Does any one use this monitor for photo edit

Does any one use this monitor for photo edit
Monoprice 30" ISP

http://www.monoprice.c​om …rm=Slickdeals+L​LC-1122587

If yes, please give me some advise.

thanks

Are you certain that your computer will support 2560x1600?

I've never considered ordering anything from Monoprice that costs more than ten or twenty bucks. For something like this, I'd rather buy from Costco, Fry's or Best Buy, where I could use it for a while before deciding if I want to keep it.

Don't know about your choice but in case you're wondering I'm using this beauty http://www.samsung.com​/us/video/tvs/UN40HU69​50FXZA

It's hooked on 2 pc's and for one I had to change the image processor (no sweat).

Still using the (standard) HDMI-1.2 version so the refresh rate is stuck at 30 which poses only a problem for gamers. But the only game I play is PS so only big smiles here!
With another cable I could reach the 60 refresh rate but for now there's no need for it. The screen is stable and the details match the printed versions pretty well.

Good luck

Alain

Alain,

Are there disadvantages (or cautions) to using any UHD monitor as a photo-editing monitor? I guess I'm still stuck in 2013 when it was considered a mistake to use any kind of tv-related screen as a computer monitor.

Thanks,

Koert

Well Koert, despite using the same technology for tv's as for pc-screens, befor 2014 the tv screens were limited to HD (1920x1080 pix).

Since 2006 I had a 37inch LG HD-screen as a pc monitor and was over the moon in terms of print-comparability. Mayby I was just lucky but the images on screen came pretty close to the printed versions.
In 2014 the UHD-tv's came out and I had no second thought in upgrading to the larger screen and pixels.

The one thing PURISTS claim is that a pc-screen (and certainly in use with PS) shood AT LEAST have IPS technology (In Plane Switching). My formal LG and present Samsung don't have this technology but I don't miss it at all.

Sure, the pc/laptop must be able to handle the amount of pixels and the large screen so close takes some getting used to (about a week) and as mentioned before games (and only games) are not done (unless you invest in a SLI-setup with 3 screen processors to reach a whopping 120Hz-or-more refresh rate).

Maybe I'm hitting some toes to someone but for me the present UHD tv screens are an affordable alternative for the (more expensive) pc screens.

Good luck,

Alain

Monoprice buys their displays from LG but only the screen and they put their own plastic panels and connections.

Just make sure your computer supports that resolution.

Just purchased the Asus PA248Q at Amazon for $289
Really great monitor at a great price... Not as big but maybe something to consider.

I... I... Don't even know where to start....

Lenty007 wrote in post #17539284
It's hooked on 2 pc's and for one I had to change the image processor (no sweat).

Still using the (standard) HDMI-1.2 version so the refresh rate is stuck at 30 which poses only a problem for gamers. But the only game I play is PS so only big smiles here!
With another cable I could reach the 60 refresh rate but for now there's no need for it. The screen is stable and the details match the printed versions pretty well.

"Image processor"? You mean a graphics card or video card?

I have read about some people not really being too fond of 30Hz monitors just scrolling through in windows. If the choppiness of the mouse drives you nuts, then so will 30fps. Gamers aren't the only ones who benefit from higher frame rate monitors (60Hz+). The benefit to this is though you get a higher resolution monitor for dirt cheap but it comes at some major pains.

These links will show the difference:

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=veKJoD2aAps (don't forget the click the gear icon and change the value to 720p60 or 1080p60)
https://frames-per-second.appspot.com/ Moving Objects
http://www.testufo.com​/#test=framerates-text This is what reading text would look like
https://boallen.com/fp​s-compare.html Bouncing Boxes demo

I think you get the point.... well, actually Lenty007, you can't even see the difference in those cause you aren't even running 60Hz over HDMI, so....

Lenty007 wrote in post #17540348
Since 2006 I had a 37inch LG HD-screen as a pc monitor and was over the moon in terms of print-comparability. Mayby I was just lucky but the images on screen came pretty close to the printed versions.
In 2014 the UHD-tv's came out and I had no second thought in upgrading to the larger screen and pixels.

The one thing PURISTS claim is that a pc-screen (and certainly in use with PS) shood AT LEAST have IPS technology (In Plane Switching). My formal LG and present Samsung don't have this technology but I don't miss it at all.

Sure, the pc/laptop must be able to handle the amount of pixels and the large screen so close takes some getting used to (about a week) and as mentioned before games (and only games) are not done (unless you invest in a SLI-setup with 3 screen processors to reach a whopping 120Hz-or-more refresh rate).

Maybe I'm hitting some toes to someone but for me the present UHD tv screens are an affordable alternative for the (more expensive) pc screens.

Good luck,

Alain

IPS/PLS is pretty important, especially when on a photography forum. I have a co-worker that swore that his laptop 1600 x 900 screen was fine and not the problem to his wildly varying brightness between all of his photos and thought it must of been Lightroom and was exclusively using PS cause it was more "accurate"... I made him grab a HP E241i IPS monitor from our storage (we work in IT, he is Network Eng. and I am Desktop Tech.) and hook it up the laptop in dual screen mode. I then brought in my Spyder2Pro and hooked it up to the HP and calibrated it and showed him the differences in just a little movement can make between head position let alone laptop position. That was three weeks ago. He is now on the search of a 27"+ IPS monitor.

You are wrong on the multi-screen on many levels too BTW:

-You don't need to hit more than 120 fps unless your monitors are 120/144Hz. Any frames over that is excess and won't be displayed. Most monitors come in 60Hz which providing 60fps or 120fps will result in the same experience to the user, 60fps. If you have 120/144Hz monitor you should be trying to achieve 120/144 fps in the content to get even more fluid looking movements.

-You don't need SLI to hit 120 fps. My single GTX 970 can hit 120 in many games. MANY. The fps is determined by the game, texture quality, AA and resolution. (maybe some other stuff too but usually just those)

-Your PC has nothing to do with the Hz in the monitor. The monitors refresh rate (Hz) is it's own spec. The Hz does not increase according to your PC specs. Having a SLI setup means nothing to the monitor. That isn't even related.

-You can have as many monitors as one wishes without SLI'ing. You can run dual screen monitors on a onboard graphics card, the one built off the motherboard, so needing SLI is not necessary let alone any graphics card. You can have 3+ monitors easily, just google "multiple monitors" and you can see what you can have. Usually though anything more than two will require a video card of any power to have multiple monitors. Even a $35 HD 5450 or a GT 610 will get the job done if you don't plan on gaming or rely on using it to speed up LR/PS actions.