What monitor do you use?

[ian]

I've been playing around with quite a few monitors recently but struggling to find the 'sweet spot'.

Despite it all, I keep falling back on my two trusty old Samsung 24" monitors running 1920 x 1080.

As I type this, I'm testing out the very first LG 34UC98 34" ultra-wide in the country (retail) and whilst the picture quality and sheer size is a mind blower, I continue to battle the issue of text size due to the resolution of 3440 x 1440.

The issue being that text is so small, which leads quite quickly to eye fatigue (though that may improve over time). Naturally I've played around with the text size options in windows to improve this, but the downside being that not all programs understand this language so either remain small, or go blurry!

Whilst not a particular problem when you know your way around the software, I can imagine it isn't the best option for productivity, especially if that includes video editing, web site development etc.

So, given that many of you product websites, and create logos, graphics etc, what monitor, size and resolution do you find works best for you?

 

[Adam H]

I generally stick to 1920 x 1080 as an even ground of display between ultra high res and Joe blogs user who still uses 1028 x 768. 1920 x 1080 is probably the most popular across all demograhics now it seems, at least the data I hold says that.

Below is a snippet of data from select sites which ive randomly picked to be completely different age ranges, completely different abilities and Tech Savvy-ness. Can you spot the group of visitors who mainly visit from mobile devices

Hopefully this will be of interest to some, although obviously I wont be disclosing the niches or types of sites these come from.

 

[ian]

It would be useful if my resolution wasn't so massive that I can barely see it I can just make it out though, interesting that 3440 x 1440 doesn't even make an appearance. I know that many new websites can accommodate all resolutions now and just scale as required, but I assume most fall back on 1920 x 1080 for the native production of content/design.

 

[invincible]

I have an iMac 5K and following a trial of it at the native resolution (true 5K) of 5120 x 2880 (accessible by holding down the Option key while clicking Scaled as per this link) I found text was just too small on the 27" display. I am now using 2560 x 1440 which is the Retina resolution of the true 5K resolution (every pixel is doubled). I can cope with this just fine.

 

[Edwin]

Two monitors, one a 17" in the traditional square format and 1024x768 and the other a 22" in full HD widescreen. The square one is great for Word, Excel, email etc. and the widescreen for watching films and opening browser windows.

 

[Admin]

I use a slightly less popular resolution because for me it was the sweet spot... I passed on a 21" monitor that had a native resolution of 1920x1080 because most of the time the text was smaller than I liked. IMO its best not to mess with text size settings and always use the monitors native resolution so I went for a HP 22" monitor with native res of 1680 x1050 which is great (https://www.reevoo.com/p/hp-2229h ) - I also like this monitor because it has a beast of a stand (tilt, swivel, height...).

 

[ian]

I have an iMac 5K and following a trial of it at the native resolution (true 5K) of 5120 x 2880 (accessible by holding down the Option key while clicking Scaled as per this link) I found text was just too small on the 27" display. I am now using 2560 x 1440 which is the Retina resolution of the true 5K resolution (every pixel is doubled). I can cope with this just fine.

Yep, this is the issue with all 4k type displays in general, they are great for watching stuff, and possibly software that requires significant real-estate on-screen, but aside from that, they are terrible for everything else. I'm really surprised that both Windows and Apple haven't got this text issue sorted when using high res screens, Windows 10 for example is still terrible.

As an example, returning to native text sizing on Windows 7, a capital S in their standard font Segoe UI at 8 pt is 2mm in height!!! Similar even for lettering in the 'Post Reply' box below on here!

 

[Sound]

Apple Cinema Display 30-Inch
Supports 1024 by 600, 1280 by 800, 1920 by 1200, 2048 by 1280, and 2560 by 1600 (optimal).

 

[Edwin]

Two monitors, one a 17" in the traditional square format and 1024x768 and the other a 22" in full HD widescreen. The square one is great for Word, Excel, email etc. and the widescreen for watching films and opening browser windows.

Actually, having checked the model numbers, they're 19" and 23". I've never been that good with inches...

 

[invincible]

Yep, this is the issue with all 4k type displays in general, they are great for watching stuff, and possibly software that requires significant real-estate on-screen, but aside from that, they are terrible for everything else. I'm really surprised that both Windows and Apple haven't got this text issue sorted when using high res screens, Windows 10 for example is still terrible.

As an example, returning to native text sizing on Windows 7, a capital S in their standard font Segoe UI at 8 pt is 2mm in height!!! Similar even for lettering in the 'Post Reply' box below on here!

I think Apple realised from the beginning which is why the default is to pixel double the native resolutions to give what they call "retina display". They even hide the ability to switch to native 5K, revealing it after a key is held down, because it's likely to be of limited use on a 27" display. There will be people who wish to edit 4K video natively together with application palettes on the same display and they will be able to do so.

I'm not convinced that a 55" 4K television would be noticeably different to a HD television of the same size, everything else about both televisions being equal. I'm unsure whether I'd be able to notice significant differences between, for example, the same football match or the same movie shot in both 4K and HD when output on identical 55" televisions albeit for their native support for either 4K or HD. The difference going from 576p to 1080p is possible greater to the human eye than from 1080p to 4K.

 

[monaghan]

I like my Benq GL2450's, I have 3 of them (2 on the main Linux desktop and the other on the Mac) and there's a Samsung P2250 on the end of the line which is on a KVM between the Mac and a Windows PC and a spare cable for working on customer machines.

I run all screens at native 1920*1080, (but I do miss my old fashioned 1600 * 1200 crt from a few years back!). Anything much bigger would need a wider desk to keep the text from being too in your face, these are just big enough to fit under the shelf but still be readable without glasses

 

[Skinner]

Currently I'm on 1440 x something, its an old laptop, along with a 32" 1080p display.

Once Pascal (gpu tech) is released, and I upgrade, I'll go back to 1080p on a 18" laptop, with 2 x 32" at 1080. I run as 2 unique desktops the 18" and the 2x32"'s.

Paul who has the website nerdpervert (not even slightly safe for work if you google it) uses an ultrawide for video editing, and he says its awesome for having your timelines on and overview but still ended up with a 4k output monitor, even with the extra real estate, its not perfect.

You prob need 42" for ultrawide to work.