Using big displays as monitors

[wirk]

The arrival of monitors in the 40" size range raised discussions in other threads if there are limits on the size of displays used a monitors. Note that by "use as monitor" there is typically meant scenario of personal, solitary use in a desktop environment. There are arguments the 40" is maximum size in this scenario but there are also opposite claims that size does not matter since bigger displays can be put at a larger distance. In this way, e.g. 130" projector screen can be equally well serving as monitor display as the 40" on a desktop. There are also arguments that 50", 60" displays can be put on the desk and used at larger distance with some head movements. My argument is that typical desktop use means display located in personal space, space which is private (think about such space like when two people are talking standing they keep at certain distance, closer distance is immediately perceived as kind of trespassing).

What do you think about this?

 

[Zepher]

I personally think 34" ultrawide is the optimal size for personal use.
It does look overly large when you first set it up but then it starts to feel normal.
40" 16x9 at the same distance I sit from the 34" would be way too large.

the 40" wouldn't even fit in the cubicle.

 

[wirk]

^What is the free space measured from the desktop? There is quite a lot of space below your monitor, 40" fills the visual space from bottom to the top. I think 40" would fit and it is
not too wide,especially if it would be curved.

 

[Zepher]

it's about 3 inches. I had the monitor about 1/2" lower (the lower of the 2 mounting holes on the stock stand) and that seemed just a little too low

 

[Excessionoz]

I use a Seiki 39" monitor. Due to eyesight deterioration, I run it at 1920 * 1080 instead of native (3840 * 2160), and it's pretty damned perfect a monitor. I wouldn't dream of dropping down below 39" now.

From 2009-2013 I used a 32" Sony Bravia @ 1920 * 1080, which is now my dad's monitor, and it was perfect for gaming, especially us non-twitch gamers, who don't care about 80ms+ display lag

I do miss multiple monitors -- I could not co-locate a 39" screen and a 30" (portrait mode) display at the same time, I tried, but I just couldn't read the far edge of the screen (eyesight problems mostly). Since I went to single 39" display, life has been grand.

 

[Comixbooks]

LCDS are a inferior technology it might be the best thing right now but give or take 20 years.
They are not Natural Light thus some people can't tolerate them.

When my monitor is too big like 24"+ I loose my spacial skills the Liight becomes dominate thus more eyestrain. Eyes just get pushed back in the skull.
Could be that I wear glasses but I doubt it....


21.5" was like super big in 2006

now 27"+ is the Norm

TV on the other hand I can't even tolerate

 

[qkslvr221]

Responding from other thread

I get it. But lets face it even the brightest projectors within reasonable reach money wise are terrible for PQ in a semi bright room. The lamps have to be replaced constantly (I leave my displays on quite a bit) and the heat output is enough to replace a space heater. There are PLENTY of downsides with projectors. If you can't control your room lighting easily its just not practical. Now with a heavily light controlled room projectors can be amazing. But most people I know simply don't have a room they can dedicate to this purpose.

Plus a 4K projector? Starting at what? $7,000?

Projectors will always have the same pitfalls (bulb replacement could be eliminated with newer laser tech though and lessened with LED bulbs that last 100,000 hours versus 3000 at 75 percent brightness).

Yes, light control is a must for projectors. That's one of the main reasons I use monitors like the Phillips in addition to them, because I don't see working in a darkroom 24/7 as feasible or practical.

The other things you mentioned are non-issues for people in this market. Heat is no more than large screens, and even at 5k+ they're not much more expensive than an 80+ LCD or OLED TV of comparable resolution (which the comment I was responding to was advocating).

Even on the non-laser models with standard bulbs, most come with a replacement voucher, and only cost around 200-250 bucks to replace. That's for 2000-3000 hours full brightness use, or around a year of 8-hour per day usage. Not exactly a bank buster for someone willing to drop 7 grand on a display.

 

[wirk]

LCDS are a inferior technology it might be the best thing right now but give or take 20 years. They are not Natural Light thus some people can't tolerate them.When my monitor is too big like 24"+ I loose my spacial skills the Liight becomes dominate thus more eyestrain. Eyes just get pushed back in the skull.

Obviously the present picture quality of displays is not ideal but it is good enough for 98% of people. They would welcome better picture quality but without having to pay more.

Could be that I wear glasses but I doubt it....21.5" was like super big in 2006
now 27"+ is the Norm TV on the other hand I can't even tolerate

It seems the 27" is acceptable for most people after some time of usage. On the other hand 40" is for enthusiasts, it is hard to think that it could become a norm for the masses. We are close to reaching maximum display size for everybody.

 

[TechLarry]

32" at 1440p is as perfect as it gets IMHO.

 

[Psych0]

It really depends on use case scenario.

Strictly from a desktop usage scenario, I already find 24" monitors to be sub optimal in terms of being too wide mostly and plain too big.

This may sound odd but I have an old 4:3 aspect 17" CRT that perfectly encapsulates the area that my eyes can see. Meaning that I don't have to look to the left, right, up, down, don't have to turn my head and otherwise don't have to use my sub par peripheral vision (compared to the ideal focal advantage of my central vision) to see the entire contents of the screen.

Another issue is that in order to fully encompass the optimal central vision of the eye with a larger monitor, one will need to move their monitor further back the bigger the monitor is. This is an issue because of the way the human eye works. Quite simply the further the object, the less detail that can be perceived. It seems backwards getting a higher resolution monitor only to move it further away, unless your only goal is more space on the screen, in which case I guess you're just missing out.

Most LCD monitors come equipped with standard VESA mounting holes so it makes sense to me to take advantage of them while simultaneously working in perfect harmony with the nature of our eyes and with the advantages of the display. An LCD arm will allow you to move the monitor as close to your eyes as necessary, while using a smaller and thus more advantageous display in terms of pixel density without needing to bother with DPI issues or ridiculously bigger and bigger monitors. Can you image one day when you're wheeling in a 100 foot monitor to compensate for your 16k resolution on a desktop? It just doesn't make sense.

 

[wyem]

Totally disagree on the point about a 24 inch monitor being too wide or too big. To me a 24 inches like working on a small school desk, you always wish you had a bit more room to put things down. I guess it does depend on what you use it for though. But I do think these 24 inchers will not be the standard in 5 to 10 years.

 

[Psych0]

Totally disagree on the point about a 24 inch monitor being too wide or too big. To me a 24 inches like working on a small school desk, you always wish you had a bit more room to put things down. I guess it does depend on what you use it for though. But I do think these 24 inchers will not be the standard in 5 to 10 years.

Chances are you keep your monitor slightly further back on your desk than me. My monitor is on an arm and it sits just less than one arm distance from my face.

The point being that I'd like to move the monitor even closer than it already is as having the monitor closer to the eyes is more in harmony with the strength of the human eye, that being, it perceives detail better at closer distances. A few inches may not seem like much but it makes a difference. I can spot details quicker and easier than had I moved it back a few inches to fully encompass my central vision.

 

[Godmachine]

I happily used a 40 inch Samsung A650 as a main PC monitor (with 2 others) for almost 5-6 years until the CCFL bulbs began to degrade and cause backlight issues.

I think with 4K at 40 inches that will be the sweet spot. I can't imagine using a 24 inch display at 4k , the scaling issues would be nightmarish.

I've got a light controlled room so I'm thinking of getting a 4K projector (this fall we're suppose to get them around the $3,500 range finally)but I'm worried I'll be replacing bulbs so fast with my carefree usage of displays and general laziness in turning them off.

 

[bexamous]

I think 40"@4k is pretty great, maybe 38"@4k would be slightly better, or 40-42"@5k... but I can't see going down to those super wide 34" displays.

 

[elvn]

I had a 37" 1080p at my desk and it was eyeball-bending and micro neck bending to the periphery. I moved it ~ 4' away on its own pillar before I sold it soon after.
Using a huge 4k for desktop-apps much like having a multiple monitor array would be fine when using multiple windows, application viewports, preview panels, and toolboxes, etc but for full screen usage and games it is terrible in my opinion.

Until games start having adjustable FoV you are stuck on the overwhelming majority with HOR+ which makes the same exact 16:9 scene just JUMBO on a wall in front of your face. You don't get any increase in FoV unless you change the aspect ratio of the monitor. I'd love a wide aspect ratio monitor for the immersion factor (and VR headset with VR-designed games) - but the way games are now, having a single giant 16:9 wall in your face at a desk (with all the scene objects the same size ratio vs the 16:9 viewport, and in most cases the same HUD, text, map, pointer position relation etc) is ridiculous imo.

Note that on some of the screens you could probably run 21:9 mode resolutions though, with bars on top/bottom.

 

[wyem]

I just measured my average window size and it seems I like them about 900 pixels tall. so the biggest deal for me with a 4k monitor is having that extra second row of windows for reference material.

 

[elvn]

I made this graphic to show apples-to-apples desktop/app real-estate differences between different resolution monitors, all at 108.8ppi (what a 27" 2560x1440 is).
The 4k panel equates to around a 40.8 " diagonal.

 

[Godmachine]

Responding from other thread



Yes, light control is a must for projectors. That's one of the main reasons I use monitors like the Phillips in addition to them, because I don't see working in a darkroom 24/7 as feasible or practical.

The other things you mentioned are non-issues for people in this market. Heat is no more than large screens, and even at 5k+ they're not much more expensive than an 80+ LCD or OLED TV of comparable resolution (which the comment I was responding to was advocating).

Even on the non-laser models with standard bulbs, most come with a replacement voucher, and only cost around 200-250 bucks to replace. That's for 2000-3000 hours full brightness use, or around a year of 8-hour per day usage. Not exactly a bank buster for someone willing to drop 7 grand on a display.

I've seen some brand new JVC 4k projectors and in a closed room they pump out a pretty noticable amount of heat. I've never had a TV (even a big plasma) heat up a room like a projector can with their generally larger and louder fan (or fans). I hate hearing fan noise while watching a movie. So that means I'll be having to invest in a quiet projector which means spending more money. My TV's don't make any sound outside of their respective speakers.

The bulb issue is a big one. I'm sorry but having to pay 200-250 bucks every 2000-3000 hours is unacceptable for most people. Most people who buy TV's don't even think about such things and would consider that just crazy when they dump $1000 to even get a decent one. I mean think about that for a moment.. that's thousands of dollars just to keep it going. That's not a one and done kind of concept that people accept. Anyone that will drop $7,000 into a projector probably doesn't give a shit about $200-$250 for a bulb to replace. But if you are talking someone dumping $899 into a projector then that $200-$250 becomes a concern if you plan to use that TV at all for any kind extended period (say for gaming or for your kids to watch their shows and especially PC/Mac users). I use my displays constantly. I'm sure I'm not alone in that among this forum. Having to dump extra money into a display I already use is a concept that's hard to accept.

Now newer projectors offer bulbs sometimes for only $99 (HD22 comes to mind) that offer 5000 hours once calibrated. That is MUCH more acceptable but it isn't the norm.

The single biggest reason to buy a projector is for display size. Going from a 50 inch to a 120 inch screen is like a religious experience. But projectors offer NOTHING else that comes as a real advantage. Projectors with amazing contrast are often thousands of dollars. I bought a Sony 50 inch recently that has some of the best contrast you can get until you start dumping thousands into a higher end Samsung and that Sony was only $699.

Another big issue with projectors is lens problems. You've got issues with dealing with long throw cheaper setups that require mounting. You can't exactly move it around unless you buy a short throw projector which are generally a bit more expensive. You also have to pay for options that help you dial in the exact display size you want and buy expensive projection material if you want deeper contrast or better image quality. On a regular LCD you just setup it up , calibrate and go. No issues with focus. No keystone problems. No weird off sets to deal with weird geometry issues. Most people don't want to deal with that , granted projectors are the best portable option for travel hands down (obviously). Also bulb replacement means taking it off the mount and that can be a real pain in the ass as well. Then you have issues with color wheels concerns DLP projectors. I'm screwed on that as I can easily see the rainbow effect. Its not an uncommon issue either. LCD or higher end LED projectors are pretty much it for me. I've see projectors with 6x or even 8x color wheels and I still see the rainbow effect during action scenes in movies.

Despite my general negative attitude towards projectors I love them. I'm getting one this holiday season because I have a light controlled room and the proper setup. But I would never just advise even enthusiasts to grab one. Projectors are still too much of a pain in the ass for most people. For those willing to deal with them they can produce amazing results. Once projectors have 50,000+ backlighting systems and quieter fans and under a price point of $999 (especially with 4k) then I think the negatives will be blown out by the positives.

 

[elvn]

I think it's going to go the other way in the forseeable future with VR headsets with very high resolution (eventually) , proper black levels&detail-in-blacks, high motion definition(hz) and blur-elimination, trumping any projected largeness or desk screens, showing perceptually huge screens and "worlds". In the much longer run clear ultra high rez augmented VR "projecting" things similarly in 3d space.

 

[qkslvr221]

I've seen some brand new JVC 4k projectors and in a closed room they pump out a pretty noticable amount of heat. I've never had a TV (even a big plasma) heat up a room like a projector can with their generally larger and louder fan (or fans). I hate hearing fan noise while watching a movie. So that means I'll be having to invest in a quiet projector which means spending more money. My TV's don't make any sound outside of their respective speakers.

The bulb issue is a big one. I'm sorry but having to pay 200-250 bucks every 2000-3000 hours is unacceptable for most people. Most people who buy TV's don't even think about such things and would consider that just crazy when they dump $1000 to even get a decent one. I mean think about that for a moment.. that's thousands of dollars just to keep it going. That's not a one and done kind of concept that people accept. Anyone that will drop $7,000 into a projector probably doesn't give a shit about $200-$250 for a bulb to replace. But if you are talking someone dumping $899 into a projector then that $200-$250 becomes a concern if you plan to use that TV at all for any kind extended period (say for gaming or for your kids to watch their shows and especially PC/Mac users). I use my displays constantly. I'm sure I'm not alone in that among this forum. Having to dump extra money into a display I already use is a concept that's hard to accept.

Now newer projectors offer bulbs sometimes for only $99 (HD22 comes to mind) that offer 5000 hours once calibrated. That is MUCH more acceptable but it isn't the norm.

The single biggest reason to buy a projector is for display size. Going from a 50 inch to a 120 inch screen is like a religious experience. But projectors offer NOTHING else that comes as a real advantage. Projectors with amazing contrast are often thousands of dollars. I bought a Sony 50 inch recently that has some of the best contrast you can get until you start dumping thousands into a higher end Samsung and that Sony was only $699.

Another big issue with projectors is lens problems. You've got issues with dealing with long throw cheaper setups that require mounting. You can't exactly move it around unless you buy a short throw projector which are generally a bit more expensive. You also have to pay for options that help you dial in the exact display size you want and buy expensive projection material if you want deeper contrast or better image quality. On a regular LCD you just setup it up , calibrate and go. No issues with focus. No keystone problems. No weird off sets to deal with weird geometry issues. Most people don't want to deal with that , granted projectors are the best portable option for travel hands down (obviously). Also bulb replacement means taking it off the mount and that can be a real pain in the ass as well. Then you have issues with color wheels concerns DLP projectors. I'm screwed on that as I can easily see the rainbow effect. Its not an uncommon issue either. LCD or higher end LED projectors are pretty much it for me. I've see projectors with 6x or even 8x color wheels and I still see the rainbow effect during action scenes in movies.

I think we're getting into two different discussions here. The original post was in response to those advocating an 80+" LED/OLED screen, or dual 40" 4k displays. Anyone in this market is clearly not going to be fussed by a 250 dollar bulb replacement every year, or screen costs.

As for the regular enthusiast market ($800-1200), there are a few strong options worth recommending. Projectors like the Epson 8350 offer quiet 25dB performance, without any color wheel issues and 100 dollar bulb replacements.
That's 100 dollars a year for better-than-plasma contrast, 10-bit color, and an up to 200" display with a fully adjustable throw/focus lens. Oh, and the input latency is less than most IPS monitors at only 15ms.

Screens can vary greatly, but it's not hard to find quality 120" models for around 100 bucks. You can also find special paint, and frame your own screen on the wall for a lot less.

I've owned the 8700UB which is one step up from the 8350, and it's been amazing for over 4 years. No rainbow effects, and only one bulb replacement so far with over 5000 hours of use.
Calibration is pretty good out-of-box, but just like most screens I recommend a tool or searching forums for pro presets. I'm glad to share any samples/settings from my setup, good luck with yours!

 

[UnrealCpu]

i just bought a 50" vizio 60hz 3840 x 2160

tried gaming with it and felt very uncomfortable compared to my 27" 2560x1440

Did not see much difference with 4k res either compared to 2560x1440 on a 27" looks alot nicer to me and easier on the eyes. Could be because these 4k tvs are just not meant to be computer monitors

FPS games suck on them as well. Could not play counter strike GO due to either response times or movement of the picture being so big.
Blacks are awesome on the tv almost as good as my F8500 plasma

 

[wirk]

I had a 37" 1080p at my desk and it was eyeball-bending and micro neck bending to the periphery. I moved it ~ 4' away on its own pillar before I sold it soon after. Using a huge 4k for desktop-apps much like having a multiple monitor array would be fine when using multiple windows, application viewports, preview panels, and toolboxes, etc but for full screen usage and games it is terrible in my opinion.

I have 37" 1080p TV in use with my treadmill. When trying it quite some time ago as amonitor I found that resolution was not enough, there was strange effect of seeing pixel spacing grid at certain angles. I concluded than that resolution is too low for such a big monitor. But now with the 4K, it should be perfect.

I think it's going to go the other way in the forseeable future with VR headsets with very high resolution (eventually) , proper black levels&detail-in-blacks, high motion definition(hz) and blur-elimination, trumping any projected largeness or desk screens, showing perceptually huge screens and "worlds". In the much longer run clear ultra high rez augmented VR "projecting" things similarly in 3d space.

VR is different viewing scenario and usage than monitors. It is tying user senses very tightly which results in bigger strain on the nervous system. Due to this it can not replace monitors used for long sessions. VR as we know it now is for special entertainment/work in restricted time like e.g. cinema or working underwater.