I don't understand how some can play on a large monitor like 27"or more.

S

Subzerok11

Gawd
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
550
I guess it depends on how far you sit from it also. But people who play with a large monitor at around 2 feet I don't how you do it. I currently have a GW2760HS it's a 27" @1080p I’ve had it for 8 months and it’s a great monitor but maybe not for me. See I sit about 2 feet from it and the PPI seems kinda low and also I think the monitor is just to big to use at 2 feet for me. When playing BF online I think the problem is I can’t take the whole image/screen at once without moving my eyeballs. Correct me if I’m wrong but my eyes should be fixed in the center of the screen and not have to move around to take everything in at once right ? at least that’s what I’ve been told before. Yes I could move the monitor back further but I feel that takes me out of the game a little. So I’m thinking if I have to move the monitor back then why even have a 27″ and I have should gotten a 24″.

So after making this thread I looked at the "Show Your LCD(s) setups!!!" thread at the top of the page and dam loads of people play with big screens like a 27" and many play just around 2 feet away like me. Maybe I just suck at BF3 games. But then again most people that are posting pics of theirs setups are probably just a small minority of PC gamers that have lots of disposable income and not representing the average PC gamers. Right or wrong ?
 
Last edited:
I sit about 2' from my 34" screen and I think it's fine. It's very immersive. My screen is the same height as your 27" but about 7" wider.
http://displaywars.com/27-inch-16x9-vs-34-inch-21x9
bf-hardline-setup.jpg
 
If you're 2 feet from it, you're WAYYY too close.

Preferred viewing distance is supposed to be 20-40 inches (with smaller monitors on the lower end and larger monitors on the upper end).

Move the monitor back a bit and sit back in your chair.

An additional 8-12 inches should help reduce eyestrain from sitting too close and should also stop you from picking out PPI defects so readily.
 
Chas said:
If you're 2 feet from it, you're WAYYY too close.

Preferred viewing distance is supposed to be 20-40 inches (with smaller monitors on the lower end and larger monitors on the upper end).

Move the monitor back a bit and sit back in your chair.

An additional 8-12 inches should help reduce eyestrain from sitting too close and should also stop you from picking out PPI defects so readily.
Click to expand...



I do have eyestrain somewhat, but that may be due to my brightness being to high. I've already reduced it to 40. But according to reviews of my monitor they had the brightness set at around 20.

If I have to move the monitor back then whats the point of getting a 27" ? I like being up on a monitor feeling immersed in the action. So if I push my 27" further back it won't feel as immersed anymore. Then if I get a 24" at 2 feet away then I'll probably be more immersed with it then a 27" further back, understand what I mean ?
 
I find that 27" 1080p has too low of a PPI for desktop use but for games, it shouldn't be too bad.
that is the main reason I went with 3440x1440 vs 2560x1080 for the 34.
 
Subzerok11 said:
I guess it depends on how far you sit from it also.
Click to expand...

This is a huge part of it. Also people's sensitivities.

There are people that sit 2-3 feet away from a 50 incher... I'd have my retinas bleeding if I tried to pull that. I couldn't do it.
 
Zepher said:
I find that 27" 1080p has too low of a PPI for desktop use but for games, it shouldn't be too bad.
that is the main reason I went with 3440x1440 vs 2560x1080 for the 34.
Click to expand...


I agree, though even if I had a 27"@1440p at 2 feet away I'd still probably have the same feeling about having it 2 feet away. I don't think it's about resolution it's more about the size of the monitor I believe.
 
Eh. I use 3 50 inch seikis. They're natively 4k but I run them at 1080p@120hz. I sit about 3 feet away and they're stunning. I also use a retina MacBook Pro, which as far as clean lines go, is much nicer.. But the motion clarity of 120hz on a big panel is much MUCH more appealing to the eyes. (IMO).
 
Subzerok11 said:
I do have eyestrain somewhat, but that may be due to my brightness being to high. I've already reduced it to 40. But according to reviews of my monitor they had the brightness set at around 20.

If I have to move the monitor back then whats the point of getting a 27" ? I like being up on a monitor feeling immersed in the action. So if I push my 27" further back it won't feel as immersed anymore. Then if I get a 24" at 2 feet away then I'll probably be more immersed with it then a 27" further back, understand what I mean ?
Click to expand...

If you're on a 15-17" monitor, 2 feet away isn't so bad.

But at 24-34", yeah, yeah it is.

You can still feel immersed without driving yourself blind and walleyed trying to take in the entire monitor. I'm talking 8-ish inches. Not half a freaking yard.
 
Chas said:
You can still feel immersed without driving yourself blind.
Click to expand...


I get no sense of immersion from my old ROG swift, nor from the Qnix before that, nor from the XL2720Z before that. The ultrawides were nice but 60HZ really detracts from enjoyment.

If i'm playing on a 27 inch (or less, ew) sized panel, its because its league of legends or something competitive. The thought of playing through something like the Witcher or Alan Wake on a 27 inch panel is laughable after using a 50 inch for so long. It just plain isn't enjoyable.. I suppose it would be like someone using an iPhone screen after using a 24 inch monitor... Yeah, the pixel density is great, but i am very aware of everything outside the screen too... thus rendering it a lame experience (IMO).. nothing about this conversation is objective at all.
 
Subzerok11 said:
When playing BF online I think the problem is I can’t take the whole image/screen at once without moving my eyeballs.
Click to expand...

Peripheral vision is a subtle thing, and I can tell you first-hand that you can lose ALL of it without noticing, if you lose it slowly enough. You may want to try this in a game with crosshairs at the center of the screen: stare at the crosshairs, and move your fingers around to see how far out towards the edge of the screen you can still see the fingers. The fingers need to be moving because that's how peripheral vision works, so wave your fingers while you do this. I do not know how far back a normal person needs to sit to see all of a 27" inch screen so I must defer to what others say about that.
 
Subzerok11 said:
Correct me if I’m wrong but my eyes should be fixed in the center of the screen and not have to move around to take everything in at once right ?
Click to expand...
That's really personal preference rather than being "right" or "wrong".
I prefer to sit close to a big screen and turn up the FoV. The central portion of the screen can cover the same FoV as a smaller monitor.
I find the experience much more immersive when the screen is covering a portion of my peripheral vision instead of only seeing a small box in the center of my vision.
I guess that's the appeal of ultrawide monitors and multi-screen setups as well, just taking it to more of an extreme. But I generally find most of those setups to focus too much on width rather than height.

I don't think there's anything wrong with preferring smaller panels though. I'd certainly prefer that I had a much higher pixel density, and a 22" 4K or 29.5" 5K would be ideal. I just think I would find it difficult to spend a premium on something that size after my current 46" screen.
I think the ideal for me would be something around 44" with an 8K resolution.
 
I feel like this falls into the whole personal preference. I'm at 27" 1440p, and I'm about hop on the Samsung 48" 4k curved train. I honestly don't know how well I'll handle the change, but I am rather excited to see if its awesome!
 
The current phase is bigger is better I'm waiting on a 1440P monitor for gaming with Gsync in the 24" range.... it might never happen

I think people who wear glasses like me view the screen differently then those who don't so you have to move both your eyes and head to view the screen due to the nature of the glasses you wear.
 
trueplaya4ever8 said:
I feel like this falls into the whole personal preference. I'm at 27" 1440p, and I'm about hop on the Samsung 48" 4k curved train. I honestly don't know how well I'll handle the change, but I am rather excited to see if its awesome!
Click to expand...

I don't know how anyone could play on less than a 30" monitor. I went from 3x30" Dell 3007WFP-HC's to 3x27" ROG Swifts to a Samsung 48" curved display. I couldn't be happier.
 
I think viewing Text on a big monitor is insane cause you focus on the text while taking on all this extra light so a big monitor is just good for gaming in short burst and not necessarly reading text on odds end which is the reason I use two monitors cause it doesn't feel the same writing 1/4 inch text on a monitor that is X10 times bigger then the text you are writing.

IN 2008 or so 24" monitor was HUGE you can see posts of people saying their CFL monitor is it going to be too big? They were asking that 7 years ago on different forums maybe here. Now 27" or larger is the new standard.....


I have to be like 5 feet away from a 27" to be useable otherwise my eyes just bind no blind they bind cause of the extra movement.
 
Comixbooks said:
I think viewing Text on a big monitor is insane cause you focus on the text while taking on all this extra light so a big monitor is just good for gaming in short burst and not necessarly reading text on odds end which is the reason I use two monitors cause it doesn't feel the same writing 1/4 inch text on a monitor that is X10 times bigger then the text you are writing.

I have to be like 5 feet away from a 27" to be useable otherwise my eyes just bind no blind they bind cause of the extra movement.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you need to turn down the brightness on your monitor.
 
Dan_D said:
I don't know how anyone could play on less than a 30" monitor. I went from 3x30" Dell 3007WFP-HC's to 3x27" ROG Swifts to a Samsung 48" curved display. I couldn't be happier.
Click to expand...

Which do you like better for gaming? 3x27" or the 48" curved? Think GTA V. How is that 48" curved for desktop use? Suitable at 3 feet away? That seems like it might be pretty sweet actually
 
rive22 said:
Which do you like better for gaming? 3x27" or the 48" curved? Think GTA V. How is that 48" curved for desktop use? Suitable at 3 feet away? That seems like it might be pretty sweet actually
Click to expand...

The 48" curved for sure.

Initially I went with the 3x27" monitors because the 3x30"s I had before that couldn't easily be used in portrait mode and I was looking to test the G-Sync waters. The 3x27" monitors had horrible color shift so I had to sit at odd angles but I liked it. I decided to jump on the 48" Samsung because it was roughly the same size as my 27's in portrait mode. The dot pitch was of course better on the 27's but the 48" Samsung is similar to my 30's for dot pitch.

Its fine for desktop use as well. In fact its great. I don't have irritating bezels or any bullshit configuration stuff to deal with in games. Shit just works.
 
Vesqwi said:
https://stari.co/app/uploads/viewing-distance-tv-monitor-hd-4k-2a9cf0725816d6c7-1280x720.png
Click to expand...
Most of these charts don't account for hyperacuity, and make the (wrong) assumption that resolution only needs to be high enough to resolve individual pixels.
The actual goal should be to create a display where you cannot perceive individual pixels.

Here is a chart based on actual research:
e2h0qorcbqnv.png


Now of course this takes the extreme position of creating a "perfect image" but you will see that there are clear improvements up to about 100 pixels per degree.

Most of these charts, especially that Carlton Bale chart which I hate, are based off 60 PPD.
So in the real world, the distances should be doubled for the point at which you start to hit diminishing returns. And it's diminishing returns beyond that, not an absolute limit.
 
zone74 said:
Here is a chart based on actual research:
(graph)
Click to expand...

I prefer to look at monitors from less than 5 feet, so I get the impression that this chart is only for watching video on a TV and is not meaningful for monitor use. Sanity check: gaming on a 24"-30" monitor and still being able to see the UI of a game. We are talking about gaming on monitors in this thread, aren't we?
 
The size of the display is the last thing I look at. If it doesn't have what I'm looking for in terms of other features then I don't care if it's a 40 inch or 60 inch or 100 inch display, I won't be using it. On the other hand if the perfect OLED display came out and had everything I could possibly want in a display, I wouldn't care if it was just a 15 inch sized screen, I will use it.
 
zone74 said:
Most of these charts don't account for hyperacuity, and make the (wrong) assumption that resolution only needs to be high enough to resolve individual pixels.
The actual goal should be to create a display where you cannot perceive individual pixels.

Here is a chart based on actual research:
e2h0qorcbqnv.png


Now of course this takes the extreme position of creating a "perfect image" but you will see that there are clear improvements up to about 100 pixels per degree.

Most of these charts, especially that Carlton Bale chart which I hate, are based off 60 PPD.
So in the real world, the distances should be doubled for the point at which you start to hit diminishing returns. And it's diminishing returns beyond that, not an absolute limit.
Click to expand...

You do realize that graph says that graph states that we should sit 15 feet from a 27 inch 4K screen...
 
Dan_D said:
I don't know how anyone could play on less than a 30" monitor. I went from 3x30" Dell 3007WFP-HC's to 3x27" ROG Swifts to a Samsung 48" curved display. I couldn't be happier.
Click to expand...

That TV input lag though. I'd have stuck with the 3 x ROG.
 
Not really sure if I put any weight into these graphs. It's ridiculous to think that the minimum distance between me and a 24" 1080p monitor has to be 3 feet.

So.. I guess 99% of the world is doing it wrong?

For my gaming experience personally, the further the display is, the less immersive it gets. I sometimes wish I had a bigger display than a 24", but I had a 30" before.

30" (U3011 is what I had) was too big for MOBA's/FPS/Anything that required precision and good awareness but good for single player RPG's and things that aren't more for sport than appreciation.

Now I use a 24" BenQ XL2420T and I hate the ICC profiles I have to switch around all the time and find it slightly too small.

Why isn't 25" IPS G-SYNC 1440/1080p a thing?

This all assuming I sit usually anywhere from 1.5 feet to 4 feet from my monitor. I don't like to wear glasses, mostly but as I get older, I might just give in.
 
Last edited:
KazeoHin said:
You do realize that graph says that graph states that we should sit 15 feet from a 27 inch 4K screen...
Click to expand...

You're lucky... It tells me to set about 35 feet away from my 34" 1080p monitor!!

Unless it means inches(which makes sense), it's wrong.
 
KazeoHin said:
You do realize that graph says that graph states that we should sit 15 feet from a 27 inch 4K screen...
Click to expand...
Good job reading the rest of my post.
The point is that this graph takes the other extreme, where the goal is to create a "perfect image" that is indistinguishable from reality, instead of most of the charts that people post to justify buying a 1080p TV in 2015, trying to claim that there's no point in UHD at all. (which is laughable)

When you actually read the important part of that image, the reality is that most of the charts people post on forums should have their distances doubled, since they are based around 60 PPD which only corresponds to about 40% "realness" based on the NHK's research.
100 PPD (nearly double the distance of the charts people post) gets you 90% "realness" of the image, and is the point at which we start to see diminishing returns.

But I'm not sure that I see the point in any of those viewing distance charts for anyone discussing PC monitors.
There is nothing high enough resolution on the market yet, that you wouldn't benefit from buying the highest resolution display that you can get.
The only reason to avoid a high resolution is if you want a specific size (e.g. no larger than 24") and don't want to use DPI scaling. If you don't use DPI scaling, increasing the resolution results in smaller items on-screen.
 
Chas said:
If you're on a 15-17" monitor, 2 feet away isn't so bad.

But at 24-34", yeah, yeah it is.

You can still feel immersed without driving yourself blind and walleyed trying to take in the entire monitor. I'm talking 8-ish inches. Not half a freaking yard.
Click to expand...

But the DPI on his 34" screen is probably higher than your typical 15-17" monitor, so...
 
zone74 said:
Good job reading the rest of my post.
The point is that this graph takes the other extreme, where the goal is to create a "perfect image" that is indistinguishable from reality, instead of most of the charts that people post to justify buying a 1080p TV in 2015, trying to claim that there's no point in UHD at all. (which is laughable)

When you actually read the important part of that image, the reality is that most of the charts people post on forums should have their distances doubled, since they are based around 60 PPD which only corresponds to about 40% "realness" based on the NHK's research.
100 PPD (nearly double the distance of the charts people post) gets you 90% "realness" of the image, and is the point at which we start to see diminishing returns.

But I'm not sure that I see the point in any of those viewing distance charts for anyone discussing PC monitors.
There is nothing high enough resolution on the market yet, that you wouldn't benefit from buying the highest resolution display that you can get.
The only reason to avoid a high resolution is if you want a specific size (e.g. no larger than 24") and don't want to use DPI scaling. If you don't use DPI scaling, increasing the resolution results in smaller items on-screen.
Click to expand...

Yeah those charts are pretty awful. I always post this as a counter point for people

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jsid.186/abstract
 
You know, I can honestly say I have never used a computer monitor that was only 1080p and that's from the late 80s to now
 
Romale23 said:
You know, I can honestly say I have never used a computer monitor that was only 1080p and that's from the late 80s to now
Click to expand...

Now I'm curious to know what you used in the 1990s that had a higher resolution than 1080p.
 
How far you should sit from a display is not a function of screen size, rather it's a function of pixel density.

I'm currently sitting about 2 feet from a 43" 4k(3840x2160) HDTV, which is about the right distance to sit from a 102 DPI display. I sat the same distance away from my 30" 2560x1600 101 DPI display. My 27" 2560x1440 109 DPI displays, I sat a bit closer to. I currently still have 2 of my 27" displays to the right and left of the 4k HDTV. They're out around 28 inches, and text is a bit small out there.

For productivity apps, the 43" monitor is a huge gain, mostly due to the extra vertical pixels.

For twitchy gaming, it's noticeably worse than a 23-27" display. In 90% of the games, HUDs are not within my central visual FOV, and I have to move my eyes, or even my head, to focus on them. This takes time, and in a twitch game, having to move your eyes/head to fully utilize the screen = slower reaction times = lower scores. Though it's not all a loss, to the extent you can modify the game's FOV, you gain a larger window into the world, and you can do target identification a bit further away, which is helpful in the more realistic friendly fire games.


To the original poster, as far as I'm concerned, a 27" 1080p 82 DPI display, is only for people that need reading glasses to comfortably read a book. I often spec hardware for friends and family members, and for older people or people that use reading glasses, I recommend 75-85 DPI displays, and they love them. People with 20/20 vision get a max of 24" at 1080p, and even that is starting to get a little big for such a low resolution.


And yes, it would be lovely to have 300-500DPI displays everywhere and software which fully supports them, and keeps HUDs near the center of your FOV no matter what the viewing area of the display is. But that is an alternate, possibly future, universe. (Macs are sort of in this universe with font/GUI rendering in productivity software.) In the universe we currently live in, pretty much all PC software is designed for 95-110 DPI at 18-24" viewing distance. And pretty much all twitch games suffer when 16:9 screen size exceeds 25-27" at a 20-24" viewing distance.


TLDR, if you think 1080p is plenty, and you have 20/20 vision, get a 20-24" monitor, unless you plan to sit 3+ feet away from it. If you want to go larger than 24" while still sitting 18-24" from the display, and you have 20/20 vision, then be sure to increase your resolution as your size increases, such that you keep your DPI in the 95-110 range. And pretty much no matter what, if you sit at 18-24 inches, and go beyond a 25-27" 16:9 screen, your performance in twitch games will decrease.
 
Dan_D said:
The 48" curved for sure.

Initially I went with the 3x27" monitors because the 3x30"s I had before that couldn't easily be used in portrait mode and I was looking to test the G-Sync waters. The 3x27" monitors had horrible color shift so I had to sit at odd angles but I liked it. I decided to jump on the 48" Samsung because it was roughly the same size as my 27's in portrait mode. The dot pitch was of course better on the 27's but the 48" Samsung is similar to my 30's for dot pitch.

Its fine for desktop use as well. In fact its great. I don't have irritating bezels or any bullshit configuration stuff to deal with in games. Shit just works.
Click to expand...

I think you totally sold me on my next screen. What I've been contemplating has been right in front of me the whole time. I can absolutely see this as being badass. :D
 
zone74 said:
Good job reading the rest of my post.
The point is that this graph takes the other extreme, where the goal is to create a "perfect image" that is indistinguishable from reality, instead of most of the charts that people post to justify buying a 1080p TV in 2015, trying to claim that there's no point in UHD at all. (which is laughable)

When you actually read the important part of that image, the reality is that most of the charts people post on forums should have their distances doubled, since they are based around 60 PPD which only corresponds to about 40% "realness" based on the NHK's research.
100 PPD (nearly double the distance of the charts people post) gets you 90% "realness" of the image, and is the point at which we start to see diminishing returns.

But I'm not sure that I see the point in any of those viewing distance charts for anyone discussing PC monitors.
There is nothing high enough resolution on the market yet, that you wouldn't benefit from buying the highest resolution display that you can get.
The only reason to avoid a high resolution is if you want a specific size (e.g. no larger than 24") and don't want to use DPI scaling. If you don't use DPI scaling, increasing the resolution results in smaller items on-screen.
Click to expand...

Theoretical science or not, I only believe this holds true for near distances (~3' viewing distance or less), since yeah, I can *definitely* see a difference in a 400ppi and 500ppi cellphone screen from less than 24" viewing distance, and this flies in the face of the "retina" concept of visual acuity threshold.

But I would bet large sums of money that the vast majority of the public would *never* pass a double blind test to determine their ability to differentiate between 1080p and UHD using a 45" TV at 35' viewing distance. I know for damn sure I could not, yet the chart shows that I should be able to distinguish even up to ~40'.
 
5150Joker said:
That TV input lag though. I'd have stuck with the 3 x ROG.
Click to expand...

No way. First off in game mode the Samsung 48" is no worse than the Dell 3007WFP-HC's I've used and enjoyed for years. Secondly the ROG Swifts suck ass in NV Surround. The ultra wide FOV doesn't work in some games. Technically I was pushing more than 4K of pixels which is extremely demanding performance wise. I wanted those for 3x27" Portrait setup and while the bezels didn't bother me in games so much they sucked for the desktop. Also, the vertical color shifting of those displays basically rendered them useless in that configuration unless you sat at horrible angles relative to your displays.

144Hz refresh rates and G-Sync was nice, but honestly I'd never go back to the ROG Swifts. What I've really always wanted was a single 40"+ display that could do better than 2560x1600 resolution, 60Hz at a minimum, eliminate IPS glow, ghosting, have good colors and have decent input lag. So far the Samsung 48" has delivered on everything I wanted. If I could have this size a display at 144Hz with G-Sync I'd get one. (Assuming it was remotely affordable.) Every display has its pros and cons as no perfect display really seems to exist. Right now I like what I've got out of my available options.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top