Optimal display size for each resolution?

[minervx]

I notice opinions on this topics change over time.  10 years ago, many would've said 1080p is perfectly fine for 25" and there's barely a difference between 1440p and 4K on a monitor.  (Though we will eventually hit the point where where a resolution increasing further won't be noticeable without monitors getting uncomfortably larger.  8K might be that point).

^{Assuming a viewing distance of an arm's length (2-2.5 feet).}

 

Thoughts?

[Levent]

Bullshit. Opinions are each of their own. You might be happy with a 38" 1080P display and I might not be happy with a 38" 8K display. Use cases are not same all across the board.

[Oshino Shinobu]

Either my eyes are terrible or people are generally full of it. 24" is perfectly fine at 1080p. 4K at 28" was near unusable without scaling, if we're talking about using it as a PC monitor.

 

Then again, people claim they can really tell the difference between small res bumps on phones, so I'm going with the people are full of it theory, or at least are affected by a placebo because they know it's higher res.

[minervx]

1 minute ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

4K at 28" was near unusable without scaling, if we're talking about using it as a PC monitor.

For text and Windows UI, sure, I guess it doesn't matter whether you use 1440p or 4K at 125% scaling.

 

But for gaming and streaming, the difference is quite noticeable.  (Though there are other factors too like HDR/nits/color bit depth and the panel, and I wouldn't just blindly upgrade to any 4K monitor I could find just for the sake of a higher resolution)

[Andrewtst]

For my preferable

• 1080p - 22" ~ 24"
• 1440p - 27"
• 2160p - 32" ~ 42"

[Needfuldoer]

7 minutes ago, Andrewtst said:

For my preferable

• 1080p - 22" ~ 24"
• 1440p - 27"
• 2160p - 32" ~ 42"

I agree.

 

In my home office, I have a 43" 4K TV as my monitor, and at work I have a 34" 1440p ultrawide with two extra 24" 1080p monitors. I use PowerToys FancyZones to treat the 4K TV as four 1080p monitors, and the ultrawide gets split in half as two 1720x1440 monitors. (The 1080p monitors also overlap slightly, so I have a zone set up to keep content out of the obstructed parts.) Right-clicking a window while dragging it will snap it to the custom zones. It took a little getting used to at first, but now it's second nature and the biggest feature I miss when I use a different PC that doesn't have PowerToys installed.

[Kid.Lazer]

32 minutes ago, Andrewtst said:

For my preferable

• 1080p - 22" ~ 24"
• 1440p - 27"
• 2160p - 32" ~ 42"

I would adjust it slightly to 1440p - 27" ~ 32", and then 4k for anything bigger. But otherwise, totally agree.

 

I prefer a ppi of approximately 100, as it requires no goofing scaling and all applications work as intended (I'm looking at you, old copy of Photoshop CS4).

[WereCat]

I like to put a more perspective on this. 

 

24" 1080p has exactly the same pixel density as 32" 1440p so if you're fine with that pixel density there is nothing wrong by going with 32" 1440p.

If you want a bit sharper image get the 27" 1440p.

In my opinion 4k is not worth it at 27", you may as well consider bigger screen size at that point. 

But it does look sharpest if your vision is perfect. But you also need to use scaling at lower screen sizes with 4k otherwise the UI is just too small. 

[mariushm]

23"-24" for 1080p 

27" for 1440p

30.5" for 2560x1600

 

I like to have around 0.24mm pixel size, or as close as possible to 96-100 dpi (or 1.5x .. 2x of that), because 96 dpi is the default in Windows and it makes it easy to compare what you see on screen with real world objects... like for example an A4 or Letter sheet of paper at 100% in Word would look fairly close in size to how it would look in reality.

 

 

[Stahlmann]

The resolution you should be going for really depends on the size of the display you want. It's PPI (pixels per inch) that ultimately dictates how sharp an image is. I'd say around 90 PPI is the minimum for a good experience, around 110 PPI is what most people consider optimal, and around 130 PPI is where you get top-tier text clarity and imo also the point of diminishing return. Going to 160 PPI or more won't noticeable improve picture clarity much compared to 130 PPI.

 

So these are the resolutions you should go for to not go below that 90 PPI minimum:

 

1080p for up to 24".

1440p for up to 32".

2160p  (4K) for up to 48".

4320p (8K) for up to 97".

[xg32]

17 hours ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

Either my eyes are terrible or people are generally full of it. 24" is perfectly fine at 1080p. 4K at 28" was near unusable without scaling, if we're talking about using it as a PC monitor.

 

Then again, people claim they can really tell the difference between small res bumps on phones, so I'm going with the people are full of it theory, or at least are affected by a placebo because they know it's higher res.

i sat close to a 27inch on a small desk for about 3 years and have always used 100% scaling, text was readable but not for everyone, for streaming and movies it was sharper than a 32inch, if i get to pick again i would pick a 27inch 4k monitor again. It's next to a 27inch 1440p, the text is slightly less sharp but i REALLY have to look for it.

 

But it's all personal preference, not gonna go into the super high ppi stuff where the product isn't available or in realistic demand. Anything above 108ppi is just a luxury

[Doobeedoo]

I liked 24" 1440p and 4K also even on smaller if we're talking for most crisp image detail. Windows scaling issues are another thing. 27" 1440p is fine but it's not as sharp. 4K is where it's at for more modern minimum. Personally I wouldn't want it on larger than 30-ish" though. You will just end up seeing pixels and monitor becomes too large.

Really if scaling would be perfect across the board 8K would be awesome especially in 30+" range.

[jimm_eh]

I'm in the 96ppi camp.

24" 1080p

32" 1440p
43"+  for 4k  (my current main setup)
Wall size 8k

But I'm an old guy, I'm not bothered by seeing pixels. Probably because I am just used to the low PPI from the CRT's I used to use, or I'm just getting close to "large print" age.

Or both.  Whatever.  #getoffmylawn

[Mihle]

I am currently using 4k 32" as main monitor and I like it.

 

I don't want to go back to 1080p 24" both because size but also because pixel density. Every time I see my dad use two of them as home office, I just see that I don't want it.

 

I wouldn't personally go any larger than 32" for 4k and would never go larger than 27" for 1440p.

 

Hell, I would like 5k-6k or so 32" if it existed and wasn't expensive next time I get new monitor.

[SolarNova]

Entirely dependent on multiple aspects of ones setup such as size, resolution, view distance, and target FoV.

 

You want to target certain PPD thresholds.

 

However it  should be noted that the most popular size and resolution at a traditional desktop view distance, barely achieves this.

 

60 PPD is your 1st target, this still isnt ideal though.

 

80 PPD is the primary target to hit

 

120 PPD is the upper limit beyond which you loose any benefit of higher PPD.

 

A 2560 x 1440 27" monitor at ~30" eye to monitor distance, just barely hits 60 PPD.

 

A 4k monitor at 32" and the same distance hits 77 PPD.

 

A 1080p 24" display is roughly 50 PPD at said view distance.

 

 

However, change view distance and size and you can get away with low resolutions.

For example.

 

1080p 42" ... but at a 5.33' (or 64 inches) distance gets you dead on 60 PPD, the same as a 27" 1440p Monitor.

 

Meanwhile a 42" 4k TV at roughly 50" view distance gets you 95 PPD.

 

That crazy 57" Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 coming out in a few months.

Thats 7680 x 2160 57".

Sit 39" inches away (the ideal 1000r curve position) and you'll have 110 PPD and 70 degrees of FoV.

 

PPI is indeed important but ultimately PPD is the what you use to measure the perceived picture quality at any given setup.

A terrible PPi of 50 can look good if u set things up right, meanwhile a PPi of 900 (not a typo) can look like ass if eyes are right up against the screen ...like many VR sets for example.

 

And now final point to make.

Any comparison between displays using any type of rendered 3D image, like games, will be affected by the rendering resolution selected. its not a fair comparisons to use a 1080p render vs a 4k render when comparing 2 different monitors., u have to set the rendering resolution the same so you only seeing the difference between the monitors and not the rendering. We all know how much aliasing is present at 1080p due to engine based LoD settings, so use 4k, then take a look, ull be surprised how much betetr 1080p display look when displaying games rendered at 4k.

 

 

..ok this response got away from me ..ill shut up now :P