The truth about 1920x1080 on a 27" display

[chipachap]

My opinion for what it's worth

It's all personal preference and there isn't a right answer or a "truth"

That is quite clear from the ongoing discussion.

My own experience was coming from a 50" plasma / PS3 to a 27" 1080p / gaming PC really blew my mind. I have just bought three 23" screens for eyefinity and spent a little bit of time yesterday on just one of the screens. The difference between the 27" and the 23" is noticable. Graphics look a lot more crisp but they will do as it's the same pixel count in a smaller space. Some people prefer a larger screen for games - I now prefer the 23" over my old 27".

And..... I prefer Eyefinity over all of the above. (But I am aware that many people can't stand it!!) But it is my opinion

Eyefinity is brilliant for playing 3rd person games and things like WoW and stuff. I mainly used it in BF3 and it has a bit to go before it's great in FPS games. The sides just seem really stretched at some points instead of really broadening your scope IMO. I will probably pick up another two s23700d's for 3D Eyefinity when they're on special again.

 

[Alz_D]

Thats what I was playing last night and it blew me away. I can still run campaign on high settings across all three in 2D and just WOW And if I ever wanna play some thing that doesn't suit Eyefinity then (in theory at least) its only a couple of button presses. On that note - if you do decide to go down the eyefinity route make sure you set an adequate amaount of time asside to set it up. It wasn't as simple as I thought it was going to be

 

[Axeia]

Sounds like you got the Samsung S27A300, the pixel density isn't the only thing providing a sharper image then. The fact that isn't covered in a thick layer of light defusing stuff (aka Anti-glare coating) also helps getting a crisp picture. The size difference might contribute less toward the crisper image you're getting than you'd think.

 

[craarc]

The way you're talking you must be a robot to see "low def" at 1080p@27"

Unless you're sitting < 6 inches from the screen there in absolutely minimal difference between 24" and 27" at 1080p, and it's unnoticeable if you're >2 feet away. A 50" at 1080p get's a bit too blocky for me but to say you can see a huge difference with 2-3 inches is ridiculous TBH.

even a 24 i would run at 1200 vert tbh wouldnt dream of running a 27 at 1080p

 

[topdog@OC]

I run a setup with a 24" 1200p, 27" 1200p, and 27" 1080p (used to be all together but I took the 24" one to use as a secondary monitor in the office now).

Differences in pixel size on the 3 screens is absolutely marginal (each of the pixels on the 24" are about 90% of the size that they are on the other 2 screens - not a big deal, a 10th of a pixel per pixel is pretty hard to perceive a difference in).

I play 1080p content on them so actually the 1080p monitor gives the biggest and best image (all the real estate gets used with no black bars or stretching of pixels), so I set that one as my primary.

 

[DanTheMan86]

Agree with OP, a lot of people I've noticed flame 27" saying 1080p isnt enough etc etc whine whine - yes it would be nicer to have higher resolutions but by no means does 1080p look bad on 27", it is amazing. First game of BFBC2 I played on this I saw a enemy without scoping who was other side of the map hiding in a window, which on my 19" CRT would have been very hard to see - needless to say I blew his head off and he accused me of cheating because no way would I have seen him from that far haha

Bring on 30" at 16:9 res 1440p or 1600p @ 120hz monitors though and I'd be tempted but for now I'm more than happy with this, especially once the set is calibrated!

 

[Double07]

May I ask, how close do you sit to your 27"? And do you have to move your head or eyes a lot to see things?

I sit about 2.5 - 3 feet from my 27" and I don't find myself moving my head, you occasionally have to scan across but it's not like you are moving your head from side to side This is on 2560*1440.

 

[craarc]

Bring on 30" at 16:9 res 1440p or 1600p @ 120hz monitors

yer please thats what we need 1440 at 120hz on a 27 tho would need 1600p on a 30 i reckon

on my last 24 i was playing at 1200p and when dropping the graphics to 1080p i could see a definate drop in resolution its just not as crisp at all

now im at 1440p on a 27 and dropping to 1200 i can see a drop in res

1080p on a 27 for me would not cut the mustard im afraid

down to individual tastes and preferences i guess

 

[topdog@OC]

on my last 24 i was playing at 1200p and when dropping the graphics to 1080p i could see a definate drop in resolution its just not as crisp at all

now im at 1440p on a 27 and dropping to 1200 i can see a drop in res

Either your pixels are staying the same size and you're getting black borders in order to retain 1:1 pixel mapping, or, 1:10 pixels are being STRETCHED into two pixels** in order to fill the gap created by your drop in vertical res.

This is why it is not as crisp to you, but a monitor with a NATIVE 1080p res would not suffer from this.


** It is probably/hopefully smarter than this and would distribute the load across more pixels, but the end result is still going to be a blurring of the image due to some amount of pixel/image stretching and therefore loss of crispness not shared by monitors running at their native res.

 

[Saundie]

It sounds as though Alfie would have loved the old IBM T220/T221 displays

 

[craarc]

tbh what would you rather have 1200p 1440p 1600p or 1080 ?

the higher the res the better the pic all else being =

or we would all still be watching 720p tv and the like

 

[Axeia]

or we would all still be watching 720p tv and the like

Would be nice if we did tbh, don't know if its much better in the UK but here (The Netherlands) even on glass connection not a single channel is broadcast in Full HD, the decoder can't even handle it. Quite sure the broadcast themselves aren't even in 720p either but only DVD quality.

 

[roadie]

I like this website. It easily allows you to calculate the PPI of any display size. For instance:

90 @ 16x10, 22"
91.8 @ 19x10, 24"
94.3 @19x12, 24"
81.6 @ 19x10, 27"
108.8 @ 25x14, 27"

There's a huge difference between the common resolutions @ 27".

 

[kamz]

Nice site, Im getting the following on a FW900 (diagonal size 22.5inch 16:10)

1920*1200 = PPI: 100.63 --- DP: 0.2524

2304*1440 = PPI: 120.75 --- DP: 0.2103

2560*1600 = PPI: 134.17 --- DP: 0.1893

I really prefer 1200p on this screen sitting up close to it just feels more natural.

However I love 720p on my 42inch plasma as it looks good on SD channels also, furthermore I believe the difference between 1080p ad 720p can differ depend on seating distance, I know from about 10+ feet i couldn't really tell the difference between my two plasma Pana's.

Kamz

 

[Mike_P]

I like this website. It easily allows you to calculate the PPI of any display size. For instance:

90 @ 16x10, 22"
91.8 @ 19x10, 24"
94.3 @19x12, 24"
81.6 @ 19x10, 27"
108.8 @ 25x14, 27"

There's a huge difference between the common resolutions @ 27".

Another nice little site here.

 

[Evoss]

I don't link 1080p on a 24" let alone a 27"

 

[|Thomas|]

I love my 27" 1080p monitor , I'd use it over smaller 1080p monitors any day. If I'd had the money I'd love to have bought a 1440p monitor, and a GPU upgrade to power it. However, I don't exactly have that sort of disposable income at hand and I suspect many other people don't either...

 

[Jono8]

I have a 1080p 27 inch Monitor and it seems fine?

 

[Boozebeard]

I haven't used a 27" TN at 1080p but even my 24" TN at 1080p looks blurry and dull next to my 27" IPS at 1440p. It's an Iiyama which are supposed to be fairly decent TN monitors too.

 

[HighlandeR]

One day some bugger will release a 27inch IPS panel with 120hertz.....