Why not just get the PG279QZ which is good at both? It has excellent color accuracy when calibrated. I know you can get monitors with a broader SRGB/Adobe range but it's really the best of both worlds I think for now.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
OLED monitors out yet? Best black is black monitor for gaming AND photo editing?
- Thread starter Despotes
- Start date
Why not just get the PG279QZ which is good at both? It has excellent color accuracy when calibrated. I know you can get monitors with a broader SRGB/Adobe range but it's really the best of both worlds I think for now.
OP wants to edit photos (presumably not on their phone or TV) so OLED isn't an option.
I know the ideal monitor doesn't exist yet (it never will), I just thought it was strange to suggest that you'd need to either pick gaming or photo editing capability in a monitor when there are plenty of great hybrids out there that can do both really well. No need for two monitors.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
If you're serious about both, you'll have monitors for both. That's not a hard thing to do.
I have four on my desk for my desktop... and I could probably use more.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
Really depends on what you mean by 'professional'. A competitive gamer and a photographer (or other) using a color-managed workflow will want very different things that are fairly divergent in featureset.
Yeah, you can get close, and aside from the OP's desire for deep blacks most certainly close enough- but once you get serious about either your preferences in each are going to diverge to the point of excluding the other.
Well sure there are varying degrees of professionals and their requirements, but as you said a lot of that depends on their workflow which I think matters more than the pure specs of the monitor itself. At a firm or large company, it's much more important that all the monitors are correctly calibrated to one another. They don't need 144Hz panels, so naturally they wouldn't be buying monitors with that feature. And we can care about how many colors a monitor can produce but at the end of the day it's a complete crapshoot because there's no way to correct for every single place it's going to end up in digital land. The only time it truly matters is if you're printing or working with a team.
It's unlikely OP falls into this category due to their desire for an all-in-one, so I'm just sorta reading in between the lines here. OLED ain't happening anytime soon.
Consumer monitors all have really poor uniformity, and lack hardware LUTs. Personally I wouldn't be happy without a hardware LUT and uniformity correction if I was doing a serious professional photography workflow. But of course whether or not that kind of special purchase makes any sense entirely depends on budget and business income. If I was a rich YouTuber I'd probably have an Eizo CG3145 just for the hell of it even though it's certainly not needed lol. If I'm a semi-hobbyist making $1K/mo from wedding photos, a PG279Q is completely fine.
I don't understand why IPS panels are used for photo if the contrast ratios are so bad. They say colors are superior, but you want accurate dark colors and black areas of the photo in addition to the other colors. I don't edit my photos at an angle (who does lol) on my VA monitor, so it's more than adequate. If my monitor had 120/144 Hz, fast input, and no vertical banding I'd be satisfied.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
VAs have wider viewing angles, but they also shift quickly off axis. IPS don't have this flaw and it's important for color accuracy.
With respect to 'dark colors', IPS already exceed the contrast level of any physical medium (prints etc.), so the editing process almost always entails the 'compression' of the image data into a smaller range.
I didn't know this. How does that apply to what you see on the screen as a true representation of what the print will look like? The screen image should, as close as possible, mirror the details and information in the image itself.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
If you're going for color accuracy in print, you're calibrating your monitor to a massively different target. Not only are you dropping brightness, as mentioned above you'll want a hardware 3D LUT capability and wide but configurable color space support. And pointedly, supposing you actually have your monitor matched to your printer (be that one you are operating or at a print house), everything else- games, movies- will look pretty terrible. Lower brightness, lower contrast, and significantly lower saturation, which is what tends to catch consumers' eyes the most.
This is a goal of HDR, and the poor implementation thereof is why it's not ready for the desktop. Essentially, for an HDR monitor to be useful for gaming, it needs to look good with separate SRGB and HDR modes that it preferrably automatically switches between. I.E., load an HDR game fullscreen, monitor switches to HDR, alt-tab or otherwise leave the game, monitor switches to SRGB.
This is necessary until desktop operating systems can run in HDR mode while properly mapping SRGB (and other colorspaces) to the space that the particular monitor supports.
Further, as to 'mirroring the details and information in the image', this is why calibration is necessary. And it's not a one-time thing- if you're printing color-critical work on a regular basis, you'll also be calibrating your monitor, your capture devices (cameras / scanners) and your printers if any also on a regular basis. You'll also be controlling ambient light, or using a monitor that has a sensor that allows it to adjust to ambient light.
While none of this stuff is really new or even really that difficult- and it could all be automated with some effort and likely significant cost- it is a pretty large departure from what most consumers and enthusiasts do with their equipment.
MacLeod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 8,278
Honestly they're not that bad. Most all of the quality IPS panels I've seen reviewed are over 1000:1 legit. While that's not as good as VA panels which usually sit around 2500:1, IPS are still pretty good and when matched with their better and deeper colors, it still looks pretty damn good.
Honestly the only real weakness in IPS is the damn IPS glow. They've got the best colors, viewing angle, lately they're getting response times in TN territory. If they could just fix the glow, there would be little reason for the other types IMO.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
Well, there's cost
.I'm looking forward to these new "1ms" LG panels. Glow doesn't bother me much, but I'm such a perfectionist here that nothing is perfect so I put up with whatever is 'good enough'.
MacLeod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 8,278
Well, there's cost
I'm looking forward to these new "1ms" LG panels. Glow doesn't bother me much, but I'm such a perfectionist here that nothing is perfect so I put up with whatever is 'good enough'.
Oh yeah I'm also anxiously waiting on those nano-IPS LG panels. There's only 1 review on the 27GL850 and that's on Linus' channel and it's not very in depth.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
Yeah, I'll skip that one...
MacLeod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 8,278
Nah, he's ok for overviews of stuff. Hopefully Hardware Unboxed gets sampled. They do very good and in depth reviews.
Linus did say that the 1ms claim was bullshit. It could do it but only on the max overdrive setting which caused really bad overshoot, bad enough to be plainly evident in games.
I did find this one on Reddit from a dude in Europe that bought one. He took some pictures of IPS glow at different brightness settings and at 100% it's not too bad but at 50% and especially 25% it's completely gone! He also confirmed that using the highest overdrive setting to achieve that 1ms response time ruined the image.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
So then the question is- what kind of response time is realistic with minimized overshoot. If I can do 120Hz with good motion clarity, that'd be perfect.
And the reduced glow at normal brightness levels would hopefully mean good things for real contrast and uniformity.
And the reduced glow at normal brightness levels would hopefully mean good things for real contrast and uniformity.
Tup3x
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2011
- Messages
- 1,942
I'll be almost certainly be buying LG 27GL850-B when I can. Looks like it's still one months wait though. It seems to be the best compromise and since it's G-Sync certified, adaptive sync experience should be good regardless of GPU brand.
My 24" 1080p display is a tiny bit small and ppi too low. I have 27" 1440p screen at work and it's definitely better for that. Upgrading would give better working experience when working remotely.
My 24" 1080p display is a tiny bit small and ppi too low. I have 27" 1440p screen at work and it's definitely better for that. Upgrading would give better working experience when working remotely.
MacLeod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 8,278
I'd say it's probably in line with most IPS gaming panels at around 4ms which would be plenty fast for 144 Hz.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
I have an Acer XB271HU [IPS G-Sync 27" 1440p144 to 165Hz (OC)], which Acer lists as 4ms, and it's not fast enough for me. These need to be faster than that.
Lets not pretend that manufacturer response time specs mean anything. Everyone's been listing TN panels as 1ms forever, but none of them are ACTUALLY 1ms. I don't know exactly how they derive the number, but my guess is that they max overdrive to unusable levels, and then cherry pick the fastest transition they can possibly record.
The real important number is the average, and it varies A LOT from display to display. Based on Linus' video and the blurbusters test, it does look to me like the LG 27GL850 might be the fastest IPS panel we've seen yet, but we really need a proper review from TFTCentral to be sure. Fortunately, they have said they are going to review it as soon as supply is available in the UK.
Just for reference, here's a table of average G2G response times from TFTCentral:
The fastest TNs fall around 2.5ms g2g average, the PG279Q/XB271HU fall around 5ms, and the AD27QD is the fastest non-TN Freesync I know of around 5.2ms -- almost all other freesync IPS displays are slow like the Nixeus EDG v2(which is regarded as one of the best freesyncs out there, and yet it gets absolutely trashed by all IPS g-sync displays).
It is possible that the LG27GL850 is down around 4ms. If it's below 3ms, I would say it kills TN completely dead aside from price concerns. It will be VERY shocking and impressive if it's below 3ms.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
Owning and gaming on the Acer XB271U and the LG 32GK850G (not yet listed in sig), I'd say that 5ms - 8ms measured grey to grey simply isn't fast enough for me. In particular, dark areas are too slow, though noticeably worse on the VA panel in the 32GK850G.