Why do we want a "professional" monitor?

As seen in the [Step 1] Finding the perfect panel! thread, approximately 40% of votes want a panel for “professional use”. The purpose of this poll is to determine why. The question is this: do people want a panel for this use because that is their career, or because to them, “professional” means “the best”?

We can’t have the best. Not in EVERYTHING. Also, “professional” isn’t “the best” - it’s a very specific subset of monitor. So, this poll is to help us gain context into - again, a recurring theme in Eve projects - where we can make compromises, and where we need to focus.

Edit: imagine poll option 2 to read as this:

To me, accuracy is quality. I want my every-day display to be “real” - I don’t appreciate fake, overblown or undersaturated colours, but I’m willing to sacrifice a small amount of colour accuracy if it means improving other critical display metrics.

  • I want a professional monitor for actual professional work. “Professional” means colour accuracy and usable brightness at all costs. I do photo/video editing or design as a career, and require what is on display to mirror what is seen in real-life.
  • To me, accuracy is quality. I want a professional monitor because I want my every-day display to be “real” - I don’t appreciate fake, overblown or undersaturated colours.

0 voters

Myself, I’m firmly in the latter camp. Having been party to friends that have monitors with high refresh rates and HDR panels, I have come to realize that these things are far more important than pursuing accuracy to the Nth degree. Especially in a panel that isn’t used as a livelihood. I like accuracy, but if I had to choose between 85% gamut accuracy and 144hz, even 75hz - I’d choose 75hz every single time. The purpose of this poll is entirely to help us gain perspective on what was voted on, and what we all really want!

5 Likes

I’m confused. You stated that you’re in the latter camp, and don’t find color accuracy (very) important, but option 2 still states it’s important. I have no clue what’s going on.
I don’t make my living by having correct colors on my photos and videos, but I can still make accurate colors high on my priority list.

5 Likes

I guess I didn’t explain fully enough.

For a professional, 85% of the way there as regards colour accuracy isn’t good enough. I would say 95-100% of the way there is a requirement - imagine doing wedding photos, and you colour calibrate, then instead of pure sepia you have a slight green or pink tinge to your prints.

That extra 5, 10, or even 15% won’t really matter tangibly to the majority of users who don’t use their monitor for professional image-related work, even relatively picky ones. For professionals with clients, it’s critical - for those who want a good-looking monitor that provides a good general-use experience, 85% of the way there but with HDR and/or high refresh rates will definitely provide a better experience (85-90% gamut coverage or deltaE is still quite good, definitely not poor) than pure colour accuracy.

In my post, that I’m in the latter camp - I don’t use my monitor professionally. Yes, accuracy is quality, but it isn’t the MOST IMPORTANT THING. For professionals, as close to perfect accuracy as possible must come before all else - I don’t feel that’s correct for the majority of users, that’s what this poll was intended to weed out. Were people really voting for a professional monitor because they need accuracy, or was it because “professional” is synonymous with “best”? It isn’t, it’s just like “gaming” is not synonymous with “best”.

The purpose of this poll is to differentiate between absolute necessity, and a priority. For many professionals, this necessity must beat out all other metrics.

A better poll option would have been:

To me, accuracy is quality. I want my every-day display to be “real” - I don’t appreciate fake, overblown or undersaturated colours, but I’m willing to sacrifice a small amount of colour accuracy if it means improving other critical display metrics.

6 Likes

I’m going to be using it for gaming and work mostly (MS Office stuff). If anything, I’d rather err more towards saturated colours.

I just want a gaming monitor (high refresh rates, high dynamic range) without the over the top product design TBH. A monitor stand shouldn’t have RGB lights imo.

I also plan to use this monitor for work, but for me USB C support, a high resolution and a matte display would count as “professional” features. Color accuracy is just a pet peeve.

I really prefer IPS for the viewing angles. I hate the “gradient” forming on some TN panels.

I kinda fit in between the two poll options. I want a “professional” monitor because I enjoy color accuracy in daily use like gaming and other content consumption, but also because I do occasional photo editing and drawing as hobbies. Sometimes I share my projects with others and I want to make sure my work doesn’t have a screwed up color palette. I don’t do it on a professional level though, so it isn’t technically something that I need. Just something that I value.

2 Likes

I do an enormous amount of graphic work and while color accuracy is not critical for me or my customers, it is infuriating to see a graphic where the reds look purple, or the yellows look green, when either viewed on other monitors or printed. Obviously, I don’t expect a reference monitor out of this project, but if I could get a 27" or 32" 4K monitor with quality on par with Dell’s PremierColor, that would tick the primary check boxes. Anything on top of that is gravy. 120hz would be the most important secondary feature. After that, an ultra-thin bezel so I could stand two abreast. The LG 5K built for Macs is another good reference point.