I have been informed that my Dell U2410 monitor is unable to do justice to 4k imagery. Is this true?

I think it all depends on exactly what you want to do with your monitor. If you want to use your monitor as a delivery device to view your 4K imagery, then clearly you need a 4K monitor. However, if all you want to do is use your monitor for editing, then I'm not so sure. You can edit and deliver 4K projects from Vegas using a 2K monitor without any problem. Unless you have a really powerful PC, it's unlikely that you would be able to preview at full/best in any case, especially if you do any compositing or have lots of Fx. Moreover, you have to consider whether your video card is up to the task or whether it will need replacing as well, especially if you consider having dual monitors. Just a few things to think about.

wwaag

+1 wwaag

I've done some 4k projects only monitoring on a 2k monitor. Checking focus is the main issue, but I think a 2k monitor still gives you a pretty good idea of what is in focus and what isn't.

Here's the context: while I have owned the AX100 for several weeks the A7RII is due next week. At another forum I asked a question about lens sharpness, I need additional lenses for the A7RII, and the point was made that I won't see what the camera can deliver with very sharp lenses (versus not so sharp lenses presumably) when viewing on the computer monitor that I have, hence my question here. I believe that comment came from a person thinking photographs only.

My Dell U2410 is set to 1920 x 1200, the max, while as John points out above the native 4k is 3840 x 2160 therefore the display adapter must downscale the video, presumably. Native 3840 x 2160 footage shot with my AX100 unedited played on my Dell U2410 looks sharper than any HD camera I have used so I don't need to have a monitor that delivers native 4k to see the increased sharpness the AX100 delivers.

The thing is will I see another jump up in sharpness and quality if I play native 4k footage on a native 4k monitor. I'm not complaining about 4k on my HD monitor but better is good.

Everything I read on the Internet suggests I should wait as 4k monitors are right now for early adopters - expensive and problematic - but soon, very soon, going with a 4k monitor for 4k footage for both viewing and editing will be a no-brainer, they say.

Have I got that right, do you think?

Unless you're just awash in cash, I'd focus on the big 4K TV for viewing your masterpieces. You can soldier along editing at less than 4K, but when you bore your friends, family and neighbors you should at least give them some eye-candy.

That's what I do. Frequently my epic presentations are interrupted by someone wanting to push something from their iPhone to my 4K TV.

Thanks John, but no; not awash in cash by any means - I wish. Thing is I don't have a TV because I am living either in my motorhome or my sailboat (and friends tell me there is little worth watching on TV anyway). My 24inch monitor is in my motorhome and I use my 15.5 inch laptop screen on the yacht. If/when I upgrade the new monitor will reside in the motorhome and the 24inch will move to the yacht.

The more I read on the Internet the more I am not in a hurry. Seems 4k monitors are rapidly evolving in both quality (upwards) and price (downwards).

Thanks for the input.

If you intend to edit and then play back on your monitor, I'd say go 4k - But realise you'll need a pretty big monitor to really appreciate it.... but then again we sit much close to our monitors than our TVs.

I edit with 2 x 24" HD displays side by side. Outside of those are my audio monitors. I think this quite a typical setup for many editors. If my video preview display gets any wider, my audio monitors will fall off the sides of the desk. That's literally, and a little ridiculously, what's holding me back from getting a 4k monitor. I don't particularly want to monitor video preview on an elevated display.

Any thoughts?

"[I]I don't particularly want to monitor video preview on an elevated display.[/I]"

The center of the screen of my 24" 1920x1200 monitor sits a few degrees below my eye level. I'm not sure I even want to look left or right far enough to use two monitors. (If I was a real colorist I might feel differently.) I've never like craning my neck to see different views.

I usually use headphones.

Thanks Nick. Are you editing/viewing 4k files? Seems you are a professional editor and your needs probably differ from mine. I have been as happy as Larry with my 24 inch HD (one only) monitor both for editing and general viewing of HD and lesser files. Like you I have very good speakers at the sides. Very nice both for editing and especially for entertainment.

When I render 4k to Intra or Long Gop, 4k formats, my setup does not play the files smoothly. If I render to xdcam HD no problem but that's no longer 4k. Does it matter? I don't know. I can't see a difference but then perhaps the Intel 4600 is limiting, or is it the Dell U2410 monitor, or both perhaps!

Fist things first. I have a new video card due here tomorrow. It is an ASUS STRIX-GTX960-DC2OC-4GD5. That should deliver flawless 4k to whatever monitor.

While 4k video produced by my AX100 (and no doubt the A7RII due also tomorrow) is not only sharper but also more pleasing overall (even when down-scaled to HD) to view on my Dell U2410 I have been strangely unsuccessful in determining if upgrading to a 4k monitor such as the Dell P2715Q 27" Ultra HD 4K Monitor or the Samsung U28E590D 28" Widescreen LED Backlit UHD Monitor will enable another jump up in viewing quality of 4k video, both unedited and rendered to a 4k codec.

Another somewhat annoying unfolding is that searching on the Internet I find 4k is all about gaming and sweet little about video production even though there are many video cameras out there that deliver 4k. Quite odd!

All this makes my believe that hardly anyone is editing 4k on anything other than HD monitors and those that are viewing edited 4k files are viewing on huge 4k TVs.

That's my current thinking...

If you decide to get a 4K monitor to use as your only display, be sure to look at pixel pitch. Your current monitor probably has a pixel pitch of around 0.27 mm. The Samsung 28 inch panel has a 0.16 mm pixel pitch. If you're over 30, like me, you need to worry about having characters so small you won't be able to read text.

Thanks John, and yes; I am well over 30 and the point you make is something I am aware of. I understand scaling of text, and Internet browsers, such as to eliminate that problem is possible however should I decide to move ahead I will be sure to visit a store and check that out first.

Have used:

1) the Philips PHL BDM4065 40" monitor 3840x2160 60Hz via display port +
2) a HP 30" monitor 2560x1600 60 Hz via DVI to the right and both connected to
3) a Nviia GTX 970
for about a month now.

Works great. The pixels on the 40" UHD are small, but not too small although I have set Chrome to display at 110%.
Tried to color-adjust with a ColorMunki - but so far my eyes seem to do it better.

As soon as a UHD 46" curved monitor becomes available I will buy one as it seems to me that UHD on something slightly larger than a 40" must be ideal - but - at some 40 centimeters (16 inches) from my nose a screen so large must be curved.
Already at 40" the visual distance difference from the screen middle to the corners and also the different viewing angles are slightly disturbing.

@ritsmer - a 40" monitor 16" from your nose? Must be like going to the cinema!