Jeroen van Eekeres:

doxilia:

So, is this a chipset specific, xw8600, or W7 SP1 limitation?

Chipset specific.

right - that makes sense. I was pretty sure any 64 bit Windows didn't have something like a 2 TB volume limitation.

But what you are writing does not really make sense as a 4way stripe would give you a single volume of 8TB (7.2 in reality) and I don't think that would work either. How many volumes do you have inside windows and  the Intel RST/Intel matrix software?

The array is built from dynamic disks in Windows software. In testing there is no performance difference between using the RST software (and/or BIOS ROM) and Windows. The problem with the (old) BIOS ROM is that it doesn't deliver the full capacity of the disks when making arrays. You can only make two arrays of under 2 TB and that's it. So, in Windows, each 1.81 TB volume is created with 25% capacity of each disk (about 460 MB each) to result in 4 x 4-way stripes. The result is roughly the same as if I simply had the four physical disks mounted but the throughput is of course much higher. I'm getting over 480 MB/s on the first volume and about 400 on the last.

I've been struggling with the intel raid controller as well (not just on the xw8600). It's a software assisted (non hardware) raid controller and functionally/performance wise it's 'not perfect'... but what is. Because I have never found any firmware upgrades for these controllers I have learned to live with the limitations. From experience though while the bios utility will complain (about drive compatiblility) inside the intel RST/matrix software all is fine and the system works as expected. Parctically though if I need a reliable raid 5 setup I add a pci-e promise/3ware/LSI raid controller for internal/external storage.  

Although I know we used this hardware/disk setup on the system reliably for 3-4 years, I'm now seeing the limitations of the chipset and software RAID. As you mention, I managed to create two 4-way stripe volumes (everything is RAID 0 on my media drives) of ~3.6 GB each with the RST software and yes, the BIOS complained of incompatible drives. However, the system would not always boot. In fact, I installed W7 SP1 once the arrays were made and upon reboot after the SP update, the machine blue screened badly after login and would not even see the MBR on the boot drive afterward. I had to run Windows repair to restore the boot drive. In short, anything above 2 TB seems to render the system highly unstable not to mention that the arrays could fail in software at any moment.

So this brings me to the use of the built in LSI SAS controller. The two controllers are independent of each other so why not use that instead for the SATA media drives? I'll keep the Intel controller for the boot drive, a second project drive (both SSD's) and the BD-R optical and use the LSI for the media drives. If I understand correctly, the SAS controller just shares resources with the PCI-X bottom slot, so provided I don't use that, the controller should be happy. Any reasons not to leverage the built in hardware?

My machine actually comes with two external 4-disk SAS connectors for external arrays. I'd pull the bracket external connector and use those ports for the 4 internal SATA disks. Should I ever need to expand (not likely on this system) I always have an external connector for a second quartet of disks. However, external SAS enclosures are somewhat expensive I believe so I might swap out the internal disks for larger ones if it came to needing more storage.

I'm going to try that configuration and report back. I'd prefer having two volumes of 3.6 GB each as I'd probably use them with the first for compressed 4K conforms (mainly UHDp24 actually) and the second for HD work. Many of my clients are shooting long form UHDp24 XAVC and posting proxy XDCAM 422 for broadcast but I've started conforming back to UHD as some are seeking theatrical digital projections.

Swiching gears, last week I finished a 12 min short online which had a veritable cocktail of footage from original Meliese footage (probably off the web) to slog2 HD, slog3 UHD and 709 UHD. It was a new kind of cocktail for me as most have been of the SD/HD intermix variety for the last 10 years but now it seems we are switching to intermixing HD & UHD.

In short, this "rebuilt" system needs to be able to handle DNxHR UHD even if it's single stream rendered or mix down tracks and a simple monitoring solution - PCI-E card or external, whichever is less costly but still reliable. The Nitris DX box on the Z840 on 8.5.1 hasn't been so far. Any advice or suggestions on this front are appreciated.

Ive got the Quadro 4000 in the works.

David

Bruno M:

If it's any help, my 8600 has a LSI Megaraid 8880 SAS controller card in slot 4, connected to an external disk box with four 2GB drives in RAID 0 setup (using the LSI config utility).

No problems with drive size limitations and I can see all 7.27 GB.  I tried Blackmagic's disk speed test on it and I got around 470MB/s read/write, which is quite respectable for a machine of this age.

Bruno

Bruno,

that's useful info - thanks. May I ask why you didn't use the onboard LSI controller? I assume the Megaraid is HW RAID while the onboard is still software based? Did you experiment/try the onboard LSI approach?

David

doxilia:

So this brings me to the use of the built in LSI SAS controller. The two controllers are independent of each other so why not use that instead for the SATA media drives?

The onboard LSI controller can only handle raid 0 and 1. Not raid 5 or 6. It depends on your raid setup or external enclosure if that is an issue.

doxilia:

In short, this "rebuilt" system needs to be able to handle DNxHR UHD even if it's single stream rendered or mix down tracks and a simple monitoring solution - PCI-E card or external, whichever is less costly but still reliable. The Nitris DX box on the Z840 on 8.5.1 hasn't been so far. Any advice or suggestions on this front are appreciated.

This confuses me a bit. The Nitris DX can only handle 1K. If you want to do UHD, what is your target format and monitoring resolution?

doxilia:

why you didn't use the onboard LSI controller? I assume the Megaraid is HW RAID while the onboard is still software based? Did you experiment/try the onboard LSI approach?

I do also have a software stripe inside the XW8600, made up of two drives which are run off the internal SAS ports. With my boot and data drives this meant I already have four internal drives. I wanted a four stripe RAID, and although I could have fitted a couple more drives into the chassis, I was a bit worried about the load on my PSU, so I opted for an external disk box. Also, as Jeroen has pointed out, if you want more exotic flavours of RAID, you need a controller that will support these modes. I've also heard that having a more 'intellegent card' like the LSI Megaraid means that the main CPUs aren't taxed as much during file operations as CPU utilisation is much lower.

Bruno

Bruno,

now I follow. Hardware RAID does have it's advantages.

That said, I was never a big believer in RAID 5 for media drives (depite wanting to be) as rebuilding such an array in case of drive failure amounted to the same timeout as recopying the media files to a fixed RAID 0 array. RAID 5 worked well for me in server environments (years back) storing business files but not for media drives. RAID 6 changes things so I may look into that when the situation arises.

For now, I'll stick to a low cost solution on the 8600 since it has worked well in the past and just use RAID 0.

FWIW, small SSD drives in the 5-1/4" drive bays (under the optical) pose no problem heat wise and the PSU is more than up to the task. Using SSD's just seems like the way to go for system/data drives if one wants to popultate all four 3.5" HDD bays with media drives.

I take it you are having no issues with your 2-way stripe off the SAS ports using SATA 7200 drives?

David

Jeroen van Eekeres:

doxilia:

So this brings me to the use of the built in LSI SAS controller. The two controllers are independent of each other so why not use that instead for the SATA media drives?

The onboard LSI controller can only handle raid 0 and 1. Not raid 5 or 6. It depends on your raid setup or external enclosure if that is an issue.

Yes, much like the Intel SATA controller. I'm only thinking RAID 0 for my media drives as it has worked for me over the last 20 years or so.

Jeroen van Eekeres:

doxilia:

In short, this "rebuilt" system needs to be able to handle DNxHR UHD even if it's single stream rendered or mix down tracks and a simple monitoring solution - PCI-E card or external, whichever is less costly but still reliable. The Nitris DX box on the Z840 on 8.5.1 hasn't been so far. Any advice or suggestions on this front are appreciated.

This confuses me a bit. The Nitris DX can only handle 1K. If you want to do UHD, what is your target format and monitoring resolution?

The Nitris DX is going to remain with the Z840 until such time that we start monitoring 4K. At that point, the BOB will, for all intensive purposes, be a paper weight with a very loud whining HDD in it. It was great for years while doing lots of tape IO and strictly monitoring HD but with UHD in full swing nowadays, its limitations are becoming apparent. Besides, it seemed to work well on SYM 6 and 7 but it isn't talking too well with 8.5 (or perhaps its just the SW that's buggy). We're having lots of black flashing failing to put an image up when in FX or CC mode - not really acceptable IMO.

For the xw8600 I'm just looking for a low cost 4K (and HD) monitoring (no IO needed other than 1 or 2 SDI/HDMI outputs) solution. I'm not familiar with all the surround sound monitoring solutions for online suites but a "distributor" out of the Avid IO solution capable of 5.1 surround would likely be desireable on both systems when we migrate to 4K in earnest.

I can't see us having much of a need for a full 4K monitoring solution - most everything we'll do will likely be UHD at 3840x2160p24. The occasional 2160p30 may crop up but I'm not worried about frame rates at the moment. When we get into that full swing, we'll probably move to a 4 or 6-way SSD stripe on the Z840. On the 8600, I would just like to have single stream 2160p24 playback and image-up functionality.

The HP ColorDream 32" monitor looks like it may be a good option for UHD monitoring. 10 bit depth, claims of accurate color fidelity and so on.

David

doxilia:

Using SSD's just seems like the way to go for system/data drives if one wants to popultate all four 3.5" HDD bays with media drives.

True. When I was setting up my system the small capacity and high prices of SSD meant that they were only really used for boot drives. Even today, 2TB of SSD is over four times the price of conventional hard disks.

doxilia:

I take it you are having no issues with your 2-way stripe off the SAS ports using SATA 7200 drives?

None whatsoever. SAS drives are more expensive than SATA, which manufacturers often brand as 'enterprise' to justify the high price tag. I'm willing to bet there's not much manufacturing difference at the factory.

As a test, I used the ATTO benchmarking tool to see what the CPU load was on the different interfaces. The SATA interface peaked at around 45% (on small file transfers), whereas the SAS interface scored better at around 35%. These results were consistant with varying queue depths. Best figure was around 15% on the SAS interface with large file transfers.

Bruno

doxilia:

At that point, the BOB will, for all intensive purposes, be a paper weight with a very loud whining HDD in it.

I didn't know the DX BOB had a hard disk in it! Are you sure it has one? If it doesn't, and it's making a loud whining noise, it could be a failing fan, and that may mean it could be suffering a heat problem.

doxilia:

The HP ColorDream 32" monitor looks like it may be a good option for UHD monitoring. 10 bit depth, claims of accurate color fidelity and so on.

I don't know anyone with the 32" Dreamcolor - I'm not even sure there available here in the UK yet, but the new Dreamcolor panels have come under a LOT of criticism recently. If you want to read up on the (very) long thread in the 'Lift, Gamma, Gain' forums, head over to..

http://www.liftgammagain.com/forum/index.php?threads/new-hp-dreamcolor-monitors-4k-capable.2694/

Bruno

doxilia:

At that point, the BOB will, for all intensive purposes, be a paper weight with a very loud whining HDD in it.

That's not a HD but a fan you need to replace as the Nitris DX needs cooling. Not sure if it has to do with the flashes but here on a Z400 MC 8.5 the Nitris DX is working fine.

Well,

we're here a month later and things have progressed. I didn't want to post further until I had something more concrete to comment on.

I managed to source an original HP Q4K card, a 256 GB Samsing SSD (SATA II) and 24 GB of ECC RAM. In resptrospect, I should have just bought 4 x 8 GB kits of RAM (instead of 3) to populate all memory slots given it was only about $10 a kit (I was pretty surprised!)

I got W7SP1 on to the SSD and installed Avid while I still had the old PCI graphics card and the mismatched 2 x 2 GB RAM cards in it and all went well except for the fact that the displays needed refereshing all the time given the GPU couldn't keep up. Surprisingly Avid started and ran despite the 4GB RAM and the vintage GeForce PCI card (well, I had to tell Avid to continue despite the RAM insufficiency). I let it sit for 2-3 weeks while the other parts arrived. Two days ago I got the Q4K card and the new 24 GB RAM installed (removed the old RAM). Of the 8 RAM slots only slots 6 & 8 are empty per HP's installation procedure. So all 4 banks of RAM are populated (two half populated) and the CPU's seem pretty happy. The SSD also made a huge difference.

With the Q4K card in, all display refresh issues were resolved and the interface is pretty snappy now. Unfortuntaly I still don't have the two DP -> DVI adapters I need for the card so I am simply testing things out with the cards sole DVI port and testing on a single 1280x1024 monitor. (BTW, these monitors are ~15 year old ancient Viewsonic VP171b's which have been rock solid and have a pretty crisp image - they're just a little low res and small by today's software standards).

I'm happy to report that all was/is working fine as far as Avid is concerned but I have some strange issues at the Windows 7 level. I have some artifacts in certain applications (e.g., Chrome 64 bit) where the interface "breaks up" in a specific way at the top of the frame always in the same fasion. The text goes soft and straight lines become discontinuous. Other applications show slightly different artifacting (e.g., Firefox 64 bit) where the text looses "letter positioning" and starts to dance around the screen relocating somewhere in the vicinity of where it should be. The curious thing is that it only seems to affect certain applications like these web browsers.

Knowing that I would soon be upgrading the version of Avid to 8.5.x and that MS's free upgrade to W10 would soon be over (June 30), I decided to upgrade the OS to W10. Now on W10 Pro the issues seem to be diminished but they are still there. In the new Windows Edge browser, I get black blocks along the top bar. To push the GPU a little and see if something might be wrong at the hardware level, I installed a flight similator which relies quite heavily on the GPU (its a 3D app). Curiosuly, the application works fine except the background rendering of the fields is all crazed and buzzing. At this point, I figured, it's either the Q4K card I picked up which is also no good or there is a problem with the mainboard (yikes!) or the PSU.

To test, I pulled the card from the x16 (16) slot and put it into the X16 (8) slot and switched the card's power connector from P16 to P17. They are probably just two connectors coming off the same section of the PSU but to eliminate a connector issue, I thought why not. After rebooting, no difference. The isues on the display persist. This seems to inidicate that the PSU and mainboard are less likely the culprits and that maybe this Q4K card is also bad like my original FX3700 (except this one boots and is "reasonably" functional). If that's the case, I should (I hope) be able to get it replaced. If on the other hand, the mainboard is shot, well, I'll let you tell me what's best (I have an HP repair center in town so perhaps it be worith having them take a look at it?)

FWIW, both MC and Resolve 12 (DVR) seem to have no issues. I have no text dancing or rendering issues in either application and from the little testing I've done, they both seem to work just fine!

Anyone care to comment on why the OS interface seems to have issues with more basic apps like web browsers but not with MC or DVR? What course of action would you recommend to solve this somewhat annoying but in a sense inconsequential problem? Is it hardware or software (I'm running Avid supported 353.82 nVidia drivers) that's the culprit?

The best browser to use exhibiting the least interface issues is Firefox. I changed the advanced settings to Best Performance getting rid of a bunch of OS interface "niceties" and the issues here (I'm typing in Firefox) seem to be minimal if any...

Insight?

TIA, David

P.S. Bruno, our two 8600 systems seem to be quite similar now with Q4K cards. Did you (or do you) have any issues with it? I read about a few folks in the UK complaining about their Q4K cards needing to be replaced as they weren't working. Old comments now but I think they were comments from people using 3D software.

doxilia:

Bruno, our two 8600 systems seem to be quite similar now with Q4K cards. Did you (or do you) have any issues with it? I read about a few folks in the UK complaining about their Q4K cards needing to be replaced as they weren't working.

David,

Can't say I've ever seen this image 'break-up' on any of my machines. I have two Quadro 4000 cards running in different workstations and they've all worked fine.

It's strange that you don't get this effect when you're working within Resolve or Symphony. Thinking about it, both these programs tend to have quite a dark interface, whereas web browsers tend to have a much brighter layout. You could try experimenting with the colour schemes in Symphony and make everything much brighter, to see if that changes enything.

You didn't say anything about swapping out your monitor for another one, but I would try getting hold of a more modern display which is able to display 1920 x1080 just to rule out the Viewsonic. Also, check your DVI cable, as there are different types of DVI standards, such as DVI A, DVI D and DVI I. It may be that older monitors only supported the analogue version (DVI A) whereas most modern monitors should be using digital signals (DVI D). I seem to remember reading that DVI analogue can experience signal loss and termination problems with poor quality cables or long runs. Modern monitors are normally identified correctly by the OS, but older monitors won't handshake with the OS so often come out as 'generic'. There's a possibility that the OS won't know the correct refresh rates for your monitor and set them incorrectly.

Bruno

Bruno M:

doxilia:

Bruno, our two 8600 systems seem to be quite similar now with Q4K cards. Did you (or do you) have any issues with it? I read about a few folks in the UK complaining about their Q4K cards needing to be replaced as they weren't working.

David,

Can't say I've ever seen this image 'break-up' on any of my machines. I have two Quadro 4000 cards running in different workstations and they've all worked fine.

Bruno, I'm glad to hear that.

Bruno M:

It's strange that you don't get this effect when you're working within Resolve or Symphony. Thinking about it, both these programs tend to have quite a dark interface, whereas web browsers tend to have a much brighter layout. You could try experimenting with the colour schemes in Symphony and make everything much brighter, to see if that changes enything.

I'll give that a try but I'm pretty certain it's something happening at the OS level. Somehow the pro apps don't seem affected by it whereas when I'm in the general interface with the desktop background, the issues arise. In W10, even the login window shows some funky text jumping to an akward spot.

You didn't say anything about swapping out your monitor for another one, but I would try getting hold of a more modern display which is able to display 1920 x1080 just to rule out the Viewsonic. Also, check your DVI cable, as there are different types of DVI standards, such as DVI A, DVI D and DVI I. It may be that older monitors only supported the analogue version (DVI A) whereas most modern monitors should be using digital signals (DVI D). I seem to remember reading that DVI analogue can experience signal loss and termination problems with poor quality cables or long runs. Modern monitors are normally identified correctly by the OS, but older monitors won't handshake with the OS so often come out as 'generic'. There's a possibility that the OS won't know the correct refresh rates for your monitor and set them incorrectly.

Bruno

I've been working all along with these monitors (two identical) in the rescue of this workstation. I'm pretty certain there is no issue with them as I've used them for years and they work fine on other machines as well as with the 8600 while using the PCI graphics card. I do have some rather long DVI cable runs and I believe they are the cross type DVI-I (analog and digital). I'll try some shorter DVI-D cables to see if that's the problem. However, I've tried both monitors with both cables and they both exhibit the same beahviour. I won't know if there might be something untoward with the DVI output on the Q4K card until I pickup the DP->DVI adapters. I have read of others having issues with their DP outputs on their Q4K cards but not on the DVI port so hopefully I don't have a case of the opposite. If my DP ports are no good, well, the culprit is most llikely the card. If on the other hand the DP outputs are fine, then I won't sweat it further since I don't need the DVI port. I intend to pickup some higher res monitors and I was wondering if it would be best for them to have DP or HDMI connectors. I suppose DP should keep things native but HDMI seems to be more common. In principle DP cables should minimize any potential problems with adapters (have read about that too) so I'll aim for that.

You are right in that the monitor doesn't hand shake with the OS but the nVidia driver recognizes them well and they are being refreshed at 60 Hz as they should. I'll see if there is a W10 (or even earlier) driver for the monitors but I have never had or seen any advantage from having those installed over the years of Windows versions. Mind you, I did see some reference to 75 Hz somewhere in the nVidia control panels (60 Hz elsewhere) so I'll take a second look at that - thanks.

The HP Dreamcolour monitors were discussed earlier but I believe you mentioned there were "probems" with them. Should I stick to another brand? If so, what is known to be good and stable? The card is supposed to be able to deliver dual 2560 x 1600 @ 60 Hz on the DP outputs. I'd rather head in that direction than dual 1920 x 1080 since Resolve eats up all the resolution it can get. I can manage with smaller font sizes in Symphony.

Thanks for your ongoing exchange.

David

doxilia:

The HP Dreamcolour monitors were discussed earlier but I believe you mentioned there were "probems" with them. Should I stick to another brand? If so, what is known to be good and stable? The card is supposed to be able to deliver dual 2560 x 1600 @ 60 Hz on the DP outputs. I'd rather head in that direction than dual 1920 x 1080 since Resolve eats up all the resolution it can get. I can manage with smaller font sizes in Symphony.

The new Dreamcolor monitors have had mixed reviews. Some have been very positive but others have complained about backlight leakage and sharpening issues in certain configurations. Have a look at the link in my earlier post.The discussion stops around the end of last year, so I don't know if all these issues have now been fixed by HP. With NAB underway, may we see a new HP monitor?

I was assuming the Dreamcolor discussion was for it's use as an external reference monitor, but you seem to be suggesting using it as your PC display. I'm sure it's more than adequate for this use, but most people buy this sort of monitor with the intention of using it for critical colour work, due to their claims to be able to accurately display Rec 709 colour spaces. Dispite what the HP blurb might suggest, some Colourists regard these 'lower' priced monitors as barely adequate for professional work.  If you have thousands to spend, then of course you would opt for a Flanders or even a Sony OLED, but for those on smaller budgets, it's a case of compromise and trying to get the most 'bang for your buck'. At present, alternatives to the HP monitors are the Eizo Coloredge range or even the new Benq PV3200PT, which is very keenly priced.

I have one of the original HP Dreamcolor monitors which has been used as a client monitor, and I've recently been profiling my monitors just to see how colour-accurate they are. As I suspected, the HP's green component has dropped off substantially over the years. Although I can correct this by generating a monitor LUT for use in Resolve, this isn't an ideal situation, as the LUT is having to 'stretch out' certain points within the colour space which may lead to visible colour banding issues in those areas.

Bruno

Bruno(and others),

to conclude the chapter on the 8600, I'm happy to report that after a few rounds of hardware troubleshooting, it is now working flawlessly on a replaced Q4K given the first one I picked up was (also) defective. Fortunately, the fellow who sold it to me (through eBay) is local (I chose him for that) and was kind enough to come by with a replacement card and even left me a couple of nice HP DP->DVI adapters. I have been working on it on a 4K XAVC FS7 shot project with no complaints. The system with its 24 GB of RAM in tandem with my 4-way RAID-0 8 TB array is delivering dual stream compressed 4K without issues. In short, I'd like to thank everyone for your assistance with this successful resucitation project.

Switching gears and going back to the new Z840 system, we are now at a stage where we're replacing the Nitris DX (HD only) box with a 4K capable unit. The main question is whether we should replace it with the Avid Artist DNXIO:

http://www.avid.com/products/artist-dnxio

which I understand is essentially a (partially) Avid branded BMD Ultrastudio 4K Extreme or with the newly released 4K Extreme 3 (E3). I understand the difference from a support standpoint (and who'd you'd call if needed) but more importantly, I'd like to make the smarter purchase for long term longevity of the IO box. Is the doubling of bandwidth of the E3 worth going with BMD or is it better to stay with Avid (and their support) and get the DNXIO?

I also understand that Avid has put a "hardware DNXHR" encoder into their box but I'm wondering if this is of any benefit to our workflow. Does the encoder assist on playack for multiple streams of DNXHR or is it essentially useful for the capture of 4K media via SDI/HDMI? The latter is of little use to our workflow but if the encoder assists in multistream 4K playack as well as in DNXHR transcode, then the Artist IO seems like the more sensible alternative.

I suppose the obvious next question is whether the BMD E3 will become Avid's next IO box and if so, when? I presume if so, it would also include the encoder as the Avid boxes are priced higher than the BMD branded boxes.

On a related subject of IO, we're also going to need a 4K "client" monitor (i.e., attached to the box) and after having read about the available options, it seems we're currently in a time of compromise. Obtaining a sub $2K monitor with HDMI 2.0 (4K@60Hz), full 4K (not UHD) and proper colour rendition (ideally Adobe RGB as well as P3) seems unattainable presently. It seems it's a pick 2 of 3 situtation at the moment where one can purchase a decent colour calibratable monitor at full 4K but only at 30 Hz (HDMI 1.4) (e.g., the LG 31MU97-B) or an HDMI 2.0 monitor but only at UHD (e.g., the Dell UP3216Q, BenQ PV3200PT [not sure if this is indeed HDMI 2.0] or the HP Z32x).

Thoughts?

TIA, David

doxilia:

I also understand that Avid has put a "hardware DNXHR" encoder into their box but I'm wondering if this is of any benefit to our workflow. Does the encoder assist on playack for multiple streams of DNXHR or is it essentially useful for the capture of 4K media via SDI/HDMI?

As far as I understand it, the DNXHR hardware is only useful if you're ingesting from an external source (tape or disk based) or in some live situation. Most of us are getting our footage as file based, so the Avid DNXIO is just an expensive break-out box. Seems to me if you really need all those pro connections, you may as well get the Blackmagic version. Otherwise, save yourself some money and get one of Blackmagic's cheaper options. I have a Decklink SDI 4K in an HP workstation and it works fine with Avid, Resolve, AE etc. Technology changes so quickly these days that whatever you buy is going to be outdated and overpiced within six months!

doxilia:

On a related subject of IO, we're also going to need a 4K "client" monitor (i.e., attached to the box) and after having read about the available options, it seems we're currently in a time of compromise.

I'm in a similar state of mind concerning a suitable 4K replacement for my current HD tube monitors and (original) dreamcolor display. Unless you can afford to spend the sort of money required for a Flanders or Sony OLED, compromise is the name of the game. My thinking is going something like this...

1) I must be able to calibrate the monitor, so that rules out the LG 31MU97

2) The Dell seems good value, but reviews have complained about the quality of the panels, with uniformity across the screen being a problem. Also, the Dell profiling software seems to introduce banding issues.

3) The Dreamcolor Z27x has also come in for a little criticism concerning it's uniformity and light bleed, but I think this has improved with the latest batch of monitors. The Z27x isn't a full UHD  display - you can input UHD, but it will either resize or you can view a portion of the entire image with 1:1 pixel mapping. It does have it's own calibration engine built-in, which will take a variety of professional probes. or will talk to Calman software (over USB) to provide a professional calibration solution.

4) The Z32x is pretty new and I don't have a lot of info about it. Some reports about it having inferior contrast to the Z27x.

5) The BenQ PV3200PT is also quite new and in-depth user reviews don't seem to exist. Don't know much about it's calibration options as this is something that manufacturers don't seem too keen to explain.

6) The Eizo Coloredge CG248-4K has had good reviews. Full UHD monitor with it's own pop-up probe for quick calibration. 100% Rec 709 and 93% DCI gamut and the ability to interface with external calibration software makes this a favourite.

So, my current choices for a rough $2K budget would either be the Coloredge, or the Z27x (for the colour-critical work) with an additional, cheaper UHD monitor which could also be used as a client monitor.

Bruno