Inexpensive 2560x1440 or higher monitors?

[tweakboy]

More monitors is better than one bigger monitor. This should be a law of the internet or something.

NOPE not reallyh,, I need dual mons for my DAW.. I need to drag stuff over there and still have clean view of app.....gl

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

Are most people buying a 30 inch monitor for its size or higher then 1080p resolution?

I know most people rant about how a 27 inch monitor at 1080p looks distorted at times so is the higher resolutions at such a size making that big of a difference?

Plenty of t.vs in the 40''+ range with a 1080p signal would these sooner or later receive the 1440p and 1600p resolutions as well or do they and they aren't cost effective for most?

Curious to know what people get with a 30'' 1440p or 1600p over a standard 24'' at 1080p is all imagine quality wise

I would not buy a 30" monitor strictly for it's size. Resolution is king. If you have enough pixels to drive a 30" then it is great. Otherwise it will just look like a blurry mess.

Just think of what a big TV looks like up close. Yuck.

 

[Pia]

Probably resolution (else they'd get a 1080p tv that happens to work well with computers and save money, but TV panels are typically crap in comparison to monitor panels). My U3011 is because of resolution.

It looks like the next TV standard may be 4kx2k (i rounded because the aspect ratio isn't set yet) of course, in a perfect world, this would be marketted as 2xxxp, but noooo, now they want to call it by the width instead of the height, so they call it 4k. So, roughtly 4x the pixel count of 1080p

Seeing how only video projector owners plus folks who sit close to a massive TV stand to actually gain anything from 4k, I have to wonder how 4k would be marketed to consumers to achieve decent adoption rates. I doubt most current TV setups are even large and close enough that 720p/1080p difference matters.

In computer displays which are at arm's length distance, the physical size has a pretty hard cap where perspective distortion becomes too large. I think a 30" is probably right at the limit, possibly too big already (necessitating putting it slightly farther than arm's length whereas a 24" is fine and 27" would probably be fine).

 

[blackened23]

NOPE not reallyh,, I need dual mons for my DAW.. I need to drag stuff over there and still have clean view of app.....gl

I'm starting to like you more with every post D:

Never met a stoner that I didn't like.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Seeing how only video projector owners plus folks who sit close to a massive TV stand to actually gain anything from 4k, I have to wonder how 4k would be marketed to consumers to achieve decent adoption rates. I doubt most current TV setups are even large and close enough that 720p/1080p difference matters.

In computer displays which are at arm's length distance, the physical size has a pretty hard cap where perspective distortion becomes too large. I think a 30" is probably right at the limit, possibly too big already (necessitating putting it slightly farther than arm's length whereas a 24" is fine and 27" would probably be fine).

Found my 23'' at about 2 feet away to me pretty good and i could have purchased a 27'' but looking at the demo 2 feet away it looked to be to big for me and with fps games my head will be swaying all over to much i think.

If i have to roll my eyes to view a far side of a screen then it is to big as where with a 23'' both my eyes could view the screen fully without strain.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Not really, the problem when the monitor size gets very large is that the cheap panel types such as TN stop becoming a useable solution, you need to make the switch to a better technology like some form of IPS, that accounts for a lot of the cost of these bigger panels, they're just better quality on average.

The main reason for this is that viewing angles on TN panels are horrible, and while many people will put up with that on a small monitor, on a large monitor the outer edges of the panel are at a greater angle to your eyes so it would look very uneven in both brightness and colour.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Seeing how only video projector owners plus folks who sit close to a massive TV stand to actually gain anything from 4k, I have to wonder how 4k would be marketed to consumers to achieve decent adoption rates. I doubt most current TV setups are even large and close enough that 720p/1080p difference matters.

In computer displays which are at arm's length distance, the physical size has a pretty hard cap where perspective distortion becomes too large. I think a 30" is probably right at the limit, possibly too big already (necessitating putting it slightly farther than arm's length whereas a 24" is fine and 27" would probably be fine).

For TV it's a harder argument to make, but with thing like 3D renders in games, the relatively low PPI causes things like aliasing which is very visible, anti-aliasing is one bandage for that and works quite well, but it's no substitute for cranking up the resolution and the PPI.

Obviously higher PPI screens require higher overall screen resolution, if you keep the size the same.

 

[Throckmorton]

Probably resolution (else they'd get a 1080p tv that happens to work well with computers and save money, but TV panels are typically crap in comparison to monitor panels). My U3011 is because of resolution.

I use a Sony 32" TV and it's better than any monitor I've owned. TV panels are all 8 bit and they never have a nasty sparkly antireflective coating. Good luck finding a glossy or semi-matte IPS monitor! I had a Dell 30" and the matte coating was horrible. I sold it and went back to my 2405FPW (which died a few months ago).

Since I need accurate colors for photo editing, the only real monitors that I could use are the Apple Cinemas. Plenty of TVs to choose from though.

 

[Vic Vega]

Who said anything about a single monitor?

Right now I run two 24" HPs @ 1920x1200 monitors, I'm just looking for more space.

 

[Pia]

For TV it's a harder argument to make, but with thing like 3D renders in games, the relatively low PPI causes things like aliasing which is very visible, anti-aliasing is one bandage for that and works quite well, but it's no substitute for cranking up the resolution and the PPI.

Benefit of higher PPI in games is theoretical at this point, at least when you are going for realism and immersion. Game assets and engine technology aren't even at a point where a 480p render would get confused with 480p video; they have to be improved by a ton. Then, to emulate "being there" instead of emulating "DVD video of being there", we have to massively increase framerates. Increasing resolution eats into the power we need to improve these things, and serves to highlight what is missing to boot, whereas anti-aliasing eliminates disturbing artifacts cheaply. I don't expect much improvement to game graphics from increased PPI in the next decade or so.

 

[cfedu]

For various reasons, no this will not happen.

Take your 30" monitor or HDTV. Now, pretend you are using it as a touch screen. Notice how close you are now to it compared to how close you normally are. Now try to pretend it is a touch screen for an hour or two. Now notice how fatigued your arms are.

Are you still sure this is a good idea?

I just thought of using a 52" display as a touch screen and started to cry. Using an iPad is a work out on an 9.7" screen. Touch screens sucks!!

They only time a large touch screen would work is for a presentation, for production I think I'd kill myself.