27"-30" computer monitors info and opinions

Many 16x10 models are/were 1920x1200.
There are still quality 27" and 32" 1366x768 montors/TVs available which are normally used for commercial use (menus, other store displays) since they have a standard windows PC resolution with a physically larger text font then 1080p models.

An alternative that many have done is use a 1080p HDTV as a computer monitor with HDMI or VGA input.
Such as a Samsung 32" 1080p LCD HDTV.
You get a built-in TV tuner too.

If you get a TV make sure that the both the HDMI port and the VGA port will support the TV's native resolution, not all do.
I don't know what makes/models of monitor's the people in call centers and brokerage firms use but I am sure they are not the low priced value models.

IMHO the 1920x1080 (aka 1080p) resolution is perfect for a monitor up to 23" diagonal. It gives crisp text and fine detail at that size while in computer use. For a larger screen viewed at the normal 1-2 feet that most people use a monitor at on a desk, you want a higher-than-1080p resolution.

The ideal viewing distance for a 1080p television is 1.5-2.5 times the screen diagonal size IMHO. At the close limit, you are on the verge of seeing individual pixels. At the far limit, the screen "subtends" too little of your field of view, you lose immersion in the material. Using a greater-than-1080p resolution allows you to sit closer to the monitor without seeing pixels when viewing video material, which is why I favor as much resolution as you can get for a monitor larger than 23" diagonal.

23" and 1080p is the ideal for computer, gaming, and HDTV viewing at your desk. Go for as much resolution as you can get for a 25" or 27" or 30" monitor.

Good point about the quality of video scaling. The answer depends upon just HOW you are displaying HDTV. In an HDTV set, the video quality depends on the capabilities of the scaling chipset inside the set - I would say "good". On a monitor fed a fullcreen image from a PC, the image quality depends upon the PC video board. For a high-end video board that will drive a high resolution monitor at a decent frame rate during a PC game, the video scaling will be very very good, better than the typical HDTV hardware.

As for the appearance of text, it depends upon screen resolution and seating/viewing distance. Think through the scenarios of use. I assume you will be seated some distance from the monitor. For me, I sit about one diagonal screen distance from my 1080p monitor - about two feet in front of a 23" monitor. Text is readable and crisp. I view video at the same distance. In my Home Theater, I sit about 8' from my 96" projection screen, for immersion in the image.

For a 32" 1080p monitor, sitting about 30-35" from the screen would produce a good usable view. Any closer and your screen fonts will take on a jagged appearance and individual pixels will be visible. Realisticly, mock it up with a piece of cardboard the same size and shape as the display on the desk. Sittng back 35" from the screen may not be possible if you need a keyboard/game controller sitting on the desktop.

The 30" Apple and Dell Ultrasharp displays are gorgeous. But a 32" or larger 1080p monitor is too large to use comfortably as a monitor IMHO, because of the distance you must sit away from it..

I'm sitting 50" from a 42" plasma and I feel I could use a 50" panel here...

Another option you might not have considered is buying a slightly larger TV and pushing it to the back end of your desk. Thats what i've done with my 46" 3DTV. This provides a few benefits that not everyone will need: It frees up desk space in front of you, it can retain pixel detail as long as you don't go to high and if you back up from your desk to get comfortable when watching a movie, the viewing field of view doesn't shrink.


Not for me, i thought my 30" Dell was too small for movies and gaming. Almost all PC games have ways to increase the rendering FoV, which I do for immersion. I'd gladly use one of the new Phillips wide 21:9 3DTV's if it utilized the whole 2560x1080 resolution in 3D.


I placed my 30" where my 24" was. Initially i though moving my head a bit to see from side to side was going to be an issue. I wasn't, at all im happy to report, but im 35 now, older folks might have an issue there? Now that i have my 46" and have had to increase the head movement, i once again had an increase in head movement and wondered if it was going to be a problem, but i got used to it very quickly.

If using Win7 select change resolution after right clicking on your desktop and select "Screen Resolution". Then select "Make test and other items larger or smaller".
Unless you have a specific application which will be better if 2560x1440 is the displays native resolution get a unit with 1080p as the native resolution.

IRKUCK... I don't understand your post. Fonts are scaled all the time and screen res plays an important role in the quality. I must be interpreting your post differently than you meant. Viewing the Word Doc at 50% vs 100% vs 200% changes the real estate view of the screen even though the font is still x points and screen res definitely affects the quality of the resultant zoom...

Irkirk,
What I meant is that unless a non video application is designed for 2560x1440 then a 1080p monitor IMHO will provide a bettter overall user experience then if the content has to upscaled to increase the physical size of text and/or objects due to problems such as jaggies on slanted edges.

I agree 1080p video will look better at the higher resolution. I am concerned about the upscalng.
A 2560 application could be one such as photo or video editing where additional detai improves the image.
Yes fonts can be upscaled but that does mean that they will look the same since when a pixel is inserted between two different colored pixels on a line edge or on a diagonal you can get jaggies since the color of the inserted could be a dup of one of one of them or could be meger of the two different colors depending on the upscaling algorithm.
Networks spend many thousands of $ on dedicated upscaling hardware systems. in order to improve the picture quality of inserted pixels. This is evident when you watch a program "filmed" with an 480i camera on a 1080p display where the network upscales the 480i content for broadcast on a HD channel with a stand alone scalera and compare it with a user's TV that uses an inexpensive upscaling chip.
You may find the following link informative:

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

An excellent review I found the last sentance to be a valid summary.

27" is way too small guys. I just received an Asus VG278H 3D monitor to try out since HDMI won't do full 1080p in 3D in games and i wanted to see what I was missing. My initial impressions are: not much, and theres no chance in hell i can see going back to this size after trying it out for the first night. The FoV of the 46" is priceless for immersion, games are boring thing on this thing despite the sharpness increase. The difference the finer pixel pitch makes, to my delight, is pretty small. Its much more noticeable so far in games though, but on the flip side, its easier to notice the fakeness of the cg world. Im looking at my desktop and going through several 1080p background images i frequently use and asking myself if i can see anything that is significantly visually sharper and im just not seeing much. When i went through even the stock Windows backgrounds when i first switched to the 46 [from 30"] I went "wow" at each one. Another thing i noticed is that the scope of the larger screen means that when, say, a small video loads on a homepage somewhere, its very large since your essentially zoomed in and i like that a lot more. It makes it look like you have several TV's on one screen.

Disclaimer: Opinion subject to change since its only my first day with it.

I've been using a 30" Apple Cinema display (2560x1600) since they launched in 2004 and just recently (about six months ago) switched to a 27" (2560x1440). It took me about a week to adjust to the loss of vertical resolution, everything seemed a little bit "squished" vertically at first. On the whole, I think I prefer the higher DPI of the 27", but I can definitely notice the slight reduction in operating space. It's worth the slight loss of pixels to have a modern panel and the tighter resolution.

Unless you're just sitting at your desk watching movies or playing certain genres of games, the pixel count is infinitely more important than the physical size of the screen. There's practically no amount of money you could pay me to move to a 46" display if it meant I had to lose all the pixels and downgrade to just 1920x1080 pixels. That would be crippling.

You can't have too many pixels. For using a computer, that's all that matters.

^^ I just got to ask: What made you "downgrade"? Apple Display started to give problem?

I swapped to the 27" displays at the office because I needed to replace my aging Mac Pro and the current Mac Pro wasn't a very attractive option (it's overdue for an update). So I went with a 27" iMac (and second 27" display) to replace my dual 30" ACDs and the ancient Mac Pro.

I still use a single 30" ACD on my newer-ish Mac Pro at home.

^^ OIC the catalyst is the Mac Pro, not the display.

I must again be misreading this thread. Dell WQXGA monitors are fine and they certainly do sell a 30" one currently.

Presently, I'm waiting for 2560x1440p at 120Hz -- You can do it today using Catleap 2B (Can be ordered at 120hz.net) or pre-ordering the upcoming Overlord Tempest X270OC (OC = "Overclock") from overlordcomputer.com (Info: Refresh-rate overclocking thread) although I'm waiting for things to stabilize, or waiting for one of the mainstream manufacturers (such as Samsung) to introduce such a display.

I'm hoping one of these vendors (or a mainstream vendor) adds a high-speed scanning backlight to permit simulated "960 Hz" operation (on either a 60Hz, 72Hz and/or 120Hz native signal) from these monitors without added input lag.

I would get one of these: http://www.squidoo.com/gaming-monitor The size that I like is around 27", 30 might be a little big.