27" super-HD monitors are just not worth it...q

Saundie said:
Imagine how awesome 3840 x 2160 on a 32" panel would be! *cough* ;)
Click to expand...

I know you're saying this in jest mate, but I bet they do make a 32" panel at that res and it will be far too big to be worthwhile, yet people will still remortgage their houses to get one.

At a certain size, viewing angles become an issue because the edges of the monitor are so far away from you that you're viewing them at a weird angle.
 
kissenger said:
I know you're saying this in jest mate, but I bet they do make a 32" panel at that res and it will be far too big to be worthwhile, yet people will still remortgage their houses to get one.

At a certain size, viewing angles become an issue because the edges of the monitor are so far away from you that you're viewing them at a weird angle.
Click to expand...
I was making a light-hearted snipe at Greebo, who said in the other thread that he didn't see the point of such high DPI monitors. I am genuinely looking forward to higher DPI monitors becoming available in the near future. I have previously owned a 2560 x 1600 panel of 30" which I really liked. The only reason I moved from it was because I was an avid gamer back then, and even two 8800GTXs weren't up to the task of pushing that many pixels. The thing that stops me from getting another one is the knowledge that much higher resolution panels will be available soon - I just hope that 4k panels become available before my existing monitors die.

I can sort of understand your gripe against such monitors, but with proper OS-level DPI scaling the issue of font sizes goes away, and then you get to enjoy the jaggy-free experience in full.
 
Saundie said:
I was making a light-hearted snipe at Greebo, who said in the other thread that he didn't see the point of such high DPI monitors. I am genuinely looking forward to higher DPI monitors becoming available in the near future. I have previously owned a 2560 x 1600 panel of 30" which I really liked. The only reason I moved from it was because I was an avid gamer back then, and even two 8800GTXs weren't up to the task of pushing that many pixels. The thing that stops me from getting another one is the knowledge that much higher resolution panels will be available soon - I just hope that 4k panels become available before my existing monitors die.

I can sort of understand your gripe against such monitors, but with proper OS-level DPI scaling the issue of font sizes goes away, and then you get to enjoy the jaggy-free experience in full.
Click to expand...

;) My point still stands though. A 27" screen at 1440p or 1600p from normal viewing dstance, u cant see the pixels or the jaggies. 4k is just overkill even on a 30" or 32" screen screen as a monitor.The distance you would need top be from a 4k 32" screen to see the difference, your eys couldn't see the whole screen.
 
Greebo said:
;) My point still stands though. A 27" screen at 1440p or 1600p from normal viewing dstance, u cant see the pixels or the jaggies.
Click to expand...

I can without my glasses.

4k is just overkill even on a 30" or 32" screen screen as a monitor.The distance you would need top be from a 4k 32" screen to see the difference, your eys couldn't see the whole screen.
Click to expand...

Completely untrue, it's not even a matter of opinion.
 
spoffle said:
I can without my glasses.



Completely untrue, it's not even a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...

You have better than 20/20 vision then as normal people cannot see the pixels :p

And on the 2nd point even with 1080p with a 30" screen you need to be closer than 3 foot to see the pixels/difference. with 4k I would estimate that you need to be less than a foot away to see the difference. Somebody a foot away with that size screen can't see the whole screen, hence pointless.
 
Last edited:
Greebo said:
You have better than 20/20 vision then as normal people cannot see the pixels :p
Click to expand...
I certainly don't.

And on the 2nd point even with 1080p with a 30" screen you need to be closer than 3 foot to see the pixels/difference. with 4k I would estimate that you need to be less than a foot away to see the difference. Somebody a foot away with that size screen can't see the whole screen, hence pointless.
Click to expand...

This isn't true either.

Regardless of whether you can "see" the pixels individually doesn't matter.

You would certainly notice a big difference between a 27" monitor at 2560x1440 and a 27" monitor at say, 5120x2880.

For example, all that "retina" nonsense, whereby Apple market to people that their displays meet the requirements to be high DPI enough that the "retina" can't see any more isn't even true.

The human eye is able to distinguish more detail still beyond Apple's most pixel dense displays.
 
i think 27" is the sweet spot for a monitor; bigger than that and you start having to sit further back or turn your head slightly to see whole screen.
Japanese TV makers say 8k res is what human eye can distinguish.
 
jaybee said:
My next monitor will be as larger RES as possible. Not size. RES. When editing photos you can't have enough res really. Also IPS for good colour representation.
Click to expand...


This.

Not sure why everyone buys into the whole hd/super hd thing. High end monitors have been higher than hd for - a long time, my 19" sony back in 1999 had 1900x1200 reso - way higher than hd so the hd/super hd thing is a marketing moniker for tvs and is trying to be used in the same field as devices which at the upper echelons will always have greater reso than HD / SHD, think only people not in the know will fall for the marketing.
 
At work i use a 15in laptop at some awful 1366 res and a 19in 1280, at home i have access to dell u2410 @1200 and u2711 @1440 .. working at home is much much easier..need to work from 4 excel files and a word document plus some papers? no problem.. splatter them all at full size across the screens with the word file and paper on the u24 and the excels on the u27.. so much scope.. heaven fobid i have to use just the laptop.. much much less productive and confusing hoping between files its not even funny

tbh id love to get another u27.. at the distance i sit 3x would be overkill.. i have toyed with the idea of 2xu2410 and 1xu27.

for games i can agree that the extra hardware demands arent really worth it.. you are talking multi gpu when i had it.

i guess ideally i would chose a res of 1300 or something as sometimes 1440 is a tad to much if you are tired and working at 100%.. i couldnt handle 27 at 1080 however..yuck

tbh im not interested in the korean brands, i just find they look tacky.. the U series look so nice along with my g700 mouse, and haf 922 case all in nice matt black. (my tv room follows this design too)
 
^I guess you haven't seen the Shimian monitors then? You couldn't attribute "looking for tacky" to them because their looks are quite simple. They just look like 27" tablets.
 
sunama said:
Surely though, the resolution is dependent on the screen size, as to what the retina can distinguish?
Click to expand...

Exactly you cant just come out and say 8k is optimum.

Size of screen and viewing distance comes in.

As I have said already from 10 foot away on my 32" tv I can't see the difference between 720p and 1080p. And neither can anybody else. I am just too far away or the screen isn't big enough for the human eye to tell the difference. I suspect the person saying this is basing it on 70" tv's being watched from 4 foot away.

Same with headlights on cars. Once the car is far enough away the human eye can;t "see" two distinct headlights and just sees one.
 
spoffle said:
^I guess you haven't seen the Shimian monitors then? You couldn't attribute "looking for tacky" to them because their looks are quite simple. They just look like 27" tablets.
Click to expand...

i dunno what it is but i dont really like it. plus, id need to buy a new stand!
 
I have just upgraded a 7+ year old 24" Dell IPS (1200) monitor to a 27" U2713HM and am pretty pleased.

Apart from when turning it on it felt like I was going to get a sun tan with the brightness etc (my 24" was colour profiled for photo editing work when I was doing a lot of that) but knocking the brightness and contrast to 50% was much more pleasent.

Going from the 1200 to 1440 vert res seems to have given me around a 5th more screen size so I can now watch VLC in a decent sized window and still have 3 other windows on the screen at the same time. The font size is ok but any smaller than default at this res and distance may start to be a problem for me.

I am running an i5-2400, 16GB ram and an ATI 6970. Farcry 3 I found to be quite jerky at 1200 on the 24" with everything maxed including MSAA. I find it runs fine using the dual link DVI without MSAA at 1440 and looks just as good if not better. I have not had both running side by side so this is just a personal view rather than from any decent testing. I was concerned about having to have a X-Fire setup but it appears not to be required from what I have seen so far.

Very happy with the change.
RB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom