24, 27, 30, or 37"

Ok so I am looking at new monitors and have been reading threads left and right... My main questions is. I really like the 24" Gateway and Dell the resolution is great for my photoshop work 1920 x 1200, but it's a tad small. I DO NOT game, just Photoshop and web stuff.

I don't really want the Dell 30" because I believe I HAVE to run that thing with a really expensive vid card and dual link AND it's really only optimal at 2560 x 1600. That res is a little too much for me and everything is really small I THINk.

I am building a new NON gaming rig that costs about $600-700 and will be getting the 1650xt or the 7600gt cards for the monitor.

Now: Does the Apple Cinema 30" do what I want? Will the 27" be fine? I really like the screen size of bigger and the 37" westy is pretty damn big and it could be a TV, but 37 is just a bit tooo big. 32" might work I guess haven't looked.


Any thoughts?

Thanks
Ryan

37" inches seems big at first... but gets smaller the more your around it. I have a 37" Westinghouse and I am completely used to it now. Just make sure your more than 3.5-4 feet from it (I hung mine on the wall)

Can't beat the price, and the display is as crisp as any monitor half it's size.

If you don't game, why should you need a really expensive video card? 7600gt would do just fine. And even if you did, sure you can scale other resolutions with the 30" display too.

Also check out the 32" Sharp GP1U. There's a thread on it. More expensive than the Westinghouse though.

So I COULD use 1920 x 1200 on the 30" displays? Would it look as good as on the 24"?

I just don't want to go much higher as everything gets pretty dang small after that.

Thanks for the recs. I am leaning SLIGHTLY toward the 37"

Thanks
Ryan

You can get a dual-link DVI card for about $50. You could spend $600+ too, but you can get by with something minimal if you are not gaming with it. I've got the 30" dell and can play CS:Source with a 7900gtx at native res, and Supreme Commander on the 30" Dell AND my 1600x1200 21" Hitachi CRT off of the one card. (mind you, the SC has much of the eye candy turned off).

The 30" is a fabulous monitor as a daily driver for pushing code all day.

Get the 3007wfp along with your current 24" for godly multitasking. Make sure to get a dual dual-link dvi card. They won't be that expensive since you don't need it to play games.

vidoprof said:

Ok so I am looking at new monitors and have been reading threads left and right... My main questions is. I really like the 24" Gateway and Dell the resolution is great for my photoshop work 1920 x 1200, but it's a tad small. I DO NOT game, just Photoshop and web stuff.

Click to expand...

With this statement,I say get the westy 37"
Taking the cost of one into consideration (mine cost me just over $900 to the door, new) You cannot get a better screen in that size, for that price. There are better 37" screens.. but they are NOWHERE near that price.. and there are better $900 screens, but they are NOT 37inches.
a 1600pixel wide image on a 30" wide display (or whatever it is STRAIGHT across) is incredibly easy to work on. Yes, you can work on it 3-4 feet away, but, I work on digital images at 100% zoom and see almost everything.
Some minor mods I've made is that my icons and such in windows are set to the smaller size, so, that they aren't 1" wide

I threw out my back a month ago (for 2 weeks, I'm all better now) and with the 37" westy, I was still able to code, design, play games, and annoy fellow forum members) because I could work from bed. I could not do so with my 37" aquos (1280x720p or 1366x768) or my 30" dell (too small)

I don't really want the Dell 30" because I believe I HAVE to run that thing with a really expensive vid card and dual link AND it's really only optimal at 2560 x 1600. That res is a little too much for me and everything is really small I THINk.

Click to expand...

Technically, you do NOT need a "really expensive card" you just need a duallink card. I'm running my dell30" on a 1950 (or my 8800GTS, depending on what I've got my switch set to), but any duallink card should do. I am pretty sure my x800gto2 supports dual link.. You'll still suffer the performance limitations of having something like a 7300 or 1650, but if you don't game, you won't notice 3d performance slowdowns from running an otherwise "slow" 2560x1600 capable card. Photoshop doesn't require a lot of Frames per second, but your eyes will still thank you for not making them stare at an interlaced resolution (believe me, I can DEFINATELY tell when I fire up something on my aquos and it's 480i instead of 720p)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814195009
Duallink
3840x2400
$159.99

So, it supports well over DOUBLE the screen resolution (2560x1600 = 4 mp, 3840x2400 = 9.2 mp) with no problems, and does it on 128mb ram, so I'm sure ANY duallink capable card out there will work, as long as the driver supports 2560x1600

I am building a new NON gaming rig that costs about $600-700 and will be getting the 1650xt or the 7600gt cards for the monitor.

Click to expand...

I assume this doesn't include the cost of the display

Now: Does the Apple Cinema 30" do what I want?

Click to expand...

Functionally speaking, the apple 30" cinema display is NO DIFFERENT than the 30" dell. Both are 2560x1600 optimized, both are 30", both require duallink, and both USE THE SAME PANEL.
Besides.. you can get the dell 3007FPW (1249) + an 8800GTS (329) for the less than the cost of an apple cinema display all by itself. (1799)

Will the 27" be fine? I really like the screen size of bigger and the 37" westy is pretty damn big and it could be a TV, but 37 is just a bit tooo big. 32" might work I guess haven'tlooked.

Click to expand...

I have not looked at the 32" and such tv/monitors. Main reason, is that there are very few that are 1080p. If you are buying a "hybrid" screen, you MUST get a 1080p based one, because you WILL NOT be happy running 1920x1080i for your O/S, if you can even get the screen to do it.

Any thoughts?

Thanks
Ryan

Click to expand...

Yeah, it usually helps to tell us what you can afford to spend when we are making recommendations to you.

I have to agree, after reading this you definitely want the Westinghouse 37"

It's an amazing display and great for watching movies on too

vidoprof said:

So I COULD use 1920 x 1200 on the 30" displays? Would it look as good as on the 24"?

Click to expand...

Whatever display you get, I would highly recommend that you run run it at its native resolution. All fixed pixel displays look best this way. If the native resolution on the 30" displays is going to make everything appear too small for you tastes, you should get a lower resolution display. In your case, the 27" Dell may be a happy medium.

I'm surprised that the majority of replies recommend 37". To me your usage model pretty much points to a 30" because I assume you multitask a lot. A comfortably sized browser takes only about 1/4 of 30", but will take up about 1/2 of a 1920ish display. As for the pixel size of a 30", it's as big as a 20"

http://www.behardware.com/articles/658-1/lcd-tests-the-acer-and-dell-26-and-27.html

If you decide that the pixels are indeed too small, then just choose a monitor size based on how big you want your pixels to be. 24" and 27" have a bit more res. TVs are good for movies. All monitors have nice colors; I think 27" has the best colors.

I would recommend the Westy 37'' over anything. I bought it last fall after the ridiculously positive comments in the huge 1 million post Westy 37'' thread, and it's probably the best purchase I've ever made, for anything.

For gaming, it's unreal (I know you said you wouldn't, but just in case )
As a monitor, I like it more than my previous Dell 20'', 24'' or ACD 23''.
For an HDTV, the HD isn't up the level of the Sammy or anything, but neither is it's price.

For the size, performance, and utility, I'd get this thing over any other monitor out there. Period.

What good is a Westy 37" if it doesn't give any more resolution over the 24"? Wouldn't resolution > size in this case?

aznx said:

What good is a Westy 37" if it doesn't give any more resolution over the 24"? Wouldn't resolution > size in this case?

Click to expand...

There's a lot of good... like realizing that this whole time I've been looking at too small a font with my previous Dell 24".

How about this question, what's the point of squeezing obscenely small text and icons in a 24" monitor?

At first, I thought that getting a 37" would be a mistake because of the ZERO gain in workspace size.... but after 2 days playing with it, I realize that it's waaay more comfortable than using the 24". Text size is just right IMO, the icons are good sized... and when I switch over to gaming, it's GAME OVER, no pun intended.

aznx said:

What good is a Westy 37" if it doesn't give any more resolution over the 24"? Wouldn't resolution > size in this case?

Click to expand...

NO, is the short answer. Resolution WITH size is better than resolution WITHOUT size.

1920x1080, if that's the largest res you have, is better on a bigger screen. If the 42W2 or the 47W1 didn't suck, I would have bought one of them, instead. (The reviews I've seen put the second generation 42" and 1st generation 47" westy as nowhere near as good as the 3rd generation 37" westy)

I am looking forward to the TX series, to see what they have to offer.


Ok.
You've got a 37" screen with 1920 pixels of width vs a 24" screen with 1920 pixels of width.

That means that something that's 100 pixels wide will be larger (and therefore, easier to see) on the 37". The point of extra resolution is not to make everything smaller, the point of extra resolution is to fit more on one screen. 1920x1080 = ~2 megapixels of pixel data.
The larger pixels aren't so big that they are blocky (like running 800x600 on my 62" DLP) they are still VERY crisp. I think

For me, if I can see those 2 million pixels, clearly, crisply, from 5 feet away (enough to play an FPS, work in photoshop, work in dreamweaver, watch a dvd, that's great.

My 30" dell, which is *4* megapixel is -NOT- usable from 5 feet away (everything is too small too see), and since it doesn't properly support the hd-dvd, dvd, and bd resolutions (2560x1600 is not 16x9, it's 16x10) that my rig outputs (1080p) it doesn't even show movies correctly. I ALWAYS have either black bars, or distorted ("old karate movie") views..It's GREAT when I'm in windows and I've got it 1.5 feet from my face, (because if I go any further back, I can't see the detail) But, it effectively cost me 50% MORE than the westy37" (cost of screen + the duallink card I bought for it, even though I bought more than I needed, I spent ~$1700 for my dell3007fpw + video card) whereas I could run the westy on onboard video if I wanted to. (I did, in fact, do so, when my first 8800GTS failed on me)

I also found it much easier to calibrate my westy than I did the dell.

I went from a Sony FW900 24" CRT, to a Westinghouse 37". I run both at 1920x1080, take CyberDeus-RagDoll's word that resolution with size > resolution without size.

CyberDeus-RagDoll said:

....I am looking forward to the TX series, to see what they have to offer..... .

Click to expand...

Cyber, what are the specs, pricing, ship dates (from what you've read----or, your best educated-guess) for the new Westinghouse "TX" monitors?
Will there be a 37"? I'm in the market and really hot to hear something, anything, about the TX.
BTW, I too have the 30" Dell 3007FPW (cost me $1800 about 8 mos. ago) and agree with what you've said.

No question the 37 inch is the way to go.
A 27 inch is the same res as the 24, so it's out.

I came from a 21 inch 1600x1200 Samsung. Considered the upgrade to the 24, but it ended up being too small of an increase. Went up to a 37, now THAT felt like an upgrade, despite the same res.

24:
"Got a 24 inch"
"You bought another monitor?"
*visit*
"It's quite big"

37
"Got a 37 inch"
"Why do you need a 37 inch mon?"
*visit*
"WTF"

that's about the reaction I still get from friends. Res isn't everything. It's why people buy 60 inch TVs over a 42.

Zak said:

Cyber, what are the specs, pricing, ship dates (from what you've read----or, your best educated-guess) for the new Westinghouse "TX" monitors?
Will there be a 37"? I'm in the market and really hot to hear something, anything, about the TX.
BTW, I too have the 30" Dell 3007FPW (cost me $1800 about 8 mos. ago) and agree with what you've said.

Click to expand...

I don't know much about the TX series, unfortunately.
Here's what I do "know" (i qualify that, because, technically, everything is rumor)
42,47, and 52" will be the available sizes
all screens will be 1080p

Four HDMI ports, WITH ATSC/NTSC/ClearQAM tuner.
integrated cable management system
5000:1 contrast ratio (i'm not kidding)
8ms

42" = $1399 ($1999 msrp) shipping date? any day now
47" = ~$1700-$1900 retail price, ($2499 msrp) shipping date? figure 2 months or so
52" = ~$2499 ($3299 msrp) shipping date? end of year.

RaynQuist said:

A comfortably sized browser takes only about 1/4 of 30", but will take up about 1/2 of a 1920ish display.

Click to expand...

2560 / 4 = 640, 1600 / 4 = 400
1920 / 2 = 960, 1080 / 2 = 540

? WTF ?

Who runs their browser @ 640 x 400 ?

raynquist said:

As for the pixel size of a 30", it's as big as a 20"

Click to expand...

Which resolutions are you talking about on a 20" vs 30"?

1680 x 1050 vs 2560x1600 ? I hope thats what you mean, cause, if you are talking about 1600x1200 or 1920x1080 then you are wrong.

Your screenshot shows a comfortably sized browser taking up about half of your screen

and I was talking about 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 vs 2560x1600

vidoprof said:

So I COULD use 1920 x 1200 on the 30" displays? Would it look as good as on the 24"?

I just don't want to go much higher as everything gets pretty dang small after that.

Thanks for the recs. I am leaning SLIGHTLY toward the 37"

Thanks
Ryan

Click to expand...

1920x1200 is not a resolution I am able to set on my 3007FPW with either my 1950 or my 8800GTS
That may be a driver or card limitation, but it's not a selection available on my sliders,

Either way, it's a mistake to do even if it is possible, you are basically halving the resolution of the screen, which negates the reason for it in the first place. You can buy a "around 30" 1920x1080 for a LOT less than you can buy the 3007FPW
The only reason to buy the 3007fpw is because you'll be setting it to 2560x1600, anything else is a mistake.

$1400 for 1920x1200 @ 30" (and you'll still need the duallink card), and it won't show video correctly (black bars)
or
$950 for 1920 x 1080 @ 37" (no special card required) and it will show video correctly...

which seems smarter to you?

RaynQuist said:

Your screenshot shows a comfortably sized browser taking up about half of your screen

and I was talking about 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 vs 2560x1600

Click to expand...

That's because I shrunk it down to show the other stuff I normally run my browser fullscreen.
I notice how you selectively ignored the question about browsing @ 640x400? Hmm? Well?
'

http://www1.la.dell.com/content/products/compare.aspx/wide?c=vi&l=en&s=biz

Dell 3007 and 2007 have very close pixel pitch, but not identical.

But I would argue that all pixel pitches are within a certain range (0.2 to 0.4)

When you are 5 feet away, you can't tell the difference between .303 and .250

http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?d924daa11324140f18e9d3a54e2a903c

You'll notice that technically, the 3007fpw is crisper than the 20"
However, I can tell you FIRST HAND that having a 37" westy and a 30" dell, side by side, that although it may BE 3x the pixel data per square inch, you CANNOT determine that, visually.

Also, ONLY the westy utilizes full screen


37" is not so large that you lose quality when maintaining a resolution of 1920x1080

Yes, it might look like crap on a 65" display at 1.5 feet away (and, I think, would be impossible to see)
But, I think, for "desktop" use, you could go up to as far as 47" before you'd see a quality degradation. the 47" and 42" westy's that are out NOW have some banding problems, however (earlier generation product) so they aren't anywhere near as suitable for PC use as the 37". My mention of the TX line was that it is my belief that ALL those screens will be "PC" friendly, even the 52", but I can't say until I see them first hand.

I am, amongst other things, a graphics artist.
I am very picky about screens.



Lastly..
I gotta say, the 3007FPW feels a tad laggy to me when I did try video on it, but that could be of the upscaling of 480p, 720p, 1080p video to "1600p"

CyberDeus-RagDoll said:

That's because I shrunk it down to show the other stuff I normally run my browser fullscreen.
I notice how you selectively ignored the question about browsing @ 640x400? Hmm? Well?

Click to expand...

640x400 is 1/16 of 2560x1600
Your browser, taking up around half the screen, is about 960x1080, not 960x540
My argument was that most multitaskers want to keep as many windows visible as possible. With a browser taking up half the screen you can't fit much else. It's just something I wanted OP to consider. Of course some people have no problems with overlapping windows.

CyberDeus-RagDoll said:

When you are 5 feet away, you can't tell the difference between .303 and .250

You'll notice that technically, the 3007fpw is crisper than the 20"
However, I can tell you FIRST HAND that having a 37" westy and a 30" dell, side by side, that although it may BE 3x the pixel data per square inch, you CANNOT determine that, visually.

Also, ONLY the westy utilizes full screen


37" is not so large that you lose quality when maintaining a resolution of 1920x1080

.
.

Lastly..
I gotta say, the 3007FPW feels a tad laggy to me when I did try video on it, but that could be of the upscaling of 480p, 720p, 1080p video to "1600p"

Click to expand...

For pictures and videos I personally agree with you. Size is much more important than resolution. However OP didn't mention watching video on his monitor so I'm guessing it's probably unimportant to him. As far as photoshop goes, I'm no photoshop user, but I assume if you zoom in on pictures on a 30" it would be just as editable as on a 37".

Finally, size of texts, that's a personal preference. Big texts to me just means lower resolution, and I love my high resolution and non-overlapping windows.

if you use photoshop, you should get one w/ a low dot pitch, like 0.25 mm dot pitch. So the low res. 37" is out of the question. You want high res and low dot pitch. I vaguely recall the samsung 305T is 0.25mm, so that's the one i would go w/

Thanks guys for all the input. I just think that the 30" displays (now that I know I don't have to buy an expensive video card) are a great deal, BUT I still don't think that I want to spend too much time working in 2560x1600. I still think that it would be way too small for my tastes. I haven't seen it in person and I am trying to get over to the mall where they have one so I can actually see the resolution and how small things would be on it. I just liked 1920 x 1200 (or whatever the 24") was. I thought that was the perfect size to work in photoshop.

The westy is really close and everything is fine size wise, but it IS really big and well takes up a TON of space and a little overboard. I am leaning toward the 24" until I see the 30". I just still think (until i see it) that 2560x1600 is just too small with the icons and text and everything and I the browsers will be too small to read too.

Any other thoughts?

Thanks
Ryan

vidoprof said:

Thanks guys for all the input. I just think that the 30" displays (now that I know I don't have to buy an expensive video card) are a great deal, BUT I still don't think that I want to spend too much time working in 2560x1600. I still think that it would be way too small for my tastes. I haven't seen it in person and I am trying to get over to the mall where they have one so I can actually see the resolution and how small things would be on it. I just liked 1920 x 1200 (or whatever the 24") was. I thought that was the perfect size to work in photoshop.

The westy is really close and everything is fine size wise, but it IS really big and well takes up a TON of space and a little overboard. I am leaning toward the 24" until I see the 30". I just still think (until i see it) that 2560x1600 is just too small with the icons and text and everything and I the browsers will be too small to read too.

Any other thoughts?

Thanks
Ryan

Click to expand...

It shouldn't be that small. Icon size you can increase, Vista supports some big icons and I'm sure Photoshop would look fine as well. Plus you're looking at 30".

Well I guess what I really am asking and maybe I just don't know is. I am now on a 24" gateway (which is ok and not mine) and I had to resize the res to 1280 x 800 just so I can see the forums and read the text in my browser. The res at 1920 x 1200 makes everything SOO much smaller, especially the text in the browsers, so I can only imagine what the text and everything looks like at 2560 x 1600.

For Photoshop I change the res to 1920 x 1200 to be able to see better details and fit more on screen. I am just wondering what the difference between 1920 x 1200 on the 24" and 2560 x 1600 on the 30" would be working in Photoshop. I don't want it to be MUCH smaller than the size on the 24".

For browsing the web and stuff I could scale the 30" down and be ok with it.

Thanks again for all the comments they really are helping.

Ryan
O yeah. The 30" also don't have any other functionality other than being a monitor, so not that i PLAN on watching movies or anything but it's nice to have.

vidoprof said:

Well I guess what I really am asking and maybe I just don't know is. I am now on a 24" gateway (which is ok and not mine) and I had to resize the res to 1280 x 800 just so I can see the forums and read the text in my browser. The res at 1920 x 1200 makes everything SOO much smaller, especially the text in the browsers, so I can only imagine what the text and everything looks like at 2560 x 1600.

For Photoshop I change the res to 1920 x 1200 to be able to see better details and fit more on screen. I am just wondering what the difference between 1920 x 1200 on the 24" and 2560 x 1600 on the 30" would be working in Photoshop. I don't want it to be MUCH smaller than the size on the 24".

For browsing the web and stuff I could scale the 30" down and be ok with it.

Thanks again for all the comments they really are helping.

Ryan
O yeah. The 30" also don't have any other functionality other than being a monitor, so not that i PLAN on watching movies or anything but it's nice to have.

Click to expand...

Here's where you can try one out. Go to an Apple store, I THINK they have 30"ers around, but I'm not positive. Anyways, couldn't you increase the text size in browsers so you can see it better rather than scaling down? Ctrl-mousewheel down in FF increases the size of fonts and with ClearType on, it's pretty sharp. And do you use Vista or XP?

XP Pro. Don't plan on using Vista as it has NO benefit to me at all with what I do.

I have an Apple store across from work so I might check that out.

Ryan

vidoprof said:

XP Pro. Don't plan on using Vista as it has NO benefit to me at all with what I do.

I have an Apple store across from work so I might check that out.

Ryan

Click to expand...

It looks better. Anyways I think a 3D driven desktop might be better for you. ClearType also seems to work much better in Vista. SuperFetch + ReadyBoost with Photoshop CS3 is godly.