Hello!In fact, 3ds Max, and other programs on computer graphics have a characteristic feature, namely a multifunctional interface, which in turn is expressed as many, many, many panels and buttons that can hardly fit on one monitor, even a large diagonal, even Wide format. For example, I have a 3i monitor. 21 "+24" +21 ". On the central 24 "- the viewport, on additional 21" working panels, such as Material Editor, Command Panel, Render Setup, etc. In addition, one of the monitors serves as a reference, that is, the one on the court constantly hangs the reference (photo reference ) On which I do something in 3d, without affecting the working space of the viewport and all the panels. That is very convenient and greatly simplifies the work.Moreover, there are moments, especially in setting up the rendering of the animation, when some details are simply not visible. For example, "somewhere-there" in the corner of the frame gets a piece of an unnecessary object, which earlier on the plot flew for it and on a small monitor is invisible, but the renderer will be a frank bug. The same goes for the timeline. Often calling the Graph Editor or scaling the Timeline is very "not with the hand", it is much more profitable to have a large monitor and see all the keys, it is especially important to distinguish the neighboring ones by one frame, on the timeline without extra. Manipulations. That is why, as a central one, I have an urgent need to purchase a 32 "monitor, which is likely to be done in the near future.In the light of the above, it is difficult to give recommendations how to get out from 350 USD, but the general concept is unchanged, the maximum diagonal that you can buy for this amount.It is also important to note that there is no meaning to pursue color rendition at all. To work in 3ds Max, this is not an actual question, so it's better to pay attention to monitors with a fast matrix than with a high-contrast or multi-bit (8bit gradient and higher).Here somehow so😁
Hello!Personally for me, the benchmark in monitor was always DELL and its series of PRO monitors UltraSharp ™. For any modern purposes, to buy the main (single) monitor less than 24 "in my opinion is not worth it. Therefore, just take Dell UltraSharp 24 for the standard. The main thing to consider is that in this series there are actually a lot of monitors, and the latest models are very expensive. But in order not to go far, we'll take an old man U2410 (at the moment the last one in the U2414 line) taken off the production line, and therefore, by its characteristics, it is quite affordable for modern analogs.We look at:1 - Pixel of the standard size. On a 24 "monitor with a 16:10 aspect ratio, such pixels should be 1920x1200. Monitors with a different resolution have another non-standard pixel size.It influences whether a very large pixel will be driven or vice versa, will not it be necessary to peer into tiny icons and fonts, as it usually happens on 27 "monitors with a large resolution of a small pixel.2 - Dynamic contrast ratio 80,000: 1It is usually determined by the type of matrix and has a major influence on whether the black color is really black, not gray, as in cheap monitors with poor backlighting.4 - Response time from 6 ms. and higher.From this parameter depends the behavior of the dynamic content, whether there will be a loop for the mouse and not a "blurry" movie.3 - Update frequency from 60 Hz. and more.In principle, the direct effect on eye fatigue, as this is literally blinking / updating the image on the monitor.Being guided by these parameters we are looking for something similar in an accessible store. For 350 dollars, there is no exact analogue, but I would draw attention to similar monitors from the same DELL or Samsung in this price range. Found similar in parameters - buy.In specific shops in specific regions, prices may differ significantly, but I believe that with some efforts, 24 "Dell UltraSharp U2412 for 350 USD can be found.As for the sweep of more than 60 Hz, theoretically this should have a better effect on the fatigue of the eyes. Nevertheless, I have never used a monitor with a higher refresh rate and I can not say anything about it.
Nikitakit, hello!I did not use either one or the other, but I tried to understand the topic a little.I'm currently using a setup of two monitors, on the left is a portrait of 19 "1080x1920 and in the middle of album 27" 2560x1440. Thus, the total estimated visual area goes out85х45 centimeters at a resolution of 3640x1920 or 38 "at a density of 109ppi.At the same time, on the screen, for example a TV 40 "at a resolution of 4K comes out 108ppi.As you can see, both physical dimensions are similar, and the pixel density is the same.From this I can draw conclusions about these aspects, even without having a 4K screen.Perhaps you find the following information useful.The monitor is located at a depth of 85 from the edge of the table, and this is the distance from the screen to the eyes. With this arrangement, the pixel density can be called good, and even slightly unnecessary: icons and unzoomed text are small, and, for example, the interface of the same 3ds Max, as you know, does not scale. The screen size is large, but could be increased up to 110cm in width; Further sideways it will be already problematic to "turn your eyes", or turn your head strongly. Physical height is enough, it's not too much, it's not necessary to bully your head; But it is important that the screen starts as low as possible from the table, because the view is directed down. With my setup, where there is an empty space under the larger monitor, there is a very shortage of the displayed area: I would put the max-timeline there. Proceeding from this, II do not advise: Ultra-widescreen monitor: when working with graphics, the height is also needed; Similar to my setup (FHD portrait + WQHD), or FHD portrait + WQHD + FHD portrait due to the missing area under the middle monitor; The size of the 16: 9 screen is greater than 46 ", due to excessive physical height; The resolution of 4K on the screen is less than 40 "due to the excessive density of pixels.I advise, presumably: 40 ", or even better 43" 4K screen at a distance of ± 85cm.The very high resolution of 3840x2160 pixels imposes some demands not only on the graphic part of the computer, but even on the video output and monitor connection wires, if it's a TV. To transfer 4K resolution at a sufficient refresh rate, you need the HDMI 2.0 standard. This means that this technology should be supported by: Video card: at the moment it's a minimum of nVidia GTX 950 level $ 200, certain manufacturers; Wire: pay attention that it was 2.0; Screen: at least one HDMI should be version 2.0, it usually does not write in the characteristics of the device, but on the input itself is written in large digits.Regarding the quality of the matrices in 4K TVs I can not say anything, I need to look.