4k Dell Monitor

[Steve Axford]

I recently (yesterday) bought a Dell P2715Q monitor for $740 from Dell. I haven't received it yet, but I am very much looking forward to having 3840x2160 resolution. I am also having to buy a new video card as the old one did not support DP (Display Port) output and HDMI won't support that resolution. Fortunately German Geo magazine are paying for it and some extra. I haven't noticed any other posts about this screen as yet so I thought I'd bring it to peoples attention. It does sound good.

[ameerat42]

It sure looks impressive, Steve.
I guess that with HDMI connection you would only get 1920x1080 res - or whatever the video card will do?
Am.

[Steve Axford]

Usually 2560x1600 I think, so still not bad. It means I will be able to view my photos at almost full resolution in most cases. It also means that I will be able to watch 4k videos. I can make them, but there seemed little point when I couldn't look at them.

[ameerat42]

I have a 4K smart(ty-pants) TV and can ATTEST to the quality of a good (video) feed going to it, having sent
my 15MP pics to it. For video content it can be aBYSmal when it's trying to upscale some vanilla NTSC, ending
up with "jaggies" along lines that are NOT shark teeth! But even a good 1080i feed, such as those "Britain" shows
on SBSHD are marvellous to behold. -- Not to mention stuff from Netflix.
Am.

[Steve Axford]

Yeah, well ..... when the NBN domes here that may be possible, but for the moment even HD streaming is dodgy here. I will probably make 4k fungi time lapse, which will be good, but I'll have to wait a few years for TV.

[JJM]

Would love to hear your thoughts on it once you get it Steve, have been looking into a new monitor myself and considering some of the 4K options out there.

[arthurking83]

Having just re installed my OS the other week(and mostly being off line for the next few days after that), I had a lot of trouble getting my current (pathetically incapable) screen to work 'properly'

I can't work out what the issue was, but I sorted it after a few days of stuffing around(a lot).
I almost resolved myself to acquire a new screen and went on the browse and found a choice of a couple of ideal screens for my next purchase.
But I fixed the issue and can delay that for a while longer.
(so having delayed that, I got a smarty pants TV too )

ps. technically your screen is UHD, ultra high definition, which is double that of the old HD of 1920x1080. UHD is 3840x2160.
4k is 4096x2160. There are slight differences .. (and I wish these idiot manufacturers and ISO standards honchos would stop stuffing about with what should be standards!)

This could be important if you end up capturing 4k content which is truly 4k(ie 4096 pixels on the long end) and try to display it on a UHD display. You either compress the x pixel scale to suit the UHD screen or crop it to maintain perfect proportionality... and issues like that. (not that distorting such an image would amount to much anyhow .. the aspect ratio change would amount to less than 1%(~ 0.5%), or 256 pixels on the long edge.

[Cage]

Sounds like the bees knees Steve.

Betcha never thought, when you were crawling around in the dark, damp, leech laden undergrowth, that your fungi phobia would get you an overseas trip and some late model techy bits.

Myself, and all AP'ers, always thought that you were doing something very special, and that you deserve all the accolades that are coming your way.

[Steve Axford]

Thanks Kev. No, I never did imagine that things would end up like this, though I did make a New Year wish at the start of 2014 that I hoped the fungi photography could help with the camera equipment and travel. It is doing both.

Arthur. I hadn't realised that. The video would be 4096x2160 and now I will need to decide if I make my photos 4096x2160 or 3840x2160. I think I may use 4k and allow it to be cropped a fraction on my screen. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Steve Axford]

The cable may support it, but the screen doesn't. The hdmi port only supports 2560x1600

[Steve Axford]

I'm just going on what Dell says. 30Hz is ok for photos, but maybe not so good for video. I'll try it when I get it.

[Cage]

Steve, I've recently bought a Dell Ultrasharp U2515H and at 2560x1440 I was blown away after my Tn 1920x1080.

I'm sure you have a big 'WOW' moment coming when you hook it up.

[arthurking83]

I'm just going on what Dell says. 30Hz is ok for photos, but maybe not so good for video. I'll try it when I get it.

I'm pretty sure you won't like 30Hz refresh rates.

Many people see the screen flicker at 30Hz.

If your vision is normal) I reckon the minimum refresh rates you want will be 60Hz for most uses.

I don't think this is relevant for video playback either.

That is, your video will play back fine irrespective if your screen refresh rates are 30Hz or 60Hz.

What the difference is between the various refresh rates is simply viewing quality, and this relates to anything that the screen displays.
Higher refresh rates are almost always better, less flicker from the screen and a clearer image.

Note that most LCD/LED screens default at 60Hz, which is usually the acceptable value used for viewing.
But some screens (or Windows) will set it to 59Hz. If you see this 'anomaly' it's fine. Just the way that the refresh rates are rounded up/down by various manufacturers.

ps. if you have the capability to increase refresh rates(above 60Hz) then you'd be better off to do so, but be sure that both graphics card as well as screen can provide that level of data throughput.

** just had a peek and the specs say it's 60Hz @ UHD resolution.
This will almost certainly mean if you choose a lower refresh rate such as HD(1920x1080), then the screen may offer higher refresh rates at that resolution mode.

Then again, why would you set it to lower resolution!

[Steve Axford]

I'm getting a new video card as well, Arthur, as I agree. Why get a high res screen and run it at less than full capability. Photography is what I do, so it is important.

[arthurking83]

I'm getting a new video card as well, Arthur, as I agree.

Have you settled on, or already ordered the new graphics card?

note that you're probably going to spend at least $200-ish (as an approximate minimum) for a 4K capable card.

You don't need a lot of physical memory, 2G should be fine .. more doesn't hurt in any way.
More physical memory would help if you did (say) 4K video, but with very high frames rates(which I'm sure is pretty much impossible with today's camera/video devices anyhow!)

you don't come across as an overly serious gamer either Steve .. which is where these faster an higher capacity cards come into play.

Just be aware that not many lower end cards(below about $200) come with the ability to display 4K. Many will do only up to 2560x1600 or thereabouts.

ps. I've been wanting to get a new graphics card for a few years now, and always looking at this sort of stuff.
If you need any help just holler.

[Steve Axford]

I'll be getting a GEFORCE GTX 750 TI EXOC 2GB which should be just enough. The biggest issue is that I only have 4 pin power supply and this needs 6 pin. But, I am assured that I can use an adaptor to fix that without the need for a new power supply (mine is 450 watt, so it is big enough). I'll keep you updated on how it works out.

[Steve Axford]

Well, I got the monitor and it is an impressive display. It will run on an HDMI port at 3820x2160, but at only 30Hz. I can't see a major problem with that, but it will be good to get the faster graphics card so I can also connect the small monitor (only 1920x1200) and also so I can actually play 4k videos without them stopping all the time. There are, however, a few problems! The biggest one is that very few applications are 4k aware. This means that the menu text in most applications becomes vanishingly small, which is a major problem. It would seem that very few applications have got around to giving you options for menu text size. I guess there was no real need in the past, but now there is. Photoshop is the most important application for me and it isn't ready, nor is Chrome, or most other things. There is a work around where you need to change the registry to get Windows to resize the application menus, which works but does have some issues, and it seems to miss some pop up menus. Oh well, that's what you get for being bleeding edge. I expect that applications will start to adapt, but it is likely to be a lot of application development work, so it will be slow. There have been problems raised for almost 3 years now and no resolution in sight. I think MAC has the same issues

[Cage]

Know what you mean.

I quickly got into the CTRL/SCROLL habit when I got my new monitor.

[Steve Axford]

I just installed Photoshop CC 2015 and now photoshop works properly. It's brilliant! 1920x1080 jpegs are now half the screen width, with the full resolution of 3820x2160 files look stunning. And to think that I thought HD was wonderful. How quickly we change with these things.

[Lance B]

Good info, Steve. I am looking into getting this monitor myself. I have had great results with my last two DELL monitors.