. I'm not sure what problem you're trying to solve, and without reference to the specifics hard to give any specific help.

Thanks for your response, I think, at last I have clarity. A response from another forum together with your has made it clear. I am reassured that what I had hoped re scaling, resolution etc is in fact the case. My old brain seemed unable to sort it out!

 

[Mbruinsma]

I don’t know which response you have been reading, maybe the same, but here I copy and paste 90 % of my explanation, which I have worked out for another thread. Perhaps this will be helpful for other people with confusion about monitor resolution as well.

Monitors and their resolution:

When - let’s say - an image (horizontal) of 12 megapixels is made of 4.272 pixels on the long side (=width) and 2848 pixels on the short side (=height), then for viewing it complete on your computer screen, you need a very big screen to cope with at least 4.272 pixels or a screen with 4.272 very small pixels (high pixel density).

For years top monitors made by NEC or Eizo have / had only 96 pixels per inch, so in my case my MacBook Pro non-retina with 110 pixels per inch should be fine, right? Well, of course Apple had to refine the boundaries and when you sit relatively close to your laptop screen, one could certainly identify the screen pixels with perfect 20/20 eyesight. Therefore they came with the “Retina” concept: double the amount of pixels at the same physical length of your screen, and no more pixels to be identified. So a non-retina screen of the 13 inch MacBook Pro has 1280 pixels on the long side and 800 pixels in height. A retina screen of 13 inch has 2560 x 1600 pixels and therefore it has quadrupled the amount of total pixels on that screen compared to the non-retina. (1280 x 800 = 1.024.000; 2560 x 1600 = 4.096.000)

Already in the early days a digital picture had more pixels than that would fit on your viewing screen. The image became scaled down for watching it complete. In my example the 4.272 pixels on the long side are reduced to 1.200 pixels, and the 2.848 to 800 pixels. The amount 4,272 did not become 1.280 due to a difference of the aspect ratio between screen and image. In this case the height is the dominator: 2.848 / 800 = 3,56 and therefore 4.272 / 3,56 = 1.200).

So where does that leave us? The source image is (4.272 / 1280 = ) 3,3375 longer and 3,56 higher than what I see on my laptop. Now when I hit the zoom button up to 100%, it will be clear what will happen, I will see an image of 1.280 x 800 cropped from the source image (a close-up). Which by the way I can move around for seeing different parts of the source image.

What should happen with a retina screen? It should show an image of 2.560 x 1.600 cropped from the source image, and therefore less zoomed in. But that is not what happened in real life when I had my MBP non-retina next to a MBP retina; it showed the exact same magnification! The only thing I can think of, is that the image became scaled up, up to 200%. No way one pixel of the source image was / is projected as one pixel on the computer screen; on a retina screen it will be presented by 4 pixels (2 x 2).

That’s fine one could say and indeed I could not tell much difference between the two. But - there has to be a but - in very critical viewing for sharpening, an upscaled image could get some artifacts, and therefore less precise for judging the right amount of sharpening.

When a program for viewing images (on a high density “retina” screen) is not retina-aware then the user himself has to upscale the image for the same amount of magnification, in other words, one self has to zoom in up to at least 200%. Otherwise an image slightly out-of-focus would still look good if not enough magnified.

On the font side of things, by the bigger physical pixel of older screens, fonts were made of 12 pixels in height for being the right reading size. With retina screens the operating system will use fonts made of 24 pixels in height, for appearing the same in size. The benefit is when fonts are made out of more pixels, they will look smoother and sharper. The same for the digital images: they are build with four times the amount of pixels on your screen (if the source image is large enough), no wonder that it will look smoother and sharper (when close).

So what is all the fuss about computer monitors being full HD or 4K, 5K etcetera. Maybe one could imagine by now that for checking digital images at 100%, a too big of a pixel (real physical size) the image stays coarse - even when perfectly sharp. And reverse, when a pixel is too small, even an unsharp image would look quite good. For fonts applies the same. Reminder: this all has to be considered at a certain viewing distance. The further away, the smaller looks that bigger pixel again, and the other way around, the closer you are at the small pixel, it becomes bigger.

Therefore some will recommend if you like the font size of a 24 inch monitor at full HD (resolution 1.920 x 1.080) then you could also by a 24 inch 4K screen [double full HD (3.840 x 2.160)], because the operating system will scale up that everything looks the same, but gaining smoothness and sharpness. If someone would choose an odd monitor size related to its resolution then one way or the other it will be compromised.

Knowing your preferred viewing distance is key in my opinion for the rest of your decisions about monitor size and at what resolution. (Apart of other parameters like color gamut, 8 bit vs 10 bit, etcetera.)

I hope this clarifies some of these issues.

-Mark-