Originally Posted by DJRumpy
Actually it's an inch and a half. About 3-5 lines of text at typical font sizes. Negligible.
I make no assumptions. You implying that just because it's larger it will cost more. PC Components and electronics components in general become cheaper with wider adoption. It's happening as we type. You are the one making assumptions. LCD technology gets cheaper every year. It's also reasonable to expect that a 26" display at a higher resolution will cost the same as 24" display used to which may be why they are looking at larger displays. Who knows? We weren't even discussing cost.
If you were in publishing you would know that a piece of 'paper' as displayed on your monitor has no bearing on how it would look on real paper. It is all about pixels per inch, and the current iMac monitor has about a 93 PPI rating meaning your 8.5x11 'paper' @ 93 PPI is actually being upscaled if your using the 24" display and it's filling your screen.
No, it's about ten lines, often more, as text is often ten points, not twelve as you're imagining. There is often smaller text as well, sometimes down to eight point, or even six in some Ads.
Cost is relative, as bigger monitors get cheaper, so do smaller models.
What we used to think of as a reasonable cost for a 1280 x 1024 31" monitor, $3,000, 20 years ago, is now considered, even with inflation taken into account, to be the price for a high end monitor. As expectations change, so does the willingness to spend. When Apple's first HQ LCD 23" monitor came out, its $4,000 was considered to be low for such a thing, but now people are complaining about a 30" for less half that.
Big monitors will always cost more, and for most people, and unfortunately today, even for businesses that should know better, cost is a primary concern. So if going to a larger monitor with more horizontal resolution in order to get a proper vertical size is required, then that will cost more, and people won't be happy abut it.
I was in publishing and photography for almost 40 years, so yes, I know what it looks like. Since you've shown that you don't know that the industry has been moving to "soft proofing" for the past ten years, I'm not so certain how much you know.
More often, what you see on your, professional, properly calibrated monitor, is what you go to press with. The approved image on yours is sent to the printer to view on his, and you go to press. More rarely are "proofs" being used. 3M, Kodak, Agfa and others are discontinuing their proofing systems, and with digital printing systems, and even with ink presses, press proofs are becoming a thing of the past.
When I print at home, I've got a 5,000k Graphlite viewing box, just as I used to use at my lab. My Eizo monitor is calibrated with my i1 X-Rite equipment, and I use calibrated profiles for my Canon IPF5100 printer.
What I see on my monitor VERY closely matches my print.
I'm well aware that 90 to 100 ppi monitors are not at the rez of a sheet of printed paper. The fact that you would think to say that is puzzling. It doesn't matter. For proofing, it's considered to be fine, and it is.