# 2k vs 4k monitor



## debi.lightcraft (May 3, 2022)

Still wanting the M1 max chip I am considering the base model Studio coupled with an external monitor. I have narrowed down to the BenQ 270c (2k) vs the BenQ 271C (4k).   (One of the reasons I like these is the soft screen which is easier on the eyes and the new apple monitors are so bright.)  The difference in price is *huge*.  My research suggests that for photography editing the 270C is great.  The issue for me is that there is probably a video in my future and I'd probably shoot in 4k.  I understand I can still edit  4k video on the 2k monitor, but I am not clear on what the drawbacks might be.  If anyone does both photography and video, what do you think of this setup?  Thanks in advance!


----------



## Victoria Bampton (May 9, 2022)

I don't do video so take my thoughts with a pinch of salt... but people managed high res video long before there were high res screens... and you've likely been using high res images too.


----------



## Conrad Chavez (May 10, 2022)

debi.lightcraft said:


> The issue for me is that there is probably a video in my future and I'd probably shoot in 4k.  I understand I can still edit  4k video on the 2k monitor, but I am not clear on what the drawbacks might be.


You can edit any video resolution on any resolution display, just as you can edit a 42 megapixel image on a laptop display with a lot fewer pixels. The drawback is the same: You won’t see every pixel unless you zoom in to 1:1 magnification, but if you do that, then you can’t see the entire frame.

Note that the only time you can see every pixel of a 4K video on a 4K display is when you’re playing it back full screen, with nothing else on the screen. That’s because a 4K video at 1:1 magnification would use exactly every pixel on the 4K display, no more and no fewer. So even if you get a 4K display, you will still have to see the 4K video at reduced magnification in a video editing application just to fit the video editing controls around it. If you want to see every pixel of a 4K video _and_ still have room for controls around it…that turns out to be one advantage of a 5K display.

The nice thing about the BenQ 270 vs 271 is that they seem to have the same high quality color reproduction according to reviews, so if you’re on a budget, getting the 270 means you only give up the 2x resolution. I use Lightroom Classic and edit video, and my display is not 4K yet. One day I will get it into the budget.


----------



## debi.lightcraft (May 10, 2022)

Victoria Bampton said:


> I don't do video so take my thoughts with a pinch of salt... but people managed high res video long before there were high res screens... and you've likely been using high res images too.


Thank you very much for your response Victoria.    I really appreciate it!  I wish I could just go try it out but there is no store nearby with these monitors.


----------



## debi.lightcraft (May 10, 2022)

Thank you so much for your wonderfully clear explanation Conrad.  I am finally understanding what the difference between the two monitors might be in practical terms.  Another thing I am wondering about is this:  I am currently working on a 2017 IMac (4k).  I've figured out how to get the prints to match  what I see on the screen (not perfect but good enough for now) and the reason I'm retiring the iMac is because of speed.  So  my question is:  if I get the 2k, will my prints lose detail from what I get now using a 4k monitor?  Would I be trading better color reproduction for detail?  (I'm assuming the answer to this will carry over to video).  



Conrad Chavez said:


> You can edit any video resolution on any resolution display, just as you can edit a 42 megapixel image on a laptop display with a lot fewer pixels. The drawback is the same: You won’t see every pixel unless you zoom in to 1:1 magnification, but if you do that, then you can’t see the entire frame.
> 
> Note that the only time you can see every pixel of a 4K video on a 4K display is when you’re playing it back full screen, with nothing else on the screen. That’s because a 4K video at 1:1 magnification would use exactly every pixel on the 4K display, no more and no fewer. So even if you get a 4K display, you will still have to see the 4K video at reduced magnification in a video editing application just to fit the video editing controls around it. If you want to see every pixel of a 4K video _and_ still have room for controls around it…that turns out to be one advantage of a 5K display.
> 
> The nice thing about the BenQ 270 vs 271 is that they seem to have the same high quality color reproduction according to reviews, so if you’re on a budget, getting the 270 means you only give up the 2x resolution. I use Lightroom Classic and edit video, and my display is not 4K yet. One day I will get it into the budget.


----------



## Conrad Chavez (May 11, 2022)

debi.lightcraft said:


> I am currently working on a 2017 IMac (4k).  I've figured out how to get the prints to match  what I see on the screen (not perfect but good enough for now) and the reason I'm retiring the iMac is because of speed.  So  my question is:  if I get the 2k, will my prints lose detail from what I get now using a 4k monitor?


The prints won’t lose detail inherently, because the files contain the same number of pixels regardless of the resolution of the display they’re previewed on. What might happen is that you have gotten accustomed to judging sharpness for print on your current iMac 4K display. If you buy another 4K display, that shouldn't change. If you buy a 2K display, you might have to re-train yourself as to what good print sharpness looks like on a 2K display.

It’s not that a 4K or 2K display is a better match to print resolution, because neither can reproduce detail the same way a print process does through halftoning or dithering. But we get used to what the right amount of print sharpening looks like on a certain display, so any time the display changes, we have to adapt again. For example, grab some prints with ideal sharpness, open their files, and see what that looks like on whatever display you end up with so you know what to aim for on the screen.

Video is a little easier, because the final output of video reproduces detail the same way (glowing pixels). But now that I think about it, if you’ll mostly be editing 4K video, a 4K display would be a better way to preview that while editing. If you bought a 2K display to edit 4K video, to check detail and sharpness you should probably test that video on a 4K display before sending it out, like play it on a typical 4K TV in the living room.


----------



## debi.lightcraft (May 11, 2022)

Conrad Chavez said:


> The prints won’t lose detail inherently, because the files contain the same number of pixels regardless of the resolution of the display they’re previewed on. What might happen is that you have gotten accustomed to judging sharpness for print on your current iMac 4K display. If you buy another 4K display, that shouldn't change. If you buy a 2K display, you might have to re-train yourself as to what good print sharpness looks like on a 2K display.
> 
> It’s not that a 4K or 2K display is a better match to print resolution, because neither can reproduce detail the same way a print process does through halftoning or dithering. But we get used to what the right amount of print sharpening looks like on a certain display, so any time the display changes, we have to adapt again. For example, grab some prints with ideal sharpness, open their files, and see what that looks like on whatever display you end up with so you know what to aim for on the screen.
> 
> Video is a little easier, because the final output of video reproduces detail the same way (glowing pixels). But now that I think about it, if you’ll mostly be editing 4K video, a 4K display would be a better way to preview that while editing. If you bought a 2K display to edit 4K video, to check detail and sharpness you should probably test that video on a 4K display before sending it out, like play it on a typical 4K TV in the living room.


Conrad, thank you so much for your (always) clear answer to my question.  I can't say how helpful this is and I am so grateful. There are so many options and details to wade through and it can be overwhelming without expert guidance.  Conrad, What do you think of this monitor?  Asus ProArt PA 329C 32" 4K?   

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1545191-REG/asus_pa329c_32_wide_16_9_proart_4k.html 

It has a wide color gamut which looks to be as good as both BenQs and it also has 4k.  Are there downsides to it?  Apparently it is much brighter (don't know the implications of this  as I assume it can be toned down).  I don't think I need 32 inches and I don't like the weight.  But if it is as good as BenQ, I'd consider it.  (It does have speakers but I read in a review they are not very good and the person got new ones)

​


----------



## Conrad Chavez (May 11, 2022)

That Asus display might be a good choice, it says all the right things in the specs. But I haven’t seen as much written about it, so I don’t know much about how satisfied photographers are with it. Try to find a review by a photographer, or a review that measures Delta E and uniformity. B&H is pretty good about returns, though.

A side note for those following this discussion: The companies making pro color displays tend to use very similar model number prefixes for the high end color models of their lines. For example, NEC, BenQ, and Asus make all kinds of displays at all kinds of price points, most of which aren’t for photography. But their 27" pro color displays are labeled like this:

NEC PA (as in NEC PA271)
BenQ SW (as in SW271)
Asus PA (as in PA27CV)
Eizo CG (as in CG2700)

Recognizing that naming format can help you narrow down what to look for.


----------



## debi.lightcraft (May 11, 2022)

Conrad Chavez said:


> That Asus display might be a good choice, it says all the right things in the specs. But I haven’t seen as much written about it, so I don’t know much about how satisfied photographers are with it. Try to find a review by a photographer, or a review that measures Delta E and uniformity. B&H is pretty good about returns, though.
> 
> A side note for those following this discussion: The companies making pro color displays tend to use very similar model number prefixes for the high end color models of their lines. For example, NEC, BenQ, and Asus make all kinds of displays at all kinds of price points, most of which aren’t for photography. But their 27" pro color displays are labeled like this:
> 
> ...


Thank you.  I will look for reviews and also see if it comes in a smaller size.  Thanks also for the naming format which will certainly speed up my searching!


----------

