4k Screen and Mac Pro

Bond6

Bond6

Suspended / Banned
Messages
476
Edit My Images
No
This is a question for old mac pro users which I am guessing is still quite a few people on this forum.

I have a 2010 MP with a hex 3.33ghz processor, 32GB RAM and about 5TB of storage inc a OWC Accelsior boot drive. I use a Samsung 27A850 monitor which runs at 2560x1440 driven by my ATI 5870. I am a keen amateur photographer and use DXO and Lightroom extensively. This is a factor as DXO uses maximum processor power and I have 6 cores rather than 4 cores for the iMac.

Given recent articles I visits to the apple store I am impressed with the Retina 5k displays and have the itch as to weather to upgrade. This is purely to get the display as I don't think I will gain anything from the computer itself. I must admit I am a bit of a pixel peeper and tend to look at most of my images on screen rather than print.

My options as I see them are as follows

1. Do nothing (unsure on the benefit of going from 2560 to 4k, from what I can see it may not be that great I and I am just wowed by the apple marketing and store display images
2. Upgrade to a flashed Nvidia 670 graphics card (macvideocards) and get a Dell P2715Q, sell my Samsung monitor and ATI card. The problem with this is that the card will be very expensive once I have added import taxes and international shipping
3. Get the best iMac and then upgrade the RAM and go shopping for an external storage housing

Any thoughts welcome including if its worth upgrading at all.
 
I wouldn't go for an iMac from a Mac Pro. I just prefer separate towers to screens.

I'd go with option 1 or 2.

If you pixel peep you can go to 100% view and 2560x1440 is plenty resolution for checking at 100% view.

Ask at @Pookeyhead as he can advise you on screens with wider colour gamuts and you can look at calibrating the one you have. This itself might be more useful than increasing the resolution of your screen.
 
1) Do nothing

Benefit of a 4k screen is increased resolution which effectivly means more 'real estate' or more space for moving things around on the desktop.
It will look nicer when editing photos but theres very litle in the way of 4k content out there to actually 'consume'. I hink were afew years away from really seeing the benefits of 4k.
 
Thanks I think I will stick to what I have and probably drop pookeyhead a line
 
Bond6 said:
Thanks I think I will stick to what I have and probably drop pookeyhead a line
Click to expand...


PM me if you need monitor advice. Bit busy at the mo, but will get back to you as soon as I can.
 
Brazo said:
1) Do nothing

Benefit of a 4k screen is increased resolution which effectivly means more 'real estate' or more space for moving things around on the desktop.
It will look nicer when editing photos but theres very litle in the way of 4k content out there to actually 'consume'. I hink were afew years away from really seeing the benefits of 4k.
Click to expand...

Most content makers are interested in UHDTV, 4k plus 100 fps plus high dynamic range plus better colour.

The top of the range 4k monitors can just about do this.
 
I have to say, I've found the Retina screens to be utterly useless for photography. Everything else looks gorgeously smooth on them but photos looks soft as hell because they're processed/scaled to show at a reasonable size on the screen rather than being shown natively. I have a 2009 27" iMac (2560x1440) that I wanted to update as my main editing machine and I was really trying to talk myself into a new 27 inch iMac but it's only available with the Retina screen now. I had the 21.5 non-Retina iMac and the 27 inch Retina model side by side and spent about half an hour pulling my own images up on both machines to compare them closely, even the sales guy in PC World ended up thinking images on the Retina screen looked terribly soft.

I wanted to stick with Mac, so in the end I went for the higher spec 2.8GHz 21.5" iMac with a BenQ SW2700PT external 27" monitor (again 2560x1440) and I honestly couldn't be happier. The monitor is stunning, far better than my old 27" iMac which was in itself a great screen.

I'd very strongly recommend spending some serious time with the Retina screen so you can make absolutely sure it's exactly what you want before buying. There's a lot of marketing hype/crap surrounding them and they're put forward as being amazing for photography, in my experience they've been the exact opposite.
 
I bought a 40" 4k monitor and its a bit "so what" I do however now have call of duty at 40" 1 foot away which is great...............

Wouldn't go down the imac route again expensive and no power for your money, we have 10 macs and I am not buying any more, back to PC for us as and when replacements are needed.
 
I am a bit shocked at some of these replies. It has saved me a few quid though [emoji3]
 
Last edited:
Studio488 said:
I bought a 40" 4k monitor and its a bit "so what" I do however now have call of duty at 40" 1 foot away which is great...............

Wouldn't go down the imac route again expensive and no power for your money, we have 10 macs and I am not buying any more, back to PC for us as and when replacements are needed.
Click to expand...
Problem is 4K on such a large screen gives you 110 dots per inch about the same resolution as a 1080p 21 inch monitor hence why your not bowled over by it.
 
Jayst84 said:
New iMacs are DCI-P3 now I believe.
Click to expand...

I didn't see that. They did this very quietly. Well, go and get the new iMacs now if the price point is acceptable.
 
PMN said:
I have to say, I've found the Retina screens to be utterly useless for photography. Everything else looks gorgeously smooth on them but photos looks soft as hell because they're processed/scaled to show at a reasonable size on the screen rather than being shown natively. I have a 2009 27" iMac (2560x1440) that I wanted to update as my main editing machine and I was really trying to talk myself into a new 27 inch iMac but it's only available with the Retina screen now. I had the 21.5 non-Retina iMac and the 27 inch Retina model side by side and spent about half an hour pulling my own images up on both machines to compare them closely, even the sales guy in PC World ended up thinking images on the Retina screen looked terribly soft.

I wanted to stick with Mac, so in the end I went for the higher spec 2.8GHz 21.5" iMac with a BenQ SW2700PT external 27" monitor (again 2560x1440) and I honestly couldn't be happier. The monitor is stunning, far better than my old 27" iMac which was in itself a great screen.

I'd very strongly recommend spending some serious time with the Retina screen so you can make absolutely sure it's exactly what you want before buying. There's a lot of marketing hype/crap surrounding them and they're put forward as being amazing for photography, in my experience they've been the exact opposite.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised to learn that. Wasn't the whole purpose of the Retina screen under OSX that when you run a retina aware application (this being the key), the graphics framework will ensure that the portion where the image container is being displayed is displayed in native resolution, whilst the UI elements are scaled (since if they are displayed natively they'd be too small for most people).

That adaptive scaling of where it scales where required, and where it doesn't where you don't want it was the real differentiator versus other systems like on Windows. I seriously suspect something went wrong in your demo in PC World...
 
Brazo said:
Problem is 4K on such a large screen gives you 110 dots per inch about the same resolution as a 1080p 21 inch monitor hence why your not bowled over by it.
Click to expand...
Indeed, at that size it was intended to sit about 8-10 foot away from it...
 
dejongj said:
I'm surprised to learn that. Wasn't the whole purpose of the Retina screen under OSX that when you run a retina aware application (this being the key), the graphics framework will ensure that the portion where the image container is being displayed is displayed in native resolution, whilst the UI elements are scaled (since if they are displayed natively they'd be too small for most people).

That adaptive scaling of where it scales where required, and where it doesn't where you don't want it was the real differentiator versus other systems like on Windows. I seriously suspect something went wrong in your demo in PC World...
Click to expand...

I have no idea, but I've been going to the Retina screen since they came out trying to convince myself it's the way forwards and I've never seen images look anything other than terrible on all of them.
 
PMN said:
I have no idea, but I've been going to the Retina screen since they came out trying to convince myself it's the way forwards and I've never seen images look anything other than terrible on all of them.
Click to expand...
Perhaps because it is the first time you can see them properly sharp :p :)

Likewise for me but a very different experience. I did hold back in 2012 or whenever it was as the graphics drivers weren't optimised yet and the transition to full screen in Aperture was just awful. But that was fixed and OpenGL support was significantly improved. I think it is very clever technology, especially when using the Windows equivalent and see the lack of it. So either user interface is large and image scaled, or user interface is small with image but silly font size, or image correct but user interface uncomfortably small.

I can only think that you use an application that isn't retina aware.
 
dejongj said:
Perhaps because it is the first time you can see them properly sharp :p :)

Likewise for me but a very different experience. I did hold back in 2012 or whenever it was as the graphics drivers weren't optimised yet and the transition to full screen in Aperture was just awful. But that was fixed and OpenGL support was significantly improved. I think it is very clever technology, especially when using the Windows equivalent and see the lack of it. So either user interface is large and image scaled, or user interface is small with image but silly font size, or image correct but user interface uncomfortably small.

I can only think that you use an application that isn't retina aware.
Click to expand...

+1. I love my retina screen. The images are fantastically sharp. I hate looking at my images on a normal screen now.
 
dejongj said:
Perhaps because it is the first time you can see them properly sharp :p :)

Likewise for me but a very different experience. I did hold back in 2012 or whenever it was as the graphics drivers weren't optimised yet and the transition to full screen in Aperture was just awful. But that was fixed and OpenGL support was significantly improved. I think it is very clever technology, especially when using the Windows equivalent and see the lack of it. So either user interface is large and image scaled, or user interface is small with image but silly font size, or image correct but user interface uncomfortably small.

I can only think that you use an application that isn't retina aware.
Click to expand...

If someone can do me a demonstration that shows me what I want to see then I'll consider it when the time to renew my editing setup comes round again, until then I'll stick to something I know is giving me what I want. To be honest even if I saw the kind of sharpness I want from the Retina screen I wouldn't want it now having experienced a monitor like the BenQ SW2700, I think that's a vastly superior and more accurate display.
 
PMN said:
If someone can do me a demonstration that shows me what I want to see then I'll consider it when the time to renew my editing setup comes round again, until then I'll stick to something I know is giving me what I want. To be honest even if I saw the kind of sharpness I want from the Retina screen I wouldn't want it now having experienced a monitor like the BenQ SW2700, I think that's a vastly superior and more accurate display.
Click to expand...
LOL Naturally, very human :) :thumbs:
 
PMN said:
I have no idea, but I've been going to the Retina screen since they came out trying to convince myself it's the way forwards and I've never seen images look anything other than terrible on all of them.
Click to expand...

Preview has some bug that makes "1:1" magnification photo display look odd. Lightroom does the job just fine though. There really is no comparison with older low res screens. Only my laptop is retina right now but be sure that will not be the case soon :)
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Preview has some bug that makes "1:1" magnification photo display look odd. Lightroom does the job just fine though. There really is no comparison with older low res screens. Only my laptop is retina right now but be sure that will not be the case soon :)
Click to expand...

As I say, if someone can demo this for me and what I see works for me then I'll consider it for my next update. For the moment it's utterly pointless trying to tell me how much more superior they are because what I've seen has been anything but superior. Some people love them, I get that, but at the end of the day you need to get the tools that work for you. The BenQ SW2700 is literally the best monitor I've ever seen in terms of colour and contrast accuracy so I don't think I'm going to be too desperate to change it anytime soon.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
iMac is sRGB only. Full 4K spec is closer to aRGB. sRGB really needs to die and fast.
Click to expand...

The latest P3 screens on the iMac have a much larger gamut than sRGB. In fact it exceeds aRGB in certain parameters. mainly red and yellow, although slightly less in cyan and blue.
 
ST4 said:
When sharpening do you not look at 100% view anyway so retina or not you are checking on a pixel level.

I would go 4k monitor but would really want 40 inches or so :D

Big is better :D
Click to expand...
And that is the point of he apple implementation which is really good. It will provide the image at 1:1 pixel mapping whilst the user interface can remain scaled. A very good solution to maximise screen real estate. On my Windows system when connecting to 4K monitor at 1:1 the UI is too small to work at comfortably. But when scaled it scales the image window as well, therefore negating the benefit and in my opinion best used for a preview monitor if you want to work at 1:1 mapping level. Whilst a 40" monitor may make the UI elements more comfortable to work with, I find it to large to work at on a 600-900mm deep desk and therefore uncomfortable and requiring excessive head movements as the field of view (well mine definitely) doesn't cover he full area.

So it depends on the operating system implementation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top