28" monitors, just to show the real-estate this takes up/provides (compare to keyboard, 22" monitors stored in behind) the right monitor in Portrait was very handy for a price-ladder/book-trader
28", three wide, one up top ran with this for a while worked well, but I couldn't have everything I wanted displayed for scanning don't have any photos of the full setup with six 28"
I found one of the five-up with the 28" monitors that I took during a test setup. The top center monitor is sitting on a box. Note: with the angle of view with it sitting vertical, from sitting viewing height the screen is dark and the top so much so that it is unviewable. The monitors on the right are on the stand. The top monitor is rotated 180 degrees (also placing it's curved bottom bezel at the top), therefore it's angle of view is optimized downwards for viewing from sitting height!!! Not in this photo: for the full setup, the top row of monitors are rotated 180 degrees. All monitors are then fully visible from either sitting or standing. The images of the upper row are rotated 180 degrees in the display software and the result is transparent to all programs. (monitor on lower right is a new model but appears washed out as it is running on the wrong monitor profile - not calibrated yet - photo was taken during the work-in-progress)
Does anyone think that using 17-20 inch monitors is better when you are using multi monitors and stacking? The big monitors just seem to cause too much neck use when using a lot of them at the same time.
24-inch. 17-inch wide would be like going back to CRTs. I think 24-inch is a sweet spot right now. Price affordable ($150 you can have one). Resolution is high and area big enough to view comfortably. Most manufacturer-made monitor stands support multiple mons up to 24-inch. Anything above 24-inch without added resolution (higher than 1920x1080) would be to big to be useful IMO. 20-inch are also good. About 2 inches narrower in width.
Oops... I meant to say "22-inch are also good". 20-inch is a tad small. I have many monitors ranging from 22, 23 to 24.
22" and 20" have the same WSXGA resolution of 1680x1050. So, these display the same amount of stuff... just bigger on the 22". (There are also 20", UXGA, @ 1600x1200.) 24", however is WUXGA.. 1920x1200. Significant difference between 22" and 24".
Really? Didn't know that. Perhaps depending on the make/model. I have a few 22-inch: Samsang SyncMaster 2243SWX. It does support 1920x1080 resolution. Nice and compact. http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/samsung-syncmaster-2243swx-lcd/4507-3174_7-33541174.html 22-inch for a 1680x1050 is too coarse. Seems a waste.
I've not heard of any 24" monitors at other than 1920x1200 or 1920x1080. Some Samsung models, like yours, are exceptions. They also had/has a 23", I believe, with an even higher resolution. It's not 2560x1600, as is found on 30"ers, but is proportionately the same though smaller. Yes, 1680x1050 is coarse. And the only reason we have the modern widescreen resolutions (on monitors less than 1920x1200) is because of cost. People like larger monitors and cheaper. The manufacturers give it to us.