Every time I upgrade my primary monitor to a larger one, it feels gigantic and incredibly impressive at first, and then rapidly I get used to it and it feels like a normal size, with my old screens feeling small and cramped.
How large is your main display, /g/? Do you think there's a practical limit?
>>54783889
>How large is your main display
27"
>Do you think there's a practical limit?
Really depends on the distance to the monitor. When it comes to width, there is really no limit, but I'd hate to look up all the time.
I have to monitors. 42 and 48 inch. The 48 inch is on a table to the right, 42 inch is right in front of me.
>>54783889
2 24" screens. if I want to go bigger I need a new desk
>>54783889
It's a 34" Ultrawide monitor. I've had it about 5 months and although it's no longer as "impressive" to how big it is, I couldn't imagine having a screen larger than this. It takes up almost my entire FoV.
Twin 24" 16:10 screens. Any bigger and I need a bigger house.
>>54784004
what do you sit 5" away from it?
Anything bigger than 25 kills it for me. Rather than size I look for resolution, which is the biggest issue I find. I'd rather have a small retina tier screen than a big one where I can see the pixels.
>>54784147
I said almost, dipshit. I sit about 2 feet away from it. Maybe 2.5 feet.
>>54784004
same, can't imagine anything larger, i have to turn my head to type this
i have it mounted next to a 27" 16:9, which is nice because they work out to be the same height
27". I'd probably go up to 30-32". After that you start having to move your head too much.
Also
24" should be 3840x2160
27" should be 5120x2880
30"+ should be 7860x4320
>>54783889
somewhat agree OP.
> 14" laptop -> 20" (vis) CRT -> add more 21" LCDs -> replace central CRT with 30" 2560x1600 LCD, make PLP -> replace everything with 49" UHD TV
using LG 49UF7600 currently
> 48.5" UHD = ~90 dpi
> IPS = no color shift at extreme corner angles, but does glow in a dark room
> HDMI 2.0 and 4:4:4 chroma @60Hz
> backlight PWM/strobing duty cycle adjustable
quite happy with it
I could go down slightly to a 43"-45" display, but probably up no more at this point frankly.
Philips has a new 43" monitor based off the next smaller LG IPS panel, but I'm gonna pass on it since I'm still waiting on UHD@120 Hz with DP 1.3/1.4, which maybe we'll get on next year's model.
I have 3x27" screens. The feeling you describe is what I've always felt when going up an inch (no) since I had my first Commodore PC II screen. I don't think going above 27 inches is going to occur for me if nothing else changes.
>>54784345
autism
>>54783889
>How large is your main display, /g/? Do you think there's a practical limit?
32"
Still feels large and gigantic desu
Two vertical 25".
2880x2560 god tier.
>>54783889
gimme 8k@120Hz on a ~45" display, and I'll be happy for the next decade.
I'm pretty much 99% certain I want to go to a 27" U2715H at this point as my general purpose /g/, programming & gayming monitor.
But
Last night I though, had a nightmare that it was too large and I massively regretted the purchase. Not sure if it was just a nightmare or was actually a premonition.
>>54785115
27" isn't too large.
>>54783889
My two 27" 1440p monitors seem pretty normal to me now but I think anything larger would definitely be pushing it in terms of practicality, at least for a dual monitor setup.
FHD = 22"
WQHD = 24"
4k = 27"
>>54785115
27" is just the right size for me. I'd think twice before buying an IPS though.
>>54785231
If you want blurry as shit monitors
>>54785249
27" 4k is blurry as shit???
topkek.
>>54785374
No, but in that case your UI would be fuckhueg and ugly. see >>54784345 for proper resolutions per screen size.
![snapshot_03.35_[2015.12.24_02.11.36].png](https://i.imgur.com/57gJU9C.jpg "snapshot_03.35_[2015.12.24_02.11.36].png")
>>54784345
>talks about UHD res
>ultra low quality image
please die
>>54783889
>playing with arrow keys
this tickles my autism
>>54784345
>24" should be 3840x2160
>27" should be 5120x2880
>30"+ should be 7860x4320
son...
>>54785401
the 33% difference between UHD and 5k is minimal for UI elements on a 27"+ screen, anon, even if you and/or your OS are retarded and can't into proper scaling.
Contemplating a 40" screen, too big? yay, nay?
>>54783889
Single 12,5" internal IPS monitor in my thinkpad and an old 17" dell 5:4 screen for server.
It's pretty nice to get used to such small screen and have the ability to use your computer without sitting in front of your desk.
>>54785563
Get the 43" Philips that just came out.
The old 40" Philips had a wonky screen with non-square pixels, and everything else that size was complete chinkshit.
>>54785249
>he's too retarded to understand that pixel size is a function of viewing distance
Maybe if you were sitting at a more patrician ~80cm instead of squishing your face up against the display, you wouldn't have to use such ludicrously absurd resolutions to begin with.
>>54785605
Great strawman. Everyone who uses a high PPI display sits with their face up to the screen. Totally.
I have a 25'' ultrawide monitor with a resolution of 2560x1080. I have to say, it's not that amazing. Reading on this thing ain't the best and Windows is a shit so a size of 100% is small, 125% is too big.
Fucking good resolutions are way too expensive.
>>54783889
40" feels pretty small desu senpai
>>54783889
I upgraded from a 32" Sharp@ 1920x1080 60Hz to an 18" SyncMaster 997DF 1600x1200 75Hz.
>How large is your main display, /g/?
32"
>How large is your main display, /g/? Do you think there's a practical limit?
Probably 27" tbqh. 32" requires too much eye and head movement if you don't sit really far away.
>>54783889
2×22" is enough for anything. Whenever I try bigger monitors I either can't see individual pixels or colors get distorted by the viewing angle.
>>54785631
>Everyone who uses a high PPI display sits with their face up to the screen.
That's the only reason why you'd ever need a 200+ dpi screen.
For a typical 80cm viewing distance, 160 dpi is already more than enough to satiate your visual acuity to the point where you basically can't distinguish individual pixels at all anymore.
>>54785760
>That's the only reason why you'd ever need a 200+ dpi screen.
Who said anything about over 200ppi?
Are you one of those people who things non-interger scaling is okay? Some things need to be raster you know.
>160 dpi is already more than enough to satiate your visual acuity to the point where you basically can't distinguish individual pixels at all anymore.
Great. A 27" inch monitor with the workspace of a 1080p monitor. Just what I wanted.
You don't think very hard about high PPI do you? It's not just about the pixels, it's also about the software. Even if Windows 10 scaling wasn't a buggy mess you'd still have raster images looking like blurry shit due to non-integer scaling.
>>54785940
>Who said anything about over 200ppi?
>>54784345 keeps on spamming his garbage recommendations.
>Are you one of those people who things non-interger scaling is okay? Some things need to be raster you know.
All decent operating systems and GUI frameworks support native, artifact-free, non-integer scaling. Sorry your NSA spyware OS is shit.
>>54785976
>keeps on spamming his garbage recommendations.
So you really think 4k on a 27" monitor would be acceptable?
>All decent operating systems and GUI frameworks support native, artifact-free, non-integer scaling.
Yes, they magically convert raster graphics to vector and create information from nothing! Totally. Every website online also uses nothing but vector graphics. Hentai is also vector, you'll never lose detail there. Totally.
This is my last response to you.
>>54786017
>So you really think 4k on a 27" monitor would be acceptable?
At a viewing distance over 50cm, yes. (Pic related) I use a viewing distance of 80cm. Go figure.
>in b4 “but I have magic above-retina golden eyes!”
>Yes, they magically convert raster graphics to vector and create information from nothing! Totally. Every website online also uses nothing but vector graphics.
Most web content is vectors (text, CSS-styled elements, buttons, etc.)
Raster graphics can be cleanly scaled to arbitrary resolutions.
>>54786059
>Raster graphics can be cleanly scaled to arbitrary resolutions.
Pic related. Top is original (100%). Steps are increments of 25%.
The only integer scaling ratio on this image is the third from the bottom (200%). Doesn't exactly look special to me.
24" 4k, scaled as 1080p, 15" 2880*1800, scaled as 900p
tried 32" 4k and 27" 4k, scaled as 1440p, but didn't look that nice as 1080p on 24" 4k. so ended up with 24" and 15" for now
as soon as 5k for scaled 1440p is coming to the consumer market, i will think about it.
>>54786271
>as soon as 5k for scaled 1440p is coming to the consumer market, i will think about it.
It already exists. Pic related.
If you don't want OS X or an iMac you can get this instead
http://www.amazon.com/Dell-Monitor-UP2715K-27-Inch-LED-Lit/dp/B00OKSFXZU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1464452906&sr=8-1&keywords=dell+5k
>How large is your main display, /g/
24 inches, all three sceens. My old 21" monitor sitting next to the rest and yeah pretty small until I noticed
>Do you think there's a practical limit?
For me, yes.
>>54784345
>27" should be 5120x2880
Absolutely agreed. Unfortunately there are very few 5K displays right now and they're all obscenely expensive. I can make do with 1440p for a few more years.
>>54785115
I can promise you that you won't regret going 27". It's actually the bare minimum size I would consider buying now.
>>54785550
Consider:
* 4k at 2x scaling is the same amount of work space as 1080p at 1x
* The main benefit of going 1080p->1440p is not the slight increase in sharpness, but rather the increased working space
* Therefore a 27" 4K monitor, unless run at unrealistic scaling, would be less productive than a 27" 1440p monitor.
>>54785243
Why exactly? I am planning to buy a Dell U2715h in a few weeks, which has IPS.
>>54786456
He's memeing. IPS is the best monitor tech we have at the moment. *VA has lots of issues and TN isn't worth using.
>>54786483
If you ignore price, OLED is the best monitor tech we have at the moment
>>54786488
OLED still has crappy lifespan and burn-in is something you can't avoid, only mitigate.
>>54786503
Since we're ignoring price you can just replace the OLED screen once it loses its color accuracy.
Also current-gen (2016) OLED lifespan is much greater than it was a year or two ago
>>54786456
Definitely get it. I have the Dell 2715q and it's awesome.
21.5"
And it depends on your set up. Wish I had something bigger, but since I have a 960 I don't want to go higher than 1080.
1080 past 22" just feels weird on a monitor.
>>54786318
I'm just going to wait a few more years, until it's closer to £300 than £700.
>>54786542
I have a 960 and play at 1440p. It's fine if you aren't a 60fps aficionado.
19-21" is the sweet spot for me.
I switched to 10-15" for portables though.
>>54783889
50 inch Plasma TV hooked onto wall.
Not ideal but whatever. I'm actually looking at getting a smaller monitor, what size would you guys recommend? I want something under or around 30 inches.
>>54786570
What games/settings/fps do you get?
I dont mind playing around 35~40.
It's clean enough.
>>54783889
50"
First monitor. It's actually a samsung tv i got for free.
>>54784242
>I sit about 2 feet away from it. Maybe 2.5 feet
shit, I was going to make fun of you but I realized that my face is currently 2 feet away from my monitor. fuck I need to get my eyes fixed
>>54783889
>How large is your main display, /g/?
2 23" monitors
>Do you think there's a practical limit?
yeah, a VR
>>54783889
40 inches. I can never go back. A 24" feels like a smartphone now.
23"
It's a little to big I think
>>54784345
Actually I like the idea of having a screen so big I have to constantly move my head. Having things just outside my main field of vision helps me compartmentalize my work better. But Three monitors of 21", 27" and 21" would likely be more effective as they could be bettered angled.
Also need to beef up my neck muscles, my life could depend on it again. A beef up neck saved my life years ago when a classmate tried to strangle me, I broke his thumbs when I bowed my head. Can't believe how much muscle mass I have lost since I started programing and watching anime.
28 inch 4K.
It's the perfect size for me.
i generally wont go higher than a 32" my current is a 27" Benq I can also no longer play on anything but 1ms or lower.
>>54787960
I sit at ~2.75ft from a 27". I could go further but my desk isn't all that deep.
I've pretty much just accepted that my mild myopia (no correction required at the moment since I don't drive) is going to worsen. It's just inevitable, since I spend far too much time staring at nearby things. I've stopped worrying about it.
>>54788215
What scaling factor? I feel like 1x would make elements far too small, 2x would take you back to 1080p effective working space, and non-integer value don't work well.
>>54788337
>1ms or lower
The very, very best model tested on DisplayLag achieved a latency (input-to-pixel) of 9ms. As much as 20ms is still considered "Excellent" by that site, and they seem to /really/ know what they're talking about.
Furthermore, after input and processing latency, your latency is in high double or early triple digits. Killer Instinct on the xbone has a total (button-to-pixel) latency of 81ms, and that's the best game tested:
http://www.displaylag.com/console-latency-exploring-video-game-input-lag/
Forza Horizon 2 has 149ms. Probably finely tuned PC games using interesting low-level techniques can improve things a bit, but the point is that "1ms" is a fiction. Real values are one to two orders of magnitude higher.
>>54788337
>>54788742
Never mind the fact that your reaction time is 200-300 ms at the minimum.
