Mainstream monitor size stalling at 24-27inches

[Jezzah]

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!

[Theguywhobea]

Hmm, I agree most monitors are in the 24 to 27 inch range, however as of late, cheap 32in monitors seem to be coming out more. I have a sick Dell 32in 1440p display on my desk and I love it, only $180 too.

[Jezzah]

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.

[SolarNova]

A few things of note.

 

For 1080p, those monitors that do still run this resolution for the most part are either cheap 'standard' PC use displays, or gaming displays running 240hz designed for competitive play. Now those gaming displays tend to be 24" for a reason. A small screen size allows a person to sit at a normal desk seating position and see the entire screen with little to no eye movement needed from looking at one corner to the opposite corner, those milliseconds believe it or not matter in competitive environments.

 

Now above that size u have the common 27" and also 32". Both are considered to be more or less the ideal size for 1440p and 4k resolutions based on PPi, and average view distance of 1x to 1.5x the diagonal screen size as measured form screen surface to eyes.

 

For som1 who has a deep desk and sits further away, well im afraid the next step up form 32" 16:9 is 48" , 49", and 55" and ur looking at TV's. TV's have come a long way in regards to use as a gaming display and PC use, so they are an option.

 

For sizes between 32" and 48" u have to look at ultrawides, and they can be worth while. The 49" super ultrawides (32:9) are pritty much the biggest monitors u can get. While not as tall as a 32" display, they are equivalent to 2 full sized 27" 16:9 display sat next to each other.

 

Depending on ur exact needs , we can suggest some monitors. We would need ur use case, what aspects of monitors u prize most (eg speed vs quality, black level vs viewing angles etc) and ofc a budget.

The below link is the resource i use for suggestions, take a look.

https://www.rtings.com/user/ratings/mQInJLi7qiX8GQ

https://www.rtings.com/user/ratings/ABkArd5QEMduIA

 

there are a few 42"-43" monitors out, but they have their own issues stemming form the panel they use, which is a repurposed TV VA panel, so i wouldnt recommend them.

[SolarNova]

Just now, Jezzah said:

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.

The S32200dgf is one of the best 32" VA monitors out. For gaming the only thing better (that has been tested and reviewed) is the LG 32GK850g-B, but it lacks HDR.

[kirashi]

19 minutes ago, Jezzah said:

--SNIP--

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.

While I don't know the industry reasoning for "being stuck" in the 24-27" gaming monitor range, I can use my 10+ years of IT experience in both the retail electronics and Consulting sectors to speculate a couple of things.

 

First, I'll start off with the fact that 27" is the largest size monitor that most people are comfortable using. Moving up to a 32" screen does help for certain workflows, such as video editing, photography, or working with large datasets in Excel or other databases, but can also create neck strain because people have to move their head more if they don't have a larger or ergonomic desk setup.

 

Second, I know that the larger the screen, the harder it is to produce affordable "gaming" grade monitors capable of reaching higher refresh rates at resolutions above 1440p. This is why phone screens are readily available to manufacture, but even 4K 13" laptop screens are either hard to find, or extremely expensive in comparison. To be clear, I'm not saying it's not possible, but it certainly can increase the price beyond what most consumers are willing to pay for such a monitor, so manufacturers stick to prices & sizes of monitors that sell more.

 

Third, I'll agree with your theory around video card power not really being where it needs to be in order to properly drive these higher refresh rate monitors at resolutions above 1080p. Sure, nVidia makes cards such as the Titan or RTX 2080 series, but the price to performance ratio of those cards is absolutely ludicrous compared to even one level of card down, and these high end cards still can't drive the latest AAA games or VR at maximum settings properly. Again, I'm not trying to discourage anyone who already has the money to spend on these items, but we're still a few years out from reaching a point where the technology needed to consistently drive 2.5K & 4K displays above 120Hz will be affordably available to the general public.

[Jezzah]

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.

[keskparane]

I expect it has a lot to do with pixel density and mainstream hardware.

Going larger than that for 1080p etc means loss of picture quality.

 

Then there's desk space. Not everyone want's to cover their entire desk with a monitor.

 

Of note I ran a timespy test yesterday. My PC is now a few years old and I'm still top 85%. How many people have the parts to run higher resolutions? Especially considering that most people who run that sort of thing are already enthusiasts. Mainstream just doesn't need what you desire.

[SolarNova]

6 minutes ago, Jezzah said:

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.

A0 ..correct me if im wrong but thats something like 47" x 33" right ?

A 16:9 display able to fit that on screen would require a large TV, closest common size would be 75".

 

For a more realistic monitor size though,since actual gaming isnt something u'd be doing, u should look at 32" 4k displays, preferably IPS so u dont have viewing angle issues.

E.G the LG 32UD99-W and 32UL950-W. they are 32" IPS panels with good adobe rgb coverage.

 

ofc i would encourage u calibrate what ever monitor u get, kinda essential for color accuracy

[Jezzah]

6 minutes ago, SolarNova said:

A0 ..correct me if im wrong but thats something like 47" x 33" right ?

A 16:9 display able to fit that on screen would require a large TV, closest common size would be 75".

 

For a more realistic monitor size though,since actual gaming isnt something u'd be doing, u should look at 32" 4k displays, preferably IPS so u dont have viewing angle issues.

E.G the LG 32UD99-W and 32UL950-W. they are 32" IPS panels with good adobe rgb coverage.

 

ofc i would encourage u calibrate what ever monitor u get, kinda essential for color accuracy

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.

[Doobeedoo]

I mean there are enough 30-40 or so inch size monitors though. For a while now we're seeing everyone making bigger monitors. Sure most tend to go for smaller for many reasons. Going over 27" kinda needs higher resolution, as well as high refresh rate along and you don't want crap quality of such large display too. So price goes up. 

Also most tend to sit around arm length of their monitors too. 

Personally I like 24" myself because I don't need to look around too much, shooters and all. 

[SolarNova]

14 hours ago, Jezzah said:

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.

The BFGDs are more or less pointless, when they were initially announced they sounded great, but they took to long to come out and by the time they started releasing, Lg had made their OLEDs VRR capable  and already had 1080p and 1440p 120hz capability and for a cheaper price. Add ontop of that , that this year LG is bringing out a 48" OLED which can do 4k at 120hz with VRR and BFI included, it makes those BFGDs totally irrelevant.

[jones177]

On 3/1/2020 at 7:49 PM, Jezzah said:

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.

I did photo editing to print for years and Photoshop tends to hide things like compression artifacts if they are not viewed at 100%.   

 

The last monitor I bought for it was a 32" VA 4k LG monitor. It is 10 bit (8 bit + FRC) and cost only $350.

Since most output went to print I did not need a super color accurate monitor. Most images had elements that had to be pantone matched in CMYK so spotting color shifts in the conversion was more important.

 

Before the 32" LG I used a 28" Samsung 4k TN monitor that I bought in 2015. I did not like the size at all but it was a lot better at the job than the 27" 1080p monitors I used for years.

 

Now my monitor of choice is my 55" OLED TV.  I am retired now so I don't use it for work but if I did start again it is what I would prefer.