4k monitor questions
droidy001
Posts: 282
I currentley have a 1080p but thinking of upgrading.
I usually render at 4k and let the computer downscale. My thinking with this is that if I zoom in, it will be sharper.
My questions
Is my thinking correct with renering at 4k on a 1080p or is this just placebo?
If it's correct does that mean I'll need to render at higher than 4k on a 4k monitor to get the same effect?
If I get a 4k monitor will it make a significant difference at 100% rendering in 4k?
Edit: It would be a 28" 4k monitor
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Once you pass 2k, it's really hard for anyone to tell the difference between that and a 4K image when it comes to resolution. To give weight to that statement, consider that when you've seen one of the Marvel films or most other blockbusters on the big screen, everything that you're seeing was actually color graded and rendered out at 2K and then upscaled to 4K when needed. That said, most 4K releases for home video get an extra pass through the color space to optimize them for the fact that on a TV you're looking at an actual light source, whereas in theaters you're looking at light that's being reflected off a screen. So no, it won't make much of a difference and you should generally be more concerned about your monitor's colour accuracy than it's resolution.
Huh? The cameras used for all the Marvel films were at least 4k, most of the cameras were actually IMAX cameras which record at 12k. Why in the world would they down sample to do the editing and then upsample, which always looks awful, for the final resolution?
On resolution, what matters is the size of your screen and how far from it you sit. At normal monitor sizes and viewing distances it is unlikely that you will see a differentce between 1440p and 4k,. If you have a 4k monitor, which I do, and slightly regret, you can show a 1080p image in a smaller window or upscale it to fill the full screen but that will not look very good as upsampling always looks bad.
But nothing says you hqave to keep a 4k monitor at 4k all the time. I only run mine at full resolution when I'm streaming movies and sit farther back. I normally keep it at 1440p, which is why I do feel somewhat silly for having bought it in the first place.
So it sounds like what your're both saying is for what I'd spend on a 4k I'd be better getting a 1440p with better colour accuracy?
Why? TIME. And time = money. 4K has 4 times the number of pixels as 2K, which means that every rendering phase in post production takes 4 times as long. 4 times as long to render the effects, four times as long to do the 3D conversions, 4 times as long to do the color grading. I remember reading an interview with one of the effects directors for INFINITY WAR where he mentions that if they had done all the post in 4K, it would have taken another year to finish the film. Shooting in the higher-resolutions does help future-proof the projects, but the main reason they shoot at the higher resolutions is for other technical advantages, especially when it comes to set replacement, re-timing and post work. There are some fairly good non-cinematagrapher focused conversationis here https://www.reddit.com/r/marvelstudios/comments/92pari/technical_question_about_the_4k_releases_of/ and here https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/97xahz/why_are_most_modern_movies_still_mastered_in_2k/ or you can go to the Red forums and get into some real technical nitty gritty. Given that the ultimate truth is that very few people can really see the difference and that the upscaling algoritims they use are vastly better than anything available on the consumer market, the studios almost always go with what gets the product on the market as quickly as possible. But hey, it's not just Hollywood. If you see any anime that's been produced digitally, the standard output there is still just 720 and then they uprez for the exact same reasons.
Generally, yes. I use two 32" 4K UHD monitors on my main system, one of which is just a basic Samsung and the other is a much nicer, factory calibrated BenQ, but I could have saved a bit by buying a smaller but more color accurate monitor.
Thanks, I'll not ask for recomendations just yet. My budget depends on what I can sell my old tech for. The Monitor is my incentive to finally have a clear out and stick some stuff on ebay.
My brother's camera records at 1440p and mine records at 4K. On my 4K laptop screen, I can see the difference between the videos. It's not a huge difference, and there may be some difference between the sensors other than just the megapixels. But I can see more detail in the 4K video even on a laptop size screen. However, I have to get up close to the screen to see the difference. From a normal distance away, I probably can't see it. And the videos look really good on my Chromebook with a 2256x1504 screen. I'd say yes 4K is better but I'd also agree with the people who say cost and color accuracy might be more important. I also noticed I have an easier time with the DAZ Studio interface since with a 4K screen I can fit more of it on the screen at once. And I've noticed some apps aren't designed for 4K screens, particularly older apps. The menus and fonts can be very tiny or out of place. Finally, I absolutely believe rendering the picture bigger than the screen is a good idea for zooming in.
I've got a 4K monitor but don't run it at 4K. I doubt anyone over 63 like me would see any difference between 2K ans 4K. If my peepers aren't up to it why bother. I make images for myself and not to please the young-sighted. Bah humbug!
I know that feeling. I went from dual 22" to a 27" because of eyesight, now I'm missing that second monitor.
Glad i'ts not just my imagination
I have a 32" 4K monitor. I like it a lot.
One note: The Daz interface text will be really tiny, unless you adjust the 'display scaling' on your system. I have mine set at 200%, so it might as well be 1080P in that respect. However, for things like fine photoshop editing, it does help a tiny bit. I should note that I'm running said monitor off of the integrated graphics of my Ryzen 2400G, which does just fine. I wouldn't recommend AAA gaming with current titles at 4K with integrated graphics though...
When I am doing a 4K render, or open up Daz renders after saving them, it's nice to see how they look at 4K... Mostly it's a 'warm fuzzy feeling' but again it might help a tiny bit when inspecting the render details.
As others have noted, 1440p is probably fine though, but if you can find a good deal on a 4K monitor, well it's a thought...
One other downside to a 4K monitor is if you still play older games, that don't have/wont respond to a display scaling option. well you'll end up with a tiny game window, particularly if there isn't a 'full screen' mode (this is rare, but it has come up a few times in my experience), and notably really old (DOS) games will have significant 'jaggie' issues. Of course, if you like the '8 bit' look...
Keep in mind that there are a lot of things that affect the quality of an image beyond just the resolution you see it at. After all, if it was only about resolution, there wouldn't be much competition in the camera market and everyone would just buy whatever was the cheapest with the highest specs... but it isn't, which is why most pro camera sites spend a ridiculous amount of time doing various side by side tests of all the different aspects of the imaging chips, lenses, and especially the post-processing that occurs on the image. The truth is that a lower resolution camera with better color range and light sensitivity and a good prime lens can often outperform a 4K camera with a cheaper lens or a multi-purpose zoom, especially in a lower lighting situations, while a lot of 4K cameras (iPhone 10, cough,) use so much processing to make the image look sharper and brighter that small details often drop out and colors start to look hypersaturated and unreal.
Not much of a gamer. I do fire up the old Spectrum from time to time, so 8 bit is good.
I'm really missing the dual monitors, so if I get another it might as well be a step up.
I think it largely depends on what else you do with said monitor. I'm a gamer, and once you game at 4k...1080p will never look right. That being said, I would not cheap out on a 4k monitor. I bought a cheaper 32" LCD first and then ended up returning it and moving to a much more expensive 32" Acer Predator IPS display. It cost a pretty penny, but it was worth it. If I wasn't a gamer, and was only working with Daz, I'd probably have stuck with my 1440p 21:9 display.
Also keep in mind that if you run a 4k monitor, by default your viewport window will also be much larger, so your Iray previews will require more horsepower.
I am happy with my DELL 25 inch monitor. It is 4 years old but the picture is excellent. I'm trying out a 27 inch Samsung right now and am itching to get back to my 25 inch. So I will not be buying the Samsung but I might buy a second 25 ( or 24 inch) DELL.
Also keep in mind that monitors made for gaming are not like monitors made for production and color accuracy. Gaming monitors are designed for speed and that sacrifices some picture quality. So when looking for a monitor for production, you need to look at monitors designed for that specific task.
Some other notes, running a lower resolution on a 4K screen can result in fuzzy pictures. 1080p content must be upscaled to fit a 4K screen, and how well that works will depend on several different factors. It is usually best to run at the resolution of your monitor. But some older applications may not like 4K resolutions, like Daz Studio. The menus and text are hilariously small and you will want to increase the text size to be able to see them.
Its a shame, but there are benefits and drawbacks to all the options, there is not one "perfect option" out there. Personally, I am happy with 1440p. The difference in resolution between 1440p and 4K at this size is not as noticeable for me, and I see 4K screens all the time. I don't sit on top of my screen though. I am more laid back with the keyboard in my lap, LOL. I certainly would not want a 1080p monitor, the difference there is quite easy to spot, but 1440P to 4K is not nearly as large a difference. However it is your call. A good 4K monitor may not be out of reach.
"The Daz interface text will be really tiny, unless you adjust the 'display scaling' on your system."
First you strain the system with 4K display and then you scale it down to see something = What's the point of 4K?
I agree that "HD"/1080p was inadequate to start with, you couldn't open 2 full A4 size pages (8.3"x11.7") side by side with 100% scaling like you could with 1600x1200 or 1920x1200 resolutions, which postponed my move from CRT:s for quite a number of years.
Instead of going 4K, I consider increasing the number of monitors far better and more usefull way of increasing the useability of the system - I have 3 x HP LA2405 monitors and having content library on one, viewport on an other and everything else on the third, has improved the useabity of DS considerably - Everything I need/use is there without the need to dig through tabs that are hidden behind something else.
So if 99.9% of my DVDs/BRs are DVDs and many of the DVDs are actually old 480i TV series then I should buy a 75" 1920x1080P TV instead of a 75" 4K TV?
The 'display scaling' feature I'm referring to changes the size of text, apps, and other items, hence the quotes. It doesn't just flat out rescale everything. As such, when I open a 1920x1080 image on my 4K monitor, it appears at 'actual pixel size' in the photo viewer that I often use, in a window occupying a bit over 25% of the monitor screen, while 4k images will (as expected) fill the screen. And, as I noted, some older apps, that aren't included in the things that Windows 10 tries to rescale r.e. font size, etc, say for a game that displays at 640x480, well those 'orphaned items' will often display as a tiny window in the middle of the screen, with tiny text. From the Relevant Microsoft page:
So this is a Windows 10 thang... Windows 8 handled this a bit differently according to the Microsoft docs.
Some of the older apps I can assign 'custom scaling' to via the Radeon software on a per-app basis, but this won't work in all cases. Note that in my case I use Vega graphics to drive my display, not my Nvidia 1080Ti, which is ONLY used for rendering purposes. DOSBox also has some 'custom scaling' options that you can implement manually. A few of the older games that I still play I do so via DOSBox... I prefer 'windowed' mode to 'full screen' when using most of my apps, to make it easier to switch between working in Daz, Photoshop, etc. and then knocking out a few turns in a game while a render is baking in the background.
Certainly I could run my monitor at 1080p, even though it's a 4K monitor, but that's not what I'm doing. And my system isn't 'struggling' as you would suggest. Certainly a few more CPU cycles are being used to make the text rescaling thing happen, but being able to read my text without squinting 'cuz it's so tiny is more important in this case, particularly since we have light gray text on dark gray background being displayed in the 'default' theme in Daz Studio for a number of sliders, etc.. The performance hit for the font rescaling is negligible.. Of course, if you can easily read really tiny text, say in the Daz interface, more power to you!
I do miss the more granular 'icon/icon text size customization' options that were in earlier Windows distributions. Microsoft decided that people wouldn't want to do that anymore, and hence simplified the process, but in my case they were wrong... I really enjoyed customizing the desktop in older Windows distributions, but Microsoft has turned us all into mindless sheep of late with the latest Windows versions...
You are missing the point I was trying to make.
Updating 4 times as many pixels on the display does have an effect, and if we are talking about monitors between 24"-27" in size, can you really tell the difference between 1920x1200, 2560x1440 and 3840x2160?
If we are talking about monitors in 40+ inch range, then I can understand the benefits of 4K
I don't know if someone already said it but 4k monitor also mean more VRAM used just for the system, so less available for rendering (an more CPU fallback etc), unless using a separate GPU as primary GPU
The only gaming I do is retro, so not interested in refresh rates or response time.
I will be keeping the 1080p, I would just like to go back to dual monitors. One screen for general internetty stuff and the other for things like Daz, Gimp and modeling software.
I thought that while I'm going to get another it might be worth going for a higher res.
As for GPU power I have a 2060s which will cope with the workload, but would look to getting a 30xx to go alongside it towards the end of the year. That all depends on the pricing.
Not exactly 4k, but...
I have a dual monitor setup for DS.
Monitor one, Sceptre QK8J57QB, running at 2560x1440 on a DisplayPort in landscape format. I use this monitor for the view panel, camera view, etc.
Monitor two, Dell S2740L, running at 1080x1920 on a DisplayPort as well in portrait format. I use this monitor for the DS interface and menus.
This set up allows me to have plenty of work space for setting up scenes, while not making the menus look teeny tiny.
The Sceptre is very crisp in detail and was on sale on Amazon at $200, just before the panademic started.
Didn't think of that scenario with a second monitor. Thats got to make working in DS easier.
I just use a 43 inch 4k tv as a monitor.
It does. The portrait format makes browsing the content tree a lot easier. It also makes the parameter panel longer, so less scrolling up and down.
My only change would be to upgrade the Dell to the same Sceptre. I would keep the resolutions the same. It would just be nice to have the same color balance, brightness, and crispness.
I used to think the Dell was a great monitor, until I had it side by side with this one... But that was compared to the one that burnt out on me (which led to buying the Sceptre).
I honestly overlooked the importance of the fine detail until it smacked me in the face. Much less eye strain, able to sit further back in my seat despite the resolution...
My monitor is 32", and compared to the 1080p resolution screen I was using before, yes there is a distinct visual difference at 4K, and for the better... as others have noted, once you've gone 4K on the desktop, there's really no reason to go back, at least for our usage case. If we were talking say a 19" monitor, that might be different, but Apple is all about high DPI screens, even on Ipads. One Ipad model is as dense as 326 ppi, most are at 264 ppi these days. That may be overkill for say an 11" screen, but Apple doesn't seem to think so... It looks like the ppi on the 32" monitor I use is around 137-138. Apple's 6K 'Pro' cheese grater display sits at 221 ppi at around 5 grand in US dollars. I'd rather buy a 64 core Threadripper for those kinda dollars... which is out of my budget currently (ummm yay COVID *sigh*
)
I'm sure that the 4K ties into a lower refresh rate, and more memory needed for those extra pixels, but in my usage case that translates to 'essentially negligible'. If my rendering GPU was the same as my display GPU, that might tie in to VRAM memory issues, but in my case yeah the 1080Ti does only one thing in my system... crunch renders. So for my usage case, no worries!
I use a 43 in 4k.... for the real estate.. particularly, when I'm modeling... really nice for blowing up the vertices etc to see.
---
As my monitors have scaled up over the years, so has the amount of work I've done.
---
Note there is usually nothing on my main screen other than the viewport and 2 inch wide scene file down the side.
----
monitor to the left has content library, monitor to the right has a panel: param, sufaces, shaping, render setttings, Panel 2: power pose, align, tool set,
---
Granted the lack of being able to adjust the text size is a pita and I have to "glare" at some of the panels. But that's not the monitors fault, my eyes now require about a 0.5 reading glasses and even if you have them they only function at exactly 18 inches.
----
As far as appearances of renders.. I use a lot of mine at part of a set of changing desktops... and even a 2kx1k render looks really good on the monitors... the 4ks leaving me wanting to creating 20x24 prints to hang all around the house, unfortunately there are no walls only bookcases or windows.. so the monitors are my art gallery also.
----
But propably not a bad idea to see if you have a friend you can visit with one.. to sort of get a feel for how you would get along with one