Do 23" Monitors look better than 24" Monitors? VS238H-P vs. VS248H-P

[rottencurry]

The monitors I'm focusing on are the
ASUS VS Series VS238H-P Black 23" : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] BlkFri2012

ASUS VS248H-P Black 24" : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] BlkFri2012

Both have the same specs and I've been searching and both are supposed to be pretty good. The question really is, does the picture quality look better on a smaller screen? I can't find the answer anywhere about this. I'm thinking the quality is better on the smaller screen but I may be wrong. Right now the price difference is only $20 so I'm not really worried about the price. Thanks in advance.

[Doom 4d]

if they're the same resolution? yes. 23" has higher pixel density. Do you care more about that than size? that's up to you.

On a side note, the 23" will also have slightly less delayed display reaction and input latency due to the nature of LCD screens and how they refresh the image.

[bigrash]

Personally for 1 inch, I don't care about the pic density that much. I'd take the 24".

[Rvenger]

You don't notice it until you hit the 25"-27" mark.

[C1]

Be careful here. There's a factor called "dot pitch" and makes a difference to many regarding their ease of reading text. I remember running into this when researching monitors, but the specifics escape me. (I think the issue came up when evaluating 23" vs 24" units.)

Anyways, caution is advised.

[mwirtz1]

Well im not sure about the 23" but I bought a VS248H-P in july and i liked it so much i bought a second just last week. Hope that helps

[Throckmorton]

No, unless both monitors are the same distance from your face. The higher the dot pitch, the further you can set the screen from your eyes. That's why I have a 27" 1920x1080 monitor. Longer viewing distance = less eyestrain. Bigger is always better unless you're low on space.

[Doom 4d]

Originally Posted by Throckmorton

No, unless both monitors are the same distance from your face. The higher the dot pitch, the further you can [re: have to] set the screen from your eyes.

Fixed.

[lakedude]

One of my friends was spouting all kinds of nonsense about pixels and saying 24 inches was ideal and 27 inch monitors are too big and bla, bla bla, right up till I let him borrow my 27 inch monitor. Never did get it back... In fact he has 3 of them now...

[Doom 4d]

Originally Posted by lakedude

One of my friends was spouting all kinds of nonsense about pixels and saying 24 inches was ideal and 27 inch monitors are too big and bla, bla bla, right up till I let him borrow my 27 inch monitor. Never did get it back... In fact he has 3 of them now...

Just as in the second post in this thread, it's just a matter of what is important to the consumer. Do they want slightly better pixel density or do they want the extra real-estate. Or, if they have the hardware, do they want the real-estate and a higher resolution to compensate?

But, implying that 23 or 24" 1080 monitors don't have higher pixel density and less image impropriety because of it than a larger monitor of the same resolution, is like implying that babies are delivered by storks.

And, as is often pointed out everywhere by everyone who has even the most remote knowledge of the subject, the larger you go the more input latency and delayed display reaction you incur. That's just the nature of how the hardware actually works. Once again, does it matter to you? Probably not. But the difference between a 15" monitor and a 27" monitor's input latency is a much higher number than any of the G2G response times that people insist have critical relevance to gaming performance (they don't). It's all just food for thought.

[lakedude]

Originally Posted by Doom 4d

But, implying that 23 or 24" 1080 monitors don't have higher pixel density and less image impropriety because of it than a larger monitor of the same resolution, is like implying that babies are delivered by storks.
.

Okay but I implied no such thing. The pixel density of a given monitor can be determined empirically and is not really up for debate.

What is debatable is how much pixel density matters. I submit that once you have "retina" level pixel density any extra pixel density does not matter at all. Further I submit that the closer you get to "retina" level pixel density the less pixel density matters due to diminishing returns.

For my taste there is a huge difference between 480p and 720p but a smaller difference between 720p and 1080p because 720p already looks pretty good, especially for moving video.

Of course all this is different strokes. All monitors are compromises and what the OP needs to do is find a monitor with defects that don't bother him so much.

I spent $450 on a highly rated 19" ViewSonic once and hated it because it was too slow.

My 27 inch is far from perfect but the defects it suffers don't bother me. They might bother someone else with different priorities.

[Doom 4d]

Originally Posted by lakedude

Of course all this is different strokes. All monitors are compromises and what the OP needs to do is find a monitor with defects that don't bother him so much.

Now that is some wisdom that could be stickied in any tech forum.

[Throckmorton]

Originally Posted by Doom 4d

Fixed.

You're missing the point. Having the screen further from your eyes is better because you get less eyestrain. Would you rather have a 1920x1080 24" or 17" monitor? If you prefer being close to the screen, why not use a laptop then? Heck, there are 11" 1920x1080 laptops. Are they better than 24" screens?

[Throckmorton]

Originally Posted by Doom 4d

Just as in the second post in this thread, it's just a matter of what is important to the consumer. Do they want slightly better pixel density or do they want the extra real-estate. Or, if they have the hardware, do they want the real-estate and a higher resolution to compensate?

But, implying that 23 or 24" 1080 monitors don't have higher pixel density and less image impropriety because of it than a larger monitor of the same resolution, is like implying that babies are delivered by storks.

And, as is often pointed out everywhere by everyone who has even the most remote knowledge of the subject, the larger you go the more input latency and delayed display reaction you incur. That's just the nature of how the hardware actually works. Once again, does it matter to you? Probably not. But the difference between a 15" monitor and a 27" monitor's input latency is a much higher number than any of the G2G response times that people insist have critical relevance to gaming performance (they don't). It's all just food for thought.

Input latency? Are you joking?


Image impropriety LOL. The only pixel density that matters is the pixel density projected onto your retina, which varies with distance. That's why tablets have higher pixel density than computers and so on.

[Doom 4d]

Originally Posted by Throckmorton

Input latency? Are you joking?

I'm not sure if you're trolling or have just never read about how LCD screens work ever in your life. I assume the former.