1200p versus 1440p

M

Marc222

n00b
Joined
Dec 30, 2012
Messages
5
Hello
Just thinking about the difference between 24 inch 1200p ( 16:10 ) and 27 inch 1440p (16:9) and then 30 inch (16:10 ). I checked how much more space I can get and the 1440 screen will be 20 percent bigger.
( physical size of the screen ) That what I understand actually.
But if you compare resolution of 30 inch which is 2560x1600 to 27 inch 2560x1440 ( almost same isn't it? ) you get much smaller screen. I believe pixels have to be smaller. So summarizing: lets say an image of 2560x1440 will entirely fill the smaller screen leaving only like 160 pixels on the bigger screen. And the question is : Will image on the smaller screen be much sharper and clearer? It could be a trivial question for some of you and would have been brought up on the forum - but could you once again clarify this please?
I really do not know which screen I should go for - 30 inch or 27 one. Any suggestion will be appreciated.
Edit: non professional photography purpose and gaming sometimes
 
Ive closed your other thread, please dont start multiple threads asking the same question
 
That falls on panel quality. Typically your 1440p 27" and 30" 1600p (excluding Korean models) are all high quality, so difference in electronics and screen coating play bigger roles. The 24" and smaller run a much wider gamut of panel types. Look at reviews on Anandtech and Tftcentral. Certainly more sites, but I see these referred to quite often.
 
bigsnyder said:
That falls on panel quality. Typically your 1440p 27" and 30" 1600p (excluding Korean models) are all high quality, so difference in electronics and screen coating play bigger roles.
Click to expand...

Not sure which of the above is more wrong:

A) Assuming that all 27" 1440p and 30" 1600p panels are "high quality" (which would be the same as assuming all headphones or speakers marketed as high-end are "high quality"); or

B) Excluding Korean 27" and 30" panels from the "high quality" category when they are the same exact panels as their domestic counterparts, and used by Apple, HP, Dell and other manufacturers...
 
Marc222 said:
Great site - thanks. I refered to this site http://www.displaywars.com/
What about the quality of images then?
Click to expand...

Smaller pitch doesn't make it better for me. Using Windows it ends up making font's uncomfortably small for me. Even the 30" screen dot pitch leads to smallish fonts.

I prefer the pitch on 24" 1920x1200 screens, so I don't have to mess the broken font scaling (which is still the case in the majority of Windows applications).
 
Snowdog said:
Smaller pitch doesn't make it better for me. Using Windows it ends up making font's uncomfortably small for me. Even the 30" screen dot pitch leads to smallish fonts.

I prefer the pitch on 24" 1920x1200 screens, so I don't have to mess the broken font scaling (which is still the case in the majority of Windows applications).
Click to expand...

Like Snowdog, I find the font sizes on 27" or 30" a little uncomfortable sometimes, and if you're using an application which does not play well with Windows' DPI adjustments, you may not like it much. If you plan to use your monitor for work which requires a lot of reading and not much image/video work, you're probably better off getting a big 1080p TV than you are going with a 30" 1600p. See http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1645885

As for image quality, two different people can tell you two completely different opinions on the same monitor. For me, higher pixel density creates a more pleasing and detailed image if you have the hardware and software to take advantage of this. But all of that means nothing if you're watching compressed video or look at nothing bigger than Facebook photos or are a student writing thesis papers 6/7 days a week.

And even though it's been said many times on here, if you're a gamer and you don' t have an expensive video card (or two), you may not enjoy a high resolution monitor very much. I have a single 7970 and upscaling an uncompressed bluray rip to 1440p with hardware acceleration offered by Splash EX player and similar media players can be a bit much on midrange or cheaper cards. VLC plays everything fine, but for uncompressed 1080p or better video I find it lacking in features and video quality (stuttering, for example). Moreover, I can't even browse the internet very well at all if I try to run my 1440p using an old HD5770; there's obvious stutter when scrolling down a page, and if you even try scrolling down a full page of pictures of Google Images, prepare for a lagfest. I've also tried seeing if my girlfriend's HD6850 would be enough for simple things because I thought about getting her a 27" ACD, but like I mentioned above, upscaling a Bluray to 1440p was just too much for it to handle without major lag.

If you don't plan on doing anything too much or aren't very picky about video/picture quality, you're probably better off sticking with a 24" 1200p monitor for increase screen real estate over 1080p. For people like that, they'll often see a more obvious improvement in experience by going to multiple monitors than they will in buying a single very high resolution one.
 
Last edited:
A) Show me a "budget" IPS 27" or 30" monitor in these resolutions by a major manufacturer.

B) They are NOT the exact same panel. They may be made by LG (excluding the Samsung made PLS), but the Korean monitors are typically B+ or A- grade panels, not A+. Not saying you can't find a diamond in the rough, but as the threads here in the forum clearly illustrate, panel quality is always a gamble without the warranty similar to what Dell or Asus provides.

I am not trying to bash the Korean models, there are some great buys, but they are not at the standards that you expect from Asus, Dell, Samsung, Apple, or HP. Again, the panel is only as good as the electronics driving it.


Xinmosni said:
Not sure which of the above is more wrong:

A) Assuming that all 27" 1440p and 30" 1600p panels are "high quality" (which would be the same as assuming all headphones or speakers marketed as high-end are "high quality"); or

B) Excluding Korean 27" and 30" panels from the "high quality" category when they are the same exact panels as their domestic counterparts, and used by Apple, HP, Dell and other manufacturers...
Click to expand...
 
1200p and 1440p don't exist.

720p and 1080p exist, other <number followed by "p"> combinations do not.
 
1440>1200 simply because there is only 1 affordable 1200p display that does not use a grainy matte coating (Samsung S24A850D) while there are plenty of 2560x1440 options with all types of coatings, they offer much more screen real-estate and some offer class leading image quality.
 
kllrnohj said:
1200p and 1440p don't exist.

720p and 1080p exist, other <number followed by "p"> combinations do not.
Click to expand...

I realize this, but my post was long enough without having to resort to 1920x1200-type correctness. It's also a pain in the ass to type on this horrible keyboard at work :p

NCX said:
1440>1200 simply because there is only 1 affordable 1200p display that does not use a grainy matte coating (Samsung S24A850D) while there are plenty of 2560x1440 options with all types of coatings, they offer much more screen real-estate and some offer class leading image quality.
Click to expand...

Agreed here which is why I went with 1440p, but the DPI/font issue brought up previously can be a dealbreaker for many. Hopefully that's not a concern for the OP
 
I think I have to see the screen before I buy it. Smaller font could be an issue for me then because I read a lot. Basically all my spare time. I may consider keeping my U2412M just for this purpose and then get a bigger screen for photos.
 
bigsnyder said:
A) Show me a "budget" IPS 27" or 30" monitor in these resolutions by a major manufacturer.

B) They are NOT the exact same panel. They may be made by LG (excluding the Samsung made PLS), but the Korean monitors are typically B+ or A- grade panels, not A+. Not saying you can't find a diamond in the rough, but as the threads here in the forum clearly illustrate, panel quality is always a gamble without the warranty similar to what Dell or Asus provides.

I am not trying to bash the Korean models, there are some great buys, but they are not at the standards that you expect from Asus, Dell, Samsung, Apple, or HP. Again, the panel is only as good as the electronics driving it.
Click to expand...

"Diamond in the rough" seems a bit harsh from what I have read.
Some are better than cinema displays with things like light bleed. And as much as I don't like apple I assume they would give more of a shit than Dell.

In the end all panels should be manually calibrated (as far as I am concerned) which you can do with software. In the end it isn't much of a gamble at half the price of the "name brand" competitor, if you get one with a good stand.
 
bigsnyder said:
Again, the panel is only as good as the electronics driving it.
Click to expand...
You would be surprised to see who's sharing who's internal electronics, all of this stuff is easy to figure out, and a lot of us weren't too lazy to look up the internal boards.

So far with the 27" Korean monitors, the only thing we can positively deduct is that they are A- panels at best and that there's no workable warranty for people outside of ~ eastern Asia <--- this is the actual problem.

So when a flaky board rev is included, those in north america and europe have no warranty to address it. This has happened twice in the past year. The distributors even tried to pull the affected models out of the supply chain, but many got through before the problem was discovered.

This is why i only recommend the Korean panels to people who have some risk tolerance, and for those willing to shell out an extra $50 for Squaretrade insurance.

Eye opener: the simple test + criteria that ultimately labels an LG panel an A+ or A-
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top