Nikon 2
Member
Opinions on what screen resolution is best for observing RAW files…

Opinions on what screen resolution is best for observing RAW files…![]()
I use a 65 inch 4K TV that I am 5 feet away from. 4K helps in this situation because the TV is taking up about 90 degrees of my angle of view. If your screen takes up less than 90 degrees of your view, 4K is probably overkill.
I think it depends on how large the monitor is and how close you sit to it. IMO a HD monitor won’t cut it. I have an Eizio CS2730 2660 x 1440. I sit 18” away and if I get any closer I can start to see the pixel grid. It has served me well for personal and professional work, but when I upgrade I’ll most likely go with a larger 4K display.
How long is a piece of string?
Depends on expectations/requirements, viewing distance, screen size and your own ability to discern fine detail.
21.5”
a few feet from me
How long is a piece of string?
A tiny monitor at such a big distance will be fine if it's only full HD/1080p.
This makes me chuckle as I remember a test question my son got marked wrong on his 7th grade science final: How many inches are on a ruler? And when the teacher was questioned about it she replied that the class used 6-inch rulers on an experiment so it was a valid question.
I measured the width of the image to less than 16”.A 4k res monitor supports 3840 x 2160 pixels...about 8.8 MPixels, about 37" wide for 42" monitor...a pixel pitch of 0.00964"
The human eye has resolution of about 0.5 minutes of arc. At a distance of 10' (3m), that computes to being able to resolve 0.014"...so the 42" diagonal 4k monitor has better resolving power than your eye can perceive at 10' distance, but even a 42" 4k monitor cannot resolve what a 15 year old digital camera can resolve!
Change the size of the monitor and/or your viewing distance, and the math tells the story.
A 21" 1920 pixel wide monitor is (guessing about 18.5: wide, so its pixel pitch is 0.00964"...you could sit 66" away from the monitor and only just be able to detect individual pixels on the monitor, and any photo resolution more than 2 MPixels would be wasted on that display if you view the entire frame on it.
I think that most modern screen resolutions would do. What is more important in my opinion is whether the screen is calibrated and the software used to view the RAW files. What is your intent? For editing/adjusting the files? Or just viewing. My experience is that RAW files straight from the camera benefit from at least a camera profile applied.
Whatever you get should be calibratable.
"Don’t want to sound ignorant but what do you mean…"
Do an online search for, "how do I calibrate my monitor?"
"The desktop I’m using is so obsolete that LR or other software can’t be downloaded…"
Generally speaking, RAW files are of most interest to people who want to edit digital photographs. Which requires some kind of editing software that must support the RAW files from your particular brand and model of camera.
What operating system and version is your computer running, and what is the name of your editing software?
The monitor calibration process will enable you to keep/control color and shadow and highlight details in your edited images. To get the full benefit of a calibrated monitor, your editing software should support color management. You could do an online search for "color management" but it is not an easy topic to understand. And perhaps not worth the effort for many casual photographers?
A fully calibrated, colour managed system is critical to obtaining prints that match how an image appears on your monitor.
And if you want to share images digitally, and want others to see the same things that you see, in the way that you see them, both your system and their system needs to be both colour managed and calibrated.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY: ![]() |