My 30" Dell is too small

[imported_boe]

I love my 30" dell but wouldn't mind having something larger. I want a real CPU screen - not some TV screen that works just OK as a monitor. I want something that really really works well and was designed with PCs in mind first. Any word on any larger PC LCDs coming out soon?

I wish they'd consider making some that were designed to show 1080p native though as anything that is downscaled always looks fuzzy. Even though I have a 30" screen, I'd prefer my resolution set below the max 2560x1600 because then it makes things so small you might as well have a small display. I think a 36" screen would give me about the ideal size for gaming, spreadsheets, graphics and video editing that I'm looking for.

Thanks

 

[Capt Caveman]

Wow

 

[postmortemIA]

0.250mm pixel pitch matters more than screen size.. glad you figured!

 

[undeclared]

sell it
get a 37" westinghouse 1080p

or another tv/monitor..

 

[JackBurton]

Here you go. 40"s of good 'ol 1080p lovin'.

 

[daveybrat]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Here you go. 40"s of good 'ol 1080p lovin'.

Wow, 120Hz??? Droooool...........

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: daveybrat

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Here you go. 40"s of good 'ol 1080p lovin'.

Wow, 120Hz??? Droooool...........

New Samsung panel. It's pretty nice. One of nicest LCD TVs out currently.

 

[CP5670]

The "120hz" spec is BS when labeled that way. It just uses the black frame insertion technology.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: CP5670
The "120hz" spec is BS when labeled that way. It just uses the black frame insertion technology.

ditto, most LCD specs are marketing, not actual specs.

 

[CP5670]

The 25000:1 contrast ratio is in the same category.

That looks like a very good TV, especially with that 10-bit LUT, but some of these figures are just way off the wall.

 

[betasub]

Confused by OP. What's a "real CPU screen"?

If it's "not some TV screen that works just OK as a monitor", then why are you turning down the resolution, effectively simulating the larger pixel pitch of an LCD TV?

If you are asking for a 36" 1080p screen, then what makes it a "real" LCD and "not some TV screen"? What property of the LCD panel are you looking for?

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: CP5670
The "120hz" spec is BS when labeled that way. It just uses the black frame insertion technology.

ditto, most LCD specs are marketing, not actual specs.

Very true, and the BEST way to judge ANY display is to see it in person. And this LCD looks and performs great.

 

[imported_boe]

Originally posted by: betasub
Confused by OP. What's a "real CPU screen"?

If it's "not some TV screen that works just OK as a monitor", then why are you turning down the resolution, effectively simulating the larger pixel pitch of an LCD TV?

If you are asking for a 36" 1080p screen, then what makes it a "real" LCD and "not some TV screen"? What property of the LCD panel are you looking for?

I'm probably not describing what I want well or am not technical enought to give the answer you are looking for.

I notice a lot of TV's hooked up to PCs, no matter what the resolution or refresh rate don't look that great. My monitor looks fantastic if I display it at the maximum resolution/native res - 2560x1600 however items are pretty small - I can up the font etc but then things don't always display properly. If I wanted to watch a movie clip it will look grainy because that isn't the correct resolution for the display.

Perhaps I should ask in a seperate question why they don't make displays that are 1080p native - would the pixels be too large?

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: boe

Originally posted by: betasub
Confused by OP. What's a "real CPU screen"?

If it's "not some TV screen that works just OK as a monitor", then why are you turning down the resolution, effectively simulating the larger pixel pitch of an LCD TV?

If you are asking for a 36" 1080p screen, then what makes it a "real" LCD and "not some TV screen"? What property of the LCD panel are you looking for?

I'm probably not describing what I want well or am not technical enought to give the answer you are looking for.

I notice a lot of TV's hooked up to PCs, no matter what the resolution or refresh rate don't look that great. My monitor looks fantastic if I display it at the maximum resolution/native res - 2560x1600 however items are pretty small - I can up the font etc but then things don't always display properly. If I wanted to watch a movie clip it will look grainy because that isn't the correct resolution for the display.

Perhaps I should ask in a seperate question why they don't make displays that are 1080p native - would the pixels be too large?

That's because they are hooking up a PC to a sh!tty TV. Hooking up a PC to a standard res TV will look like crap. Hooking up a PC to a nice HDTV, more specifically a nice high end LCD HDTV will look fantastic. And yes, you'll have your 1080p resolution.

 

[speckedhoncho]

How far away from the screen will you be doing most of your usage?

My 720p shows text OK @ 5ft @ native resolution, but if I up the resolution, the text looks terrible.

If you mostly want to use the monitor for gaming & movies/video, then a 1080p LCD HDTV is want you want.

I was thinking about a 2560x1600 30" for my HTPC, but people recommend against using it when viewing distance is 5+ ft away.

 

[imported_boe]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
That's because they are hooking up a PC to a sh!tty TV. Hooking up a PC to a standard res TV will look like crap. Hooking up a PC to a nice HDTV, more specifically a nice high end LCD HDTV will look fantastic. And yes, you'll have your 1080p resolution.

Actually even when connected to HDTV's most look like crap -OK maybe not crap but not good enough for me to want to use them as my monitor. I've been to a lot of high end companies including Sony and Intel, I've been to CES just about every year and I've hooked them up myself and even tweaking using powerbar etc, they typically don't compete with monitors built for PCs. I work for a couple of graphics companies and I'm pretty sure Apple would sell bigger monitors if they were able to get the price and the quality right as they have no end of demand for bigger screens from graphic artists.

 

[imported_boe]

Originally posted by: speckedhoncho
How far away from the screen will you be doing most of your usage?I was thinking about a 2560x1600 30" for my HTPC, but people recommend against using it when viewing distance is 5+ ft away.

Typically I sit about 2 and a half feet away from my screen.

 

[VisionxOrb]

The hdtvs that look like crap on PC are the ones that dont allow 1:1 pixle mapping, they overscan whats being inputed and even using overscan compensation on a PC to fix that the signal is still getting scaled that messes up the picture. you need a TV that has a 1:1 mode for use with PCs and that that looks fantastic. Westinghouse 37" is one of those and I think the spectra naga 37" 1080p is to.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: boe
I wish they'd consider making some that were designed to show 1080p native though as anything that is downscaled always looks fuzzy. Even though I have a 30" screen, I'd prefer my resolution set below the max 2560x1600 because then it makes things so small you might as well have a small display. I think a 36" screen would give me about the ideal size for gaming, spreadsheets, graphics and video editing that I'm looking for.

Lemme get this right... you want a big screen, but you don't want things too tiny, thus thinking 1080P (1920x1080) is the perfect resolution. Here ya go!

37" 1080p

32" 1080p

There are a few different brands that make the 37" size, but only one I know of for 32" size. I don't know of any in-between. Though these are made for HDTV use, they are perfect for use as a large monitor. Don't think of them as "some TV screen that works just OK as a monitor." Some of these have VGA and DVI inputs, and all of them have HDMI inputs which directly convert to DVI.

 

[kmmatney]

The pixel pitch of the 30" screens is too small to be comfortable, IMO. For 1080P, I can just barely handle my 24", but I'd prefer a 27" for 1920 x 1200 resolution. So for you, a 27" screen may be better than your current 30" screen downscaled. So i'd recommend this one as a possibility.

http://accessories.us.dell.com...dhs&cs=19&sku=222-7315


I think the pixels may be too big for anything in the 37" range, but If you really want pixels that huge, then the Westinghouse monitors listed above should do the trick.


Edit: That 37" sharp does pretty nice, though..

 

[n7]

There's nothing wrong with pixel pitch on the 30" 2560x1600 displays.

What's wrong is that we have operating systems that still cannot properly scale DPI for all programs to accomodate such a nice small pixel pitch.

I'd love to see a pixel pitch lower than 0.25, but it's quite obvious MS isn't exactly capable of scaling DPI properly, or perhaps it's somewhat an issue with other programs themself?

Does anyone running OS X or a Linux variant find dpi scaling works better than in Windows?

I do not believe dot pitch is an issue...the issue is the operating system/programs inability to deal with pixel pitch in a reasonable manner...maybe just because of laziness on the part of programmers?

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
0.250mm pixel pitch matters more than screen size.. glad you figured!

Backwards thinking.

Smaller pixel pitch (higher resolution) should not be an issue. You can increase the font size and (to some extent) resize pictures. An increase in pixels gives you more detail and an improved viewing experience.

OS and app issues should not dictate your pixel pitch.

I like my 30", and if anything, would want a even smaller pixel pitch. (Maybe I could finally view my photos at 100%) I've heard of people with three 30" displays, and I certainly would not mind a second one.

As you probably already know, MS' latest component library for building GUIs, is vector based. WPF should scale nicely regardless of pixel pitch. (at least their demos look nice)

(incidentally, I always choose small toolbar buttons and my font size is small/normal)

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: BikeDude

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
0.250mm pixel pitch matters more than screen size.. glad you figured!

Backwards thinking.

Smaller pixel pitch (higher resolution) should not be an issue. You can increase the font size and (to some extent) resize pictures. An increase in pixels gives you more detail and an improved viewing experience.

OS and app issues should not dictate your pixel pitch.

I like my 30", and if anything, would want a even smaller pixel pitch. (Maybe I could finally view my photos at 100%) I've heard of people with three 30" displays, and I certainly would not mind a second one.

As you probably already know, MS' latest component library for building GUIs, is vector based. WPF should scale nicely regardless of pixel pitch. (at least their demos look nice)

(incidentally, I always choose small toolbar buttons and my font size is small/normal)

should!=is not
human eye isn't that fine to read such small text, it is just against our nature, i agree that it could be shaped out nicer than what windows does now, but that is the limit that is now.

most users avoid such dpis, they are more comfortable with 0.28mm and higher.

 

[speckedhoncho]

Originally posted by: boe

Originally posted by: speckedhoncho
How far away from the screen will you be doing most of your usage?I was thinking about a 2560x1600 30" for my HTPC, but people recommend against using it when viewing distance is 5+ ft away.

Typically I sit about 2 and a half feet away from my screen.

Sitting that close to my TV isn't too bad, but if that distance is typical, then a monitor with better resolution will be much easier on you eyes.

 

[speckedhoncho]

Have you looked on MS's Windows site to find font and other scaling control? Some programs like Itunes ignore Windows' font metric settings used in programs to draw text and other objects. If it has been a tough search already, it makes your decision a lot tougher. If you look at text constantly, web browsing isn't too bad but looking at text constantly on my tv that close hurts my eyes.