Which current display for reading - any consensus?

[n-l]

Right, I've searched here (and across the web) can't locate any real consistent reports of a particular display which is great for reading. I need to read for approx 6-8 hours a day, so I need to identify a particular display (that is available in my country - Australia) which might be suitable.

Going off my research - I definitely want an 8-bit panel, glossy or semi-gloss coating and high contrast (as listed below). But the rest is a bit more flexible (size, resolution, ppi etc.) - especially if it means the monitor is better for reading. Budget is around $800 give or take. I originally thought a 1080p 24", but I have seen some bad reports of text clarity which is giving me second thoughts.

My decision making process:

The only broad consensus I could find was that the following features tend to provide good text clarity:
- 8 bit panel
- Glossy or semi-glossy coating
- High contrast

No real consensus on:
- PPi - Some say higher ppi, some say lower

Models I can't get a hold of with good reviews (not necessarily for reading, however):
- BenQ EW2430L/EW2730L, Liyama X2483HSU/X2783HSU

In my browsing on here I did notice at least one report of poor reading clarity on the following models:
- Samsung S24750DL, BenQ EW2440, Dell S2440L, BenQ GW2255

Models reported with good reading clarity:
- Samsung S27A850D

crispest text
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1737776

Trying To Find IPS/VA 24-27" Glossy, Preferably 72Hz+
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1768832

sharpness question for TEXT
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1848658

 

[DanCar]

I think you will find that developers spend most of their days reading. Either documentation or code. Seiki 40 inch monitors got high marks from developers. In general reading puts low requirements on a monitor. It doesn't take much to display high contrast black and white text on a screen.
In addition to a big monitor you might find a phablet and a tablet enjoyable for reading. Just have the text size set to large. Useful when you are not sitting at your desk.

 

[baii]

1. Don't know how 8bit translate to sharper text?
2. text clarity is one thing, comfortable is another thing, glossy/semi glossy may give nice looking text, but that does not translate to "better for reading"

How about SONY e ink digital paper

 

[geok1ng]

another relevant metric is minimum brightness. a good reading display should be capable of less than 60cd/m² or less. some of the so called flicker free are incapable of less than 120cd/m².

glossy and reading rarely appear on the same thread [H]ere , but i do agree with you that Benq has a few semi-glossy that are good for reading. there is only one VA panel with high refresh rate, but i doubt it is available in your country, the eizo foris 24" 144hz.

 

[n-l]

1. Don't know how 8bit translate to sharper text?

There are plenty of reports of this forum and across the net of this fact. While I don't know the exact mechanics, in short an 8-bit panel without the use of dithering apparently creates less artifacts so results in better text.

glossy and reading rarely appear on the same thread [H]ere , but i do agree with you that Benq has a few semi-glossy that are good for reading. there is only one VA panel with high refresh rate, but i doubt it is available in your country, the eizo foris 24" 144hz.

You're right about brightness. Thanks for the screen suggestion! Are referring to the Eizo FG2421? I think it has limited availability here so I'll put it on my list.

Other comments, sorry but I'm not interested in tablets etc. - computer monitors only, preferably 21"-27" or slightly bigger. 40" is way too big for my workspace.

 

[dmonkey]

If you're reading, go HiDPI with 4K or greater, preferably IPS. Nothing has as much of an impact on text quality as PPI. To be clear, you would have the same size desktop, icons, etc, but with more pixels comprising each element.

 

[NCX]

1440p and 5k IPS panels with Plasma Deposition Coating (PDC) provide the sharpest/clearest and most vibrant picture at the expense of the perceived black depth. All of the 4K monitors aside from the Monoprice 4K TN use matte coatings. Glossy MacBook Retinas and 1440p monitors are also very sharp. The Crossover 27QW Sakwa (Apples) is the newest and cheapest (300$ on eBay) monitor with PDC. More Crossover information.

 

[dmonkey]

1440p and 5k IPS panels with Plasma Deposition Coating (PDC) provide the sharpest/clearest and most vibrant picture at the expense of the perceived black depth. All of the 4K monitors aside from the Monoprice 4K TN use matte coatings. Glossy MacBook Retinas are also very sharp. The Crossover 27QW Sakwa (Apples) is the newest and cheapest (300$ on eBay) monitor with PDC.

It does bear mentioning what kind of environment the display will be used in, though. Glossy coatings are very bad, especially for reading, in any kind direct lighting condition. Unless OP is in a dark room for 6-8 hours, glossy will be a net negative in the long run.

 

[n-l]

If you're reading, go HiDPI with 4K or greater, preferably IPS. Nothing has as much of an impact on text quality as PPI. To be clear, you would have the same size desktop, icons, etc, but with more pixels comprising each element.

Yes but it doesn't appear to be such a simple relationship that higher PPI always equals crisper text:

It seems kind of logical that a lower ppi/pixel spacing causes a screen door effect because of black space between the subpixels:
http://hardforum.com/archive/index.php/t-1617504.html

However, high dpi also results in uncomfortable sized text without using windows scaling/dpi/zoom, this page reports a .260-.280 dot pitch is considered comfortable for text: http://baylake.net/ppi/

Also some subpixel arrangements are reported to result in blurry text on 4k montors:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1515634/4k-uhd-monitors-subpixel-layout-and-blurry-text/10

However, different panel types tender to render text differently because of subpixel structure and AG coating
http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12
http://hardforum.com/archive/index.php/t-1712357.html (E.g. NEC IPS 2490 24" IPS sharper for text than 24" S-PVA monitor)

Ok so not to argue that too much, so which panels are the best?

When talking A-MVA monitors, the reports I found on this forum tended to (confusingly) favour 27" models over similar 24" models. But, this kind of agrees with =DEAD= (the helpful Russian reviewer) who demonstrates the relationship between panel type/subpixel structure, AG coating, and PPI with this image

http://www.overclockers.ru/images/lab/2013/12/16/1/94_kristaleffect_big.jpg

From my perspective, it looks like the 27" A-MVAs - Samsung S27C750P / Asus VN279Q / BenQ GW2760HS. like the are clearer than the 24" A-MVA S24C750P, which for some reason looks like it has more black space between pixels. I can also see that the S27C750P looks like it has less black space between pixels, than the GW2760HS. You can also see that the S-IPS 2730MD-LED has a large amont of black space compared to the 27" A-MVAs

I would like to know the reason for this, because it tends to contradict the argument that higher ppi always = tighter pixel strucure. And, what I really want to know is, from this comparative photo, which particular models might translate to the best text clarity in real life usage?

 

[Later]

High pixel density and screen coating are most important but contrast ratio not so. Dell UP2715K with 218 ppi and plasma deposition coating would be easily the best choice but it’s expensive. I can’t really recommend current 4k monitors. I tried Dell P2415Q but the screen surface looked dirty on white background even if it the coating was light per se and acceptable for lower pixel densities. Matte coating doesn’t really fit together with smaller pixel pitch. I would recommend waiting until glossy 4k monitors are available. Windows 10 will be out soon and should improve scaling if you are worrying about that.

 

[dmonkey]

Yes but it doesn't appear to be such a simple relationship that higher PPI always equals crisper text:

It seems kind of logical that a lower ppi/pixel spacing causes a screen door effect because of black space between the subpixels:
http://hardforum.com/archive/index.php/t-1617504.html

However, high dpi also results in uncomfortable sized text without using windows scaling/dpi/zoom, this page reports a .260-.280 dot pitch is considered comfortable for text: http://baylake.net/ppi/

Also some subpixel arrangements are reported to result in blurry text on 4k montors:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1515634/4k-uhd-monitors-subpixel-layout-and-blurry-text/10

However, different panel types tender to render text differently because of subpixel structure and AG coating
http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12
http://hardforum.com/archive/index.php/t-1712357.html (E.g. NEC IPS 2490 24" IPS sharper for text than 24" S-PVA monitor)

Ok so not to argue that too much, so which panels are the best?

When talking A-MVA monitors, the reports I found on this forum tended to (confusingly) favour 27" models over similar 24" models. But, this kind of agrees with =DEAD= (the helpful Russian reviewer) who demonstrates the relationship between panel type/subpixel structure, AG coating, and PPI with this image

http://www.overclockers.ru/images/lab/2013/12/16/1/94_kristaleffect_big.jpg

From my perspective, it looks like the 27" A-MVAs - Samsung S27C750P / Asus VN279Q / BenQ GW2760HS. like the are clearer than the 24" A-MVA S24C750P, which for some reason looks like it has more black space between pixels. I can also see that the S27C750P looks like it has less black space between pixels, than the GW2760HS. You can also see that the S-IPS 2730MD-LED has a large amont of black space compared to the 27" A-MVAs

I would like to know the reason for this, because it tends to contradict the argument that higher ppi always = tighter pixel strucure. And, what I really want to know is, from this comparative photo, which particular models might translate to the best text clarity in real life usage?

I'm not sure you "clearly" understood my post. HiDPI (which implies scaling and requires high PPI) has by far the greatest impact on text quality. This is a basic precept of the publishing industry.The rest is nonsense.

 

[geok1ng]

Back to another issue.
Screen size.
Ergonomics matter as much as contrast, minimum brightness, refresh rate or subpixel arrangement. I have typed and gamed from 17" to 40", and the best ergonomics for me hover around the 23-25" mark. and a fully adjustable stand is priceless.

with that said, when it comes to reading i still turn off the PC(s) pick up my kindle paperwhite and head to the hammock.

 

[n-l]

I have used high dpi monitors - I'm currently typing this on a 1600x900 14.1" notebook - and in my opinion high dpi is not always desirable. This is mainly because windows scaling doesn't work properly..

I have also read a few times that a dot pitch of .27x-.28 is a sweet spot for text. The monitors that fall into this category are 24" 1200p, 24" 1080p, 32" 1440p, 22" 1050p for example.

One review that seems to echo this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/benq-bl3200pt-qhd-monitor,3898.html

"The only complaint we’ve registered along the way involves font size. With a pixel density of 109 ppi, text in most Windows applications becomes pretty small. And the older the user, the more difficult it becomes to read at normal viewing distances. BenQ now offers a neat and obvious solution to the problem. If Windows' scaling doesn’t satisfy you, then simply increase the screen size."

So I'm not convinced, without seeing high quality photos of the actual text, that high dpi is better.

 

[dmonkey]

I have used high dpi monitors - I'm currently typing this on a 1600x900 14.1" notebook - and in my opinion high dpi is not always desirable. This is mainly because windows scaling doesn't work properly..

I have also read a few times that a dot pitch of .27x-.28 is a sweet spot for text. The monitors that fall into this category are 24" 1200p, 24" 1080p, 32" 1440p, 22" 1050p for example.

One review that seems to echo this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/benq-bl3200pt-qhd-monitor,3898.html

"The only complaint we’ve registered along the way involves font size. With a pixel density of 109 ppi, text in most Windows applications becomes pretty small. And the older the user, the more difficult it becomes to read at normal viewing distances. BenQ now offers a neat and obvious solution to the problem. If Windows' scaling doesn’t satisfy you, then simply increase the screen size."

So I'm not convinced, without seeing high quality photos of the actual text, that high dpi is better.

Scaling issues aside, it is definitively better. I mean, you wouldn't read a pixellated book would you? People have been held hostage by computer text so long they don't really know what the hell is good these days. Doesn't it surprise you that a cheap newspaper has clearer and more legible text than your screen? If you can afford it get the 5K iMac and don't look back, I say. At least take a look at it in the store if you have any doubts.

 

[n-l]

Scaling issues aside, it is definitively better. I mean, you wouldn't read a pixellated book would you? People have been held hostage by computer text so long they don't really know what the hell is good these days. Doesn't it surprise you that a cheap newspaper has clearer and more legible text than your screen? If you can afford it get the 5K iMac and don't look back, I say. At least take a look at it in the store if you have any doubts.

Regardless how good technology is, I can’t ever see text being easier to read on a monitor than a newspaper. You also read a newspaper (and tablet etc.) at a much closer distance than a monitor. The average person probably can’t discern the 300dpi of a magazine at the viewing distance of a monitor anyway (the recommended viewing distance is 30 inches). High ppi makes sense when you are viewing a small screen mobile phone/tablet close to your eyes where you visual acuity could actually detect the pixels. But it makes less sense as the viewing distance becomes greater for computer monitors and HDTVs. You could bring the monitor closer, but it’s just not advisable.

So you can't just say its low PPI per se that's been letting PC monitors down - it's a combination of low quality panels, poor (non-uniform) backlighting, subpixel technology, software subpixel rendering etc.

Macs have always had a better standard quality of panel that the average market. I remember when (LG) Apple Cinema displays were all the rage - noone could keep up. It was nothing to do with dpi. It was primarily the quality LG panels they used. And of course OSX's superior font rendering helped a lot.

In sum, all these factors should be considered:
1. panel type/subpixel structure
2. viewing distance
3. screen size
4. ppi
5. software font rendering
6. application (office work vs. photo editing/multimedia)
7. visual acuity

Links:

http://wolfcrow.com/blog/notes-by-dr-optoglass-the-resolution-of-the-human-eye/ (ppi of magazines, monitors etc.)
http://www.allscan.ca/ergo/vangle.htm (Recommended viewing distance)
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/LivingAHighDPIDesktopLifestyleCanBePainful.aspx
http://www.tested.com/tech/pcs/460553-problem-high-ppi-windows-display-scaling/
http://referencehometheater.com/2013/commentary/4k-calculator/
http://cdn.referencehometheater.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Ideal-Distances-Chart.jpg?dfb8f9
http://www.cnet.com/au/news/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/
https://tasel.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/at-what-point-does-your-eyes-stop-caring/

 

[dmonkey]

Regardless how good technology is, I can’t ever see text being easier to read on a monitor than a newspaper. You also read a newspaper (and tablet etc.) at a much closer distance than a monitor. The average person probably can’t discern the 300dpi of a magazine at the viewing distance of a monitor anyway (the recommended viewing distance is 30 inches). High ppi makes sense when you are viewing a small screen mobile phone/tablet close to your eyes where you visual acuity could actually detect the pixels. But it makes less sense as the viewing distance becomes greater for computer monitors and HDTVs. You could bring the monitor closer, but it’s just not advisable.

So you can't just say its low PPI per se that's been letting PC monitors down - it's a combination of low quality panels, poor (non-uniform) backlighting, subpixel technology, software subpixel rendering etc.

Macs have always had a better standard quality of panel that the average market. I remember when (LG) Apple Cinema displays were all the rage - noone could keep up. It was nothing to do with dpi. It was primarily the quality LG panels they used. And of course OSX's superior font rendering helped a lot.

In sum, all these factors should be considered:
1. panel type/subpixel structure
2. viewing distance
3. screen size
4. ppi
5. software font rendering
6. application (office work vs. photo editing/multimedia)
7. visual acuity

Links:

http://wolfcrow.com/blog/notes-by-dr-optoglass-the-resolution-of-the-human-eye/ (ppi of magazines, monitors etc.)
http://www.allscan.ca/ergo/vangle.htm (Recommended viewing distance)
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/LivingAHighDPIDesktopLifestyleCanBePainful.aspx
http://www.tested.com/tech/pcs/460553-problem-high-ppi-windows-display-scaling/
http://referencehometheater.com/2013/commentary/4k-calculator/
http://cdn.referencehometheater.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Ideal-Distances-Chart.jpg?dfb8f9
http://www.cnet.com/au/news/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/
https://tasel.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/at-what-point-does-your-eyes-stop-caring/

The fact remains that pixellated text at <100 PPI is suboptimal no matter how orderly these pixels are to be arranged; there's not even an argument to be had here. Choosing a 24" 1080p panel for your purposes would, regardless of its "quality", be a mistake.

 

[n-l]

The fact remains that pixellated text at <100 PPI is suboptimal no matter how orderly these pixels are to be arranged; there's not even an argument to be had here. Choosing a 24" 1080p panel for your purposes would, regardless of its "quality", be a mistake.

I certainly wouldn't argue with you that 1080p on a 24" is regressive. I would choose a suitable 1200p 24" over a 1080p any day, the trouble is finding a suitable one. 1080p on a 27" is even more regressive... these are designed only as mini TVs. Grainier even, than a 19" monitor (1280x1024 @ 19” = 86.27 PPI, 0.2944mm dot pitch).

My experience is that if you jump up to around 92-100 PPI most people will be fine. I think this is why most places (even TFT central) tend to mention that a .27 pitch is good for text.

Also any reading material you have to back up the <100 PPI argument though - would be good to have.

 

[aion11]

I have used high dpi monitors - I'm currently typing this on a 1600x900 14.1" notebook - and in my opinion high dpi is not always desirable. This is mainly because windows scaling doesn't work properly..

I have also read a few times that a dot pitch of .27x-.28 is a sweet spot for text. The monitors that fall into this category are 24" 1200p, 24" 1080p, 32" 1440p, 22" 1050p for example.

One review that seems to echo this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/benq-bl3200pt-qhd-monitor,3898.html

"The only complaint we’ve registered along the way involves font size. With a pixel density of 109 ppi, text in most Windows applications becomes pretty small. And the older the user, the more difficult it becomes to read at normal viewing distances. BenQ now offers a neat and obvious solution to the problem. If Windows' scaling doesn’t satisfy you, then simply increase the screen size."

So I'm not convinced, without seeing high quality photos of the actual text, that high dpi is better.

I find it funny everyone is recommending 27 inch 1440p as the "sweet spot" for pc displays when the text is far too small for the average user. You are basically forced to use scaling or sit really close.

 

[n-l]

I find it funny everyone is recommending 27 inch 1440p as the "sweet spot" for pc displays when the text is far too small for the average user. You are basically forced to use scaling or sit really close.

Hallelujah! I'm sure 1440p is good for something.. Photo editing, gaming etc. - but I find it hard to believe these 16:9 monitors were designed with text work in mind. Trying convincing the masses though, it's impossible.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Hallelujah! I'm sure 1440p is good for something.. Photo editing, gaming etc. - but I find it hard to believe these 16:9 monitors were designed with text work in mind. Trying convincing the masses though, it's impossible.

*TOTALLY* agree.

To me 1440p is only really going to be good....on a 30"+ 5k monitor with 2x scaling

 

[dmonkey]

I certainly wouldn't argue with you that 1080p on a 24" is regressive. I would choose a suitable 1200p 24" over a 1080p any day, the trouble is finding a suitable one. 1080p on a 27" is even more regressive... these are designed only as mini TVs. Grainier even, than a 19" monitor (1280x1024 @ 19” = 86.27 PPI, 0.2944mm dot pitch).

My experience is that if you jump up to around 92-100 PPI most people will be fine. I think this is why most places (even TFT central) tend to mention that a .27 pitch is good for text.

Also any reading material you have to back up the <100 PPI argument though - would be good to have.

I could write you a fairly conclusive report, but frankly, you don't pay me enough . I don't think you've done enough research. You keep bandying about the same things you've read that seem to be more applicable to the days of CRTs. If these recommendations suffice for you, well, why not, I say. After all, you probably read 6-8 hours a day in aggregate already on various displays.

 

[n-l]

I could write you a fairly conclusive report, but frankly, you don't pay me enough . I don't think you've done enough research. You keep bandying about the same things you've read that seem to be more applicable to the days of CRTs. If these recommendations suffice for you, well, why not, I say. After all, you probably read 6-8 hours a day in aggregate already on various displays.

Yes - nothing wrong the good CRT days, we all had to start somewhere

I do recognise that the potential technology is there to display things with great clarity in theory, but it is highly dependent on the right scaling, OS, applications etc.

So at least give an example of a setup (monitor + OS at least) which you believe has or can pull this off (such as your own).