Understanding 16:9 vs 16:10, and Pixels

[itakey]

I'm looking to upgrade my monitors (Dual 1905FP's running at 1280X1024) and am trying to understand what will be a better monitor for my needs.

I currently work on my computer and do no gaming at all. I'm mostly in Outlook, Web browsers with web apps, and Office documents. I'm used to running 1280X1024 and my eyes have been bothering me so I don't want to make any drastic changes. So my question is, what would be a better monitor to replace my dual 1905FP's running 1280X1024?

I ordered the Dell U2415 (24" at 1900X1200), but will return it if there is a better configuration or monitor.

I've seen some 27" running 1920 x 1080, but seems like the best of them run 2560x1440 in this size. Would a 27" at 1920X1080 look all big and weird if I'm used to 1280X1024 on the 19"? I'm guessing the 27" at 2560X1440 would make all the fonts and text look tiny to what I'm used to.

In terms of viewing quality and the need to work and be comfortable at a monitor for many hours a day, would the Dell U2415 (24" at 1900X1200) be a good replacement for dual 1905FP's? Or is there another model. No real budget cap, but I don't want to go broke, but I would if it meant getting the best.

Is it better to go 24" 16:10, or 27" 16:9 for my needs and to stay close to the 1905FP I'm used to?

Recommendations and opinions appreciated

 

[Elixer]

This should have been posted in http://forums.anandtech.com/forumdisplay.php?f=72

With that out of the way, I suggest you read http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2415.htm to get a better understanding of this monitor, and compare it to others.

 

[kasakka]

16:10 is generally better for everything but few are made these days. However, at 2560x1440 to me it doesn't matter if it's 16:9 or 16:10. There's enough desktop space. I moved from a 2560x1600 to 2560x1440 and don't mind it at all.

I would not buy 1920x1080 for desktop use, it's just a bit too little desktop space to feel comfortable. To give you an idea, I'm comfortable working on one 2560x1440 display, but at 1080p I preferred having two or three.

If you feel font sizes are too small, you can always use DPI scaling to increase text size. Personally I find that 2560x1440 at default DPI scale is fine. Windows 10 should handle DPI scaling better than 7 and since it's right around the corner it might be a good idea to invest in a high res display, maybe even go 4K.

If you have an Apple store nearby you could go there and look at their 27" 5K iMac or retina Macbook Pros to get an idea how good text can look when there's lots of pixels but everything is scaled up.

I'd get your eyes checked first though. Best to have the correct prescription glasses. If that's not the issue, consider improving the lighting where you have your computer.

 

[Piroko]

If you want to get a feeling for font sizes, then use this site for reference. Put the monitor size and its resolution in the top 3 boxes and look for the calculated value "xxx PPI" (Pixels per inch) below those boxes.
Screens with the same PPI will have the same font size, screens with higher PPI will have lower font size.

For reference, your 1280*1024 19" screens have 86 PPI, the screen you ordered will have 103 PPI. My personal limit is at around 110 PPI (2560*1440 27"), higher than that and I would use the windows 125% scaling.

As for the aspect ratio, that is entirely personal preference. I have no issues working on 16:9 screens, but can also see the benefit in more vertical space (16:10).

 

[Lonyo]

2560x1080 on a 25-29"? Basically the same as you have now but in a single monitor.

 

[KingFatty]

I was used to 16:10, and very comfortable with the 24" size.

But when I switched to a larger monitor, I didn't like the smaller font size on the 27" 2560x1440, so I got a 30" 2560x1600. But then I switched to what I liked the most, which was a 32" 2560x1440.

I feel like it's a nicer/bigger font size when you put those pixels in 32", compared to the more common 27" models where it's a bit tiny to my eyes.

but notice that's 16:9, and not 16:10. So I think it's a good compromise to have 16:9 in this situation, because you still get more vertical pixels coming from the 1920x1200 16:10 and going to the 32" 2560x1440.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I've seen some 27" running 1920 x 1080, but seems like the best of them run 2560x1440 in this size. Would a 27" at 1920X1080 look all big and weird if I'm used to 1280X1024 on the 19"? I'm guessing the 27" at 2560X1440 would make all the fonts and text look tiny to what I'm used to.

In terms of viewing quality and the need to work and be comfortable at a monitor for many hours a day, would the Dell U2415 (24" at 1900X1200) be a good replacement for dual 1905FP's? Or is there another model. No real budget cap, but I don't want to go broke, but I would if it meant getting the best.

Is it better to go 24" 16:10, or 27" 16:9 for my needs and to stay close to the 1905FP I'm used to?

Size and resolution of monitors may have overlap, the 27" especially seem to have a large number of different configurations including 1920x1080 (HD), 2560x1440 and even 3840x2160 (UHD/4k)

What you should be concerned about primarily is PPI or Pixels Per Inch, this is a measurement of how dense the pixels are in any given inch and typically is measured by taking the diagonal size of the monitor and dividing the total number of pixels along that diagonal into that.

You can do that quite easily with Pythagoras's theorem.

The diagonal pixels is SQRT((x^2)+(y^2))

Where X and Y are the horizontal and vertical resolution in pixels, so your old monitors are 1280x1024

SQRT((1280^2)+(1024^2))
or 1,639 pixels

Divided by 19" distance is about 86.3 PPI

That's not terribly high

1920x1080 @ 27" is 81.6 PPI
2560x1440 @ 27" is 108.8 PPI
3840x2160 @ 27" is 163.2 PPI

Typically 1920x1080 @ 27" was always a bit of a push for people since the PPI is small it means each individual pixel is quite large, swapping to this kind of panel will be a slight pixel density downgrade, the others are upgrades.

When it comes to actual work space for doing work you need to consider area rather than density since windows is mostly a fixed pixel size (unless you use scaling). Area is just pixel width x pixel height

1280x1024 is 1,310,720 pixels
1920x1080 is 2,073,600 pixels
2560x1440 is 3,686,400 pixels
3840x2160 is 8,294,400 pixels

So all these monitors offer significantly more workspace than what you have.

What you have to do is strike a balance between resolution and size, for example you'll find that at 27" 1920x1080 the PPI is quite low, but at 3840x2160 the PPI may be so high that you can't easily use your monitor and you have to scale windows up which kind of defeats the point. At this particular size (27") 2560x1440 is a good sweet spot with a highish PPI but easily usable without needing to scale anything.

Now you know how to calculate the PPI and area you can look at different panel sizes and resolutions and pick something that is suitable for your needs.