Are 30" monitors too big?

[Patrick Wolf]

In terms of pixels, 2560x1600 is nearly double the pixels you'd see in 1080p.

Ok yes, now I think I got it. Talking pixels.

(1920 * 1080) / (1280 * 720) = 2.25x more pixels
(2560 * 1600) / (1920 * 1080)= 1.975x more pixels

 

[tweakboy]

Depends where you sit. If your 2 feet away from it your gonna damage your eyes.. gl

 

[taltamir]

there is no such thing as too big.

at least so I think... My dad hated his 24 inch LCD, so much so that he downgraded it to a 19inch 4:5 LCD.

 

[BFG10K]

30" will seem big for the first few days, but then you get used it and it looks normal. Now 24” looks tiny when I use it at work.

 

[0roo0roo]

You did it wrong. 1280x800 is 4 times the pixel count, and 1920x1080 is just over half the pixel count of 2560x1600.


But there is such thing as too small. And that's why I haven't gone with a 30" yet; I'm concerned that I'd have to sit further away to be able to encompass the whole monitor without turning my head, but then because of the resolution the text would be too small to see properly...

you don't have to see everything at once, you do have peripheral vision. and its just like a bigger table. space is nice.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

you don't have to see everything at once, you do have peripheral vision. and its just like a bigger table. space is nice.

To be honest, I would much rather just have two smaller monitors in portrait. One of the other main reasons I don't want a 30" is that you can't set a window to maximize on only half the screen; so you have 30 inches of real estate, but if you're on this forum, say, the page itself only takes up a third to a half of your screen space.

 

[NoQuarter]

To be honest, I would much rather just have two smaller monitors in portrait. One of the other main reasons I don't want a 30" is that you can't set a window to maximize on only half the screen; so you have 30 inches of real estate, but if you're on this forum, say, the page itself only takes up a third to a half of your screen space.

Well, you can use software to do that, I know ATI's Hydravision will set up desktop areas for you, and Win 7 will maximize to left half/right half if you push the window against the side. But I know how you feel.

 

[cbn]

30" TN panel? Or at least 2560 x1440 16:9 TN?

Why won't anyone make this?

 

[Emulex]

dunno but this hp lp3065 kicks ass. way better than 2 24" monitors.

hmm maybe i need two 30"

its like once you go 24" you are like wow!

then you go 30" and you are like wow!

nothing better to upgrade that's so cheap now 🙁

 

[ZimZum]

On a related note. Are there any larger than 30" monitors on the horizon?

 

[Warp01]

Thank you for so many replies!.

 

[SlowSpyder]

30" TN panel? Or at least 2560 x1440 16:9 TN?

Why won't anyone make this?

I have to wonder if a 30" TN would look like crap. Because TN panels tend to be more sensitive to viewing angle, and a monitor that size you may have to scan from side to side/top to bottom it may appear to have non-uniform colors and contrast.

Manufacturers probably also think that most people in the market for 30" are looking to spend a little money and want quality, so they use the better panels and charge for it.

With that being said, my 26" monitor is TN and isn't bad in my opinion, and I paid ~$400 for it (Best Buy clearence) when I picked it up a year or so ago. At the time that wasn't a bad price, they seem to have dropped quite a bit since a year ago.

 

[fatpat268]

I have to wonder if a 30" TN would look like crap. Because TN panels tend to be more sensitive to viewing angle, and a monitor that size you may have to scan from side to side/top to bottom it may appear to have non-uniform colors and contrast.

Manufacturers probably also think that most people in the market for 30" are looking to spend a little money and want quality, so they use the better panels and charge for it.

With that being said, my 26" monitor is TN and isn't bad in my opinion, and I paid ~$400 for it (Best Buy clearence) when I picked it up a year or so ago. At the time that wasn't a bad price, they seem to have dropped quite a bit since a year ago.

My 24" monitor is a TN and it drives me nuts. The top of the screen is always darker than the rest from the position I sit. I can't really adjust it any further right now until I get a new desk.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I didn't buy a 30 monitor this time around because all of the models in my price range didn't have osd controls. The closest one was a nec and it wasn't within my reach price wise. I'll wait until units with some control software built in surface at more affordable prices. Meanwhile I'm very pleased with my dell 27" s-pva paneled monitor.

 

[Modelworks]

It depends on what you are doing with it. I do 3d animation where programs have lots of menus and you need to have room on screen to position everything and still be able to see it. A large 32" monitor might seem like the best option but it isn't for a couple reasons.

The screen needs to be a greater distance from me to see it all, which means that some text become difficult to read but I can't increase it because it breaks the interfaces layout. So I get some parts of programs that are easier to use and some harder.

Windows OS is not designed with the idea that you are running super high resolutions to display multiple programs on the same screen. So when you minimize or move around things you have to keep repositioning windows.

All the programs have to share the same resolution which goes back to the text and menus problem.

The best solution if you need more desktop space is multiple monitors to customize each display for the application. I hope some small monitors, 9" or so become cheap . Those would be ideal for things like menus, rss feeds, icons, etc without using monitor space. I would love to have a 20" long , 1 inch high lcd display that could be attached below my current monitor for things like the taskbar. Most of the software I use recognizes multiple monitors so I can send things like video to one, menus to another and keep work on yet another, each optimized for the content they display.

 

[pmv]

My 24" monitor is a TN and it drives me nuts. The top of the screen is always darker than the rest from the position I sit. I can't really adjust it any further right now until I get a new desk.

Can't you just get a new chair? 🙂

 

[0roo0roo]

It depends on what you are doing with it. I do 3d animation where programs have lots of menus and you need to have room on screen to position everything and still be able to see it. A large 32" monitor might seem like the best option but it isn't for a couple reasons.

The screen needs to be a greater distance from me to see it all, which means that some text become difficult to read but I can't increase it because it breaks the interfaces layout. So I get some parts of programs that are easier to use and some harder.

Windows OS is not designed with the idea that you are running super high resolutions to display multiple programs on the same screen. So when you minimize or move around things you have to keep repositioning windows.

All the programs have to share the same resolution which goes back to the text and menus problem.

The best solution if you need more desktop space is multiple monitors to customize each display for the application. I hope some small monitors, 9" or so become cheap . Those would be ideal for things like menus, rss feeds, icons, etc without using monitor space. I would love to have a 20" long , 1 inch high lcd display that could be attached below my current monitor for things like the taskbar. Most of the software I use recognizes multiple monitors so I can send things like video to one, menus to another and keep work on yet another, each optimized for the content they display.

vista and win7 now no longer have issues with gui/font scaling

 

[sgrinavi]

....

Crutchfield suggests the following distances:

Screen size / Viewing distance range
26" / 3.25 - 5.5 feet
32" / 4.0 - 6.66 feet
37" / 4.63 - 7.71 feet
40" / 5.0 - 8.33 feet
42" / 5.25 - 8.75 feet
46" / 5.75 - 9.5 feet
50" / 6.25 - 10.5 feet
52" / 6.5 - 10.8 feet
55" / 6.9 - 11.5 feet
58" / 7.25 - 12 feet
65" / 8.13 - 13.5 feet
70" / 8.75 - 14.75 feet
.....

That's for TV watching, not computing.

There's many factors that go into monitor distance; pixel pitch, font sizes, content, etc. You need to put your monitor where it's comfortable for an extended period without any eye or neck strain then adjust the fonts from there....

 

[fatpat268]

Can't you just get a new chair? 🙂

Well, the desk is the real culprit. It's a tall desk, and I'm a pretty short dude (5' 7"). Add to that, I like to have desk space, so I use a keyboard tray, and all a taller chair would do is bump my knees into that tray.

All in all, it's a shitty desk and I'm working on drawing up plans to build my own as it's nearly impossible to find one in stores that suits my needs. Or, I could just get me a nice IPS screen. :hmm: 😀

 

[manimal]

Monitors are like boobs. They can never be too big!


I have a eyefinity 24 16x10 setup that I am currently loving. If someone offered me a quality 30 in exchange I would do it in a heartbeat. To continue my gauche analogy. Eyefinity is like silicone-I spelled it right this time IDC-and a 30 inch high res monitor is like the real thing!

 

[dualsmp]

Some 30" monitors can use over 100w or more though, which is more than my old 19" CRT used. Not really a big fan of the power consumption of these larger monitors, but I suppose when LED becomes the norm the power consumption will come down.

 

[Imp]

Not really too big, just too demanding on hardware for me; I upgrade every few years. Power draw is also a concern.

If my Dell 2407 ever dies (touch wood), I'll probably get the 24" LED panel since it uses a max of 20 watts. However, I think that's a TN panel, and I don't really want to go back to TN. Got to use a 22" TN at work, what crap.

 

[JoshGuru7]

I agree with many here that a 30" 2560x1600 display is one of the better investments out there for pretty much any sort of PC usage. It can require a good video card if you want to run newer games with high quality but pretty much everything supports 2560x1600 these days and the higher res looks great and almost obviates the need for any kind of AA/AF.

 

[ViRGE]

For desktop use? Absolutely.

To get straight to the point, there are two fundamental truths in GUI design:

1) The common monitor is 96dpi
2) The "sweet spot" for how far back a user should be sitting to be viewing such a monitor is 20"-28"

This leads to a problem: most GUI elements are designed around those assumptions. A button, for example, should look a certain size on a 96dpi monitor at 20"-28" back.

Worse, no modern OS can properly scale an entire screen. Win7 can do DPI scaling of text easily enough, but anything bitmapped (such as the aforementioned button) will always be the same dimensions as defined in pixels.

So why is this a problem for a 30" monitor? As monitors have grown resolution, they've simultaneously grown in physical size to maintain the same 96dpi (give or take a few pixels). In 1995 you were sitting 20"-28" from your 15" 1024x768 CRT, in 2005 you were sitting 20"-28" from your 20" 1680x1050 LCD, and in 2010 you're sitting 20"-28" from your 30" 2560x1600 LCD.

With every expansion in physical size, the amount of your direct field of vision occupied by your monitor has increased. This is not immediately a bad thing, but with a fixed DPI and fixed viewing distance it means that there's a finite limit - you can only see so much.

From my own experience, I consider a 24" monitor to be a limit. On a 30" monitor there's simply too much - I can't see the entire screen in my direct field of vision without having to dart my eyes around by a significant degree. The Win7 orb is all the way in the bottom left-hand corner, while the Close button is all the way in the top right.

For desktop use this is unmanageable. All of the extra resolution isn't making my experience any better because it's more than I can see. It's not like the "real world" where the object of my focus is in a very narrow spot in front of me - every bit of text on the screen has value and I need to be able to read it.

Now I could move the monitor back, but this has the impact of breaking the 96dpi/20"-28" rule listed above. I can now see the entirety of the monitor, but all fixed-resolution assets (basically any bitmapped images) are the same dimension since OS DPI scaling only scales text and vector images. Or in other words, if I sit back farther I can't read images.

So yes, for desktop use 30" is too big. In fact for desktop use I'd consider monitors outright stagnant: you can't make them physically bigger because they'll be outside of the user's FOV, and you can't increase the pixel density because they won't be able to properly see fixed-resolution assets. Until we're in an all-vector world where everyone can size images and text to their needs, the 24" 96dpi monitor is king.

However this only applies to desktop use. For movies, gaming, and really anything where you don't need to read text, a 30" monitor is fine. In those situations objects being outside of your FOV are not a major issue, and may in fact be intentional.

 

[Winterpool]

Monitors are like boobs. They can never be too big!

Oh dear... I think we're going to have to agree to disagree about this criterion of female beauty (I'll pass on the discussion of manboob size).

The same goes for displays -- size alone is not an unqualified good. As Kalrith et al have pointed out, there's a huge difference between the resolution, viewing distance, and utility of a 32+ television (probably 1920x1080) versus a 30-inch, 2560x1600 monitor. A big TV is like using a (more or less) conventional resolution display, but you need to sit further away owing to the larger / coarser dot pitch / pixels. Whereas, even at 30 inches, a 2560x1600 display has fairly small pixels (.258 mm dot pitch?).

A higher-res display will of course demand more processing power: you'll need a fairly capable video card to play modern games at that resolution. Even playing movies (especially if they're Flash) can be rather stressful at such a high res. On a related note, as Mr Pedantic observed, it might be useful to be able to 'fullscreen' an app or window without having to drive over 4 million pixels.

Finally, such a size and resolution might improve your productivity, or possibly worsen it, depending on your workflow, apps, preferences and habits. Do you dislike having to move your eyes to a different portion of your screen? Does it help you stay sorted by having windows clearly spaced and differentiated rather than piled on top of each other? Do you require lots of menus and sub-workspaces (think of design / editing software)?