Would a 2560x1440 + 1440x900 side panels work / look good.

So I might go sli in the future and was wondering if this would work.

19" 1440x900 -- 27" 2560x1440 -- 19 1440:900

The 27" is a catleap that is 16:9, So would I need two 19" 1440x900 16:9 panels to go vertical. Could I use 19" lcd ultrasharps?

Combined I would be 3360x1400.

mount is on something like this

I was thinking about just going two 27" catleaps but i think i would rather having the two side panels. Would allow me to work on the middle panel and easily have things stuck to the sides.

Thoughts?

19"rs arr too big and those panels ate always tn panels, so portrait mode would be annoying with fhe terrible viewing angles. If you could maybe find one of those 15" monitors it could be done wwl. I think hp made some. They are tn, but I thinks its your best shot at plp. If it were me, id gwt two 1440p displays then save to buy a third (if you are trying to game that is).

I've done it with some monitor arms from monoprice. The TN shift is bad outside of a perfect angle, but they are fine for stuff like winamp media library/playlists, video playlists, download status bar boxes, chat windows, email apps, text documents, volume mixer, etc.
.
I moved the 19" ones back until they were "shrunk" from my point of view to match the 27" pretty closely. From a centered seating position they lined up pretty well perspective wise - but I found it impossible to capture how well they lined up in a photo.
.
Personally I would not be against putting oversized monitor(s), either a |= type setup or a || = || type setup.... with ips.
.
Currently I still have the 19" 1440x900 led backlit monitors between my 27" 2560x1440 and my 27" low response time 120hz input + high/very-high overdrive samsung TN. The 19" ers were only around $110 each , + the monitor arms.
.

This post I made in the eyefinity setups thread show more pics of my setups over the years..

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1038261935&postcount=677

yeah might have to do a little more searching.

Would not be for gaming. Mainly for work. I had dual screens and Im just not sure yet if im going to miss more than one screen. I did not like always having to look off center though with the dual screen setup. So if i added a monitor it would be two side monitors.

Problem is finding a 19" 1440x900 ips panel...

Or if you got a little creative, a couple of 15.4" 1440x900 laptop screens would be a pretty good match.

I find 900 pixels isn't enough to display most web pages properly, which is one of the most common uses I have for my side monitors.

Kueller said:

I find 900 pixels isn't enough to display most web pages properly, which is one of the most common uses I have for my side monitors.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip. That is what I was worried about..

The most important consideration when looking for portrait monitors to flank a landscape display is the pixel width of the monitor -- it needs to be at least 1050, 1080 is marginally better, and 1200 is safeish. Unless you plan on doing no web browsing on you portrait displays, you need to have enough width that you can view a standard web page with no horizontal scrolling.

Most websites are ~960 pixels wide. On a 900 pixel wide monitor, you will need to scroll horizontally on near every page you visit.

The 960 standard arose because, until last week, the most common worldwide monitor resolution was still 1024x768. As of last week, 1366x768 overtook 1024, at least by statcounters measure.

http://gs.statcounter.com/press/screen-resolution-alert-for-web-developers

For the next few years, 960 will probably remain the default horizontal width of websites. That standard will probably increase, though, as 1024 fades into the distance.

Offsetting that trend is mobile browsing, which isn't mature enough to really predict how it's going to impact desktop resolutions, and responsive design, which restructures sites based on the browser viewport. If responsive design really picks up, it might be possible to use <1050 monitors in portrait.

The second consideration is the pixel density, or pixels per inch. If a window spans across the border of the landscape display into a portrait monitor, you want the window it to be rendered at roughly the same physical size/appearance.

A 27" 2560x1440 monitor has 11845 pixels/square inch. A 20" 4:3 has 9989 px/in2, a 21.5" 1920x1080 has 10508 px/in2, a 22" 1680x1050 has 8107 px/in2, a 23" 1920x1080 has 9176 px/in2.

The third consideration is the physical appearance of the monitor, and how it matches the landscape. A 27" 16:9 monitor's longer side is 23.53 inches (59.8cm) and shorter side is 13.2 inches (33.6cm).

A 15.2" 16:9 monitor is 13.2 inches wide, and 7.44" tall. A 15.6" 16:10 monitor is 13.23" x 8.27". A 16.5" 4:3 monitor is 13.19" x 9.92". All measurements sans bezel.

In the abstract, the ideal portrait monitor for a 27" 2560x1440 would be a 16.5" 4:3 1440x1080 monitor. It would match in pixel density and height, while being wide enough for reasonable web browsing. It doesn't exist.

If you want to match pixel density, the closest you can get is either the 21.5" 1920x1080 monitor or the rare, but available 22" 1920x1200 (IBM has an old one, Eizo has a couple newer models).

cvgd said:

The most important consideration when looking for portrait monitors to flank a landscape display is the pixel width of the monitor -- it needs to be at least 1050, 1080 is marginally better, and 1200 is safeish. Unless you plan on doing no web browsing on you portrait displays, you need to have enough width that you can view a standard web page with no horizontal scrolling.

Most websites are ~960 pixels wide. On a 900 pixel wide monitor, you will need to scroll horizontally on near every page you visit.

The 960 standard arose because, until last week, the most common worldwide monitor resolution was still 1024x768. As of last week, 1366x768 overtook 1024, at least by statcounters measure.

http://gs.statcounter.com/press/screen-resolution-alert-for-web-developers

For the next few years, 960 will probably remain the default horizontal width of websites. That standard will probably increase, though, as 1024 fades into the distance.

Offsetting that trend is mobile browsing, which isn't mature enough to really predict how it's going to impact desktop resolutions, and responsive design, which restructures sites based on the browser viewport. If responsive design really picks up, it might be possible to use <1050 monitors in portrait.

The second consideration is the pixel density, or pixels per inch. If a window spans across the border of the landscape display into a portrait monitor, you want the window it to be rendered at roughly the same physical size/appearance.

A 27" 2560x1440 monitor has 11845 pixels/square inch. A 20" 4:3 has 9989 px/in2, a 21.5" 1920x1080 has 10508 px/in2, a 22" 1680x1050 has 8107 px/in2, a 23" 1920x1080 has 9176 px/in2.

The third consideration is the physical appearance of the monitor, and how it matches the landscape. A 27" 16:9 monitor's longer side is 23.53 inches (59.8cm) and shorter side is 13.2 inches (33.6cm).

A 15.2" 16:9 monitor is 13.2 inches wide, and 7.44" tall. A 15.6" 16:10 monitor is 13.23" x 8.27". A 16.5" 4:3 monitor is 13.19" x 9.92". All measurements sans bezel.

In the abstract, the ideal portrait monitor for a 27" 2560x1440 would be a 16.5" 4:3 1440x1080 monitor. It would match in pixel density and height, while being wide enough for reasonable web browsing. It doesn't exist.

If you want to match pixel density, the closest you can get is either the 21.5" 1920x1080 monitor or the rare, but available 22" 1920x1200 (IBM has an old one, Eizo has a couple newer models).

Click to expand...

Thanks for this great post! A lot of things I had not taken into consideration before this post.

What about resolution. I thought if it was a 2560x1440 monitor, you would need a 1440xsomething monitor so the resolutions would match.

Thanks again, new to this

Yes my pixel density and frame height "matches" because I set the portrait mode monitors back further on monitor arms, shrinking them to my viewpoint. Percieved ppi is relative to viewing distance - thats why large 1080p tv's with really bad ppi look fine at the proper distance. My side monitors are narrow at 900 but then I don't do any web browsing on them. They are for chat, volume mixer, winamp, music/vid playlists, download managers , progress meters, the odd text file, single pane file manager on occasion (I use a 3rd party one - directory opus). They are also useful for extra toolbox/history/modifier etc space in graphics suites as a sidebar workspace, which is one of the only times I actually span an application across to one of them.
.
For web browsing I use my 2560x1440, which is actually too wide for most web pages. I typically keep the web browser on one side of the screen, and either a 2nd web browser or a dual pane file manager on the other side of the screen.. unless I'm viewing a web page with very large photos/pictures of renders on it of course.
.
Another reason web browsers might appear more thin is that I use adblock plus and noscript, and part of the width of many web pages is just advertising frames that are omitted on my browser. As mentioned by the prev poster,mobile devices do fine on web pages with their zoom functions. I sometimes turn my 1280x800 tablet sideways in portrait mode and have no problems on most pages. But again, I don't use my side monitors at my desk for full web browsing sessions or gaming.. they are sidebars for every other type of window.. mainly chat, volume mixer, playlists, and every install download or misc progress meter/interface of any kind. I keep all that stuff to a single one if I'm using the other as extra tool space for a graphics app, so two is still useful - but I could prob get away with just one sidebar.



Since I have a dual gpu, games have to be run fullscreen to use both gpus. Alt-tabbing works but in general when gaming a lot of the other monitors go to waste as far as interacting with them. I'm prob going to eventually run my most recently upgraded-from pc on the 2560x1440 + side monitors with their own keyboard and mouse, and keep my gaming monitor and machine separate.

20"-30"-20" PLP make for a more accurate PPI match, plus the wing monitors are 1200x1600 which is perfect for web pages and documents. Granted 30" monitors are very expensive, but there are good 20" IPS monitors like the Dell 2007FP which would make the PLP experience far better for you.

elvn said:

I'm prob going to eventually run my most recently upgraded-from pc on the 2560x1440 + side monitors with their own keyboard and mouse, and keep my gaming monitor and machine separate.

Click to expand...

Try running synergy server on the primary games machine, then the client on the machine running the side monitors. Then you'll be able to use your existing keyboard and mouse, and just hit scroll lock to free the mouse from the middle screen. This way you can keep a full screen game running, and quickly mouse over to do something else like chat etc.

Thanks. I've heard about that before but haven't tried it, and up until recently didn't have a second pc that was applicable to such a setup. Even now on my large 3-panel desk I use an ergo4k and a non-gaming mouse on the 2560x1440 side of the desk, but the synergy setup could come in handy when at the gaming monitor and gaming keyboard I suppose. Otherwise its not more than a shrug+turn of a chair roll to the left to get to the other "station". Synergy could come in handy depending what my future setup will be or what I am running on the desktop/app dedicated pc at any given time so its always good to have options.
.
As for 30", I am one who dislikes heavy AG so I decided against the scaler-less hpzr30w I had in the running a year ago and chose a glossy 27". The korean 27" 2560x monitor deal wasn't around then or I would have saved some cash. I like the high ppi and its resultant size (would have been too large at lower ppi imo), and the lush glossy with my desk set out from a corner - my back facing the corner and all room lamps and windows behind the backs of the monitors. I really wouldn't be against mixed monitors personally either. L's or "ears" , tiling the monitors if I had to. I depends what you are doing on the side monitors. With windows 7 its easy to drag a window to the top of a screen and full screen it, so the border limits of a window when crossing to the sidebar monitor doesn't really come into play in the same way it used to. That is, you don't have to manually resize. Personally most of the stuff I use on the sides are readouts, progress bars, playlists, chat windows, and a text file here or there.. and extra toolspace in graphics suites -- so I don't feel limited with them being side "bars" rather than full fledged side monitors. I wouldn't even be against adding a few small usb monitors if they had some rez and priced well enough, just for extra readouts.
.
Here are some rough pixel densities at a glance just to get an idea.. just remember that perceived ppi is relative to viewing distance - so after taking the baseline ppi, the pixels will look larger closer, and smaller the further away. I exploited that on my side monitors to make them align better and match the percieved ppi to my central 2560x1440 pretty well.

Pixel densities

4.3"....................960 x 540.........256.15 ppi.....0.0992 mm <- phone

(LG Quad full HD)
26.5"................3840 x 2160.......166.26 ppi ....0.1528 mm <-- 166ppi quoted resolves to 26.5"
27"...................3840 x 2160.......163.18 ppi.....0.1557 mm <-- may not be viewable size if ppi quote is accurate

10.1"................1280 x 800.........146.55 ppi....0.1783 mm <- tablet
32"....................3840x2160........140 ppi.............................<-- a possible QFHD monitor
17"...................1920 x 1080.......129.58 ppi....0.1960 mm <-- laptop

22.5" (24")........2304 x 1440.......118.13 ppi....0.2150 mm <--- FW900 widescreen CRT max rez 22.5" viewable (80hz) ..
27"...................2560 x 1440.......108.8 ppi....0.2335 mm
30"...................2560 x 1600.......100.6 ppi....0.2524 mm

22"...................1920 x 1080........100.132 ppi..0.2530 mm
20.1"................1680 x 1050..........98.4 ppi ..0.258 mm

23"...................1920 x 1080.........95.78 ppi....0.2652 mm <-- 60hz/120hz 24"...................1920 x 1200.........94.3 ppi....0.2692 mm

24"...................1920 x 1080..........91.8 ppi....0.2767 mm
19"...................1440 x 900...........89.37 ppi....0.2842 mm
27.5"(28")........1920 x 1200..........82.33 ppi....0.3085 mm
27"...................1920 x 1080.........81.59 ppi....0.3113 mm <-- 60hz / 120hz panels

could always do something like this. korean 2560x1440 in the middle

http://cdn.overclock.net/1/1c/1c18e46d_DSC_0154.jpeg

elvn said:

could always do something like this. korean 2560x1440 in the middle

http://cdn.overclock.net/1/1c/1c18e46d_DSC_0154.jpeg

Click to expand...

Not too shaby. Thanks for all your help... I guess I'll just wait a while. My Catleap will be in tomorrow. So we'll see how one monitor works for awhile..

elvn said:

could always do something like this. korean 2560x1440 in the middle

http://cdn.overclock.net/1/1c/1c18e46d_DSC_0154.jpeg

Click to expand...

That's very similar to my setup. I have a PA271 in the center, with two f2380 in portrait.

its not my pic or setup, just something from one korean monitor thread or another I think that has been reposted. Lots of real estate... I like it. I use displayfustion to put a taskbar on each screen though so if i had that setup I might experiment with putting the taskbars on the tops of the screens so that the bar location would vary less.. idk though I might get used to it the regular bottom way too after awhile even with the bottoms of the sides being lower.
.
I have the 1440x900's on the sides of mine, set back a bit to 'shrink' them. They were only $110 each + the monitor arms from monoprice so weren't too bad for some sidebar space.

I resized it and hosted it on my web space so I can post it here without hotlinking..

I don't have the desk depth to set anything back, unfortunately. I'm working out of a temporary space in the bronx, and my portrait monitors hang perilously off the edge of my minuscule desk.

I keep my task bar docked on the left side of my landscape monitor. It makes the right monitor a bit unweildy, but I'm used to it after quite a few years.

I've mentioned this before, but the main problem I have with my current setup is that the f2380 monitors have the controls on the bottom, and their OEM stand is notched, so that you can't flip the monitors over. This leaves me with the controls on the left side of both portrait monitors, breaking the symmetry.

Aside from all the stuff I mentioned above, basic ergonomics -- stand stability and adjustibility -- matter a lot with portrait. The Samsungs wobble.

doug_7506 said:

So I might go sli in the future and was wondering if this would work.

19" 1440x900 -- 27" 2560x1440 -- 19 1440:900

The 27" is a catleap that is 16:9, So would I need two 19" 1440x900 16:9 panels to go vertical. Could I use 19" lcd ultrasharps?

Combined I would be 3360x1400.

mount is on something like this

I was thinking about just going two 27" catleaps but i think i would rather having the two side panels. Would allow me to work on the middle panel and easily have things stuck to the sides.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Not sure if it was mentioned already, but don't forget that as of yet sli/xfire doesn't work for PLP.