suiken_2mieu
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
- Messages
- 2,911
I'd say 27" isn't big enough.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
is 27" really necessary?
- Thread starter grandpatzer
- Start date
grandpatzer
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2010
- Messages
- 641
atm I'm testing between 46-50cm distance away from my Display panel (S23A700D), I do find any closer distance to be too much electron/brightness to my eyes or whatever it is that irritates the eyes when too close.
I guess a 1600p 27" might give slightly more percieved size but at the same time there is more electrons/brightness so I would assume the difference is not enormous as I can't have it as close to me as my 23" if that makes sense
I guess a 1600p 27" might give slightly more percieved size but at the same time there is more electrons/brightness so I would assume the difference is not enormous as I can't have it as close to me as my 23" if that makes sense
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,704
But then again the crosshair and smaller targets are bigger and easier to see / spot. I remember when you could almost tell by people play style that they hard a larger CRT.
I think the biggest down fall of larger monitors is that they seem to have more response time and input lag.
sadbuttrue
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 519
That's probably the glare cuased by the glossy screen giving you eyestrain.
grandpatzer
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2010
- Messages
- 641
No it also happens with my IPS, I'm wery sensitive on Brightness/Contrast.
But if is because of glossy screen how can that make eyestrain (?)
wtburnette
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,580
Personally, I hate the one screen I have that is glossy (on my gaming laptop). I'll never buy another glossy screen. If you don't have the angle and lighting conditions just right, they absolutely suck for viewing. That's for me personally, I know a lot of people love them because of the text clarity and vibrant colors. I don't know about eyestrain per se, but I definitely have a hard time seeing what's on the screen at times.
TerraPhantm
Gawd
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 687
I don't think it's fair to rule them out based on a single display. I find that not all are created equal. My retina MacBook is very usable in front of a window while my 20wmgx2 reflects like crazy. And even that is better than some of my friends' laptops.
grandpatzer
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2010
- Messages
- 641
My S23A700D becomes a semi mirror if I turn the lights, but I have turned off lights and have closed window so darker room and I really enjoy the blacks and vibrant color.
I'm still amazed how black the color black looks without that white glow.
Oh also for around maybe 3 months I have gotten Gunnars glasses, this was way before my current display, before the gunnars I would easily get "pain eyes" and "red eyes" that's now alot less.
I'm still amazed how black the color black looks without that white glow.
Oh also for around maybe 3 months I have gotten Gunnars glasses, this was way before my current display, before the gunnars I would easily get "pain eyes" and "red eyes" that's now alot less.
I think the market will continue to see larger and larger monitors, PPI improvements will be somewhat negated. I would wager the trend will continue up to 37" at which point we'll likely see some stagnation and PPI will come more into focus, likely with the appearance of first mass market 2160p monitors.
Is 27 really necessary? No and as a matter of fact, you don't really want to if you are thinking 1080p. 24" is about as high you want to go with 1080p.
That being said, I love my catleap. I use 3 21" 1080p monitors at work so I can really appreciate the balance of real estate and pixel density when I get home.
Is 27 really necessary? No and as a matter of fact, you don't really want to if you are thinking 1080p. 24" is about as high you want to go with 1080p.
That being said, I love my catleap. I use 3 21" 1080p monitors at work so I can really appreciate the balance of real estate and pixel density when I get home.
jhwk6957
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 14, 2011
- Messages
- 146
I agree! Especially with those korean ips displays being so cheap at 27"
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,704
I disagree PPI will be the focus for now, this is why. LCD makers like LG can already make displays of any size they desire, and the reason we are seeing PPI come into light is mostly because the LCD makers are getting new pressure to compete from OLED, since they have a lead on the market they only have 2 choices of where to go. First go for faster IE 120hz, second go for more PPI, faster is not LCDs cup of tea, in fact I would say that faster is their weakness LCDs simply are bad technology for speed. So the pressure now is for PPI, Apple becomes a perfect company to push this. Not because apple makes it they dont they just buy it and pay for exclusive access, but because Apple hates samsung, and samsung makes lots of OLED products.
So by going with high PPI screens Apple breaks one of their links to samsung and has bargaining power with LCDs, LCD makers have a big head start on OLED but they know that their days are probably numbered.
The other effect we are going to see is lower prices which we have aleady seen with things like e-IPS.
So by going with high PPI screens Apple breaks one of their links to samsung and has bargaining power with LCDs, LCD makers have a big head start on OLED but they know that their days are probably numbered.
The other effect we are going to see is lower prices which we have aleady seen with things like e-IPS.
For me, PPI matters just a little more than 120hz. I didn't find it worthy of the price premium to get a OC-able Catleap.
7680x4320 on a 27"=326 PPI. If the number sounds familiar, it's same as the iphone retina display. Though by the time those hit the mass market, 34"-37" will likely be mid range so we'll be looking at 238-259 PPI.
We got ways to go but personally I can't wait for 4320p because video cards will finally catch a much needed break at that point. OEM's might try to continue pushing for even higher res but at that point market will realize they don't need higher res so we might see a reverse competition on the mass market, who'll make a smaller 4320p and 27"-30" might represent the majority of mass market.
Video cards need a serious leap. Current pace of generational performance increments can't even be described as evolution. It's like I need a time machine to steal a video card from 2018 just to max out today's games.
7680x4320 on a 27"=326 PPI. If the number sounds familiar, it's same as the iphone retina display. Though by the time those hit the mass market, 34"-37" will likely be mid range so we'll be looking at 238-259 PPI.
We got ways to go but personally I can't wait for 4320p because video cards will finally catch a much needed break at that point. OEM's might try to continue pushing for even higher res but at that point market will realize they don't need higher res so we might see a reverse competition on the mass market, who'll make a smaller 4320p and 27"-30" might represent the majority of mass market.
Video cards need a serious leap. Current pace of generational performance increments can't even be described as evolution. It's like I need a time machine to steal a video card from 2018 just to max out today's games.
grandpatzer
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2010
- Messages
- 641
For a gamer 7680x4320 is a nightmare unless you enjoy spending hundreds of hours trying drivers and trouble shooting why games don't work, setting up 2-way, 3-way or 4-way crossfire is a nightmare, then there is the problem that 90% of games give horrible results, unstable drivers and so on, Ive never had Nvidiga multi gpu so maybe there things are better.
I left my eyefinity setup, don't really miss it, playing on one display is just as fun.
Goodfellah
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2012
- Messages
- 161
It's not viable now, even if one could could split the workload with perfect scaling to several GPU's.
Even if it were doable today (in theory, 3 catleaps = 7680x4320, each driven by a very high end card could) but PPi is still low and 2 bezels interrupting content is huge turn off for me.
Looking at the trend, single monitors will reach 4320p long before a single GPU can drive it properly.
On the CPU side of things, based on some 4320p monitor previews, it takes a i7 for mundane tasks
such as desktop usage but I'm confident CPU's will catch up long before the GPU's do, within 2 generations. How long will it take util a single card can beat 3 7970's?
Even if it were doable today (in theory, 3 catleaps = 7680x4320, each driven by a very high end card could) but PPi is still low and 2 bezels interrupting content is huge turn off for me.
Looking at the trend, single monitors will reach 4320p long before a single GPU can drive it properly.
On the CPU side of things, based on some 4320p monitor previews, it takes a i7 for mundane tasks
such as desktop usage but I'm confident CPU's will catch up long before the GPU's do, within 2 generations. How long will it take util a single card can beat 3 7970's?
At that dot pitch you'll be sitting 6 inches away from your screen to be able to read anything. Until font scaling in Windows (and I assume OS X as well, although I don't use it) improves dramatically there's no sense in going higher than 2560x1440 at 27", which some people already find uncomfortably small for extended text-related use (programming, browsing, etc.) unless you sit pretty close to the screen or have really good eyesight.
Plus I seriously doubt we'll see 34"-37" screens become mid range for PC use. That would require a very different usage pattern, i.e. seated 4-5 feet away from the screen instead of 2 feet away.
On a way-too-big ppi note, Samsung showed off a 13" laptop with a 2560x1440 screen
That laptop will induce some serious back pain from people hunched over all the time trying to read tiny text on their screen.
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,704
Font scaling in windows already works fine, the problem is all the programs that disregard it. And until we get high DPI displays none of those shitty companies like valve will ever get off their ass and fix their shitty programs.
Robertmarcus
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 671
Personally, i think 24 is the sweet spot. Im using a 27+3 23 inches, but i love 24's. They have so many different resolutions, mainly two (1200p and 1080p) and are so widely availibe from asus to benq to acer, 3d or 2d.
Good prices too,
Good prices too,
Don't browsers and editors support proper text scaling already?
Maybe programs disregard it because it's cumbersome to program for? Regardless I'm not interested in pointing the finger at either Windows or applications. The point is that the current environment isn't ultra high-res friendly at all. Until that changes there's no point in going beyond resolutions we have now as we're already pushing the boundaries of legibility without proper scaling.
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,704
Some coding is a little cumbersome but how hard can it be? Cruddy ARM CPUs can pull it off on phones. Second I have looked into this a bit because I have an HTPC, It turns out there are alot of programs and problems that really are just pure laziness. For instance many progams did repect windows scaling in XP, but in Vista MS added scaling they called Vista style scaling which is really just upscaling, probably being done on mac retinas too. The idea was this any progam that does not have scaling built in will be upscaled / stretched, and any program that does will be allowed to manage itself. All you have to do is write a little bit of info into your program litterally like 5 minutes of work to tell vista yes you can scale or no you cant. Most programs that can never updated the code so windows does not know. So actually many programs would work fine if all they did is take that 5 minutes and update. And yet tons of devs dont do this.
This is why in the past MS has had to release its own software and hardware because the companies that work with MS just don't get off their ass and keep updated, MS almost always builds in backwards compatibility. Its just a choice.
This is why in the past MS has had to release its own software and hardware because the companies that work with MS just don't get off their ass and keep updated, MS almost always builds in backwards compatibility. Its just a choice.
Last edited:
Yes, thank you for correcting me. When I said that O was talking about the GPU relative output but still was was wrong to do so.
I maybe would have agreed in a monopoly but the competition will keep driving the size up, those with inferior panels will likely try to sway the consumers with bigger screens. The moto bigger is better sits well with he mass market. Hence why we see 27" and 30" 1080p screens, IMO they don't belong at this resolution.Plus I seriously doubt we'll see 34"-37" screens become mid range for PC use. That would require a very different usage pattern, i.e. seated 4-5 feet away from the screen instead of 2 feet away.
On a way-too-big ppi note, Samsung showed off a 13" laptop with a 2560x1440 screen
There also may be additional costs involved into creating higher PPI panels, similar to the smartphone and tablet displays. The obvious workaround is to increased the screen size.
Now windows 7 itself scales ok, programs are a mixed bag. Personally, I got around most issues with some effort of my own but it's still an issue.
Also, outside gaming, there is lack of native res content. While, I'm at 1440p content, if you have a Catleap, go watch TimeScapes in native resolution. Stunningly beautiful.
Last edited:
grandpatzer
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2010
- Messages
- 641
is there really 1080p 30" computer displays?
As for 27" can't comment as never had one, but a 27" 16:9 is not alot bigger then a 24" 16:10 display.
Also for gaming and light work I'm sure it's fine, I suspect I would not be bothered by 27" 1080p as I usually find text small on high DPI displays.
I just got a 27" 2560*1440 monitor after using the ones listed in my sig for about 3 years. I would say that this is the new sweet spot. I also have an older Dell laptop that has a 17" screen with 1920*1200 resolution. The only thing better might be a 24" monitor with 2560*1440/1600 resolution. That would be insanely crisp and save desktop space. However, I do not think we will see that(at a reasonable price). With the 27" hi res monitors becoming so affordable now there is no real market driven reason to go there in my opinion. If a person is going to have just 1 monitor a high resolution 27" will allow you to have 2 full size documents or webpages up at the same time with no issues. Yes 2 smaller monitors can get you there but the extra resolution makes it very crisp.
I purchased the 27" Nixeus Vue and am very please with it and will be getting 2 more shortly.
I purchased the 27" Nixeus Vue and am very please with it and will be getting 2 more shortly.
TheMusketeer
Gawd
- Joined
- May 10, 2012
- Messages
- 592
If you are getting a 27" monitor, I recommend that you are 2 - 3 feets away from the monitor. I personally have a Samsung S27A950D and have it like 2 feet away from me, because of my small desk, and it definitely feels a bit uncomfortable for my eyes. Hopefully, I will get used to it, but I don't think it's good for the eyes
YMMV. I found that at 27" 1080p, the PPI is at it's limit, at 30" it's downright atrocious.
I was using the 22" 1080p for a long time. I found 24" to be a sweet spot for 1080p.
The proof that we are going to see 34"-37" down the road as mass market products is in the lack of 21"-24" 1440p monitors. OEM's would love to charge for the size increases as premium then repeat the process for PPI increase later down the road.
Also I don't understand why people dismiss hi res monitors with the notion that everything will be tiny as if that's set in stone and nothing can be done about that.
Yes, I will second that. I had a 32" 1080P one for a week and took it back. For computer work it was terrible because you are sitting too close to it and the dot pitch becomes apparent.
We seem to be going in the opposite direction though. The new Windows 8 tablets will be very high res. They will be putting 1920*1080 IPS panels in both 11.6" and 13" tablets. The price of these tablets are to be $599-$799.
SO.............the technology is there to put 2560*1440 in a 24" panel if they wanted and apparently sell it at an attractive price, TN or IPS. If they do this then the 24" high res WILL be the new sweet spot as a 27" is too big for most people. This should pave the way for 30" 4K monitors to become a standard for that size. The AMD 8xxx series and Nvidia 7xx Series video cards should be able to handle those well.
If they can put higher resolutions in a smaller panel that means more profit for them. Same as CPU and GPU manufacturing; the more chips they can get out of a wafer the better.
I can imagine Viewsonic as being the first to do something like this.
I want from a 24 inch 1920x1200 to a 27 inch 2560x1440. After about a month I went back to 1920x1200. A couple of reasons why.
1. Fonts Text are very very tiny and if you have bad eye sight you will struggle to see things like I did.
2. Games at that res are going to need some serious hardware, like SLI or Crossfire to play at max settings and fluid frame rates.
That was the main reasons I went back to 1920x1200, much much easier on the eyes and my games.
1. Fonts Text are very very tiny and if you have bad eye sight you will struggle to see things like I did.
2. Games at that res are going to need some serious hardware, like SLI or Crossfire to play at max settings and fluid frame rates.
That was the main reasons I went back to 1920x1200, much much easier on the eyes and my games.
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,704
Flat panel display tech, be it LCD or OLED has to start small, just because they have higher DPI in phones does not mean they are efficient enough to produce the same DPI in a 27 inch panel. They cut the substrate into smaller pieces so they can throw the ones with dead / stuck pixels or sell them into other markets.
Also I think another issue few people talk about is the spacing between subpixels and whole pixels. Basically one of the big reason we feel like high DPI displays look crisper is because the the spacing between pixels is smaller meaning their is less of a screen effect apparent. But one wonders if they just made a lower resolution display with smaller spacing between pixels would it look almost as good as a higher DPI display and just be that much easier to drive in games etc...
Also text being smaller on high DPI monitors is only a side effect of either bad programming or the person operating the display not knowing how to turn the size up.
Also I think another issue few people talk about is the spacing between subpixels and whole pixels. Basically one of the big reason we feel like high DPI displays look crisper is because the the spacing between pixels is smaller meaning their is less of a screen effect apparent. But one wonders if they just made a lower resolution display with smaller spacing between pixels would it look almost as good as a higher DPI display and just be that much easier to drive in games etc...
Also text being smaller on high DPI monitors is only a side effect of either bad programming or the person operating the display not knowing how to turn the size up.
In response to that I'll just quote what I wrote earlier:
Again I'm not interested in whose fault it is. The fact is this is the world we live in and the experience isn't anywhere near seamless yet. For some that's ok, but for others it's not. It is what it is.
The way I see it there are 2 main motivations for increasing resolution:
1. More screen real estate (fit more text/windows on the screen at the same time)
2. Smoother text
#1 requires more pixels while #2 requires more DPI (either by increasing pixel count or decreasing screen size). Assuming the same screen size, when you pack in more pixels beyond the point of legibility of text at native res you achieve #1 but do nothing for #2, unless you increase font size back to a comfortable size at which point you achieve #2 but not #1.
Example: 27" at 2560x1440 is pushing the boundaries of comfort at native res and no scaling for some users. I'd say "many" users but honestly I have no numbers to back it up. All I can say is I have pretty good eyesight and sit at a reasonably typical distance away from my monitor, and from what I've seen I'd have a hard time using a 27" 2560x1440 on a regular basis at native res. So if I had one I'd have to scale up the font. Ignoring any programs that don't scale well for the sake of argument, what I've achieved at that point is getting slightly smoother fonts but I've lost the screen real estate gains from having smaller text on a large screen.
Whether you agree or not, it's really not that hard to understand. 24" at 1920x1200 provides text that's plenty smooth enough for me, so going higher DPI doesn't buy me anything that I care about (i.e. smoother text). If I go higher res it's for the extra real estate at native res, not for smoother text. A 27" 2560x1440 would achieve that if the text weren't too small for me, which it is. The only other option I have is a 30" 2560x1600, and it looks like I could be ok with that DPI since the DPI is roughly equal to the 20.1" 1600x1200 side monitors I'm using right now.
Your mileage may and almost certainly will vary.
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,704
I posted above why higher DPI does buy you something. But Another problem is this. We get stuck in a cycle, you wont buy a high DPI monitor, and others, so the demand does not produce supply to bring down prices. Display companies then do not produce high DPI monitors. Then standard makers do not produce standards that can drive those displays, then programmers get lazy and do not code their software to take advantage of high DPI. Each group is looking at the other and the end result is no one is willing to move.
Just sucks to be in this situations. Luckily after almost a decade of stagnation we are finally moving out of this trend, but it is only because LCD makers are needing to find a new reason to sell us another monitor since many people no longer see any need to upgrade.
+1
Another thing is that OEM's cater to the mass market, they don't like us very much because we don't fall for the low value products.
OEM's cater to the mass market because most profit is there. Average user is gullible, he will buy with the "bigger is better" mindset and OEM's take advantage of that. Why do some people think we had to resort to importing a Korean Catleap to get a a ~$300 1440p monitor?
Because OEM's are forcing their most profitable stuff our way, they want to deplete 1080p TN stock. Some people look at smartphone and tablet displays and think that monitor displays can be manufactured without the OEM's charging more for them, how naive is that?
The average Joe wants the enemy in Call of Duty to be bigger so that he can shoot him easier. The OEM's are loling their way to the bank.
Hey, I'm painting my Catleap white, who wants to pay me the Apple Cinema Display MSRP in US$?
Cerulean
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,476
27" 2560x1440 IPS/LED is good, especially if you work with photography and videography.