Pros & Cons of My New 32" 4K Monitor/Display

[F-Train]

I'm going to talk about this in the context of Asus's newest ProArt monitor, which I've had now for two days (photo below). The principal benefit of this monitor is that it supports several colour gamuts: Adobe RGB, Adobe sRGB, Rec. 709, DCI-P3 and High Dynamic Range (HDR). This comes at a significant cost - US$2,000, although I was able to purchase it for $1700.

I'm assessing the monitor as someone who has used a 5K 27" iMac for the last four years, a borrowed Acer 27" 2160x1440 monitor (T272HUL, which sells for $850) for the last couple of weeks, and who has an older 24" EIZO ColorEdge that has served me well for years, but which lives in another country.

I think that the Asus's 32" screen and 4K resolution are wonderful for Lightroom/Photoshop, Final Cut Pro X, Logic Pro X and iZotope RX. The screen size is attractive due to the sheer size of the workspace. The resolution is attractive if, like me, one is making high resolution photographs or 4K video.

I'm also happy with the monitor for use with Pages, Numbers, Safari, Notes, TextEdit and Terminal, but for these applications I think that a 32" screen and 4K resolution are completely unnecessary.

Between the distance that I tend to sit from a monitor, and my eyesight, I do not have a problem reading words or recognising icons on the screen. That said, there are controls in Mac OS generally, and in specific applications like Pages and Safari, that make it easy to increase cursor, type or icon size, or to use a bit of enlargement to make the window larger. Indeed, I use some of these controls with the iMac (e.g. I prefer 14pt type when I'm writing), and I'm using them now on the Asus. It is beyond me why people keep going on about "scaling", which for me is completely unnecessary. It's a "solution" in search of a problem.

All of that said, I'm undecided about whether I'm going to keep this monitor. Unresolved questions... Do I really need a 32" monitor? Do I need all those colour spaces, especially since the only printing that I do these days is contact prints from black and white 8x10 and 4x5 negatives. And will I use High Dynamic Range, about which I know little, but which is unquestionably a factor in the cost of this monitor?

I'd like to see the new 27", 2560x1440 Eizo, which will be released in December/January (video below). The model one down, without the self-calibration feature, which I don't need, is $1200, which is $500 less than I paid for the Asus:

Photo of the Asus PA32UC Monitor:

 

[Dr. Stealth]

I think 32" 4K is the sweet spot...

I'm running the Dell 32" 4K UP3216Q and absolutely love it.

I run it at native 3,840 x 2,160 and it looks perfect to me. As with all things it may take a little getting used to, maybe a few days, but after that I think most people would be very happy with the text size and all.

It's sharp as a tack....

 

[F-Train]

I think 32" 4K is the sweet spot...

I'm running the Dell 32" 4K UP3216Q and absolutely love it.

I run it at native 3,840 x 2,160 and it looks perfect to me. As with all things it may take a little getting used to, maybe a few days, but after that I think most people would be very happy with the text size and all.

It's sharp as a tack....

Coming from the iMac, it took me a couple of hours to get used to the UI change. I could have left it as is, but went into System Preferences and my most-used applications and made changes that addressed cursor size, enlargement percentage, type size, etc.

I think that this is a much better way of addressing issues than the alleged fix of changing scale. People who keep going on about scaling need to be introduced to Font Book and elementary principles of typography. It's certainly a more interesting subject than getting one's head tied up in knots over pixels per inch.

Like you, I'm impressed with the sharpness, particularly, as it happens, for type.

That said, if you are using Lightroom, your eyesight isn't great and you aren't that familiar with what's what in the application, I can see that Adobe's user interface at native 4K could be a challenge. A quick Google search suggests that there have been a fair number of complaints about Adobe's User Interface with 4K monitors, which it has apparently now addressed with Windows, but not Mac. I hasten to add that the foregoing comment about Adobe complaints is based on a quick search, not analysis.

 

[nutmac]

I think 32" 4K is the sweet spot...

I'm running the Dell 32" 4K UP3216Q and absolutely love it.

I run it at native 3,840 x 2,160 and it looks perfect to me. As with all things it may take a little getting used to, maybe a few days, but after that I think most people would be very happy with the text size and all.

It's sharp as a tack....

Everyone's eyes are different but I think 3840x2160 @ 32" (31.5" true size) is sub-optimal.

There are several articles (one of the most famous from the developers of iStat Menus) that explains it. Anyway, at 140 pixels per inch, 4K at 32" is neither excellent for retina (2x scaling, generally need 200 ppi or higher) or native.

 

[F-Train]

Everyone's eyes are different but I think 3840x2160 @ 32" (31.5" true size) is sub-optimal.

There are several articles (one of the most famous from the developers of iStat Menus) that explains it. Anyway, at 140 pixels per inch, 4K at 32" is neither excellent for retina (2x scaling, generally need 200 ppi or higher) or native.

Here's a radical idea. Look at a monitor and decide whether it works for you or not. The revolutionary theory behind this idea is that your eyes will tell you directly what you need to know - for the specific operating system and for the specific applications that you are using. Do you think that I talked about specific applications just for the hell of it?

The fact is, it is a waste of time to bother with @nutmac's personal opinion on what is and isn't optimal (an opinion that is rather odd given that he/she stated immediately beforehand that people's eyesight differs, not to mention that people's preferred viewing distance differs), and a waste of time to get sucked into the articles that he/she and others keep trotting out to tell you that you should spend your time reading about pixels per inch and engaging in academic debate. Just trust your eyes and LOOK.

Apparently, we can't have a thread about a monitor without it being turned into a debate over pixels that is equivalent to listening to people argue the merits of Malpeque and Blue Point Oysters, without tasting them, while sitting in an Oyster Bar that serves both

 

[philipma1957]

Here's a radical idea. Look at a monitor and decide whether it works for you or not. The revolutionary theory behind this idea is that your eyes will tell you directly what you need to know - for the specific operating system and for the specific applications that you are using. Do you think that I talked about specific applications just for the hell of it?

The fact is, it is a waste of time to bother with @nutmac's personal opinion on what is and isn't optimal (an opinion that is rather odd given that he/she stated immediately beforehand that people's eyesight differs, not to mention that people's preferred viewing distance differs), and a waste of time to get sucked into the articles that he/she and others keep trotting out to tell you that you should spend your time reading about pixels per inch and engaging in academic debate. Just trust your eyes and LOOK.

Apparently, we can't have a thread about a monitor without it being turned into a debate over pixels that is equivalent to listening to people argue the merits of Malpeque and Blue Point Oysters, without tasting them, while sitting in an Oyster Bar that serves both

This is a good post. Everyone has a different set of eyes. Mine have each had implants due to cataracts I got while serving in the US Navy. One eye is corrected into 20-15 the other 20-100

So a 27 inch monitor with 4K is better for me then a 32 inch. If I had a 32 inch I would need to sit further away to allow my brain to blend the two different images my lens cause . On top of this the lens have a slight blue tint it can change color a bit.

I have a cheap acer 28 inch tn but it is a 4k.

I run a dell optiplex at 4k 60hz. And I run a 2014 base Mac mini with a 2gb ssd as the booter it is acceptable for blogging etc.
The 2014 mini does run 4k at 30hz.


The dell gives a better picture and if I watch 4k streaming it seems to be a bit nicer it should be better then the 5000 graphics . I spent a few days with the new mini and the 5k screens in the local Apple store.

I decided the 5k was not quite right. So I grabbed the acer on a Sale from best buy.

I then ran the optiplex and the mini side by side on the acer as I have a picture in picture side by side option.

I need two mice and two keyboards but I can do real time side by side comparisons.
It is why I did not buy a new mini I don’t need it with this setup.

 

[F-Train]

Four days into using this monitor, it's really growing on me. I love the 32" screen/workspace and the sharpness of images and type. OK, and X-Plane, and especially my SIAI-Marchetti SF.260 virtual aeroplane, look great

Earlier today, I figured out how to use the monitor's controls to easily switch between my Mac mini's internal GPU and my external GPU. For me, the convenience of this has real value. If I can do the same with other current monitors, great, but if not it is a definite factor in deciding whether this monitor stays or goes. I describe this functionality, and its usefulness, here: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/external-gpu-egpu-resources.2154653/page-9#post-26868501

If anyone knows whether this functionality is now standard on monitors, I'd appreciate knowing.

I'll still be looking at one of Eizo's 27" 2560x1440 monitors in the next couple of days, but more and more I think that this monitor may survive that visit.

 

[Chiromac81]

Does all the scaling of incorrect monitor sizes for a particular resolution (ie 4K at 32”) require an external GPU just to scale properly??

 

[F-Train]

Does all the scaling of incorrect monitor sizes for a particular resolution (ie 4K at 32”) require an external GPU just to scale properly??

See posts #5 and #6. Then maybe try #3.

 

[Chiromac81]

See posts #5 and #6. Then maybe try #4.

Least helpful response ever-I did read the thread.

At no point in post 4, 5 or 6 does it indicate if an eGPU is needed to help properly scale certain sized monitors that may not be ideal with a native or 2x scale...

Thanks though

 

[F-Train]

Least helpful response ever-I did read the thread.

At no point in post 4, 5 or 6 does it indicate if an eGPU is needed to help properly scale certain sized monitors that may not be ideal with a native or 2x scale...

Thanks though

I'm just an ordinary guy who started a thread called Pros and Cons of My New 4K 32" Monitor/Display. You need to be talking with my intellectual betters.

There is a 14 page thread in which the issue that you raise, and related issues, are discussed extensively. Given that you are a participant in that thread, no doubt you can find it.

 

[F-Train]

Earlier today, I figured out how to use the monitor's controls to easily switch between my Mac mini's internal GPU and my external GPU. For me, the convenience of this has real value. If I can do the same with other current monitors, great, but if not it is a definite factor in deciding whether this monitor stays or goes. I describe this functionality, and its usefulness, here: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/external-gpu-egpu-resources.2154653/page-9#post-26868501

If anyone knows whether this functionality is now standard on monitors, I'd appreciate knowing.

Clear answer from @rmdeluca here: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/external-gpu-egpu-resources.2154653/page-9#post-26869010

 

[djc6]

I had a 31.5” 32UD99-W and I found it hard on my neck using it for an 8 hour work day.

I had it about arms length away, and I’d have to turn my head to take it all in. If I had two documents open, one left side and one right side, I’d get neck strain working on one side of screen too long. Always moving windows to center of screen wasn’t a great use of all that real estate.

If I pushed it further away from me, then I had to scale up because I couldn’t read OS GUI elements easily.

In the end it was like sitting too close to the TV, which my parents always warned me about. I ended up with two 4K 27” 27UD58P-B - both at various scaled resolutions - native too small for me to read. I can see entire 27” without moving my head, just my eyes.

 

[strawbale]

I'm going to talk about this in the context of Asus's newest ProArt monitor, which I've had now for two days (photo below). The principal benefit of this monitor is that it supports several colour gamuts: Adobe RGB, Adobe sRGB, Rec. 709, DCI-P3 and High Dynamic Range (HDR). This comes at a significant cost - US$2,000, although I was able to purchase it for $1700.

I'm assessing the monitor as someone who has used a 5K 27" iMac for the last four years, a borrowed Acer 27" 2160x1440 monitor (T272HUL, which sells for $850) for the last couple of weeks, and who has an older 24" EIZO ColorEdge that has served me well for years, but which lives in another country.

I think that the Asus's 32" screen and 4K resolution are wonderful for Lightroom/Photoshop, Final Cut Pro X, Logic Pro X and iZotope RX. The screen size is attractive due to the sheer size of the workspace. The resolution is attractive if, like me, one is making high resolution photographs or 4K video.

I'm also happy with the monitor for use with Pages, Numbers, Safari, Notes, TextEdit and Terminal, but for these applications I think that a 32" screen and 4K resolution are completely unnecessary.

Between the distance that I tend to sit from a monitor, and my eyesight, I do not have a problem reading words or recognising icons on the screen. That said, there are controls in Mac OS generally, and in specific applications like Pages and Safari, that make it easy to increase cursor, type or icon size, or to use a bit of enlargement to make the window larger. Indeed, I use some of these controls with the iMac (e.g. I prefer 14pt type when I'm writing), and I'm using them now on the Asus. It is beyond me why people keep going on about "scaling", which for me is completely unnecessary. It's a "solution" in search of a problem.

All of that said, I'm undecided about whether I'm going to keep this monitor. Unresolved questions... Do I really need a 32" monitor? Do I need all those colour spaces, especially since the only printing that I do these days is contact prints from black and white 8x10 and 4x5 negatives. And will I use High Dynamic Range, about which I know little, but which is unquestionably a factor in the cost of this monitor?

I'd like to see the new 27", 2560x1440 Eizo, which will be released in December/January (video below). The model one down, without the self-calibration feature, which I don't need, is $1200, which is $500 less than I paid for the Asus:

Photo of the Asus PA32UC Monitor:

View attachment 807701

Happy for you and your magnificent 32" 4k!

If I'd (ever) get enough money for a dedicated photo editing monitor it'd probably be a 32" 4k too. 120-140 ppi is great for me, at 2 ft viewing distance. For 'just' web browsing I'd prefer a/my 24" 2560x1440 (123 ppi) were I keep the web page in the middle and have a few minor windows open on the left and right. Important for me is that it's very energy efficient (plus the eyesensor works really well and puts the monitor to sleep within 10 sec after having left my desk).

 

[mikejames]

I think 32" 4K is the sweet spot...

I'm running the Dell 32" 4K UP3216Q and absolutely love it.

I run it at native 3,840 x 2,160 and it looks perfect to me. As with all things it may take a little getting used to, maybe a few days, but after that I think most people would be very happy with the text size and all.

It's sharp as a tack....

Totally agree. I bought a Samsung 32" 4K U32J59x with my i5/16GB/256GB. Only difference is I spent a few days experimenting with scaled resolutions and settled on 3008 x 1692 which is perfect for me for how close I sit to the screen.

It's a big step up coming from a late 2013 27" iMac (2560 x 1440) it's bigger, sharper & way more detail.

 

[F-Train]

B&H has just published a good overview of the Asus ProArt 32", which is the monitor discussed in the first post: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explor...iant-the-asus-proart-pa32uc-32-4k-hdr-display

Shawn Steiner, who wrote this, was using the monitor with a 2018 Mac mini. This is his profile:

Shawn C. Steiner is a writer, photographer, and occassional filmmaker based in the greater New York City area. Before working at B&H, he studied both cinema and photography with a strong focus in photojournalism and documentary work. You can check out his Instagram, as well as most other social media accounts, @shawncsteiner to see more of his work.​

 

[F-Train]

A heads up for people using Mojave...

The Asus ProArt monitors have their own calibration software. The software runs on High Sierra, but not Mojave, at least not yet.

I am using a Windows machine to calibrate and one could also use Windows Boot Camp. This works because the calibration data is stored in the monitor itself, not in the computer. This is why this monitor can be moved from computer to computer, i.e. calibration is computer independent.

However, it is an issue if you don't have access to a Windows or High Sierra machine and don't use Boot Camp.

 

[Steve686]

I bought this at less than half the price and am absolutely thrilled and satisfied with 32" 4K.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0731LYY9P/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00__o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

[nutmac]

B&H has just published a good overview of the Asus ProArt 32", which is the monitor discussed in the first post: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explor...iant-the-asus-proart-pa32uc-32-4k-hdr-display

Shawn Steiner, who wrote this, was using the monitor with a 2018 Mac mini. This is his profile:

Shawn C. Steiner is a writer, photographer, and occassional filmmaker based in the greater New York City area. Before working at B&H, he studied both cinema and photography with a strong focus in photojournalism and documentary work. You can check out his Instagram, as well as most other social media accounts, @shawncsteiner to see more of his work.​

That monitor is insane. Some of the highlights:

• 1000 nits peak brightness. Almost all UHD HDR monitors peak out at 350 nits.
• 384 local dimming zones. Almost all UHD HDR monitors don't even have local dimming and even high-end TVs have much less.
• 5 ms response time
• All the necessary inputs: 1 TB3, 4 HDMI 2.0, 1 DP 1.2, 1 USB-A
  
• 10-bit IPS panel with 14-bit LUT

If only it was a 5K panel, but I guess that would've drove up the price to even less appealing territory.

But it looks like the monitor is superseded by ProArt PA32UCX, which increases local dimming zones to 1000 and 1200 nits peak brightness.

 

[F-Train]

That monitor is insane. Some of the highlights:

• 1000 nits peak brightness. Almost all UHD HDR monitors peak out at 350 nits.
• 384 local dimming zones. Almost all UHD HDR monitors don't even have local dimming and even high-end TVs have much less.
• 5 ms response time
• All the necessary inputs: 1 TB3, 4 HDMI 2.0, 1 DP 1.2, 1 USB-A
  
• 10-bit IPS panel with 14-bit LUT

If only it was a 5K panel, but I guess that would've drove up the price to even less appealing territory.

But it looks like the monitor is superseded by ProArt PA32UCX, which increases local dimming zones to 1000 and 1200 nits peak brightness.

Yes, Asus announced the PA32UCX at CES. It is expected to be released in the spring, no price yet. If history is any indication, spring is a bit optimistic.

I doubt that it is a replacement for the PA32UC. The PA32UC became available only recently, and as the AnandTech article suggests (thanks for the link, I hadn’t seen it), the PA32UCX may be quite a bit more expensive. I think that its market will be HDR creators, giving them more control than the PA32UC does.

As for the PA32UC, I’m very happy with it. It’s working flawlessly with the mini and my eGPU, it covers the key colour spaces plus true HDR, and I’m completely sold on having a 32” display. That said, if all you want is sRGB, it’s a waste of money (see post #18 just above from @Steve686 ).

I’ve never owned an Asus product in my life. In the last couple of months, by accident rather than design, I’ve wound up purchasing an Asus monitor, an Asus GPU enclosure and an Asus/AMD GPU. For what I want from a computer and monitor, I’m very happy with all of it.