I am of the opinion that most photographers are well served using a standard gamut, standard resolution display. TFT Selector Helpful for narrowing-down which kind of display you need with specific recommendations based on your answers.Īn online search will turn up more information on these subjects. If the former is the reason I suggest that you do some online research about the advantages and disadvantages of high resolution (Retina in Apple vernacular.) and wide gamut. I am also curious why you think you need high res and/or wide gamut? Is it because of comments posted on this forum or because you have identified a need in your current workflow? But assuming you are running Yosemite on your new Mac Mini this article may be helpful:
The link that you provided is not working so I cannot read the other thread. I don't think that the answer to your "blurry" fonts is spending a lot of money on a higher resolution monitor.
Sounds like the best option for me is to get a great monitor and switch back to Windows once W10 is out. This is so disappointing, too many compromises to accept, I thought Mac was first choice for photographers and creative people in general. Thanks, does all this mean that the monitor will work, I will get Adobe RGB but the coverage of the gamut will be poor because I will have only 16m colors vs 1 billion? So the 99pct coverage of Adobe RGB will drop to what? Is there any point buying a white gamut display if you have a Mac then? Thanks Since the tech specs on the Apple site only support 4K at 30Hz or 24Hz, if you are going to use a workaround like SwitchRes to push it to 50 I have to guess that since that is unsupported you should not be surprised if the mini starts to struggle.
The Mini has laptop-class integrated graphics, and while they have gotten better, I have a feeling a 4K display would do better with Iris Pro integrated or a real discrete video card. I have no experience with 4K but chances are a 4K monitor would slow a Mini. If you can get 10 bpc you have over a billion colors to spread amongst the wider gamut, for smoother transitions/less banding.
Millions of colors is shorthand for 16.7 million colors of 8 bpc color (8 bits each for red, green, blue channel), industry standard for PC and Mac but the same amount some say is less than optimal for wide gamut. You can spread your millions of colors across sRGB, or you can spread them across Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB. The "millions of colors" does not equal gamut. I have no experience with 4K but chances are a 4K monitor would slow a Mini. I do run wide gamut on a 2011 Mac laptop and I'm OK with it, but it's at 2560x1440, not 4K. It will be wide gamut at 8 bpc which some think is not good enough. Will a 4k monitor slow the Mini?Īny Mac will support wide gamut, but OS X itself won't do 10 bits per channel to the display even if the applications and video card can (Windows does not have this problem). Will the Mac Mini support wide gamut at 4k 50hz resolution? I read on the apple website that Mini supports millions colors (I guess that is only SRGB?). 165 ppi you get at 4k are enough to give you a retina-like experience, what do you think? 4k on 24" instead means c.185 ppi which at a normal working distance should be comparable to MBP 220 ppi.Ģ) Mac Mini does not support 60Hz at 4k but I read on Mac Rumors that using SwitchResX you can get 50hz, has anyone tested this? I guess the difference between 50 and 60 is acceptable.ģ) I have my eyes on the Nec EA244UHD.
Wanted to discuss the second option here.ġ) Ideally I would like to upgrade to a 27" display but i am not sure the c.
That has two solutions: either I go back to Windows or I buy a Retina-like display (so 4k). My Dell U2412M that was tack sharp on WIN now all of a sudden seems totally blurry on Mac (just fonts, pictures are fine, see here ). I recently switched from WIN to OS X (Mac Mini 2014).