> contemplating a 32 or 43

Definitely a 32. 43 is a bit much.

Edit: Unless you're an office manager and plan on watching football most of the day.

Same here, 32". I'm using a swiveling TV wall mount also, it really frees up a lot of space under the monitor.

I use a 55" 4k curved TV. The upper portion is too high to do computer work but I move unused windows up there. It's on a desk opposite the couch so I also use it as a TV.

Ignore the other commenter, there is no such thing as too big as long as there are enough pixels!

> there is no such thing as too big as long as there are enough pixels!

4K is absolutely too few pixels for 55” for me. To go 55”, I’d need at minimum 2.5x that many personally. As such a thing doesn’t exist, I use two 27” 5K monitors and endure the bezel divider.

32 is enough that you need to rotate your head if you want to see all parts of the screen. I have a 32" 4k screen and its a bit annoying, I get cricks in my neck, so I tend to only really use a centre 1080p sized area on the screen, with my winXP era wallpaper showing through around it.

Tbh I'll prefer 27" 4k.

43 might be a bit better because you can move the screen a little farther away.

Surely it depends on the sitting distance? I have 2 27" 19:10 screens next to each other and do not need to move my head to see all parts of the screen.

It’s a factor of size and distance. I have an 80cm deep desk with a 32” and it’s fine.

In fact it’s nicer in that I can sit a little further back than a 27” which ultimately is better for my eyes.

I have a 40, it's great. Fewer pixels and width than my previous 3x 27" 4k setup, but more height.

I had that same one.

Fun fact: it had a special "anamorphic" mode. You know how widescreen movies on 4:3 displays are cropped? Someone had the idea that maybe instead of cropping them, you could use all of the resolution must just direct the electron beam to display it on middle 3/4 (vertically) of the screen. There, an extra 33% better vertical resolution and brightness for free?

There weren't a whole lot of DVDs mastered that way, but when you could get one, and your DVD player supported it, and your TV supported it, it looked freaking fantastic.

That’s actually not true, the majority of widescreen DVDs were mastered in Anamorphic format. The players themselves were then responsible for squishing down to letterboxed or doing an automated form of “pan and scan” which most people thought was terrible. If you were lucky though, you had a TV capable of doing the anamorphic adjustment and then you’d get the higher resolution as you stated.