Hi. I'm currently using a 27inch fullHD monitor. I'd like to know if anyone is using a 2k (or 4k) monitor for radiantviewer and had a chance to compare it with a FHD monitor. I use radiantviewer mainly to report MRI (no XR or mamograms), and I'm happy with my monitor. In my country a mediocre to decent 2K monitor is very expensive (more than twice the price of a good FHD monitor). What do you think? Will I see a difference switching to a 2k monitor? thanks

Hello Pablo
I used FHD from 10 to 24", 2k 27" and 4k 28" and 32" monitors
I usually work with CT and often need to compare old and new studies (oncology - progression/regression)
So 32" 4k is the best variant FOR ME
I can compare 2, 4, or even 6 series at once with synchronization and it really helps me in my work

Some quotes from
ACR–AAPM–SIIM TECHNICAL STANDARD FOR ELECTRONIC PRACTICE OF MEDICAL IMAGING

For monitors used in diagnostic interpretation, it is recommended that the pixel pitch be about 0.200 mm and not larger than 0.210 mm. For this pixel pitch, individual pixels and their substructure are not visible and images have continuous tone appearance. No advantage is derived from using a smaller pixel pitch since higher spatial frequencies are not perceived.
For the presentation of images with acquired detector element size different from the pixel pitch, zoom and pan display features should be used rather than moving closer to a display. Since the human visual system has maximum contrast sensitivity at about 0.5 cycles/mm, image zoom with interpolation can often reveal subtle detail not seen at true size.
Monitors used by technologists and clinical care staff are often not viewed at a desk, and the viewing distance is larger than for diagnostic interpretation. For these monitors, a pixel pitch of 0.250 mm (not larger than 0.300 mm) is appropriate.


SO PIXEL PITCH for different size and resolution

For Full HD 1920x1080
15,6" 0,179 mm - good
17" 0.199 mm - good
19,5 0.220 mm - almost good
22" 0.248 mm - not really good
24" 0,277 mm - not good
27" 0,310 mm - bad
32" 0,363 mm - makes your eyes bleed

For Quad HD 2k 2560x1440
23,8" 0,210 mm - good
27" 0,233 mm - almost good
32" 0,280 mm - not good

For Ultra HD 4k 3840x2160
23,8" 0,1369 - WOW
27" 0,155 - good
28" 0.160 - good
32" 0,180 - good

WIDE 21:9 monitors (maybe you will like it)
2560x1080
25" 0,2286 mm - almost good
29" 0,2628 mm - not good
34" 0,312 mm - bad

3440x1440
34" 0,233 mm - almost good

The BRIGHTNESS of diagnostic monitors used for interpretation should be at least 350 cd/m2 (450 for mammograms)

The COLOR DEPTH should be at least 8-bit (not 6+2, but real 8 or 8+2).
True 10 bit is better, but RadiAnt can not work with 10-bit (so RadiAnt is not really good for mammograms)

MATRIX TYPE
TN - forget about it
VA - good contrast/blacks, BUT it has "black crash effect" when you looking not direct to screen (curved monitors can compensate it a little, but still not really good)
IPS - not perfect ("glow effect" - due to backlight bleed) but what should we do?
OLED - really good but expensive. I mean EXPENSIVE!

My main monitor is 32" LG 32UN650
On another workstation is 28" ASUS VG289Q (32" was to big for that table)
Both of them are 4k IPS 350 cd/m2 8+2 bit and i like both to work and having fun (movies/games)

I hope it was helpful for you

Great information. I'll see if I can get a better monitor in my country that doesnt break the bank. Thank you very much!