AGON by AOC Unveils the C27G2Z3 Full HD 280Hz Curved Monitor

[MacZ]

Except that you sit at a considerable distance from your TV, whereas your monitor is right in your face.

Yet the lack of detail on your TV (which is much farther as you note) doesn't bother you.

But is unacceptable for a monitor...

It makes absolutely no sense. You should be _demanding_ and paying for 8K TVs.

 

[AusWolf]

Yet the lack of detail on your TV (which is much farther as you note) doesn't bother you.

But is unacceptable for a monitor...

It makes absolutely no sense. You should be _demanding_ and paying for 8K TVs.

It's not the lack of detail that bothers me. It's the size of pixels staring me in the face. 1080p is totally fine in a 24" or smaller monitor, but not at 27".

 

[MacZ]

It's not the lack of detail that bothers me. It's the size of pixels staring me in the face.

1080p is totally fine in a 24" or smaller monitor, but not at 27".

I understand. It's like a ~11% difference. Quite earth shattering.

 

[AusWolf]

I understand. It's like a ~11% difference. Quite earth shattering.

It looks like our opinions differ. Quite earth shattering.

 

[MacZ]

It looks like our opinions differ. Quite earth shattering.

It's just that I don't believe that you would be able to perceive a 11% difference in pixel size on a 27" 1080p monitor at any reasonnable viewing distance.

And that you "Yuck!" opinion is based on an intellectual assessment, not one based on reality or experience.

Mine is based on the fact that I have 8 such 27" 1080p monitors (because I'm poor probably or something). And I have a hard time distinguishing individual pixels on them.

Then I'm from a time when you played your games at 320x200, so tiny tiny pixels don't bother me much.

 

[AusWolf]

It's just that I don't believe that you would be able to perceive a 11% difference in pixel size on a 27" 1080p monitor at any reasonnable viewing distance.

And that you "Yuck!" opinion is based on an intellectual assessment, not one based on reality or experience.

Mine is based on the fact that I have 8 such 27" 1080p monitors (because I'm poor probably or something). And I have a hard time distinguishing individual pixels on them.

You don't notice the difference until you try something else.

I have a 24" 1080p monitor, and a 34" 3440x1440 one. One is 91 PPI, the other is 109, which doesn't sound like a massive difference, but it is quite visible. On the other hand, the first one has 8,425 pixels per square inch, but the second one has 12,030, which is almost a 50% difference.

Then I'm from a time when you played your games at 320x200, so tiny tiny pixels don't bother me much.

I am, too, and I still love playing old games at their appropriate resolutions. But I wouldn't want pixel art in modern cinematic games.

 

[MacZ]

You don't notice the difference until you try something else.

I have a 24" 1080p monitor, and a 34" 3440x1440 one. One is 91 PPI, the other is 109, which doesn't sound like a massive difference, but it is quite visible. On the other hand, the first one has 8,425 pixels per square inch, but the second one has 12,030, which is almost a 50% difference.

I know there would be a difference. But playing at 1440p or 2160p requires a GPU able to push 2 or 4 times the amount of pixels compared to 1080p. Then you need a CPU able to drive your GPU without bottlenecking, probably more RAM and a better motherboard and eventually better cooling system for this CPU. All in all, as I said elsewhere, playing at 1440p or 2160p necessitate paying extra for a premium experience.

So, please, do as you wish with your money, but the majority of the people playing games on PC (at least those who took the Steam survey) are either unable or unwilling to pay that much for what is essentially a very expensive antialiasing method. And for my part, elitism or snobism is mostly unwelcome.

 

[ARF]

But playing at 1440p or 2160p requires a GPU able to push 2 or 4 times the amount of pixels compared to 1080p.

I don't see any problem. If you take a look at the latest review and its average framerate, you will see that the relative difference between these three resolutions is not that high.

1080p at 194.9 FPS is only 27% faster than 1440p at 152.9 FPS, which is then 64% faster than 2160p's 93.1 FPS.

XFX Radeon RX 7900 XTX Magnetic Air Review

The XFX Radeon RX 7900 XTX Magnetic Air comes with user-replaceable fans that pop out without any tools. It's a fantastic solution to clean your card and to simplify RMAs. The card achieved excellent performance results in our review, and the overclocking potential is highly impressive.

www.techpowerup.com

So, 2160p doesn't require 4 times the GPU power to output the same framerate.

Yet the lack of detail on your TV (which is much farther as you note) doesn't bother you.

But is unacceptable for a monitor...

It makes absolutely no sense. You should be _demanding_ and paying for 8K TVs.

There is no "lack of detail" on that 55" TV. 2160p is always more detailed than 1080p no matter the screen size.

 

[MacZ]

I don't see any problem. If you take a look at the latest review and its average framerate, you will see that the relative difference between these three resolutions is not that high.

1080p at 194.9 FPS is only 27% faster than 1440p at 152.9 FPS, which is then 64% faster than 2160p's 93.1 FPS.

XFX Radeon RX 7900 XTX Magnetic Air Review

The XFX Radeon RX 7900 XTX Magnetic Air comes with user-replaceable fans that pop out without any tools. It's a fantastic solution to clean your card and to simplify RMAs. The card achieved excellent performance results in our review, and the overclocking potential is highly impressive.

www.techpowerup.com

So, 2160p doesn't require 4 times the GPU power to output the same framerate.

These GPUs are meant to be used at high resolutions and are inefficient at 1080p. Try using a 3050 at 2160p. Then compare the prices. That is part of the premium you pay for playing at 1440p or 2160p.

There is no "lack of detail" on that 55" TV. 2160p is always more detailed than 1080p no matter the screen size.

55" at 2160p is the same pixel density than 27" at 1080p. And you're looking at it from farther away.

 

[ARF]

55" at 2160p is the same pixel density than 27" at 1080p. And you're looking at it from farther away.

2160p is images with 8.2 megapixels, while 1080p is images with 2.07 megapixels. The pixel density doesn't play a role when you compare these two instances 55" at 2160p vs. 27" at 1080p.
For the first the normal viewing distance is 2 or 3 metres, while for the second only around 50 cm.

 

[MacZ]

2160p is images with 8.2 megapixels, while 1080p is images with 2.07 megapixels. The pixel density doesn't play a role when you compare these two instances 55" at 2160p vs. 27" at 1080p.
For the first the normal viewing distance is 2 or 3 metres, while for the second only around 50 cm.

I think it does, because a pixel sized detail you have a hard time to see on your monitor 27" will be lost on a 55" TV at reasonnable viewing distances.

At the same pixel density but at longer distances, details will be smaller. Pretty obvious.

 

[ARF]

I think it does, because a pixel sized detail you have a hard time to see on your monitor 27" will be lost on a 55" TV at reasonnable viewing distances.

At the same pixel density but at longer distances, details will be smaller. Pretty obvious.

Nope, you will see the difference as is:

 

[MacZ]

Nope, you will see the difference as is:

View attachment 352365

Can you see that the 4K and 1080p parts of the picture are the same size ?

This not what "same pixel density" means.

 

[ARF]

Can you see that the 4K and 1080p parts of the picture are the same size ?

This not what "same pixel density" means.

Same pixel density means that the individual screen pixels are equal in physical dimensions. But, at 2160p one detail will contain around 100 pixels, while at 1080p the same detail would be only 25 pixels.

 

[MacZ]

Same pixel density means that the individual screen pixels are equal in physical dimensions. But, at 2160p one detail will contain around 100 pixels, while at 1080p the same detail would be only 25 pixels.

Reductio ad absurdum, if you look at the same 55" TV from 1 mile away, it still has better detail according to you.

Which is true, but is not what I'm talking about.

Using : https://res18h39.netlify.app/calculator?ref=gtg.benabraham.net

For a 55" 2160p TV at 3 meters, I get a PPD of 167.37
For a 27" 1080p monitor at 0.5 meters, I get a PPD of 31.1

They say "When DLP displays are used, for example, the pixel structure is usually noticeable when the PPD is under 30, and it is usually not noticeable when the PPD is over 35. A PPD between 30 and 35 is borderline in that the pixel structure may or may not be noticeable."

So, apparent pixel density is better for the TV than the monitor, but as I said it's pretty hard to see individual pixels on the 1080p monitor. And if you increase the distance to 0.6 meters, you are at 36.26.

And yes, apparent pixels are much smaller on the TV (5 times smaller in one dimension), so details will be fainter.

 

[MentalAcetylide]

With the distance I prefer to sit from a monitor(around 2.5 ft) a 24" or above at 1080p probably will not look as good compared to 1440p. Unless you sit further away from the monitor, you start to see pixels at 24" with 1080p.

 

[Minus Infinity]

Yet the lack of detail on your TV (which is much farther as you note) doesn't bother you.

But is unacceptable for a monitor...

It makes absolutely no sense. You should be _demanding_ and paying for 8K TVs.

Because I'm not reading pdf documens or doing photo processing on my TV. I'm watching moving content, of course it doesn't matter anywhere as much about dpi. Even still, at 2-3m I can clearly see a large difference between 55" FHD and 55" 4K. 4K is starting to look weak on those humungus 83"+ TVs. After 77" I'd want 6K at least.

 

[Space Lynx]

@chispy was it you? or was it @Frick I can't remember who it was, but for some reason I think it was one of you two who said you get headaches because you lose out on the vertical space by going with ultrawide 3440x1440? I was wondering what did you mean by this? I was under the impression a 3440x1440 looked exactly the same as a 27" 1440p just with extra few inches on each side?

so what do you mean by the comment you lose out on vertical space? I wish I could find the original post heh... can't find it.

 

[Chrispy_]

@chispy was it you? or was it @Frick I can't remember who it was, but for some reason I think it was one of you two who said you get headaches because you lose out on the vertical space by going with ultrawide 3440x1440? I was wondering what did you mean by this? I was under the impression a 3440x1440 looked exactly the same as a 27" 1440p just with extra few inches on each side?

so what do you mean by the comment you lose out on vertical space? I wish I could find the original post heh... can't find it.

Not me.

I mentioned earlier in this thread about focal length changes and eye fatigue that people can get reading text when sitting too close to a physically wide screen. A good friend of mine is an optometrist and we talk about human vision quite a lot (she's helped me understand colourblindness a lot better over the years).

The eyestrain from a large, flat ultrawide is from your eye having to change focal length a lot because if you sit 50cm from a 34" ultrawide, the focal length of the start of a line of text is going to be about 70cm, then it's 50cm in the middle of the line of text and your eye muscles have to change the shape of your lens every single line of text you read.

As you get older, the lens gets stiffer and so your muscles need to work harder, and that's what causes the eyestrain. It's also a good idea not to regularly do this unnecessarily even when you're younger because it's additional strain on your eye muscles, and unlike your biceps which look good when they grow bigger, you don't want bulky muscles in your eye - it's super important that your eye remains the same shape and same size!

 

[Space Lynx]

Not me.

I mentioned earlier in this thread about focal length changes and eye fatigue that people can get reading text when sitting too close to a physically wide screen. A good friend of mine is an optometrist and we talk about human vision quite a lot (she's helped me understand colourblindness a lot better over the years).

The eyestrain from a large, flat ultrawide is from your eye having to change focal length a lot because if you sit 50cm from a 34" ultrawide, the focal length of the start of a line of text is going to be about 70cm, then it's 50cm in the middle of the line of text and your eye muscles have to change the shape of your lens every single line of text you read.

As you get older, the lens gets stiffer and so your muscles need to work harder, and that's what causes the eyestrain. It's also a good idea not to regularly do this unnecessarily even when you're younger because it's additional strain on your eye muscles, and unlike your biceps which look good when they grow bigger, you don't want bulky muscles in your eye - it's super important that your eye remains the same shape and same size!

i just measured and I sit exactly 35 inches from my monitor screen to my eyes, 27" 2560x1440.

i wonder what would be the perfect screen size and curve (or none) for that distance?

 

[AusWolf]

I know there would be a difference. But playing at 1440p or 2160p requires a GPU able to push 2 or 4 times the amount of pixels compared to 1080p. Then you need a CPU able to drive your GPU without bottlenecking, probably more RAM and a better motherboard and eventually better cooling system for this CPU. All in all, as I said elsewhere, playing at 1440p or 2160p necessitate paying extra for a premium experience.

So, please, do as you wish with your money, but the majority of the people playing games on PC (at least those who took the Steam survey) are either unable or unwilling to pay that much for what is essentially a very expensive antialiasing method. And for my part, elitism or snobism is mostly unwelcome.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against playing at 1080p at all! In fact, it took me years of convincing before I bought my current monitor. If it wasn't a 21:9 ultrawide, I would have probably never bought it and would still be on 1080p up to this day, as I completely agree with the "don't buy more than you need" and "higher resolution needs a more expensive GPU" sentiments.

My point is that smaller resolutions don't look particularly good at larger screen sizes. If you disagree, all the better for you.

Not me.

I mentioned earlier in this thread about focal length changes and eye fatigue that people can get reading text when sitting too close to a physically wide screen. A good friend of mine is an optometrist and we talk about human vision quite a lot (she's helped me understand colourblindness a lot better over the years).

The eyestrain from a large, flat ultrawide is from your eye having to change focal length a lot because if you sit 50cm from a 34" ultrawide, the focal length of the start of a line of text is going to be about 70cm, then it's 50cm in the middle of the line of text and your eye muscles have to change the shape of your lens every single line of text you read.

As you get older, the lens gets stiffer and so your muscles need to work harder, and that's what causes the eyestrain. It's also a good idea not to regularly do this unnecessarily even when you're younger because it's additional strain on your eye muscles, and unlike your biceps which look good when they grow bigger, you don't want bulky muscles in your eye - it's super important that your eye remains the same shape and same size!

I'm not sure how it applies to every situation. Browsing TPU in a full size window, for example, puts all the text into the middle of the screen, like it was a regular 16:9, with lots of empty space on the side.

Of course editing a Word document showing 2-3 pages side-by-side is a different story.

 

[Chrispy_]

View attachment 352400

Of course editing a Word document showing 2-3 pages side-by-side is a different story.

Why do you not split your browser tabs over two windows with that much real-estate?1720x1440p is a fantastic aspect ratio for browser windows. It's the classic 5:4 productivity aspect ratio of yesteryear.

 

[AusWolf]

Why do you not split your browser tabs over two windows with that much real-estate?1720x1440p is a fantastic aspect ratio for browser windows. It's the classic 5:4 productivity aspect ratio of yesteryear.

I could, but I rarely use multiple tabs at the same time, as I'm not a particularly good multitasker.

 

[Chrispy_]

i just measured and I sit exactly 35 inches from my monitor screen to my eyes, 27" 2560x1440.

i wonder what would be the perfect screen size and curve (or none) for that distance?

The perfect screen size is whatever you're comfy with.

PPI affects scaling and text clarity, ideally you want 96ppi because that's the correct actual size for content and it's 100% of the legacy printed media standard 96dpi that is older than you, me, and any kind of computer display ever made. Windows scaling is garbage so somewhere close to 96ppi is good for 100%, and somewhere close to 192ppi is good for 200%, use other values only if you have no choice, or if you're sitting at a very different distance to the intended "reading text sat at a desk" kind of distances.

Larger screens are akin to more screens, without the bezel interruption

People with multiple screens will universally tilt them to face themselves at their seated position without even thinking about it. In an office with several hundred people using dual or triple screens, not a single person has all their screens lined up straight.

My theory is that the ideal screen radius matches your sitting distance. This would however create some barrel distortion since curved screens are typically only curved in one axis, so the larger the discrepancy between vertical curve and horizontal curve, the worse an image looks. Given that we don't really have any dual-axis curved displays, I think the correct answer for "what's the best curve radius" is more complex but easy enough to explain:

You want the curvature to be as little as possible, whilst also ensuring that your viewing angles to the extreme edges of the display are within the gamma/brightness/contrast sweet spot of the display technology. Here's an RTINGS review of my Odyssey (VA) and you can see that colour saturation drops off a cliff at about 25-30° and brightness drops off a cliff beyond 15-20°



So for my particular display it's important that at my typical viewing distance the viewing angle of the far edges is no more than 20°. The 1000R seems to make that the case, but it seems like the edges are still almost perfectly square-on to me, so I could probably get away with a 2000R curve that would still keep the edges within the viewing-angle sweet-spot.

 

[ARF]

I'm not sure how it applies to every situation. Browsing TPU in a full size window, for example, puts all the text into the middle of the screen, like it was a regular 16:9, with lots of empty space on the side.

This is because TPU is wrongly designed for vertical, so called portrait orientation, it is targeted for smartphones use, the desktops be damned!

ideally you want 96ppi

Thanks, but no