Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Pool: What Monitor size do U have?!

Pool: What Monitor size do U have?!

  • 13"

    Votes: 2 2.9%

  • 15"

    Votes: 2 2.9%

  • 17"`

    Votes: 13 18.6%

  • 20" +

    Votes: 38 54.3%

  • 30"

    Votes: 17 24.3%
  • Total voters
    70
Ketch Rossi

Ketch Rossi

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
15,041
Reaction score
9
Points
38
Location
Sardinia, Italy
Website
www.afroditefilms.com
Hey guys, a pool to get an idea of the Monitor size the you guys are using.

I did few researches as to determine the right size of images and Movie clips to post, here and on my NEW Web site, granted I like to give the viewers the largest possible images and movie clips, as I don't like dinky stuff my self.

I know that you can have different size choice, but I still like to have an idea to better fit the needs of the viewers when visiting my web pages.

So thanks for your answers and input that you share here.

ciao
 
2x 24" But I wouldn't consider anything smaller than 24". Even 24" is too small. 2k plates don't quite fit onto a 24" monitor and 1080 footage leaves no space for UI.

I would go with a 30" ACD or Dell and have been eyeing a 24" DreamColor myself. Curran what's your impression? Is it worth it?
 
I think it is worth the $2k. And I haven't even seen it working in 10-bit mode.

Totally even LED backlighting on mine and zero dead pixels.

Even in 8-bit mode, the DreamColor makes it easy for anyone to get a perfect score in the color IQ test. And the Xrite software works great to calibrate with the APS.

http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=77
 
Ketch, I think that's not the best place to research.

Otherwise you are going to determine a default size based on a group of people that often looks for larger and larger monitors.

Is your web site directed to this audience? If it is... Then fine.
 
30"

30"

If you want to watch anything at 2K, 30 inches is definitely the way to go. I've got a 30" Samsung 305T, and I've been very happy with it. It's no DreamColor (add that to the list of stocking stuffers), but when calibrated properly it's color reproduction is fantastic.

And being able to view 2K media with room to spare is amazing! It's part of my DIT station, and every D.P. I've worked with has been nothing but impressed.

Plus, when you pull out a 30" monitor, people take notice!
 
I have an callibrated 24" HP 2475w (non-dreamcolor), but I would buy a 30" if they weren't that expensive..

Regards, Matt
 
Thank you every one again, for continuing to post, much appreciated.



Pietro Impagliazzo said:
Ketch, I think that's not the best place to research.

Otherwise you are going to determine a default size based on a group of people that often looks for larger and larger monitors.

Is your web site directed to this audience? If it is... Then fine.
Click to expand...


Thanks Pietro,

even so my web will be to the generalized viewer, my most important sections, are those of Cinema, videos in general, related to Trailers, Previews, behind the scenes, and so on, and off course Photography, for which I already have done and extensive research.

So I wanted to get an idea from REDUSER'S fellows what size monitors they are on, not to make a general assessment based exclusively on the few votes answers I get here, but to have a good base from were to start.


I'm usually very annoyed and pushed away from very dinky web sites, and especially those that have no chance of viewing full screen Motion or still images, so I want to make sure I don't ever do that, while also offering the best possible viewing experience to my visitors.

Btw, I use 30" Apple Cinema Displays, and awaiting the release of the 30" LED brothers, as it will be hard to scale down my working station to the 24", but I do believe that the LED screens are way better, I have a proof with my new MBP 17".


ciao
 
Hi Ketch,

Just to throw something in from a different perspective.

I'm a professional web designer and we tend to aim for specific, standard sizes, both to make designing easier, and to help with usability.

Old trends dictated that we had to aim for a screen resolution of 800x600. The actual design would be limited to a width of 766px (due to the browser chrome / UI).

As larger LCD's are now more prominent, we tend to aim for the larger 1024x768 resolution, but use a limited width of 960px.

This is because 960 divides nicely into grids of 3 or 4 columns.

This all relates to fixed width sites, its also possible to have a liquid, or elastic layout which scales to fill a users screen regardless of resolution.

The key idea when designing a good site, is not to pick one size / layout to fit your audience, as everybody uses different screens, resolutions, browsers etc.

So you generalise to make sure everybody (or as many users as possible) have a good user experience.

I understand you are aiming for people watching video, and from experience, it's best to offer a smaller version / player with a clear option to make it 'full screen' or better yet, allow them to download a version (QT, WMV, MP4, OGV) and view it in the player of choice, on their own terms.

If you pick any one path / type, you've just limited your audience, less people will see your stuff.

Even amongst proffesionals of a certain type (graphics designers, video editors) you'll find such a wide variety of usage, it makes any attempt at targeting useless IMHO.

So don't be afraid to stick with a smaller standard, it's good practice and works.

You'd be amazed how agressive and fussy web users and content consumers we all are. So if you make it easy on people, and make a site as usable as possible, any site will have a greater audience and response.

Just my .02 worth.

Mikey
 
Mike Hadfield said:
Hi Ketch,

Just to throw something in from a different perspective.

I'm a professional web designer and we tend to aim for specific, standard sizes, both to make designing easier, and to help with usability.

Old trends dictated that we had to aim for a screen resolution of 800x600. The actual design would be limited to a width of 766px (due to the browser chrome / UI).

As larger LCD's are now more prominent, we tend to aim for the larger 1024x768 resolution, but use a limited width of 960px.

This is because 960 divides nicely into grids of 3 or 4 columns.

This all relates to fixed width sites, its also possible to have a liquid, or elastic layout which scales to fill a users screen regardless of resolution.

The key idea when designing a good site, is not to pick one size / layout to fit your audience, as everybody uses different screens, resolutions, browsers etc.

So you generalise to make sure everybody (or as many users as possible) have a good user experience.

I understand you are aiming for people watching video, and from experience, it's best to offer a smaller version / player with a clear option to make it 'full screen' or better yet, allow them to download a version (QT, WMV, MP4, OGV) and view it in the player of choice, on their own terms.

If you pick any one path / type, you've just limited your audience, less people will see your stuff.

Even amongst proffesionals of a certain type (graphics designers, video editors) you'll find such a wide variety of usage, it makes any attempt at targeting useless IMHO.

So don't be afraid to stick with a smaller standard, it's good practice and works.

You'd be amazed how agressive and fussy web users and content consumers we all are. So if you make it easy on people, and make a site as usable as possible, any site will have a greater audience and response.

Just my .02 worth.

Mikey
Click to expand...


Well Mikey,

I thank you for your much appreciated input, this is why I post>

Yes you are right, and for this I'm intensively researching, not just here, so to ultimately provide with the best viewers experience, and I sure like your point of view, which is something I treasure as opinion, especially when coming form some one in the dedicated field of web designing.

I have had countless meetings and spent money left and right in order to create experience and get to a point of been able to design a great web site for my company, but has gotten me no were, and this is why I now research my self and started designing my own site.

Again thanks for your great input on this.

ciao
 
2 x 30" for me. I'd love to dump this setup in favor of a single 4K display though. I'm using Dell 3007WFP displays and I find I like them better and not just for the price difference. Overall, they're almost identical and they use the same LG panel that Apple is using.

For my primary desktop display, I would never consider anything with lower resolution. Getting used to this and then trying to work on a 24" just feels so cramped. And like Gavin points out, 2K doesn't fit and that's a real problem now that most current workstations can chew through 2K footage without breaking a sweat.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
2 x 30" for me. I'd love to dump this setup in favor of a single 4K display though. I'm using Dell 3007WFP displays and I find I like them better and not just for the price difference. Overall, they're almost identical and they use the same LG panel that Apple is using.

For my primary desktop display, I would never consider anything with lower resolution. Getting used to this and then trying to work on a 24" just feels so cramped. And like Gavin points out, 2K doesn't fit and that's a real problem now that most current workstations can chew through 2K footage without breaking a sweat.
Click to expand...


Definitely agree with you on the 30" Jeff, is so unfortunate that the MBP can only have in off to get only one hooked up.

ciao
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top