Ideal pixel density for a 4k monitor?

S

SlippinJimmy

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 29, 2015
Messages
104
Would you recommend going for a 40" which has about the same ppi as a 27" 1440p monitor or go for something bigger like a 48-55 with lower ppi? Some work would be done on it, but also game and movie watching. I know that how close you sit matters, but I'm wondering if you'd notice a huge difference between 80 and 110ppi assuming ideal distance.
 
I'd go for a 40 inch to get a similar ppi to 27 inch 1440p. Sure you can always use scaling if things are too small but that comes at the cost of losing work space. I'm using a 28 inch 4k monitor with no scaling at all and the amount of things you can cram into it at once is great but it's just barely useable at this size so I can't possibly imagine going smaller. If it was a 40 inch then that would be the perfect balance between sharpness and desktop space.
 
48" has the same PPI as a 24" 1080p (of course since a 4K monitor is 4x1080p tiled together), 92PPI.

44" has the same PPI as a 22" 1080p or a 30" 1600p, 100PPI

40" is 108PPI.

I personally find even the 100PPI of 30" a bit small for my tastes with text, although maybe that's just old age. I like the 92PPI but a 48" monitor is 24" tall, which is pretty darn high at normal computer monitor distances - it is only 3 inches shorter than my current double-stacked monitors and I don't use the upper monitors for regular viewing.
 
This tool is perfect for what you want to compare.

You can input how close you are sitting to the screen to determine the pixels per degree of your vision. The higher the number, the smaller everything seems. In this way you can determine - using your current monitor - what a 40" or 50" monitor would look like. You can use the tool to determine the distance for when the pixels per degree would be the same, then simply move your monitor back so that you are at that distance. Is it comfortable?

I am similar to rtangwai (although I am a relatively young person). Personally, a 27" 1440p monitor is difficult to read at an ideal distance so I have to put the monitor closer than I would like to. 110ppi is on the small side, while 85-95ppi is very comfortable.

Also, with a 55 inch monitor, the bottom of the monitor will be right next to desk and you will not be able to use top portion of the screen easily/often/comfortably.
 
Having now 32"@4K and using be4 27"@1440 I can say the difference in pixel density is visually not of primary importance. But scaling (fonts, browser ,etc.) is critical, 4K requires perfect scaling, Win 8.1 is acceptable but I expect Win 10 to solve this problem. I am also using Ubuntu Linux and its scaling is far behind Win.
 
some people swear their ***** that it is possible to work long hours on a 40" screen. been there, done that. It is ergonomic hell after the first weeks, at the very least invest as much as you can in good chair, desk and monitor arms.

There is a huge gap in 4k sizes, from 32", which is too small, the next step is 40" ( 39.5"), which is like 4 20" 1080p screens glued together. anything smaller than 135PPI will require font scaling for reading, defeating the purpose of going 4k on the first place.
 
geok1ng said:
some people swear their ***** that it is possible to work long hours on a 40" screen. been there, done that. It is ergonomic hell after the first weeks, at the very least invest as much as you can in good chair, desk and monitor arms.
There is a huge gap in 4k sizes, from 32", which is too small, the next step is 40" ( 39.5"), which is like 4 20" 1080p screens glued together. anything smaller than 135PPI will require font scaling for reading, defeating the purpose of going 4k on the first place.
Click to expand...

From my experimental research it follows that 32" is the maximum if one doesn't want to end in the ergonomic hell. So the 32" is not too small, it is optimal.
 
For my personal need I'll go with a 50" as soon as they are available, but most people appear to be satisfied with 40".
 
From an ergonomic perspective your eyes should not be higher than the upper end of the picture. My eyes are 21.3 inch above my desk, so substracting half an inch for the lower display frame, I could use at the most a 42 inch (16:9) display.

The width of the display is no problem from an ergonomic perspective. Side-by-side multimonitor setups have proven this for years in computer work spaces.

The PPI can become a problem when text becomes too small to read. Scaling makes text bigger but unfortunately scaling is still far from perfect in Win 8.1 and it does not look like Win 10 will change anything about this.

The alternative to scaling is to get closer to the display. But from an ergonomic perspective one should not get too close to the display. For the eyes focussing close objects is stress - the further you are away from your display the better for your eyes.

I think I would prefer the PPI of the 48 inch display because it requires no scaling - even at healthier (greater) viewing distances - but 23.5 inches (+0.5) picture height is just too much for me (if you are a 7ft basketball player, it could work very well for you).

32 inch displays on the other hand would be too small for me, because they would require even more scaling than a 40 inch display or a really close and therfore unhealthy viewing distance.

So my conclusion is, that the 40 inch display is the current sweet spot. Maybe a 48 inch display if you use a custom resolution with reduced picture height (=black bars at bottom and top), like 3840x1920 (=20.9 inches image height).
 
geok1ng said:
some people swear their ***** that it is possible to work long hours on a 40" screen. been there, done that. It is ergonomic hell after the first weeks, at the very least invest as much as you can in good chair, desk and monitor arms.

There is a huge gap in 4k sizes, from 32", which is too small, the next step is 40" ( 39.5"), which is like 4 20" 1080p screens glued together. anything smaller than 135PPI will require font scaling for reading, defeating the purpose of going 4k on the first place.
Click to expand...

I use my 40" at 100% scaling and my eyesight isn't the best.

The 40" size for 4K has been the most optimal size for a reason.
Anything smaller will suffer from very small text and will require scaling up, or larger panels will not have as sharp of an image at 2.5-3' (normal desktop distance).
 
kache said:
For my personal need I'll go with a 50" as soon as they are available, but most people appear to be satisfied with 40".
Click to expand...

Just to check if we are talking about monitors: So you would like to put 50" on the desk and use it as monitor at 20" viewing distance?

4k@32" indeed requires scaling which is quite good in Win 8.1, this gives base to think Win 10 should be close to perfect in this dept.

The only bigger monitor than the 32" I can imagine on my desk is a 42" 21:9 curved (hint: height the same as 32" but wider and curved).
 
I had to crank up the minimum font size slightly for comfortable reading on my 23" 1080p. I guess I prefer 85-90 DPI, even though my eyesight is still pretty good.
 
wirk said:
Just to check if we are talking about monitors: So you would like to put 50" on the desk and use it as monitor at 20" viewing distance?
Click to expand...
Yes.
The DPI of 24" 1080p works wonderfully for me.
 
kache said:
Yes.
The DPI of 24" 1080p works wonderfully for me.
Click to expand...

i am in love the U2515H and looking forward to the P2416D. 2560x1440@ 25"/24" is big enough to not need font scaling, but small enough for triple portrait setups:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top