Posts by wanderingbison9

I might suggest finding a middle ground when it comes to screen size paired with 4K resolution, especially since this one ticks all the other boxes on your list: you get 10-bit color, HDR support (since we're already looking at it), a wide gamut, and most importantly, an sRGB mode to keep those colors under control, plus VRR—though seeing as you mentioned 60 Hz isn't really a dealbreaker anymore, it should be fine—along with full swivel, tilt, and pivot functionality:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0C7G9XW7P

granitecrane2 said:It just doesn't meet professional video standards. Besides, if you have even a basic grasp of electronic imaging theory, wouldn't you agree that FreeSync doesn't really make sense here? It only truly serves a purpose during real-time rendering—meaning gaming—and nothing else.

I’ve always felt that hands-on experience is where the real learning happens; for me, the theory only really clicked later on as a way to confirm what I already knew from doing the work. 😉

That being said, I wonder if FreeSync might actually help when you're dealing with those non-constant frame rates that so many smartphones tend to record? I haven't really gone down the rabbit hole of researching that specific scenario yet, but isn't it worth considering?

The Nvidia control panel actually offers a windowed mode for G-sync, but I’ve been running some tests lately with a few different programs, like DaVinci Resolve and the MPCHC player, and I just can't seem to get FreeSync to kick in. Even though MPCHC is utilizing DirectX 11 for the display, it isn't working, and since DaVinci OpenGL is being used, it feels like FreeSync might be specifically tied to how 3D geometry is rendered rather than just playing back video on a standard DirectX 11 surface. I wonder if it would actually trigger if I tried running a 3D preview within a dedicated 3D application like Blender or Lightwave?

Yeah, regarding Chill... there are just so many different settings tucked away in the Adrenalin software that I can't recall them all, and besides, using that is more of a workaround anyway, since it isn't truly linked to FreeSync functionality.

wiredotter14 said:Well, sure, but I guess what I mean is that when you set a custom refresh rate using FreeSync, you could theoretically hit any actual refresh rate the monitor is capable of (not just capping the frame rate, which doesn't change the monitor's refresh rate itself, but just the FPS) as long as it stays within the supported FreeSync range. Without FreeSync, most monitors are pretty stuck with just a few preset refresh rates, like 60 or 75Hz, and you can't really pick anything else.

I'm just not entirely certain if that actually works in practice when you aren't running in a full-screen application.

Wait, so does that imply the game should be locking its FPS between the monitor's minimum and maximum refresh rates, say 48 and 75Hz? Because if that's how it's supposed to work, it isn't happening on my setup: once I drop below 48 fps or climb above 75 fps, I start seeing screen tearing and stuttering, even though everything feels incredibly smooth while I'm right in that sweet spot... doesn't it feel like the whole point of FreeSync is lost if you only get that buttery smoothness when you stay strictly "in the zone"? Is there something else I should have enabled?

wiredotter14 said:Kuzim

It would definitely be a nice feature to have, though I suspect it might be a bit tricky to pull off while running in windowed mode rather than full-screen, wouldn't you agree?
Is there any way to set up a custom refresh rate using either FreeSync or an Nvidia alternative?

Well, if I'm following your train of thought correctly, both manufacturers actually offer ways to manually create custom modes, which shouldn't really have anything to do with FreeSync or G-sync itself, right?

wiredotter14 said:wanderingbison9, wouldn't FreeSync actually handle that issue for you? If you're working with content running at 50 FPS, isn't FreeSync designed to sync perfectly with a 50Hz refresh rate?

As for the 25 FPS scenario, I have my doubts since FreeSync usually struggles once you drop below something like 48Hz.

To be honest, I'm not entirely certain, but I've always been a bit skeptical about how much automation really does here... doesn't it mostly just kick in during gaming sessions? I could certainly give it a shot, but if my memory serves me right, I had it enabled before and it didn't bother changing the refresh rate during full-screen playback—not that it works in the preview window anyway, does it?

Western Digital Elements:

https://www.amazon.com/Western-Digital-Elements-Portable-External/dp/B07P5S8Z2W

Seagate One Touch:

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/seagate-one-touch-portable-external-hard-drive/6350630.p?skuId=6350630

@mellowcyclist3/">@@mellowcyclist3: If you're getting into video work and there's even a slight chance your projects will end up on a TV, you really ought to be working in 25 or 50 fps, which means having a monitor capable of hitting 50Hz... Since those specific monitors can be a bit hard to find, the next best thing is usually a 75Hz display (since 25 goes into 75 three times), which works perfectly fine if you're sticking to 25fps. That’s actually how I handle my setup, though I also keep a 40" UHD TV nearby for that final preview. Now, if you're aiming for 50 fps... well, you might even want a 144Hz panel, provided you can manually select 100Hz within your graphics card drivers. I'm not entirely sure about the specifics there, but you can often create a custom resolution and refresh rate to make it work.
If your content is strictly for the web, then 60Hz is more than enough, isn't it? It covers 24fps, 30fps, and 60fps video quite easily.
So, which of these categories does your workflow actually fall into? I might have missed something, but I don't think you mentioned whether HDR is a requirement for you. Honestly, at that price point, there isn't anything particularly sensible regarding HDR.
That Samsung feels like the exact opposite of what you actually need—which is color accuracy.

wiredotter14 said:I've got an MSI B450 Tomahawk Max II, standard ATX.

Snagged it on Newegg for exactly $80. From what I can tell, prices in America are way higher, so it’s questionable if it’s actually worth it—there might be better options for that kind of cash.

The only downside with the board is that it doesn't support the case's RGB header, so I have to change the LEDs via a button (different standard, some weird workaround). It's fine that it remembers the last setting, though, so when you reboot, it stays the same. Other than that, my board lacks a USB-C header, so the front USB-C port is dead weight, but it's not like I'd use it for anything important anyway.

In my case, the RGB control doesn't work when I plug something like a Wraith Spire into the RGB header; it only works through the USB connection, which is the only way I can actually control it... could it be a similar situation with the case? Perhaps the RGB header is essentially just for show.

Alexander Moore67 said:https://www.amazon.com/fractal-design-cases/b01m2v8y6n
Budget-friendly, but the airflow is top-tier.

Does the ATX version work the same way?

Do you remember when we used to feel like kings just because an SD frame finished rendering in a few dozen minutes? Back then, a thirty-second TV spot could easily take a week to wrap up. I honestly think people in today's generation would lose their minds—maybe even jump out a window—if they ever had to deal with those kinds of wait times.
One colleague of mine is still out there grinding, using three RTX 3090s to spend days on a single frame... but then again, he’s old school, and he hasn't quite kept pace when it comes to modern rendering quality standards.
To be honest, I have never once had a real issue with AMD, aside from the occasional loud stock cooler; over the years, I've just swapped out about five or six AMD processors and motherboards as things evolved.

Sean Taylor7 said:Everything makes sense, but what on earth is a Makinja?

A machine, a rig, or just slang for a computer... though I have a feeling you might just be messing with me.

At this stage, everything seems to point toward a configuration that prioritizes high IPC, especially since the budget allows for an RTX card. Having that kind of GPU power really eliminates the need for an excessive number of cores when you're rendering in Blender, and it handles effects in other software beautifully too, given how many modern apps are offloading processing tasks directly to the GPU. If we’re looking at the best bang for your buck in terms of price versus IPC performance—and if we're talking about an Intel chip—then honestly, Intel it is.

If I want a 27" screen to fill my field of vision the same way a 32" does, I’d have to sit much closer, which just isn't a viable option for me because:

- My keyboard and drawing tablet are sitting right there between me and the monitor

- I end up having to hunch forward instead of leaning back against my chair; since the tablet and keyboard are basically resting against my chest, I end up looking and feeling like a praying mantis, which leads to some pretty nasty back pain

- And when I do lean in that close, everything gets blurry because of my nearsightedness—it's like I've hit this weird negative "sweet spot" where the screen looks out of focus whether I'm wearing my glasses or not...

Anyway, have you had a chance to check how things run with Leonardo da Vinci, After, and Premier on Microsoft Windows?

It's funny, though; we never really helped this guy figure out his setup. It seems like this forum's PC-build forensics can be lightning-fast whenever someone needs a gaming rig, but when it comes to actual workstation builds, everyone goes quiet...😬

wiredotter14 said:A 32" screen feels just right for me. Of course, you wouldn't set it up the same way you would a 24" monitor; there's no need to be staring at it from just twelve inches away. For my setup, I usually sit about an arm's length away from the display while sitting comfortably in my chair.

That puts it at roughly 32 inches or so, plus a little extra, since that's where things start getting blurry for me because I wear glasses for nearsightedness... which is why a 23" screen looks like a tiny postage stamp to me.

Look, macOS is macOS and Windows is Windows—what you’ve posted here just doesn't work on a PC when I'm using the apps I mentioned. Come on now.

To be fair, I’m not entirely sure which version of DaVinci Resolve you're running; I’m still on version 16, so maybe they finally patched those issues in 17... it's the same story with After Effects CC 2021 for me—absolutely nothing works.

granitecrane2 said:They have their own operating systems too (like Linux and macOS), so that was never really an issue. Large monitors come with their own set of headaches, though; you find yourself constantly turning your head just to take everything in. And if you try to push the monitor further back to compensate, you basically end up with the same experience as having a smaller screen sitting right in your face. Honestly, it seems mostly unnecessary unless you're someone who needs to stay hyper-focused on very specific sections of the display. That’s probably why most editors tend to go with a dual or even triple monitor setup instead.
Personally, this screen size feels a bit excessive for my taste, but when I picked up that Philips, I didn't fully realize just how massive it would feel. Looking back, I think I'd prefer a smaller screen with higher pixel density. My eyesight is actually quite sharp.

Some software packages struggle with or simply ignore system-wide UI scaling settings... for instance, DaVinci Resolve can be a bit finicky with that... whereas from what I recall, neither Adobe Premiere Pro nor After Effects really seem to care about those limitations

I don't find myself turning my head at all when working on a 32" monitor, or even a 40" UHD TV... since I hear people complaining about this so often on the forums, I have to wonder if I'm just some kind of outlier. 😬

Alright, I’m on board with that Philips monitor; besides, Blender actually has an option to scale up the UI elements, like the text and icons, if you need them larger.

@mellowcyclist3/">@@mellowcyclist3:

Since you brought up Illustrator and vector art, isn't it true that when you're working with curves rather than pixels, having a higher resolution and a larger screen for those fine details makes such a difference? That being said, does it really make sense to go for UHD resolution on anything smaller than a 32-inch monitor? If you don't scale up your system UI elements, those menus and icons might end up being tiny, and I'm not entirely sure how well Blender UI plays along with system-wide scaling since it tends to have its own way of doing things. Honestly, you might barely notice the jump from QHD anyway... and trust me, a 32-inch screen isn't too big at all! I actually work on one myself. Also, if you're planning on watching movies—assuming you don't already have a high-end TV—wouldn't a VA panel be a better choice? Having HDR 600 wouldn't hurt either, right?

YouTube is absolutely killing it lately with 4K content. As for gaming, you can always just run things at a lower resolution or maybe turn off that heavy anti-aliasing if you really want to push 4K performance.

@granitecrane2/">@@granitecrane2: Look, I know everything that’s possible to do in Blender, I was just trying to ask specifically what his actual workflow looks like within the program 😉 My wording was a little clumsy there...

The only thing he doesn't need is a dedicated workstation for editing and compositing...
Back to talking about Blender again... does rendering actually happen within it, or what exactly is the workflow there?

My two cents:

When you look at the price point, Quadro cards feel a bit underwhelming if you're trying to use them for gaming. Plus, we have to consider that modern RTX cards can now handle 10-bit color in professional graphics apps anyway.

If I were in his shoes, I’d definitely set aside a significant chunk of the budget for a solid 32" 4K IPS monitor.