Monitor Resolution?

[WarBeer]

Hi...I was wondering what resolution you folks popping out these beautiful and professional maps are using? I'm getting ready to build a new PC and purchase a new monitor and could use some recommendations. I was looking at both 27" and 32" 4k monitors. (I know that's a big difference in size...seems that those two sizes have a lot of products) I'm needing to produce maps for my RPG products.(I've made some nice simple ones in the past that will work well enough)

Any thoughts with regard to resolution...and monitor size (would 32" be overkill or a benefit?) would be most appreciated

[Mouse]

I'm not saying that I'm popping out beautiful maps, here, but I use a standard 15" laptop. From what others have said in the past I'm not the only one

Given the choice and unlimited money, however, I'd probably go 24 inch.

[Greg]

I'm with Mouse on this one I'm afraid. Everything I do is done on my normal laptop screen, so I'm afraid I can't obviously recommend anything. I know from past experiences looking things up, two things outside of resolution and size you'd be looking for, are good colour display and also potentially more of a matte finish so reflections aren't a problem.

Anyway, my contribution here is of no real use, but I'll definitely be interested in hearing what others have to say.

[ChickPea]

I've got two monitors, both of which are a few years old now. My main monitor is 26" 1920x1200 and I do most of my work on that. The other one's smaller (I think maybe 22") & if I'm working with something like Gimp, I'll have my browser running in the second one. Some days I don't turn the 2nd one on, but if I'm settling in for a serious session, it's handy to have the browser accessible if you want to google something (or watch cycling while you map ) Occasionally, I run Gimp in one & Inkscape in the other too.

I personally find the 26" monitor just fine in size, though I'm strictly a hobbyist mapmaker. Not sure what prices are, but for what you pay for one very large 4K monitor, for a little more you might get two slightly smaller ones that give you a lot more flexibility. Or re-use your existing monitor. I wouldn't like to go back to just one monitor now I'm used to two, but two monitors that were the same size/resolution would probably have been better, as you can mirror displays. (My smaller one was acquired from someone who was chucking it out & I got it for free.)

Anyway, that's my tuppence worth.

[Falconius]

I also don't make professional maps. But being a hobbyist I'd say a second screen is more useful than a big one. That said you clearly already have a screen, so that would turn into your second if you wanted to do that. My main is 23.5 inch and is quiet sufficient, but I don't see how having a larger high res screen wouldn't be anything but a benefit. I'd say colour is more important though, as is light bleed from the LED's (presuming you go that route), and perhaps the most important for me is getting something that actually manages to get black to look black. Or save up your money for something more directly purposeful. For instance I'd save up to use a drawing tablet instead of a mouse. Also you might want to just get into production and then figure out what is more important after some experience. For instance because I've ended up in this weird realm where I'm rendering complex things, I'd also look to upgrade probably my motherboard, RAM, and CPU before getting a big screen. In other words things that help increase your productivity are more useful than things that make it more comfortable (not to say comfort is a negligible concern, but simply to say it is secondary).

[WarBeer]

I've been considering "dual monitors" as well. (I'll have an extra 23" after this build) I will have some photos to work on for a small project/job...but it's nothing permanent. My concern with map-making as related to screen size and resolution has me wondering about displaying large sections and zooming down to individual pixels. Since the computer I've been experimenting with is pretty weak...I've been keeping the dpi low. I know that's a bit relative. On my 17" laptop with the dpi @ 100...it's pretty crude and ridged to my eyes. Does 4k even matter with static images? What about photographs? I'm not looking to throw money away...but I'm also willing to spend a couple bucks if it's going to make a difference. This new computer has been LONG coming...I don't want to end up where a few more $$ would have gotten me to a noticeably better place.

[waldronate]

If you're looking at art, consider color reproduction first and everything else a distance second (that probably means something from the IPS family). The OS that you use with a high-dpi monitor will make a difference as well, especially if you'll be having two monitors with different dpi settings.

I run a dual monitor setup and I have always made it a point to get two identical monitors because I get distracted by color variance from monitor-to-monitor. For home, they are 24" 1920x1080 and for work, they are 27" 2560x1440. I have the dpi setting at 150% on the larger monitors, which makes the text readable for me, but causes some older programs that I use regularly to have problems (tiny text and/or blurry elements). I also find that I get a crick in my neck from the larger monitors because I have to move my head instead of just my eyes to look from one side to the other. Then again, I am old and decrepit.

[Mark Oliva]

Another thing to think about ...

People are reporting in that they're happy with the results that they get with 15" laptop screens, and I won't argue at all that one can't get good results with such a screen.

However, there's a real downside to working with a small display that becomes very apparent when one also has used a larger screen. I usually work with a 27" display, but recently, I wanted to video record a TV concert broadcast via Internet streaming. The station that transmitted the concert did everything possible to block live recording of the picture, so I had to use Audials One to record directly from the screen. That produces excellent video quality, but it also dedicates the computer to nothing but the concert for the full recording period. Recording from the laptop was not an option, because the small screen would produce a lower quality video.

So ... I bit the bullet and did my cartographic work on the laptop with the 15" display. With the amount of zoom in, zoom out, zoom in, zoom out that I had to do, the time loss was substantial and the 15" screen was a colossal, two-and-a-half-hour pain in the #!%. Next time something like that comes up, I'll try to convince my wife to not use her computer for awhile and record from her 27" screen. I certainly will do anything I can to avoid mapping with the 15" screen again.

[WarBeer]

I "believe" I've been looking at monitors with pretty high rated color? These are two that have been on my list, as I've heard they were a good choice. (BenQ 27-Inch IPS Ultra High Definition LED Monitor (BL2711U), 4K2K HD 3840x2160 Display ) & (BenQ 32-Inch IPS 4K Ultra High Definition LED Monitor (BL3201PH), 4K2K HD 3840x2160 Display ) I've also considered the "physical/neck" aspect of looking at a large monitor...lol. Certainly, 27" has been the standard for quite a while now. I've also considered the idea of multiple monitors of the same model to avoid visual change. Obviously I wouldn't be going 32" if I were to go that route So, as the monitor "physical size" goes up...do the individual LED's themselves get larger? (in the case of two monitors with the same resolution...one being...say...24" and one being 27"...etc.)

[waldronate]

I've also considered the idea of multiple monitors of the same model to avoid visual change. Obviously I wouldn't be going 32" if I were to go that route

If you're not planning to move your monitors around from place to place a lot, you might want to consider a pair of VESA mount monitor arms. You need to get monitors equipped with VESA mounts, but that's the case with most higher-end monitors. Way back before I had kids, I spent too much on an Ergotron LX arms set. They are nice because they allow me to push the monitors to any height and aspect that I want without having to deal with the limitations of the built-in stand. I can even rotate them vertically when the urge strikes to look at things taller than wide. The arms that I have cost way more than the monitors currently attached to them, though...

So, as the monitor "physical size" goes up...do the individual LED's themselves get larger? (in the case of two monitors with the same resolution...one being...say...24" and one being 27"...etc.)

The dots per inch (dpi) or pixels per inch (ppi) metric is a product of the number of pixels across (or down) divided by the number of pixels in that direction. This metric is usually noted as "dot pitch" in the specifications for the device. For a given resolution, a larger screen will have larger pixels. Those 70" 4k HDTVs may have individual pixels on the order of millimeters across, for example, and an 800ppi smartphone has pixels on the order of hundredths of millimeters across.

There is one other trivial thing to watch out for that usually isn't a problem, but may affect text quality on Windows machines using ClearType: band order. At every pixel on a typical LCD screen there are three little color filters over the valves that go in the order red, green, blue. ClearType tries to use color perception and the assumed color ordering to make text look smoother than it would physically be (it's why you sometimes see weird color fringes on text when you zoom in on images). A few monitors on the market have their color filters in the order blue, green, red. As you might expect, this color ordering makes your text look awful with ClearType. There is a setting in Windows to reverse the ClearType band ordering or to not use ClearType at all that can help. I mention this solely in case you get one of those backwards monitors and it doesn't look nearly as good as you expect.