New monitor suggestions
retiretomaui
Posts: 392
I'm thinking of getting a new monitor to hook up to my laptop. as nice as it is, I can't read the little tabs and callouts in Daz, and I'd like something with higher resolution and screen size. I'd like to go at least 21 inches, preferably 27. What should I be looking for? Any particular technology or features? I haven't bought a new monitor in over a decade so I'm admittedly out of the loop. Now that I'm doing more rendering in Daz and 3D CAD work, using both solid modelers and NURBS - based programs, I really want to have something larger and brighter. As I'll be buying a Ryzen-based desktop rig within a year I'd also like to have this new monitor to use with that.
Many thanks,
bob
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2026 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Something like this: http://www.microcenter.com/product/467994/K272HUL_27_WQHD_LED_Display_Monitor
(I have one paired with a 27" AOC 1080p monitor. Makes a nice dual monitor setup.)
I've been using 27 inch Asus Pro Arts for a long time. They have excellent color reproduction and 99% of the Adobe RGB spectrum. I take the color accuracy for granted until I look at another monitor. I have two of older 1920 x 1200 models. This link is for the newer 1440p model:
https://www.asus.com/us/Commercial-Monitors/PA279Q/
I print a lot of my work so the color accuracy is important to me. If that's not something you need, you could probably save a hundred bucks or so on an equivalent model without "Pro" in its name.
@hphoenix is that 1080p or 1440P?
Greetings,
I bought one of these Dell 4K 27" monitors and I like it a lot. The thing is that a lot of the 4K monitors have...trouble with color representation. This one doesn't, and that's why I was willing to fork over for it. I find that color representation matters more to me than almost anything else. (Sidebar: This is why I can't stand the modern lightbulbs; their Color Rendering Index is awful, so colors feel off to me. I fill my house with Halogen and incandescent light because of that, relegating LED and _shudder_ CFL bulbs to closets and outdoor walkways and places like those.)
I have a coworker who picked up an inexpensive 32" 4K monitor, and swears by it, but even he admits the color isn't great. It's good enough for his use, though, which is mainly programming and web browsing.
-- Morgan
@JCThomas - The one I linked to is a 1440p and is only $300.
@CypherFOX - 4k monitors at 27" diagonal size aren't really worth it. Unless you are literally sitting with your face less than 24" from the monitor, you won't be able to see any difference with a 1440p. 4k is best at 32" or more, depending on how far you have the monitor from your viewpoint. I use a 40" 4k monitor for my gaming/3D work, but I work with my view about 24" to 32" from it. Even at that distance, it's often difficult to see the increased resolution compared to 1440p.
At over 48" from my 4k, you can't really tell the difference from a very good 1080p. The eye only has about a 1-arcminute resolution (about 0.02°), so as you get further from the screen, the screen has to get bigger for your eye to actually see the increased resolution.
So, for my 40" (36" horizontal) 4k screen, that's 0.009375" per pixel horizontally (36"/3840pixels). At a distance of 36" away, that makes each pixel take up around 0.015° of angular size. That's too small for the human eye to resolve. At a distance of 32", it's 0.017°....closer. Close enough it starts to have visual benefit. At 24" away, it's 0.0224°....Now you can make out the individual pixels.
And at 48" away, my 36" wide screen has pixels that are only 0.0112° wide. That's almost HALF what the eye can resolve. No better than a 1080p at that distance.
So a 27" 4k screen? That's only 0.00625" per pixel horizontally (based on a horizontal distance of about 24"). At a distance of 24" away, a pixel is 0.0149°. There's a slight benefit, but you can't really see the difference from a 1440p. At 18" away, a pixel would be 0.0199°, and now you can make out the resolution (barely, with perfect vision).
So it really depends on the screen size and how far you normally work from the screen as to whether or not a 4k will really benefit you.
(edit: Had done the calcs with 27" as the horizontal size, which is actually the diagonal. Went back and re-did them with a more correct value.)
Thanks for everyones' input! Two final questions for rendering work...
- LCD or LED?
- Curved of flat screen? I must admit, I'm becoming more and mre enamored of the curved screens, yet I honestly can't tell you why. Perhaps it's just the looks.
LED is the newer tech. Curved or flat, falls into preference mostly.
I love the 4K screen, although even with 27" you may go back to small fonts for apps that don't support proper DPI scaling. There are so many options out there, you should shop around for what YOU want. There's also the Ultra Wide format gaining popularity, and if you aren't going to hook up a 2nd monitor make sense for more real estate for side by side windows, etc.
I use 3 x 2560x1440.
A Dell as the main one and two cheaper Benq. I like them all, and whilst the Dell is slightly better, it wasn't worth nearly double the price.
My advice, go and look at them in use, or buy from somewhere that has an easy returns policy that doesn't want to charge you for it. Ideally try and look at something you're familiar with; take a usb with an image or two on it.
Edit:
You might find you need to upgrade your graphics card; I use a 970 to drive the three monitors and it does well; I do, however, get a slight amount of lag when I have a lot of figures in a scene, or I load up with geometry in Blender.
(I have a 980ti that I use for rendering only.)
I would try to find a 16:10 aspect ratio, if possible - most applications seem set up to benefit from height (for lists of layers, objects, and parameters) more than width so 16:9 (which is unfortunately by far the most common) can be quite awkward.
I'll second that.
Do you mean genuine LED with no backlight? LDCs normally have LED backlight (old ones may have EL or CCFL) so it can be a bit confusing.
Thanks on the aspect ratio. That's definitely something to consider. I still love my very old IBM Thinkpad (NOT that Lenovo kludge, a real IBM) for it's taller aspect ratio. Word processing on it is still easier than on a newer laptop, especially as my eyes get older and I tend to need to make everything larger to compensate. Taller helps with the drop down menus, you're absolutely right. I was thinking of one of the HP Omen monitors, or perhaps a Viewsonic. I've had great luck with both brands in the past but I'm open to anything. When this new 27-inch plus monitor is paired up with a Threadripper late this year or easly next, watch out! I may go 30/31-inch with the money from my summer gig. The big things are fast response time for gaming, good color balance, and as sharp as possible for rendering, or as sharp as necessary given what the human eye can resolve.
Greetings,
So...I respectfully disagree. I prefer using displays where the human eye cannot pick out an individual pixel. I don't value the individual pixels, it's how they work together as a whole that interests me. When individual pixels are too small for the human eye, you no longer have to worry about things like stairstepping for diagonal lines, or anti-aliasing, because it's essentially doing it naturally, and without the artifacts or performance slowdown that come in when you use anti-aliasing.
This is why my phone is a retina type display. It's why my laptop has a retina display. The ability to discern an individual pixel is nothing, next to the power of the force...wait, that went the wrong way. :)
Anyway, sub-detectable pixel sizes means that text is almost print-like in its precision, graphics show the imagery, and unless someone WANTS me to see the pixels (see: 8-bit art) all I see when I look at an illustration is the illustration.
For what it's worth, I sit 42.5" from my 4K monitor, and 26" from my non-4K monitor. Wish I could reverse that, but my main is an old iMac, and until I've got a lot more money, no way I'm replacing that with a 4K iMac. :) It also won't drive the 4K display, which is currently slaved to my Windows box.
Now...if you argue that I could have a larger display, and still have sub-detectable pixels sizes, you're probably right. But the price of good quality color rendering 4K monitors goes up _substantially_ as you even go from 27" to 32". If you want one for gaming, programming, or basic office work, it's a lot easier cheaper to find something that qualifies.
-- Morgan
Wow. "Sub-detectable pixels" and "retina displays"?
I just ran down to Best Buy and grabbed the least expensive 27" monitors. They're fine.
It's not a question of 'sub detectable pixels'.....it's a question of being able to resolve them AT ALL.
If the pixel is less than the eye's angular resolution (at a given viewing distance) then the pixels blend with the nearby ones. In other words, you aren't seeing that pixel, only the average of it with nearby pixels. Which means the detail is lost.
You won't see the 'pixel' as distinct from others until much closer to the screen, as the pixel edges are much smaller than the pixels themselves. Most people cannot tell the difference between a 4k and a 1080p from 2xHorizontal away from it, and nobody can from 3xHorizontal away. The eye just can't pick out the details. In almost every case, it's strictly a psychological effect (in blind tests, they couldn't tell accurately).
I use 3 x 2560x1440 and have been tempted to see what it's like with the main at 4k. I sit further away than I used to since I changed the desk and setup to accommodate the third monitor.
I mostly agree with CypherFOX, that I don't want to see that pixel, and whilst detail can be lost as they are too small for my eyes, others may not have that issue, and I can sit closer.
I would want to see the monitor working though, and to know I could return it without issues; it's a big investment to buy unseen (as in working).
Greetings,
We're talking past each other, I'm afraid.
This is precisely what you want. This is exactly the same effect strived for by anti-aliasing. You don't want to be able to resolve the individual pixels, you want your eye to blend the nearby pixels, as it creates a more realistic whole. The only way detail is lost is if you think the pixel itself is the detail you care about.
You describe it as a negative; I describe it as a positive. That's why I'm afraid we're talking past each other.
-- Morgan
I don't think we are talking past each other, but that something isn't getting conveyed.
If you see 4 pixels averaged together (due to them being too small to be resolved at a given distance) that is the SAME as using a monitor that has 1/4 the number of pixels. It doesn't change the clarity of the image, only that your eye cannot resolve the details.
Anti-aliasing is about high-contrast pixelation edges. It was done because at the resolutions at the time, it was needed to remove 'jaggies'. If the pixels are at the limit of the eyes resolution, anti-aliasing does NOTHING. It's done to provide smooth edges where the eye CAN resolve the sharp contrast edges.
Consider a sharp edged cube. The sides are contrasting colors. If you WANT the edges to 'blur' together, you lose that sharp-edge. Not a LOT, but it does lose that level of contrast at the boundary. If you can resolve the pixels, then it remains sharp.
Now consider a small highlight in someones eye from a distant reflection. If it 'blurs' together with the surrounding pixels, you LOSE that highlight. It gets muted. Sharp Text? They get greyish edging. It is very tricky, especially at the border of perceptibility (0.02° angular resolution) to notice the difference. But once you get to half that size, it literally makes NO difference compared to a lower resolution monitor.
For your 27" 4k monitor, at a 42.5" distance.....each pixel is (3840/25") = 0.00651" in width. At a distance of 42.5", that's 0.0088°. That's less than HALF the angular resolution of the human eye. A 1080p monitor at the same distance will look IDENTICAL (assuming same color saturation and brightness). A same-sized 1080p monitor at that same distance would have a single pixel angular size of 0.0176°. That is STILL less than the human eye can resolve. For the human eye to resolve a 1080p pixel on a 27" screen would require the view distance to be 37.3" or less. To resolve the same for 4k the view distance has to be 18.65" or less.
It would be physically impossible for the human eye to tell the difference at the distances you are describing.