Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
One 30" or two 24"s?
- Thread starter Mott's
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No contest
Two screens gives you all of your toolbars/menus on one screen, your pics/timeline/full screen playback on the other.
2x24 gives you about 520 sq.in of real estate.
1x30 gives you about 425 sq.in of real estate.
When you're working, your pics will just be a window within the screen - the less clutter, the more picture, so the 24 combo wins.The only advantage to the 30 is on fullscreen/playback. But if you want bigger, just sit closer.
Or buy two 30s.
Two screens gives you all of your toolbars/menus on one screen, your pics/timeline/full screen playback on the other.
2x24 gives you about 520 sq.in of real estate.
1x30 gives you about 425 sq.in of real estate.
When you're working, your pics will just be a window within the screen - the less clutter, the more picture, so the 24 combo wins.The only advantage to the 30 is on fullscreen/playback. But if you want bigger, just sit closer.
Or buy two 30s.
Two 24"s, Vertical Orientation
One 30", Horizontal Orientation
You'll have the 30 as the primary monitor while the toolbars and previews are on the sides. Most efficient IMO. You won't need to crank your head around as much as two 30"s.
Granted... what I just said above is my dream setup. I currently use two 24"s.
One 30", Horizontal Orientation
You'll have the 30 as the primary monitor while the toolbars and previews are on the sides. Most efficient IMO. You won't need to crank your head around as much as two 30"s.
Granted... what I just said above is my dream setup. I currently use two 24"s.
I went from a 21" 1600x1200 and 22" 1920x1200 display to a single 30" 2560x1600 screen. Much prefer having just a single monitor. While two smaller ones give more desktop real estate, I felt having to switch between the two etc was a bit of a pain (such as cramming Photoshop controls on different screens) compared to having everything on one screen.
I have two 23's and like the configuration. Let's me space things out and snce each are on telescoping arms, I can place them how I want.
30" = 2560x1600 = 4 096 000 pixels
Dual 24" = 2x1920x1200 = 4 608 000 pixels = 12.5% more pixels
Dual 24"s are also cheaper so unless the vertical orientation annoys you, get them
Dual 24" = 2x1920x1200 = 4 608 000 pixels = 12.5% more pixels
Dual 24"s are also cheaper so unless the vertical orientation annoys you, get them
two 24" gives you a 32:10 aspect ratio, that isn't very useful especially when editing photos that usually have 4:3 or 3:2 aspect ratio. If I were you, I'll definitely buy one 30".
More video or more photo editing?
For video 2 will be more comfortable, for photo single 30" will do better. At least IMHO.
It's really up to you.
Some people prefer dual screens (of any size), others prefer larger single screen setups. I personally have a lot of trouble utilizing dual screens.
Some people prefer dual screens (of any size), others prefer larger single screen setups. I personally have a lot of trouble utilizing dual screens.
Strange setups
Vertical orientation? 32:10 ratio? Difficulty handling two screens?
I have to admit - reading some of these comments, I feel like I've tumbled down some kind of Alice in Mac-land hole. I'm a newbie here, and I can't even get my sodding printer to work properly, but I do have some cred in this area (30 years of writing/directing and sitting in edit suites).
I suggest you surf the net for some top post-prod companies advertising their services, and you'll see dozens of whizz-bang edit suites that you can use as a guideline. IMO a lot of current users have come into the game via Macbooks and iMacs, so probably see "one screen" as the default.
It's pretty hard to get something that will work perfectly for both video and stills, but there are still two common factors that influence professional suite setups... getting the menus and toolbars out of the way of your picture, and (for video) having as WIDE a screen area as possible for your timeline. Vertical orientation is counter productive. One picture spread over two screens is silly talk.
Turugara's three screen dream set-up is great (hey - more screens is always better!). So here's a thought - apart from aesthetic considerations, your screens don't have to match!
Since you're bound to have a screen or two lying around anyway, why not invest in a gorgeous 30 for photos/playback, then flank it with two also-rans for your text and palettes? After all, how beautiful does a menu need to look?
Vertical orientation? 32:10 ratio? Difficulty handling two screens?
I have to admit - reading some of these comments, I feel like I've tumbled down some kind of Alice in Mac-land hole. I'm a newbie here, and I can't even get my sodding printer to work properly, but I do have some cred in this area (30 years of writing/directing and sitting in edit suites).
I suggest you surf the net for some top post-prod companies advertising their services, and you'll see dozens of whizz-bang edit suites that you can use as a guideline. IMO a lot of current users have come into the game via Macbooks and iMacs, so probably see "one screen" as the default.
It's pretty hard to get something that will work perfectly for both video and stills, but there are still two common factors that influence professional suite setups... getting the menus and toolbars out of the way of your picture, and (for video) having as WIDE a screen area as possible for your timeline. Vertical orientation is counter productive. One picture spread over two screens is silly talk.
Turugara's three screen dream set-up is great (hey - more screens is always better!). So here's a thought - apart from aesthetic considerations, your screens don't have to match!
Since you're bound to have a screen or two lying around anyway, why not invest in a gorgeous 30 for photos/playback, then flank it with two also-rans for your text and palettes? After all, how beautiful does a menu need to look?