I am in the process of deciding on an extra screen monitor to go with my laptop for production.
As I have gotten better with music production I've become more comfortable and faster with certain ways of work flow. I think having a larger monitor screen to go with my 15 inch screen will boost my productivity.
Currently I am deciding between a nice 4K monitor or the Apple's thunderbolt.
I have a late 2013 mbp retina.
I want a good, recent monitor for better longevity, good quality, and so I don't need to update it again in a few years. I know dell may have some good 4k ones. Issue with the thunderbolt display is i've read that it may be a bit outdated, and the price is almost twice as much as a 4k monitor. However, the thunderbolt display may have better compatibility with my apple laptop, but that may or may not be true.
I just want to know the pros/cons of a 4k monitor vs apple thunderbolt display while being used with a mbp
Thanks
Question Regarding Screen Monitors For Production
-
- KVRAF
- 3080 posts since 17 Apr, 2005 from S.E. TN
Can your mb pro drive 4k resolution? Do you plan to use hdmi or what in order to connect between the mbp and the monitor?
I don't know interfacing details of recent macs and monitors. In the past, laptops were not capable of supporting giant pixel screens, or at least more limited than desktops, and even on desktops tended to require fairly expensive video cards.
Maybe that is no longer a problem, dunno.
If I get a new monitor it will be 4k. No thunderbolt thanks, because I prefer my pc's nowadays. I can run both my macs and pc's into generic monitors, dvi, vga, hdmi. But I can't easily run my pc's into mac displays, and Mac displays usually only have one video input. Generic monitors typically have multi input connectors, and I can switch the same monitor set between multiple computers just pushing input select buttons on the monitors.
With mac monitors, as best I can tell, I'd need a different set of monitore for each computer, or an outrageously priced video switcher.
Am not trying to tell you what to do, and can't give specific advice because such details change every year and have to be re-studied every time. It's just what I've been thinking about the topic, "in general".
I don't know interfacing details of recent macs and monitors. In the past, laptops were not capable of supporting giant pixel screens, or at least more limited than desktops, and even on desktops tended to require fairly expensive video cards.
Maybe that is no longer a problem, dunno.
If I get a new monitor it will be 4k. No thunderbolt thanks, because I prefer my pc's nowadays. I can run both my macs and pc's into generic monitors, dvi, vga, hdmi. But I can't easily run my pc's into mac displays, and Mac displays usually only have one video input. Generic monitors typically have multi input connectors, and I can switch the same monitor set between multiple computers just pushing input select buttons on the monitors.
With mac monitors, as best I can tell, I'd need a different set of monitore for each computer, or an outrageously priced video switcher.
Am not trying to tell you what to do, and can't give specific advice because such details change every year and have to be re-studied every time. It's just what I've been thinking about the topic, "in general".
-
- KVRAF
- 6427 posts since 22 Jan, 2005 from Sweden
Check what you laptop supports - does it support double monitors at all, like internal plus external?
I've had laptops that support one resolution from internal card, and if turning that off can support a higher resolution if turning off internal screen. Newer ones I imagine do both.
Just the other day I ran a laptop with 1366x766 over hdmi to 1920x1080 monitor, and I got black frames all around - it did not scale anything - just centered what you ran. So the 27" looked like a 24" just about.
DVD players I have do a lot of scaling and there are numerous settings regarding this - if 4:3 whould be full screen or not etc.
Looking at a 4k monitor today, it said recommened resolution 3840x2160 and nothing about different scaling options. One would imagine if fills the screen for 1920x1080, but one never knows.
Everything regarded as TV sets, usually comes with a variety of scaling options done by monitor - not so on purely signage/display monitors.
A bunch of thoughts on the subject....
I've had laptops that support one resolution from internal card, and if turning that off can support a higher resolution if turning off internal screen. Newer ones I imagine do both.
Just the other day I ran a laptop with 1366x766 over hdmi to 1920x1080 monitor, and I got black frames all around - it did not scale anything - just centered what you ran. So the 27" looked like a 24" just about.
DVD players I have do a lot of scaling and there are numerous settings regarding this - if 4:3 whould be full screen or not etc.
Looking at a 4k monitor today, it said recommened resolution 3840x2160 and nothing about different scaling options. One would imagine if fills the screen for 1920x1080, but one never knows.
Everything regarded as TV sets, usually comes with a variety of scaling options done by monitor - not so on purely signage/display monitors.
A bunch of thoughts on the subject....
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 99 posts since 12 Sep, 2014
I am looking at this one: http://www.samsung.com/us/computer/moni ... 8D590DS/ZA
I have a late 2013 MBP Retina.
I believe they are compatible, but will my 15 inch retina screen be proportional to the 28 inch? I believe the 28 inch is 16:9
I have a late 2013 MBP Retina.
I believe they are compatible, but will my 15 inch retina screen be proportional to the 28 inch? I believe the 28 inch is 16:9
-
- KVRAF
- 3080 posts since 17 Apr, 2005 from S.E. TN
That samsung looks nice, and the price is surprisingly good. I hadn't looked for a few months and tis surprising how fast the price has fallen.
That price is on the low end of what the previous generation of hirez monitors (in the ballpark of 2560 x whatever, depending on the aspect ratio). So if your mac will drive a screen that big, its all good.
Here is my take on 4k however, for what little it might be worth-- That many pixels in a 28" screen might be useful if you want very realistic beautifully detailed photo or video editing or enjoyment. However the pixel density for programming or music editing or text editing is wasted on a 28" screen, unless you can comfortably read the usual equivalent of 4 point type, or you want to routinely use a magnifying glass to read the screen.
8 pt text on a 28" 4k would be the same tiny size as 4 pt type on a 28" 1080p monitor! It can be scaled or course, giving very smooth text, but really no more usable lines of text, or no more usable piano rolls or audio edit views or track stripes visible without scrolling.
When scaled, real smooth normal sized views. Unscaled, details difficult to appreciate without a magnifying glass.
For programming or music editing a 28" 4k screen would be no more useful than an older "hi rez" monitor, and unless you have real good eyes and don't mind reading tiny fonts, an older style hi rez monitor is barely more useful than a cheap 28" 1080p monitor.
For many eyes, something on the order of 72 dots per inch or a little denser is about the right density for text and music editing tasks.
My eyes are getting old and I have the monitors a reasonable distance away from the eyes, and the image size of 1080p is about right on an array of inexpensive 27" 1080p monitors.
If I get a 4k, it will be maybe a 54" 4k TV, if/when they make 4k TV's at least as crisp as 27" cheap 1080p monitors. A 54" 4k display set a few feet away, would be the same image size as a 2 x 2 grid of 27" 1080p monitors, but lots easier and convenient to set up than an array of four 27" monitors.
It would be great! The biggest hazard might be more sore neck scanning all that screen real estate. But any smaller, the enhanced resolution would be useless to me without a magnifying glass.
That price is on the low end of what the previous generation of hirez monitors (in the ballpark of 2560 x whatever, depending on the aspect ratio). So if your mac will drive a screen that big, its all good.
Here is my take on 4k however, for what little it might be worth-- That many pixels in a 28" screen might be useful if you want very realistic beautifully detailed photo or video editing or enjoyment. However the pixel density for programming or music editing or text editing is wasted on a 28" screen, unless you can comfortably read the usual equivalent of 4 point type, or you want to routinely use a magnifying glass to read the screen.
8 pt text on a 28" 4k would be the same tiny size as 4 pt type on a 28" 1080p monitor! It can be scaled or course, giving very smooth text, but really no more usable lines of text, or no more usable piano rolls or audio edit views or track stripes visible without scrolling.
When scaled, real smooth normal sized views. Unscaled, details difficult to appreciate without a magnifying glass.
For programming or music editing a 28" 4k screen would be no more useful than an older "hi rez" monitor, and unless you have real good eyes and don't mind reading tiny fonts, an older style hi rez monitor is barely more useful than a cheap 28" 1080p monitor.
For many eyes, something on the order of 72 dots per inch or a little denser is about the right density for text and music editing tasks.
My eyes are getting old and I have the monitors a reasonable distance away from the eyes, and the image size of 1080p is about right on an array of inexpensive 27" 1080p monitors.
If I get a 4k, it will be maybe a 54" 4k TV, if/when they make 4k TV's at least as crisp as 27" cheap 1080p monitors. A 54" 4k display set a few feet away, would be the same image size as a 2 x 2 grid of 27" 1080p monitors, but lots easier and convenient to set up than an array of four 27" monitors.
It would be great! The biggest hazard might be more sore neck scanning all that screen real estate. But any smaller, the enhanced resolution would be useless to me without a magnifying glass.
-
- KVRist
- 35 posts since 7 Aug, 2014 from South of Sweden
No, 8 pt text is exactly the same size regardless of screen size or resolution. "Points" is not a pixel based measure.JCJR wrote: ...
8 pt text on a 28" 4k would be the same tiny size as 4 pt type on a 28" 1080p monitor! It can be scaled or course, giving very smooth text, but really no more usable lines of text, or no more usable piano rolls or audio edit views or track stripes visible without scrolling.
...
What you get is less jagged edges (and the possibility for using smaller fonts). The retina screen on the newer Macbooks compared to the older Macs is the same thing. OSX is good at handling different screen DPI, and makes text look the same size on all type of screens.
-
- KVRAF
- 3080 posts since 17 Apr, 2005 from S.E. TN
Yeah, that is scaling. A 27" 1080p monitor, with square pixels, is about 81.6 pixels per inch. A 27" 4k monitor, scaled the same, would be double the pixels per inch and half the image size, unless scaled.
I'm not saying the scaled images are not smoother. Of course they are smoother. But if I have a smoother small monitor, I would still need several of them in an array to see all the simultaneous windows I prefer to see, and that many pixels in multiple small 4k monitors would require fast video cards working real hard, to show no more usable information than would be available from an array of 1080p monitors, cheaper monitors, running on faster cheaper video cards (fewer pixels to process).
Of course the small 4k screen would look better when scaled, but offer no special utility for seeing lots of text windows or lots of simultaneous audio edit windows.
A small 4k screen, unscaled, will require a magnifying glass to use.
For seeing lots more editing info, the best improvement promise for 4k lies in 4k monitors in the ballpark of 54", equivalent to a 4x array of 27" monitors, when scaled "practical to use without a magnifying glass".
If somebody is made of money and would rather have a 4x array of small 4k monitors for the same amount of usable screen real estate as a single big 4k monitor, then its fine with me if thats what they want.
I'm not saying the scaled images are not smoother. Of course they are smoother. But if I have a smoother small monitor, I would still need several of them in an array to see all the simultaneous windows I prefer to see, and that many pixels in multiple small 4k monitors would require fast video cards working real hard, to show no more usable information than would be available from an array of 1080p monitors, cheaper monitors, running on faster cheaper video cards (fewer pixels to process).
Of course the small 4k screen would look better when scaled, but offer no special utility for seeing lots of text windows or lots of simultaneous audio edit windows.
A small 4k screen, unscaled, will require a magnifying glass to use.
For seeing lots more editing info, the best improvement promise for 4k lies in 4k monitors in the ballpark of 54", equivalent to a 4x array of 27" monitors, when scaled "practical to use without a magnifying glass".
If somebody is made of money and would rather have a 4x array of small 4k monitors for the same amount of usable screen real estate as a single big 4k monitor, then its fine with me if thats what they want.
