Do you edit on a 4k or HD monitor?

Gid wrote on 5/8/2025, 6:38 AM

@Mindmatter Hi, most media players have the option to 'view at the video size' or similar words, you don't have to view it full screen.. But your post raises questions that I can't answer... 4k?

I have 32" 4k monitor, the one you mention is 27" 4k. I have a big monitor simply because it gives more area for the VP UI to work across/show/display, not sure which is the better word for that 🙃.

IE I can have 8 tracks, the preview is big enough to work on & most of the controls in the effect window are visible without having to use the horizontal slider.

I asked Google 'how can both 32" & a 27" monitor have a 4k resolution', it says -

Both 32-inch and 27-inch monitors can have a 4K resolution because "4K" refers to the resolution (pixel density) of the display, not the physical size. A 4K monitor, regardless of its size, will have the same number of pixels: 3840 x 2160.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Resolution vs. Size:

"4K" refers to the resolution (number of pixels), which is 3840 x 2160. Size refers to the physical dimensions of the screen.

Pixel Density:

A 32-inch 4K monitor has the same number of pixels as a 27-inch 4K monitor, but those pixels are spread over a larger area in the 32-inch monitor.

Perceived Detail:

While both will have 4K resolution, the perceived sharpness and detail might vary depending on your viewing distance and the scaling settings you choose. A 27-inch 4K screen might appear sharper at closer distances, while a 32-inch 4K screen might be preferred for larger distances.

Like i say I don't fully understand this but from the sounds of it a video displayed on your monitor at the same size (not resolution) would look clearer than on my screen, ie if the physical size of your media player was 10inch across & i displayed the same video on a media player with a physical size of 10" yours would look better.

When viewing the final HD renders, I will then see an upscaled to 4k image, right? That might alter sharpness and overall quality.

When a video is upscaled pixels are added, quality will most likely go down not up, that is the case for all media & all monitors, practicality means you can't have the perfect size monitor to match the media & unless others view your media on your monitor they will perceive your media differently on their own monitors.

I know I'm making word salad of this & prob talking bollocks for the most part but I think you may be over thinking this.. or .. 👍🤷‍♂️😂😊

RogerS wrote on 5/8/2025, 6:43 AM

I split the difference and use a 2.5K 27" Eizo and it's fine for HD and 4k projects and text isn't too small.

I think the only issue might be viewing pixel level detail like sharpening as the image is either up or downscaled but really don't find it a problem.

Dexcon wrote on 5/8/2025, 7:16 AM

I've been editing 4K video using a Dell color-calibrated 32" 4K monitor for nearly 5 years and much prefer it to the earlier days of editing 4K on an HD monitor. First of all, I'm color grading, adding FX, etc while viewing the video in original 4K rez. Unless intended for YT, projects are usually rendered in HD for BD burning.

A few thoughts:

1/ Editing while using an HD monitor based on HD delivery is somewhat based on the assumption, IMO, that the downscaling process used by the HD monitor will be the same as that used by the downscaling renderer in Vegas Pro using any of its render formats. I doubt that that will be the case.

2/ Chances are that the HD renders will be viewed on 4K TVs (for some years now, haven't new HD TVs been limited to smaller screen size units?) - so the upscaling process from HD to 4K will depend on how the various brands of 4K TVs deal with that process. Ditto with computer monitors which often aren't standard HD or 4K resolutions - and phone screens as well.

3/ A 4K monitor future-proofs for a time when you may want to deliver in 4K.

Gid wrote on 5/8/2025, 7:38 AM

This is what YT says my videos are watched on.

I suspect a lot of people have a tv bigger than 27" but the quality & size of each would vary widely .. ?

@Mindmatter What I think is important is that you will have a monitor that displays good res, what others view your media on is their problem but at least you'll know you're providing good quality material.

Mindmatter wrote on 5/8/2025, 8:00 AM

Thanks everybody!
I guess I should mention I'm using 2 monitors.
My working Vegas UI is a HD, simply becausethe text size becomes unreadable to me at higher resolutions, and no amount of display tweaks, including Windows 125%, which basically upscales the text while making it unsharp, etc make that satisfactory for my needs.
My question was actually for my main editing / grading etc monitor.
I guess switching to a 32" might solve my dilemma.
Any suggestions as to the make/model? The BenQ PD2725U is available in 32" too.

Dexcon wrote on 5/8/2025, 8:21 AM

I changed BenQ PD2725U to BenQ PD3225U and got results for a 32" Benq monitor.

Gid wrote on 5/8/2025, 8:45 AM

@Mindmatter Hi, sorry can't answer that, my monitor is a Dell SE3223Q 4K UHD (3840x2160) 60Hz which I find is very good even tho it isn't 'super sharp, super hd blah', I don't really do the colour grading bit tho so others would have to suggest a monitor based on that etc.. 🤷‍♂️ , I also have an Acer 24" monitor. I use the 24" to drag n drop from folders that I open on there (the text size is the same on both)

All my apps are opened on the 32" because it gives me a bigger working area, I also view my 4k renders on there but very rarely do I set the media player to full screen, it's just too big & as mentioned if it looks good to me it'll be fine for my viewers.

This is how i watch my renders even tho they are 4k, I have to sit back if they are full screen 😂

I used to render in FHD, when i went to 4k I asked my YT subs if it looked ok & if there were any problems, the majority said that there was no prob but the FHD was fine even when watched on a TV. In other words I could have gotten away with carrying on rendering at FHD. I stuck with 4k regardless, I'm sure there will be a difference for some. (some of my older vids are crap, that's down to phone camera quality)

Sorry I know this is no help,, just sharing.

RogerS wrote on 5/8/2025, 8:50 AM

The ColorEdge CS2731 or video-focused siblings is 2560x1440 at 27" which is on the large side to fit on my desk and text is adequately large at 100% in Windows scaling. Bigger screens likely have to go farther back.

Reyfox wrote on 5/9/2025, 7:42 AM

LG IPS 4K 27"

bitman wrote on 5/10/2025, 5:11 AM

I edit already many years on a LG 38-inch ultra-wide (21:9) 38UC99:

Resolution: 3840x1600 (0.229 dot pitch with screen resolutions gives PPI=110)
UW-QHD+, 75 Hz, 5 ms, 300 cd/m²(std.)
10bits (8bit+FRC), IPS, sRGB 99% (CIE1931), contrast 1000:1

This model is slightly curved, and has (and is) serving me well, it is getting old as newer models came along over the years, but it is still going strong. I edit 4K source, but always in 25P full HD projects and view in FHD.

It is a perfect format, with a lot of vertical space, unfortunately modern ultra wide gaming monitors (OLED) seem to lack horizontal space (1440P is now often used). Wide screens are perfect for gaming, but especially also very beneficial for a long horizontal timeline.

However there is good news, the latest OLED LG monitors are finally hitting the shelves the last few weeks, but sold out pretty fast), and those have great specs, finally with enough vertical space.

Check out the: LG Ultragear 45GX950A-B (45" 5K2K (5120x2160) OLED-display)!

I am eyeballing this one! It does have a massive curve of 800R, but if you view it from 80 cm distance, the screen distance is the same in every direction up to the edges...

If you do not like the curve, a model is coming out in 2025 which can bend the curve motorized to your liking.

Mindmatter wrote on 5/10/2025, 9:03 AM

thanks all. I guess I haven't taken the sitting distance to the monitor into consideration. A 32" will probably be too big in my studio setup. I'll probably go with a 4K 27" next to my old 27" HD.

Mindmatter wrote on 5/13/2025, 6:39 AM

The topic just made me think of another question - who of you actually delivers mainly 4k?
The thing is, AFAIK, most streaming services only stream selected shows in 4K, although a lot of people seeem to have 4k TVs now and don't really seem to bother. How big a demand is there for 4K for independent videographers? I for one have never been asked to render in 4K in the last 10 years.

bitman wrote on 5/13/2025, 7:15 AM

I do not produce professionally, just for private viewing or non profit nature organization, as I do not have a 4K TV, I have a last generation big plasma full HD, there is no need yet for 4K.

If ever the broadcasting TV network in Belgium (or what you get from abroad, like BBC) will broadcast in 4K (not seeing it happen any time soon here, not even now in 2025), I will get a 4K TV OLED. For now I will stick with FHD. Sure I do have Netflix, and they have 4K streaming, but regular broadcasting TV, it is not here yet.

Another advantage of HD (at least for me) is that I can crop my 4K 600mm 35mm equivalent optical of my Sony RX10 m4 camera zoom lens into HD granting me up to 600x2 = 1200 mm equivalent which is a godsend for wildlife filming like small birds. The cropping also helps with getting rid of black edges from de-shaking software by the way!

Gid wrote on 5/13/2025, 7:20 AM

@Mindmatter All my media is filmed, edited & rendered in 4k, photos are bigger than 4k so when applied to a 4k project that's not a problem. YT gives options for viewing up to the max that the video was uploaded at.

Dexcon wrote on 5/13/2025, 7:52 AM

To my mind, there is 4K and then there is another 4K. True 4K is when the project is rendered at a high bit rate to something like a memory stick/card which is then played directly to the 4K display unit. And then there is the other 4K provided by streaming (e.g. YouTube) and some cable TV providers (e.g. Foxtel in Australia) where the bit rate for 4K is less than optimal - and the same with FHD compared to good Blu-Ray render/burns.

While shooting in 4K, I still edit in 4K, render to FHD and burn to BD (for personal use) and it looks just fine on my recent model Epsom home cinema projector via upscaling. Most FTA and Foxtel FHD programs look good too.

Last week, I had some AV maintenance done at home and the AV guy (I've known him for some 12 years) commented that he struggled to notice a difference between Foxtel FHD and 4K transmissions on his 4K TV.

The same as Bitman, shooting in 4K enables me to resize 4K video down to 25% frame size and retain FHD resolution without apparent loss of image quality.

Mindmatter wrote on 5/13/2025, 8:22 AM

TBH, the only reason I work in 4k is the possibility to reframe and zoom, and (IMHO) somewhat sharper and better defined HD renders. The reframe was a major workflow and creative breakthrough for me, I'd sorely miss it if I were to shoot absolute 4k only.