Affinity Photo monitor size/resolution recommendations

[Olympus]

I find that using Photo at 1440 on my 25" monitor is not possible for me due to icon/text size.

It is usable for me at 900. How can this affect the quality of the final image when I am retouching an image and or color correcting?

If I moved to a 32" monitor what would be an equivalent resolution to what I am experiencing now? I am guessing that I would be stepping up to the next higher res and not making use of 1440 or higher. Does it matter in image editing?

Suggestions or questions please. 

[walt.farrell]

What OS do you use? 

[Olympus]

Sonoma 14.3

[RichardMH]

I'm on Windows so maybe of limited help with a Mac but I run at 1920x1200 resolution on a 24" monitor with no problems. I wonder if there is something strange about your settings? 

[mopperle]

Running on a 15" laptop with 4k resolution without a problem.🤔 But the Mac should allow to change the resolutio of the UI.

[Gerhard Sachs]

I'm working on a 24" / 1920x1200 screen and want to switch to a bigger screen.

Currently the UI is readable but I prefer a slightly bigger font for all the menus.

A bigger screen with its higher resolution would probably lead to even smaller menu text and icons so I stick on the 24".

 

[thomaso]

12 hours ago, Olympus said:

It is usable for me at 900. How can this affect the quality of the final image when I am retouching an image and or color correcting?

The screen resolution affects the pixel size & density but does not affect colour values.

12 hours ago, Olympus said:

If I moved to a 32" monitor what would be an equivalent resolution to what I am experiencing now? I am guessing that I would be stepping up to the next higher res and not making use of 1440 or higher. Does it matter in image editing?

The monitor (hardware) pixel size & density is not necessarily identical with the resolution setting (software) but depends on the total number of hardware pixels (the max. monitor resolution). Although the exact equivalent of 1440 pixels at 25" can be calculated for 32" (1440/25*32=1843.2) it may not be useful if it does not 'match' the hardware resolution (~ like an 'integer divisor' of the total number of hardware pixels).

For image editing, the screen resolution affects the size -> sharpness of all displayed content and the required zoom factor when displaying an image in pixel size (1 screen pixel = 1 image pixel). So it affects the precision, e.g. for pixel selections (the running ants marquee) and may require more zoom in/out while working.

If the 32" monitor is a TV screen for instance it may be less colour-true than a 25" computer monitor. But this is not a matter of the selected resolution and can't be influenced by resolution but will have a permanent affect on image colour editing.

[thomaso]

34 minutes ago, Gerhard Sachs said:

I'm working on a 24" / 1920x1200 screen and want to switch to a bigger screen.

Currently the UI is readable but I prefer a slightly bigger font for all the menus.

A bigger screen with its higher resolution would probably lead to even smaller menu text and icons so I stick on the 24".

Is this a question, or a hint for the OP @Olympus? – If it's a question:

A physically larger monitor does not necessarily lead to smaller interface items. If you increase the physical screen size but keep the resolution setting (e.g. 1920 x 1200) then the interface items will be displayed larger (-> with larger pixels) and, for instance, an menu text with a height of 12 pixels will still be displayed with a height of 12 pixels, but with pixels of a larger height.

[R C-R]

8 hours ago, mopperle said:

But the Mac should allow to change the resolutio of the UI.

FWIW, in AP (& the other 2 Affinity apps) in Preferences (or Settings, depending on the macOS version) in the User Interface section there is a UI Font Size setting with a choice of "Default" or "Large." Setting it to "Large" will increase UI text size but probably less than one might hope for if they are using a large monitor & are finding it hard to read UI text. 

[Gerhard Sachs]

Let me explain why a bigger monitor with a reduced resolution is no option for me.

My main job is software development for machines with Delphi on Windows. New applications often require high resolution, for example, 1920x1080.

GUI development on a 1920x1200 monitor for a 1920x1080 target needs a lot of scrolling and I want to avoid this.

So a bigger display makes sense for me only if  can use its high resolution.

On the Delphi IDE I can increase fontsize, both on sourcecode and menus.

Sometimes I need to work with photos and a picture editor that allows me to work on an a high resolution screen and still have readable menus would be advantageous.

I know that adding a third screen with lower resolution would solve the problem. But my intention is to have two 32" panels and a third screen would take too much space on the desk.

btw: my reply to Olympus was not a question. It was intended as information to the affinity guys to make them aware of such problems.

[R C-R]

7 minutes ago, Gerhard Sachs said:

So a bigger display makes sense for me only if  can use its high resolution.

If by that you mean its native (unscaled) resolution you can use it but you will have to contend with the smaller & harder to read Affinity UI items. The only alternative is to use a lower resolution setting to increase the UI size, which of course means more scrolling.

[thomaso]

1 hour ago, Gerhard Sachs said:

GUI development on a 1920x1200 monitor for a 1920x1080 target needs a lot of scrolling and I want to avoid this.

So a bigger display makes sense for me only if  can use its high resolution.

Can you explain this? A larger monitor with the same resolution would simply display the same content (not less, not more data) but with larger pixels and larger interface items, readable from a greater distance, for example. Don't you want to see the user interface in a larger format? Why would this need a lot of scrolling ? When developing GUIs, don't you make general decisions about sizes anyway (e.g. a specific font size or panel width) and can use this information according to your current monitor resolution/pixel size?

27 minutes ago, R C-R said:

The only alternative is to use a lower resolution setting to increase the UI size, which of course means more scrolling.

In what situations is more scrolling required? It's not to access Affinity menus or the UI items of other apps, right?

With a lower resolution / a larger monitor more scrolling may be required for document content, not the UI, right? Whereas the affected content types in the displaying apps most often (always?) may get zoomed in/out or adjusted in their displayed size, for example an image in Affinity, a website in a browser, a text document in a text editor or the size of elements in an operating system window.

[R C-R]

2 minutes ago, thomaso said:

In what situations is more scrolling required? It's not to access Affinity menus or the UI items of other apps, right?

I mean it affects all apps equally, so in any app where the entire document won't fit in its window, it would take more scrolling in the window to see or access more of it than if a higher monitor resolution was used.

[thomaso]

3 hours ago, R C-R said:

where the entire document won't fit in its window, it would take more scrolling in the window to see or access more of it than if a higher monitor resolution was used.

Hardly. "More scrolling" is not an inevitable consequence of a lower screen resolution on a larger monitor. That's why I mentioned "zooming".

When you consider that nowadays we can edit Excel spreadsheets on a 6" phone or layout a magazine and design exhibition walls in APub on an 11" iPad, you might notice that the physical size of the device + the displayed size of the interface elements are both rather independent of the use and workflow with the documents created. So if "the whole document doesn't fit in its window" ... it's usually simply made to fit. Not only but in particular in APhoto, mentioned in the OP's topic.

[RichardMH]

One solution is to wear magnifying spectacles when using the computer. My optometrist told me to do this as  my prescription lenses aren't good for computer use. 

[firstdefence]

Does your system/graphic card/chip support the higher resolutions of a new, larger screen could reaslise, what is the maximum resolution that is supported by the system, I'd check that before buying anything.

@Olympus You say you are on Sonoma 4.3 but what iPad/Mac/iMac is it?

[R C-R]

14 hours ago, thomaso said:

"More scrolling" is not an inevitable consequence of a lower screen resolution on a larger monitor. That's why I mentioned "zooming".

Consider an AP document with those filters applied that must be viewed at 100% to be judged accurately. If the document is larger than will fit in the document window at a lower screen resolution then it will be necessary to scroll around to view all of it.

[thomaso]

11 minutes ago, R C-R said:

If the document is larger than will fit in the document window at a lower screen resolution then it will be necessary to scroll around to view all of it.

No. – You may have noticed that APhoto defaults to the View tool selected, which allows panning with the "hand"/trackpad or mouse. The cumbersome use of scroll bars is hardly necessary anymore, as most or all apps today allow zooming or panning the view in their document windows.

Remember, Gerhard considered using a 32" monitor set to the resolution of the current 24" monitor (1920 x 1200). With same resolution the screen content will not change and the need for zooming, panning or scrolling will be the same in both setups. Just one shows larger pixels than the other in APhoto's pixel size view, and also the interface items appear accordingly physically larger, which I understood as the initial goal.

[Olympus]

7 hours ago, firstdefence said:

Does your system/graphic card/chip support the higher resolutions of a new, larger screen could reaslise, what is the maximum resolution that is supported by the system, I'd check that before buying anything.

@Olympus You say you are on Sonoma 4.3 but what iPad/Mac/iMac is it?

Mac mini M1

32" monitors that I am looking at are 2160

Not sure if Mini will support.

[Gerhard Sachs]

Sorry it seems that I brought more confusion than light in this case.

@thomaso : No I do not consider running a 32" monitor with 1920x1200. I want to run it with its native resolution (4k = 3840x2160).
And you are right, I want to avoid scrolling in my developing tool, scrooling is not a problem on the photo editor.

The development tool I'm using should have enough space for my application (1920x1080) plus surrounding space for the menus, toolbars etc.
So actually I need 1920 + about 600 H and 1080 + about 500V plus some headroom, this allows me to work without physical restrictions.
It will work well with a 32" monitor as I can size the menus, toolbars etc. so they are very good readable even with small pixels.
Pixel size on the above resolution is significantly smaller than on the 24" monitor.

I work with windows and as far as I know there is no way to scale just particular applications.
So I depend on the applications capability to scale itself or at least parts of it.

The problem why I wrote this is that the Affinity tools do not allow me to scale its menus and toolbars.
Scrolling contents on the Photo tool is not the problem, it's readability of menus and toolbars at small pixel sizes.<
I think the problem I have is the same as Olympus talked about.

 

[R C-R]

1 hour ago, thomaso said:

No. – You may have noticed that APhoto defaults to the View tool selected, which allows panning with the "hand"/trackpad or mouse. The cumbersome use of scroll bars is hardly necessary anymore, as most or all apps today allow zooming or panning the view in their document windows.

No onger very relevant given the OP's last post but note that using the View Tool causes scrolling in the document when the document is too large to fit in the workspace window -- on Macs, if you try that you can see the scroll bars move, appearing while you use that tool even if the bars are set in System Preferences to show only when scrolling.

2 hours ago, thomaso said:

Remember, Gerhard considered using a 32" monitor set to the resolution of the current 24" monitor (1920 x 1200).

Apparently not -- from his last reply he wants to use its native resolution to avoid scrolling in his developing tool. My guess is he wants or needs lots of screen space for that app.

[firstdefence]

2 hours ago, Olympus said:

Mac mini M1

32" monitors that I am looking at are 2160

Not sure if Mini will support.

I think it will and quite a bit higher if what Ive been reading is accurate info, there are some issues apparently and some of them can be fixed with an app called Lunar: https://lunar.fyi/

Just a thought...
Have you considered buying a second-hand iMac 27" and using that as a monitor, this is what I did for a second monitor from my iMac 2019, the screens I looked at just weren't as good as the imac so I used a 2014 the one I bought was roughly £250.00

Quote

You can use an iMac as a monitor for a Mac Mini, but it depends on the model of the iMac. For iMacs from 2011 to 2014, you can use Target Display Mode, which allows the iMac to act as an external display for another Mac. Here’s how you can do it:

Check Compatibility: Ensure your iMac supports Target Display Mode (iMacs from 2011-2014).

Use the Right Cable: Connect your Mac Mini to the iMac using a Thunderbolt or Mini DisplayPort cable.

Enter Target Display Mode: Press Command (⌘) + F2 on the iMac keyboard to switch to Target Display Mode.

For newer iMacs, this feature is not supported, so you would need to use third-party software or hardware solutions to achieve a similar setup. (Luna Display, Duet Display, or use HDMI/DisplayPort KVM Switches)

 

[thomaso]

2 hours ago, Olympus said:

Mac mini M1

32" monitors that I am looking at are 2160

Not sure if Mini will support.

Apparently it supports much more than 2160: 6k + 4k. https://support.apple.com/en-us/111894

Video Support

• Simultaneously supports up to two displays:

  • One display with up to 6K resolution at 60Hz connected via Thunderbolt and one display with up to 4K resolution at 60Hz connected via HDMI

• Thunderbolt 3 digital video output supports

  • Native DisplayPort output over USB‑C

  • Thunderbolt 2, DVI, and VGA output supported using adapters (sold separately)

• HDMI display video output

  • Support for one display with up to 4K resolution at 60Hz

  • DVI output using HDMI to DVI Adapter (sold separately)

[nickbatz]

I haven't read every post in this thread, and it looks like the question was answered, but:

You may find it helpful to figure out what dot pitch is comfortable for you and work backward from there. Just do a search for "dot pitch calculator."

For me, somewhere in the vicinity of .23mm is comfortable. I run my 32" monitor (the main one, which is capable of 4K res) at 3008x1692, and I'm sitting about 2' away from it. My eyes are good - no reading glasses.

A 40" 4K monitor at full 3840 x 2160 resolution has about the same dot pitch, but for me the screen itself was just too big - I didn't like turning my head that far to see the sides. So I use that monitor as an auxiliary one, hanging from the ceiling 5' away from me and set to 1920 x 1080. 

But our bodies aren't all the same, so you'll need to figure out what's comfortable for you.

[nickbatz]

For what it's worth, I'm running an M1 Mac Studio Max (32 graphics cores) and have three monitors connected. It has no issues.

One is connected to the built-in HDMI port, one by DisplayPort to one of the USB-C connectors (not to be confused with the protocol - DP, USB, and Thunderbolt all use that connector!), and the third is a Wacom Cintiq 15 connected an Apple USB-C Digital Multiport Adapter.

Setting any of the three to 4K has no effect on the performance. The machine is perfectly happy.