Why should I get a 24 inch if ppl tell me 22 inch looks almost as good

[antikaratekid]

I have looked through too many threads on google for too many days and still cannot find a proper answer to this.

Please, for all that is good in the world, tell me how much of a difference in image quality is there between a 22 inch 1680x1050 monitor and a 24 inch 1920x1200 monitor.

I don't want to have to shell out the cash to upkeep good FPS on a 24 inch if I am not getting a noticeable better resolution.


What do you gentlemen/Ladies think? Any experience with this question???

 

[Flakes]

get the 24, its not the image quality you should be concerned about(youll get about the same here) but the screen real estate.... if you buy the 22" you will always be wondering what the 24" would be like. Get the 24" save yourself the trouble, and enjoy gaming on it.... plus the 24" supports full HD, and the 22" does not.

 

[mactronix]

As Flakes says the 24" supports full HD, and the 22" does not. So its better for Movie playback. Thats the main reason i would opt for a 24" over a 22" but as i game more than i watch movies i would personally get a 22" as it would give my GPU better performance no's and detail/quality levels.

Mactronix

 

[jaguarskx]

If you are gonna watch HD video (1080p), then it will be reduced to 1680 x 1050 to fit on a 22" LCD monitor. Will you notice a drop in quality? Probably not, unless you have a 24" LCD monitor right next to it.

If all you are concerned about is gaming then get a 22" LCD monitor since that will put less stress on your GPU. Thus, your current card can last you longer since it will not be pushing as many pixels.

 

[johnyeah]

If you're interested, I explained some of the technical specs below albeit very generally. However, for your purpose of gaming, a decent 22" monitor will be a better option (lower resolution means less processing power needed). If you want to stay happy and ontop of things, I would suggest you to shell out for a 24" instead (since the prices are relatively low at this point in time). I use a 27.5" monitor and I'm content (I upgraded from a 22").

Strictly speaking, you're talking about a difference in resolution. Image quality, brightness, contrast, and color vibrance don't have any direct relationship with the monitor's size and resolution; these factors are really dependent on the quality of the TN panels the manufacturers use. Read critics' and users' reviews before you make your decision and it's even better if you can go find the monitor at a local retailer and check it out for yourself.

Monitor resolution and size usually correlates to the "sharpness" of an image, but that itself is also dependent on the image source. If you play a DVD disc on an 1080P capable monitor, the image will be upscaled to fit in a higher resolution (imagine enlarging a picture with Microsoft Paint). This will result in image "noises" (distortions or little square pixels). However, if you play 1080p HD content on the monitor, the image will be very sharp.

 

[johnyeah]

The simple idea is that bigger monitors need higher resolution to display the image at the same relative "sharpness." So a 22" at 1680*1050 and a 24" at 1920*1200 should display the image equally well, assuming the monitor panels are of the same quality.

 

[rangers]

i would like to know the max resolution of the human eye, if its 1680*1050, it would be pointless getting 1920*1200, does anyone know

 

[cyber_jockey]

Can anyone point me to a movie thats shot in full HD ? I'm talking about bluray HD DVD across the board. No.......?

 

[mactronix]

The simple idea is that bigger monitors need higher resolution to display the image at the same relative "sharpness." So a 22" at 1680*1050 and a 24" at 1920*1200 should display the image equally well, assuming the monitor panels are of the same quality.

Thats a good explanation but its all to do with the word "relative" The whole concept of what you have posted is solid im just posting to point out that the differance in sharpness between bigger pixel sizes is somewhat eliminated with the viewing distance increase that should be used. Thats why you should sit further back from a larger screen, if you are too close you will see th eactual pixels and that defeats the whole point.
I have a 26" screen (TV) and the reason is because my room wouldnt allow the correct viewing distance. I had to move the room around a bit for the 26" as it is.
Trust me the distance you sit from the screen makes a big differance to your experiance.

Mactronix

 

[Avenger_K]

The simple idea is that bigger monitors need higher resolution to display the image at the same relative "sharpness." So a 22" at 1680*1050 and a 24" at 1920*1200 should display the image equally well, assuming the monitor panels are of the same quality.

Almost true. The 24" has a .27 pixel pitch while the 22" only has a .282, so the 24" will display a bit of a sharper image. This is one of the main reasons I went for a 24" over a 22".

24" pros:
Sharper image quality.
Full 1080P.
More screen real estate.
Prices have fallen dramatically in the past few months.

24" Cons:
More stress on your graphics card due to higher resolution.
Still more expensive than a 22".

 

[Avenger_K]

i would like to know the max resolution of the human eye, if its 1680*1050, it would be pointless getting 1920*1200, does anyone know

Wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy higher than that: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html

The eye is not a single frame snapshot camera. It is more like a video stream. The eye moves rapidly in small angular amounts and continually updates the image in one's brain to "paint" the detail. We also have two eyes, and our brains combine the signals to increase the resolution further. We also typically move our eyes around the scene to gather more information. Because of these factors, the eye plus brain assembles a higher resolution image than possible with the number of photoreceptors in the retina. So the megapixel equivalent numbers below refer to the spatial detail in an image that would be required to show what the human eye could see when you view a scene.

Based on the above data for the resolution of the human eye, let's try a "small" example first. Consider a view in front of you that is 90 degrees by 90 degrees, like looking through an open window at a scene. The number of pixels would be
90 degrees * 60 arc-minutes/degree * 1/0.3 * 90 * 60 * 1/0.3 = 324,000,000 pixels (324 megapixels).
At any one moment, you actually do not perceive that many pixels, but your eye moves around the scene to see all the detail you want. But the human eye really sees a larger field of view, close to 180 degrees. Let's be conservative and use 120 degrees for the field of view. Then we would see
120 * 120 * 60 * 60 / (0.3 * 0.3) = 576 megapixels.
The full angle of human vision would require even more megapixels. This kind of image detail requires A large format camera to record.

EDIT: For reference, a 24" at 1920x1200 is 2.3 megapixels.

 

[Homeboy2]

Forget the 24 and get this http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=207540840

 

[rescawen]

22 if no blu ray but 24 or higher with blu ray simple as that.

22 inch i recommend samsung t220 😀

 

[antikaratekid]

Wow.

First. Thankyou so much for taking the time to give thoughtful replies.

This computer is going to be purely for gaming> Therefore, according to the general consensus, I should go for the 22 inch right?

I was actually deciding between these two 22 inch ones

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005109

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824176091

The second one is a 22 inch one but with a Pixel pitch of .252??? Wow.
But the first one is a LG with good reviews too.

 

[cyber_jockey]

22 inch is your best option. 24 will slow u down in the future games . 24 wont do you any good unless someone point me to a movie thats actually shot in full HD. So its up to the graphics to decide your monitor .

 

[Flakes]

full HD movies.....

Batman begins,
Dark Knight,
Transformers,
Wall E,
Spiderman 2,
Spiderman 3....

of course all movies are recorded higher than hidef its just the quality of the cameras that have really changed, a cinema resolution is 4x that of full HD.

 

[cyber_jockey]

Cinema has 4X full HD resolution ? Seems like four 24 inch LCD's coupled with a HD 3870x2 with crossfire disabled has the most pixels in one living room if thats possible.

 

[Flakes]

yea, thats why a cinema image looks so good on such a big screen.....sure theres artifacts but thats because the media is film...

anyway, everyone here has said go to for the 22" because your graphics card will last longer, BUT NOT ONE has asked what graphics card you actually have, i feel that if you have anything more powerfull than a 8800GTX you should get the 24" screen...

i currently use a 32" 1080p JVC Television as my computer monitor and absolutly love it :drools:

 

[pinibo]

Out of curiosity, how far back should you sit from a 24" monitor?

 

[Homeboy2]

Out of curiosity, how far back should you sit from a 24" monitor?

you are the only one that can answer that.

 

[Just_An_Engineer]

22 inch is your best option. 24 will slow u down in the future games . 24 wont do you any good unless someone point me to a movie thats actually shot in full HD. So its up to the graphics to decide your monitor .

I'd like to point out that you can easily hook a 24" monitor up to a cable box through the HDMI input and use it as an HDTV. There are several channels that broadcast at 1080 resolution.

 

[V3NOM]

...yeah but unless its a 16:9 monitor/tv, it will either STRETCH (ew.) or put black bars at the top and bottom when watching 1920x1080 (16:9 aspect ratio) content.

and besides, there are a few 22" monitors that display 1920x1080.

thats native full HD res.

imo just grab a 22" monitor, and save yourself the cost of a 4870X2 :lol:

 

[curnel_D]

Are you insane?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009145

Talk about a waste of 100 dollars. Holy crap.

 

[Liderc]

I'm using a 24'' atm and I will NEVER get a monitor smaller than it for the rest of my life.

If you've got the money, 24'' is always better.

 

[magicbullet]

I'm using a 24'' atm and I will NEVER get a monitor smaller than it for the rest of my life.

If you've got the money, 24'' is always better.

+1

I also own a 24" and I would say the same. I guess the word "almost the same" doest cut it for me.