How Does Size Matter? vs Res?

[_Brute_Force_]

I'm obviously talking about d.. err MONITORS, now here is a bit of background on my monitor history

LG Flatron 17"
19" 16:10 LCD (1440x900)
14" 16:10 laptop (1280x800)
23" 16:9 1080p

it goes without saying that bigger is better, and i felt that every inch made a huge difference, so I decided to pull the trigger on an entry level projector, make the jump to a 100" screen.

even at 800x600 res, the picture is stunning, its not anywhere near the details on the 23", but it just looks better, WAY better.

What I don't understand is, why?!, its the thing that most ppl ignore and go for more res instead of a bigger size. (is it just me?!)
so I thought about asking maybe there is something that I'm missing.

Cheers

 

[bystander]

The distance from your monitor matters, and generally, we do prefer bigger, but with such a low resolution, things are definitely going to look very blocky. Every pixel is going to be 1/8" of an inch. If you are close, that is just big.

If you are sitting only 1-2 feet from your monitor, there is only so big you can go before it is well beyond your view. That said, I use a 27" 1080p monitor and preferred the size over my previous 24" 1200p monitor.

 

[dingo07]

Let me say, that I'm happy for you in that you enjoy your equipment, however, to a trained eye, a low-res projector on a 100" screen is terrible. The reason you think it looks way better is because your senses are being overdriven by the sheer size. Without even getting into the Screen gain or material, or the distance, you'd be amazed at what a projector with a native res of 1920x1080 looks like on the same size screen. Immersive.

 

[_Brute_Force_]

yea i usually sit 1-2 feet away from the 23", and around 10-12 feet away from the wall, when i get close the pixels are huge, but i don't notice that when i'm 10 feet away (thanks to my not perfect vision and hate for glasses)

I believe in both cases they take around roughly the same area in ur field of vision, but the bigger and further just feels and look better, its something that I can't describe, maybe its something we have to experience first hand to understand

anyone else with similar experience?

 

[bystander]

How do you enjoy working the desktop at that distance and resolution?

 

[_Brute_Force_]

How do you enjoy working the desktop at that distance and resolution?

enjoy and work, in the same sentence :O

its basically an HTPC setup with slight gaming (don't need much to power 800x600 res )

I work on the 23" tho

 

[_Brute_Force_]

Let me say, that I'm happy for you in that you enjoy your equipment, however, to a trained eye, a low-res projector on a 100" screen is terrible. The reason you think it looks way better is because your senses are being overdriven by the sheer size. Without even getting into the Screen gain or material, or the distance, you'd be amazed at what a projector with a native res of 1920x1080 looks like on the same size screen. Immersive.

Immersive. Thank you, that exactly the word I was looking for (near missing a car while going @ 200mph (NFS MW FTW) just feels alot more real)

and I can only try to imagine what a 1080p projector would look like, but most people recommended that i'd go for 720p, but I'm waiting for it to be around $400 and until that happens thought i'd enjoy half the res at half the price (since most of what I watch are dvdrips and don't have a gaming system that can handle series games let alone at higher res. I'm using my old laptop with a 9200M (8 CUDA CORES FTW and lets not talk about the clock )

still 720p vs 1080p, is the price difference worth it, also considering brightness and lens zoom?

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Actually, smaller is better. For detail, it's all about pixel pitch. At normal viewing distances, the human eye can see individual pixels at less than 96 dpi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch

As ya can see there, 1902 x 1080 n a 23" is about 95 dpi ..... on a 27", it's way down ay 82 and there you are going to see individual pixels.

To properly view a large screen use one of the on line calculators

http://hdinstallers.com/calculator.htm
says 22 feet for a 100" screen

http://www.i-techcompany.com/selecting-correct-lcd-tv-screen-size.html
says 25 feet

 

[dingo07]

still 720p vs 1080p, is the price difference worth it, also considering brightness and lens zoom?

It is sooooo worth it.

The last CEDIA show I attended was back in 2005 and I will never forget seeing 1080P on a 10 foot screen. I Could NOT take my eyes off of it! It was the best picture I had seen, outside of DVHS on 100k projectors of course. The size of the projector was a little bigger than an Xbox.

 

[bystander]

Actually, smaller is better. For detail, it's all about pixel pitch. At normal viewing distances, the human eye can see individual pixels at less than 96 dpi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch

As ya can see there, 1902 x 1080 n a 23" is about 95 dpi ..... on a 27", it's way down ay 82 and there you are going to see individual pixels.

To properly view a large screen use one of the on line calculators

http://hdinstallers.com/calculator.htm
says 22 feet for a 100" screen

http://www.i-techcompany.com/selecting-correct-lcd-tv-screen-size.html
says 25 feet

There may be some truth to this guide, but you cannot see pixels in games until it gets much worse than that guide. You only notice pixels with non AA'ed lines. Like text that isn't filtered by truetype. Doing graphics art, I'm sure you can notice it, but not otherwise. At least not up to 27". You have to put your nose at 6" from the screen to notice much.

I'm not saying it doesn't look sharper, but you don't see individual pixels so easily while gaming.

 

[PsyKhiqZero]

when i was using a 42" HDTV as a monitor, I noticed a lot of the finer ART related details that i would have otherwise missed on a smaller monitor. Things like the facial expression on bad guys in Batman. But i found it was TOO big as most of the image was outside in my peripheral vision. Just my personal experience with monitors. I'm glad you enjoy your new setup.

 

[_Brute_Force_]

Actually, smaller is better. For detail, it's all about pixel pitch. At normal viewing distances, the human eye can see individual pixels at less than 96 dpi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch

As ya can see there, 1902 x 1080 n a 23" is about 95 dpi ..... on a 27", it's way down ay 82 and there you are going to see individual pixels.

To properly view a large screen use one of the on line calculators

http://hdinstallers.com/calculator.htm
says 22 feet for a 100" screen

http://www.i-techcompany.com/selecting-correct-lcd-tv-screen-size.html
says 25 feet

Let me start by saying, I love your signature, and from my experience, yes he is still wrong, how dare he goes to the forest!

now as to your "How to properly view a large screen" I can't argue with that, however what I want to point out is, all of that is theoretical amount of details opposing to the feel and immersion of a large screen which is what I'm after.

Was hoping for a discussion of experience versus theory!

Cheers

 

[_Brute_Force_]

when i was using a 42" HDTV as a monitor, I noticed a lot of the finer ART related details that i would have otherwise missed on a smaller monitor. Things like the facial expression on bad guys in Batman. But i found it was TOO big as most of the image was outside in my peripheral vision. Just my personal experience with monitors. I'm glad you enjoy your new setup.

Finer ART related details, thats a good way to put it, one of the things that really stood out was RAIN. its just felt so real, much more than that on a smaller screen.

I remember that I had a personal theory called the 50" barrier.
when you view a screen thats >50", its was just something else (used to focus on these when screens are set up side by side in shops), especially with fast moving objects on it.

Anyone else noticed/feels that?