Monitor choice - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 08:14:33 am
content: I'm considering getting a new computer monitor. But I am a little bit stuck on which way to go. I could get the traditional aspect ratio of 16 x 9 in Ultra HD which sounds attractive but the monitor is only a 28 inch. Or I could get one of those really wide aspect ratio monitors which although wider is of a lower resolution. The pixel pitch on the wide aspect monitor is a quarter of a millimetre so I was thing fairly good but I'm just wondering if anybody has had any experiences of Ultra HD versus normal. All I'm looking to do is use the computer for work obviously PCB design et cetera no gaming or anything like that. My thoughts on the widescreen monitor was that I could have just a single screen instead of 2 and that for example when browsing websites that required a width like Farnell I can get them all in. However I also have visual stress and prefer certain fonts to others and my preference usually falls on comic new angular which is not the thickest font and may benefit from a higher resolution in order to display it nice and crisp. I also don't have too much depth to my desk so I don't know which is best. Perhaps the very wide monitor would mean that my eyes would constantly refocus on different distances and it would alleviate some of the strain I have. What are people's views?

author: magetoo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 08:54:44 am
content: No personal experience, but a friend replaced a dual monitor setup with one "Ultra" monitor and couldn't be happier. It's a big one (it's really a TV) and it looks ridiculous at first having such a huge screen on the desk but seems to work great. Lots of space to work with.21:9 monitors I thought were only for gaming.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 08:58:53 am
content: Well the biggest I can get in UHD is 28" but resolution is like 3400 dots across, nice...... I couldn't fit a bigger one on my desk anyway.

author: hans
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 09:48:37 am
content: I found myself with a lack of height pixels when I switched to 16:9 from 5:4 (1280x1024) years back. I seem to recall many productivity minded people went for a 16:10 panel, i.e. 1920x1200, but for me the huge extra cost wasn't affordable.I don't have any appeal of ultra wide, except for gaming where the wide field of view is nice in shooters and race games. Other than that; 2560x1080 is basically 2 1280x1024 panels, which I last used 8 years back.Personally if I would buy a new monitor now I would go for a 1440p 27" panel. I have used one at work and it's very nice against 1080p. Just a tad more space all around, but coming from 23" 1080p not that much smaller fonts. There is also 1440p 25" from Dell, but that sounds a tad small.4K at 27" requires DPI scaling (unless your viewing distance is like 50cm) which has pretty buggy support in almost every OS, although I have read Mac and some tailored GNU/Linux setups do better than Windows, especially the "traditional" Windows applications, like all CAD tools and programming IDE's still are. I think "modern" Windows 'apps' do better because of more fluid app layout demands (like WPF), but these 'apps' are probably not the reason why you are upgrading your monitors.I've seen some people buying 4K 32" panels, however that is television size for many people and I personally also cannot allocate that much space on my working desk neither. In that case I rather would have 2 1080p or preferably 1440p panels.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 10:50:03 am
content: For CAD use I'd keep an eye on the dot pitch. Better choose a lower resolution with large pixels than too small because many CAD packages draw a line as a row of single pixels. Over a decade ago I had a DELL laptop for work which had a very high resolution on a small screen. Using it for CAD was terrible and later on DELL introduced a model with a lower resolution.For me 23" TFT with 1920x1080 is just fine and a higher resolution should have a proportionally bigger screen size.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 02:30:47 pm
content: I've been using twin monitors for about 4 years. My desk setup doesn't lend itself to the height of a TV for the width available.I started out with two 24" second hand Sun monitors offering 1920 x 1200. These worked quite well, but they had some issues. They were big, heavy and had a stand that looked good - but wasn't really suited to my desk layout. They also started to develop a sluggish return to full brightness coming out of sleep mode.The clincher came when I became more into image processing. I ended up getting two brand new AOC 27" IPS monitors. Much lighter and with a thin bezel on 3 sides they fitted in the same space as the Suns. At 1920 x 1080 each, I was surprised at how much I noticed the fewer number of vertical pixels - but I've become accustomed to that now.There are some times I would have liked a lack of a gap between the two screens - but the overriding factors were (1) IPS and (2) to fit the space.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 04:23:31 pm
content: I have a couple of Samsung 27" monitors and the one I am using right now is connected to my Surface Book and running at 3000x2000. The image doesn't fill the screen horizontally (16x9 vs 3x2) but it looks pretty good. I can lean back in my chair and read text pretty well.The same monitor is also used in a pair with the other on a Win 10/Debian tower and I really like having dual monitors.There is something to be said about not going so wide that your eyes have to shift from side to side or you have to rotate your head. My head is about 30" back from the monitor so that I can take in the entire screen without moving my eyes.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 07:56:10 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on August 21, 2016, 04:23:31 pmBut that can cause eye strain

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 21, 2016, 08:21:31 pm
content: I run a 40'' 4K TV as main monitor, plus my old 23'' FHD monitor for mail or TV. Love it.Quote from: rstofer on August 21, 2016, 04:23:31 pmI actually like it myself, of course the main stuff is in the center and the periphery has secondary stuff e.g. chat windows.

author: nanofrog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 02:35:55 am
content: This thread is imminent interest to me, as I'm currently looking at an upgrade myself.Currently, I've a 24" 16:10 NEC (LCD2490WUXi-BK), but am looking at adding a 27" at a bare minimum, and most likely something larger. Say on the order of a 34" as a primary monitor (i.e.LG 34UM68-P). Desk space isn't an issue, as it will be mounted on an arm (desk is 36" deep; bench too for that matter). The arm I have is sufficient for the size BTW.Not quite sure what to do with the existing monitor, but I'm willing to get another arm if necessary (it does have a nice stand).FWIW, both the computer desk & bench will be butted end-to-end (computer on left side, bench on right).Any advice/suggestions would be welcome. TIA.P.S. Hope my post isn't an issue for youSimon, as I'm not trying to hijack your thread. If it is however, please separate my post into another thread. Thanks.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 02:51:29 am
content: Quote from: Simon on August 21, 2016, 07:56:10 pmI'm old and I nhave to wear 150 reading glasses anyway. I wear them constantly unless I am outside or driving. I even wear them when driving if I want to get a headstart on street signs.I don't think I would want anything lager than 27" or so for a monitor. For the larger monitor, maybe they should be curved.

author: Tomorokoshi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 04:29:37 am
content: I use 4 screens. It took a while to get used to it.The laptop is in the middle at 1600 x 900, fine pitch. This gets the browser.Above the laptop is a 1440 x something, regular pitch. This gets the email.On each side is a 1920 x 1200, regular pitch. These get variously CAD programs, 2-up PDF, or other documents that need a full page view.The side monitors are angled to avoid refocus issues, so it somewhat resembles the inside view of a hexagon.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 05:47:21 am
content: Quote from: nanofrog on August 22, 2016, 02:35:55 amNot at all.I'm still undecided, the fine resolution does worry me with compatibility.

author: R005T3r
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 06:35:13 am
content: I have an asus monitor. it's the VG248QE bought cheaply on-line. It's a TN panel,very fast and with DisplayPort. I like it despite people say it's old and that stuff.Also, I don't get the point on why pepole are brothering with "image quality" and stuff like that: You can barely see the dithering artifacts if you look specifically for the problem.. Actually I like it, never gave me a problem so far and I'm planning to mount it to the wall.Actually I advice you to take a displayPort monitor: has interesting features: supports splitting to others standards, it's not like the bloody HDMI plug that disconnects when you pull your pc case (not kidding) and apparently the GPU works better with it (Still have to understand why, I guess because I have a cheap GPU) than DVI...

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 07:29:00 am
content: Quote from: Simon on August 22, 2016, 05:47:21 amThat's an important consideration, things have gotten better now but there are still some programs that don't handle HiDPI modes well at all, especially if you don't have latest versions.The advantage of the 40" size at 4K res is that you can run at standard 100% scaling. Disadvantage is it needs a graphics card with HDMI 2.0.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 07:56:08 am
content: I assume any 4K monitor will need a decent driver card.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 08:16:33 am
content: Just for extra informationI used two Dell 2713HMs for a awhile but had too many sources so this year I bought a 43" Philips BDM4350UC 4K monitor with the option to display 4 independent full HD (1920x1080) at once on the screen. So I can display four individual full HD inputs at once.My experience, it is too big for the desk, switching between the inputs is a small disaster (works with joystick on the back of the monitor) and you need more (a lot more) distance between the monitor and the chair if you want to use it as a single display (1x 4K or full HD) but need less distance if you use it as a 4 display (4x full HD).So I build a wooden pole behind my desk, bought a Vogel tv arm that can rotate and flex and am quite happy with it since I am getting older and sometimes miss some details on a smaller monitor.I still use one of the 2713HMs as second expanded desktop monitor and also use that often. Also nice is if you want to watch some movies or youtube on it, you get the tv experience.But my advice if you just want one monitor for allround non gaming pc usage: buy the best and largest Dell ultrasharp IPS monitor you can afford in the normal 16:9 ratio and you be quite happy.

author: bobaruni
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 08:51:30 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on August 21, 2016, 10:41:05 am16:10 is great for productivity, totally agree about the variance in the Dell panels, had my monitor replaced twice due to colour bleeding and tint, the last one had 2 bad pixels and I just gave up complaining.I pulled it apart recently as a bug crawled in somehow and was visible in the centre of the screen, after cleaning the back light filter, I realised the bad pixels were in fact just dust particles stuck to the filter.So 3 years after purchase, I finally have the monitor I wanted.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 09:19:55 am
content: Quote from: bobaruni on August 22, 2016, 08:51:30 amCan you please explain how you did this here -> , see:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/repair/how-to-remove-an-insect-inside-my-monitor-between-the-backlight-and-display/msg951736

author: MosherIV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 11:14:29 am
content: QuoteI was going to suggest this but I would suggest 42" to 26" to really make use of the area/detail.4K for TV is a bit pointless because you need to be really close to the screen to see the details - hence a good option for a monitor.Suggested this to my colleagues at work, they all thought it would be a good idea though might get neck ache from having to move head around to look around the large screen. Work will not pay for 4K TV for monitorsQuoteAnswer :QuoteEdit: Sorry I meant 42" to 46"

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 12:00:54 pm
content: I "still" have 2 1920x1200 24" screens.An expensive wide should be fancier, especially for tv, games etc.What I like about my setup, for CAD, PCB, is the split between workplace left and menus right.For network based embedded C, the split is programming left, external monitoring/testing right.The good thing when opening a datasheet PDF, I click fullscreen, and it only takes 1 screen.All this on a cheap ITX board with internal graphics, because I don't do games, video rendering etc.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 01:24:24 pm
content: Quote from: Galenbo on August 22, 2016, 12:00:54 pmSame here. (even the same left/right setup)

author: bobaruni
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 01:59:43 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on August 22, 2016, 09:19:55 amDone

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 02:07:46 pm
content: Quote from: MosherIV on August 22, 2016, 11:14:29 am?Quote from: MosherIV on August 22, 2016, 11:14:29 amExactly.Quote from: MosherIV on August 22, 2016, 11:14:29 amI've used up to 65" in that setup. That's a bit much especially for height alignment reasons, I think 50-55" is best.Quote from: MosherIV on August 22, 2016, 11:14:29 amToo bad, a 4K TV is often cheaper!Note that some TVs have pixel alignment or latency issues, Samsungs are those I know work fine for this purpose having used 4 of them.

author: StuUK
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 02:17:04 pm
content: My experience of using TV's as monitors has not been a particularly good one. Generally definition at close quarters is not as crisp or as good as monitors of similar resolution, backlighting too bright, latency issues etc.I'd stick to a decent quality monitor specific for computer use rather than a TV monitor... but of course things are improving all the time and don't forget the graphics card will make a difference as well particularly at the higher resolutions with multiple monitors etc....

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 02:48:57 pm
content: Yep that's why I recommended Samsung. Backlight is adjustable, pixels are aligned, game mode and "PC" input setting get rid of all the painful things and of the latency. 1080 was indeed low for such big screens but 4K is as crisp as it gets.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 03:31:16 pm
content: There are also 34" 21:9 monitors, which give you 3,440 x 1,440 pixels. I'm kinda considering to switch to those. Now at work I have 2x FHD 23" (really, they should be 16:10) and at home a 24" FHD and a TV connected to it (one used at a time, TV is for the couch).I for sure not going to use TV as a monitor. Input lag is soo much, that even moving the mouse is a pain.

author: nanofrog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 04:36:42 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on August 22, 2016, 07:56:08 amDecent yes, but it doesn't have to cost that much. For example, I just installed anMSI Radeon R7 250; paid ~$73 w/ 2 day shipping before rebate ($15). Even in brick & mortar stores, I'm seeing them go for ~$80.Doesn't require supplemental power either, so if that's a consideration, this particular card would still be a viable option (VGA, DVI, and HDMI 2.0 outputs; can support up to 6 monitors).---------------------------------I'm not set on 4K, and I suspect the 2560x1080 will be just fine for me, though the larger 34" runs at (current monitor is a 24" @ 1920x1200). I do want an IPS panel though, and have been looking at the 29" - 34" range in a 21:9 ultra wide format as an alternative to multiple monitors as my primary display. I also want an AG coating on the panel, and I'd like to keep the budget to say $400 max as well.Thus far, I've come up with the following (currently based on panel type, screen size, and budget):AOC Q2963PQAOC q2963PmLG 32MP58HQ-P(this one's 16:9, but the price is rather attractive)LG-34UM68-PStill trying to sort the details, but for the life of me, I've not been able to figure out the differences between the two AOC's.So if anyone happens to know, I'd truly appreciate it.Oh, it will be mounted to an arm I have, so VESA mounting was used to sort them as well.Quote from: NANDBlog on August 22, 2016, 03:31:16 pmI'm very interested in this size as well.The one I linked above only runs at 2560x1080, but it does fit within the target budget.Damn youNANDBlog... You just had to put higher resolution in my head.Now I'll likely end up spending more money.

author: ECEdesign
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 02:08:32 am
content: I just ordered a Monoprice 4k 28inch display and it arrives on Wednesday. It has a 100mm VESA mount and im hoping that it works well. It is a good price for getting into 4k especially if you can score a deal on ebay.

author: Carl_Smith
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 02:49:03 am
content: Quote from: nanofrog on August 22, 2016, 04:36:42 pmThose two AOC monitors appear to have connectors on the side of the stand. Would that prevent VESA mounting?

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 05:18:40 am
content: If they had an Ultra HD ultrawide I'd go for it

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 05:27:47 am
content: 7680 × 2160 ... or something like that?

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 05:35:41 am
content: no something like 4000 wide, the 28" 4K is 3640

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 05:54:25 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on August 23, 2016, 05:40:51 amYeah... 7680 = 3840 x 2Nice thought though.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 11:47:41 am
content: Well having worked out that the pixel pitch of the 4K 28" in 0.16mm I think I'm going for that, about 50% more than the traditional monitor that has a pitch of 0.25mm, so that is 2x the amount of pixels per sqaure.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 12:41:32 pm
content: 28" on 4K , if you run it native than I hope you have excellent jetpilot vision.I can hardly read some texts on my 43" if I have it 50cm from my nose and in native mode.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 05:30:51 pm
content: So what are the advantages of an "IPS" panel ?

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 05:32:11 pm
content: Essentially this is my choices:http://www.ebuyer.com/store/Computer/cat/Monitors/subcat/27%22+-Monitors?a00149=3840+x+2160&sort=price+ascending

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 05:52:28 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on August 23, 2016, 05:30:51 pmDisclaimer: I've NOT been following this thread, so may be misunderstanding.IPS screens usually give a better quality, more professional look to what you see. The colours are better, even at different viewing angles.They are slightly slower at updating than some other types, but this usually only matters to some gamers, who are into really fast, shooting games and similar.For semi-professional, long term viewing, IPS (In Plane Switching) are best/better.They are moderately more expensive though, but in the long term, it is usually worth it.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 06:44:26 pm
content: So it's not just the name of all LCD screen technology? If it's an IPS screen they will say so?

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 06:48:23 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on August 23, 2016, 06:44:26 pmSometimes it will specifically say "IPS" in the title or brief description. Other times you have to read the detailed spec. (Look for panel type).As a rule of thumb, more expensive, better ones (e.g. Dell), will tend to be IPS by default.There are "in-between" types, which have various names, such as VA. They are not quite as good as IPS, but give approximately similar results, but usually at lower price points. They are common in the TV type of LCD displays.

author: jc101
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 06:50:39 pm
content: I built a new PC last week, finding I needed a fixed machine in the office. I went for a 27" Dell P2715Q 4K Ultra HD Widescreen IPS Display, 3840x2160. The motherboard I have will drive it natively quite happily but I also went for a discrete graphics card. It handily has a DisplayPort in and out, so you can chain two monitor together up to 30hz if your graphics card supports that.It's a great screen, I have been mulling getting a second but am seeing how I get on with one for the moment.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 06:53:26 pm
content: Unfortunately I can't afford that sort of money. The link I put above lists a number of panels some of them specifically marked as IPS but the only one in the price range I'm happy to pay is 27 inch rather than 28. If an IPS panel is going to be that much better (the whole point of getting a large high resolution panel is to ease things on my eyesight) then maybe I will compromise and get the 27 inch as it's hardly worth worrying about a few millimetres of extra screen space.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 06:59:12 pm
content: So, on one of these 27"/28"4k screens the text is half the size it is at 1920x1080, but the screen is only 10-15% larger than a 24"? That seems like a step backwards as far as legibility is concerned.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 07:09:45 pm
content: Quote from: rdl on August 23, 2016, 06:59:12 pmNot really, the actual resolution of a standard display is only just enough for you to read the text clearly. I'm not aiming to cram that much more on the screen, what I want is to have a more defined image and text so that it is easier to read. I will probably have to use the Windows magnification but that is fine the fact is there will be 50% more pixels there or 100% more pixels over a square area to represent the same amount of information. Indeed my monitor at work at 27 inches only has 3 pixels in every millimetre. So in fact once your are in the 27 to 28 inch range resolution is starting to fall off badly.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 07:24:15 pm
content: I might be setting my heart on this one:http://www.ebuyer.com/742246-lg-27ud68p-27-ips-ultra-hd-4k-gaming-monitor-27ud68pSeems like IPS monitors have a response time of 5-6mS whereas the cheaper ones all boast 1mS

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 07:30:27 pm
content: Quote from: rdl on August 23, 2016, 06:59:12 pmThings are typically shown at the same size, but made of more pixels making them sharper, more detailed and less aliased since you can't see the individual pixels anymore.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 07:37:06 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on August 23, 2016, 07:24:15 pmHere is a video review of it (if I got the model number right). He likes it overall a lot, except for (just covering possible downsides, which ALL monitors probably have anyway) connectivity, other stuff and some backlight bleed.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 08:05:40 pm
content: Right it is done. Being delivered tomorrow

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 08:47:44 pm
content: That looks like a really nice monitor. I had forgotten about scaling even though I use 1.5x on my TV. Standard size 1920x1080 on a 42" TV from 8 ft away is too hard to read. I bet a 27" 4K will look fantastic at 2x. Too bad I already bought a 1920x1080 27" last week. Ah well, that's out of my price range anyway. Maybe next time.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 08:48:41 pm
content: Quote from: Kilrah on August 23, 2016, 07:30:27 pmBut very likely that is bad for CAD since most (if not all) CAD packages draw lines as a single row of pixels.

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 09:10:51 pm
content: They've adapted themselves by now, no choice since nearly all high-end machines, especially laptops have been using Hi-DPI screens for a couple of years now.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 09:14:03 pm
content: Yes it was in fact laptops that started to quickly come out with good resolution. Even as far back as Windows 7 the Windows magnification was available. I will think a lot of serious CAD users have already installed large HD screens. I hear colleagues at work talk about setups in companies they have worked at years ago that rival what we are using now.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2016, 10:07:37 pm
content: QuoteI don't think that's the case by default. You have to turn on scaling first, at least in Win 7 and Linux, or maybe if you bother to install some monitor driver from the mfg.Just look at that video review. The windows task bar sure looks to me like it's half the height of what it is on a 1920x1080 screen.

author: nanofrog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2016, 12:28:21 am
content: Quote from: Carl_Smith on August 23, 2016, 02:49:03 amI don't think so, as the bottom portion (angled L that rests on the desk surface) appears to come off. And the VESA holes are in the back of the movable section that contains the input ports (i.e. suspect the removable plastic panel with AOC molded into it on the rear is covering the VESA mounting holes).At least this seems to be the most reasonable means they can claim it's VESA compliant with that particular stand configuration.Quote from: Simon on August 23, 2016, 05:30:51 pmIPS Panel Technologiesmight be of some interest.Granted, the article is from 2011, but it's still rather relevant.Another article,LCD Panel Technology: IPS, VA, PLS, AHVA & TN Monitors, has been updated this year and would also be worth a look IMHO. Whether IPS is important to you, is your choice of course. But FWIW, I find that the IPS panels are much easier on my eyes for long term viewing, and I prefer accurate colors (I have an X-rite puck & both their and NEC's software).Hope this helps.--------------------BTW, although the higher res 3860x1440 is very attractive, it's out of what I'm willing to spend right now (~$700 - $1000 to up the resolution for 34" an ultra-wide panel). So it looks like I'll have to deal with the lower resolution (2560x1080), or wait, which I don't think I'm willing to do at this point.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 24, 2016, 01:28:46 am
content: Quote from: Simon on August 23, 2016, 06:44:26 pmDefinitely not.QuoteThey will. It's a marketingI have two AOC I2757FM and the only criticism I have is that they do not have VESA mounts, but that hasn't been a major issue. I went with them for the 27" screen size with a narrow bezel that allowed them to fit very nicely into the space available - but very importantly for the IPS panel.I have a lot of photographic work where colour accuracy is important. The IPS panel gives me the best shot at getting it reasonably close, without having to go full professional. The images are for publishing on the internet, so I can get away with that. The variations of screen technology, user settings as well as equipment age and environment factors mean the final colours displayed will be all over the shop.

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 24, 2016, 07:02:00 am
content: Quote from: rdl on August 23, 2016, 10:07:37 pmWindows from 8 and up does autoscale by default for anything above 1920x1080. 7 is too old, hig-res screens were not a thing back then, it does have scaling implemented but it's very clumsy, that's been improved a lot in newer versions. On my 4K screen W10 chooses 300% by default I believe, had to turn it back to 100% myself.The biggest issue is usually with apps that don't support it, but that's getting better.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2016, 07:40:29 am
content: Quote from: Simon on August 23, 2016, 08:05:40 pmGreat, enjoy and let us know how you experience it.

author: nanofrog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2016, 04:50:42 am
content: FWIW, I ended up pulling the trigger on anLG 34UM95C-Pmonitor fromhere(34", 3440x1440, Ultra-Wide IPS flat panel; Thunderbolt ports are missing on this model, which are useless to me anyway). Managed to get it for $462.99 shipped after finding a coupon for 10% or up to $20 off (it's a factory refurbished unit w/ a full warranty & 30 day return period, return shipping is free).I'd have preferred a curved panel I think, but I just couldn't justify the additional $132.30 for it (seems to have the same specs otherwise). The stand on what I ordered isn't as good, but it's going on a monitor arm, so it's irrelevant in my case. And as the desk is 36" deep, I'm not all that certain curved vs. flat will matter anyway.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2016, 07:34:08 am
content: At the extreme other end of the cost scale (zero), I'm pretty happy with a recent addition. Sometime about 2000 I became sick of bleeding money to keep upgrading computer hardware all the time. So decided to slip back on the obsolescence wave to the point where I only use free discards. Apart from a few small things like USB3 cards, DRAM, external drive docks, etc, I haven't bought any computer related gear for a long, long time. Considering I no longer play computer games or use any high end CAD software, this suits me fine. While I was still working this was by choice, now I'm poor it's a necessity.My current primary PC (HP xw4400 workstation) has an Nvidia Quadro FX 1500 graphics card, with dual DVI. I've been using a single LG L1953H 1280x1024 monitor for a while, with the stand removed so it sits edge-down on the desk like a photo frame. I like the simple look, plus it reduces eye travel between whatever I'm doing on the desk, keyboard and screen.For close work I wear x1.5 glasses, and with them on I find screens most comfortable at about 70cm distance. Because of that, and limited desk space I don't want a huge monitor. But I do need some more screen space sometimes. For eg in photoshop, to get the tools menus away from the working frame. Also while working on page format docs, for which a portrait mode screen would be better.I figured my ideal layout for this desk would be a biggish portrait mode screen as primary, and a small landscape screen as secondary. Could use my existing screen for that.I'd been hoping a monitor suitable for using in portrait mode would turn up, but so far didn't find one with at least 1280 Horizontal (in portrait mode, so really >1280 Vert in landscape.) I have lots of old LCD monitors, some quite large, several with DVI inputs, but none suitable as a primary monitor since they all have fairly low (<1000) vertical resolution. Also I prefer a simple, straight & narrow, matt black frame all round. Most of the spares have some dumb curved & styled bottom edge, gloss or non-black trim, etc.A 2nd hand LG L1953H turned up on Gumtree. Two identical monitors would have been OK, though lacking a portrait mode area. But it was a long drive to pickup, and they wanted $50 for a monitor that should have been a street toss. Ha ha, no.Other complications:- I don't want the 2nd screen turned on, except when I actually need it. Not often.- The OS is WinXP (not to go into why.) But it means any monitor switching method has to be WinXP compatible.- I'm transitioning to fully portable apps setup. I have a removable drive with a tree of my tools, with also a sub-treeof folders of icons for the tools, web sites, docs, etc. Icons manually arranged, to take advantage of the mind'snatural ability to locate things by spatial layout. This works very well, except for MS's stupidly(*) storing foldericon arrangements data in the registry. And obliterating them at the drop of a hat. And specifically whenever screendimension details change. (I notice MS even removed the ability to manually arrange icons in folders at all, fromWin7 onwards. Unless you do a registry edit to re-enable it, thus showing that the code is still there, they merelydisabled it. Think about why they did that. (*)- tying this to the registry wasn't actually stupid from MS POV, itwas a deliberate step to lock in MS look-and-feel and block certain types of interface usage from being possible.)Anyway, so I gave up waiting for an ideal monitor to turn up for free, and recently added an Asus VW222U screen (1680 x 1050) as secondary. Not ideal but still free. Removed the stand and made a replacement stand for it to sit photo-frame portrait mode fashion.To allow quickly enabling and disabling it (in XP), I had a look at old multi-monitor utilities:UltraMonhttp://www.realtimesoft.com/ultramon/$40 in 2009 free trialDisplayFusionhttp://www.binaryfortress.com/displayfusion/$15 free trialMultiMonhttp://www.mediachance.com/free/multimon.htmDual Monitor Softwarehttps://murgee.com/MurGeeMon/$5 free trialActual Multiple Monitors actualtools.com/multiplemonitors/The first one I tried was MurGeeMon, which does the job, and seems (I hope) to be a portable install.Pics below.It's kind of a mirror reversal of what I'd prefer. Which is a primary screen with at least 1280 x 1680 in portrait mode, and a secondary with 1280 x 1024. Oh well. The amusing thing is if I'm short of desk space I can slide the secondary portrait screen behind the lower primary screen, and still see the top part of the secondary screen.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2016, 07:50:26 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on August 22, 2016, 03:31:16 pmI consider this ppi pixel size as kind of ideal:23" 1920 x 1080 95.8 ppi 0.2652 mm 16:924" 1920 x 1200 94.3 ppi 0.2692 mm 16:10Those widescreens have 16% smaller pixels:34" 3440 x 1440 109.6 ppi 0.2316 mm 43:1840" 3440 x 1440 would give about 95ppiAs I identify as a non-gamer, i would definitely not go looking for a screen with smaller pixels.Maybe because I'm used to it?By the way, Virtual reality headsets being hot now, is there still no solution that makes (big) monitors obsolete?The movement of the head shows the desired part of the desktop. I never needed all my pixels the same time.It's mainly for locking desired boxes on a fixed location.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2016, 08:41:24 am
content: Unless you use some obscure programs, like SAP frontend or "just came from linux" ones, scaling works of windows. I use magnification on websites, pdfs anyway and icons and everything else scales. So you end up with more screen estate, and nicer looking fonts. I would forget VR as desktop for the moment. I dont think I would be able to handle VR for extended time (nausea). I feel like I'm becoming an old person who has trouble with new technology.The only thing is: I'm guilty of gaming occasionally, so I would probably end up buying a new video card, so my expenses would probably end up above a thousand euros. And that hurts a little bit.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2016, 06:50:46 pm
content: Well I got the nice 27" LG IPS panel one. It's great, like reading paper.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2016, 06:57:34 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on September 05, 2016, 06:50:46 pmI'm jealous. Well done!But anyway, I'm glad it worked out for you.I find deciding things like that, a partly painful process.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2016, 07:01:08 pm
content: It was painful. I'm grateful someone mentioned the IPS panel. I now have a new graphics card in the post (well second hand i think) Radeon R9 to cope with the thing as my old card is a bit weak.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2016, 07:21:35 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on September 05, 2016, 07:01:08 pmYou have effectively got 4 screen fulls of 1080P HD, on the one screen. So I'm not surprised if weaker cards struggle or can't even generate full 4K. Especially within games, as I would have thought it would need tons of memory, to do 4K well/quickly. But I'm not sure how much 2D stuff is speeded up by more expensive cards, as it is mainly 3D that gets boosted, if I understand things correctly.But anyway, 4K is relatively new, so graphics cards were not really necessarily designed to cope with it, unless they are very recent.What I meant was, even older cards may well have been designed to WORK at 4K+. But not necessarily particularly quickly or well, compared to the latest graphics card releases.Fortunately or unfortunately, LCD monitors tend to not last that long, maybe 4 to 8 years (I know there are massive exceptions), so many of us sooner or later, will have to choose new monitors, anyway.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2016, 07:29:10 pm
content: Well I see the main problem is the responsiveness of the mouse and overshooting buttons due to the lag and scrolling pages. It's not terrible but I know the card is at it's limits.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2016, 07:40:48 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on September 05, 2016, 07:29:10 pmThat's what worries me about the 4K. Other things might need upgrading to cope well, such as the video card (if applicable), to have the right output connector types for 4K and/or support 4K at all. Also maybe other things about the computer e.g. Memory size.I guess heavy gamers are probably worst off. As the graphics will be under a huge strain in that case.Windows and/or CAD etc, may use some of the 3D capabilities, at least some of the time, so that could be another reason for needing to upgrade it. 4K is going to put a really heavy strain on the 3D system, as now there are suddenly about four times the number of pixels to mess about with.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2016, 07:45:58 pm
content: To be honest I really cannot see who needs Ultra HD for gaming unless they have a 50 inch monitor. Memory wise I have 16 GB as I'm sure many people do anyway. The speed of that memory may be a concern though my computer is a couple of years old. My graphics card is slightly higher than the one recommended for a 30 Hz refresh rate. Still I'm not sure if it's good enough. ATI did not have a recommended card for 60 Hz refresh rate when the monitor instructions were produced. For me the monitor is basically electronic paper. If I was watching anything moving I will be quite happy with ordinary HD. I have 158 pixels per inch that is effectively a printable resolution and of course things are on my screen larger than they would be on paper and the screen is further away.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2016, 08:13:42 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on September 05, 2016, 07:45:58 pmSome gamers might think, rightly or wrongly, that the fourfold increase in pixel count, will give them better quality images. Assuming their graphics cards, can cope with 4K.Because the images are moving, the reality may indeed be (as you seem to be saying), they don't really need it. It could be like these gold plated, $2,000 HDMI lead things. Maybe it is a waste, maybe it works out for them.Apart from some very limited things (such as gaming, the odd youtube video, and some netflix stuff etc). There are very few real 4K sources (especially for 4K TVs). So I'm wondering what is going to happen in the future. It is a bit silly that so many people have gone out and bought 4K TVs, yet most sources are NOT 4K.But for a computer, I think 4K monitor makes sense, unless it is way too small. E.g. Less than 20 inches. But even then, it might help, I guess.Presumably 4K capable blu-ray like things will be common place, eventually.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2016, 08:17:17 pm
content: No TV needs to be 4K or rather no screen used for moving pictures needs more than 3 pixels per mm, I have twice that but if it was 3 pixels per mm I would see them and that is tiresom on the eyes, with 6 pixels per mm I can't see them looking at text, but that does not make any moving picture better.I have a 800x600 pixel projector i use for when friends come round to watch a film and it looks just fine at 2 metres away and a metre across.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2016, 08:17:57 pm
content: People will always assume more is better and at the end of the day ot becomes a bragging match with the technical side completely forgotten.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2016, 08:29:09 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on September 05, 2016, 08:17:17 pmThe old CRTs (TVs) many of us use to have, at sensible viewing distances, never (to me at least, but I expect others as well) really looked particularly pixelated. Somehow, the glass crt TVs could cope (even with widely varying resolution sources, especially with computer monitors), and they would show the picture, just great.I still don't fully understand how that worked. They just kind of coped.I agree that modern LCDs, have clearer, more stable, brighter and better pictures overall. But don't remember it being bad in the old days, with colour CRT TVs or monitors. Except when you try and use an 80 column computer, on a standard colour TV. Then the text did look rather distorted and a bit fuzzy and slightly out of focus/raggedy.OLed might be the next big thing, with TVs and computer monitors. That and virtual reality 3D headsets. Although 3d VR headsets, may turn out to be a gimmick, and not very useful in practice. We will have to see (excuse the pun).Quote from: Simon on September 05, 2016, 08:17:57 pmDefinitely.People will instantly (in some cases), go for 8 core cpus, when they (eventually) come out for the mass consumer market (they are already available for servers and souped up desktop computers). Even though most software does NOT use 8 cores, simultaneously, and people rarely run 8 different programs at the same time. So 8 cores are rarely used (except certain video editing software, and some other software packages).N.B. I'm talking about home desktop computers NOT servers. Servers can and do, usefully use 8 or more cores, already, with some of the things, servers do.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 05, 2016, 08:31:45 pm
content: I think CRT's had so many points that any resolution would work, I don't think a pixel for the graphics card was 1 defined pixel on the CRT, with LCDs you have few resolution choices. I suppose the move to UHD is in a way to get back to that invisible pixel

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2016, 08:38:53 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on September 05, 2016, 08:31:45 pmI think your right. It was a bit like an analogue oscilloscope (which is a crt anyway). In some senses it has limited resolution, in others it has almost unlimited resolution. There are no pixels as such, on a pure analogue scope. Unless you count the atoms that make up the phosphors on the screen. But the limited bandwidth, creates a sort of artificial pixel like limit, if you try and show too many characters on the screen at once (with crts).Also the colour ones had shadow masks (with holes in it), which are a bit like pixels, but it still can do partial pixels, so not like LCD pixels, as such.It is a pain, when you want to reduce the LCDs resolution (non-native pixel number). E.g. To run old XP windows stuff or something, or even DOS full screen. In a word it often looks awful.Whereas CRTs would have looked good, just not quite as crisp as the proper, high/full resolution of the monitor.