Every time I upgrade my primary monitor to a larger one, it feels gigantic and incredibly impressive at first, and then rapidly I get used to it and it feels like a normal size, with my old screens feeling small and cramped.
How large is your main display, Sup Forums? Do you think there's a practical limit?
>How large is your main display 27" >Do you think there's a practical limit? Really depends on the distance to the monitor. When it comes to width, there is really no limit, but I'd hate to look up all the time.
Liam Jackson
I have to monitors. 42 and 48 inch. The 48 inch is on a table to the right, 42 inch is right in front of me.
Brayden Taylor
2 24" screens. if I want to go bigger I need a new desk
Jacob Rogers
It's a 34" Ultrawide monitor. I've had it about 5 months and although it's no longer as "impressive" to how big it is, I couldn't imagine having a screen larger than this. It takes up almost my entire FoV.
Eli Gomez
Twin 24" 16:10 screens. Any bigger and I need a bigger house.
Jayden Moore
what do you sit 5" away from it?
Alexander Rogers
Anything bigger than 25 kills it for me. Rather than size I look for resolution, which is the biggest issue I find. I'd rather have a small retina tier screen than a big one where I can see the pixels.
Anthony Powell
I said almost, dipshit. I sit about 2 feet away from it. Maybe 2.5 feet.
Michael Bell
same, can't imagine anything larger, i have to turn my head to type this
i have it mounted next to a 27" 16:9, which is nice because they work out to be the same height
Cameron Lee
27". I'd probably go up to 30-32". After that you start having to move your head too much.
Also 24" should be 3840x2160 27" should be 5120x2880 30"+ should be 7860x4320
Joseph Williams
somewhat agree OP.
> 14" laptop -> 20" (vis) CRT -> add more 21" LCDs -> replace central CRT with 30" 2560x1600 LCD, make PLP -> replace everything with 49" UHD TV
using LG 49UF7600 currently > 48.5" UHD = ~90 dpi > IPS = no color shift at extreme corner angles, but does glow in a dark room > HDMI 2.0 and 4:4:4 chroma @60Hz > backlight PWM/strobing duty cycle adjustable quite happy with it
I could go down slightly to a 43"-45" display, but probably up no more at this point frankly.
Philips has a new 43" monitor based off the next smaller LG IPS panel, but I'm gonna pass on it since I'm still waiting on UHD@120 Hz with DP 1.3/1.4, which maybe we'll get on next year's model.
Jacob Perry
I have 3x27" screens. The feeling you describe is what I've always felt when going up an inch (no) since I had my first Commodore PC II screen. I don't think going above 27 inches is going to occur for me if nothing else changes.
Kayden Robinson
autism
Luis Butler
>How large is your main display, Sup Forums? Do you think there's a practical limit? 32"
Still feels large and gigantic desu
Christian Green
Two vertical 25". 2880x2560 god tier.
Gavin Gutierrez
gimme 8k@120Hz on a ~45" display, and I'll be happy for the next decade.
Caleb Lee
I'm pretty much 99% certain I want to go to a 27" U2715H at this point as my general purpose Sup Forums, programming & gayming monitor.
But
Last night I though, had a nightmare that it was too large and I massively regretted the purchase. Not sure if it was just a nightmare or was actually a premonition.
Blake Thompson
27" isn't too large.
Oliver Rodriguez
My two 27" 1440p monitors seem pretty normal to me now but I think anything larger would definitely be pushing it in terms of practicality, at least for a dual monitor setup.
Dylan Gray
FHD = 22" WQHD = 24" 4k = 27"
Connor Gomez
27" is just the right size for me. I'd think twice before buying an IPS though.
John Williams
If you want blurry as shit monitors
Logan Moore
27" 4k is blurry as shit???
topkek.
Andrew Rogers
No, but in that case your UI would be fuckhueg and ugly. see for proper resolutions per screen size.
Christian Thomas
>talks about UHD res >ultra low quality image please die
Benjamin Scott
>playing with arrow keys this tickles my autism
Justin Carter
>24" should be 3840x2160 >27" should be 5120x2880 >30"+ should be 7860x4320 son...
Liam Jones
the 33% difference between UHD and 5k is minimal for UI elements on a 27"+ screen, user, even if you and/or your OS are retarded and can't into proper scaling.
William Long
Contemplating a 40" screen, too big? yay, nay?
Dominic Long
Single 12,5" internal IPS monitor in my thinkpad and an old 17" dell 5:4 screen for server. It's pretty nice to get used to such small screen and have the ability to use your computer without sitting in front of your desk.
Alexander Murphy
Get the 43" Philips that just came out.
The old 40" Philips had a wonky screen with non-square pixels, and everything else that size was complete chinkshit.
Caleb Perez
>he's too retarded to understand that pixel size is a function of viewing distance Maybe if you were sitting at a more patrician ~80cm instead of squishing your face up against the display, you wouldn't have to use such ludicrously absurd resolutions to begin with.
Anthony Richardson
Great strawman. Everyone who uses a high PPI display sits with their face up to the screen. Totally.
William Gomez
I have a 25'' ultrawide monitor with a resolution of 2560x1080. I have to say, it's not that amazing. Reading on this thing ain't the best and Windows is a shit so a size of 100% is small, 125% is too big.
Fucking good resolutions are way too expensive.
Jonathan Collins
40" feels pretty small desu senpai
Logan Perry
I upgraded from a 32" Sharp@ 1920x1080 60Hz to an 18" SyncMaster 997DF 1600x1200 75Hz.
Aaron Myers
...
Ryder Rivera
>How large is your main display, Sup Forums? 32" >How large is your main display, Sup Forums? Do you think there's a practical limit? Probably 27" tbqh. 32" requires too much eye and head movement if you don't sit really far away.
Jackson Fisher
2×22" is enough for anything. Whenever I try bigger monitors I either can't see individual pixels or colors get distorted by the viewing angle.
Noah Anderson
>Everyone who uses a high PPI display sits with their face up to the screen. That's the only reason why you'd ever need a 200+ dpi screen.
For a typical 80cm viewing distance, 160 dpi is already more than enough to satiate your visual acuity to the point where you basically can't distinguish individual pixels at all anymore.
Anthony Brooks
>That's the only reason why you'd ever need a 200+ dpi screen. Who said anything about over 200ppi? Are you one of those people who things non-interger scaling is okay? Some things need to be raster you know.
>160 dpi is already more than enough to satiate your visual acuity to the point where you basically can't distinguish individual pixels at all anymore. Great. A 27" inch monitor with the workspace of a 1080p monitor. Just what I wanted. You don't think very hard about high PPI do you? It's not just about the pixels, it's also about the software. Even if Windows 10 scaling wasn't a buggy mess you'd still have raster images looking like blurry shit due to non-integer scaling.
Jason Phillips
>Who said anything about over 200ppi? keeps on spamming his garbage recommendations.
>Are you one of those people who things non-interger scaling is okay? Some things need to be raster you know. All decent operating systems and GUI frameworks support native, artifact-free, non-integer scaling. Sorry your NSA spyware OS is shit.
Connor Perry
>keeps on spamming his garbage recommendations. So you really think 4k on a 27" monitor would be acceptable?
>All decent operating systems and GUI frameworks support native, artifact-free, non-integer scaling. Yes, they magically convert raster graphics to vector and create information from nothing! Totally. Every website online also uses nothing but vector graphics. Hentai is also vector, you'll never lose detail there. Totally. This is my last response to you.
Nolan Rodriguez
>So you really think 4k on a 27" monitor would be acceptable? At a viewing distance over 50cm, yes. (Pic related) I use a viewing distance of 80cm. Go figure.
>in b4 “but I have magic above-retina golden eyes!”
>Yes, they magically convert raster graphics to vector and create information from nothing! Totally. Every website online also uses nothing but vector graphics. Most web content is vectors (text, CSS-styled elements, buttons, etc.)
Raster graphics can be cleanly scaled to arbitrary resolutions.
Ian Taylor
>Raster graphics can be cleanly scaled to arbitrary resolutions. Pic related. Top is original (100%). Steps are increments of 25%.
The only integer scaling ratio on this image is the third from the bottom (200%). Doesn't exactly look special to me.
Carter Hall
24" 4k, scaled as 1080p, 15" 2880*1800, scaled as 900p
tried 32" 4k and 27" 4k, scaled as 1440p, but didn't look that nice as 1080p on 24" 4k. so ended up with 24" and 15" for now
as soon as 5k for scaled 1440p is coming to the consumer market, i will think about it.
>How large is your main display, Sup Forums 24 inches, all three sceens. My old 21" monitor sitting next to the rest and yeah pretty small until I noticed >Do you think there's a practical limit? For me, yes.
Austin Diaz
>27" should be 5120x2880 Absolutely agreed. Unfortunately there are very few 5K displays right now and they're all obscenely expensive. I can make do with 1440p for a few more years.
Dominic Murphy
I can promise you that you won't regret going 27". It's actually the bare minimum size I would consider buying now.
Leo Rogers
Consider: * 4k at 2x scaling is the same amount of work space as 1080p at 1x * The main benefit of going 1080p->1440p is not the slight increase in sharpness, but rather the increased working space * Therefore a 27" 4K monitor, unless run at unrealistic scaling, would be less productive than a 27" 1440p monitor.
Evan Morgan
Why exactly? I am planning to buy a Dell U2715h in a few weeks, which has IPS.
Oliver Myers
He's memeing. IPS is the best monitor tech we have at the moment. *VA has lots of issues and TN isn't worth using.
Jeremiah Lopez
If you ignore price, OLED is the best monitor tech we have at the moment
Logan Wilson
OLED still has crappy lifespan and burn-in is something you can't avoid, only mitigate.
Luke Wright
Since we're ignoring price you can just replace the OLED screen once it loses its color accuracy.
Also current-gen (2016) OLED lifespan is much greater than it was a year or two ago
Adrian Diaz
Definitely get it. I have the Dell 2715q and it's awesome.
Lincoln Gomez
21.5" And it depends on your set up. Wish I had something bigger, but since I have a 960 I don't want to go higher than 1080. 1080 past 22" just feels weird on a monitor.
Samuel Long
I'm just going to wait a few more years, until it's closer to £300 than £700.
Ethan Gray
I have a 960 and play at 1440p. It's fine if you aren't a 60fps aficionado.
Charles Rodriguez
19-21" is the sweet spot for me.
I switched to 10-15" for portables though.
Jeremiah Jackson
50 inch Plasma TV hooked onto wall.
Not ideal but whatever. I'm actually looking at getting a smaller monitor, what size would you guys recommend? I want something under or around 30 inches.
Isaiah Cruz
What games/settings/fps do you get? I dont mind playing around 35~40. It's clean enough.
Adrian Young
50" First monitor. It's actually a samsung tv i got for free.
Ethan Gonzalez
>I sit about 2 feet away from it. Maybe 2.5 feet shit, I was going to make fun of you but I realized that my face is currently 2 feet away from my monitor. fuck I need to get my eyes fixed
Robert Phillips
>How large is your main display, Sup Forums? 2 23" monitors >Do you think there's a practical limit? yeah, a VR
Kayden Jackson
40 inches. I can never go back. A 24" feels like a smartphone now.
Jayden Jenkins
23" It's a little to big I think
Jason White
Actually I like the idea of having a screen so big I have to constantly move my head. Having things just outside my main field of vision helps me compartmentalize my work better. But Three monitors of 21", 27" and 21" would likely be more effective as they could be bettered angled.
Also need to beef up my neck muscles, my life could depend on it again. A beef up neck saved my life years ago when a classmate tried to strangle me, I broke his thumbs when I bowed my head. Can't believe how much muscle mass I have lost since I started programing and watching anime.
Julian Stewart
28 inch 4K.
It's the perfect size for me.
Camden Barnes
i generally wont go higher than a 32" my current is a 27" Benq I can also no longer play on anything but 1ms or lower.
Henry Baker
I sit at ~2.75ft from a 27". I could go further but my desk isn't all that deep.
I've pretty much just accepted that my mild myopia (no correction required at the moment since I don't drive) is going to worsen. It's just inevitable, since I spend far too much time staring at nearby things. I've stopped worrying about it.
Aaron Reyes
What scaling factor? I feel like 1x would make elements far too small, 2x would take you back to 1080p effective working space, and non-integer value don't work well.
Oliver Reyes
>1ms or lower The very, very best model tested on DisplayLag achieved a latency (input-to-pixel) of 9ms. As much as 20ms is still considered "Excellent" by that site, and they seem to /really/ know what they're talking about.
Furthermore, after input and processing latency, your latency is in high double or early triple digits. Killer Instinct on the xbone has a total (button-to-pixel) latency of 81ms, and that's the best game tested: displaylag.com/console-latency-exploring-video-game-input-lag/
Forza Horizon 2 has 149ms. Probably finely tuned PC games using interesting low-level techniques can improve things a bit, but the point is that "1ms" is a fiction. Real values are one to two orders of magnitude higher.
Nolan Baker
Never mind the fact that your reaction time is 200-300 ms at the minimum.