Is 23-24 inches still the sweet spot for most PC gamers ?

I'm asking cause, is it just me but a 27" even though with a 1440p res is just to big for up close viewing ?

I play around 2 feet away and when I tried the 27" 1440p it's still kinda to big, just like the 1080p 27" I have. Anybody agree with me ?

Also was it wrong of me to think that 1440p 27" would have been fine at 2 feet away, unlike a 27" 1080p 2 feet away ? I thought that increasing res I would be able to increase the size of the monitor to 27" and be fine with it at 2 feet away.

I think it's subjective. I'been using a 28", and I can't imagine being happy with anything smaller.

I am more than happy with my 27" and couldn't imagine going back to anything smaller.

It heavily depends on the resolution.

For example, 1080p 24" is the maximum I would go, 27" I can notice the lines between the pixels, and this has been true for all of the 27" 1080p I have seen.

1440p on the other hand is more tolerable at that screen size.

My own personal taste is, 1080p: 24" max, 1440p: up to 28", 4k: up to 30", anything larger than 30" or smaller than 22" are both no-nos. However I do have personal reason to not going for 4k.

chenw said:

It heavily depends on the resolution.

For example, 1080p 24" is the maximum I would go, 27" I can notice the lines between the pixels, and this has been true for all of the 27" 1080p I have seen.

1440p on the other hand is more tolerable at that screen size.

My own personal taste is, 1080p: 24" max, 1440p: up to 28", 4k: up to 30", anything larger than 30" or smaller than 22" are both no-nos. However I do have personal reason to not going for 4k.

Click to expand...

That's kind of a big gap in PPI. 1080p 24 inch ~95 ppi. 1440p 28 inch ~105 ppi. 4k 30 inch ~147 ppi. Unless monitors over 30 inch result in ergonomic problems then that's understandable. I've never used anything larger than 28 inch so I can't say.

Highly subjective. I use a 40" now and I can't imagine going back to something smaller. 27" monitors look like jokes.

But if you're the type who sits at the back of a movie theater, this won't work well for you.

It's personal opinion. I like 1080P at 24" or 1440P at 28", and I only say that because I feel like things are a little cramped at 27" -1440P. At a 2 feet viewing distance I have to turn my head to see the entire 27" screen, I didn't have to do that at 24". I'm not sure which I prefer.

MistaSparkul said:

That's kind of a big gap in PPI. 1080p 24 inch ~95 ppi. 1440p 28 inch ~105 ppi. 4k 30 inch ~147 ppi. Unless monitors over 30 inch result in ergonomic problems then that's understandable. I've never used anything larger than 28 inch so I can't say.

Click to expand...

It's not just the PPI, I generally do not like large screens because I am used to having to look down on a monitor, not up, which a large monitor would prevent me from doing (my sitting posture is that if I have my back straight and look directly forward, the top of the monitor bezel would be on my eye level, sometimes below if the monitor is small enough), which is the main reason for me to not use large monitors at sitting distance.

I have personally never used any screens larger than 27" either, and I only had passing glance at a 32" monitor when I was shopping at costco (which is the only place I can actually see >27" monitors on display in a store, pun intended).

4k on the other hand is a little more complicated, and probably off topic.

noobie me only discovered last night that DSR can ramp up my LG 22" full HD monitor to a faux 4K resolution and was laughing at how small the text was and games looked like regular 1080p settings anyway for example Witcher 3 set to 4k! (my eyes tells me) so I then realized why 27" is now the new 24" (formerly sweet spot for a bedroom TV/Monitor) cause at 27 - 32" at native 4k Resolution an be prepared to move your head a little bit cause of the display size and resolution, I also realized the difference between a LED TV and a Monitor, you can stick your face near to a monitor but a LED TV will poke your eyes out literally gives you all of that eye strain and fatigue so mind you, things will appear as normal as they would but I doubt 4K is so new, I might catch up after 2 years... so yeah
TLDR;

27" = 4K
24" = 1080p

depends on the distance between you and your monitor and what your goal is. from my experience, anything larger than 24" and you'll start missing things in-game. that's a no no if you're trying to be the best you can be. 27" is more fun, and you've got a lot of good monitors at this size, with lots of never before combined technology, like the XB270HU. i don't have any experience playing with anything larger than 27" so i don't have much of an opinion, but i think it would definitely be more fun the bigger your screen, not strictly "better." there are certain games, however, that i wouldn't play on anything bigger than 27". something like witcher 3 where i want to immerse myself? give me the biggest screen you've got. quake or league of legends? i'll stick with my 27", or 23" if i feel like trying really hard.

I use a 34 ultrawide which is the same height as a 27" 16:9, and I sit an arms length away from the screen and it's fine.

chenw said:

My own personal taste is, 1080p: 24" max, 1440p: up to 28", 4k: up to 30", anything larger than 30" or smaller than 22" are both no-nos. However I do have personal reason to not going for 4k.

Click to expand...

i do understand that this a personal statement. but i also understand that you are pulling numbers out of your $$, and most likely never used a 4k display as a PC monitor.

There is no such thing as a 30" 4k monitor. Even if there were one, it would be just as useless for desktop at native resolution as the 24", 27" 28' and 32" 4k are. The mainstream 32" 4k has a PPI too small for text reading without scaling.

All of the following size/resolution have the same PPI range of 109-111:
20" 1920x1080
25" 2560x1080
27" 2560x1440
34" 3440x1440
40" 3840x2160

Back to thread: i can not say much about 24" for gaming, since i do not use one for gaming since 2008. high refresh rate is perceived as more important than screen size for gamers, and usually higher resolution brings more detailed textures in games.

so the monitors with "27" 2560x1440 120-144Hz" are the sweet spot of PC gaming, until we have high refresh rate 34" 3440x1440" on market.

What do you mean by too big, OP? You feel like the screen takes up too much of your FOV? From the last part it sounds like you're talking about the pixels being too big, which shouldn't be the case because 1440p at 27" is way better than 1080p in 23 or 24".

dmonkey said:

What do you mean by too big, OP? You feel like the screen takes up too much of your FOV? From the last part it sounds like you're talking about the pixels being too big, which shouldn't be the case because 1440p at 27" is way better than 1080p in 23 or 24".

Click to expand...

I play around 2 feet away and when I tried the 27" 1440p it's still kinda to big, just like the 1080p 27" I have, when testing both. Size of the screen.

I think 27" is too big for desktop use I settled for 24" for gaming the higher resolution are pushing screen sizes bigger to compensate for the additional pixels which I think is the wrong way to go. Is 4k and 1440P the wave of the future.

If you had a 1080P screen with high pixel density but scaled the same I would want that.

there is another option now: 25" 1440p and 24" 1440p. there are threads [H]ere about the Dell U2515H and the P2416D. IMO the U2515H is the sweet spot for triple portrait setups, but since the OP is interested in gaming monitors, i stand behind my principles: it makes no sense purchase a gaming monitor in 2015 without a high refresh rate AND a strobing backlight.

Subzerok11 said:

I play around 2 feet away and when I tried the 27" 1440p it's still kinda to big, just like the 1080p 27" I have, when testing both. Size of the screen.

Click to expand...

27" at 2 ft away takes up around 52 degrees of your FOV, while 24" at 2 ft takes up 47 degrees. Not that big of a difference, and you've probably got your monitors slightly further than 2 feet back anyway. You just have to get used to it.

1440p is the way to go. Variable refresh rate is even better. If you still can I'd jump on both, it'll do wonders for your gaming experience. 1080p at 24" just doesn't cut it anymore IMO. Nothing sweet about it.

I prefer 23-28", but I've used 40".

Except for the aspect ratio, I even liked my 20" CRT.

geok1ng said:

There is no such thing as a 30" 4k monitor.

Click to expand...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898437-REG/Sony_30_PVM_X300_4K_TRIMASTER.html

A while ago I saw somebody in front of 24" 1200p monitor who instinctively moved his head towards the monitor to 1 feet or even less during intense Crysis moment. I suggest if you caught yourself doing that then the monitor is too small.

@A0S yes, the reference oled exists from sony, and i think a flanders. Besides that massive, out of the general consumer budget suggestion, and logic. Cause that is a reference display for video production... and were talking about gaming. where were not really motoring, but utilizing intense focus in an active area, in many cases, a set visual zone. Which is generally wholly different, because the actuation is faster and requires smaller constraints.... and less moving around viewpoints.

@Subzerok11:
I think it depends on what you are doing. It's scientific fact that there is a best area of visual operation. Im no pro, but i`ve read in numerous place, for best active area viewing, (data registration) is inbetween a 4:3 and 16:10 aspect ratio, the human active vision range for optimal operation in terms of shape, and just around you arm length away for consumption, maybe even closer.. give a little on the side or top for immersion and periphery.. Of course all the ultrawide fans and manufaturers dont talk about it, but for immersion.. you see more up and down, then you see side to side... ultrawide i think is an excuse to use uncut lcd 5:4 display assets, and conform to film standards, thought not necessarily for the better. notice the pixel pitch stays the same in the smaller ones.. Now, for periphery vision and immersion, it might be best to have a huge display in your face, so long as you are keeping the action in the area of visual performance.. and you dont mind having some overhead and some underhead, and set your fov for that.. not the other way around, Most wanna be gamers, and even longtime hardened verterans, seem clueless about the performance aspects of gaming.. and focus instead on keyboard backlight ability.. then again none of the so called gaming community is telling the consumer market... but most are not competing at a cut throat level, but are playing and participating for recreation.

My buddy has a huge honking display on his desk think almost 30". For reading most effectively he has kept the display within close range vision, the things up in his face, like a 12" vertical height display would be, eg: 21-22`crt or 24`1080p, in close range vision, but it`s much taller and wider, he cant see the fullscreen, or most of the sides, certainly not in the performance area, he moves back for gaming, and up closer for reading... I have to say, it cant be optimal.. sometimes i see him jerking his head around if he sits to close, i been there too.. Had he gone with a smaller display, for gaming, he wouldnt have to do the fancy dancey crap... and actually sitting farther back, yeah it`s kind of counter productive for operating. I found though, some trade off where if your playing an rts, im unsure if it`s easier for selecting units on a larger display..? but it might be slower too..

Then again this is not the case for everybody, not everybody works or reads on the computer, and needs to digest detailed information at a rapid pace, like an fps, or reading, with minimal effort every day. and might.. being lenient here, find some benefit in a large display farther back..

LArge screen can also be useful for monitoring multiple activity, to have many displays, or one large display, and to sit a bit farther away, and switch focus, either by eye or posture between the displays or visual sections. In this case it's often better to angle multiple displays, and switch focus quickly, than one large one i think. But this is for monitoring, not really intensive gaming. At 27" for gaming you have to sit farther back.. like you have been doing, moving out of your eye comfort range.. like millions of others... into slowness and pain, I just have some big ones now for presentations and occasional monitoring, but not detailed or fast paced work. But thats just me. For immersion i think it's fine, if you find a comfortable compormise, and work with adjustments, but it will cause you some annoyance side effects, with the blaring light and whatnot... and if ya dont pay attention to operating inside the ideal range. For competitive gaming i think the ideal desktop situation is with a 23-24" or 25" display, 16:9 or 16:10 is probably ideal, and or maybe superwide for horizontal immersion..... I dont know. I've done that too, with a 1280p ultra wide setup (1280x3072)debezzel 3*5:4, no mending. But lemme tell ya, right now im using one of my simple crt`s for a number of reasons. This thing just rocks the competition in so many ways.


Close range vision is best for reading, and ends at about an arms length.
http://www.extron.com/company/article.aspx?id=environconhumanfact&tab=technology
In the link you can see some set up this company is promoting, however, with the mutliple displays at the stations, you are meant to use one display at a time, and swtich focus between them, not use them all for one item. Maybe it will be best to move the display closer, and sacrifice actually seeing the sides, and zoom in the action area.
For photo editing you will have to ask someone who does so more then I, but in my experience it doesn't really make a difference. Infact, I much prefer to work on this crt then a 27" apple display I was using for awhile. I think quadhd was the class. The whole thing may have just been poorly calibrated, environment included.. It just seemed waaay to bright. I had to wear sunglassess to work the majority of time, like many others... probably a first gen led backlight... ... now they have special glasses just for this lcd purpose. 24" 16:10, 23", or 25" widescreen might be the best operating equipment for single focus work, on the desktop. The desktop is still key for operating performance for many of us in the general work, and gaming, environment. i wouldn't go any bigger than 27 inches for a single focus display, for tunnelvision gaming. The (1280x3072) i was rocking i think is the same height, but like a superwide version of your display.. with bezels.. should have mended but for why, i ditched. but im using my crt in the centre as my main for now. Definitely a plus getting the qhd i believe. I think a 23 or 24" 1440p is good.. and maybe even more useful than the "higher grade" and more exciting 27"... I still recommend you a crt. I been thinking of oneday buying a new 21" crt's being produced.. they look great, but are hard to get ahold of... i alreayd have all the lcd i need, i wont be buying another one. 4k i meaningless to me, i already have 1280p. basically 30 inch 1300p super wide, and i never use it maybe again oneday, and ièl do them mending.. but the new 21inch crt is more appealing to me. I think that 27`is pushing it for close range vision, for the tasks i spoke of. I remember straining many time in my life due to ergonomics. i think however, you will find very few ppl who think 27`displays are in error. On the other hand if your a but unsatisfied, i wouldnt doubt you have good reason to be. Most people wont acknowledge theyres a problem with their new display and will deny it. It`s a terrible feeling after making an investment, to find a product is in anyway falling short of expectation.. I find it funny how companies advertise the greatness of new products, but never mention in that advertising what will be given up. Like for example lcd and responsivness when they were first introduced, or led and pwm, they say they didnt know? They said 60hz was enough when we sacrificed 85 hz and 90hz, you can find posts by fan boys defending this, now they wanna sell us 120 hz cause it makes such a difference.. when the greatest difference owuld be in the 60-90hz differential. Did they tell us about how many colors we would loose going to 6bit+a-frc, did they tell us about the lessened view angles? did they tell us about proper use of a 1440p 27" display? I'd move it close and accept the loss of the sides and focus the action by zooming. And learn to live with it, or return it sir. Look at what various organizations trying to push on us, and the environment.. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/03/07/danger-lurking-compact-fluorescent-light-bulbs/ How many of these are bought and sold nowadays.. for what reason, to be greeen? I don't think so. the only thing green about it is the color of the badge someones gonna give ya. Same thign with the led lcd push, only green thing about it is the badge.

28" is just barely enough but 30" is even better.

Where the FUCK are the 30" G-Sync and Freesync monitors? This is bullshit.

The display industry just absolutely sucks.

I will say this, after using the 34" ultrawide, my 23" monitors seem really really small now.
The 34 was overwhelming large when I first got it, but after using it for a few days it feels great.
I personally don't think I will ever go back to a 16:9 monitor as a main screen after using 21:9 for the past 7 months.

I think this is about as close to individual preference as it gets. My first LCD was 24" 1920x1200. A few years later, I jumped to a 30" 2560x1600. It died prematurely, so I went with a 27" 2560x1440. The 27" seemed really small after using the 30". I'm now on a 40" 4K TV and am in love. Gaming on this beauty is sublime.

are you operating from a couch then i take it, or a command centre? Probably a couch im guessing. Maybe im overstepping.. Guessing can be a bad habit.. I think the sweetspot, though some ppl will say it's too small, it's probably like you suspect, in the 24" range for a single task, operating at efficiency, for competitive gaming. But thats, apparently, not what the majority wants to buy. I think you arnt unlucky, you got the big 27" 1080p for your video watching, and the 1440p you can learn to live with, hopefully for many tasks, certainly better than a 40" tv. There are some advantages to go with disavantages of that size too.. Desktop warrior, make some adjustments go own some couch potatoes. Or make your return. I hope you got a good backlight. But anyone trying to read text on a 40 inch screen is being counter productive, at any distance, in terms of reading productivity. There are a number of ppl who concur with this in different ways in this thread you've created.

Everyone who cant stand it that small, doesnt know what they are doing. Unfortunately money talks, and what may be the ideal size will get shafted if it will please the majority. Same old story.

The bigger the better.

Zepher said:

I use a 34 ultrawide which is the same height as a 27" 16:9, and I sit an arms length away from the screen and it's fine.

Click to expand...

whoah nice setup, which type of mini keyboard you are using for FPS paired with that mouse? forgive my ignorance.

jcagara08 said:

whoah nice setup, which type of mini keyboard you are using for FPS paired with that mouse? forgive my ignorance.

Click to expand...

Logitech G13

Ya, that is the Logitech G13, really cool controller for FPS games. I used to use a Nostromo N52 but switched to this when it came out.

I have my first one on my old machine which is now used mainly as a file server, but is still setup so if I want to play on it I can,

Jacorby said:

are you operating from a couch then i take it, or a command centre? Probably a couch im guessing. Maybe im overstepping.. Guessing can be a bad habit.. I think the sweetspot, though some ppl will say it's too small, it's probably like you suspect, in the 24" range for a single task, operating at efficiency, for competitive gaming. But thats, apparently, not what the majority wants to buy. I think you arnt unlucky, you got the big 27" 1080p for your video watching, and the 1440p you can learn to live with, hopefully for many tasks, certainly better than a 40" tv. There are some advantages to go with disavantages of that size too.. Desktop warrior, make some adjustments go own some couch potatoes. Or make your return. I hope you got a good backlight. But anyone trying to read text on a 40 inch screen is being counter productive, at any distance, in terms of reading productivity. There are a number of ppl who concur with this in different ways in this thread you've created.

Everyone who cant stand it that small, doesnt know what they are doing. Unfortunately money talks, and what may be the ideal size will get shafted if it will please the majority. Same old story.

Click to expand...

Nah, you don't know what you're doing m8. As I demonstrated, the FOV difference between a 24" screen and a 27" screen at the same distance is less than 10%. The larger and more detailed focus area given in your diagram makes up for any disadvantage you might get from peripheral HUD elements literally being marginalized. Bigger is better, up to a point. 27" doesn't overextend that point.

34" 3440 x 1440 wide screen user here. After getting used to this, I will not go any smaller. Ever. My next monitor will be the upcoming Acer 3440 x 1440 IPS to pick up an extra 15hz (its likely speced at 75hz with rumors floating around that it might emerge as 100z) and to pick up g-sync to hopefully eliminate the tearing i get in in RTS games like Red Dragon when panning the map.

Once big (40"+) 4Ks stat coming with >60 hz + g-sync I will likely switch to them.

I have one gamer buddy (the poorest of our TS server) who is stilling using a 24" 1080p but everyone else on our server is using 1440p (though I don't know what size) and one is using 27" 4K. I'm the only 34" 3440 x 1440 guy.

27" is the sweet spot for me from where I sit which is arm's length. I think a 30+ would be a little too big. Haven't tried a 34" 21:9 tho so that could possibly work too but right now my 27 fills up my vision just fine for immersion and I don't have to move my head at all to view everything.

What do you think of your 2720z after owning it for a bit Macleod? Its currently $420 and I am coming from a QX2710 PLS panel but its just so damn slow for FPS gaming. I am very afraid of the visual quality though. I love my sons XL2411z for gaming, but it just does not look nearly as nice.

Might have to bite the bullet and grab a 144hz IPS.

doz said:

What do you think of your 2720z after owning it for a bit Macleod? Its currently $420 and I am coming from a QX2710 PLS panel but its just so damn slow for FPS gaming. I am very afraid of the visual quality though. I love my sons XL2411z for gaming, but it just does not look nearly as nice.

Might have to bite the bullet and grab a 144hz IPS.

Click to expand...

So far I love it! I never paid much attention to the 144 Hz claims but man after experiencing it I could never go back. The menu controller is awesome and makes it a breeze to flip thru the settings and tweak on things. Its a little bright though. My PC room is fairly dim so sometimes when I first sit down the brightness makes me squint at first. The overall image quality is very good IMO. Its only slightly behind that excellent HP 25" I was coming from but it had a glossy screen so Im sure that helped a lot. The colors are better on this one but the blacks or "pop" was better on the HP.

The build quality seems very good. The monitor feels sturdy and nothing feels or looks cheap or flimsy. I had zero dead/stuck pixels and this thing has worked like a charm since day 1.

The only downside is there are a lot more games than I thought with 60 fps caps on them. So thats kind of a pain but I play a ton of Borderlands 2 co-op with my kid and it looks outstanding! All the cool colors that game has and it was totally night and day going from 60 to 144 Hz on it. The more demanding games though like Crysis 3 or whatever are kind of a problem. I want the eye candy but I also want those high frame rates. For the first time ever Im actually turning down settings that I dont need to turn down in order to get higher rates.

The resolution is nice because it makes for an easier load on the GPU which means higher frame rates which is the point. I do have to admit though that I noticed a few jagged lines here and there when I first got it coming from a 1080 25" with a higher pixel density. It wasnt enough to bother me really though and now that Ive had this thing a few months I dont notice them at all.

But yeah, Im extremely happy with this thing. Screen brightness, less pop compared to my old glossy monitor and the jaggies were really the only gripes I could come up with but the gaming performance more than makes up for them. Youve still got extremely good picture quality so long as youre not coming from a higher end IPS or VA panel.

One thing on the PQ tho, get some profiles from different reviews because the out of the box settings look like ass. These are my current settings:

Brightness = 70
Contrast = 45
Low Blue Light = 0
Blur Reduction = Off
Color Temp = Normal (no matter what settings I tried, Normal always looked slightly better)
AMA = High
Instant Mode = On
Sharpness = 6
Gamma = 5

Ok thanks... So much easier to kill in CS:GO with 144hz Need to do something. Am on the fence about stuff. I may just go with the 24" XL model and get IPS 144hz later down the road when they become a bit more refined.

dmonkey said:

Nah, you don't know what you're doing m8. As I demonstrated, the FOV difference between a 24" screen and a 27" screen at the same distance is less than 10%. The larger and more detailed focus area given in your diagram makes up for any disadvantage you might get from peripheral HUD elements literally being marginalized. Bigger is better, up to a point. 27" doesn't overextend that point.

Click to expand...

Listen DMonkey, Were here to share information, opinions and discuss, I think, and not attack one another with insults. Instead of claiming I don't know what I'm doing, it would be kinder, and maybe a little more acceptable, in any related circumstance, to say "maybe you don't know what your doing m8". Maybe, allows for reservations, in the case that you yourself might be wrong.. This way there no way your statement would necessarily come of as a "my opinion is greater than yours" confrontation, which maybe overbearing.. Then I can respond to ya effectively too, instead of like this. . That is how you do a forum. Saying someone doesn't know what theyre doing, is not only considered by many rude, backwards (myself, and another verified), it is a fairly rhetorical holding. "Don't know what your doing", lol. hahahaha, ohh.. maybe it's rude to laugh, too. Now were a little more even mate. I suggest you loose your grip, and open your mind, for the sake of your case as a thinking human.

I take issue with your post in the way you've targeted , me, without good or properly explained reason, also I take issue with your insulting me, and even in the way you post. I don''t think your responding to my post.. either. Maybe your just repeating some opinions you hold, Because I said many things, in the body you've quoted of a post I made, and I cant find how you've identified and addressed any points I made directly. You havnt declared what issue you take with or within the large quoted body... What is even your issue, with what that i said is it?:

Unfortunately money talks, and what may be the ideal size will get shafted if it will please the majority. Same old story.

Click to expand...

I said like 5 or 6 statements in my post, since you've never declared your issue.. so, without identification and effective declaration, your response doesn’t make sense. If i were a computer, or a vulcan, it might tell ya "cannot compute" or "error - breaking". I do know you seem to believe that in all cases a larger display is better, so long as it is no bigger than the 27 inches you are fond of.. lol. And by the way I disagree with your opinion stated as fact. Boy, your about as sophisticated as a ghetto girl on a tantrum trip, with her iphone.

Maybe instead of me not knowing what I am doing, mate, maybe you need to learn how to effectively socialize, and communicate your ideas in a web forum. But the comment you made has nothing to do with what with the large quotation as a whole.. Your responding off topic.. lol or at least responding incorrectly. I'm going to to put forth that we assume(I hate assuming for you), for the benefit of your reply, and in response to you, that you take issue with me saying that 24" maybe the ideal size, and that the majority of consumers might be dooming what may be the ideal size for certain tasks, in favour of popular thought and marketing, and misappropriation? I don't know why you have targeted me, many others have replied with concurrency that 27" is found to be too big for some cases. Or that I support and agree with other posters most affirmatively, or that i have made the greatest(in terms of size) post, and contributed alot to the case the op and others put forth, which need i point out, I did not start? You've just identified him and me, and ignored many others.. Especially those like me who have put to issue the validity of 27" displays for certain tasks. And have an opinion that something around the height of around 12 inches is best, and most comfortable, in certain scenarios? I'm not the only one who feels this way. Or is it my concurrent suggestion that the display be moved closer and loosing more fov bothersome for you. I don't think I was the first to suggest this within this thread. If that is your issue perhaps you address the originator of the suggestion? I mostly just offered, existing conception some supplementary support base on my experiences and knowledge. I don't know why me? Maybe it's that I said we see more vertical than horizontal? Who can tell, and how can they tell, what you are supposedly trying to say?

I think you need to get a grip pal. If i were you, i'd enroll in a "how to be a mannered person class", then go see a psychologist, and break some mental barriers. Ease off the steroids and examine yourself. Stand up as a human being, and think.

The example your referencing, without indicating a post.. in your response, leaving us to guess(woe), which you have coherently identified as the solution to the fov loss. I'll guess that you mean that of the posts you have made, for reply #17 http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041689161&postcount=17

dmonkey said:

27" at 2 ft away takes up around 52 degrees of your FOV, while 24" at 2 ft takes up 47 degrees. Not that big of a difference, and you've probably got your monitors slightly further than 2 feet back anyway. You just have to get used to it.
1440p is the way to go. Variable refresh rate is interileyeven better. If you still can I'd jump on both, it'll do wonders for your gaming experience. 1080p at 24" just doesn't cut it anymore IMO. Nothing sweet about it.

Click to expand...

First of all, variable refresh rate is a not that desirable to everyone... .. but will become widely available with displayport so there is nothing to "jump on".. 1080p is fine imo, what you've said is just meaningless rhetoric. Most importantly, placing a monitor 2 feet back though.. places the monitor out of the most effective and comfortable focal range for certain tasks... This is serious, and that was one of the issue's I'd taken, and forwarded to address, in the reply you've quoted me with. This is probably why people are complaining of in-effectivness, for use regarding some of the tasks I'd mentioned in my post. It's, imo, it may be counter productive to have a display at 2ft like you suggest. Which is what, as I said before, if you read properly, had done in the past myself... Which was what part of my post was all about, accommodating specific tasks effectively. Pushing the display out of what is the most effective close range vision, adversely affects task operation, interfacing, and is not only probably non-compedative for gaming, but may be uncomfortable, and slow.. There are conflicting opinions on this, but I`m forwarding some ideas.

Close range vision is best for certain tasks like reading, and maybe even some gaming. It's more difficult to focus and operate out of close range vision, and slower. Close and most effective range which I identified as likely at about an arms length and a bit... without actually identifying you suggestion of 2ft as maybe part of the problem, the op and others are experiencing. I just offered my advice later..

I understand eye operates fastest with objects around or before 16 inche-18 inches, for reading and other fast digestion. Any past that point, and your eye action slows down a bit i believe. 24"/2ft, is far maybe, way past the threshold of close range vision of the average human. and therefore i think out of the optimal range, for fast action and accuracy. Ask an eye doctor or a scientist, as 27" display maybe dumb for certain tasks, but i never said your display is terrible in all circumstance. I've been there for years, and I'm telling you from experience.. sure it looks good and sounds fancy on paper, if you ignore everything else. I have, last i checked 2020+ vision, but i know what close range and far range vision is. your eyes operate slower, and less accurate out of close range. I used to keep a display at farther then 2 ft, then 2ft, then farther, then i ditched the big ones, including a 27", for most tasks, especially reading.. except presentations, monitoring and a few other tasks. 24 inches, is imo out of close range of optimal operation and registration. Its my understanding that is no opinion, but fact. The eye doctors tests your close range performance for upto 16", which I believe the outer perimeter of close range vision. My point is this is maybe why some ppl are complaining of discomfort. It may likely be more strenuous for some tasks to keep a display at 24 inches. And again maybe then not ideal for certain tasks even gaming, for certain types, like fps. Keep that fact, close to the marketing gunk you excuse yourself with, held in your head. Not that i ever said a 27" display was good for nothin', i said it might not be ideal for certain tasks, and many people maybe carried away, and short sighted, like yourself.

Two feet is likely or maybe to far away for many of the tasks I referenced, in the way i referenced them, as I said in my stated as opinion. Many will disagree, but apparently there is some fragrance. This is common knowledge, and 24inch widescreen, or 12in vertical maybe, as i said originally maybe around the ideal size for most single tasks operation. I didn't even acknowledge or address your original post directly, for the case of manners, and to let you in your sorry state of 24"'s be, since you seemed happy with that state, I did read your post, actually, and accounted for it in the conversation, and I thought nothing would be gained by addressing your metric directly, I passed it up with direct addression. I thought to myself(seriously), if the guy is happy, and nothing can be gained by addressing the purposed metric directly, It's best I don't write anything about it at all or insult his game. I didn't think you would outrageously call me out directly, and attack me.. Had I know that I would have detailed specifications identifying 2ft as possibly less than ideal in my post, directly. Many new users are unaware of now common knowledge, and are pushing the displays back far for optimal focus, including past, and at 2ft. That is why I suggested moving the nice display closer, loosing more fov, zooming in application controls for focus, in the case that a user is straining, or feeling uncomfortable, at said distance. You seemed happy, i didn’t see a point in addressing your metric directly which is better than leaving it alone, since you seemed happy with it, however the op and other is issuing some concerns, this is why I had replied to him., There's no good reason to fight my opinion.

Close range vision is optimal for digestion of detailed content and tunnel vision action, as i understand it, and as I said I understand it. 1440p is not going to make a significant difference in such tasks, imo, though it is a nice perk imo, in some instances. In others I find it's also a hassle or uninteresting. Like I say and I'm obviously more experienced than you.. Nothing you've replied with relates to my post as a whole, and you've failed to declare what issue you take and how you take it. What issue do you take? You've pretty much just quoted me, insulted me, and repeated some rhetorical crap. Please, for the love of yourself, identify some reservations to keep. And your display is probably badly positioned, maybe even, for anything. There a load of information for you and your sore case, pro bono. Jacorby

Also, why I say rhetoric? You haven’t indicated in what way a more detailed focus area makes up for any disadvantage gotten from peripheral HUD elements literally being marginalized.. The "makes up for" is obviously, entirely subjective to the task.. You've never declared any metric, used any measurement, or even offered examples covering all of the likely cases which can occur. Wholly, entirely, mush. If this is the sort of thought that runs through your mind, you might want to hire someone to seriously examine your reasoning, like, a group of doctors, to assist in journeying back to the state of thinking rational human member of society, should you be so lucky.. Such a blanket statement is entirely, not only false in some circumstance, but possibly false in the gross majority, of circumstances. Had you identified at least a single case, your post might not have been entirely irrational. You never explained how you've come up with that supposed measurement? That sounds like marketing mush to me, used justification of an implementation and and investment. Not everybody has to like the crap you purchase, if you take issue with my and others evaluation. IMO your post form is a disgrace to me, and all computer users. I don't know how you got in here. Maybe there should be a council.

Ohh, and I disagree with your analysis, I think I have a pretty good idea what I'm doing, m8.

holy SHIT

Euphoric.

A0S said:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898437-REG/Sony_30_PVM_X300_4K_TRIMASTER.html

Click to expand...

i stand corrected

Jacorby said:

Listen DMonkey, Were here to share information, opinions and discuss, I think, and not attack one another with insults. Instead of claiming I don't know what I'm doing, it would be kinder, and maybe a little more acceptable, in any related circumstance, to say "maybe you don't know what your doing m8". Maybe, allows for reservations, in the case that you yourself might be wrong.. This way there no way your statement would necessarily come of as a "my opinion is greater than yours" confrontation, which maybe overbearing.. Then I can respond to ya effectively too, instead of like this. . That is how you do a forum. Saying someone doesn't know what theyre doing, is not only considered by many rude, backwards (myself, and another verified), it is a fairly rhetorical holding. "Don't know what your doing", lol. hahahaha, ohh.. maybe it's rude to laugh, too. Now were a little more even mate. I suggest you loose your grip, and open your mind, for the sake of your case as a thinking human.

I take issue with your post in the way you've targeted , me, without good or properly explained reason, also I take issue with your insulting me, and even in the way you post. I don''t think your responding to my post.. either. Maybe your just repeating some opinions you hold, Because I said many things, in the body you've quoted of a post I made, and I cant find how you've identified and addressed any points I made directly. You havnt declared what issue you take with or within the large quoted body... What is even your issue, with what that i said is it?:

I said like 5 or 6 statements in my post, since you've never declared your issue.. so, without identification and effective declaration, your response doesn’t make sense. If i were a computer, or a vulcan, it might tell ya "cannot compute" or "error - breaking". I do know you seem to believe that in all cases a larger display is better, so long as it is no bigger than the 27 inches you are fond of.. lol. And by the way I disagree with your opinion stated as fact. Boy, your about as sophisticated as a ghetto girl on a tantrum trip, with her iphone.

Maybe instead of me not knowing what I am doing, mate, maybe you need to learn how to effectively socialize, and communicate your ideas in a web forum. But the comment you made has nothing to do with what with the large quotation as a whole.. Your responding off topic.. lol or at least responding incorrectly. I'm going to to put forth that we assume(I hate assuming for you), for the benefit of your reply, and in response to you, that you take issue with me saying that 24" maybe the ideal size, and that the majority of consumers might be dooming what may be the ideal size for certain tasks, in favour of popular thought and marketing, and misappropriation? I don't know why you have targeted me, many others have replied with concurrency that 27" is found to be too big for some cases. Or that I support and agree with other posters most affirmatively, or that i have made the greatest(in terms of size) post, and contributed alot to the case the op and others put forth, which need i point out, I did not start? You've just identified him and me, and ignored many others.. Especially those like me who have put to issue the validity of 27" displays for certain tasks. And have an opinion that something around the height of around 12 inches is best, and most comfortable, in certain scenarios? I'm not the only one who feels this way. Or is it my concurrent suggestion that the display be moved closer and loosing more fov bothersome for you. I don't think I was the first to suggest this within this thread. If that is your issue perhaps you address the originator of the suggestion? I mostly just offered, existing conception some supplementary support base on my experiences and knowledge. I don't know why me? Maybe it's that I said we see more vertical than horizontal? Who can tell, and how can they tell, what you are supposedly trying to say?

I think you need to get a grip pal. If i were you, i'd enroll in a "how to be a mannered person class", then go see a psychologist, and break some mental barriers. Ease off the steroids and examine yourself. Stand up as a human being, and think.

The example your referencing, without indicating a post.. in your response, leaving us to guess(woe), which you have coherently identified as the solution to the fov loss. I'll guess that you mean that of the posts you have made, for reply #17 http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041689161&postcount=17


First of all, variable refresh rate is a not that desirable to everyone... .. but will become widely available with displayport so there is nothing to "jump on".. 1080p is fine imo, what you've said is just meaningless rhetoric. Most importantly, placing a monitor 2 feet back though.. places the monitor out of the most effective and comfortable focal range for certain tasks... This is serious, and that was one of the issue's I'd taken, and forwarded to address, in the reply you've quoted me with. This is probably why people are complaining of in-effectivness, for use regarding some of the tasks I'd mentioned in my post. It's, imo, it may be counter productive to have a display at 2ft like you suggest. Which is what, as I said before, if you read properly, had done in the past myself... Which was what part of my post was all about, accommodating specific tasks effectively. Pushing the display out of what is the most effective close range vision, adversely affects task operation, interfacing, and is not only probably non-compedative for gaming, but may be uncomfortable, and slow.. There are conflicting opinions on this, but I`m forwarding some ideas.

Close range vision is best for certain tasks like reading, and maybe even some gaming. It's more difficult to focus and operate out of close range vision, and slower. Close and most effective range which I identified as likely at about an arms length and a bit... without actually identifying you suggestion of 2ft as maybe part of the problem, the op and others are experiencing. I just offered my advice later..

I understand eye operates fastest with objects around or before 16 inche-18 inches, for reading and other fast digestion. Any past that point, and your eye action slows down a bit i believe. 24"/2ft, is far maybe, way past the threshold of close range vision of the average human. and therefore i think out of the optimal range, for fast action and accuracy. Ask an eye doctor or a scientist, as 27" display maybe dumb for certain tasks, but i never said your display is terrible in all circumstance. I've been there for years, and I'm telling you from experience.. sure it looks good and sounds fancy on paper, if you ignore everything else. I have, last i checked 2020+ vision, but i know what close range and far range vision is. your eyes operate slower, and less accurate out of close range. I used to keep a display at farther then 2 ft, then 2ft, then farther, then i ditched the big ones, including a 27", for most tasks, especially reading.. except presentations, monitoring and a few other tasks. 24 inches, is imo out of close range of optimal operation and registration. Its my understanding that is no opinion, but fact. The eye doctors tests your close range performance for upto 16", which I believe the outer perimeter of close range vision. My point is this is maybe why some ppl are complaining of discomfort. It may likely be more strenuous for some tasks to keep a display at 24 inches. And again maybe then not ideal for certain tasks even gaming, for certain types, like fps. Keep that fact, close to the marketing gunk you excuse yourself with, held in your head. Not that i ever said a 27" display was good for nothin', i said it might not be ideal for certain tasks, and many people maybe carried away, and short sighted, like yourself.

Two feet is likely or maybe to far away for many of the tasks I referenced, in the way i referenced them, as I said in my stated as opinion. Many will disagree, but apparently there is some fragrance. This is common knowledge, and 24inch widescreen, or 12in vertical maybe, as i said originally maybe around the ideal size for most single tasks operation. I didn't even acknowledge or address your original post directly, for the case of manners, and to let you in your sorry state of 24"'s be, since you seemed happy with that state, I did read your post, actually, and accounted for it in the conversation, and I thought nothing would be gained by addressing your metric directly, I passed it up with direct addression. I thought to myself(seriously), if the guy is happy, and nothing can be gained by addressing the purposed metric directly, It's best I don't write anything about it at all or insult his game. I didn't think you would outrageously call me out directly, and attack me.. Had I know that I would have detailed specifications identifying 2ft as possibly less than ideal in my post, directly. Many new users are unaware of now common knowledge, and are pushing the displays back far for optimal focus, including past, and at 2ft. That is why I suggested moving the nice display closer, loosing more fov, zooming in application controls for focus, in the case that a user is straining, or feeling uncomfortable, at said distance. You seemed happy, i didn’t see a point in addressing your metric directly which is better than leaving it alone, since you seemed happy with it, however the op and other is issuing some concerns, this is why I had replied to him., There's no good reason to fight my opinion.

Close range vision is optimal for digestion of detailed content and tunnel vision action, as i understand it, and as I said I understand it. 1440p is not going to make a significant difference in such tasks, imo, though it is a nice perk imo, in some instances. In others I find it's also a hassle or uninteresting. Like I say and I'm obviously more experienced than you.. Nothing you've replied with relates to my post as a whole, and you've failed to declare what issue you take and how you take it. What issue do you take? You've pretty much just quoted me, insulted me, and repeated some rhetorical crap. Please, for the love of yourself, identify some reservations to keep. And your display is probably badly positioned, maybe even, for anything. There a load of information for you and your sore case, pro bono. Jacorby

Also, why I say rhetoric? You haven’t indicated in what way a more detailed focus area makes up for any disadvantage gotten from peripheral HUD elements literally being marginalized.. The "makes up for" is obviously, entirely subjective to the task.. You've never declared any metric, used any measurement, or even offered examples covering all of the likely cases which can occur. Wholly, entirely, mush. If this is the sort of thought that runs through your mind, you might want to hire someone to seriously examine your reasoning, like, a group of doctors, to assist in journeying back to the state of thinking rational human member of society, should you be so lucky.. Such a blanket statement is entirely, not only false in some circumstance, but possibly false in the gross majority, of circumstances. Had you identified at least a single case, your post might not have been entirely irrational. You never explained how you've come up with that supposed measurement? That sounds like marketing mush to me, used justification of an implementation and and investment. Not everybody has to like the crap you purchase, if you take issue with my and others evaluation. IMO your post form is a disgrace to me, and all computer users. I don't know how you got in here. Maybe there should be a council.

Ohh, and I disagree with your analysis, I think I have a pretty good idea what I'm doing, m8.

Click to expand...

No.