1366x768 LCD Resolution - Who is running it?

[Slammy1]

Somewhat depends on what you're doing with it. For a personal display (maybe 1-2 people), a smaller screen has some advantages. At 2475 DPI your 30" display is very comparable to the 32" @ 768p (2400 DPI). Your actual screen area is 10% less.

 

[Roguestar]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: Matthias99

A 32" 1360 X 768 has the same image quality as a 42" 1920 X 1080 when within the same relative viewpoint. Because a 42" TV is larger, you will sit back further than one would with a 32", thus, it all equals out in the end.

In terms of image detail, a 1920x1080 display simply has more (real) pixels than a ~1300x768 one and can display a more detailed image without aliasing.

If you sit such that they have equal (apparent) pixel density, the higher-resolution display will be filling up more of your vision (unless there is a dramatic difference in pixel density between the displays). If you are sitting such that each display fills about the same amount of your visual field, the higher-resolution one will have higher (apparent) pixel density. Everything else being equal, higher resolution is better.

If you're looking at a situation where you can't sit further away from the display (ie, you want to put it on your desk and use it as a dedicated computer monitor), it can be a big problem. I agree, though, that if you're going to use it from across the living room... not so much, unless you want to work on high-resolution photos or watch native 1080i/1080p content.

There is theory and then they is reality. The reality is that 30"+ displays for monitors are totally awesome. The reality is that despite being 1280 X 768 and sitting less than 2 feet away, I can surf, game, read and spend pretty much all day on here with no problem. My work LCD is so... unatractive... Yet, it does 1280 X 1024 on its 17" panel, but to tell you the truth, I don't see how anyone would be willing to take a 17" over a 30" in that situation, much less anything else.

Because if you're sitting close to it you don't have to actually move your head to see the other side of the screen?

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Roguestar

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: Matthias99

A 32" 1360 X 768 has the same image quality as a 42" 1920 X 1080 when within the same relative viewpoint. Because a 42" TV is larger, you will sit back further than one would with a 32", thus, it all equals out in the end.

In terms of image detail, a 1920x1080 display simply has more (real) pixels than a ~1300x768 one and can display a more detailed image without aliasing.

If you sit such that they have equal (apparent) pixel density, the higher-resolution display will be filling up more of your vision (unless there is a dramatic difference in pixel density between the displays). If you are sitting such that each display fills about the same amount of your visual field, the higher-resolution one will have higher (apparent) pixel density. Everything else being equal, higher resolution is better.

If you're looking at a situation where you can't sit further away from the display (ie, you want to put it on your desk and use it as a dedicated computer monitor), it can be a big problem. I agree, though, that if you're going to use it from across the living room... not so much, unless you want to work on high-resolution photos or watch native 1080i/1080p content.

There is theory and then they is reality. The reality is that 30"+ displays for monitors are totally awesome. The reality is that despite being 1280 X 768 and sitting less than 2 feet away, I can surf, game, read and spend pretty much all day on here with no problem. My work LCD is so... unatractive... Yet, it does 1280 X 1024 on its 17" panel, but to tell you the truth, I don't see how anyone would be willing to take a 17" over a 30" in that situation, much less anything else.

Because if you're sitting close to it you don't have to actually move your head to see the other side of the screen?

I don't move my head, I move my eyes.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: Roguestar
Because if you're sitting close to it you don't have to actually move your head to see the other side of the screen?

I don't move my head, I move my eyes.

I respect your opinion, but frankly, I tried a 24" Dell widescreen LCD, and I found it tougher to work with than two 19/20" displays. I was having a hard time dealing with the image extending so far into my peripheral vision.

Maybe I would have adapted if I had kept it longer, but (IMO) at normal 'desk' distance (~2 feet), a monitor much bigger than that would just be unwieldly. You can't focus on the whole screen at once. If you're going for the whole 'immersive gaming' thing, maybe. For desktop work, I'm unconvinced. Definitely try before you buy.

But there's definitely a point where smaller is worse. A 17" LCD would be kind of small (but usable); I wouldn't buy anything smaller than that for desktop use. Dual 19/20" LCDs are IMO the best setup for desktop work (unless you need so much screen area that you want dual 1920x1080 widescreens).

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: Roguestar
Because if you're sitting close to it you don't have to actually move your head to see the other side of the screen?

I don't move my head, I move my eyes.

I respect your opinion, but frankly, I tried a 24" Dell widescreen LCD, and I found it tougher to work with than two 19/20" displays. I was having a hard time dealing with the image extending so far into my peripheral vision.

Maybe I would have adapted if I had kept it longer, but (IMO) at normal 'desk' distance (~2 feet), a monitor much bigger than that would just be unwieldly. You can't focus on the whole screen at once. If you're going for the whole 'immersive gaming' thing, maybe. For desktop work, I'm unconvinced. Definitely try before you buy.

But there's definitely a point where smaller is worse. A 17" LCD would be kind of small (but usable); I wouldn't buy anything smaller than that for desktop use. Dual 19/20" LCDs are IMO the best setup for desktop work (unless you need so much screen area that you want dual 1920x1080 widescreens).

Everyone is different.

 

[WDEagle]

Originally posted by: BigPoppa
I game on my 32" Westinghouse at 1360x768. World of Warcraft is what I play mostly. Building a core2duo rig right now, have all the components purchased except for the 8800GTS, which I'll be ordering today. Haven't played any FPS yet, but WoW is fantastic. I'll probably pull out UT2k4 and the EVGA 8800GTS comes with Dark Messiah, so i'll get back to you on those games.

I, too, game on my 32" Westy. I just replayed Far Cry, Serious Sam SE and Serious Sam 2 again from start to finish. I also have been playing fragmatch. Prior to this I was using a Dell 20" @ 1600x1200. I loved it at the time but would never want to go back to a 20" again.

WDEagle

 

[mazeroth]

Resolution does matter. I have a 21" Sony CRT (in sig) that I did some tests on with Oblivion. I set the res to 1366x768 and noticed immediately a degrade in texture quality from my normal 1600x1200 resolution (I was contemplating getting a large LCD). You have to figure, 1600x1200 is 1.92 million pixels, while 1366x768 is only 1.05 million, roughly half as many. Distant landscapes and objects' textures looked WAY worse on the 1366 setting than they did at 1600. In the end I ended up getting an Acer 22" wide screen LCD (15% more screen area than my 21" Sony CRT) and am VERY pleased. It does 1680x1050, which is almost as much as my CRT at 1600x1200. The widescreen is also great.

Also, think about this. To play on a 32" you'll probably have it back a few feet. My 22" is about 18 inches away from me when I game and takes up nearly all of my vision. In the end, do what you feel is right. Remember, you can always take it back if you don't like it! (if they don't have a restocking fee).

 

[mooncancook]

I'm using my 37" LCD TV as a htpc monitor at 1366x768 and it looks wonderful (providered I sit 6' away). I think as long as the LCD has VGA input then it should work at native resolution. I had no luck getting native resolution with HDMI, even getting 1280x720 without Overscan is a PITA over HDMI.

 

[Cabages]

Just a little bump. Very interesting read, especially because I am debating between a 24" monitor or 32" TV.

Anyone else have any other thoughts?

 

[n7]

I can't understand the desire to have to sit in front of a 32" 1366x768 display

That's a low resolution on a huge screen...way too hard on the eyes, & z0mg, the pixelation would be horrifying.

I don't see stitting halfway across my room to be able to comfortably use my display as being ideal.

24" LCD would be oh so much better IMO.

Get a TV or projector for when you want to watch movies...

That's how i do it.

I have my two 20" LCDs, & i use my projector (roughly 70" picture) for all video content

 

[Eomer of Aldburg]

Originally posted by: n7
I can't understand the desire to have to sit in front of a 32" 1366x768 display

That's a low resolution on a huge screen...way too hard on the eyes, & z0mg, the pixelation would be horrifying.

I don't see stitting halfway across my room to be able to comfortably use my display as being ideal.

24" LCD would be oh so much better IMO.

Get a TV or projector for when you want to watch movies...

That's how i do it.

I have my two 20" LCDs, & i use my projector (roughly 70" picture) for all video content

I sit about 3 to 4 feet from my 32 inch LCD at 1366 by 768 and its not bad at all, infact its quite nice. Kind of snobish to statement becuase you are making the problem magnified. I get the best of Borth worlds by using a Dual monitor setup of my 32inch LCD and my 17 LCD.

 

[yyrkoon]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
There is theory and then they is reality. The reality is that 30"+ displays for monitors are totally awesome. The reality is that despite being 1280 X 768 and sitting less than 2 feet away, I can surf, game, read and spend pretty much all day on here with no problem. My work LCD is so... unatractive... Yet, it does 1280 X 1024 on its 17" panel, but to tell you the truth, I don't see how anyone would be willing to take a 17" over a 30" in that situation, much less anything else.

You're right, there is theory, and there is conjecture. I seriously doubt your 30+ IN lower resolution HD TV can even match the crispness of my 19 IN wide screen LCD ( which BTW is only 1440x900 resolution) I've played games on all sizes of CRTs, LCDs, and analog TVs, and I would put them in this order, worse, to best, Analog TV, CRT, then LCD, judging by the DPI / resolution of of LCD TVs, I would have to put it in between a standard LCD, and CRTs. Sure maybe *you* may be able to play with a slightly worse resolution / DPI, but dont expect everyone to feel the same. Lets also not forget about cost.

So you're happy, great, I'm happy for you, but not everyone likes looking at large, blocky pixels, not to mention a screen that is not very crisp, by comparison.