Monitor Options for New Mac Pro

[thekev]

Fair point.

However, I'd also argue that much of the modern web design is taking better advantage of HTML5 so the massive gamuts are still not quite the issue (unless you are designing web games or something like that).

But for the OP.. I would wait if possible to see what the specs (and reviews) of that new Dell 28" 4k is, and see if it's good enough for what he needs.

Gamut in itself can be somewhat of marketing hype, as it doesn't give a complete picture of the display's performance at a given brightness setting against a set of reference targets. The argument about viewing on terrible displays doesn't hold much weight though. They aren't all going to be off in the same way. If you intend to make some kind of correction, it should be visually based off the truest representation possible. Past a certain point, it's not even possible to make such corrections, as there is a very large variation between bad displays. They aren't just bad. They're also inconsistent. As Deconstruct points out though, phones and tablets have some exceptional displays compared to past consumer devices.

 

[wildmac]

Gamut in itself can be somewhat of marketing hype, as it doesn't give a complete picture of the display's performance at a given brightness setting against a set of reference targets. The argument about viewing on terrible displays doesn't hold much weight though. They aren't all going to be off in the same way. If you intend to make some kind of correction, it should be visually based off the truest representation possible. Past a certain point, it's not even possible to make such corrections, as there is a very large variation between bad displays. They aren't just bad. They're also inconsistent. As Deconstruct points out though, phones and tablets have some exceptional displays compared to past consumer devices.

True. There is a point though were it's really wasted development for web content. Video is a different story alltogether.

 

[thekev]

True. There is a point though were it's really wasted development for web content. Video is a different story alltogether.

Yeah I get that. Video has to be graded for a much wider range of display hardware with the inclusion of projectors. Displays made for video can also track a very large price range. Note the cost of some broadcast displays. One feature of some of the more expensive displays is that they often have some means of correlation. That way 2 designers would be looking at a very similar output. I don't mention things like variation in human vision by age and other factors, as what they consider good or correct is often subjective and compared to past results.

 

[wildmac]

Yeah I get that. Video has to be graded for a much wider range of display hardware with the inclusion of projectors. Displays made for video can also track a very large price range. Note the cost of some broadcast displays. One feature of some of the more expensive displays is that they often have some means of correlation. That way 2 designers would be looking at a very similar output. I don't mention things like variation in human vision by age and other factors, as what they consider good or correct is often subjective and compared to past results.

Depends on who the clients are too...

 

[Rich.Cohen]

2' from a 45-50" monitor is in Mr. Magoo land. Those are as likely uncorrected eyes as much as old eyes. Relatively poor rendering is likely part of the issue for more so than the need to make the individual pixels larger. Don't really need to go to pixel doubling to get to better rendering..

Well, call me Mr. Magoo. My uncorrected vision is 20/400 in both eyes and its been that way for about 52 years. About 10 years ago I found I needed bifocals. That really got me. One day it will probably get you too. I also bough a pair of eyeglasses optimized for viewing a monitor at 2-3 feet. I wear them for all my computer work and I can see the screen just fine.

I don't think the issue is rendering of the text. The letters are just plain small. At about 10" without my glasses (my maximum uncorrected clear range) they are very sharp. The type I'm using right now is less that 1/8" tall on my screen. Some of the diagrams I draw can be 20 feet wide. I want to see and read as much as possible of one diagram at a time. For that I need a large screen and to make the most of the pixels I need less than 100/inch.

Incrementing the monitor size every 4-5 years by 2-3" as get older isn't solving a problem... it is just kicking the can down the road.

Where did you get the idea that I'm upgrading that way? Whenever a new monitor comes out with significantly more pixels, I buy it. I'm not buying the monitor by size but by pixel count. However I try to keep the pixel density about the same. This next monitor will probably be my last in terms of physical size because I can't fit anything larger in my field of view. As retina type displays with more than 4K come along I may by one for improved crispness, but that won't help with the text size.

I've thought of going with a multi-monitor setup working one diagram across multiple monitors, but I'm uncomfortable with that approach. I may change my mind some day.

What makes what I'm doing sound to you like kicking the can? What underlying problem do you think I should be addressing instead of buying a large monitor? Have you ever drawn an entity relationship diagram with 300-500 entities and 800 relationships all labeled in 10 point font and tried to work with it effectively? The more than I can see and read at one time, the better. Maybe, some day I can buy a thin-film 20' diagonal touch screen monitor and mount it on my wall. That might be a good solution, if I'm not using a walker by then.

I believe I'm doing the best I can to maximize my personal efficiency. Fortunately the Seiki isn't all that expensive and I'm still hoping for something better.

If you're an eye doctor and know something I can do to improve my vision beyond the 20/20 corrective lenses I'm currently using, please tell me about it.

 

[riggles]

I don't think the 4K is necessarily "overkill" for what you do, but I think you'd be served just fine with a current Cinema Display.

I had to decide on a display for an oMP last month. Even though there are 27" displays cheaper than Apple, I ended up going with a CD anyway. It had a built-in FaceTime camera (which id have to buy and attach to with a different display), it has built-in speakers, it has USB ports in an easy spot I'm used to (like the iMac), and it looks better on the desk than all the others. Combined with buying refurbished from Apple, I don't think I spent that much more for an excellent display which fits my needs. I do mostly 3D work, and some PS and compositing, too. But it's both my work and personal computer. If it was a work-only machine, that might change things.

If you're not doing 4K video editing or working with large photographs, you don't really "need" a 4K display. And if you can't afford both a nMP and a 4K display at the same time, that makes the decision even easier. Personally, I'd wait until the dust settled with the nMP and the 4K market has more options for less money. By that point there may even be an Apple 4K offering.

 

[Rich.Cohen]

If you're not doing 4K video editing or working with large photographs, you don't really "need" a 4K display.

There are some other specialized situations where a 4K display would be useful. Working with large spreadsheets is an example. For most people, though a 4K display has limited operational value.

Personally, I'd wait until the dust settled with the nMP and the 4K market has more options for less money. By that point there may even be an Apple 4K offering.

Good point.

 

[deconstruct60]

....
I don't think the issue is rendering of the text. The letters are just plain small. At about 10" without my glasses (my maximum uncorrected clear range) they are very sharp. The type I'm using right now is less that 1/8" tall on my screen.

It is. The fact that 9 ( or 10 , 12 or whatever) point fonts vary in size over Apple's non retina screens is a rendering issue.







Some of the diagrams I draw can be 20 feet wide. I want to see and read as much as possible of one diagram at a time. For that I need a large screen and to make the most of the pixels I need less than 100/inch.

Where did you get the idea that I'm upgrading that way?
Whenever a new monitor comes out with significantly more pixels, I buy it.

I get the idea from you...

For my eyes, I'd like slightly larger pixels and more of them

More larger pixels leads to larger screens over time as increase the number of pixels buying. If increase the pixel count and keep the screen size about the same the density goes up. Pixels shouldn't directly correspond to text size. Improved resolution should be more of a factor.

I'm not buying the monitor by size but by pixel count.
However I try to keep the pixel density about the same.

If buying larger pixels you are buying size if keeping pixel density constant. pixels/inch. if you're driving pixles up then inches are going up also. With the same density they are tightly coupled.

This next monitor will probably be my last in terms of physical size because I can't fit anything larger in my field of view.

Which is why this is a "kick the can" solution. The monitor is growing so larger and so close can't see it without substantially increased head turning and less direct viewing through corrective lenses.

As retina type displays with more than 4K come along I may by one for improved crispness, but that won't help with the text size.

It does help when the system's renderer takes pixel density into account. Don't particularly need more than 4K ( doubled current 27" monitor) to do better.

What underlying problem do you think I should be addressing instead of buying a large monitor? Have you ever drawn an entity relationship diagram with 300-500 entities and 800 relationships all labeled in 10 point font and tried to work with it effectively?

No I haven't because the complexity of layout starts to get into the way after a certain level. The vast majority of those entities likely have a small handful of relationships. At a certain level, the size will grow due to loosing the ability to keep stuff that doesn't matter out of the way of the parts that do. [ there are going to be subgroupings that interact. ]

Wallpaper tapestry diagrams kill lots of trees. They tend not to promote deep understanding, or be particularly useful over long term.

 

[Rich.Cohen]

Wallpaper tapestry diagrams kill lots of trees. They tend not to promote deep understanding, or be particularly useful over long term.

I'm not so sure about the tree argument when comparing one large diagram with dozens of smaller redundant diagrams.

For myself I find that one large diagram does promote a much deeper understanding of the issues I'm interested in and is very useful over the long term. I do not normally share these diagrams with by business clients, but I wouldn't share a circuit diagram with them either. My clients get subsets of the large diagram that are each relevant to a narrow coherent range of business functions. I have to make lots of different subsets and the large diagram is very useful in planning which entities to include.

 

[calaverasgrande]

I find it kind of odd and a little shocking how much larger the TB or LED displays are than the iMac. Which is a display plus a computer in much smaller form factor. I also find it hard to believe that Apple will launch the nMP without an updated monitor. If not 4k, at least something that is as thin as the 27" iMac. I'm sure I am not the only one who is hoping for some kind of refreshed display design more along the lines of the iPad mini and the nMP. Black and grey maybe?

I suppose We would love to see a nudge up in size to 30" or 32". But mostly I'd prefer to be buying a display that is as "L33t" as the Mac. Not something that looks like yester-years tech.