Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


This user doesn't have any awards

About Jezzah

  • Title
  1. Yep! A0 is pretty big, though I'd need larger than 75" if I wanted to see that poster in portrait mode as the screen would have to basically be 47" tall. At that point it might be cheaper to buy two 75" monitors and have one physically rotated than buying a single monitor that can do both. This is all pipe dream thinking though as that's crazy amounts of cash. Yeah I am thinking 32inch 4k IPS is a good target. I was excited by the Nvidia BFD series when they were announced but again their prices are very high and looking at LTT's large display vids recently, recent competitors are starting to bring some competition. I've been spoiled by working with these for a while for work (not at Monash) https://www.monash.edu/researchinfrastructure/mivp/access/facilities/cave2.
  2. Thanks for the comments and advice guys. I'm a creative that splits between game asset creation, photo editing and print production mostly. So the larger I can see a 100% reproduction of a print the better. Hell if I could have a monitor (not a projector) that showed me my A0 size poster at 100% that would be amazing! Sure that's not something most people (currently) would use and most of the time I wouldn't look at all parts of the screen, but that's where monitors SHOULD be headed. In reality I guess you are right and that in time more people bring TV's into their office space. Eventually those tv's fill walls and monitors are just close use items. Much like how laptops shouldn't really increase above 17inches. I happen to be in a weird middle point. Clearly the manufacturers are producing what their data indicates will provide them the most profit. Which in almost all cases will mean they focus on products that sell the largest numbers. I do look at CES each year and note that there's hardly any differentiation about each year's new lineup though. Sure there are advancements but they are minor in comparison to where monitors have come from (here's me thinking back to CRT's). I still have time on my side before I need to action a purchase.
  3. Cool, would you mind sharing the model number when you get the chance? When I look at Dell's Australian site here there are 3, 32inch options, with the cheapest being $900 (S3220DGF). As you increase the size from there the price goes up. You raise an interesting point though, my situation may be that the manufacturers bring less options to us down under.
  4. Hey all, I've been looking for discussion on this around reddit and other places but can't seem to find much. Had a look here and couldn't see a recent topic so figured I would join and start one. Forgive me please if I missed a previous discussion and have dragged up a common topic. I am one of those people who have been planning an upgrade for about 5 years now. While I've been able to afford one this entire time my life situation (moving houses multiple times across different states) has seen me delaying this process until I reach a point of stability (that I know is coming). What this means though is that I am rocking a PC that was pretty much overkill in 2011 for gaming but now is probably on par with a surface laptop. Back then in 2011 gaming monitors weren't really a thing. While people reviewed monitors and assessed their quality with regards to different types of use, hardware manufacturers had yet to develop features like variable or high refresh rate support. Back in those days (from memory) the biggest focus was on size, viewing angle and contrast. I think I bought my 1080p 24 inch dell in about 2009. It's uses a TN panel and shocking colour reproduction by current standards. (https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/model/71b5755 if you are interested) What frustrates me is that while I have been altering the specs for my future upgrade, one thing hardly ever changes. My next monitor. I have always used a fairly large desk that is 79cm or 31inches deep. I love it and the space it provides me. You can see where this is headed right? My monitor currently sits closer to the middle than the back of my desk. A fix would be to get a bigger monitor. However, and I am sorry for taking so long to get to the point, there are hardly any new monitors coming out in 32" or above. All I see are 24 and 27 inch products being released. Why are manufacturers still stuck in 24-27 inch range? Or if they do create a product that is larger, why does it have to be an ultrawide? Because they can only have one halo product? I understand that the majority of people have desks that are smaller than mine but I honestly don't think we've hit a perfect plateau that won't ever change. Consumers would buy larger screens if they had a decent range of options. One theory I have is that the stagnation in video card power over this last generation has reduced the need for more demanding monitors. Plus the drive for higher refresh rates has sucked up the gains video cards have achieved in the meantime. Still we don't really need 4k in 24-27 inch monitors and 1080p monitors already have super high refresh rates. Back in the early 2000's upgrading my monitor was a pretty frequent occurance and I increased I think from something like a 17" to a 24" in a decade. One decade on and I'm not seeing a huge change in the available line-up. Anyway I half wanted to rant and see what others might think or say. It's been nice to see the 40+ inch market appear but that seems to have replaced developments in 16:9 30+inch products.... Ah that's right the PC market basically died off, that must be it. Thanks!