Would buying a 27" Apple display be a waste if i use 1280x1024?

Discussion in 'Mac Accessories' started by maf2k8, May 7, 2011.

  1. maf2k8 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2009
    #1
    1280x1024 ( stretched ) is the current res. i use on my 27" imac and its perfect. ( my vision is not all that great )

    1024x768 is what i use on my 15" 2011 Macbook pro and it works great.

    I am looking to get a external monitor for my MBP and was curious if dropping a 1,000 on a 27" ACD is pointless since i dont use that high of a res.?

    i LOVE the crisp, bright display on my iMac and would like the same in a monitor for my macbook pro but i dont need something that has such a high res. since i will be setting it to around 1280x1024.

    I was thinking about picking up a LED TV, but i think the pixels would stick out more viewing it that close?

    I am still confused about high resolutions on monitors.. I understand that the higher you can set it, the more screen real estate you get... but then again, its makes everything WAYYY to small ( even if you increase fonts and icons, certain things remain tiny ) and i not a fan of using ZOOM features that zoom in on only partaker areas...

    So due to my bad vision, i like a BIG display with a res around 1280x1024

    So with that said, What would be a good monitor for me? I prefer LED ( seems a lot more brighter and crisp to me ) and i would prefer a 27"...

    I just dont want to buy a corvette if all i do is drive to the corner store, ya know?

    I dont do photo editing or anything like that.. I just use the basics with my MBP ( garageband, iPhoto, etc ) and at times ( esp. for garage band and running plugins ) having a 2nd display would be nice.
     
  2. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    That would be a total waste of money. There are 27" displays out there with 1920x1080 for less than half the price of the Cinema. Since you're reducing the resolution anyway, there is no point in buying a high res display.

    BTW: LED displays are not necessarily brighter than CCFL displays, in fact the older CCFL backlit Cinemas were brighter than the current LED one.
    The display being crisp, now that I can't understand as all displays will show a blurred image if you don't use the native or a quarter of the native resolution.
    The 27" iMac or Cinema display are crisp on either 2560x1440 or 1280x720.
    Please don't use the stretching function, it definitely results in a blurred image.

    Have you considered a 32" TV with 1920x1080? Gives you more real estate and considering the physical size, the 1920x1080 gives you the same DPI as 1280x1024 on 27". Both have 60 DPI.
     
  3. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #3
    Excellent suggestion
     
  4. maf2k8 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2009
    #4
    I was thinking about getting a nice 32" LED TV as a monitor... Would the screen be really pixelated though when viewing text? ( 32" 1080p set )
     
  5. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    Since the DPI is the same, the text would be just as big and "pixelated" as on your current screen.
    The only difference is that the text will be much sharper because you'd use the native resolution.
     
  6. peskaa macrumors 68020

    peskaa

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Location:
    London, UK
  7. Fishrrman macrumors G4

    Fishrrman

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    #7
    Both Samsung and LG offer 27" monitors that have native resolutions of 1280x1024.

    The overall effect is the same image you would see at "standard resolution" on a 24" monitor, just "enlarged" due to the larger size of the pixels.

    You can see what's available at either amazon.com or newegg.com -- just search for 27" displays. Both LG and Samsung have 27" computer monitors with tv tuners built right in. They can be used as either a standard monitor or a tv screen (I would guess you could hook these up to an external Blu-ray player, as well).

    I'm getting older and have problems viewing the latest-generation displays with high resolution. For older folks and those who's vision isn't perfect, a lower-resolution screen is much more usable. The young whippersnappers simply can't understand this, and they won't until they're over 50.

    As someone above mentioned, you'd be wasting your money by buying an Apple 27" display and using it at a _lower than native_ setting. Save the money and get a 27" display with 1280x1024 as its _native_ resolution.
     
  8. flynz4 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #8
    Normally I would not recommend using a TV as a computer monitor. Since you have vision limitations... you should at least try it out. I think the advice above is sound.

    It would be easy to check it out and see for yourself. Between yourself, friend, neighbor, family... someone must have one you could test. If not, go to a video store with your laptop and check it out there.

    Good luck.

    /Jim
     

Share This Page