1080p for a 32" monitor?

M

ml1209

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
137
I'm using a 32" TV as a PC monitor. Is 1920 x 1080 too low a resolution for a monitor for you? I find it is barely acceptable, the pixel density is quite low. I have to sit further to get a decent image, otherwise sitting close gets me a bleh picture.

But anyone here have this setup?
 
I used one quite a few years, two 32" TV's in a row actually and I kinda miss the setup now. This small 23" Eizo is so bloody small... Anyway pixel density can be high but nothing that AA could not hide and there was no screen-door effect, meaning individual pixels were not clearly visible. But I also have quite deep self made corner desk that allowed me to keep the screen almost 1 meter away (thats roughly 3 feet for imperials) so I think that helped the matter. I really liked how it filled my field of vision. Watching movies was a joy at that distance.
 
Last edited:
low pixel density is actually beneficial in FPS games. Professional/competitive players will lower their resolution on a large display to achieve low densities to make enemies (and heads) appear larger on the screen. For all other games, and general PC use, higher density is better for more real estate. Ive been using a Samsung 32" 1080p TV as my monitor since 2007 or 2008. It's getting long in the tooth now and I'm having serious trouble finding a replacement with G-Sync with similarly low DPI. the best ive found so far is the Acer Z35- 2560x1080 @ 35". 32" @ 1080p is ~69 DPI, while this Acer is ~79. Closest display I've seen so far...but it's $1000.
 
I have a 42" television with 1024x728. I like low resolutions on large screens, because it means I can read the text on them from further away... for instance, I could stand on the other side of the room and read the "monitor" with no issues.

That's one of the reasons I'm not too thrilled about 4k... I'd practically need a display the size of a television to be able to see what I was doing without scaling everything up 200%, and I'd probably have to sit pretty close even then.

I never really understood the anti-pixel brigade's attitude. They're all about "Oh no! A pixel! It's SOO jagged and unrealistic. I don't want to see a pixel, they're awful, dirty things... take them away!" I'm more like, "Why are these pixels so tiny? I can't even see them and I have to scale everything up so much to read that it's just a waste of GPU power to display this resolution." And then I inevitably end up just using the display about a third or a forth of the native resolution while trying to maintain the aspect ratio, hoping that it has a half-decent scaling chip.
 
I'm a big fan of DPI. I couldn't imagine running 1080P on anything larger than a 22" for sit-at-desk use.


If you are talking about just movies and relaxed gaming, I use a 55" 1080P TV for living room gaming and movies; so with enough distance, large 1080P screens are fine.
 
KazeoHin said:
I'm a big fan of DPI. I couldn't imagine running 1080P on anything larger than a 22" for sit-at-desk use.
Click to expand...


In my day, we upgraded to our 3DFx Voodoo (the first generation) just to get 640x480 (800x600 with no Z-Buffer), and we liked it!
 
Daniel_Chang said:
In my day, we upgraded to our 3DFx Voodoo (the first generation) just to get 640x480 (800x600 with no Z-Buffer), and we liked it!
Click to expand...

Haha! but that was on 15" CRTs! I remember getting my 19" 1600x1200 CRT in 2002 and feeling like I owned the world!
 
KazeoHin said:
Haha! but that was on 15" CRTs! I remember getting my 19" 1600x1200 CRT in 2002 and feeling like I owned the world!
Click to expand...
I got a 21" CRT that same year. 1600x1200 at 100 Hz was glorious. My mind was blown after coming from a 17" that only did 1280x960 at 85 Hz.
ml1209 said:
I'm using a 32" TV as a PC monitor. Is 1920 x 1080 too low a resolution for a monitor for you? I find it is barely acceptable, the pixel density is quite low. I have to sit further to get a decent image, otherwise sitting close gets me a bleh picture.

But anyone here have this setup?
Click to expand...
I occasionally use my 40" 1080p TV as a monitor, but that is when sitting 3-4 feet away. This pixel density I feel is fine for gaming sitting a little closer, but I couldn't live with it doing any type of productive work. I'm anxiously waiting for more news and reviews on the 43" 4K monitor from Philips that is coming out next month.
 
Armenius said:
I got a 21" CRT that same year. 1600x1200 at 100 Hz was glorious. My mind was blown after coming from a 17" that only did 1280x960 at 85 Hz.

I occasionally use my 40" 1080p TV as a monitor, but that is when sitting 3-4 feet away. This pixel density I feel is fine for gaming sitting a little closer, but I couldn't live with it doing any type of productive work. I'm anxiously waiting for more news and reviews on the 43" 4K monitor from Philips that is coming out next month.
Click to expand...



I sold the TV and bought an Acer K272HUL 27" 1440p IPS monitor from Microcenter. Much better.
 
ya that's too low for a normal monitor. Sadly they dont make 32" 1440p monitors affordable yet
 
ml1209 said:
I'm using a 32" TV as a PC monitor. Is 1920 x 1080 too low a resolution for a monitor for you? I find it is barely acceptable, the pixel density is quite low. I have to sit further to get a decent image, otherwise sitting close gets me a bleh picture.

But anyone here have this setup?
Click to expand...

I can hardly stand high end 27" 1080p monitor panels. I can see the pixles. I've been using 1440p ips ultrasharp monitors since 2013. I recently tried a 27" 1080p for a 4th monitor. I just couldn't do it. So I doubt I'd be able to make it with a 32" 1080p.
 
Honestly I think it will depend on your eyesight for the most part. Ive got so-so eyesight at 43 years of age and my 27" 1080 monitor is just right. I sit at full arm's length away from the screen and I dont see any pixels at all but if I sit up a little closer I can start to see them if Im looking for them. So I will say 27" is as big as Id want to go at 1080 and a 32" screen would probably be a little too big for 1080 to handle. It would probably still be ok for games though but still, if youre gonna go over 27", Id want 1440 resolution.
 
MacLeod said:
Honestly I think it will depend on your eyesight for the most part.
Click to expand...

Combination of eyesight and just what you're used to. I have no problem with my 27"1080p. But, when I go extended sessions on my ACD (27" 1440p), it's a little jarring coming back to the 1080p display. Really, the ppi of the monitors we used "back in the day" was horrid compared to a 27" 1080p, so people saying that they "can't stand it" is just pure hyperbole. But going back and forth as frequently as I do, I understand where they're coming from.
 
Daniel_Chang said:
Really, the ppi of the monitors we used "back in the day" was horrid compared to a 27" 1080p, so people saying that they "can't stand it" is just pure hyperbole.
Click to expand...


17" CRT @ 1024x768 Masterrace. Ah the good old days... :D
 
MaZa said:
17" CRT @ 1024x768 Masterrace. Ah the good old days... :D
Click to expand...

That is exactly what my first "gaming" monitor was, a Sony. Still have it in one of my closets because I can't bring myself to throw gear away.

Daniel_Chang said:
Combination of eyesight and just what you're used to. I have no problem with my 27"1080p. But, when I go extended sessions on my ACD (27" 1440p), it's a little jarring coming back to the 1080p display. Really, the ppi of the monitors we used "back in the day" was horrid compared to a 27" 1080p, so people saying that they "can't stand it" is just pure hyperbole. But going back and forth as frequently as I do, I understand where they're coming from.
Click to expand...

True, I'm sure if I set a 1080 and 1440 27" next to each other it would be easy to spot the difference. But at least as my eyes see it, other than side by side A/B'ing, 1080 is fine for 27".
 
I use dual 25.5" Acer 1440p displays at work. I love large screens with large resolutions. And I would use one at home as well if not for my penchant for FPS games. Any other type of content...productivity, movies, or any other kind of game (RTS/RPG/MMO) a relatively higher DPI is great. But not for FPS games. I wish modern monitors were able to display different resolutions without blurriness or letterboxing like the old CRTs. I'd have a 42" 4k monitor or 30" 1440p g-sync display that i'd run at 1440p or 1080p respectively. It'll be hard to go higher than the ~70dpi i'm currently using for FPS gaming. a dude's head is the size of a quarter on my screen at mid-close range and the size of a dime at mid-range. There's no comparison to being able to see heads and recognize enemies at distance.

Money-is-no-object I'd have 2 different displays on some sort of mechanical arm to rotate them in and out based on what I'm doing.
 
I've got a 32 inch Samsung tv @ 1080p and I love it. My eyes are good to boot. How the hell can you see the pixels? You must have really really good eyes. I am sitting about 3 feet from the screen and couldn't ask for anything better. Maybe it's just that you got a shitty monitor?

32 inch @ 1080p is sharp on my unit.

Though at 41 years of age, you guys are way more picky then I am.
 
Last edited:
I can see the pixels on my 27" if I consciously look for them, but I don't consider it detrimental. This may sound insane, but being able to see the pixels seems to trick my eyes into believing it's a sharper image.
 
jarablue said:
I've got a 32 inch Samsung tv @ 1080p and I love it. My eyes are good to boot. How the hell can you see the pixels? You must have really really good eyes. I am sitting about 3 feet from the screen and couldn't ask for anything better. Maybe it's just that you got a shitty monitor?

32 inch @ 1080p is sharp on my unit.

Though at 41 years of age, you guys are way more picky then I am.
Click to expand...

For games and video I think 1080 is fine at 32". The pixels possibly become more evident in text and general internet surfage. When I got my beloved BenQ, it was replacing an excellent HP 25" and I could see a slight pixelation in some of the text if it was lighter colored text against a dark background. However I had to be specifically looking for it to notice it. A couple months ago I moved my monitor back a couple inches so that its not a complete outstretched arm away due to getting a little seasick in fast action games and I now see zero pixelation. Im not calling bullshit on people saying they can see it all over the place because everybody's eyes are certainly different.
 
I could definitely tell the 1440p 27" monitor that I just bought was better. Not in that I was looking for pixelation, but the image quality was much smoother over all. 1080p on a 32" was okay, not bad, can live with it, etc. But 1440p on a 27" - very sharp.

I wouldn't mind 1440p on a 32" but can't afford the extra $300 that it would cost for one of those.

Overall I'm happy I made the change.
 
Im honestly a little worried about my eyes. I was in Texas last week on vacation and went to the Fry's in Austin. Theyve got quite a few monitors up on display and all were running gaming footage. I compared them for like 30 minutes and other than the washed out cheap crappy ones, I was really hard pressed to find any major differences in the vast majority of them. They even had one of those new LG wide screen monitors up there and it really didnt look that much better or worse than some of the other Asus and LG models they had showing the same videos. I actually didnt care that much for the LG at all. Watching gameplay footage on it was kind of annoying. If I got close enough for the "immersion" I got seasick from all the motion. If I backed away I was having to turn my head to see stuff and it kinda ruined it. I think for me, 16:9 is the best aspect ratio.

Either my eyesight is getting worse, I just dont care as much in my old age or the actual difference between monitor brands after a certain price range just isnt that great anymore. I guess when most of them are using the same LG or Samsung screens I shouldnt be surprised.
 
There is a lot of talk about the 1080p on a 32 inch monitor user experience. Wouldn't many users of this opt to reduce the scaling in a lot? Or does their graphics card somehow let them go up to high, non- native resolutions?

I just tried to go to higher resolutions with my graphics card and monitor, by changing some settings, but none are available . I only see additional lower resolutions open up as new options.

Or do users edit the registry, like this:
https://support.corel.com/hc/en-us/...DPI-Scaling-Level-for-displays-in-Windows-10-
 
I use a 32" 1080p TV occasionally as secondary monitor but yea image quality suffers quite a bit in games as pixels are so obvious so I'm not using it in that sense, mostly to watch CSGO and then doing something else on my monitor. What someone else said about FPS games with low PPI though is true, the enemies appear quite large on the screen making it easier to hit but with only 60Hz in my case it's like you win some and lose some. :p 60Hz VA is such a smeary mess compared to 144Hz BenQ Blur Reduction (strobing) motion.
 
RPGWiZaRD said:
I use a 32" 1080p TV occasionally as secondary monitor but yea image quality suffers quite a bit in games as pixels are so obvious so I'm not using it in that sense, mostly to watch CSGO and then doing something else on my monitor. What someone else said about FPS games with low PPI though is true, the enemies appear quite large on the screen making it easier to hit but with only 60Hz in my case it's like you win some and lose some. :p 60Hz VA is such a smeary mess compared to 144Hz BenQ Blur Reduction (strobing) motion.
Click to expand...

The thing that I am hung up on is more the native resolution. As I understand, if you move from a 1920 x 1080 on a 23" to a 1920 x 1080 on a 32", the picture will just be "stretched." When I see discussions about monitors, posters seem to jump into the "can you see pixels / can you not" debate. I understand that a lot of people on here are speaking from the perspective of gaming. But, I have seen the debate elsewhere, too, with little mention of circumventing the native resolutions (which seems like it should be of primary concern to most).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top