Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Need Advice Please - Purchasing monitor based on veiwing distance

Last response: in Systems
Share
December 15, 2011 7:41:23 PM

I am looking at getting an HP2711x or a 2511x. The 2511x was at bestbuy. I went there 3 seperate times and looked hard at all the monitors and the HP2511x looked the best to me (they don't have the 27inch model). I will be purchasing from newegg.

My question: I want to purchase a 27inch but am afraid it might be too large for my viewing distance. My eyes rest 29 inches from my current monitor (the closest i can get with my chair and keyboard shelf, it is a 21 inch monitor). Would the 27 inch be too large for the 1080p resolution at that distance or should I get the 25 inch monitor. I don't want the screen to be too large so I can have good reaction times in games especially fps's

25 inch
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


27 inch
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


P.S. I play in the dark and am biased to better look of glossy screens.
a b C Monitor
December 15, 2011 7:53:47 PM

I think 27'll be fine based on my experience: my 24-incher is far from too large at about 20" from the screen. I'm eyeballing this, but at 29" away it seems like 27" would be just right.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b C Monitor
December 15, 2011 10:07:48 PM

But big monitors are wicked
m
0
l
December 16, 2011 1:04:08 AM

For a normal size desk/viewing distance, 27" is almost as big as you can go.

Of course someone will post up straight after saying they have a 100" screen 6 inches from their face and its fine.

I use a 27" (iMac), and what i find just as important as the size is the resolution (or pixel density specifically). If you have decent vision, resolution is vital, and unfortunately most people don't notice because they have never used a big display with a decent pixel density.

The iMac 27" runs at 2560 x 1440. It may not sound like much more, buy x.y means there are nearly twice the number of pixels (1.77) compared to 1920x1080, and it really shows.

Apple is hammering resolution now that display sizes have kinda reached a plateau, the next 15" macbook is rumoured to have a 2880x1800 display.

From my observations, 100 pixels per inch is a minimum for desktop computing.

27" @ 2560×1440 = 109
27" @ 1920x1080 = 81.6 (good for a tv when its far away, but too low for a monitor)
Orig iPhone = 163 (too low for a small device)
iPhone 4+ = 326 (just high enough so i can't actually count the pixels anymore)
iPad = 132 (far too low)
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
December 16, 2011 1:14:55 AM

^This may be true. 27" would look boss, but if all you're seeing is pixels the effect might be ruined. See if you can find a 27" monitor to look at, and bring a tape measure :p 
m
0
l
December 16, 2011 1:43:00 AM

There's a reason 24" monitors typically support 1920x1200 while 30" screens support 2560x1600. 1920x1080 is a piss poor resolution for gaming to begin with even on 22" screens. At 27" it's going to be worse as your pixexl per inch is lowered.

For $299 there are much better options like the Samsung 2443 $299.99 or the HP 2405W $289.99

For another 10 bucks the best value in monitors today is the Dell U2412M 309.99 It's 24" 1920x1200 IPS. It supports 98% RGB has full 178/178 viewing angles. After going to an IPS screen you'll never look at a TN the same again.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
December 16, 2011 2:31:01 AM

OP, what are your specs?
m
0
l
!