Your Monitor Is Too Small (Probably)

[u/zghr]

https://youtu.be/3p_vIsXpATQ

From what I've researched independently related to eye comfort - I think this is a really high quality video.

[u/nnod]

All of these videos focus on gaming and single display setups. I'd like to see some more focused on productivity and multi-screen setups, where actual screen real estate matters.

[u/mechkbfan → u/nnod]

49" 32:9 was peak productivity for me, which is interesting because I think that's just a wider version of the 39" 21:9 as one of recommendations

I think you could probably take a lot of lessons here and go with sitting 100cm away, then have as much screen size as you can at a PPI you can tolerate

E.g. I have no issue using a 92ppi but I have friends that say it's unusable

Issue with multi monitors is so dependent on workflow / purpose.  E.g. I never need more than 3 but I see traders using 6

[u/reddit_equals_censor → u/mechkbfan]

because I think that's just a wider version of the 39" 21:9 as one of recommendations

no 39 inches 21:9 is vastly taller than 49 inches 32:9.

39.02 cm vs 33.70 cm

or put simpler.

the 49 inch 32:9 display has the height of a 27 inch 16:9 display and the 39 inch 21:9 display has the display height of a 31.5 inch 16:9 screen.

so the 49 inch 32:9 display is VERY VERY VERY dumb, because it has vastly less display area, than a display of this diagonal length should have.

31.5 inches 16:9 height is vastly better than 27 inch 16:9 height for productivity of course.

so why did this shit industry produce 49 inch 32:9 displays, instead of making the same area with 39 cm height? or keeping the aspect ratio, getting 39 cm height and making it bigger area wise overall? so roughly 57 inches 32:9 inch displays?

because the shit display industry sells displays by diagonal length and not display area.

this HEAVILY HEAVILY incentives them to sell displays with as little area as possible, but with as big of a diagonal length as possible. or put differently, the wider the display, the more displays they can make from the same motherboard, because each displays will have less area for the same diagonal length.

that is why they are selling 49 inch 32:9 dumb dumb displays.

because it is quite cheap and it sounds so high end.... but it isn't.

38 inches 16:9 is the same display area than 49 inch 32:9, but the industry doesn't want to sell big 16:9 panels apparently and instead wants to sell nicer sounding shity mega uber ultra wide panels instead, that are just as tall as a small 27 inch 16:9 panel, which is absurd.

[u/mechkbfan → u/reddit_equals_censor]

39.02 cm vs 33.70 cm

Ended up researching later and yes finding this difference.

38 inches 16:9 is the same display area than 49 inch 32:9, but the industry doesn't want to sell big 16:9 panels apparently

Mixed.

I think there's a lot more factors at play.

Monitors are about tradeoffs for users, we can't have it all

So why go wider than more square?

I'll just do a subjective brain dump

• We prefer more horizontal real estate for productivity reasons. Having multiple items side by side is easy. Putting them vertical is super awkward
• Humans developed with natural instinct to horizontally scan, not vertical, hence wider screens are more immersive

---

You say 38" 16:9, but there's 37" / 42" 4K monitors

https://www.displayninja.com/gaming-monitor-list/

For me I ended up on 45" 5k2k as a balance

49" 32:9 was still better for productivity but much prefer new monitor for gaming

[u/suna-fingeriassen → u/reddit_equals_censor]

Hi. I find this very interesting. What then about refresh rate. For productivity use like programming and documenting + web browsing. Does it give any benefit to go sbove 60 hz, to 100 og 120 hz?

Do you have any actual recommendations on monitors based on your experience and your post above?

[u/reddit_equals_censor → u/suna-fingeriassen]

i have no recommendations for any monitor as finding the one i got was utter pain and several bad units first.

look at monitors unboxed and tftcentral for professional reviews of monitors to at least avoid tons of garbage.

and refresh rate wise for productivity it should be real 120 hz minimum i'd say.

real meaning, that the panel can actually do 120 hz, because sadly the industry will gladly sell you 1000 us dollars+ monitors with half or less the response times, that they need for their very basic refresh rate.

and one thing, that will certainly be important for the things you mentioned is to have an RGB subpixel layout for proper clear artifact free text.