Is 27 inch too big for 1080p?

[Yskas]

Hey guys,

I had a 27 inch 1080p monitor long ago, but it looked like butt, not clear at all vs a smaller 24 inch, does it still look like poo on newer 27 inch monitors?

Thanks

[r.linder]

Originally posted by Annihilator:

Originally posted by 尺．し工几句ヨ尺:

1080p is the closest thing to 2K, and considering that 2160p is 4K, that would only make sense because 3840x2160 (marketed as 4K) is exactly double the pixels of 1920x1080, while 2560x1440 offers only around 43 more pixels than 1080p, so it's actually somewhere in between 2K and 4K.

2K and 4K are not correct terminologies when it comes to display technology because they aren't related to the hardware itself, they're actually just resolutions under DCI standards. True 2K is 2048x1080, true 4K is 4096x2160.

Retailers incorrectly marked 1440p down as 2K and it's unfortunately become an annoying habit of consumers to follow, because most people can't differentiate the facts from the marketing.

Under actual standards, there is no possible way that 2560x1440 can be 2K, because length wise its much too large to be 2K by DCI standards, and that would also make 2160p not 4K, because the math doesn't add up. It's more like 2.43K.

Well yes i know it :)

Normalise using 1080p and 2160p, not 2K and 4K, the marketing terms are misleading, and the more people keep using it, the longer the misinformation sticks around.

Companies need to realise that marketing jargon doesn't win buyers, it wins blind consumers and gives negative fuel to reviewers and critics.

[Ulfrinn]

Originally posted by 尺．し工几句ヨ尺:

Originally posted by Annihilator:

Well yes i know it :)

Normalise using 1080p and 2160p, not 2K and 4K, the marketing terms are misleading, and the more people keep using it, the longer the misinformation sticks around.

Companies need to realise that marketing jargon doesn't win buyers, it wins blind consumers and gives negative fuel to reviewers and critics.

You do understand the fact we're even discussing 2160p on a gaming cite is because so many people have been misled by that marketing and believe these are the displays that are best for gaming? If not for sensationalizing new resolutions, they couldn't sell you new hardware every couple years.

[pasa]

Originally posted by Big Slim:

I had a 32" curved 1440p monitor. All my games looked kind of fuzzy and blurry and I couldn't workout what the heck was going on.

An you claim it's a thing everyone else experiences? Rather than the baseline that you messed up the res or had a defective-or-crap monitor?

Fuzzy and blurry is definitely not the norm. Even with curved displays that are not for everyone.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by pasa:

Originally posted by Big Slim:

I had a 32" curved 1440p monitor. All my games looked kind of fuzzy and blurry and I couldn't workout what the heck was going on.

An you claim it's a thing everyone else experiences? Rather than the baseline that you messed up the res or had a defective-or-crap monitor?

Fuzzy and blurry is definitely not the norm. Even with curved displays that are not for everyone.

Sounds more like ghosting to me, my XG27VQ had it really bad, because of bad response times from the low quality VA panel.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

4K is actually 4x 1080p (H x V)
So for example when you run a Display at 4K (2160p) you can fit 4x 1080p images inside of that space perfectly 2H & 2V

But yes in terms of pixels it is double.

[ZeekAncient]

Yes, I think 27" is a tad too big for a 1080p screen.

24" is probably the max you want to go for 1080p. Even then, some will say 24" is too big for 1080p.

I remember when I first upgraded from a 24" 1080p screen to a 27" 1440p screen. I was blown away. It was definitely night and day, and I didn't think I was going to notice that much of a difference, but I most certainly did.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by Bad 💀 Motha:

4K is actually 4x 1080p (H x V)
So for example when you run a Display at 4K (2160p) you can fit 4x 1080p images inside of that space perfectly 2H & 2V

But yes in terms of pixels it is double.

DCI's calculation of resolutions isn't actually relevant though because that's not what's used in determining pixel density, it doesn't mean anything outside of determining what is 1K, 2K, 4K, etc. None of which applies to computer monitor specs since none of it is actually 2K or 4K. 4096x2160p is 4K, 3840x2160p isn't, because it's not a DCI resolution.

It's the resolution (WxH) relative to the size of the screen that determines pixel density, which is the major factor in determining how clean and precise the image quality is going to be. You always want more pixels per inch up until the point where it becomes more of a detriment to your eye.

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/technology/ppi-calculator.php

2160p vs 1080p at 27 inches shows that 2160p has double the pixel density at that screen size, because there's twice as many pixels. That's the actual calculation that matters here.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by ZeekAncient:

Yes, I think 27" is a tad too big for a 1080p screen.

24" is probably the max you want to go for 1080p. Even then, some will say 24" is too big for 1080p.

I remember when I first upgraded from a 24" 1080p screen to a 27" 1440p screen. I was blown away. It was definitely night and day, and I didn't think I was going to notice that much of a difference, but I most certainly did.

Wait until you try 2160p, because even my 43" 2160p TV was mind-blowing and made me rethink using 1440p. I'd love to get my hands on a 2160p 32" display, that I feel is the best balance for 4K because 27" is just too small and kind of a waste for such a big resolution, 32" will fill your peripheral vision at your desk better than 27" will.

The people who angrily shout about how nobody needs a resolution that big have never tried it themselves (or want to cope because their hardware can't handle it) and choose to remain ignorant, but those of us who have actually experienced it and enjoy it understand what makes it an amazing experience.

[ZeekAncient]

Originally posted by 尺．し工几句ヨ尺:

Wait until you try 2160p, because even my 43" 2160p TV was mind-blowing and made me rethink using 1440p. I'd love to get my hands on a 2160p 32" display, that I feel is the best balance for 4K because 27" is just too small and kind of a waste for such a big resolution, 32" will fill your peripheral vision at your desk better than 27" will.

The people who angrily shout about how nobody needs a resolution that big have never tried it themselves (or want to cope because their hardware can't handle it) and choose to remain ignorant, but those of us who have actually experienced it and enjoy it understand what makes it an amazing experience.

You are absolutely right. A couple years ago I was playing on a 34" 3440 x 1440 Ultrawide, and one day I decided to hook my PC up to my 4K TV, and I was really blown away. Even more than I was when I went from 1080p to 1440p.

People argue with me all the time, and say there is no way that your big 4K TV looked better than my 34" Ultrawide IPS. But it did. Better brightness, colors, and contrast. And has pretty good HDR10. I ended up just playing exclusively on my 4K TV since it looked so good. Ended up selling my Ultrawide.

Of course, the TV is only 60Hz and doesn't have GSync/Freesync, or the low input latency of a PC monitor, however it does have good latency for a TV. But I did change my setup so I am about 6 feet or so away from my screen, so I haven't really noticed. I am telling you, though, that games look absolutely amazing on it. Better than it did on my 27" 1440p IPS, or my 34" Ultrawide IPS. And no annoying IPS glow.

Of course, now I am looking to upgrade the display because I want at least 120Hz, Gsync, and lower latency, but I don't see myself going back to a smaller lower resolution monitor like before. After playing on a super crisp big 4K screen, I think I want to continue doing that.

Right now I am looking at a 4K OLED 129Hz+. My top choice so far is the LG C2. I haven't pulled the trigger yet because I will probably want to upgrade GPU when I do. But if, and when, the 4080 goes down in price, I might end up picking up both. If I do go back to a traditional PC monitor, it would probably be either the Alienware OLEDs. But I would have to change my setup again to be closer to the screen, and I am looking for something that I can do varied content on, like watch movies, shows, sports, and gaming. The LG C2 seems like my best choice so far.

Also though, right now I haven't really missed 120hz+ or Gsync, even with my 3070 Ti, because I play all my games locked at 60FPS. So I haven't had any tearing, and games have been butter smooth. Of course, more demanding games, I need DLSS or to lower a couple settings, but most games I am able to max. But when I do get a 4K 120Hz+, I will probably want a new GPU.

[Ulfrinn]

Originally posted by ZeekAncient:

Originally posted by 尺．し工几句ヨ尺:

Wait until you try 2160p, because even my 43" 2160p TV was mind-blowing and made me rethink using 1440p. I'd love to get my hands on a 2160p 32" display, that I feel is the best balance for 4K because 27" is just too small and kind of a waste for such a big resolution, 32" will fill your peripheral vision at your desk better than 27" will.

The people who angrily shout about how nobody needs a resolution that big have never tried it themselves (or want to cope because their hardware can't handle it) and choose to remain ignorant, but those of us who have actually experienced it and enjoy it understand what makes it an amazing experience.

You are absolutely right. A couple years ago I was playing on a 34" 3440 x 1440 Ultrawide, and one day I decided to hook my PC up to my 4K TV, and I was really blown away. Even more than I was when I went from 1080p to 1440p.

People argue with me all the time, and say there is no way that your big 4K TV looked better than my 34" Ultrawide IPS. But it did. Better brightness, colors, and contrast. And has pretty good HDR10. I ended up just playing exclusively on my 4K TV since it looked so good. Ended up selling my Ultrawide.

Of course, the TV is only 60Hz and doesn't have GSync/Freesync, or the low input latency of a PC monitor, however it does have good latency for a TV. But I did change my setup so I am about 6 feet or so away from my screen, so I haven't really noticed. I am telling you, though, that games look absolutely amazing on it. Better than it did on my 27" 1440p IPS, or my 34" Ultrawide IPS. And no annoying IPS glow.

Of course, now I am looking to upgrade the display because I want at least 120Hz, Gsync, and lower latency, but I don't see myself going back to a smaller lower resolution monitor like before. After playing on a super crisp big 4K screen, I think I want to continue doing that.

Right now I am looking at a 4K OLED. My top choice so far is the LG C2. I haven't pulled the trigger yet because I will probably want to upgrade GPU when I do. But if, and when, the 4080 goes down in price, I might end up picking up both. If I do go back to a traditional PC monitor, it would probably be either the Alienware OLEDs. But I would have to change my setup again to be closer to the screen, and I am looking for something that I can do varied content on, like watch movies, shows, sports, and gaming. The LG C2 seems like my best choice so far.

You're comparing other features of the 4K screen to the 1440P screen, not the pixel count. A 1440P ultrawide, 34" is going to have the same if not better pixel density than a 40+" 4k monitor. Also, 4K screens are usually not built for gaming, so while a still image may look better in some cases, games are not still, and there is very often an increase in display lag that goes with many additional features or with other technologies. Display lag is the time it takes for something that occurs in game to be shown on screen.

Also, unless you're only playing games from the early to mid 2000s, which are probably FPS locked to begin with, you're never going to come close to 120hz at 4K.

[r.linder]

My cheap Hisense 4K TV has literally zero IPS glow, which blows my mind, it was like 120$ cheaper than my Acer 1440p 144Hz monitor that has pretty bad IPS glow and black uniformity, especially with HDR on

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Yes you have to consider the detailed Display specs. Not just screen res. Screen res by itself is a # of pixels. How clear that is will be not just determined by screen size and viewing distance but all the PPI, or Pixel Pitch (aka Dot Pitch) of the screen panel. As the small Pixel pitch will result in a crisper overall picture at the native screen res. Since smaller Pixel pitch means the actual lights that make up the pixels are smaller, and thus allow for a higher Pixel density on that Display. Again allowing a crisper image compared to a different panel with similar specs but might have a larger Pixel pitch resulting in its pixels or block edges being more visible as a result.

[ZeekAncient]

Originally posted by 尺．し工几句ヨ尺:

My cheap Hisense 4K TV has literally zero IPS glow, which blows my mind, it was like 120$ cheaper than my Acer 1440p 144Hz monitor that has pretty bad IPS glow and black uniformity, especially with HDR on

My TV is a Sharp, which I believe, is owned by the same company that owned Hisense. And If I am not mistaken, all Sharp TVs became Hisense. So, not the top brand, but my Sharp Roku TV is still of high quality. Well for a cheaper 4K TV. I bought it on sale in 2019 for around $350 I believe. Which was a great deal at the time, since it was way more expensive than that before. Like I said, it is only 60Hz, but does have good HDR10, and the shows and movies I watch look great in HDR. For gaming though, it is game to game. For HDR I mean, but even in SDR, games look amazing. And actually, I was kind of duped when I bought the TV, because I thought I was buying a 120hz 4K. But it turned out it only had Motion Rate 120. So, it tries to simulate 120Hz, but it is not 120Hz. And yes, no IPS glow at all. In fact, I find the colors, brightness, and contrast to be better than my IPS screens. Every IPS screen I have owned and seen has some IPS glow. Some worse than others. Some have straight up light bleed.

Still, I have my eyes set on the LG C2. From what I have seen, it is an amazing gaming display. Even used as a PC monitor. It is OLED, 120Hz, has VRR, and Gsync/Freesync. There is the risk of burn-in, but I will take the risk considering the varied content consumption I will do on it. The way I use it, it will take a long time for burn-in to set in. And OLEDs are just super amazing looking, and fast!! They are next-gen to me. I really would like QD-OLED, like the Alienwares, but they are only 34" Ultrawide, and it would be hard to go back down to a smaller screen, and I would need to change my setup again.

[ZeekAncient]

Originally posted by Ulfrinn:

You're comparing other features of the 4K screen to the 1440P screen, not the pixel count. A 1440P ultrawide, 34" is going to have the same if not better pixel density than a 40+" 4k monitor. Also, 4K screens are usually not built for gaming, so while a still image may look better in some cases, games are not still, and there is very often an increase in display lag that goes with many additional features or with other technologies. Display lag is the time it takes for something that occurs in game to be shown on screen.

Also, unless you're only playing games from the early to mid 2000s, which are probably FPS locked to begin with, you're never going to come close to 120hz at 4K.

It is not going to stop me from wanting the LG C2. While my current 4K has decent input lag, for a TV, the LG C2 has less than 1ms response times. Including all the gaming features I want like VRR and Gsync/Freesync.

Currently I am playing locked at 60Hz, so to me, things still look buttery smooth, since my games are always at 60FPS. But if I buy a 120Hz+ screen again, I will want something more than a 3070 Ti. Even if I buy a 4080, I know that it will not maintain 120FPS all the time, but if it is between 60 - 120FPS I will be fine.

Even when I was using my 27" 165Hz, and my 34" 120Hz, my limit was 60FPS. Just as long as games didn't go below 60FPS, I was fine. 60 to 120+FPS was great to me. And while I liked my gaming monitors, I have to say that playing on a big 4K screen has been the better experience for me. Games look absolutely crisp and clear, and the extra screen real estate has been amazing. I kind of look at it as though I have a PS5 or something hooked up to it. But better since my games are locked at 60FPS.

Still, I want an LG C2 OLED.

But also, everyone talks about pixel count and pixel density, and yada yada. And yes, I understand how it works. The higher pixel density, the better. But I don't get caught up in such numbers. With a something like this, I just go by what my eyes tell me. And hooking my PC up to my big 4K TV just looked amazing. Night and day over my 1440p gaming monitors. Like I said, I don't have high refresh rates, Gsync, or the super low response times anymore, but I haven't really noticed all that much.

But still, that is why I have my eyes set on an LG C2, lol.

[Jamebonds1]

Also, you can't see actual pixel size, so you can only see what your eye see. That is called relative number for pixel size.