Question QHD or 4k monitor for editing FHD movies?

[Mawla]

Putting all other considerations aside (colour accuracy, refresh rate, etc.), is there any advantage or disadvantage to editing FHD movies using a 27-inch monitor of higher resolution, e.g. QHD or 4k?

P.S.: Question reworded as the initial one could be confusing or misleading.

 

[Aeacus]

Depends on how far you are from monitor and when given that you don't use upscaling, but instead raw 1080p reso in preview, in full screen view, you may see video quality to be poor. You may even see individual pixels in 1080p feed.

1080p is exactly 1/4 of 4K. So, as long as you keep the preview window quarter of 4K monitor, quality of the video would seem accurate. Anything bigger (e.g half screen preview) and you'll see loss of quality on your monitor. But that's just preview. Video itself would remain 1080p.

1440p (QHD) monitor would show the lack of quality less than 4K monitor would, since it is closer to 1080p. But this only when you enlarge video preview past the 1080p.

 

[Mawla]

Thanks. This is for a friend, not me. Problem is, I have no experience in video editing. The friend has been doing it for a long time but is not very techno-savvy and is relying on me to choose a suitable monitor that fits into his budget...

What you said triggered a Eureka moment in my mind. I wasn't thinking clearly and had a vague mental image of the video always being displayed in full screen while editing. You just punched through my mental block. I can now proceed with selecting a suitable monitor.

Thanks again.

 

[ak47jar3d]

Putting all other considerations aside (colour accuracy, refresh rate, etc.), is there any advantage or disadvantage to editing FHD movies using a 27-inch monitor of higher resolution, e.g. QHD or 4k?

P.S.: Question reworded as the initial one could be confusing or misleading.

4k resolution will give a tighter array pixels and will look more sharp. Depending on the video resolution, the quality of the video will be effected. A high resolution video would have to be downsampled to the lower resolution resulting in loss of quality (like a 4k video on 1080p panel). I perfer having a high resolution for the playback windows like the explanation above by Aeacus. With being said, 4k monitor incur a high cost relative to 1440p and even 1080p monitors.

 

[Aeacus]

I wasn't thinking clearly and had a vague mental image of the video always being displayed in full screen while editing.

If video is full screen, how can you edit it?

Full screen is for viewing. Editing is usually video preview with less than 1/4 of the whole screen. Albeit, one can resize the different panels/preview window.

E.g DaVinci Resolve (one of the best video editing software, also 0 cost):

Direct link if image doesn't load: https://images.blackmagicdesign.com...resolve/overview/onesolution/carousel/cut.jpg

As of which reso monitor to use, depends on the preference.
4K monitor would give most quality for 1080p video when editing, with preview window 1/4 of the screen (or less). But would have poor full screen quality.
1080p monitor would have poor preview window quality (due to downscaling), but 100% accurate quality in full screen mode (e.g when inspecting transitions or elements in the video, to see how they fare).

 

[Mawla]

If video is full screen, how can you edit it?

Yeah, I know - now. That's what I meant when I said I wasn't thinking clearly.

Although I don't do video editing myself, I've seen it being done. Besides, few, if any, computer software can work without the menus taking up some screen space.

My concern before my brain woke up was that if the video is upscaled during an editing session, it won't accurately show what the finished product will look like. If that's critical for certain editing tasks, I'll tell my friend to use a dual monitor setup with a second FHD monitor showing the video in full screen.

And yes, my friend uses DaVinci Resolve. He's been using the free version and is thinking of getting the full version. He's been at it since the days of VHS tapes.

 

[Aeacus]

I'll tell my friend to use a dual monitor setup with a second FHD monitor showing the video in full screen.

Well, that is, if they even need dual setup for that.

It would be far cheaper to click on the full screen button and back, than having 2nd monitor next to main one, that also takes up real estate.
But you need to discuss it with your buddy and if there is any actual need for upgrade.

 

[Mawla]

A corollary question, please, about refresh rates.
I don't game or edit videos and mostly work with a static screen. I'm OK with 75Hz, even 60Hz. I occasionally detect a faint flicker with my peripheral vision and that's it.

Reviewers and end users usually talk about gaming when evaluating monitors. The trend is towards higher and higher refresh rates. Some people even say that 144Hz is trash.

My friend will use the monitor primarily for video editing, with some gaming on the side. I'm pretty sure he's never worked with anything above 60Hz. What's a 100Hz monitor like for such a use case? Where I live, the jump in price is something like 15-20% from 100Hz to, say 165Hz for otherwise comparable models.

 

[Aeacus]

I'm pretty sure he's never worked with anything above 60Hz. What's a 100Hz monitor like for such a use case?

From 60 Hz to 100 Hz? No noticeable difference.

For a decade, i used to use 60 Hz TN panel monitor, until i got myself monitor upgrade to 144 Hz VA panel one. In games, i could hardly tell a difference (despite FPS also being 144). Games felt a bit smoother at times but no apparent or obvious difference regarding refresh rates. Biggest difference was going from TN panel to VA panel. Since i do image editing as a hobby, it was like day and night difference (especially due to much better contrast ratio).

Refresh rate wise, and on desktop/web browsing (or video editing), 1 Hz would be enough. Since no such monitor exists, then 30 Hz is more than enough. Same with 60 Hz. Actually, anything above 30 Hz is pointless for desktop use. Hell, most movies that you watch from TV or cinema run at 24 FPS (or 24 Hz).

So, unless your buddy plays fast-paced FPS shooters or racing sims, where high FPS (and in turn, high refresh rate) would be beneficial, 60 Hz panel does just fine.

Though, for video editing (or image editing), actual monitor panel type matters far more than refresh rate. I advise to stay clear of TN, IPS and OLED panels, while looking towards VA, QD-OLED or mini-LED panels. Mostly due to contrast ratio the former ones lack, but latter ones excel in (oh, OLED also has great contrast ratio but it suffers from burn-in issues and lack of brightness).

The trend is towards higher and higher refresh rates.

That's marketing for you.

Average human sees stuff between 30 Hz and 60 Hz. Trained human eye can see up to ~120 Hz or so. Anything above that (e.g 240Hz or 500Hz panels) is just placebo effect.