# Two monitors vs ultra-wide one?



## Perio (Dec 7, 2014)

Hello guys! I'm looking to buy a new monitor for personal, school and some retouching needs. I was thinking about getting either 2 x 24" monitors (Dell UltraSharp U2412M or ASUS PA248Q) or 2 x 27" monitors (Dell UltraSharp U2711 or ASUS MX279H). However, I came across ASUS MX299Q and AOC q2963Pm monitors, which are 29" Ultra-wide monitors. I've read some reviews that say an ultra-wide monitor can replace 2 monitors and is easier to use since it's seamless. Has anyone used either of these monitors and would you get this one instead of 2 separate monitors? Thank you all in advance.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 7, 2014)

Perio said:


> Has anyone used either of these monitors and would you get this one instead of 2 separate monitors? Thank you all in advance.



Depends on your workflow, doesn't it? If you have 2 monitors side by side exactly in front of you and look at the gap in the center all the time, of course the wide monitor is an advantage.

For me (programming and postprocessing) two monitors is better because it gives me more flexibility where to put them, usually I just work on one and have the second to the side for debugging output, a large preview, "video while you work", or reading CR :->


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 7, 2014)

I haven't used either of those. I use my MacBook pro retina 15" and a Nec 27" moniter and that works great for me. Really depends on your workflow.


----------



## Vivid Color (Dec 7, 2014)

I went through the same debate at my workplace and my first thought was that the larger monitor would be great but then I ended up getting two separate monitors. I realized that if you are going to have two separate files open at the same time that two monitors work best because the size of those files are going to be larger and therefore easier to read when each is on a separate monitor. I also find that it is easier to maximize files on separate monitors that trying to configure two files to fit on one monitor. That said, as others have noted, it all depends upon your use.


----------



## Perio (Dec 7, 2014)

Vivid Color said:


> I went through the same debate at my workplace and my first thought was that the larger monitor would be great but then I ended up getting two separate monitors. I realized that if you are going to have two separate files open at the same time that two monitors work best because the size of those files are going to be larger and therefore easier to read when each is on a separate monitor. I also find that it is easier to maximize files on separate monitors that trying to configure two files to fit on one monitor. That said, as others have noted, it all depends upon your use.



I'm also inclined to think that two monitors will probably be better. I just want to be able to have let's say LR and Photoshop (Powerpoint and Photoshop; Excel and SPSS; etc.) windows open side by side and be able to go from one program to another one without minimizing windows or switching windows from one to another one. But since I have experience with neither 2 monitors nor ultra-wide ones, I don't know what would be better.


----------



## Vivid Color (Dec 7, 2014)

As I mentioned, I have two monitors at work and have a PC with an older Windows operating system. With the two monitor set up that I have, I can work on one document and then just move my cursor over to the other screen and the other document. No closing or moving of documents is needed to work on one document and move to another – it's pretty seamless. But if I want to, I can also easily move documents from screen to screen. And as I recall, it was pretty easy to set up although the IT people helped me. I know there are others on this forum that could tell you how to do it.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 7, 2014)

Another vote for 2 monitors over single 29". 

If budget is not an issue, try to go with 27", IPS with 2560x1440 or higher. I found 27" with 1920x1080 is not good enough for PP.


----------



## Perio (Dec 7, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Another vote for 2 monitors over single 29".
> 
> If budget is not an issue, try to go with 27", IPS with 2560x1440 or higher. I found 27" with 1920x1080 is not good enough for PP.



Thanks Dylan! Which one would you recommend or use yourself?


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 7, 2014)

Perio said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Another vote for 2 monitors over single 29".
> ...



I recently picked up this one: http://www.lg.com/us/commercial/lcd-computer-monitors/lg-27MB85Z-B. I saw this monitor at a friend studio(pro wedding), I went home I threw out my Asus VX279Q and LG 27" non IPS, 1920x1080 

BTW, stay away from Asus vx279 series, the black is terrible. I have to turn down the brightness to 35ish from 100.


----------



## jrista (Dec 7, 2014)

Two ultra wide monitors?


----------



## Perio (Dec 7, 2014)

jrista said:


> Two ultra wide monitors?



I wish  but I don't have that much space for 2 UW monitors. I can probably go up to 2x27" maximum.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 7, 2014)

jrista said:


> Two ultra wide monitors?



:->


----------



## iMagic (Dec 7, 2014)

I use two 27 inch 2560X1440 monitors. One is the main display in front of me and the second to the left. This allows, as others have stated, lots of real estate on the main display for the most used applications and the second display with the lesser used apps. Saves maximizing and minimizing, etc. 

Consider your budget, dell u2713 (replacement to u2711) is more expensive due to the wider color gamut. If you are only interested in sRGB then stick with a sRGB only monitor. 

Teo identical monitors are better. Otherwise you will have small differences which to picky people are frustrating.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 7, 2014)

It's really hard to beat dual monitors. I have clients that went dual and would never go back to single. I have dual on my desk. Haven't gone dual yet on my photo pc but that's only due to physical space issues. The new ultra ultra wide monitors are fairly new and I predict they will eventually disappear. They are too expensive and kinda pointless to me. Why have a super wide individual monitor take up the same space as two monitors that would give more versatility, productivity and screen space?


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 7, 2014)

Why get a 2560x1080 monitor when you can get 2650x1440?

I really don't get the "ultrawide" fad.

In a year or so these will be coming out.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8496/dell-previews-27inch-5k-ultrasharp-monitor-5120x2880

How does having the equivalent of sixteen 720p monitors sound?

For now I would just pick something from here.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007617%20600012686%20600012694&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=90


----------



## Perio (Dec 8, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Why get a 2560x1080 monitor when you can get 2650x1440?
> 
> I really don't get the "ultrawide" fad.
> 
> ...



These QNIX monitors seem to be an attractive choice. Have you ever used them? Not that many reviews on them.


----------



## jrista (Dec 8, 2014)

Does anyone know if the Dell 5k will use a hardware LUT or not? Some of their previous screens used a 12-bit LUT, which was pretty decent. I'd rather have a 5k NEC with a 14-bit LUT and all the other graphics-grade features their paXXXw screens had in the past, but there hasn't been any news from NEC about even delivering 4k versions of their paXXXw line, let alone a 5k version. I like the idea of a 5k screen, as it would let you edit 4k video at full resolution (no scaling) while still providing room to display a UI around it.


----------



## lion rock (Dec 8, 2014)

Coworker of mine, IT/SysAdmin, has 4 on his desk, two video cards. It's a information overload condition. And, Marsu, you beat his situation with your array of 15!
-r


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 8, 2014)

I used to have two Dell 24"s. Worked great. After one of them died, it felt so restrictive working with "only" one monitor! Now I'm on an ultrawide. Based on my own experience, either one is fine. The two-monitor setup requires you to have one "main" and one "secondary" due to the bezel thing others have mentioned. You'll be turning your head a bit more but it's as natural as reading a book. (No one ever complained about that setup!) The ultrawide also requires turning the head, just a bit less.


----------



## Perio (Dec 8, 2014)

Considering a great variety of monitors, does anyone still consider Apple Cinema as a good monitor to get?


----------



## TexPhoto (Dec 8, 2014)

Perio said:


> Considering a great variety of monitors, does anyone still consider Apple Cinema as a good monitor to get?



The Apple Cinema display is a great monitor. It is very expensive, but very nicely integrated with any recent mac you might plug it into. I use a 27 inch Imac which is essentially the same monitor. I have a Dell 24" display next to it oriented vertically. This is where I do email, keep photoshope pallets and tools etc.


----------



## papa-razzi (Dec 8, 2014)

I have a two monitor setup. One monitor is Landscape, the other in Portrait. It is really nice to view shots taken in portrait orientation in a portrait oriented monitor.


----------



## e17paul (Dec 8, 2014)

My work set up is two monitors, one is in conventional landscape orientation, the other is in portrait orientation. It looks odd, but works brilliant for reviewing documents of either shape. Mainly drawings in my case, but sometimes

Many monitors can be used this way. Mine are plain old HP 20" displays. I will post a photo when I get to work.


----------



## Skirball (Dec 8, 2014)

9VIII said:


> I really don't get the "ultrawide" fad.
> 
> In a year or so these will be coming out.
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/8496/dell-previews-27inch-5k-ultrasharp-monitor-5120x2880



Hopefully Adobe, Microsoft & Apple will catch up by then. I've read enough reports of issues with 4k monitors and problems with scaling and performance. Not to mention just having the graphics power to process it. Hell, even video cables are straining to reliably pass the information.


----------



## RGF (Dec 16, 2014)

I use a NEC 27 spectra view (2560x1440) for images and a NEC 24" spectra view (1920x1200) for menus. Would like to have two 27" monitors but my desk is not that large.


----------



## celltech (Jan 3, 2015)

I am personally ticked off the 2560x1600 size has gone away. Love my Dell 3007 to death.

My 2nd monitor is a cheap 28" Dell 4K that fails to impress me for much of anything. I believe that 4K only works on larger screen sizes. Scaling issues make me wish I had another 3007...


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 3, 2015)

celltech said:


> I am personally ticked off the 2560x1600 size has gone away. Love my Dell 3007 to death.



Dell U3014


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 6, 2015)

Tough question - personally I never liked the idea of two or more monitors. My idea of a good screen is a Desk of 800 x 1500 mm with a built in monitor of nearly the same size including at least a WACOM area of let's say 200 x 300 mm and at least 150 ppi. OLED would be welcome - if you need just to read a document power consumption will be 10 Watts, if you view a complex technical drawing, it is more. A good idea are some scenes in the movie Oblivion, where they use similar devices.

But back to reality: I am searching a smaller Ultra HD TV set. 3840x2060 pixels seems to be good enough to replace a lot of two monitor solutions and has enough height to show portrait mode pictures at ~3MPix. And it offers the chance to view my EOS 20D images at full resolution!

40 inch is what I search for - the resolution is 110 pixels per inch.

And I think I will buy one as soon as possible before they vanish from the market. Just now I hear very often "40 inch is to small" - valid for a TV set but not for a computer screen. At the moment Ultra HD TVs are low price - heard about an inititative to push them into the market. 40 inch (without 3D, but including 4 x HDMI 2, Miracast, etc. are about 400-500 Euro.


----------



## Perio (Jan 7, 2015)

mb66energy said:


> Tough question - personally I never liked the idea of two or more monitors. My idea of a good screen is a Desk of 800 x 1500 mm with a built in monitor of nearly the same size including at least a WACOM area of let's say 200 x 300 mm and at least 150 ppi. OLED would be welcome - if you need just to read a document power consumption will be 10 Watts, if you view a complex technical drawing, it is more. A good idea are some scenes in the movie Oblivion, where they use similar devices.
> 
> But back to reality: I am searching a smaller Ultra HD TV set. 3840x2060 pixels seems to be good enough to replace a lot of two monitor solutions and has enough height to show portrait mode pictures at ~3MPix. And it offers the chance to view my EOS 20D images at full resolution!
> 
> ...



How good will a 40" monitor be for retouching? From my limited experience, monitors larger than 30" aren't that good for retouching... Correct me if I'm wrong, please.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Jan 7, 2015)

One thing to consider is that in my experience having multiple monitors on a single consumer-class video cards means you can calibrate for one but not both; I had two Asus VH242H monitors on separate low-zoot video cards and that worked alright. I mean it worked alright until I got a half-decent IPS panel and realized how terrible the Asus ones looked in comparison, but that's life.

One display setup I'd like to try is one of those square Eizo panels coming out soon enough with a 16:9 portrait display on either side.

Jim


----------



## tphillips63 (Jan 7, 2015)

I would not get anything that is not x1440 or better. Since it is an opinion question, I use the Dell 32" 4k but it is at 2580x1440 with OS X.

I have used the 27" 2560x1440 and those are fine too but I don't really like two larger than 24" panels on a computer. Two 1980x1080, x1200 is better, is not too bad but they will take up quite a bit of space.


----------



## nineyards (Jan 7, 2015)

To me it's about separation, if I have three things going on at once I am better able to devote my attentions and efforts to each one if they have a certain degree of physical space between them, don't know why, could be a shortcoming of mine, but after acquiring 2 extra monitors just by happenstance, instead of selling them off, I decided to rip out some shelving on either side of my corner desk unit and install a monitor on each side giving me three full size screens, being a corner unit, the distance of my eyes from each screen is relatively the same, and I don't have to crank my head around to view each one
I had no grand plan, it just came together that way and I like it, a bit rag tag perhaps, 3 different brands of monitors, three different sizes, 23, 26, and 21 inches from left to right
The middle side walls are angled inwards so as to obscure the full 26 inch viewing area of the largest monitor and it is recessed in but seated as I am I am able to see the entire screen, also the top shelf extends out far enough as to act as a viewing hood for the middle monitor which is also my editing screen, another plus.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 7, 2015)

nineyards said:


> To me it's about separation, if I have three things going on at once I am better able to devote my attentions and efforts to each one if they have a certain degree of physical space between them, don't know why, could be a shortcoming of mine, but after acquiring 2 extra monitors just by happenstance, instead of selling them off, I decided to rip out some shelving on either side of my corner desk unit and install a monitor on each side giving me three full size screens, being a corner unit, the distance of my eyes from each screen is relatively the same, and I don't have to crank my head around to view each one
> I had no grand plan, it just came together that way and I like it, a bit rag tag perhaps, 3 different brands of monitors, three different sizes, 23, 26, and 21 inches from left to right



and name of that redwine?


----------



## nineyards (Jan 7, 2015)

Good eye
Mission Hill Pinot Noir


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 7, 2015)

Perio said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > Tough question - personally I never liked the idea of two or more monitors. My idea of a good screen is a Desk of 800 x 1500 mm with a built in monitor of nearly the same size including at least a WACOM area of let's say 200 x 300 mm and at least 150 ppi. OLED would be welcome - if you need just to read a document power consumption will be 10 Watts, if you view a complex technical drawing, it is more. A good idea are some scenes in the movie Oblivion, where they use similar devices.
> ...



I have retouching done only in homeopathic doses - no experience in that field. And I do not own that display yet but after 25 years of computer use I tend to the opinion "larger is better".
One thing is very important if you do color-critical retouching: You need good color stability from different viewing angles.

The Samsung UE40HU6900 has visible brightness variation with the viewing angle but colors seem stable. Reviews show that this display gives good color reproduction, contrast and brightness. The week point seems to be motion reproduction for movies, but this might be solved by using a high quality external tuner.

My usage scenario is at the moment
* replace the defect DLP beamer (50 white pixels within 2 weeks after just 1750 hrs of operation)
* have a device to display photos near their native resolution
* plan to use it as computer screen in my living room with a PC in the room above (need a new graphics card for that purpose)
* view contents of my tablet via Miracast wirelessly.

At 500 Euro it seems a bargain ....

If I buy that display/TV I will give feedback!


----------



## LarryC (Jan 9, 2015)

At home, I use 2 NEC 24" IPS monitors for PP. At work I have had three monitors on my desk for years and added a 47" monitor on the wall for web interviews, meetings, etc. I could live without the wall beast, but I can't imagine anything less than three monitors on my desk. It may be data overload, but that's how I work.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 10, 2015)

After fiddeling two hours to connect my just 11 years old DVD player with a cheap Full HD monitor I decided to buy the mentioned Samung 40 inch UltraHD monitor and ...

Viewing of high res images is done by the on board OS/Software of the TV, reading files from USB:
+ Viewing EOS 40D images at 7 MPix (3240 x 2160 screen pixels at 3:2 aspect ratio of the images) is ... BREATHTAKING!!! (Distance to the screen roughly 50 cm, pixels not visible to me)
It is like looking at a very good and well lit print in 50 x 75 cm with great color reproduction and high contrast. From reviews I remember contrast values between 1000 and 3000 meaning 10 - 11,5 EV.
It is more "beeing there" than "looking at a photo of" ...

Usage as Desktop:
Cannot report about it because the graphics card of my PC is to primitive for that display. I like fanless graphics cards so I have to find a fanless card for 3840x210 resolution @ 60Hz.
*UPDATE 2015-01-16:* After several hours of image watching I am not shure if that TV/display is a PC monitor replacement: At 50cm distance you are off axis by 45-60 degree. In that case a curved display might be more efficient - and some improved panel technology like OLED. But I will do the relevant "tests" soon.

Mirroring a tablets screen:
Works after easy setting up the connection. Resolution is only 1280x720 (800) what the mini tablet can do but it is absolutely sufficient to bring readable content to the screen or to view a you tube video via the tablet on the screen.
There is a lag between user input and response of the TV screen but for the use from time to time it is no problem.
Just thinking of camera with life view engaged + tablet with EOS Utility to mirror the camera view to a larger screen ...

Common remarks about the display:
+ Viewing angle isn't the problem. @60 degree off center axis colors & contrast are flat, but at normal wide viewing angles colors are at least good.
+ Very good color reproduction out of the box but I read some reviews that showed very high color precision after calibration (cannot do that at the moment)
+ Good brightness - reviews report up to 450 cd/m² are possible
+ good black levels - good for me as SF fan. Space has to be deep black ....

o Motion reproduction is IN MY OPINION absolutely o.k. The simple upscaling of the TV set is mentioned in some reviews resulting in harsh detail loss for fast moving objects. I haven't observed these effects but I only used FullHD content via USB and DVD via SCART (1k resolution or less).

- A little bit cloudy but visible only in special situations e.g. the blue background screen of the satellite receiver I will use furthermore.

The panel technology is PVA which I have used with a very good EIZO S2100 computer monitor in the last 5 or years.

Usually I am NO early adopter but in this case I hurried because
(1) I want resolution - a dream of mine came true: looking images near the resolution they have in a singel view.
(2) some sharpness loss in TV/video mode is acceptable for me
(3) I see no longer too many problems in high resolution displays: proven technology
(4) There is some risk that 40 inch Ultra HD displays will vanish from the market soon because "it is to small for the resolution" and
(5) 40 inch for Ultra HD seems to me ideal as computer screen used for image editing but also for text writing, drawing, programming, etc.
(6) 4 x HDMI 2.0 and 3 x USB (1x USB3.0) gives some options for future extensions - future entry models might be less well euipped after Ultra HD is adopted by the masses.



mb66energy said:


> The Samsung UE40HU6900 has visible brightness variation with the viewing angle but colors seem stable. Reviews show that this display gives good color reproduction, contrast and brightness. The week point seems to be motion reproduction for movies, but this might be solved by using a high quality external tuner.
> 
> My usage scenario is at the moment
> * replace the defect DLP beamer (50 white pixels within 2 weeks after just 1750 hrs of operation)
> ...


----------



## TeT (Jan 10, 2015)

You dont need 2 matching in size...

as long as they match regarding resolution clarity etc... you dont have to use 2 of same size.

When I was still working graphic design I used a large 27" for typesetting and graphics with a 17" or smaller for browsing files and doing the books etc...

If I was doing reconciliations and other accounting work that needed multiple windows I would have the flexibility to move most of it to the big screen.

Workflow...


----------



## tcmatthews (Jan 10, 2015)

Go with two Ultra high res monitors if you can instead of one Ultra-wide one. I am more interested in an affordable 4k monitor than an ultra-wide. Preferably two 4k monitor. But my computer cannot support 2 . But one 4k and a standard 1080 HD should work. I have been working like that for years with a UHD monitor and a laptop display at work. Using the 4k monitor as a main work surface and the second monitor as a tool surface or email should work for me. A 4k monitor will be more than enough resolution to open 2 documents side by side. 

I plan on ordering one 4k soon. Some of the monitors shown at CES look like they will scratch my itch.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Dec 28, 2016)

I love dual screen and have done since the first time it became supported through windows, I am not a big fan of UW displays and never have been, I like to run one display landscape and one portrait, I have them lined up so the top portion of the right landscape screen is above the first, scrolling from one to the other lines up and tool pallets etc sit nice on the second screen, if I want to view/edit images full screen in the correct orientation then you get to enjoy both displays at there best.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 28, 2016)

tcmatthews said:


> Go with two Ultra high res monitors if you can instead of one Ultra-wide one. I am more interested in an affordable 4k monitor than an ultra-wide. Preferably two 4k monitor. But my computer cannot support 2 . But one 4k and a standard 1080 HD should work. I have been working like that for years with a UHD monitor and a laptop display at work. Using the 4k monitor as a main work surface and the second monitor as a tool surface or email should work for me. A 4k monitor will be more than enough resolution to open 2 documents side by side.
> 
> I plan on ordering one 4k soon. Some of the monitors shown at CES look like they will scratch my itch.


Whatever monitor(s) you choose, get a quality video card with the Nvidia chipset. Lightroom and Photoshop support GPU processing and a good graphics card will speed up your computer significantly.


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 28, 2016)

Here's my setup... 

39" 1080p Panasonic television +
24" monitor to the right of the above.

It isn't ideal for photo editing... But when I'm going to print, I'll actually print the images out and make any adjustments in contrast or exposure.

I usually use the smaller when I'm editing video... Having the video on one screen and the editing tools on the bigger one. 

For photos, the smaller goes un-used.


----------



## LesC (Dec 28, 2016)

I use two Dell U2414H monitors - 1920 x1080 matt screen surface, & very narrow bezels (except at the bottom).

Very reasonably priced and colour calibration by Dell is very respectable; all I've felt the need to do is top adjust contrast/brightness.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 28, 2016)

I use two slightly more expensive U2415 monitors. I have set up numerous dual rigs with these monitors for clients as well as for my wife. They are very good monitors at a very good price. Comparable to the U2414H except the U2415 is 16:10 instead of 16:9 (U2414H). Also, the U2415 uses a higher quality panel with higher sRGB color space coverage and more vibrant and accurate colors, but it can't scale 1080p properly (very few 1920x1200 monitors can).

https://www.amazon.com/Dell-Computer-Ultrasharp-U2415-24-0-Inch/dp/B00NZTKOQI/ref=sr_1_1?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1482951426&sr=1-1&keywords=u2415


----------

