Screen Display Monitor? How big is enough?

[mc2fool]

That is not a hard and fast rule.

Well I'm glad to hear that! I've had dual headed (two monitor) systems for, well blimey, must be over 30 years now (!).

Always two 4:3 19" screens placed with eye level about 60-70% of the way up the screens, which are dead vertical, with the primary screen directly in front of me, square on, and the secondary immediately on the left of it (touching) and angled such that if I swivel my chair I'll be square on to that, and whether I swivel or just turn my head ... well, it depends.

Definitely a case of each to his own and whatever works and is comfortable for them methinks. That's what's worked for me anyway, for quite a long time.

For a single monitor, you are likely to have to swivel your chair to view the entire area of a screen much wider than FHD.

FHD -- Full High Definition -- is a resolution, 1920 x 1080, not a physical size. Some smartphones are FHD. https://www.colourmyliving.com/mobile-devices/smartphones/top-budget-5-5-inch-smartphones-with-full-hd-display/

[servodude]

FHD -- Full High Definition -- is a resolution, 1920 x 1080, not a physical size. Some smartphones are FHD. https://www.colourmyliving.com/mobile-devices/smartphones/top-budget-5-5-inch-smartphones-with-full-hd-display/

..and one of those tech/marketing terms that has become a bit anachronistic in its own lifetime (like Fullspeed v Highspeed USB)

I'd say that resolution is probably the most significant spec/requirement for a monitor for me (it's easier to adjust the distance to the screen)
- I could probably cope with a FHD monitor at a push; but I'd rather not

UWQHD (Ultra Wide Quad High Definition) is 2560 v 1440 which doesn't look like a huge jump in numbers
- but it's a third more vertical information

- sd

[GeoffF100]

For a single monitor, you are likely to have to swivel your chair to view the entire area of a screen much wider than FHD.

FHD -- Full High Definition -- is a resolution, 1920 x 1080, not a physical size. Some smartphones are FHD. https://www.colourmyliving.com/mobile-devices/smartphones/top-budget-5-5-inch-smartphones-with-full-hd-display/

The context there was monitors positioned with a thirty degree angle between to top and bottom of the display. In that case, physical size of the monitor is irrelevant. Irrespective of size, you select the distance from the eyes to the monitor so that the angles are right. (Alternatively, if you have a preferred viewing distance, you can calculate the ergonomically optimal size of the monitor.) Once you have done that, only the aspect ratio, and not the size, determines whether or not you can view the edges of the display just by moving your eyes.

There are difficulties if the monitor is very large or very small. I find it difficult to view the display a FHD smartphone with both eyes. If a monitor is extremely large, the ergonomically optimal angle to the bottom of the screen will go through the table.

[GeoffF100]

I have done some measurements. My 21.5" FHD monitor and my 19.5" 4x3 monitor have a height of 10.5". For a 30 degree top to bottom viewing angle, the distance from the screen is 21". That is just over half a metre. I view both monitors from a distance of about half a metre using glasses with a reading addition of 2 dioptres. That is just what I need at that distance.

As far as the monitor width is concerned, I think I could just about view a 2560 x 1080 monitor without moving my head. Nonetheless, I can get two documents side by side on my FHD monitor, so I might not gain much from that upgrade. My 4x3 monitor takes up less space than the FHD monitor, has an IPS screen and is good for web browsing.

[PrincessB]

What a great thread this is turning in to.

I learned some stuff which has been really interesting.

I also got really close to buying a 43" 4K display a couple of days ago and backed off at the last moment because:

Unit in question is a Philips Ambilight which is supposed to be really good fun if you've got it on a mid sized TV as it features four LED bars (top, bottom, left + right) that pick up on the general trend of the image and project a relevant glow to the wall behind the screen.

I'm a proper kid at heart and I'd have one of these TVs if I didn't have rather fine one already. Also, when I looked at the reviews of the display, the Ambilight (TM) was chopped down to a couple of colour bars top and bottom and one of them does not run the full width of the monitor - I don't understand why they did this, if they want to put Ambilight on there at least do it properly.

There were some issues with the backlighting which is a reactive side lit unit with 30+ zones that turn the light level up and down according to the image. The review mentioned that sometimes it gets it wrong and things start looking a bit odd. I've personally got little issue with a display that does not do perfect darkness and might show up as a bit grey in the black areas at night. More of a problem when they have put in backlight control that does not work perfectly.

So essentially, it looks like a up spec TV rather than something you'd want to work on for hours at a time.

Finally, they did mention (and it was mentioned on this thread) that if you're going to sit in front of something this big, there might be a bit of head twisting involved. Part of the appeal of the curved screens that look so nice near to the Mac on a glass desk is that you don't have to change focus so much as each part of the image is about the same distance from the eyes.

The consensus (As I've read it) is that curved TVs are awful if you want more than one person to watch it and curved computer monitors are great as you want your head position to be aligned within the display area.

For those considering a big screen. You do need to make some very minor changes, the most important is to set your background to black, if the screen fills your visual field, your eyes won't like it any other way.

You should also think of the desktop as a real desktop and slither windows around it as you would items of paper on a desk. Windows 10 is fairly good at locking a program to the top and bottom of the screen space without affecting the width, it takes a bit of practice, but you sort of mouse up fast and then release.

When working as you would on a real desk, your central image will be your task front and centre, other items such as a browser with research, and e-mail program etc are shoved off to the side (or for multi monitor setups) onto the other screen.

To close this off, the old school 19" displays 4:3 shape I think offered a fantastic amount of useable screen for their physical size. A single one is still a good option, two better and three starts getting a bit big and you might have a problem getting them to plug in.

Regards,

B.

[GeoffF100]

Finally, they did mention (and it was mentioned on this thread) that if you're going to sit in front of something this big, there might be a bit of head twisting involved. Part of the appeal of the curved screens that look so nice near to the Mac on a glass desk is that you don't have to change focus so much as each part of the image is about the same distance from the eyes.

I leaned something important recently. I have a friend who is an optician. She told me that the ability of the eye to change focus declines with age as the lens hardens. The ability to change focus is non-existent at my age of 70. Replacing the lens (as in a cataract operation) does not help. Hence the importance of my 2 dioptre reading addition. That reduces a focal length of infinity to 0.5 metres, which is the distance to my screen.

The reason for avoiding moving the head, particularly up and down, is to avoid repetitive strain injury. That is particularly important in a office where the company risks having to pay compensation if they have failed to provide a safe working environment.

[servodude]

The reason for avoiding moving the head, particularly up and down, is to avoid repetitive strain injury.

At the risk of going further off topic
- is there any perceived benefit to trying to introduce variety to counter the repetition rather than constrain the operating point to a single optimal?

The only thing I keep constant is my keyboard (it's got to be properly sprung and flat or I get bloody sore knuckles form bottoming out all day)
- the monitors are different distances away with different resolutions and I swap what's on them as I need; windows host, ubu' VM, remote stuff - I'll sit square on to the one I'm using and use the other monitor as a kind of electronic document stand ( that I glance at)
- or if I'm typing a lot at any one given time I'll probably stand using a laptop and remote to wherever it needs written

I know that my elbow angle I need to get correct or I feel the strain in my forearm
- and looking about I've got one mouse, one vertical mouse, a track ball and a touch pad attached to this computer in front of me and I'll use a couple on any given day

I've also been lucky so far with the eyesight; I can feel it slowing down in response to removing magnifiers over the past couple of years, but at my last test there was still no prescription that would improve it for me (and I survived a decade playing with lasers without burning a hole in the back of them).
Perhaps I'll need to be more careful with positioning in the future if that worsens or perhaps I'm just a fidget

- sd

[scotview]

I have a laptop with a 15 inch, 4K display and was finding the size a bit limiting.

I have recently purchased a 28 inch, 3840x2160 Ultra HD monitor (£220) and the difference is significant. Editing/viewing photos is much more satisfying. Occasionally I can have two apps running on the screen and this is very efficient.

I have tried the monitor with a Dell laptop with a 17 inch, 1080p screen and the quality is equally good, however this laptop has UHD output resolution capability.

One thing to note when going to 4k (UHD) resolution is that your desktop/laptop should have a graphics card with UHD output, otherwise you will be viewing only in 1080p.

There is some suggestion that there isn't a great deal of difference between 1080p and 4K. In my opinion, if you enjoy quality photo display, there is a significant difference.

I have had my laptop hooked up to a 42" 4K tv located beside my work station and find the screen size is just too big for viewing at such close proximity. You cannot take in a whole photo scene without scanning around the large screen area.

[xeny]

There is some suggestion that there isn't a great deal of difference between 1080p and 4K. In my opinion, if you enjoy quality photo display, there is a significant difference..

for photos, more resolution is nicer, but the benefit of extra resolution depends massively on what you're using the computer for, the size of a screen, and if you're happy using display scaling.

For unscaled text use, I find

1920 x 1200 or 1080 is about right on a 24" screen - I tend to run out of height before width, so pay the extra for a 1200 high screen.

2560 x 1440 is about right on a 27" screen

3840 x 2160 (4K) is about right on a 32" screen.

I don't spend lots of time looking at photos, and prefer how text looks at a display's native resolution, so I tend to buy the "right" resolution rather than more resolution than I need (which tends to cost more, requires scaling, and is a bit more demanding of GPU performance).

[JonE]

... the benefit of extra resolution depends massively on what you're using the computer for

Yes, I don't see it's all about hardware and ergonomic placement. Does not the optimal size and aspect ratio of a window depend to some extent on its content? Do those of you who have observed computer usage by many domestic users find that the concept of (partially) occluded windows is ignored - or embraced?

When observing someone demonstrating their latest PC problem I made casual mention of them running every application in a maximised window (this was on a 24" screen rather than, say, an 11.6" laptop). The response was that I am the only person they know who doesn't!

On my 24" 1920x1200 I might run specific spreadsheets maximised but find, say, a maximised word-processor window intolerably uncomfortable to use. I guess genealogy programs are among those which may combine some elements benefiting from maximised windows (or full-screen) while other elements are better in smaller windows. Usefully, my main browser provides split-screen plus tiling of multiple tabs (handy though not quite as versatile as Opera/Presto MDI was) as well as multiple windows but I rarely need to run even a browser window maximised or full-screen.

Could it really be the norm for most domestic users to always work with maximised windows regardless of screen size?

Cheers!

[mc2fool]

You should also think of the desktop as a real desktop and slither windows around it as you would items of paper on a desk.

Or slide your chair left and right, as you might also do with things spread out on a real desk.

I have had my laptop hooked up to a 42" 4K tv located beside my work station and find the screen size is just too big for viewing at such close proximity. You cannot take in a whole photo scene without scanning around the large screen area.

Understandable if you make the photo full screen, but of course you don't have to. You could use it for having, say, 4 photos up at the same time, or the photo and all the Photoshop editing pallets up together without overlapping, etc...

the old school 19" displays 4:3 shape I think offered a fantastic amount of useable screen for their physical size. A single one is still a good option, two better and three starts getting a bit big and you might have a problem getting them to plug in.

1920 x 1200 or 1080 is about right on a 24" screen - I tend to run out of height before width, so pay the extra for a 1200 high screen.

There are a number of reasons I like old style 19" monitors (mine are actually 5:4, 1280x1024) and the "height" factor is a major one. Aside from videos and some photos and games and the like, most things are taller than they are wide -- documents, websites, forums, code, etc -- and if ever I were to get a wide screen display I'd almost certainly mount it vertically, in portrait orientation. Hmmm ... a pair of 1200w x 1920h monitors, side by side, sounds like a good wishlist item for a future upgrade ...

I managed to get a tour of the Bloomberg building last Open House London and just about every desk had multiple monitors, always at least 2, commonly 3 and with 5 being the most I spotted, and they were in a wide variety of configurations, each obviously custom to the occupant of the desk, but almost all had at least one monitor in portrait orientation, sometimes all of them.

Other advantages of my dual head setup include getting a free personalised "curve" by just angling the monitors to each other as you want, and that, as both have DVI & VGA inputs, the two are connected to both my W10 and XP systems, so I can easily have both monitors on either system or one on each (although, TBH, it's been quite a while since I last turned on the XP system). It also offers redundancy, so if one monitor goes belly up I can still keep going while awaiting a replacement. (And for a long time, and when I got them, 2 1280x1200 monitors were massively cheaper than a single 2560x1200 one.)

Of course, the disadvantage over a single wider monitor is that two screens aren't one, so if you do want to stretch anything across the full width of them (or straddle the two) you've got an inch or so of plastic in the middle. So, of course, whether 2 is better than 1 or v.v. ultimately depends on how each person uses them.