hi all i use cubase and my eyesight is starting to go i have had to drop a resolution (1024x768) this makes cubase and vst plugins big but most buttons off screen and i have to scroll a lot. My current monitor is 19" and i was thinking of getting a 24" wide screen (1920x1080) would this help or will icons and buttons be smaller or could i drop to a lower resolution but have more screen estate compared to the 19 ". what size monitors are most useful for cubase
Not to sound cheeky or flipent but surely better glasses and a big HD screen is the way to go!
Hi bigmalh64 - I’m assuming, like me, you’ve tried new specs etc. but I’ve had to “go big” in the monitor stakes and bought two 27" flat screens, the modern ones are crystal clear and bright. I suffer from macular degeneration and I reckon the bigger monitor has bought me another couple of years of Cubase
For my “office” computer I use a 34" HDMI LCD television, big and clear but the resolution is limited - when I tried using it with Cubase I found a couple of my plugin guis wouldn’t fit on the screen.
At least the prices are coming down! Good luck.
I would recommend a 1920x1200 over the 1920x1080. I find the resolution @ 1080 hard to read (its like everything is ‘smashed’. Samsung still makes this monitor… see here:
I also recommend seeing your eye doctor about some “computer glasses”. I’ve had computer glasses for the last few years and couldn’t live without them, they are wonderful.
Can you run two monitors? I run two 19" widescreens (1440x900). The GUI is a great size for long sessions and can fit lots of channels on either monitor (project window on one screen, mixer on the other). And 19" screens are way cheap these days - a dual set-up would probably only set you back a couple hundred bucks or so. Not bad for 2880 or more of horizontal pixel real estate!
In order to see things on a 1920x1080 screen as big as they are on your 19" at 1024x768, you would have to buy at least a 27". On the positive side, those monitors are now very very cheap (not to mention much lighter than they used to be) and you can pick one up for as little as $200 shipped (ebay, newegg etc.)
That’s very, very untrue what you’re saying here.
An LCD monitor (unlike the old CRT monitors) have a native resolution. If you use that resolution (either 1920x1080 or 1920x1200, or whatever resolutation is native), it won’t look smashed.
Chosing 1920x1200 over 1920x1080 just means you have 120 pixels more vertically.
If you have a ‘smashed font’, it’s most likely because you use another resolution on that same screen. It works, but it’s not how it should work.
CRT had not strict pixels, LCD has those.
Having said that, if you have trouble seeing, you should not buy a bigger monitor with a bigger resolution, because everything will stay the same. You can just see ‘more’ on the screen. For example: more lanes. But each lane will have the same font, no matter the displaysize. It all depends on the resolution.
So if you have problems with eyesight, try a bigger monitor, but not a bigger resolution. And if you do find a bigger monitor, always make sure, you set it at 50% of the pixels or something like that. So for an 1920x1200 monitor, set it to 980x600, not to 1024x768. Then it WILL be smashed
Not untrue at all… @1920x1080 everything is noticeably smaller (maybe “smashed” wasn’t the best choice of words). I have both monitors and run them at native resolution. I think the difference is huge… ymmv.
Smaller/larger has nothing to do with resolution alone, it depends on the size of the screen. 1920x1080 on a Surface 2/Pro/Pro 2 (10" screen) produces icons and folders so small, they’re very hard to use unless enlarged in windows (150% or even 200%.) On the other hand, 1920x1080 on a 40" tv screen produces some fairly big icons. So, the resolution alone means nothing.
Both screens are 24" (one @1920x1200 and one @ 1920x1080) and the difference is very noticable.
You folks can pick this apart all you want. I’m outta here.
If they are the same size, then the one with the lower resolution should display larger icons/text. Not by much though, since the difference is only 120 pixels on the vertical. If that doesn’t happen, it’s because one might be sharper than the other, or the higher-resolution screen is not properly calibrated.
Two issues really:
Size of pixels.
Closely related to pixel pitch, which will be in the monitor specs or can be calculated from resolution and screen size.
If you want to see things clearly with non-scalable programs, like Cubase, where size is directly proportional to pixel pitch, you need to:
a) Run the monitor at native resolution.
Otherwise clarity is dependent upon the scaling quality, and it really only works when the pixel pitch is much smaller than the font size.
b) Make the pixel pitch larger.
Number of pixels. (Resolution)
Again, for non-scalable programs, more pixels means more information can be seen. It needs to be able to completely display the largest dialog box you will use, otherwise you will be forever frustrated trying to get to off-screen controls!
Best solution: Use a large 4K TV! I am looking at using a 55" Samsung 4K (looks fantastic with a 4K Cubase/RX3 screen-grab I made), making the number of pixels the same as my two Dell 30"s, but in one contiguous space. To get the same pixel pitch as the Dells (0.25mm), the 4K TV size would have to be 45", so the 55" increases the pixel pitch by 22%.
A 4K 32" has far too small a pixel pitch for non-scalable programs. They are more for photography and imagery.
Thanks for all the answers and opinions i will borrow a 24" monitor i can’t really go any bigger due to desk space i only have glasses for reading and don’t like to wear them for too long as i will become dependent on them and i feel my eyes will worsen if i keep them on for long cubase sessions (i’m hoping to drop the resolution on the 24" monitor to the next one down from 1920 and with the bigger screen size 24 instead of 19 i’ll get more real estate ( screen estate ? ) thanks again for all replies Bigmalh