Monitor formats compared

The reference table

Dimensions are those of the image, without bezels: add 1 to 2 cm in width for the frame, and the stand in height. Densities are computed from the true diagonal of the panels (23.8 inches for a “24-inch”, 31.5 for a “32-inch”).

Two columns deserve a word. The comfortable distance is the range in which the screen fills the comfortable viewing angle of its family: 40 to 53 degrees for a 16:9 screen, 44 to 60 for a 21:9, 58 to 80 for a 32:9. Closer than the first figure, you turn your head to read the edges; farther than the second, the screen is underused. The column pixels vanish from gives the distance where the density reaches 60 pixels per degree, the limit of 20/20 vision.

A format is coherent when the second distance falls inside or below the first range: its pixels are then invisible at the distance where it is comfortable. This is the case of 4K on 27 and 32 inches, and of 5K. A 27-inch 1440p screen becomes pixel-free at 80 cm, the far end of its range; a 32-inch 1440p screen only at 94 cm; a 27-inch 1080p screen would need 107 cm, where it looks small. The table thus shows at a glance which combinations of size and resolution make sense.

The formats to scale

Seen side by side, the formats reveal what their diagonals hide: an ultrawide 34-inch has the height of a 27-inch; a 49-inch has the same height again, twice as wide. Going from 27 to 32 inches gains more surface (36%) than going from 24 to 27 (28%).

Sharpness by distance

The same panel changes category with distance. If your desk gives 55 cm, only dense formats reach 60 pixels per degree; at 85 cm most do. This is why the selector asks for your desk before anything else, and why the chapters on pixel density and viewing distance open the handbook.

Scaling and workspace

The workspace column is what windows are laid out in. Formats with the same workspace show the same amount of content; they differ in sharpness. Details in resolution and scaling.