20" vs 22" LCD Monitor

[chakraps]

From 2-feet out front, a 20" widescreen appeals to me better than the stretched out feel of a 22". Do anybody else feel this way? I can afford either of them. Also my HD 4850 can drive either comfortably. I don't want to go beyond 22" coz of space constraints. But am unable to make up my mind over getting the 20" or the 22". Looking for some advice here. What, if any, are the not so apparent advantages of going Full HD versus settling for 1600x900.

TIA

 

[johanl]

More pixels?

 

[Patrickz0rs]

From 2-feet out front, a 20" widescreen appeals to me better than the stretched out feel of a 22". Do anybody else feel this way? I can afford either of them. Also my HD 4850 can drive either comfortably. I don't want to go beyond 22" coz of space constraints. But am unable to make up my mind over getting the 20" or the 22". Looking for some advice here. What, if any, are the not so apparent advantages of going Full HD versus settling for 1600x900.

TIA

I have a 20" LG that runs @ 1600x900 and love it. Only reason to go Full HD in my mind would be for the HDMI connection to attach a game console, blue ray player, or video card. Although DVI is equivalent just lacks the sound that HDMI carries over.

 

[kalrith]

More pixels, which means more detail in games and more screen real estate in everything else. More size means a more immersive gaming experience.

I used a 24" monitor from 2 feet out, and it seemed like the right size to me. My 22" at work is OK at 2 feet out but a little on the small size.

 

[corkyg]

Too bad that monitor measurements still use the old TV diagonal standard. For me the critical dimension is actual horizontal size. That is what determines what will fit.

I can see where a 20 in diagonal on a 4:3 aspect ratio might look bigger than a 22-in diagonal on a 16:9 screen.

 

[kalrith]

I think the diagonal measurement makes the most sense, especially with the different aspect ratios. If you're looking for what will fit a specific desk cubby, then you'll have to take into account the size of the bezel as well, and I'm very glad they've gotten away from including the bezel in the size. If you're looking for what will fit on the screen itself, then it's the pixels that matter rather than the size.

The main thing I don't like about the stated size of monitors is that many of them still round up to the nearest size. If a monitor is 21.5", then IMO it should be sold as a 21.5" monitor rather than a 22" monitor.

 

[0roo0roo]

space constraints? toss the desk if its that horrible.

22" is inadequate because 24" is what you want for wide. 22" esp 16:9 is a lot shorter than a 20" lcd 4:3. you have to buy equivalent height. width doesn't compensate for height, esp for smaller screens.

 

[corkyg]

Tossing a large corner enclosure ain't that easy, and certainly not cost effective. Agree that rounding up a half inch decimal is bad. But, why not provide the H&W inches of the display (no bezel) like we do with resolution?

 

[0roo0roo]

wait..you are chakraps??
how do you know is a corner enclosure? unless its deep in the corner and strangly tiny it should fit a bigger screen..or can be *cough* modded to fit...*saw*

 

[corkyg]

Q.E.D.

 

[kalrith]

Actually I don't think you'd have a problem with a 24" widescreen monitor with that desk. The monitor itself would be wider than 20", but it look like you could have it behind that 20" point. The screen of a 24" 16:10 monitor or 23" 16:9 monitor is about 20" wide. You should be able to see the entire screen even if you have to push the monitor back just a bit.

 

[corkyg]

Kairith, you are exactly correct. I have meaured and find a 24-in is definitely doable. The monitor is actually about 6 inches back from the 20-in gap.

 

[kalrith]

Kairith, you are exactly correct. I have meaured and find a 24-in is definitely doable. The monitor is actually about 6 inches back from the 20-in gap.

Do it! Do it now!!!

 

[chakraps]

Wow, so much chatter and am logging in only now.

The main thing I don't like about the stated size of monitors is that many of them still round up to the nearest size. If a monitor is 21.5", then IMO it should be sold as a 21.5" monitor rather than a 22" monitor.

+1

22" is inadequate because 24" is what you want for wide. 22" esp 16:9 is a lot shorter than a 20" lcd 4:3. you have to buy equivalent height. width doesn't compensate for height, esp for smaller screens.

In my case both the 20" and 22" are 16:9 widescreens. I've to check their actual heights. But they appeared to be of almost equal height when looked at side by side. Just that the 22" appeared stretched out as compared to the 20".

To me a 24" appears huge and immersive, more like sitting close to a TV. I'm a little concerned about the ergonomics of using a big screen at close quarters. You don't want to end up with strained eyes and neck in the long run.

Apart from movie and gaming experience, trying to find out what would be ideal for regular office work (browsing, documents etc) since that takes up much of my computer time.

 

[kalrith]

Use http://tvcalculator.com/ to compare screens of different sizes and to see the actual dimensions of the screen itself. At 2' away, you'll probably be just fine with a 22" 1920x1080 screen. I think the higher resolution alone is worth it.

Now, here's something very important. Sit at your normal seating position at your desk, and measure the distance of your eyes to the screen. If you think you're 2' away from the screen and you're actually 3' away, then that's a huge difference. A 22" screen from 3' away looks like the same size as a 15" screen from 2' away (or at least those two examples have the same level of immersion, which is determined by the viewing angle using this calculator).

 

[shortylickens]

I have a 24" and I dont think I could ever go back down.
Work monitors are always such a pain every day.

 

[chakraps]

I just took out the tape and measured. Distance from eye to current 15" CRT is 2'. With an LCD in it's place, it can go upto 3' easily. Thank you kalrith for those calculators. If am not wrong, the calculator seems to suggest 24" optimal for 3' viewing distance. Well, now am thoroughly confused. Should I cough up some more and go for a 24".

I plan to visit a B&M over the weekend and look at all of them side by side again. Thanks to all the posters for sharing your thoughts and suggestions.

 

[kalrith]

What's your budget? Do you want 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratio? In a 24" monitor the former would have 1920x1080 resolution, and the latter would have 1920x1200 resolution. As a quick and dirty comparison without causing a flame war (hopefully), 16:9 is better for gaming, movies, and TV, and 16:10 is better for general productivity.

 

[0roo0roo]

What's your budget? Do you want 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratio? In a 24" monitor the former would have 1920x1080 resolution, and the latter would have 1920x1200 resolution. As a quick and dirty comparison without causing a flame war (hopefully), 16:9 is better for gaming, movies, and TV, and 16:10 is better for general productivity.

depends on size. 16:10 was better for smaller wide screens where screen height of 16:9 was inadquate, 16:10 only reduced the problem a little. once you hit 24" it stops mattering at all.

 

[0roo0roo]

I just took out the tape and measured. Distance from eye to current 15" CRT is 2'. With an LCD in it's place, it can go upto 3' easily. Thank you kalrith for those calculators. If am not wrong, the calculator seems to suggest 24" optimal for 3' viewing distance. Well, now am thoroughly confused. Should I cough up some more and go for a 24".

I plan to visit a B&M over the weekend and look at all of them side by side again. Thanks to all the posters for sharing your thoughts and suggestions.

calculator/viewing is for tv. has no meaning in desktop. and it doesn't really scale to really work on small desktop screens. a 65" at 2' is too big, at 12 feet its too far. Anyways how far would you have to sit from a 30" monitor? 5 feet? they all go on desks in front of people..about the same distance and have enough pixels that it doesn't matter. desktop its all about reading not watching a film image or keeping the entire screen in the center of focus or keeping the lower resolution tv far enough not to see pixels at all times so it doesn't apply. it only matters that its not so far away that you can't comfortably read text. so how are your eyes at 3 feet? i think that is a bit far, 2 feet or so is more desktop duty distance.

 

[0roo0roo]

Wow, so much chatter and am logging in only now.

+1

In my case both the 20" and 22" are 16:9 widescreens. I've to check their actual heights. But they appeared to be of almost equal height when looked at side by side. Just that the 22" appeared stretched out as compared to the 20".

To me a 24" appears huge and immersive, more like sitting close to a TV. I'm a little concerned about the ergonomics of using a big screen at close quarters. You don't want to end up with strained eyes and neck in the long run.

Apart from movie and gaming experience, trying to find out what would be ideal for regular office work (browsing, documents etc) since that takes up much of my computer time.

i'm sure you've sorted the height out between the 20-22 now you've seen tv calcaultor.
24" is not huge and immersive though, its just a monitor, you'll get used to it and it will seem small before long. people used to use 14" monitors after all, remember that first jump to 15"..omg its bigger..19" omg its biigger...20" ..21"... its omg its bigger-> meh in short order. Its not like sitting close to a tv because lcd has almost no eye strain, and the pixel density is high enough that its just more screen space, like a bigger desk, you have more space to work with. with anything smaller than a 24" using multiple windows on a screen is too cramped. until24" you can't really do multitasking windows in multi window on the same screen style well, such as documents side to side. and as you've noticed you probably maximize every window because thats the only way to get enough space on a small screen. like a newspaper, its not too big to have a big two page layout, it just lets your eyes scan/browse more information at a time. Its not until 30" do you start reaching the practical limits of desktop size. for office work 24-30" is optimal. Anything less is limiting unless you go with multimonitors, and your setup pretty much denies you that option.

 

[chakraps]

What's your budget? Do you want 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratio?

Budget is in local currency. Being outside US choices are limited. There are hardly any 16:10 here. And the only one Dell 2209WA costs an arm and a leg. The market is flooded with 16:9. There are good choices in 20"/21.5" segment. If I go up to 24" only the BenQ G2420HD is in my budget.

desktop its all about reading not watching a film image or keeping the entire screen in the center of focus or keeping the lower resolution tv far enough not to see pixels at all times so it doesn't apply. it only matters that its not so far away that you can't comfortably read text. so how are your eyes at 3 feet? i think that is a bit far, 2 feet or so is more desktop duty distance.

I agree majority of my time is going to be spent reading and typing on it. After that comes movies, and then games. Priority is sharpness, text size and workspace. With glasses on, am able to work on a 15" CRT at 2' comfortably. Don't know about 3'. But I've made space up to 3' in case it needs to be pushed back.

i'm sure you've sorted the height out between the 20-22 now you've seen tv calcaultor.
24" is not huge and immersive though, its just a monitor, you'll get used to it and it will seem small before long. people used to use 14" monitors after all, remember that first jump to 15"..omg its bigger..19" omg its biigger...20" ..21"... its omg its bigger-> meh in short order. Its not like sitting close to a tv because lcd has almost no eye strain, and the pixel density is high enough that its just more screen space, like a bigger desk, you have more space to work with. with anything smaller than a 24" using multiple windows on a screen is too cramped. until24" you can't really do multitasking windows in multi window on the same screen style well, such as documents side to side. and as you've noticed you probably maximize every window because thats the only way to get enough space on a small screen. like a newspaper, its not too big to have a big two page layout, it just lets your eyes scan/browse more information at a time. Its not until 30" do you start reaching the practical limits of desktop size. for office work 24-30" is optimal. Anything less is limiting unless you go with multimonitors, and your setup pretty much denies you that option.

Thank you for clearly highlighting the advantages of going big screen. Sometimes, we got to hear it from others to convince ourselves . As for eye strain, I do find people complaining of watery eyes and such after migrating to big LCD monitors. Could that be due to bad calibration?

 

[0roo0roo]

eye strain is from leaving it on default retina burn brightness mode. esp prevalent on tvs, aka store shelf display mode...you know..brighter is better?