Today’s Question: What differences will be obvious in photo images when viewed on a 4K monitor vs a 2K monitor if both are 27-inch? Does it make any sense to operate a 4K monitor in 2K resolution to improve apparent sharpness / contrast?
Tim’s Quick Answer: The key difference between a 4K versus 2K monitor display is the greater sharpness on the 4K display. To me a 4K display set to 2K resolution is optimal, because the interface is a good size, but the image quality is still stunning.
More Detail: A 4K display has a resolution featuring approximately 4,000 pixels across (actually 3,840 pixels in most cases) versus about 2,000 pixels across for a 2K display (usually 1,920 pixels). Therefore, the size of the individual pixels on a 4K display will be smaller than on a 2K display, assuming monitors of the same size.
That means you can display significantly more information on a 4K display, such as being able to see more of a high-resolution image at a 100% zoom setting on a 4K display compared to a 2K display. However, a 4K display set to a 4K resolution, especially on a relatively small monitor, can result in interface elements and text that are so small it can be difficult to work with.
However, a 4K display will present a significantly sharper image compared to a 2K display. Therefore, in my view the optimal approach is to opt for a 4K display but set it to about a 2K resolution (such as 1920×1080 pixels). This will provide you with what I think is a more manageable size for the interface elements and text, while still providing the benefit of superior sharpness for the presentation of images.
Contrast and other display qualities will depend upon the specific specifications of the display, not the resolution. For example, the contrast ratio and color space support determine the dynamic range and color gamut the display can reproduce, regardless of the resolution of the display.
