Should you get a high-resolution 4K monitor or will a lower-resolution display be sufficient? There is no one-size-fits-all answer, as it depends on several factors like your vision, editing needs, and display size. However, this helpful video will help you decide.
In this great video, Keith Cooper takes a look at 27" monitors, comparing a 4K display to a lower resolution 2.7K QHD monitor. The interface elements on 4K can be very small and hard to see for some users, which means the lower-resolution monitor may be preferable for general photo editing use for many people. One should note that monitor size also impacts usability of 4K; on a larger 32” display, it’s more usable.
While 4K enables sharpening images with finer precision, a lower-resolution monitor may be more comfortable for extended use. For 4K video editing, though, he recommends a 4K monitor to view full resolution. Cooper also highlights factors like display size, vision needs, and editing tasks that should guide your choice between 4K and lower resolution. There’s no simple answer, but considering the choice carefully could save both your eyes and your wallet in the long run.
For deeper insights exploring this topic, be sure to check out the video above.
I wish there were more 4K 24 inch monitors. Currently everything in that range are overpriced and outdated (no new tech). With a higher PPI, you get added realism with high detain content since you get one aspect of real life replicated, which is changes in level of detail perceived with minor changes in your distance to the display. Beyond that, with a significantly higher PPI on a display for games that do not support modern upscaling tech, when the PPI is high enough, it masks any fractional scaling artifacts. For example, at 24 inches 4K, running the display at 2560x1440, it will look great. A friend of mine has a 24 inch 4K display and while the detail is great, the problem is that older tech from the time means 10+ms gray to gray response time, thus that realism and fine detail is not well maintained during motion, thus other than avoiding fractional scaling issues, the other benefits are not well maintained.
I would like to see more square-ish monitors (e.g. 4:3 aspect ratio) because a 16:9 monitor is much more suited to video work than photography. Viewing portrait mode photos is very inefficient on a 16:9 (4k) monitor.