Perfect size for 1080p monitor?

ibex333

ibex333

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
1,122
Trying to downgrade from my 1440p monitor to 1080p. Don't play enough games to justify a beefy video card and a huge monitor. Might as well liquefy these "assets".


27" seems too big for a 1080p monitor, and anti-aliasing pretty much becomes a must. I'd like to buy something small enough that AA or NO AA wouldn't make much of a difference just like no AA is hardly noticeable at 2k or 4k.

Let me know what YOU think about sizing in relation to 1920x1080 resolution.


Thanks!
 
Phone manufacturers recommend something between 4.3" and 6.5" diagonal... oh wait that's for much higher resolutions, dang it....
 
23"
24" start looking too large
I like FullHD on my 13" work laptop, it is perfect :)
 
Its a preference thing really. I have a 34" 2560x1080p monitor and I couldn't go back to something smaller but that's just me. I do have a 28" 1920x1200 monitor so I do have something to compare it to. If money is a issue I'd say stick to a 22"-24" size.
 
34” 2560x1080 is actually a pretty enjoyable, yet lightweight gaming resolution. It’s the equivalent of a 27”16x9 vertical height display.

If you think that pixel pitch is too large then maybe consider a 29” ultra wide which is 24” 16x9 display height.
 
24" for my tastes is the ideal balance between scaling vs image quality for 1080p.
 
I went from 24' to 27" (1080p ips) and really... Why I was listening to internet crowd shitting on 1080p at 27"? It looks exactly the same as 1080p at 24" but I just have a bigger, more impressive screen.
I have to use the same amount of anti aliasing in games as I had with 24".
I cannot see any pixels unless I touch the screen with my nose. Jaggies are all the same as on 24"
 
I have 3 27" 4K screens.
And they're nice and all. But they're damn near unviewable without screen magnification. And I've got perfect vision. Stuff is just ever so slightly TOO small.
I could probably have saved around $500-ish had I gone with 1440p monitors instead at 27".

I'd say 24" and 29" widescreen are probably the best at 1080p
27" or 34" widescreen may be okay for some, but others may find it too grainy-looking at 1080p.
 
It depends how far away you can put the display.
The further away it is the easier on the eyes and feels more relaxing.

I use a 110" screen 1080p projector about 3.5m away, this is fantastic.
It is approx equivalent to a 55" screen 1.4m away although a little closer is ok.
Scale down the size depending on distance.
I wouldnt go less than 27".

You can get eye strain from being too close (focus muscles get tired being in harder use over a long period) and having to strain to read text that is too small.
And larger feels more immersive even if the size/distance ratio remains the same.
 
Last edited:
Chas said:
I have 3 27" 4K screens.
And they're nice and all. But they're damn near unviewable without screen magnification. And I've got perfect vision. Stuff is just ever so slightly TOO small.
I could probably have saved around $500-ish had I gone with 1440p monitors instead at 27".
Click to expand...
150% scaling and it's just as big as on 1440p but text is much clearer, that's the whole point of 4k, no more pixelated text...

For 1080p as others already said 23-24 is biggest I would go, even that means pixelated text rendering.
 
ors said:
150% scaling and it's just as big as on 1440p but text is much clearer, that's the whole point of 4k, no more pixelated text...

For 1080p as others already said 23-24 is biggest I would go, even that means pixelated text rendering.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I don't normally mind slightly pixelated text. Doesn't bug me.

I just lament the extra $500 out of pocket learning said lesson.
 
The ideal size for 1080p, at least in a Windows desktop environment, is 23". That corresponds to 96 PPI, which the Windows UI and fonts are based around. Even better, some manufacturers (like Dell) offer glossy 23" IPS monitors.

1080p at 27" and above simply looks like ass.
 
gan7114 said:
The ideal size for 1080p, at least in a Windows desktop environment, is 23". That corresponds to 96 PPI, which the Windows UI and fonts are based around.
Click to expand...
This is a very logical suggestion. Don't go above 23" for this reason.

Personally, it takes me a little more, around 110 PPI, for my brain to forget the pixels are there. I went 27"/4K and I'll never go back. The sharp text is awesome. My next monitor will be 5120x2880 though, so I can use an exact 2x scaling ratio.
 
gan7114 said:
The ideal size for 1080p, at least in a Windows desktop environment, is 23". That corresponds to 96 PPI, which the Windows UI and fonts are based around. Even better, some manufacturers (like Dell) offer glossy 23" IPS monitors.

1080p at 27" and above simply looks like ass.
Click to expand...
Depends how far away the display is.
Blanket statements arent valid.
 
Nenu said:
Depends how far away the display is.
Click to expand...
Well, the thread states we are talking about a monitor here not a TV so around 1m viewing distance. And at that distance even on 23 text rendering is less than ideal... You won't see pixels per say at that distance, but text will look pixelated.
 
ors said:
Well, the thread states we are talking about a monitor here not a TV so around 1m viewing distance. And at that distance even on 23 text rendering is less than ideal... You won't see pixels per say at that distance, but text will look pixelated.
Click to expand...

Text on a 23" 1080p monitor from 3 feet away does not look "pixelated."
 
Greyson said:
Text on a 23" 1080p monitor from 3 feet away does not look "pixelated."
Click to expand...
Was about to say the same.
I use a 27" monitor from less than a meter away, it doesnt look pixelated.
I used a 42" plasma from about 1.5m away, it didnt look pixelated.

The size of the screen should be relative to the distance you are away from it.
There is no hard and fast size for a particular res.
A range yes, depending what you want to achieve.
 
Greyson said:
Text on a 23" 1080p monitor from 3 feet away does not look "pixelated."
Click to expand...
Try a 140 PPI monitor at the same distance and you will see what I mean. Text really is pixelated, on smaller fonts you see the jagged edges of where fonts don't have enough pixel density to render properly.
 
ors said:
Try a 140 PPI monitor at the same distance and you will see what I mean. Text really is pixelated, on smaller fonts you see the jagged edges of where fonts don't have enough pixel density to render properly.
Click to expand...

It's really not, but i'm not going to convince you otherwise in any case. You see what you see.
 
Greyson said:
It's really not, but i'm not going to convince you otherwise in any case. You see what you see.
Click to expand...
It's not pixelated because of antialiasing, but it certainly is a bit hazy. 3 feet might be a little far, so that helps. Usually I'm about 2 feet away.

You can't deny that increasing the PPI increases the sharpness. It's simple logic. More pixels for the same physical size means more detail can be represented and it'll have smoother curves and diagonals.

You might be perfectly comfortable at a classic DPI like 96 and think it's fine. I used a 91 DPI monitor for years and didn't think anything of it. I stepped up to 162 DPI a couple years ago, and now when I go back to a lower DPI it's sort of irritating.

The biggest factor is subjectivity. Some people like what others don't. As Nenu said, distance matters, and it also depends on what you want to achieve. For ibex333's use case, 23"/1080p would probably be appropriate.

*edit*

ibex333:

27" 1440p: 108.8 DPI
27" 1080p: 81.6 DPI
23" 1080p: 95.7 DPI
21" 1080p: 104.9 DPI
20" 1080p: 110.1 DPI

If you're fine with no antialiasing at 1440p on your current monitor, a 20" would be the closest pixel size. I don't know whether you'd be OK or not with 23", but it's much better than 27"/1080p.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top