# 6D photos on a 4K TV monitor



## LovePhotography (Nov 13, 2014)

Will Canon 6D best resolution jpegs or RAW photos display better on a new UHD 4K monitor than a regular 1080P monitor? I don't watch TV (haven't for >20 years) but I have a 55 inch fast refresh rate 1080p TV for my computer monitor, which I love. But, sitting close you can see the pixels. So, I'd love to spend the dough for a similar 4K monitor, but, since website stuff if so compressed and will look crappy on a 4k monitor (still), one of the main joys of getting it would be if my Canon 6D pictures looked better. Thanks.


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 13, 2014)

Yes, with RAW (or with Large-sized JPEG) the 6D's photos are significantly higher resolution than 1080p, so you'd see an improvement, assuming you are close enough to the screen and that the screen is large enough. You'd even see an improvement moving from 4K up to 8K, though the photos would have to be scaled up slightly to fill an 8K display.


----------



## LovePhotography (Nov 14, 2014)

Thank you for the reply! I thank you. My retirement account is not so complimentary. But, thanks, really!


----------



## Policar (Nov 14, 2014)

All things equal, yes, but the 4k display might not have the same contrast ratio, refresh rate, color gamut, calibration, etc. 

So unless the pixels are really the big problem, and you're willing to risk (maybe lose, maybe not) contrast/gamut/whatever, I wouldn't go for 4k quite yet. But when you find the right panel, yes, it will help.


----------



## e17paul (Nov 14, 2014)

The resolution of an HDTV is 1920x1080 = approx 2 megapixels, assuming that the image is zoomed to fill the screen. A 4K TV is 3840x2160 pixels = approx 8 megapixels, well within the still image resolution provided by the 6D sensor, giving you scope to crop and zoom before the file resolution exceeds that of the 4K TV display. 

My HDTV is great for TV, which is broadcast at no more than 1920x1080 pixels, but I also use it as a computer display, for which I would love 4K. 

Computer displays are now going beyond 4K, it may be worth looking at those if you don't need TV functionality. Like all new technologies, they are expensive at first but will only come down in price. 

The latest top spec iMac has a 13 megapixel 5K display at 27 inches, inconceivable just a few years back.


----------



## OKO-SAN (Nov 14, 2014)

6d hdmi cable connected to 4K TV in the store and look at the result. Store managers say that chooses a suitable color scheme and it will save you from pressing need for immediate purchase http://canonrumors.com/forum/Smileys/default/wink.gif


----------



## zim (Nov 14, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> Will Canon 6D best resolution jpegs or RAW photos display better on a new UHD 4K monitor than a regular 1080P monitor? I don't watch TV (haven't for >20 years) but I have a 55 inch fast refresh rate 1080p TV for my computer monitor, which I love. But, sitting close you can see the pixels. So, I'd love to spend the dough for a similar 4K monitor, but, since website stuff if so compressed and will look crappy on a 4k monitor (still), one of the main joys of getting it would be if my Canon 6D pictures looked better. Thanks.



WOOOOWWW...... sorry to take this off topic but you haven't watched telly for over 20 years, really ?


----------



## LovePhotography (Nov 14, 2014)

zim said:


> LovePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Will Canon 6D best resolution jpegs or RAW photos display better on a new UHD 4K monitor than a regular 1080P monitor? I don't watch TV (haven't for >20 years) but I have a 55 inch fast refresh rate 1080p TV for my computer monitor, which I love. But, sitting close you can see the pixels. So, I'd love to spend the dough for a similar 4K monitor, but, since website stuff if so compressed and will look crappy on a 4k monitor (still), one of the main joys of getting it would be if my Canon 6D pictures looked better. Thanks.
> ...



Nope. Don't have cable. Don't have an antenna. Have never seen an episode of Friends, Desperate Housewives or any Survivor-type show. Only miss it 2-3 times a year. If it's really, really important, the highlights are on Youtube. But, no, I haven't watched TV for decades, and don't miss it a lick.


----------



## LovePhotography (Nov 14, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Oh, when you look at whichever 4k/UHDTV screen it is you are interested in, if it isn't advertised as being "100% Rec 2020 compatible" with HDMI 2.0 capability then it is already obsolete and not worth parting with cash for.



Thanks!


----------



## LovePhotography (Nov 14, 2014)

e17paul said:


> The resolution of an HDTV is 1920x1080 = approx 2 megapixels, assuming that the image is zoomed to fill the screen. A 4K TV is 3840x2160 pixels = approx 8 megapixels, well within the still image resolution provided by the 6D sensor, giving you scope to crop and zoom before the file resolution exceeds that of the 4K TV display.
> 
> My HDTV is great for TV, which is broadcast at no more than 1920x1080 pixels, but I also use it as a computer display, for which I would love 4K.
> 
> ...



Thank you to all for all the helpful information. Much appreciated.


----------



## Nethawk (Nov 14, 2014)

If accurate reproduction is absolutely necessary I encourage spending the money to have whatever display you decide upon professionally calibrated specific to your camera's profile. For consumer televisions there are multiple modes that make this easy to switch between video, games, images, etc. Monitors probably less so, but any camera-specific calibration is sure to benefit anything you might do on your computer.


----------



## Steve (Nov 15, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> Nope. Don't have cable. Don't have an antenna. Have never seen an episode of Friends, Desperate Housewives or any Survivor-type show. Only miss it 2-3 times a year. If it's really, really important, the highlights are on Youtube. But, no, I haven't watched TV for decades, and don't miss it a lick.



Then why do you have a 55" television for a computer monitor? You'd have to sit hella far back to be able to take the whole thing in and for computer work that doesn't make sense.


----------



## LovePhotography (Nov 15, 2014)

Steve said:


> LovePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. Don't have cable. Don't have an antenna. Have never seen an episode of Friends, Desperate Housewives or any Survivor-type show. Only miss it 2-3 times a year. If it's really, really important, the highlights are on Youtube. But, no, I haven't watched TV for decades, and don't miss it a lick.
> ...



Excuse me, but, it makes *good* sense. 
#1. I like getting lost in the experience. 
#2. Contrary to most TV ads where people sit across the room from their big HDTV, if you sit that far the picture looks the same as regular definition because of the resolving power of your retina. 
#3. I review scads of .pdf files and because modern screens are wide but not tall, the big screen helps get the whole word doc page on the screen big enough that I can read the document.

The only problem is that I can see the individual pixels on my HDTV, but on the big-ass 4k UHD TV on display at Sam's Club, you can get your nose 24" from the screen and all you see are the wonderful details in the photograph/video. It's like being there. I couldn't see the details on the Matterhorn as well if I took a trip to the base of the mountain, because odds are, I'd get there on a cloudy day, not the perfect day they used for the demonstration video.
Pax.


----------



## zim (Nov 15, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > LovePhotography said:
> ...



respect!


----------

