Monitor 24 vs 27 16:10 Vs 16:9 using LR and CS
I need help for my new monitor.i'm not sure if buy a 24 or a 27.
I know the 27 has a dot pitch 0.233, but i think/hope this will not be a problem for me.
What would like know, which is better for use lightroom and Photoshop???
24 with his 16:10 ?? or 27 with his 16:9 ??
Thanks for your help
I bought the Dell U2413, which is a 16:10 24" screen, and it's perfect for me. While certainly a 27" screen would be nice I couldn't see spending another $400 for it. But it's really an individual decision.
Well, I wouldn't recommend a 27" unless it's 2560*1440 resolution, the 27" 1080P is a bad choice in my opinion.
If you're looking at 1440P, the alternatives are typically two 24" monitors for the price of one 27" and that's more of a usage decision. For photo editing, probably the 27" would be better, for gaming the 27" may be better if you have enough graphics card capability to drive it at 60Hz.
However, for video, the two 24" option would be better, you can run one screen as full screen preview, and the other for the tools.
If you really want to push it, you can almost get three 23" 1080P monitors for the price of a 1440P 27", so if gaming is your thing three monitors is the way to go because two monitors is useless for gaming.
Gallery at http://www.rolandwooster.com
I think it's simply a personal choice. I personally prefer a 27" over 14" and a 30" over a 27". I also prefer 16:10 to 16:9 for more vertical asset. You need to decide what you prefer yourself.
Area-wise the difference between a 24", 16:10 display and a 27", 16:9 is not that significant. For example, I calculated the actual area ratio between Dell u2713h and u2413 is almost 1.19 that is, a 27" Dell posses only %20 larger area over the 24" one. This is because the closer a rectangular monitor is to a perfect square, the more efficient is in utilizing area. Interestingly, u3014 which is a 30", 16:10 display has roughly 1.283 times more area than u2713h.
While size and area are important, one should consider other factors as well such as the quality of the display (LCD type, color space coverage, contrast, etc.). They all contribute to the overall visual impression.
In any case, with a 27" display, one still has more vertical asset even if it is 16:9 comparing to a 24", 16:10 display. So at the end, it's not a loss to choose the larger display but the price difference may not be justified for the relatively small vertical gain.
I just acquired a Dell U2713h last week and after a week, I decided to return it. It is an amazing display: images really pop up. It has easily been the best display I have ever seen with my eyes. The downside was that it made me want to go even larger to the 30", 16:10 version which is beyond my budget at the time being. I decided To save more money and eventually get the 30" one in the near future. I spend a lot of time in front of my computer monitor, so I think it is justified to want the best possible one I can afford.
27" at 1080P resolution is a very poor choice, unless you have terrible eyesight and need massive fonts. Don't go this route.
So, getting that out the way, really the choice is a 27" 16:9 1440P screen, or for the same money probably two 24" 16:10 1200P monitors. The two 24" monitors will give you 25% more pixels, and quite a lot more desktop space (because each monitor is lower PPI).
If you plan to do video editing I recommend the two monitors, that's really the best reason for two monitors, and worth it even if you do other things beyond video editing.
If you plan to game, and can stretch to three 24" monitors, that's the way to go, but otherwise, you're better off with one, as two doesn't work well at all for games.
Purely for photo editing, one is definately the way to go. You can't really use two for image editing with much benefit. Sure you can put tools, or bridge on one screen, but I don't find it much use.
Office apps, either work fine, probably one 27" is better.
I have three 24" at home, and a single 27" at work.
Gallery at http://www.rolandwooster.com