On 17 May 2014 12:25, Marcel Duchamp wrote: > Russell, Russell, Russell... > Come on - you've been in this circus long enough to see through this hype= .. > > Alas, I've been in the business of looking at photos on screen long enough to know that a "higher res" monitor will in fact so a better job of doing what I want to do. Most people have some photos that they have taken. Some people have many ... A few people ... I have no easy way to be sure of how many of my own photos I have (I'm working on it) but on my ~=3D 30 TB of E F G I J K L M O P R S T drives I have 6.6 million JPGS, mainly my own photos. These are duplicated at least once each (hopefully) and sometimes 3 or 4 times and there are downsized derivatives and subsets and ... . I estimate photos taken to be in the 500,000 to 1,000,000 range. SO I've looked at a fair few photos and know what I'd like in a monitor. My main monitor is a Dell 2709W 27" native at 1920 x 1200 (slightly above 1080P). My main camera produces 6000 x 4000 pixel images. So when viewed pixel per pixel I get 111920/6000 =3D 32% of the image horizontally and 1200/3000 =3D 40% of the image vertically - so about 13% o= f the total image overall. If I scale the image 50% linearly to 3000 x 2000 I''d get about 50% on screen areally (<- Google spell checker knows this) AND on a 4K screen it would more than fit. On a 4k screen my 6000 x 4000 images still do not fit pixel per pixel. 8k (said to be liable to be mainstream by 2032) will display 6000 x 4000 natively. Does it matter?. More or less no, but "it's nice". My Dell (essentially full HD) allows viewing of most relevant detail for most purposes when editing. It is seldom that I feel the need to expand and image to get better resolution perception when adjusting colour balances or tonal curves or similar. Exceptions MIGHT be things like nuances of colour or shading on things like a bride's veil. For various reasons I try to avoid editing of subjects-proper (backgrounds may be fair game on occasion to remove distractions etc) so high resolution for editing is largely not an issue and is well enough served by either pixel per pixel display or some intermediate zoom state. 4K http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution 8K http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8K_resolution > When they announce the 16K (or maybe the 64K) - then and only then > should you be looking for bargains in the 4K realm. Do you *really* > think that 4K monitors are going to improve your photo viewing > experience? As above. 8k will do for 24 Mp sensors. > Hi-res printers? Delving into the world of colour resolution produces some surprises. No references here but I have some. Colour resolution in pictures need be no higher than 200 dpi in almost all cases and 300 dpi monochrome. There are good reasons for this and all the usual expert arguments. But, say 300 dpi on A3 =3D 16" x 10" =3D 4800 x 3000 (14.4 Mp) That's slightly above 4K and well inside 8k. A4 =3D 3000 x 2400 =3D just over 4K due to vertical being a bit small. So, yes, I'd "like" a 4K monitor. Russell --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .