Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

tightsocks · Jan 16, 2007, 07:56 PM

Okay, so my eyesight is getting kinda bad and I'm also looking at getting a bigger monitor.
Currently using 15" Titanium PB @ 1280x854.

I can't afford a decent 22" monitor and I don't think that a 19" widescreen @ 1400x900 will be noticeably larger than the 15" laptop screen.

So, I'm looking at 20 inchers...

On which one of these will text seem larger, the 1400x1050?

20" 4:3 @ 1400x1050

20' WS @ 1680x1050

In addition to having bad eyes, I'm not that smart, so I don't really understand the resolution vs. size thing. I mean , I have a 20" CRT television and I'm pretty sure that it has a 'bigger' screen than the 20" 4:3 LCD monitors that I have seen in the stores...

megasad · Jan 16, 2007, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by tightsocks

Okay, so my eyesight is getting kinda bad and I'm also looking at getting a bigger monitor.
Currently using 15" Titanium PB @ 1280x854.

I can't afford a decent 22" monitor and I don't think that a 19" widescreen @ 1400x900 will be noticeably larger than the 15" laptop screen.

So, I'm looking at 20 inchers...

On which one of these will text seem larger, the 1400x1050?

20" 4:3 @ 1400x1050

20' WS @ 1680x1050

In addition to having bad eyes, I'm not that smart, so I don't really understand the resolution vs. size thing. I mean , I have a 20" CRT television and I'm pretty sure that it has a 'bigger' screen than the 20" 4:3 LCD monitors that I have seen in the stores...

Text will appear much larger on the 1440x1050 20" display (~89ppi) compared to the 1680x1050 20.1" display (~99ppi). The fewer pixels there are in an inch, the larger the pixels must therefore necessarily be. Therefore, as far as reading text is concerned, the lower the number of pixels per inch, the better.

Your current PowerBook's resolution is ~101ppi, so going to the 1680x1050 20.1" for improved reading would be a complete waste of time; the pixels are almost exactly the same size, so text will be just as tiny as on your PowerBook. The 1440x1050 20", on the other hand, makes perfect sense.

The only thing better, so long as you don't need those extra pixels either side of the screen, would be a 1280x1024 19" display (~86ppi), which are usually much cheaper than the widescreen displays, but obviously that's down to the deals you find.

tightsocks · Jan 16, 2007, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by megasad

Text will appear much larger on the 1440x1050 20" display (~89ppi) compared to the 1680x1050 20.1" display (~99ppi). The fewer pixels there are in an inch, the larger the pixels must therefore necessarily be. Therefore, as far as reading text is concerned, the lower the number of pixels per inch, the better.

Your current PowerBook's resolution is ~101ppi, so going to the 1680x1050 20.1" for improved reading would be a complete waste of time; the pixels are almost exactly the same size, so text will be just as tiny as on your PowerBook.

This is very helpful megasad!

How do you arrive at the ppi figures, is it some sort of division of the resolution divided by the screen size?

slpdLoad · Jan 16, 2007, 08:51 PM

Looking at the problem from a different angle, you may or may not know that you can press ⌘+ and ⌘- to increase and decrease the text size in a lot of OS X applications. It should work in whatever browser you're reading this post in right now.

MichiganRich · Jan 16, 2007, 08:57 PM

If being easy on your eyes is actually a concern, get serious. I have a 30-something friend who is having trouble earning a living with his enviable (to me) Mac skills because of ongoing eye issues, so take care of your health!

The 19" choice that megasad mentioned is one serious choice for a big-ish display that would go easy on your eyes. I like the Dell UltraSharp displays across the board, they represent excellent value when on sale. The 1907FP would be a great buy right now.

My 64-year-old mom is currently using the Dell 1901FP I bought like 5 years ago as a serious splurge to myself. It has been bulletproof and still looks great (DVI, which was premium and rare at the time). She can't get over how much easier it is for her to read stuff on her machine as opposed to her friend's computers.

Just my two cents.

tightsocks · Jan 16, 2007, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by slpdLoad

Looking at the problem from a different angle, you may or may not know that you can press ⌘+ and ⌘- to increase and decrease the text size in a lot of OS X applications. It should work in whatever browser you're reading this post in right now.

Yup, I do this frequently in Safari.

megasad · Jan 16, 2007, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by tightsocks

How do you arrive at the ppi figures, is it some sort of division of the resolution divided by the screen size?

Using the Pythagorean theorem, for example:

√((1680*1680)+(1050*1050)) = ~1981.14

That gives you the diagonal length of the screen in pixels, and then simply dividing that by the diagonal length in inches will give you the value of ppi.

~1981.14 / 20.1 = ~98.56

When I was looking to buy a display back in July of last year, I used this to work out the best screen for me; people who like to look at images / movies on their display would prefer a higher resolution, people like I and MichiganRich's friend, with the powerful bad eyesight, we like the low resolution. Hopefully one day we will be able to have 300ppi displays for print quality work, but only once the UI actually behaves properly.

tightsocks · Jan 17, 2007, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by megasad

Using the Pythagorean theorem

Wow.

Originally Posted by megasad

people who like to look at images / movies on their display would prefer a higher resolution, people like I and MichiganRich's friend, with the powerful bad eyesight, we like the low resolution.

I don't do graphics design or photo editing (beyond a bit of cropping and auto-enhancement in iPhoto) but I would like my new monitor to also make photos look 'bigger' than they currently do on my 15" 1280x854.
For example, currently I have a bunch of photos that are about 683x1024 and when displayed full screen they are shown at about 78% of their size (532x802). Ideally a new monitor would allow them to be shown at at least 100% of their size.

I suppose these two requirements (larger text/lower resolution) and larger photo display are opposites, right...?

megasad · Jan 17, 2007, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by tightsocks

Wow.

Maths I learnt in school is actually useful for day-to-day life? Hoo-hah!

Originally Posted by tightsocks

I don't do graphics design or photo editing (beyond a bit of cropping and auto-enhancement in iPhoto) but I would like my new monitor to also make photos look 'bigger' than they currently do on my 15" 1280x854.

So long as you get a monitor with a lower ppi value than your PowerBook's current ~101ppi, then the images will appear 'bigger'. A 1280x1024 19" display (~86ppi) will make them the biggest possible for any LCD display that I know of.

Originally Posted by tightsocks

For example, currently I have a bunch of photos that are about 683x1024 and when displayed full screen they are shown at about 78% of their size (532x802). Ideally a new monitor would allow them to be shown at at least 100% of their size.

I'm slightly confused; what software are you using to display the photos full screen? Since your display is 854 pixels high, does it not use that full height, and so display them as 560x854?

Regardless, either the 1440x1050 20" display you linked to, or any 1280x1024 19" display, has enough vertical pixels to display photos of those original dimensions with no scaling down whatsoever, 1:1, and if you wanted, the 20" would even let you scale it slightly larger, to 700x1050 (though this would entail slight pixelisation and I wouldn't bother for just an extra 26 pixels).

Originally Posted by tightsocks

I suppose these two requirements (larger text/lower resolution) and larger photo display are opposites, right...?

Nope, wanting larger text and larger photos is one and the same thing; you want bigger pixels, so get a display with the lowest pixel density possible.

tightsocks · Jan 17, 2007, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by megasad

I'm slightly confused; what software are you using to display the photos full screen? Since your display is 854 pixels high, does it not use that full height, and so display them as 560x854?

I lied. It's not full screen. 20 pixels for the menu bar and another 20 for the title bar plus a couple more = 'almost full screen' I think the numbers work out then, right?

Originally Posted by megasad

Nope, wanting larger text and larger photos is one and the same thing; you want bigger pixels, so get a display with the lowest pixel density possible.

Cool!

I used your amazing formula on a 22" widescreen 1680x1050 and I got a ppi of about 90 which is basically the same as the 89ppi from the 1400x1050 20" 4:3.

That would mean larger text PLUS more screen real estate right? So, maybe I will try to swing a 22" deal after all...

megasad · Jan 17, 2007, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by tightsocks

I lied. It's not full screen. 20 pixels for the menu bar and another 20 for the title bar plus a couple more = 'almost full screen' I think the numbers work out then, right?

In that case, none of the displays so far would let you view the image at 1:1, though obviously they'd be pretty close. If you do ever want to view images in actual full screen, I would recommend Xee over Preview.

MichiganRich · Jan 17, 2007, 11:34 PM

I think that 22" widescreen at 1680x1050 would be a great choice for you. The Mac user interface is becoming more and more widescreen-based in my opinion, and apps and things just look great in wide format (like GarageBand in particular, and iPhoto and others as well). I'm currently using a 20" wide 1680x1050, and if it was physically just a touch larger with the same number of pixels, I think it would be great for all-purpose use and quite easy on the eyes. You would also feel like you treated yourself right and got something of value for longer, as opposed to feeling like you maybe 'settled' for something.

IceEnclosure · Jan 18, 2007, 10:10 AM

1680x1050 on a 22" for OP.

1680x1050 on a 20" for me.

tightsocks · Jan 18, 2007, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by MichiganRich

You would also feel like you treated yourself right and got something of value for longer, as opposed to feeling like you maybe 'settled' for something.

I am terrible at making purchasing decisions... I have never in my life experienced the sense of satisfaction that you describe...

What is likely to happen is that I would end up getting a cheap 22" and then feel like I 'settled' for something...

tightsocks · Jan 24, 2007, 08:53 PM

Oh, I just wanted to ask one other monitor related question...
Is refresh rate an issue with LCD monitors connected via DVI?
You know how CRTs would flicker if they has a refresh rate of 60Hz...?

Would that be a spec to watch out for?
It seems like most of the specs for refresh rates of LCDS are listed as ranges (i.e 60-75Hz) as opposed to the way they were listed for CRTS (i.e 1024x768 at 60Hz).

Thanks again.

mduell · Jan 25, 2007, 05:05 PM

No, LCD's don't flicker. They're not scanned like CRTs.

tightsocks · Jan 25, 2007, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

No, LCD's don't flicker. They're not scanned like CRTs.

Cool.

Okay, so on a whim today I brought home a ViewSonic VG2230wm and hooked it up to my Titanium PB G4 via DVI.

It looks quite stunning and text is readable for me from over 20inches back from the screen!

There does seem to be one rather large problem though...

When I play DVD's or even purchased iTunes video the screen goes dead after a few minutes...!

When I stop the video the screen comes back.

I see three possibilities in order of probability:
1. The ATI Mobility Radeon 9000 (64MB) in my PB can't handle this display when playing highly compressed/high bit rate video.
2. I have a bad DVI cable which manifests itself during playback of high compression/high bit rate video.
3. The monitor is bad which manifests itself only during playback of high compression/high bit rate video.

Any thoughts?

tightsocks · Feb 11, 2007, 05:41 PM

Bump.

Any thoughts on why the DVI connection goes black?

I'm still waiting for ViewSonic to sent me a new DVI cable.

Using analog for now with no apparent problems.

mduell · Feb 11, 2007, 06:37 PM

Playing a DVD these days is trivial. Sure, it was a big deal back in the 200Mhz days, but we're well past that.

I don't think it has anything to do with the cable. If you can see your desktop over the cable, you should be able to see video over the cable.

tightsocks · Feb 11, 2007, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

Playing a DVD these days is trivial. Sure, it was a big deal back in the 200Mhz days, but we're well past that.

I don't think it has anything to do with the cable. If you can see your desktop over the cable, you should be able to see video over the cable.

So, you think the monitor is DOA?

mduell · Feb 11, 2007, 07:32 PM

No, it sounds like a software issue.

Are you sure it isn't just your Mac going to sleep? I missed the "after a few minutes" part of your post the first time.

tightsocks · Feb 11, 2007, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

No, it sounds like a software issue.
Are you sure it isn't just your Mac going to sleep? I missed the "after a few minutes" part of your post the first time.

I am sure that neither the displays nor the machine are falling asleep.

It only happens to the display when playing a high compression or high bandwidth file. The entire screen goes black. If I stop the video playback then the screen comes back to life after a few seconds. Note that the second display (built-in PowerBook screen stays on)

It's almost as if the graphics card/DVI port is shutting down under stress