Hardware Bargains - Open Thine Wallet

Lupus

Lupus

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
50,971
Yuu said:
@animehero
:p

Elsys Smarty Android TV Dongle

I saw the promotional material for this device at Cash Crusaders Hermanus - it was sold out though. Price R1099,90. It is a dongle alternative with a remote for Android TV for those that do not want a box. It runs Android TV OS 9.0. The remote has a Netflix, Google Assistant , and YouTube...
mybroadband.co.za
Click to expand...
Looking at the prices of media players now, if it's netflix and DSTV now certified, R999 even for that spec is a deal
 
airborne

airborne

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
18,067
K3NS31 said:
Exactly this. I have a Dell 1440 IPS at 27" and it's awesome.
27" is too big a screen size for 1080p, but too small for 4k
(We have 27" 4k monitors at work - horrible! Tiny font. Then you turn it up and you lose the point of having high res as your screen usage is now equivalent to 1080p)

We also had those LG Ultrawides for a while - nice for gaming, rubbish for work. As you said, you lose too much vertical screen real-estate.

My rule of thumb is:
23 - 25" = 1080p
above 25", to about 30" = 2K
Above 30" = 4K
Click to expand...

What's the cheapest decent 27" 1440 IPS?

At desktop viewing distances can you still see screen pixels?

On my Dell 24" 1920 x 1200 you can see the pixels and I want to go to 27" but not see pixels aka have a retina type display, as our apple brothers aptly call it.
 
K

K3NS31

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
3,940
airborne said:
What's the cheapest decent 27" 1440 IPS?

At desktop viewing distances can you still see screen pixels?

On my Dell 24" 1920 x 1200 you can see the pixels and I want to go to 27" but not see pixels aka have a retina type display, as our apple brothers aptly call it.
Click to expand...
I'd say no, but if you're seeing pixels on a 24" @ 1920 x 1200 then your eyes are probably way more sensitive than mine.
That said, I never could find a "cheapest decent 27" 1440 IPS?"
Ended up biting the bullet and getting this, which still costs about the same as I paid 2 years later:

Takealot

www.takealot.com

Which is a professional monitor (factory calibrated and everything), so you really shouldn't be seeing pixels.
May be a bit slow for gaming if you're into that. Otherwise it's amazing.
 
Barbarian Conan

Barbarian Conan

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2017
Messages
5,075
Sl8er said:
See size comparison below:

Imagine a slightly wider 20" 16:9 monitor:

View attachment 846737
Click to expand...

Even 10 years ago, 19" was tiny.
K3NS31 said:
Exactly this. I have a Dell 1440 IPS at 27" and it's awesome.
27" is too big a screen size for 1080p, but too small for 4k
(We have 27" 4k monitors at work - horrible! Tiny font. Then you turn it up and you lose the point of having high res as your screen usage is now equivalent to 1080p)

We also had those LG Ultrawides for a while - nice for gaming, rubbish for work. As you said, you lose too much vertical screen real-estate.

My rule of thumb is:
23 - 25" = 1080p
above 25", to about 30" = 2K
Above 30" = 4K
Click to expand...

Yes, 4K at 27" is a bit small, but at 125% or 150% scaling the extra sharpness is very noticeable. I use it at 100% scaling, and while it would be better at a larger size, it's still great in my opinion.
For productivity, I wouldn't choose a 1440p 27" over 4K 27".
 
K

K3NS31

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
3,940
Barbarian Conan said:
Even 10 years ago, 19" was tiny.


Yes, 4K at 27" is a bit small, but at 125% or 150% scaling the extra sharpness is very noticeable. I use it at 100% scaling, and while it would be better at a larger size, it's still great in my opinion.
For productivity, I wouldn't choose a 1440p 27" over 4K 27".
Click to expand...
Really? I found them annoying. It felt like the 27" panel was waaay too small for that resolution.
And I hate scaling up - you're just losing screen real-estate. Eventually you're not fitting in much more than on a 2k anyway.
I should probably add that I always use 2 monitors; so giving up 2k of screen isn't such a problem cos I have a 1080p monitor next to it. So I still have "3k" to work on.
In fact, rather buy a nice 24" and a nice 2k monitor than a too small 4K would be my take away from my experiences.
Or even 2x nice 24".
 
Swa

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
31,213
Imo pixel pitch should be 0.29-0.3mm. So 24.5" is ideal for 1080p but no smaller than 24". That would make 33-34" for 1440p. Don't know if you get 48" but 4k has so much real estate in any case that you can afford to upscale. But 4k is a waste imo.
 
K

K3NS31

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
3,940
Swa said:
Imo pixel pitch should be 0.29-0.3mm. So 24.5" is ideal for 1080p but no smaller than 24". That would make 33-34" for 1440p. Don't know if you get 48" but 4k has so much real estate in any case that you can afford to upscale. But 4k is a waste imo.
Click to expand...
hm, back in the CRT days we wouldn't take anything above 0.27mm pixel pitch if looking for good image quality. 0.28 at a push. (I think the best monitor I owned back then was 0.25) Not sure if those numbers translate direcly to LCD panels tho. But my size guide compared to yours would suggest that they do.
 
Swa

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
31,213
K3NS31 said:
hm, back in the CRT days we wouldn't take anything above 0.27mm pixel pitch if looking for good image quality. 0.28 at a push. (I think the best monitor I owned back then was 0.25) Not sure if those numbers translate direcly to LCD panels tho. But my size guide compared to yours would suggest that they do.
Click to expand...
May just be my personal preference but if you're sitting the correct distance from your monitor you don't need anything less than 0.3mm and I actually quite regularly have to discern between single pixels so anything less becomes a pita. If you're just playing games it doesn't really matter but if you do any kind of graphics work you can't go smaller than 0.29.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top