Ideal screen resolution
Discussion
What screen resolution do people find best for different applications?
I’m not a gamer so for me 27” QHD is the best budget choice while 5k is even better.
4k seems an odd resolution for text, anything above around 24” and you end up using software interpolation which is processor heavy and a bit blurry, native resolutions seem better.
I’m not a gamer so for me 27” QHD is the best budget choice while 5k is even better.
4k seems an odd resolution for text, anything above around 24” and you end up using software interpolation which is processor heavy and a bit blurry, native resolutions seem better.
Griffith4ever said:
Twin 27", 2k monitor. Work and games. I have to scale windows UI up a bit.
4k - I just can't see the point unless on a huge TV. Then it woul dmake sense. I can't see a pixel on 2k.
Can't see s4k - I just can't see the point unless on a huge TV. Then it woul dmake sense. I can't see a pixel on 2k.
t on a 27" screen at 2k even sat on top of the thing.. unless you scale everything up, which defeats the point. 1920x1080 resi is lush on 27" screen, but to get the best text cliarity you need a glossy screen and not one of those crappy matte anti-glare ones with a grainy finish as they make pics and text look like st.On my XPS 15.6" laptop it has the 4K touchscreen. At native resolution and 100% scaling it's hard to work on. I used it at 150% instead of Windows recommended 200% and it's really good. Extra pixels mean clearer text. Never do any gaming.
Changed to use a MacBook Pro now though and I like the different aspect ratio.....not sure you can get many different ratio external monitors though.
Changed to use a MacBook Pro now though and I like the different aspect ratio.....not sure you can get many different ratio external monitors though.
I currently use 4K 32” screen, and a 2560x1440 32” screen.
The 1440p screen is noticeably “blurry” but these days with windows scaling everything it’s hard to know for sure.
Main reason I went 4K was deployment sizes are now all really huge for multimedia.
Clients asking for images in 4K… soon it’ll be HDR standard… and you just need to be able to see your work properly.
I have a 17” ish laptop with a 4K screen, that’s also 100% Adobe rgb and srgb… that’s fantastic too.
The nice thing with 4K is that it scales nicely with 1080p by doubling or halving… so windows scaling works as good as it probably can.
Or you can just run it in 1080p res on other stuff to get something half decent compatible looking.
Then, within reason, that scales well back to 800x600 for more legacy stuff that’s still quite ‘sharp’ looking.
Either way, despite many downsides, I’m now using 4K for my main interfaces on all my main computers.
17” on a laptop, 32” at work machine, and a 55” HTPC in lounge. Stuff looks good and works fine on them all.
The 1440p screen is noticeably “blurry” but these days with windows scaling everything it’s hard to know for sure.
Main reason I went 4K was deployment sizes are now all really huge for multimedia.
Clients asking for images in 4K… soon it’ll be HDR standard… and you just need to be able to see your work properly.
I have a 17” ish laptop with a 4K screen, that’s also 100% Adobe rgb and srgb… that’s fantastic too.
The nice thing with 4K is that it scales nicely with 1080p by doubling or halving… so windows scaling works as good as it probably can.
Or you can just run it in 1080p res on other stuff to get something half decent compatible looking.
Then, within reason, that scales well back to 800x600 for more legacy stuff that’s still quite ‘sharp’ looking.
Either way, despite many downsides, I’m now using 4K for my main interfaces on all my main computers.
17” on a laptop, 32” at work machine, and a 55” HTPC in lounge. Stuff looks good and works fine on them all.
Griffith4ever said:
Twin 27", 2k monitor. Work and games. I have to scale windows UI up a bit.
4k - I just can't see the point unless on a huge TV. Then it woul dmake sense. I can't see a pixel on 2k.
I agree. I'm similar - 2 mid size screens work better for me than one really big one on windows - and 2k monitors are quite a lot cheaper than 4k. You'd need about a 40" screen to have the same real estate as 2 x 28. 4k - I just can't see the point unless on a huge TV. Then it woul dmake sense. I can't see a pixel on 2k.
bcr5784 said:
Griffith4ever said:
Twin 27", 2k monitor. Work and games. I have to scale windows UI up a bit.
4k - I just can't see the point unless on a huge TV. Then it woul dmake sense. I can't see a pixel on 2k.
I agree. I'm similar - 2 mid size screens work better for me than one really big one on windows - and 2k monitors are quite a lot cheaper than 4k. You'd need about a 40" screen to have the same real estate as 2 x 28. 4k - I just can't see the point unless on a huge TV. Then it woul dmake sense. I can't see a pixel on 2k.
1080p "blocky" on a 24" screen made me chuckle. Most of the content on my 65" OLED is 1080p and the only "blocky" stuff is narrow bandwidth Freeview daytime channels. I ran my 27" monitors at 1080p and "blocky" is never something I noticed. Minecraft, maybe. I only upgraded to 2k to see if there was much of a difference. The biggest difference was the £500 I had to spend on a 3070 to get smooth gameplay at 2k.
I'm happy with my 27" 5k Apple Studio Display (for text/graphics), as well as my 34" Alienware Ultra-Wide OLED (gaming as text is bit funny with it's unique pixel layout), but can't see much wrong with the 27" 1440p LG monitor that's used as a 2nd monitor on my work laptop either (Microsoft Office apps mainly).
All my screens are at least arms-length away though.
All my screens are at least arms-length away though.
I have 4 screens, 2 are 4k and 28", two are 1080p and 24", they're all 16:9. I think it's the Aspect Ratio that's more important than the resolution. I have the two 24" screens one above the other and I'd like to add a 5th screen so I can stack the two 4k displays in the same way. The middle screen is my main screen, it's the right width, but it would be miles better if it was that width and 4:3, so an extra 3" of depth.
I really don't get why computer monitors have followed TV screens for aspect ratios?
I really don't get why computer monitors have followed TV screens for aspect ratios?
I've just got a 4k 3840x2160 27" Dell to replace a 2560x1440 27" & it's significantly sharper even with scaling up at 150% to get the icons & text to a reasonable size. I was dubious before i bought it but I'm very pleased with it, although I now need to hunt for a low profile graphics card with two DP outputs to install into my ancient Optiplex 7010 PC.
1920x1080 on a 24" screen is just archaic - even my 19" is 1600x1200.
1920x1080 on a 24" screen is just archaic - even my 19" is 1600x1200.
Griffith4ever said:
1080p "blocky" on a 24" screen made me chuckle. Most of the content on my 65" OLED is 1080p and the only "blocky" stuff is narrow bandwidth Freeview daytime channels. I ran my 27" monitors at 1080p and "blocky" is never something I noticed.
'Blocky' for me being obvious pixelation at my usual viewing distances, which I don't suffer on any other household screens: inexpensive mobiles, tablets, TV.27" 4k sounding like the right option to make that issue go away for me.
Muppet007 said:
2x 27" 4k screens. One is HDR.
Used for both work and gaming.
May switch is a single wide screen 40"ish 4k+ (can't remember the res).
Using anything under 4k looks blocky to me.
But with text (on a Mac at least) 27" 4K either you have it in retina and the text is minute, or in half retina in which case the text is smooth but much too big for me. Maybe with windows because the scaling is better I think, but on a Mac at least I find 27" 5K or 23-24" 4K allows you to use it at native retina resolution.Used for both work and gaming.
May switch is a single wide screen 40"ish 4k+ (can't remember the res).
Using anything under 4k looks blocky to me.
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff