The perfect monitor size for ergonomics is 24" and it should be UHD for text clarity. However, so far I only found 1 UHD monitor on the market with these specs, and it costs over 1600 eurobux (ASUS ProArt PA24US) Why is this the case? They make smart phone sized screens with great PPI, but for monitors in ergonomic sizes, it's all a big shit show

>>106160736 (OP)
Why not 27" or 32" 4k? More PPI, and screen size doesn't really matter.

>>106160772
27" and 32" 4k are progressively worse PPI than 24" 4k. Same amount of pixels spread over a larger area, means lower PPI

Screen size does matter a lot for ergonomics and it also matters for not having a huge unwieldy object on your desk

>>106160800
ah thought for some reason you were talking about wqhd, though 27" 4k is still fine desu
>Screen size does matter a lot for ergonomics and it also matters for not having a huge unwieldy object on your desk
why would a screen need to be wieldy? It just sits on the desk

>>106160823
>why would a screen need to be wieldy? It just sits on the desk

Takes up space and looks stupid

hijacking this dumb thread to ask for best 27" 4k 240hz IPS for professional (color & esp. gamma-sensitive) work

>>106160800
>>106160823
>24” 4K
Lel

>>106160851
So you just have autism

Got it

>>106161050
>>24” 4K
>Lel


24" UHD Monitor: 183 Pixels per inch
iPhone 16 Pro Max: 457 Pixels per inch

you're welcome, retard

>>106161173
I use my phone at 8-12"

I use my desktop at 24-36"

>>106161173
PPI/resolution/screen size/viewing distance are all intertwined. Without taking them ALL into account you're just being retarded.

Comparing PPI directly while ignoring the rest just makes you look incredibly stupid.

>>106161202
not my problem

>>106161216
Cool starry bra

>>106161212
so you are saying that 24" monitors are designed to be used from a further distance than 32" monitors

great logic

>>106161233
Depending on the resolution/ppi?
Yes.

A 32" screen with 150ppi should be closer than a 32" screen with 80ppi.

>>106161231
misc brah detected

https://oldmisc.com

>>106161262
therefore a 24" screen should logically have at least UHD as you want to use that closer up due to its smaller size

>>106161322
Compared to what? 24" 1080p? Sure.

>>106160800
maybe dont buy a monior with fuckhuge bezels

>>106161330
I'm saying it's fucking retarded that they don't make UHD 24" monitors, only 27" and above

>>106161366
>he doesnt know
Enjoy your backlight bleed

>>106161398
They did make them

No one bought them

you don't have higher resolutions or ppi similar to that of a phone because your hardware wouldn't keep up

>>106160800
>>106160823
screen size mostly matters for comfortable FOV in vidya. at the distance i'm sitting, anything more than 24" would be painful.

having said that, i have considered getting a 27" screen and rendering the vidya in letterbox if needed. i went out of my way to buy a 16:10 ProArt and it's fucking dogshit.

>>106161722
>. i went out of my way to buy a 16:10 ProArt and it's fucking dogshit.
full model name and details on why its dogshit? thanks

>>106161762
PA248QV
worst backlight bleed i've ever seen
is 75Hz, but the ghosting makes it effectively the same if not worse than any 60Hz, kinda like a camera having more megapixels won't fix a shitty sensor

>>106161815
>PA248QV

thanks, I considered the model I mentioned in the OP, it's expensive, shit would suck if it were trash

>>106161833
i can't comment on the higher res panels. it's likely that the 1920x1200 specifically is trash.

>>106160736 (OP)
Agreed. 3x 24" displays is peak.

>>106160736 (OP)
All they give you are 28 or 32 inch 4k displays.
At 1x scaling, everything is way too tiny, at 2x scaling, everything is comically huge, fractional scaling is unusable as usual.

>>106162189
>fractional scaling is unusable as usual
Maybe on MacOS. On Windows it works perfectly.

The concept of "fractional" scaling is stupid anyway. Most of the content on a computer doesn't have a fixed pixel size.

>>106162332
Even on Windows I keep seeing weird borders and weirdly rendered graphics everywhere when I use fractional scaling.

It's still infinitely better than on macOS, though.

>>106160772
I couldn’t put 20,000 hours of gaming on a monitor that size. My eyes are already turning into chitin.

>>106160736 (OP)
The market for monitors under 27-inch sucks dick right now. They’re all garbage-tier “budget” models.

The best option I’ve been able to find so far is to go even smaller and get a portable 4k monitor.

ViewSonic has a couple of 4k, 15.6-inch panels that look excellent. One is OLED and the other is LCD. But they’re both pretty expensive and, obviously, much smaller than a 24-inch panel.

>>106160772
>32" 4k
perfect
the answer is poverty btw

>>106162466
I wonder if it will get better. From what I can tell, the exact model I posted in the OP may be the only choice

The perfect 1080p monitor would be 20.5inch because that yields ~108 ppi which looks pristine with anti-aliasing but alas they're not making those.

>>106162476
I sure hope it does. 27-inch displays are just way too big. I don’t want to crane my neck around to see my entire display. And no one really has a desk deep enough to justify such a large display.

>>106160736 (OP)
>The perfect monitor size for ergonomics is 24"
This depends entirely on viewing distance, I'd say 24" is too small unless you're sitting very close to the screen on a tiny desk.
>Why is this the case?
Given typical viewing distance at a desk, 27" is usually the correct choice for a 4k screen.

The market doesn't care
19" used to be the goat
then it was 24"
then 27"
then 32"
They are already trying to push 40"+
They are going to keep getting bigger and the makers will make what they want and fuck the customers you will buy what they make

>>106161024
If you have to ask for a model you won't be able to afford it anyways.

>>106162494
Most people have smaller desks than you’d expect, brother.

>>106162531
That hasn't really been the case as far as I've seen. I've only seen super tiny desks with monitors very close back in school, where I guess the point was to be able to cram enough computers for an entire class in a room. Everywhere else like home desks or offices that I've worked in the "standard" monitor distance seems to be just about arm's length away, maybe like 60-70cm or thereabouts and a 24" screen at that distance is quite small and its coverage of the human cone of vision is lacking, while 27" is mostly spot-on.

>>106160736 (OP)
The bigger problem is that all panel technologies suck.
IPS, OLED, TN, VA, they all suck, each in their own way.

Also QC is terrible overall, with backlight bleeding and dead pixels and so on. It's a lottery whether you'll even get a properly working panel or not.

>>106162488
even if you had a really deep desk, and put it far away, it's not going to be the same as a smaller crisp screen closer to you, this is common sense but many people dont seem to understand it

I use a 42.5" 4k monitor at my desk.

>>106162510
Yes, in fact 24" may still not be optimal, could be 22", but I never had the chance to try. So far, 24" is the best I tried (I have an UHD 32" as daily driver, which I find too large ergonomically)

>>106161212
you know /g/ is a boomer factory right? oldbeards here still brag about using a wired 100g mouse.

>>106162959
>using a mouse with batteries and RF radiation

>>106163279
as opposed to all the other shit fuck electronics and broadcasts (some you can't control) around you?

>>106163418
Yes. That's the hill I draw the line on

>>106162488
>craning your neck for a 27" display
Are you a midget by chance

>>106160736 (OP)
Designer/architect here. I completely agree with 24" (or smaller) being ideal.

I changed to a 27" monitor at work but a year later still miss the smaller screen I had before.

For the last couple years I've come to the conclusion that bigger is not always better. You can study that up and many wrote about visual perception but it's a sense you develop with experience.

It's important to feel that your physical space is aesthetically pleasing to you and for me it just looks better with a smaller monitor.

For the exact same reason I'm considering selling my 55" oled TV because it just look silly in my living room. Of course someone with untrained eyes would find it ridiculous and I have no interest in proving them wrong.

You just gotta trust your instincts

There's a reason why 1440p sucks on a 27" If you want a 27" go 4K. Market just needs more 24" at 1440p

>>106160736 (OP)
Once I upgraded to my 32inch 1440p screen I can never go back to some thing smaller. I'm in my 30's now so my eyes are not like how they use to be.
I have messed with bigger sized screens but for desktop usage above 32inch isn't really practical. 32inch is the sweet spot. 27inch is the minimum.