Is the 1920x1080 resolution normal or smaller ?

[bubra100]

I'd like to buy a new monitor . I have a 19'' monitor and now I'm looking for a 24'' . All the 24'' monitors I looked on have their maximum resolution at : 1920x1080 .
I remember some years ago I bought a monitor but I had to replace it with another because its maximum resolution lead to small letters (like on the desktop and on programs) . For example as normal I mean 1280x1024 (on a 19'' monitor) .
Therefore I'd like to ask you if the 1920x1080 resolution of 24'' monitors is the normal one or smaller the normal one ?
Also , one friend of mine showed me that through windows I can increase the size by scaling everything from 100% to 125% (througg desktop settings) . That could be useful , but I don't know if the 125% increase will compensate exactly the reduction of the 1920x1080 resolution (if of course this resolution is smaller than the normal one) .

 

[WildCard999]

1080P @24" is normal and yes you can adjust icon/text size if needed through Windows.

 

[volkgren]

As the saying goes, normal is just a setting on a washing machine. Other than that everyone's "normal" is different.

1920x1080 would be smaller (text, icons, etc.) than 1280x1024, but on a larger screen it wouldn't seem as small. So 1920x1080 on a 24" screen would seem larger than the same resolution on a 19" screen.

1920x1080 is the standard and is normal for most people using modern computers. You can always adjust the resolution to 1280x1024 in display settings if you choose to do that.

 

[bubra100]

Volkgren , I know of course that the same resolution on different size monitors look different (although the different ratio won't easily allow testing them) . However what I'd like to know is if the 1920x1080 on a 24'' monitor is smaller than the usual size .
For example 1024x768 on a 17'' monitor and 1280x1024 on a 19'' (both on 4:3 aspect ratio) look the same and normal to me (of course the term "normal" is relative , but I am refering to the usual size of text met on monitors) .

Yes , in Windows there is indeed such an setting . However - at least in Win7 - it offers only 3 options : 100& , 125% and 150% . Which I don't know if it will be enough . I mean if - for example - the reduction of size due to 1920x1080 resolution is 40% , then the 25% increase (thanks to the 125% through Windows) will not lead back to 100% .

 

[ARICH5]

press ctrl and mouse wheel up to move in small zoom increments.

 

[bubra100]

Oh , I didn't know that !
Nevertheless , this only modifies the size of the icons , not the letters too .
And something more : how do I turn it back please ? ! ! ! Because I changed the icons on the desktop , but now I don't know how to change it back !

 

[ARICH5]

ctrl mouse wheel down. it also changes the size of webpages and all text.

 

[BFG-9000]

Not everything scales correctly, but at least webpages do!

The "normalcy" measure you are referring to is pixels per inch (PPI) and when everything is left at default settings, describes the readability of the text from the font size. If you define 1280x1024 on a 19" monitor as "normal," that's 80-90ppi and you would be happy with 24"-27" 1920x1080p, 32"-36" 2560x1440p, or 48" to 55" 3840x2160p

 

[bubra100]

Thanks for the replies guys .

Now I am looking at another monitor of mine . It is 27'' (16:9 ratio) and has its resolution on its maximum value , that is : 1920x1080 .
This looks nice and - at least to me - the letters , the icons etc seem exactly at the same size like on all other monitors I have or had . That is just like on a 17'' (4:3) with 1024x768 or on a 19'' (5:4) 1280x1024 .
Now , I don't know what is the ratio on 24'' monitors . However I make this simple thought : if the 1920x1080 resolution on a 27'' monitor looks fine to me , then the same resolution on a 24'' monitor (which is what I see on the market) will simply be smaller from what I see now on my 27'' . Therefore I think that I can't proceed with the purchase ...

 

[bubra100]

In the mean time I took a look in the correspondent wikipedia article about the PPI (thanks BFG-9000 ! ) , and I started making a some calculations .
So here's what I found out :

First I made a comparison in a well known transaction , that is from my old 17’’ with 1024x768 to my (now also old) 19’’ with 1280x1024 , because I remember that the size looked perfect in both those two monitors . The modification that took place was +15% in PPI (therefore a reduction -15% in letter size) , which numerically is quite large , but still they both looked the same to me . This is important because it shows that a variation of 15% seems to be unimportant .
Next I tried to see to what extend a variation becomes significant (that is not likeable) to the eye . So I tried comparing the 19’’ 1280x1024 to the 19’’ 1024x768 . The difference was 28% in the PPI
(note by the way that all variations were calculated , for equivalenty reason , divided to the smaller number , not to the initial number ; for instance here it would be 22% instead of 28%) .
This means a reduction of -28% of the letter size . So we can say that a variation of about 30% is noticeable (and therefore unwanted) .
Now that we know how small is accepted and how large is unwanted , I went on to see what will happen if I’ll move from my 19’’ with 1280x1024 to the (new?) 24’’ 1920x1080 . There will be an increase of only 6% in PPI , meaning a reduction of only -6% on the letters . This is even smaller that the old reduction of 15% , and it seems that the transaction from the 19’’ with 1280x1024 to the 24’’ with 1920x1080 will be too small to notice .
What’s your opinion ?
And by the way , is there anyone who can confirm that this resolution of 1920x1080 looks good on a 24’’ monitor ? I mean in both gaming and working with office programs for hours .

 

[BFG-9000]

Keep in mind the exact same PPI numbers are only comparable if you sit at exactly the same distance away. I too liked 1280x1024 19" (86PPI) for years, and my example of a 4k monitor at 55" (80PPI) would appear to have larger fonts but in reality you'd sit further away from it so it ends up smaller. Even a 4k 65" monitor (68PPI) would look fine from just a couple more feet away.

BTW I was too lazy to calculate anything and resorted to an online calculator. Unfortunately it doesn't take distance into account.

I got a 2560x1600 30" monitor (101PPI) and some things are just too small because it's the same as a 20" monitor at 1600x1200. Windows scales fonts pretty inconsistently and some elements of the UI are tiny enough to make me keep wanting to sit closer to the screen than I did with my 19"--but the problem is there is a limit to how close you can get before the angles get severe enough to start distorting the far corners! It was only a 17% change but apparently once you get below a certain size font, it starts to matter.

I did get a 4k 55" OLED TV too, and think the 65" may have been better. You just can't sit that close without your eyes having to refocus all the time as you look around. It's a lot of real estate!

So I would tend to err on slightly larger pixels (anti-Retina?) just because I use Windows, and could always sit a bit further away. However as you say, 6% probably isn't noticeable if the monitor isn't too large to sit close to comfortably. I have to wonder though about people who get 24" 4k monitors (184PPI).

 

[madmatt30]

1080p @ 24 inch is very likely (100% really) the most popular home monitor setup in the world imo.

Yes , for sitting at a desk some 18-24 inches away it is pretty much the perfect resolution to size ratio.

 

[ARICH5]

i was reading your response and ill have to say that you are over thinking things here. in my opinion as we here at toms are biased toward gaming and movement of pixels at f/s you may find 1 or 2 people here that even understand what you are talking about. didnt they make a 27" crt screen with high resolution used for graphics design and CAD? i kinda remember that. they may even still sell them on specialized websites.

but i digress. are you asking a question here? or are you looking for conversation?

 

[bubra100]

ARICH5 , are referring to me ? Don't misunderstand me , but if yes I am not sure what you mean .