I have the 42 Inch LG C2 and want something smaller

[ManofGod]

Ok guys, I am asking for your opinions before I move forward with any purchases. For starters, I bought the LG C2 42 inch TV and have been using it as a monitor on my PC since last December of 2022. I do not dislike it but, I have found that I barely game anymore and in fact, I have only gamed maybe 20ish hours in the last 10 months, give or take. I have found that if I can sell it, I can get $700 for it and then pick up a decent VA panel 32 inch monitor. However, I am not certain if that is such as good idea, in the long run but, I just hate having spent the money on the LG and then not having really used it in a way that made it worth buying.

I will not buy an IPS display, since I hate the IPS glow. What do you guys think, just keep what I have and accept it or go with something smaller? Maybe you guys can recommend a smaller monitor other than what I suggested above?

Edit: That and I want a Display Port so that Linux would support VRR with my 6800XT.

 

[Carlyle2020]

It is a "bucket list" monitor.
Your kind of usage even helps to prolong its life.

And after OLED any VA should look twice as worse.

Combine that with you initial willingness to buy that pricey LG i suppose you will replace it with something inbetween 400 and 460:

like:
Dell S3422DWG
HP Omen 34c
Dell S3221QS
Asus Tuf gaming VG34VQL1B
LG 32GP850-B
Dell S3222DGM
AOC CU34G2X
LG32GN600-B

How much money is the increase in visual degradation worth to you?
So i propose that you see any purchase in person before you buy.

Still, after that TV anything else will smell like barnyard

 

[improwise]

Why not an IPS with Mini LED / FALD then, there are few good options in the 32" category like Acer X32.

 

[ManofGod]

Ok, I have decided to keep the LG, I tried a couple other monitors and they just did not cut it. That said, I still find it to be to big, even when I am sitting 30 inches from it, from my face to the monitor. What do you guys suggest I do to get it further back, since I cannot mount it to my glass desk?

 

[LukeTbk]

- Wall mount
- Standing mount if no wall right behind
- thin, same width and height desk at the back of your current one (ikea adjustable height leg type of setup) to make it deeper (or a bit higher-lower if you want the monitor at a certain height)
-expensive heavy duty monitor arm

 

[jbltecnicspro]

Ok, I have decided to keep the LG, I tried a couple other monitors and they just did not cut it. That said, I still find it to be to big, even when I am sitting 30 inches from it, from my face to the monitor. What do you guys suggest I do to get it further back, since I cannot mount it to my glass desk?

There are smaller monitors coming out that are OLED soon-ish. Yeah, how many times have we said that over the years right? Except I do believe that next year will indeed have 32 inchers.

 

[LukeTbk]

Maybe not that much smaller but the alienware widescreen oled or a competitor with a similar panel, the feeling of too big could more the height than width of the monitor.

The AW34 is:
. Height : 364.15 mm (14.34 in.) | 2. Width: 815.25 mm (32.10 in.) | 3. Depth: 127.11 mm (5.0 in.)| Weight without stand: 6.27 kg (13.82 lbs.)

https://www.dell.com/en-au/shop/ali... (extended): 525.57 mm,815.25 mm (32.10 in.)|

A 42 inch tv would be around

37.8 x 24.1 x 8.6

 

[ManofGod]

Maybe not that much smaller but the alienware widescreen oled or a competitor with a similar panel, the feeling of too big could more the height than width of the monitor.

The AW34 is:
. Height : 364.15 mm (14.34 in.) | 2. Width: 815.25 mm (32.10 in.) | 3. Depth: 127.11 mm (5.0 in.)| Weight without stand: 6.27 kg (13.82 lbs.)

https://www.dell.com/en-au/shop/alienware-34-curved-qd-oled-gaming-monitor-aw3423dwf/apd/210-bfsb/monitors-monitor-accessories#:~:text=Dimensions with stand&text=Height (extended): 525.57 mm,815.25 mm (32.10 in.)|

A 42 inch tv would be around

37.8 x 24.1 x 8.6

I think you are right and it is the height.

 

[xDiVolatilX]

42 is damn near perfect. You are probably overthinking it and just enjoy it. If you wanna brighter HDR I would say look at mini led. You seem content though.

 

[sethk]

The 32” 240hz 4k OLEDs should start shipping next year if you can hold on for a bit but I expect they will be more expensive than the 42” “TV” models.

 

[ManofGod]

42 is damn near perfect. You are probably overthinking it and just enjoy it. If you wanna brighter HDR I would say look at mini led. You seem content though.

Well, at least enabling the HDR Module to on helps with brightness. Windows in HDR mode just does not reproduce colors as well and SDR mode with the HDR Module on.

 

[Deleted member 312202]

I used to use an LG CX 48" which I found to be to large, the went with the LG C2 42" which I find to be perfect. I sit back about 34 inches from the monitor and have no issues. OP you did the best thing keeping the C2.

 

[Mad Maxx]

I think 42"/43" is the sweet spot for desktop monitors. I tried the Alienware 3821 and Corsair 45WQHD but missed the vertical screen real estate too much. As others have suggested, miniLED can get extremely bright compared to OLED. I'm thrilled with my 43" QN90B.

 

[xDiVolatilX]

I think 42"/43" is the sweet spot for desktop monitors. I tried the Alienware 3821 and Corsair 45WQHD but missed the vertical screen real estate too much. As others have suggested, miniLED can get extremely bright compared to OLED. I'm thrilled with my 43" QN90B.

How is your QN90B 43"? I have the 50" QN90B for my PC room (and a 50" QN90A in the den) and want to stay at 50" for sure, absolutely love and cherish mine but curious about your overall impressions of the 43"?

 

[Mad Maxx]

How is your QN90B 43"? I have the 50" QN90B for my PC room (and a 50" QN90A in the den) and want to stay at 50" for sure, absolutely love and cherish mine but curious about your overall impressions of the 43"?

Love it! It replaced a 43" Q60R 60Hz that I used since 2019. The difference in brightness/sharpness was pretty strong. Gaming is sweet at 144Hz, too. It doesn't have the deep space inky blacks of OLED, but I'll take the bright vivid picture quality along with ZERO possibility of burn-in every time.

 

[elvn]

Ok, I have decided to keep the LG, I tried a couple other monitors and they just did not cut it. That said, I still find it to be to big, even when I am sitting 30 inches from it, from my face to the monitor. What do you guys suggest I do to get it further back, since I cannot mount it to my glass desk?

I agree with the people who said if going with a gaming tv that - if you have the room - gaming tvs decoupled from the peripherals desk, set up on a floor stand (or set back on a different mount) is a good option. The kind of small profile rail spine tv stands with a flat foot or caster wheels typically go for something around $85 usd to $150usd plus or minus, depending on the model and features. Wall mounts are good too but give you zero wiggle room or modularity.

Sitting up close to larger 4k screens gets you pixel sizes more like what you perceive with a 1440p - 1500p desktop size screen. That exacerbates text fringing of the non-standard WRGB or pentile OLED supixel layout vs. what text sub-sampling methods we have available currently. Also affects perceived fringe size/aliasing of graphics with the larger perceived pixel sizes, perceived size of occasional fringe artifacts from DLSS+frame gen, and the perceived pixel sizes of 2d desktop's graphics and imagery which typically get no sub-sampling or aliasing at all to mask how large the pixels actually appear. The closer you sit the more of the screen gets pushed outside of your 60 to 50 degree central human viewing angle too which is not optimal for seeing the periphery and it also causes some quality issues the more off axis the pixels are on the sides.



================================================================================================================


........................

https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/

..At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 8k screen of any size gets around 127 to 154 PPD

..At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 4k screen of any size gets around 64 to 77 PPD

..At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 2560x1440 screen of any size gets only 43 PPD to 51 PPD

..At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 1920x1080 screen of any size gets only 32 PPD to 39 PPD

Optimal viewing angle foundation vs. distortion, non-uniformity, and human central viewing angle's scope on a flat screen:

sitting nearer compromises picture quality due to off-axis pixels at the sides,, lowers, ppd, and can also induce eye fatigue depending on what you are doing.

This is in regard to curved screens:

the nearer you sit than the center point of any curved screen, the more off-axis the pixels farther from center of the screen will be from you since they are pointed at the center point which is then farther behind you. This will cause uniformity issues almost like a gradient to the far ends and corners as the pixels farther away are more and more off-axis from you. It also causes/exacerbates geometry~distortion issues, even on the 2d desktop/apps.

............................................................

Screen dimensions vs center point of curvature:

1000R = 1000mm = ~ 40"

Pixels on axis to the viewing position dot at the center of curvature.
At the nearer dot viewing position, pixels farther from center become more and more off-axis as they are pointed at the farther dot, the center of the curvature.

. . .

 

[tongshadow]

42" is awful for FPS gaming, and I say this as an owner. If you're looking for higher performance (240hz and above) there's no choice but to get a proper monitor.
Next's year OLED monitors are exciting, so wait for them.

 

[elvn]

Some of the proper FALD LCD monitors apparently lock the overdrive into extreme when using VRR though and that induces input lag. Might be something innate to having FALD + VRR active in general, not certain. Most people are trying to squeeze graphics eye candy out of their screens so use VRR (and FALD), especially on higher rez, 4k and higher, screens.

Higher fpshz is not a 1:1 relationship to online latent gaming servers' processing and their delivered biased (in different ways depending on the coding) interpolated results either, though it is marketed as if it is. LAN gaming, LAN competitions, and testing on a lan or locally vs bots is a different animal. In fact for example, it's been related in articles that CS:go players have to recalibrate/adjust to how they play when they play on a LAN because the dynamics are so different.

Higher fpsHZ like 240fpshz, provided the fps at max, will reduce your FoV movement blur of the entire game world (during mouse looking, movement-keying, controller panning) by 1/2 compared to 120fpsHz at max though which is a nice improvement aesthetically (and might help a tiny bit competitively, identifying/aiming at targets with a little less blur during FoV movement at speed).

 

[MistaSparkul]

42" is awful for FPS gaming, and I say this as an owner. If you're looking for higher performance (240hz and above) there's no choice but to get a proper monitor.
Next's year OLED monitors are exciting, so wait for them.

The 4K 240Hz OLEDs next year should definitely be end game for the foreseeable future. The only issue I see with those is that the HDR performance might be a little bit lacking, only 400 nits on a 10% window is very lackluster. Heck my CX will do 750 nits at 10% and my 32M2V does over 1000 so HDR might actually feel like a downgrade on those new QD OLED. Besides that though, I can see myself finally using just a single display for everything ranging from single player RPGs to sweaty online shooters.

 

[xDiVolatilX]

42" is awful for FPS gaming, and I say this as an owner. If you're looking for higher performance (240hz and above) there's no choice but to get a proper monitor.
Next's year OLED monitors are exciting, so wait for them.

This is a subjective opinion. "Awful" means nothing to me.
I play competitive fps at 600fps with vsync off on a 144hz 50" mini led and thrive.
It's basically pointless for me to spend any more money on anything faster. My performance will not get any better as a player and the visual quality will be negligible even if it is native 240hz vs a 144hz.
I can go get a 500hz for gaming monitor right now. I could have years ago. Will I? Hell no!!! I'd rather have a combination of size and good gaming combined.
I'll never have another display less than 50" for desktop or gaming. The size is luxurious and would never compromise it.

 

[tongshadow]

This is a subjective opinion. "Awful" means nothing to me.
I play competitive fps at 600fps with vsync off on a 144hz 50" mini led and thrive.

I respect your preferences, but it's not ideal. A smaller screen is more suitable because of your field of vision, in competitive shooters you need to see the whole screen without moving your eyes too much.
No serious player would recommend a large screen for anyone who wants to compete in shooters.

 

[xDiVolatilX]

I respect your preferences, but it's not ideal. A smaller screen is more suitable because of your field of vision, in competitive shooters you need to see the whole screen without moving your eyes too much.
No serious player would recommend a large screen for anyone who wants to compete in shooters.

Maybe not for pros. But I'm a heavy fps gamer have been my whole life. I have thousands of hours maybe tens of thousands if that's what you mean by serious player? Lol I would very much dislike a small screen. Just saying lol.

 

[kasakka]

42" is awful for FPS gaming, and I say this as an owner. If you're looking for higher performance (240hz and above) there's no choice but to get a proper monitor.
Next's year OLED monitors are exciting, so wait for them.

Don't at least the LG OLEDs now have some setting that lets you shrink the screen to like 27"? Or you can add a custom resolution to any display, disable scaling and get e.g 2560x1440 which ends up being somewhere around 27-28" size.

 

[MistaSparkul]

Don't at least the LG OLEDs now have some setting that lets you shrink the screen to like 27"? Or you can add a custom resolution to any display, disable scaling and get e.g 2560x1440 which ends up being somewhere around 27-28" size.

That actually sounds like an excellent option once LG upgrades their TVs to have 240Hz. You could just run custom resolution without scaling to get either a 27" 1440p or slightly larger screen area with 1620p or 1800p resolution. I guess the only issue is that you are still sitting at a distance appropriate for a 42" display so you would have to move your display closer/further every time you do this resolution change which could be a hassle for some.

 

[kasakka]

That actually sounds like an excellent option once LG upgrades their TVs to have 240Hz. You could just run custom resolution without scaling to get either a 27" 1440p or slightly larger screen area with 1620p or 1800p resolution. I guess the only issue is that you are still sitting at a distance appropriate for a 42" display so you would have to move your display closer/further every time you do this resolution change which could be a hassle for some.

Yeah this is the same issue as using ultrawide modes.

I'd love a 4K 240 Hz LG Flex on a monitor arm so you can bend it, move it back or closer etc.

 

[xDiVolatilX]

Yes you can throw it into ultra wide mode for a much smaller size and pixel count.
Also yes you can force it to 1440p if that's what you wish.

 

[Deleted member 312202]

42" is awful for FPS gaming, and I say this as an owner. If you're looking for higher performance (240hz and above) there's no choice but to get a proper monitor.
Next's year OLED monitors are exciting, so wait for them.

I have been using my 42" C2 in FPS with no issues. Just like everything else in this world, not everyone is going to like it, and some just do.

 

[improwise]

Don't at least the LG OLEDs now have some setting that lets you shrink the screen to like 27"? Or you can add a custom resolution to any display, disable scaling and get e.g 2560x1440 which ends up being somewhere around 27-28" size.

Have been doing this for years, surprised that so few people seem to do it, especially with OLED offering perfect blacks (kind of) so the area outside of the selected resolution is just inky black. Would never dream of playing FPS, or any game really, in fullscreen 42" on a normal desk besides perhaps some simracing or similar. Still prefer 120 hz on OLED to 240 hz on LCD.

 

[ManofGod]

Have been doing this for years, surprised that so few people seem to do it, especially with OLED offering perfect blacks (kind of) so the area outside of the selected resolution is just inky black. Would never dream of playing FPS, or any game really, in fullscreen 42" on a normal desk besides perhaps some simracing or similar. Still prefer 120 hz on OLED to 240 hz on LCD.

Care to explain how you shrink the screen to a 27 inch 1440p size?

 

[xDiVolatilX]

Care to explain how you shrink the screen to a 27 inch 1440p size?

Nvidia control panel. Force the aspect ratio to override to native and force 1440p without fit to screen. I wouldn't though nothing looks as good native resolution.

 

[xDiVolatilX]

Have been doing this for years, surprised that so few people seem to do it, especially with OLED offering perfect blacks (kind of) so the area outside of the selected resolution is just inky black. Would never dream of playing FPS, or any game really, in fullscreen 42" on a normal desk besides perhaps some simracing or similar. Still prefer 120 hz on OLED to 240 hz on LCD.

So you hate going to the movie theaters? Do you think the screen size is ridiculous and baffled at how everyone else likes it? Lol seriously though for you to say you couldn't dream of playing games on a 42 is laughable if I'm being honest. Unless you have motion sickness from the screen panning or something maybe I would understand. I mean yea you're entitled to your own preferences but to say that when who knows how many thousands of thousands of people are on big ass ultra wides and LG ç10 and c1 and 48 inch oleds maybe you are just stubborn to how amazing it looks and feels to play on a big beautiful screen? Honestly I would literally chuck a 27 out the window and not care lol

 

[elvn]

You get optimal view of screen content when it's within the central human viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees. To view the entirety of the screen within that viewing angle for larger gaming tvs, that requires decoupling the screen from the desk on a simple thin spine'd floor tv stand (flat foot or caster wheels), a wall mount (lacks modularity), or other separate surface far enough away. Assuming you have the funds, space, and the desire to do a layout for optimal viewing of a larger 4k screen.



Saying you can't play a first person shooter with the same qualitiy on a 42", 48", 55" screen because it's too big is like saying you can't play a first person shooter on a 27" screen because you chose to sit much closer than optimal to a 27" 4k screen for some reason. If you can design your viewing environment to get optimal viewing angles, any sizes of 16:9 screen of the same rez will look the same (outside of tech features like Hz, HDR capabilities, response time, etc). Talking about a screen size without including or considering the view distance is a big omission. Not everyone views a 42", 48" , 55" etc. screen up close at an "obtuse" viewing angle directly on their desk.

. . . .

Human central viewing angle is 60 to 50 degrees.

27" 4k screen at 21 inch viewing distance = 64 PPD (60 deg viewing angle)
27" 4k screen at 25 inch viewing distance = 77 PPD (50 deg viewing angle)


Nearer viewing equivalents of a 27" 4k to larger gaming TVs on a desk (desk view distance ~ 25" to 29"), apples to apples:

27" 4k screen at 16 inch viewing distance = 53 PPD (at 73 deg viewing angle)
27" 4k screen at 19 inch viewing distance is = 60 PPD (at 64 deg viewing angle) <----- good PPD and within a few degrees of optimal viewing angle

42" 4k screen at 25 inch viewing distance (desk-like distance) = 53 PPD (at 73 deg viewing angle)
42" 4k screen at 29 inch viewing distance (desk-like distance) = 60 PPD (at 64 deg viewing angle) <----- good PPD and near optimal viewing angle but hard to get 29 inch view screen surface to eyeballs mounted on most desks.
..

27" 4k screen at 14 inch viewing distance = 48 PPD (at 80 deg viewing angle)
27" 4k screen at 17 inch viewing distance is = 54 PPD (at 72 deg viewing angle)

48" 4k screen at 25 inch viewing distance (desk-like distance) = 48 PPD (at 80 deg viewing angle)
48" 4k screen at 29 inch viewing distance (desk-like distance) = 54 PPD (at 72 deg viewing angle)

..

27" 4k screen at 13 inch viewing distance = 44 PPD (at 88 deg viewing angle)
27" 4k screen at 15 inch viewing distance is = 49 PPD (at 79 deg viewing angle)

55" 4k screen at 25 inch viewing distance (desk-like distance) = 44 PPD (at 88 deg viewing angle)
55" 4k screen at 29 inch viewing distance (desk-like distance) = 49 PPD (at 79 deg viewing angle)

. . . . .

. . . . .

That said, a future 8k gaming screen that is large, 55" to 65", and maybe a little out of bounds viewng angle wise for use as desktop/app real-estate, but that could hopefully run smaller gaming resolutions 1:1 pixel letterboxed with better scope/viewing angle without forced scaling to fullscreen while gaming, would be great. So I get wanting a full physical screen surface set up for a somewhat wider full-screen viewing angle than human 60 to 50 deg, but being able to run smaller gaming windows/tiles on a larger screen. I think it would work a lot better with an 8k native screen where you could do 4k,5k, 6k, and 2160 or taller uw resolutions 1:1px though. Running 1440 or 1600 tall gaming viewports on my 4k screen isn't as appealing to me as doing similar gaming spaces with larger resolutions on an 8k screen if possible someday. For larger (42", 48" , 55") 4k gaming screens I'd rather just buy a simple spine style floor tv stand and keep the screen back until it's at around a 55 degree viewing angle instead of dropping the PPD and flaring the ends of the screen away by sitting closer.

 

[ManofGod]

Nvidia control panel. Force the aspect ratio to override to native and force 1440p without fit to screen. I wouldn't though nothing looks as good native resolution.

Is anyone familiar with how to do this with AMD hardware? Thanks.

 

[elvn]

I wouldn't though nothing looks as good native resolution

Just in case there is any confusion from anyone regarding that reply, I believe that when most of us (several of us most definitely), are talking about mapping a smaller resolution grid to a larger resolution screen on a larger gaming TV style screen . . (without forced upscaling to full screen like some of the 8k screens do) . . . we are talking about making a smaller display area on the screen with all scaling disabled so that the new resolution is letterboxed with the pixels mapped 1:1 pixel just like native resolution would. Not scaling or otherwise adapting an unmatched non-native resolution across differently sized pixels which can reduce fidelity some. On a large enough screen,physically vs view distance, those smaller than full screen field resolutions can still result in a good sized game viewport/window.

That could also allow you to keep for example a large 8k screen worth of desktop/app real-estate sitting at a wide viewing angle (vs. view distance) for apps/windows where you would typically be staring at different areas for a longer period of time, rather than tennis match midline darting your eyes/head/neck back and forth more quickly and more constantly while gaming potentially. So a wide "multi-monitor" effect in a single, middling bezels free, field of real-estate - but then having the option of viewing a smaller resolution than the full screen (e.g. on an 8k -> a 4k, 5k, 6k, or various uw resolutions) gaming screen space letterboxed 1:1 pixel mapped for higher fps, a smaller scope nearer to or within your central human viewing angle, and maybe even higher hz capability of the screen than the screen's native rez would get, depending. Some of the samsung 8k screens force upscaling of lower resolutions to full screen though, with no way to disable that. Might be a problem with DSC but hopefully future gens when mfgs bring 8k back to the table in the next few years will be able to do non-native 1:1 w/o scaling. 4k screens can also do a smaller rez, like an uw rez like 3840 x 1600-ish though, but I'd really love an 8k eventually for more rez and real-estate options.

 

[Armenius]

42" is awful for FPS gaming, and I say this as an owner. If you're looking for higher performance (240hz and above) there's no choice but to get a proper monitor.
Next's year OLED monitors are exciting, so wait for them.

I disagree. I love playing FPS games on my 48" C3.

Nvidia control panel. Force the aspect ratio to override to native and force 1440p without fit to screen. I wouldn't though nothing looks as good native resolution.

It's actually the "no scaling" option. Aspect ratio will still stretch the image to fill the screen, just while maintaining the aspect ratio. Since 2560x1440 is still 16:9 it will fill the whole screen. No scaling will center the image on the screen without stretching it.

Is anyone familiar with how to do this with AMD hardware? Thanks.

In the Adrenalin software, go to the Display tab, enable GPU scaling, and change scaling mode to Center.

 

[tongshadow]

I have been using my 42" C2 in FPS with no issues. Just like everything else in this world, not everyone is going to like it, and some just do.

I disagree. I love playing FPS games on my 48" C3.

Post your CSGO Rankings.

 

[Deleted member 312202]

Post your CSGO Rankings.

Don't play it

 

[MistaSparkul]

Post your CSGO Rankings.

I am 99% sure anyone who loves playing FPS on a huge TV isn't a CSGO/CS2 player lol. But is Counter Strike the only FPS game that exists? Within the FPS genre itself there are many different sub genres like battle royales, arena shooters, tac shooters, etc. and I'm sure a large 4K display works waaaaaay better for those types of FPS than it would for counter strike.

 

[Armenius]

Don't play it

Neither do I.

 

[Deleted member 312202]

I am 99% sure anyone who loves playing FPS on a huge TV isn't a CSGO/CS2 player lol. But is Counter Strike the only FPS game that exists? Within the FPS genre itself there are many different sub genres like battle royales, arena shooters, tac shooters, etc. and I'm sure a large 4K display works waaaaaay better for those types of FPS than it would for counter strike.

I played Call of Duty MW2 online for a while (which I don't normally do anymore), and held my own against other players playing at 120hz. I don't play online much other than that short time, and probably won't be doing much in the future. No reason for me to want a higher refresh rate to be honest. I'm very happy with my monitor/TV.