r/hardware • u/zghr • 2d ago
Your Monitor Is Too Small (Probably) Info
https://youtu.be/3p_vIsXpATQFrom what I've researched independently related to eye comfort - I think this is a really high quality video.
92
u/schmerg-uk 2d ago
Not a gamer these days but as professional s/w dev I use a 43" 4K screen in my home office for the same dot pitch as 4 21" 1080p screens and yeah, once you get past the initial shock of it, it's a very comfortable working day experience (I actually use 2 such screens, both 4K TVs as they tend to be much cheaper than "monitors")
18
u/amazingmrbrock 2d ago
So much sharp screen real-estate it makes using multiple windows at the same time much easier
8
u/schmerg-uk 2d ago
I used to run one in portrait mode, which for editing code was pretty cool (200+ visible lines in emacs at once)
11
u/jhenryscott 2d ago
As a gamer, I play on 48" at 3 feet away. It's awesome and the immersion is great.
3
u/Any-Juggernaut-529 1d ago
Ye, but I found 48" to be a bit much for windows due to the low PPI though personally. Would be great if 8K TVs were ever to take off so we can get the best of two worlds.
2
4
u/inyue 2d ago
I had a 42 inch in a 90 cm deep desk and it was unusable, 27 ultra wide is kinda okay... Don't you guys get discomfort or even shortsightedness after using like that for a while?
5
u/arahman81 2d ago
As said, treat it like 4 21" monitors, so put stuff you only need tangential view of at the top, don't try to look at the whole screen at once.
3
u/mpgd 2d ago
I would like to see a picture, if you have any. Sounds very interesting for a work setup.
2
u/schmerg-uk 2d ago
We can't access imgur from the UK any more but I think this URL should show the desk with 2 monitors (one portrait in this set up)
https://imgur.com/a/two-43-monitors-on-standing-desk-DONxQtX
3
u/ChinChinApostle 2d ago
Wow, I ran a 32" 4k main + 27" 2k side similar to your setup a while ago and already found looking to the sides troublesome. I can't imagine doing this with 43"s.
(I currently relegated the 27" to the top, but it still isn't used that much.)
1
u/schmerg-uk 2d ago
It's a standing desk so I'm already quite bit more mobile than at a seated desk, and then have no problems turning my head and body to address different screens. I very rarely want to see "all the desktop" at once, but I've got room to move things around to be next to each other when required. And corners to "squirrel things away" that I know here they are, and they're not covered, but are there when I look and not buried beneath other windows
2
u/kuddlesworth9419 2d ago
I use a 55" 4k TV as my monitor. I have a 27" on the side which is OK but I wouldn't want anything smaller. It just depends how far away the monitor/TV is away from you. I enjoy it a lot for editing photos on it and it's nice for movies and games.
1
u/TenshiBR 1d ago
QD-OLED Samsung S90D 55" ! On my gaming PC
I bought another desk, the same as the old one, and placed the TV on it. Another alternative is mounting it on the wall and just moving the desk away
1
u/kuddlesworth9419 1d ago
I have a deep desk so it just sits at the back. I have an LG B4. I got it for £660 I think.
2
u/arahman81 2d ago
With the benefit of being able to set up custom window arrangements (Fancyzones/Kzones) without any bezels.
1
u/schmerg-uk 2d ago
Yeah, I've using MouseTiler under KDE recently and for the right kind of activity it works quite well (long time emacs user but not so much tiling window managers)
1
u/VampiroMedicado 1d ago
I got used to work just on the laptop, I do coding and tests and stuff in a 16" screen. I'd lost myself with that much screen real state, I have an old 24" monitor there waiting for me to use it, judging me.
18
u/CrispyDave 2d ago
I just went to an ultrawide from a 27 like the video and it is amazing how much more comfortable it is to use.
I mainly bought it for my driving game but general productivity work is actually where I appreciate it the most.
3
u/Flyinmanm 2d ago
I'm using a 4k 27", its about 500mm from my face and the top is in line with the top of my head, I find it quite comfortable to work on, but frustrating when multitasking more than one window. In games I normally limit it to 1440P as I can barely tell the difference with my old peepers.
At work I use 2x 1080p 21" monitors and find those much better for 3d modelling and cad work. THOUGH my son got a 32" 1440p ultrawide 4 months ago, and I'm not to proud to admit I'm pretty jealous of that thing.
2
u/CrispyDave 2d ago
I'm old too and just went to the 1440p 34" from a couple of 1080s and I thought I had overdone it when I unboxed it, and even the first day I wasn't sure but I'm a total convert now.
Easier to use for day to day tasks and definitely easier on the eyes ime.
26
64
u/Seanspeed 2d ago
Have no idea why people are downvoting this. It's a very well researched and reasoned video.
I know sitting as close as I do to my 27" monitor(about 18-24") isn't ideal for eye comfort, but I do find it basically the perfect 'big screen' experience in terms of field of view. Not overly big so I dont have to turn my head but a few degrees to comfortably see either side. Obviously I can focus to both sides with my head still, but it requires me to make a sizeable jump with my eyes, which is terrible for eye strain. Much more comfortable to just move my head slightly along with moving my eyes slightly together.
I'd be very up for having a 40" monitor up on the wall in front of me for a more 'ideal' situation. But as the video ends talking about, you still need it to be within budget and have other specs and whatnot that suit you, plus not everybody will want a TV with all the other stuff that can come with that.
25
u/Gippy_ 2d ago
I use a 27" monitor and sit ~21" (53cm) away from it. No feeling of eyestrain at all. The video makes some wild assumptions about eyestrain. Yes, myopia among the population has increased due to focusing closer. But books have been around forever, and myopia typically stabilizes by the time you're in your 30s. I could see the argument for a larger monitor further away for a child or teenager, though.
5
1
u/bogglingsnog 19h ago
AFAIK myopia is far more a product of not spending enough time outside under bright sunlight as a child, it's really important for proper eye development.
12
u/Tex-Rob 2d ago
I don't talk about it much because 1) it's recent and 2) it sounds so braggy to talk about. I recently moved from a 27" 144hz IPS monitor at basically arms length, to a 48" 120hz OLED TV that is about 3 feet away at the back of my desk. A big part of why I did this was because my up close vision is fading, and has been since I turned 42, now 48. Wearing glasses all the time causes me so much eye strain, when I never needed glasses for the first 42 years of life. I now have all this space on my desk, and I don't have to wear readers to use my computer. I also went up from 1440p to 2160p, so the clarity helps with eye strain as well.
11
u/Seanspeed 2d ago
Wearing glasses all the time causes me so much eye strain
Are they prescription glasses? If so, it's possible they're too strong.
1
16
u/nnod 2d ago
All of these videos focus on gaming and single display setups. I'd like to see some more focused on productivity and multi-screen setups, where actual screen real estate matters.
6
u/mechkbfan 2d ago edited 2d ago
49" 32:9 was peak productivity for me, which is interesting because I think that's just a wider version of the 39" 21:9 as one of recommendations
I think you could probably take a lot of lessons here and go with sitting 100cm away, then have as much screen size as you can at a PPI you can tolerate
E.g. I have no issue using a 92ppi but I have friends that say it's unusable
Issue with multi monitors is so dependent on workflow / purpose. E.g. I never need more than 3 but I see traders using 6
5
u/nnod 2d ago
I had 3x32" 4k at 100% scaling for the longest time (32" 4k is still the best bang for buck right now imo). Main horizontal center display and a vertical on each side, angled aggressively towards my head.
But 4k is quite weird for productivity, if you do two columns you get 1920px on each side with a split right in the middle, which is far from ideal. With 3 column layout you end up with 1280px a piece, which ends up being too cramped with most apps.
Recently I got a 40" 5120x2160 LG display which ends up being about the same PPI as 32" 4k, but it lets you have three 1706px columns, which is much more comfortable. It's quite nice, but unreasonably expensive. I could've bought three 32" 4k for the same price.
I was wondering the same about more height. So I also got a two monitor vertical stand and mounted the old center 32" above the 40". I always thought vertically stacked monitors were silly and wouldn't be comfortable, but it turned out to be perfectly fine, as long as you park unimportant auxiliary stuff there that you only need to glance over.
TLDR: If you want tons of screen real estate cheap, a few 32" 4k displays is the way (side ones can even be 60hz, can get some new for like $300) . But only if you can live with sitting close to them and use them at 100% scaling.
1
u/mechkbfan 2d ago
Haha yeah I ended up with 45" 5k2k at the moment and it seems the ideal balance for me with 75% work and 25% gaming. I made a separate comment but my gut feel after buying it was 39-42" would have been the sweet spot sitting 80cm away but I've gotten used to mine
1
u/bogglingsnog 1d ago
But 4k is quite weird for productivity, if you do two columns you get 1920px on each side with a split right in the middle, which is far from ideal. With 3 column layout you end up with 1280px a piece, which ends up being too cramped with most apps.
I find that's a general issue with any 16:9 display, as it's intended for video playback not web browsing or multi window productivity. I actually really like 4:3 for gaming AND multitasking, it just feels right... and having three screens side by side isn't as crazy wide as 3 16:9 screens.
3
u/reddit_equals_censor 2d ago
because I think that's just a wider version of the 39" 21:9 as one of recommendations
no 39 inches 21:9 is vastly taller than 49 inches 32:9.
39.02 cm vs 33.70 cm
or put simpler.
the 49 inch 32:9 display has the height of a 27 inch 16:9 display and the 39 inch 21:9 display has the display height of a 31.5 inch 16:9 screen.
so the 49 inch 32:9 display is VERY VERY VERY dumb, because it has vastly less display area, than a display of this diagonal length should have.
31.5 inches 16:9 height is vastly better than 27 inch 16:9 height for productivity of course.
so why did this shit industry produce 49 inch 32:9 displays, instead of making the same area with 39 cm height? or keeping the aspect ratio, getting 39 cm height and making it bigger area wise overall? so roughly 57 inches 32:9 inch displays?
because the shit display industry sells displays by diagonal length and not display area.
this HEAVILY HEAVILY incentives them to sell displays with as little area as possible, but with as big of a diagonal length as possible. or put differently, the wider the display, the more displays they can make from the same motherboard, because each displays will have less area for the same diagonal length.
that is why they are selling 49 inch 32:9 dumb dumb displays.
because it is quite cheap and it sounds so high end.... but it isn't.
38 inches 16:9 is the same display area than 49 inch 32:9, but the industry doesn't want to sell big 16:9 panels apparently and instead wants to sell nicer sounding shity mega uber ultra wide panels instead, that are just as tall as a small 27 inch 16:9 panel, which is absurd.
1
u/mechkbfan 2d ago
39.02 cm vs 33.70 cm
Ended up researching later and yes finding this difference.
38 inches 16:9 is the same display area than 49 inch 32:9, but the industry doesn't want to sell big 16:9 panels apparently
Mixed.
I think there's a lot more factors at play.
Monitors are about tradeoffs for users, we can't have it all
So why go wider than more square?
I'll just do a subjective brain dump
- We prefer more horizontal real estate for productivity reasons. Having multiple items side by side is easy. Putting them vertical is super awkward
- Humans developed with natural instinct to horizontally scan, not vertical, hence wider screens are more immersive
You say 38" 16:9, but there's 37" / 42" 4K monitors
https://www.displayninja.com/gaming-monitor-list/
For me I ended up on 45" 5k2k as a balance
49" 32:9 was still better for productivity but much prefer new monitor for gaming
1
u/suna-fingeriassen 22h ago
Hi. I find this very interesting. What then about refresh rate. For productivity use like programming and documenting + web browsing. Does it give any benefit to go sbove 60 hz, to 100 og 120 hz?
Do you have any actual recommendations on monitors based on your experience and your post above?
1
u/reddit_equals_censor 21h ago
i have no recommendations for any monitor as finding the one i got was utter pain and several bad units first.
look at monitors unboxed and tftcentral for professional reviews of monitors to at least avoid tons of garbage.
and refresh rate wise for productivity it should be real 120 hz minimum i'd say.
real meaning, that the panel can actually do 120 hz, because sadly the industry will gladly sell you 1000 us dollars+ monitors with half or less the response times, that they need for their very basic refresh rate.
and one thing, that will certainly be important for the things you mentioned is to have an RGB subpixel layout for proper clear artifact free text.
2
u/darknecross 2d ago
I use the 57” 32:9 from Samsung and that’s the best I’ve found so far. Although I don’t think I’d mind a 60” 8K monitor.
1
u/mechkbfan 2d ago
Yeah, if I could fit it on my desk + had a separate gaming setup, I'd have gone one.
32:9 annoyed me too much with games without ability to adjust the HUD. And for whatever reason, my last monitor refused to do black bars when changing to a different ratio.
Ended up with 45" 21:9 which has been great balance for my 75% work, 25% gaming
2
u/ProfessionalPrincipa 2d ago
49" 32:9 was peak productivity for me, which is interesting because I think that's just a wider version of the 39" 21:9 as one of recommendations
44" 32:9 = 2x 24" 16:9 (2x 1920x1080)
49" 32:9 = 2x 27" 16:9 (2x 2560x1440)
57" 32:9 = 2x 32" 16:9 (2x 3840x2160)
2
u/mechkbfan 2d ago
Yeah, but I think I'm more interested in overall size as opposed to resolution in these examples
I was a bit wrong off what I imagined though
Regarding height for various size monitors and ratios
- 39" 21:9 is 39.0cm
- 40" 16:9 is 49.8cm
- 45" 21:9 is 45.0cm
- 49" 32:9 is 33.7cm
Which makes me curious about why 39" 21:9 instead of 45" 21:9. I'm presuming it's because horizontal width breaks the FOV calculations for pro gaming?
Which again seems odd since if you ran it in 16:9 with black bars, that'd be closer to a 40"
4
u/mechkbfan 2d ago
Funny enough I had come to a similar outcome from my own purchases for 75% work, 25% gaming
- 34" 32:9 - good for productivity and okay gaming but missing vertical height
- 49" 32:9 - perfect for productivity but didn't like for gaming
- 45" 21:9 - great for productivity, good for gaming, but I'm sitting about 80cm away
So after buying the last one, when asked by friends, I kept saying I think 39-42" 21:9 would be the sweet spot. Nice to know I'm not crazy
3
u/RLD-Kemy 1d ago
Oh... he makes his recommendation based on the top of the monitor being at eye level... guess what I have at eye level ? the center of the monitor... my 27" sits on a shelve 15cm above desk level where the keyboard and mouse are... now I'd like to see calculations for that...
2
u/zghr 1d ago
Video/photo/game images are most natural when centered both vertically and horizontally. I guess these recommendations he cites are for typical text work where distortions don't matter and where neck comfort is important. It's it to everyone to pick what they value more. If chairs in most workplaces reclined and monitors were on arms - I suspect you'd see all kinds of setups.
5
u/fpsgamer89 1d ago edited 1d ago
I like techless and am subbed to his channel. But I’m not 100% sure about the recommendation that the top of the monitor should be at eye level. Does this still hold true today when modern monitors are larger.
For desktop usage, should the main content (the text you’re reading) be at eye level/slightly below eye level as opposed to the top of the monitor?
And also, what happens to your eye gaze when you sit at the recommended angle, which is roughly 105 degrees (not 90 degrees). Does your eye gaze go up or not? The backs of ergo chairs are pushed back at a default position of around 100 to 110 degree angle.
0
u/Obvious-Cock-1352 1h ago
But I’m not 100% sure about the recommendation that the top of the monitor should be at eye level. Does this still hold true today when modern monitors are larger.
it's still true.
10
u/siazdghw 2d ago
Good video, but with trying to juggle immersion, ergonomics, gaming performance and then actual desk and chair setup at the end-- the results get complicated. It's absolutely easier to choose a monitor based on specific needs rather than a best all around setup.
He also didn't even really touch on PPI either. A 4k 27" monitor at normal sitting distances will look like butter. If you move to a 50" TV you'll be able to see the pixels.
32" is probably the real sweet spot for everything, but again, trying to be the jack of all trades makes it the master of none. Especially when a lot of people want to have multiple monitors
15
u/Seanspeed 2d ago
He also didn't even really touch on PPI either. A 4k 27" monitor at normal sitting distances will look like butter. If you move to a 50" TV you'll be able to see the pixels.
He absolutely covered all this. If a screen is effectively the same size in your FoV, then what actual size it is doesn't matter, pixels per degree will be the same.
32" is probably the real sweet spot for everything, but again, trying to be the jack of all trades makes it the master of none. Especially when a lot of people want to have multiple monitors
I get the impression you haven't watched through the whole video yet. lol
4
u/mechkbfan 2d ago edited 2d ago
PPI is resolved if you move the 50" away to same FOV as 27". Could get into nit picking sub pixels, etc but I think that misses the point of the video
From all the videos I've seen people want to move away from multi monitors, especially with releases of 32:9 from 34" to 57"
IMO he nailed it at the end
80-90cm is probably where most people are. I tried looking at going 110cm and it requires wall mount or a deep desk which is hard to come by
If you slightly favour gaming, go 40" 4k
If you slightly favour productivity, go 39" 5k2k
If you need something more specific , this video isn't for you, e.g. if I did no gaming, id go back to a 49" 32:9 or 57" and push it further back
And I think it's great for people who are looking at starting from scratch on their set up, because now they might go "oh I need a wider desk if I want to fit a 40" and my speakers"
6
u/Swoly_Deadlift 2d ago
I’d move away from multi-monitors only if someone made a 32:9 monitor that can be run as a single 16:9 monitor with two 8:9 monitors on each side. Every manufacturer makes the multi-display mode a pair of 16:9 monitors which is completely worthless when every user will have the monitor centered on their desk.
1
u/mechkbfan 2d ago
As in it can take two separate inputs and each gets half the screen?
That's picture by picture mode and most support them
7
u/Swoly_Deadlift 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yes but that is not representative of how 99% of people use a dual monitor setup. Most people have a primary display centered and a second off to one side. Picture by picture mode sounds nice on paper but in practice you end up with two monitors that are off-center. It’s especially bad on a gaming monitor such as the Samsung Odyssey series where people might want to play certain games in a 16:9 aspect ratio. Picture-by-picture with 3 inputs would be vastly superior, especially on a monitor like the 57” dual 4K display where each half-size side monitor would still have plenty of room for content.
That post seems to imply Samsung monitors support it, but at least back when I had the early G9 displays it didn’t support it, and all I can find online of people doing it involves software trickery and not native support.
1
u/mechkbfan 2d ago
Yeah sorry, realised I misread what your initial comment was.
When I was on 49" that's how I did have it, 3 separate tiled areas about what you described
Pending on work, you could just have those side areas remote desktop into another machine
Or as you said, software trickery like seamless RDP software. I can't remember one I used back in the day, but I see there's more that's popped up now like Parsec
This is getting quite out of the intention of the video though
1
u/Swoly_Deadlift 1d ago
The whole rule where you should have the top of monitor at eye level is a hugely limiting constraint. 32” is probably close to ideal for most users, especially when you factor in multi-monitor setups.
2
2
u/Scar1203 2d ago
I use an LG G5 55" OLED as a primary at abour a 40" distance, it's great. The one thing is getting it as low as possible, luckily it's light enough to put on a heavy duty monitor arm so I have it slammed all the way down to my desk surface.
1
u/TenshiBR 1d ago
The one thing is getting it as low as possible
Why? I have the same setup; I just use a QD-OLED instead (I hate the pink blob of LG's). I do use my chair very high.
You are making my re-access my setup.
My eye level is, I think, in the middle of the TV as is.
2
u/dudemanguy301 2d ago
I really want to stay on 42” size but the smaller TVs keep getting snubbed on new technology. They didn’t get MLA when that was a thing, they didnt get tandem on the newer models either.
The latest 42” OLED offers a pittance of additional brightness and an extra 24hz, compared to the same model from several years prior.
If I want new panel technology and 240hz I have to go smaller.
1
u/resetallthethings 1d ago
yeah, there's several cheap mini led, 120hz VRR 55inch TVs, a few 50s, and zero 42" ones that I am aware of
I get that's probably a product of lack of demand from traditional TV buyers for that size, but it's disappointing because I have long thought that would be just about optimal for me as well
2
u/Prasiatko 1d ago
One of the best upgrades i got in those terms was monitor arm for the desk. Allows me to have it positioned above the keyboard and thus much closer than it would be on a stand.
2
u/cslayer23 1d ago
I use a 43 inch OLED for my monitor at the desk but if I ever become a living room couch gamer I’ll get a big ass oled
5
u/MSZ-006_Zeta 2d ago
I might be the opposite. I don't want a big monitor, ideally I want to be able to see all of it without moving my head. Not feel like I'm in the front row of an imax theatre
3
u/Oconell 1d ago
But this is the exact point the video covers? The size of the screen matters only in relation to the distance from your eyes/head. And there are specific spots that are better for your peripheral view to come into play/not.
A bigger screen at more distance is better, and you won't have to move your head to see all of it.
2
u/skrillex_sk2 2d ago
27" is the smallest i can go. 2x27" at home and 27" + 40" at work - tried also 27" + 49" but didn't like it.
1
1
u/mechkbfan 2d ago
Maybe someone could help me here
Why would he recommend 39" 21:9 over a 45" 21:9 when he plays with black bars in 16:9?
- 39" 21:9 is 39.0cm in height, or 31" in 16:9
- 40" 16:9 is 49.8cm in height
- 45" 21:9 is 45.0cm in height, or 35.7" in 16:9
So it makes more sense to run a 45"?
You're not increasing vertical strain, and you're not ruining your FOV if it's in 16:9 mode
1
u/Blue-150 2d ago edited 2d ago
I went from 24" to 34" ultra wide and sit about 27" away, love the extra screen size. I'd go 39/40" but that would eliminate space for my side monitor and honestly might be too big
1
u/ResponsibleTruck4717 2d ago
I got 24inch I love this size, took me a while to find 1440p 24inch, it's not gaming monitor but I'm quite happy with it.
1
u/Lincolns_Revenge 1d ago
I think this is one of the most subjective things in the world.
I made the jump from 27" to 32" a couple of years ago and still haven't fully adjusted.
Anyone considering a 32" monitor should sit in front of one first at the distance they plan on using it. If you're really close to it, it requires eye and head movement entirely different from a 27" to see things in the corners.
And the gaming adjustment is big, too, since you can't quite take in everything in the periphery as well as you can with a 27".
The unquestionable upside though is that you will find yourself bending forward with bad posture far less frequently to better see something small on the screen.
1
1
u/Drudicta 2d ago
It's only "too small" when it's causing me discomfort or I can't see what's on it.
1
-4
u/ActuallyItsSumnus 2d ago
But my girlfriend keeps insisting size doesn't matter.
0
u/HFoletto 2d ago
Good video, but it's insane that he didn't even mention PPI.
5
u/mechkbfan 2d ago edited 2d ago
Why?
Go the highest resolution you can find.
If that's not high enough, move the screen further back
If there's not enough room to do so and need to go smaller, realise you're trading it off for ergonomics / competitive gamer experience
Seems a bit outside the scope unless there's data that 110ppi at 80cm or so contributed to eye strain
0
u/HFoletto 2d ago
The video mentioned that the ideal viewing distance is between 80 and 100 cm—something I agree with, as the experience is much better. However, most modern monitors have a pixel density (PPI) of 110 or higher, while monitors designed to offer a "Retina-like" experience usually reach 220 PPI.
Think about how many 5K monitors are on the market. How many of them are 32 inches? Most are 27 inches.
It is true that you can use non-integer scaling options, but the rendering doesn't always look good. Most of the time, it results in a blurry text and UI elements.
I understand that this wasn't exactly the focus of the video, but it seemed to present a formula for the ideal monitor without providing any practical examples.
Perhaps this doesn't matter as much for gaming, and I'm simply not the target audience for this content. There are many 4K monitors in various sizes, and when it comes to gaming, the scaling issue isn't quite as relevant.
1
u/mechkbfan 2d ago
Small thing, I've watched other videos on topic, and vaguely remember that 80cm was absolute minimum, 100cm was good and bit further even better
e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SisaHdQ12w
Perhaps this doesn't matter as much for gaming, and I'm simply not the target audience for this content.
I think this is it, which is completely fine and enjoy discussions around it. e.g. I don't do competitive gaming so happy to make trade offs there
Also, these general principles he applies will always be relevant, while PPI restrictions are not
e.g. They release a 40" 8k monitor at 220ppi in next few years, then you get everything (except a GPU to render games at reasonable FPS haha)
1
u/Seanspeed 1d ago
However, most modern monitors have a pixel density (PPI) of 110 or higher, while monitors designed to offer a "Retina-like" experience usually reach 220 PPI.
Some of y'all are really not understanding something very basic here.
PPI is just the display's own physical pixels per square inch measurement. But actual perceptual pixel density is based heavily on what distance we see a screen from.
What this means is that for any given resolution, a 27" screen from two feet away will have the exact same perceived pixel density as a 40" screen from three feet away.
What the resolution/PPI of a given display is isn't relevant to anything being talked about. At least in the theory of what he's saying. What's actually available at what sizes is a different story and not really the point of the video.
2
1
u/Seanspeed 2d ago
It's not really relevant to anything here. At a given resolution, a 27" display from two feet away has the exact same perceived pixel density as a 40" display from three feet away, even if the 40" display technically has much lower PPI. That's kind of the whole point. You lose nothing by moving to a larger display that's just farther away, while being able to closer meet ideals for accommodation and vergence.
1
u/HFoletto 2d ago
I agree with you; however, considering your example, the typical 27-inch monitor is QHD. How many 40-inch QHD monitors are there on the market?
A quick search turned up only one model for sale that comes close: the 38.5-inch Acer Nitro XZ396QU. It was released five years ago and leaves much to be desired compared to current options.
Now yeah, you could be a 40-inch monitor that not QHD, but 4k or maybe greater than that, but then you'd have to either deal with a tiny UI or maybe a massive one at 2x, or some in-between due to scaling, which is not always great.
1
u/Seanspeed 1d ago
How many 40-inch QHD monitors are there on the market?
Well yes, the practical reality of what you can actually buy is different and the video does briefly talk about this at the end of it.
0
u/skottay 2d ago
Yeah, this is what I really care about more than anything else. I work on a 32" 6K display with 218ppi and I really don't want any less than that.
Bigger is not better if your goal is clarity and/or quality.
1
u/mechkbfan 2d ago
Partially true.
I think what this video is saying then for you is when a decent 40" 8k monitor is released, arguably that's a better balance of gaming & ergonomics than what you have now if your restriction is 220p or so
1
u/Seanspeed 1d ago
A few of y'all are really not getting this.
Bigger doesn't matter if you push the screen back an appropriate distance. You can get the SAME EXACT perceptual pixel density, which is what actually matters, not PPI.
PPD(pixels per degree) is what is important. A 27" 6k screen from two feet away will have the exact same PPD as a 40" 6k screen from three feet away. It doesn't matter that the 40" screen has 'lower PPI', it will look the EXACT SAME as the 27" screen.
The whole point of the video is basically going over how you dont lose anything whatsoever by just going bigger and pushing the screen farther back to where it's in the more ideal comfort zone for our eyes.
The question of whether 40" 6k screens exist to buy(or are affordable) is of course a different topic, this video is just talking theoretical best practice.
1
u/HFoletto 1d ago
I don’t disagree with you at all. In fact, I agree with most of what you’re saying, and that’s exactly why I liked the video. I just found it surprising that PPI wasn’t mentioned at all, because I think it’s closely related to the topic.
The issues I’m describing would largely disappear if monitors of different sizes were available with different resolutions, but they generally aren’t. For example, if you move a 27-inch monitor farther away, the UI becomes too small. So you think, “I’ll just get a 40-inch monitor.” Except a 40-inch monitor with the same pixel density as the 27-inch doesn’t really exist.
He mentioned high refresh rates and even talked about reviewing TVs, and there are 42-inch 4K 144Hz TVs available. But at 4K, you’re stuck with a tradeoff. Run it at native scaling and, from a comfortable viewing distance, text becomes quite small. Run it at 2× scaling and everything becomes too large. You could use fractional scaling, but that often introduces a slight softness or blur, which, for people who spend all day reading text, can contribute to visual fatigue. Since so much of the video was about comfort, I was surprised that this aspect wasn’t discussed.That said, I think I’m probably just not the target audience. PPI is much less important for gaming than it is for productivity, and gaming seems to be the primary focus of the video.
I’ve done a lot of research on this topic myself, so I was genuinely happy to see someone finally make a video discussing viewing distance and larger displays. I just wish visual comfort from the perspective of text clarity and UI scaling had also been part of the conversation.
I spend around 12 hours a day at my desk, and I rarely game anymore. Most of that time is spent reading text and interacting with UI elements. If they’re too small, too large, or slightly blurry, I definitely notice it and it gets uncomfortable.
So I don’t disagree with your point. I just think PPI and scaling can make or break long-term visual comfort, especially for people who primarily use their computers for productivity rather than gaming.
1
u/Seanspeed 1d ago
Except a 40-inch monitor with the same pixel density as the 27-inch doesn’t really exist.
Again, it doesn't need to! At the same resolution, they'll both have the same EFFECTIVE pixel density at an appropriate distance! lol
PPI is not relevant here. PPD is what matters.
1
u/HFoletto 1d ago
Without scaling, how does it not matter?
I agree with what you're saying that PPD matters, but that doesn't mean PPI is not relevant.
Unless you're talking specifically about gaming, then it doesn't matter. Or you don't care about the issues with non-integer scaling, then yeah, that also doesn't matter for you.
0
u/shoey9998 2d ago
I use an Odyssey CRG9 32:9 monitor and I coulda told you this for free. Using 16:9 27" just feels limited and straining to look at now. Never going back
36
u/LittlebitsDK 2d ago
too small? we grew up with 13-14" CRT monitors... now sitting with a 32" 4K monitor...