# How far away do you sit for gaming on a 34" 3440x1440 curved monitor?



## Space Lynx (Mar 21, 2019)

Not sure where to ask this, general hardware or here... so feel free to move if you want mods.

I googled it, but I can only find calculators for standard 16:9 ratios


----------



## biffzinker (Mar 21, 2019)

A foot and half for my 27" 2560X1440 curved monitor

Edit: 31.75 cm


----------



## Devil-Walker (Mar 21, 2019)

I have a 34 curved and I sit about a foot and a half away from it.


----------



## Space Lynx (Mar 21, 2019)

Alright, thanks. I suppose that will work. I just wasn't sure if there was an actual scientific sweet spot from my eyes to the screen. I know a lot of 4K Tv's have exact measurements for this for optimal viewing, but I figured we are so niche it is really not known... I suppose it even varies with flat 34" and curved 34", I imagine that would change the number some.


----------



## Toothless (Mar 21, 2019)

Same here for the foot and a half. Leaning back to 2.5-3ft works too for racing or rpg.


----------



## FYFI13 (Mar 21, 2019)

It's always 30-40cm, despite of monitors size/resolution. That's how our desks are designed.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Mar 21, 2019)

I sit at, eyes to screen, approximately 2 feet from my 30" 2560*1600


----------



## moproblems99 (Mar 21, 2019)

Anywhere from 1.5 to 2.5 feet depending on lean.  Liking 3440x1440 for the last year.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Mar 21, 2019)

I sit about 15" away from a 32" 2560x1440.
Glad y'all are strange like me.. Just saying


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Mar 21, 2019)

I recently bought a curved monitor, my first one, but honestly after using it for a week or 2 I don't even notice it's curved any more, guess my eyes just got used to it and it does look "natural" now, don't think I could go back to a standard flat screen. On topic, I seem to be the odd one out as I'm probabl;y about 50cm out from my monitor, maybe I need to get closer to it for more immersion.


----------



## biffzinker (Mar 21, 2019)

NdMk2o1o said:


> but honestly after using it for a week or 2 I don't even notice it's curved any more, guess my eyes just got used to it and it does look "natural" now, don't think I could go back to a standard flat screen.


Four days in after unboxing I stopped noticing it. To me it looks like a straight flat screen the curve goes unnoticed unless I look at the back of the monitor.


----------



## Space Lynx (Mar 22, 2019)

no more comments needed, I just wanted to know if there was a scientific verified optimal distance. ty everyone!


----------



## biffzinker (Mar 22, 2019)

I know you said no more comments are needed but I mainly try to sit far enough away so the pixels become indistinguishable but keyboard/mouse limit how far back you can sit while accessible unless you go wireless. Console controller would be the exception being long cable or wireless.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 22, 2019)

I sit to where I can barely see the edge of the bezel. And that applies to any size of monitor or TV so the bigger the screen the further you have to sit back


----------



## biffzinker (Mar 22, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> I sit to where I can barely see the edge of the bezel


Might be time for a new monitor if you see a bezel. Current monitor only has a chin no bezel in sight.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 22, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Might be time for a new monitor if you see a bezel. Current monitor only has a chin no bezel in sight.



I prefer bezels actually, regardless if newest thing out or not, the chin can be used as a centering device


----------



## Naito (Mar 22, 2019)

Most I tend to sit around 40cm away. Currently ~42cm from 2x2 stacked 1080p monitor array...


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 22, 2019)

32" 2880x1620 : arms lentgh + ~25-30cm  (variable tho ... )



biffzinker said:


> Might be time for a new monitor if you see a bezel. Current monitor only has a chin no bezel in sight.


mine has a Bezel ... but it's a 299$ cutie ... so, easily forgivable 


Spoiler: Cutie ;)














biffzinker said:


> but keyboard/mouse limit how far back you can sit while accessible unless you go wireless. Console controller would be the exception being long cable or wireless.


or "Nerdytec Couchmaster Cycon"


----------



## biffzinker (Mar 22, 2019)

GreiverBlade said:


> 32" 2880x1620 : arms lentgh + ~25-30cm  (variable tho ... )
> 
> 
> mine has a Bezel ... but it's a 299$ cutie ... so, easily forgivable
> ...


How my monitor bezel looks:


Spoiler: No Bezel



https://www.alternate.co.uk/p/1200x...e_computer_monitor__LED_monitor@@v6lu0031.jpg



Looking at images on Duckduckgo gave me this image for my monitor?




https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/your-pc-atm.65012/post-3555871


----------



## HUSKIE (Mar 22, 2019)

Experiment yourself it depends on your experience or comfortability. Lol


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 22, 2019)

HUSKIE said:


> Experiment yourself it depends on your experience or comfortability. Lol


couldn't be more true ... 



biffzinker said:


> How my monitor bezel looks:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: No Bezel
> ...


that's a weird monitor .... oh, wait ... oh a Samsung ... luckily they do good screens/monitor


----------



## droopyRO (Mar 22, 2019)

At home, i sit about 90-100 cm from my 27". At work about 70-80 cm. That is why i will soon upgrade to a 32" 144Hz panel.


----------



## John Naylor (Mar 23, 2019)

Wow lotta folks saying a foot and a half ... I say start at 18" and experiment   You may find you get motion sickness is you sit too close.


----------



## WhiteNoise (Mar 25, 2019)

My head is about 2-2.5 feet from my 55" 4K screen (curved).


----------



## John Naylor (Mar 27, 2019)

Yikes .... viewing distance for 55" is usually recommended at 5.5’ - 12.8’  depending on where ya look.  THX folks recommend 5.5'


----------



## Vario (Mar 27, 2019)

2 Feet for a 25" 1440P.


----------



## Drone (Mar 27, 2019)

92 billion light years away


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 27, 2019)

Sit or stand as far or close so you the individual feels comfortable we are all different in respect to the quality of our vision.


----------



## biffzinker (Mar 27, 2019)

dorsetknob said:


> in respect to the quality of our vision.


Old age getting in the way again?


----------



## WhiteNoise (Mar 27, 2019)

John Naylor said:


> Yikes .... viewing distance for 55" is usually recommended at 5.5’ - 12.8’  depending on where ya look.  THX folks recommend 5.5'



Well when sitting at a desk with a large screen; 4k is the only way to go. Picture is super clean compared to sitting this close to a 1080p screen. With standard HD you need to sit further back for a better picture but on a good 4k screen? Nope...as close as you want.


----------



## SoNic67 (Mar 27, 2019)

John Naylor said:


> Yikes .... viewing distance for 55" is usually recommended at 5.5’ - 12.8’  depending on where ya look.  THX folks recommend 5.5'


12' at 4K? From that distance you are seeing only at the level of old SD resolution. You eye can resolve only 1' arc.


----------



## sneekypeet (Mar 27, 2019)

39 inches from my 43" 4K. I will say though, it used to be a 40 inch 1080p here before, and my eyes thank me for moving to 4K at this range!


----------



## robot zombie (Mar 27, 2019)

Man, I dunno how you guys do it. I sit 2 1/2 or maybe even 3 feet from a 32" curved 1080p display. Any closer an I start to get headaches and eye fatigue. Sitting that close to a screen just makes my lower eyelids feel like they need a massage. It can't be healthy to have what is essentially a big, flat, bright rectangular lamp right in your face, with you staring at it for however long. I think about that all of the time... how we all sit and stare at a light source for prolonged periods.

I mean, I guess with a higher resolution display, you'd want to sit closer relative to size. I still can't see myself ever sitting less than 2 feet from a display any bigger than 27".

Semi-related, this is my first curved monitor and I really like it. It's subtle, but I find it significantly less tiresome to look at. Especially in games where you're often trying to look at stuff on the edges of the screen. I still don't like having a monitor take up most of my FOV. At some point it just gets disorienting.

Maybe that's why I tend to shy away from high res displays. I don't think I'd want to sit close enough to see the improvements.


----------



## biffzinker (Mar 27, 2019)

robot zombie said:


> Man, I dunno how you guys do it. I sit 2 1/2 or maybe even 3 feet from a 32" curved 1080p display. Any closer an I start to get headaches and eye fatigue. Sitting that close to a screen just makes my lower eyelids feel like they need a massage. It can't be healthy to have what is essentially a big, flat, bright rectangular lamp right in your face, with you staring at it for however long.


Last I heard it is recommended that you take frequent breaks by looking away from the screen at something/anything far away to give your eyes a way to relax.

Not picking on you in any way.

Off topic, I added more to my post over in the Turing Club.


----------



## robot zombie (Mar 27, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Last I heard it is recommended that you take frequent breaks by looking away from the screen at something/anything far away to give your eyes a way to relax.
> 
> Not picking on you in any way.


I don't take it as such.

FWIW I do take breaks... usually. 

It used to be that I would sit very close to the screen, no matter the size. And it never seemed to bother me. For years I operated like this. But over the past few it's like I just can't stand it anymore, not even for relatively short periods. I've had my eyes checked recently and my vision hasn't changed significantly. Sitting too close just seems to make me feel generally crappy and off.

Now that I think about it, there is one difference. Back then, I was a pretty heavy smoker. So if I was home for a while, frequent breaks were a given. Now that I don't smoke, I probably don't break away nearly as often.

Still, I think I'd rather not have to take as many breaks than sit closer and have to break away more often to avoid fatigue.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 27, 2019)

I am 2ft, maybe a little more away from my 29 inch widescreen, rightly or wrongly I was always told that too close equals increased risk of eyesight deterioration but I can't remember if that was for close or intermediate sight range   Because I am old I get better focus at that range, maybe because when I was younger I sat too close


----------



## Gasaraki (Mar 27, 2019)

I sit about 2 feet away.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 27, 2019)

I run from curved gaming monitors...  sorry I can't be of more help, heh.


----------



## biffzinker (Mar 27, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> I run from curved gaming monitors...  sorry I can't be of more help, heh.


What curve? My monitor doesn't have anything noticeable at least nothing I can make out in front. 





It's not that bad.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 27, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> What curve? My monitor doesn't have anything noticeable at least nothing I can make out in front.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's not a rational fear.  I just dislike change.  If I had to give you a real reason it would be price and that I like what I have.  It's hard to priceout something you already own.


----------



## advanced3 (Apr 1, 2019)

WhiteNoise said:


> My head is about 2-2.5 feet from my 55" 4K screen (curved).



Your future optometrist is gonna make a fortune off of you. How can you even sit that close and not have to be turning your head all the time.

I sit about 2' from my 34" 3440 x 1440 monitor.


----------



## overvolted (Apr 1, 2019)

About 2.5-3 feet here.


----------



## WhiteNoise (Apr 6, 2019)

advanced3 said:


> Your future optometrist is gonna make a fortune off of you. How can you even sit that close and not have to be turning your head all the time.
> 
> I sit about 2' from my 34" 3440 x 1440 monitor.



Dude...you sound like my Mom in the 70's lol. "Now Chucky ...don't sit so close to the TV yer gonna go blind!" -Mom

Eyes still working great at 46 years old!

As for turning my head....naw I just move my eyes. No issues at all.

I will admit that my eyes do have to move a lot which we all know can cause eye strain, fatigue and all that but honestly I'm used to it and I like the large 4k screen but 55" is my limit. It is right at that point of being almost too big....almost.

I started off {when I started using TV's for a monitor) with a 37" LCD TV then some years later moved up to a 42" Samsung then a 46" Sony before landing on this 55" Samsung. It was an adjustment but I got used to it. I have one of those quantum dot curved Samsungs and it is glorious.


----------



## theonek (Apr 6, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> It's not a rational fear.  I just dislike change.  If I had to give you a real reason it would be price and that I like what I have.  It's hard to priceout something you already own.



hehe, me personally have the same thoughts about curved design especially of monitors, TV's were more acceptable idea then. But when you get used with this design, you won't look at flat monitors any more. As it says - once you get curved, never go back to flat


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 6, 2019)

For my 24 inch EIZO its about an arm's length away.

When I gamed on a 32 inch TV (PC gaming) I was about a meter away.

Sitting too close I feel hurts my gaming too, its harder to keep focus that way. Similarly, too far it becomes hard to resolve the detail. This is also why I'm stuck at 1080p. For this display size / view distance its the perfect match on a desk. I've tried alternatives, but its always a hassle. The only real alternative I found somewhat of an improvement is 25 inch @ 1440p. But if I upgrade this monitor, it will probably be 27 @ 1440p. Going 4K won't happen here anytime soon, its a pointless exercise to me of increasing cost only to force myself to place the screen further away, while having to scale up things to be able to read comfortably.

I've also found that your eyes (and brain) really get accustomed to a specific PPI (Pixels per inch). It takes some real getting used to a higher resolution to me.



Tatty_One said:


> I am 2ft, maybe a little more away from my 29 inch widescreen, rightly or wrongly I was always told that too close equals increased risk of eyesight deterioration but I can't remember if that was for close or intermediate sight range   Because I am old I get better focus at that range, maybe because when I was younger I sat too close



Too close deteriorates close sight range I believe. I'm already noticing that at the end of a days' work... When I then try to read text off my Iphone SE (pretty small screen), I have _real trouble_ keeping focus. At some point I literally can't read from it.

These days I force myself to look away from the computer screen every once in a while and consciously focus on distant objects out of the window. It really helps, I feel the eye strain drop immediately. This is also what is recommended in these situations, along with 15 minutes of nonscreen time for every 2 hours of work.



robot zombie said:


> Man, I dunno how you guys do it. I sit 2 1/2 or maybe even 3 feet from a 32" curved 1080p display. Any closer an I start to get headaches and eye fatigue. Sitting that close to a screen just makes my lower eyelids feel like they need a massage. It can't be healthy to have what is essentially a big, flat, bright rectangular lamp right in your face, with you staring at it for however long. I think about that all of the time... how we all sit and stare at a light source for prolonged periods.
> 
> I mean, I guess with a higher resolution display, you'd want to sit closer relative to size. I still can't see myself ever sitting less than 2 feet from a display any bigger than 27".
> 
> ...



I totally feel you. The lamp idea though... its not so much the lamp its the distance to it and the way our eyes work. See example above.

What I do feel is problematic is the 'lamp' getting so very bright. With HDR1000... there is just no way this is healthy for prolonged use. When I see how people generally set their monitors, too, I'm amazed to see 100/100 brightness and oversaturation everywhere. The average TV of a living room... utterly horribly wrong. Office PC's... dreadful. When you unbox a monitor and plug it in, the first thing that happens is getting blinded because factory default is 100% brightness. That is twice as bright as you'd generally need.


----------



## Roddey (Apr 6, 2019)

I have a curved 3440x1440 monitor. With glasses on 2 feet, with glasses off about 4 feet and a lot of zoom for text. Nice to be able to put the glasses down and move away from the screen. Went from a 27 inch to a 34 for that reason.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 6, 2019)

WhiteNoise said:


> Dude...you sound like my Mom in the 70's lol. "Now Chucky ...don't sit so close to the TV yer gonna go blind!" -Mom
> 
> Eyes still working great at 46 years old!
> 
> ...



Wow, you should count yourself lucky then! I'm curious. How long is your usual session of computer use? And how many hours do you sit behind the screen per week, give or take?


----------



## WhiteNoise (Apr 8, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Wow, you should count yourself lucky then! I'm curious. How long is your usual session of computer use? And how many hours do you sit behind the screen per week, give or take?



Well I'm in management so I sit behind dual 24" screens at work. I get up a lot but guessing I would say 6 out of 8 hours at work (M-F)
after work I go home and do family stuff until the wife and kids hit the sack at 830pm at which time I head to my game room and play games until midnight-1am. Then during the weekend I get in another 16 hours easily, unless we are going out then maybe half that. So yeah... I look at a monitor a lot. lol


----------



## AvrageGamr (Apr 8, 2019)

For gaming, I like to sit just outside the range where I can see the pixels no matter the screen size. I use a 40 inch 4k now and sit 18 inches away. Had a 37 inch 1080p and had to sit 6 feet away to not see the pixels.


----------



## John Naylor (Apr 9, 2019)

WhiteNoise said:


> Well when sitting at a desk with a large screen; 4k is the only way to go. Picture is super clean compared to sitting this close to a 1080p screen. With standard HD you need to sit further back for a better picture but on a good 4k screen? Nope...as close as you want.



Depends on what you are willing to settle for  ...  unfortunately once ya get used to 100+ fps gaming w/ 10 bit color w/ ULMB, there's no going back.  

To my mind (and eyes), 4k still isn't ready for prime time .... a)  If it ain't 165 hz, IPS w/ ULMB, I'm not buying   b)  Perhaps the nVidia 3xxx series will have enough juice to get up over 120 fps in AAA gaming w/ 16 GB of RAM but we ainit there yet c)  There's only a single IPS panel that can do 3840×2160 resolution and can reach a 144 Hz refresh rate (AU Optronics’ M270QAN02.2 AHVA panel) but that requires overclocking .  There's only two monitors on the market that can do that.  

ROG Swift PG27UQ - $1899
Acer X270 bmiiphzx - $1699

I'm not ready to spend that kinda dough and a $1500 GFX card to go along with it especially when they can't do ULMB .  Lag is also a bit higher than I'd like @ 8.14 ... response time is 5.3.  Note ... those are real test measurements not the baloney (4.0 response time) that manufacturers put on their spec sheets.

Until then, I'd rather stick with the Acer XB271HU @ 1440p, 165 Hz playing at 120 fps with 10 bit color and no motion blur.

Right now, here's how 4k fares in TPUs Gaming test Suite (pretty sure I missed 1 or 2 when scrolling thru snd trying toremeber in my head)

> 120 fps (4) games
< 120 fps (6)
< 90 fps (8)
< 60 fps (4)

There are 4 games where one could use ULMB @ 120 fps
There are 6 games where one could use ULMB @ 100 fps
There are 6 games where one would be relegated to G-Sync
There are 8 games between 60 and 90 fps where it's is a tossup as to what would give the better user experience.

At 1440p.....
There are 15 games where one could use ULMB @ 120 fps
There are 4 games where one could use ULMB @ 100 fps
There are 0 games where one would be relegated to G-Sync
There are 2 games between 60 and 90 fps where it's is a tossup as to what would give the better user experience.


----------



## Hwddewt (Apr 9, 2019)

Let's not forget a little thing called "*pixel density*".  
I am on a vanilla 24" 1080 x 1920 monitor that I view from about 24"(60cm) away.  If I were to go 4k, and aware that a 4k screen is essentially four 1080 x 1920 screens in one.  I would need to halve my viewing distance on a 24" monitor, or double the screen size to 48" to get the same viewing experience at 2ft away.
As for curvature.  I find myself actually wishing even my smallish 24" screen had some.


----------



## Roddey (Apr 9, 2019)

34" 3440x1440 curved monitor browser screenshot with zooming for the old eyes. Games are great too. I can zoom a lot without seeing any pixels. Other things like file manager I better grab the glasses.


----------



## biffzinker (Apr 9, 2019)

Roddey said:


> 34" 3440x1440 curved monitor browser screenshot with zooming for the old eyes. Games are great too. I can zoom a lot without seeing any pixels. Other things like file manager I better grab the glasses.
> View attachment 120645


Your post and screenshot look the same on this Note9 (6.4 inch' 2960x1440.)


----------



## Hwddewt (Apr 9, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> A foot and half for my 27" 2560X1440 curved monitor
> 
> Edit: 31.75 cm


Makes sense for a 27" QHD monitor.  The 34" 21:9 ultrawide of the original poster is probably about same dot pitch(actual pixel size) as your 16:9.  Therefore wouldn't the ideal viewing distance for a 34" 21:9 3440x1440 curved display would be nearly exactly the same as a 27" 16:9 2560x1440 curved display since they both follow the QHD resolution standard? 

SD = 480p
HD = 720p
FHD=1080p
QHD=1440p
4K = 2160p


----------



## Roddey (Apr 9, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Your post and screenshot look the same on this Note9 (6.4 inch' 2960x1440.)


I was wandering how the screenshot would look on different size screens. I assure you, on a 34 inch monitor it looks huge!


----------



## biffzinker (Apr 9, 2019)

Roddey said:


> I was wandering how the screenshot would look on different size screens. I assure you, on a 34 inch monitor it looks huge!


How's this look?


----------



## WhiteNoise (Apr 9, 2019)

John Naylor said:


> *Depends on what you are willing to settle for  ...*  unfortunately once ya get used to 100+ fps gaming w/ 10 bit color w/ ULMB, there's no going back.
> 
> To my mind (and eyes), 4k still isn't ready for prime time .... .



I think that statement is the most correct one so far! I like 4k and I too use 10bit plus HDR. I have settled for less fps because sitting this close to anything but a 4k at this size is no longer good enough for me. 

I have played with some crazy good gaming monitors with g-synch and awesome refresh rates and I agree it is awesome. I'm happy with 60 fps though and most games play 60+ fps at 4k no problem and some games don't but I can live with that. My GTX 1080 Ti does a fine job at 4K...fine enough that I feel ok about it. With time it will get better and better though.


----------



## Roddey (Apr 9, 2019)

Hwddewt said:


> Makes sense for a 27" QHD monitor.  The 34" 21:9 ultrawide of the original poster is probably about same dot pitch(actual pixel size) as your 16:9.  Therefore wouldn't the ideal viewing distance for a 34" 21:9 3440x1440 curved display would be nearly exactly the same as a 27" 16:9 2560x1440 curved display since they both follow the QHD resolution standard?
> 
> SD = 480p
> HD = 720p
> ...


Your right I think. It is just some extra width. I sit in the same distance. Just some more screen in the peripheral vision area.



biffzinker said:


> How's this look?
> View attachment 120657


Its even larger text than I posted. I could read it from across a 20 foot room easily.


----------



## biffzinker (Apr 9, 2019)

Roddey said:


> Its even larger text than I posted. I could read it from across a 20 foot room easily.


If only I could get the pixel density on this 27" with the 2560x1440 resolution. Like the sharp well defined text on my smartphone panel.


----------



## Roddey (Apr 9, 2019)

Roddey said:


> Your right I think. It is just some extra width. I sit in the same distance. Just some more screen in the peripheral vision area.
> 
> 
> Its even larger text than I posted. I could read it from across a 20 foot room easily.


My vision deterioration is near vision though, far vision is holding up. That will go next. Miss the 20/20 for sure.



biffzinker said:


> If only I could get the pixel density on this 27" with the 2560x1440 resolution. Like the sharp well defined text on my smartphone panel.


Some day, I waited for almost 30 years to get this resolution in a widescreen.



Roddey said:


> My vision deterioration is near vision though, far vision is holding up. That will go next. Miss the 20/20 for sure.
> 
> 
> Some day, I waited for almost 30 years to get this resolution in a widescreen.


Sorry to be such a Danny downer


----------



## Hwddewt (Apr 23, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> If only I could get the pixel density on this 27" with the 2560x1440 resolution. Like the sharp well defined text on my smartphone panel.


Try this: take the total area of your 27" monitor(H*W) and divide by the total area of your phone screen.  Multiply the result by 3,686,400(pixel count on a 1440x2560 display).  This number represents the pixel count of a hypothetical 27" display with the same sharp pixel density(>500dpi) of a QHD smartphone display.   My 5.7" 1440x2560 smartphone screen has an insane 560dpi!  More detail in every square inch than the SD television standard of last century(640x480)
Now consider this number somewhere around 75-100 million is roughly equal to 10x that displayed on a 4K screen...
One can only imagine the tremendous GPU it would require to push the equivalent of TEN 4K screens!
Applying this formula with my 24" 1080p monitor I came up with "only" about 65 million.  
But what a wonder to behold a 27" screen where one would need a microscope to find jaggies...


----------

