If you mean preview in full screen then it probably looks as bad as viewing 1920x1080 on my 27" iMac or as good as 1280x720 on my 23" 1920x1080 monitor. Computer monitors don't blur and upscaled video just looks... upscaled.
Yes, but you can also just size the preview window up to 1920x1080 and use the remaining real-estate for other docks. It doesn't make sense to get a 27" inch that again does "only" 1920x1080 because that would give you the same space on the screen. The higher resolution will get more "stuff" on the same screen and you can eventually do 4K.
It looks the same as playing 16:9 SD footage (720x480) on the 1920x1080 monitor. It will sit in the middle and the rest will be black borders. But I think you set that in Vegas; I mean scale to fit monitor or so it is called.
Walking down the aisle yesterday with all the big TVs playing BluRay material, all i can tell you is that when you're close enough to them, they ALL look absolutely awful, with the larger ones looking proportionally worse. Horrible pixellation and compression artifacts made it look like flecks of paint peeling off and waving around. The look was sort of like running an image through a sharpen filter 19 times.
I just have to say it, SD on my 20" monitor looks WAY better than HD on a 32". It's much smoother with better detail (not sharper, but definitely less tortuous) than HD.
If you do get a 27" you're probably going to want it placed farther back from you than your current monitors.
Here's a thought (thanks Kelso), I get the 27" which all them lovely pixels for my stills, BUT use the non-scaled-up option for Previewing Vegas? Yes I realise that that outcome will be a view into my footage that will be smaller than a pixel for pixel 24" so why would I bother. Well, the Stills stuff, and an extended real-estate for a working option or "other" Windows.
Honestly? I can't see a major advantage for the 27" other than I can use the actual, physical space that is available on my workbench PLUS the valuabe option of getting a an alternative to my JVC Pro CRT 15" Colour Setter.
I have an Asus 27" and use it as my primary display, which has some real advantages over my old 24". The higher resolution gives me quite a bit more real estate, which works out very well for Vegas, in particular, and many other apps as well. But as a secondary monitor, for viewing 1920 by 1080? Seems like a waste of money, as they are quite a bit more expensive than 1080p monitors.
[I]"Resizing an image introduces artifacts... I'm not really a fan of doing it unnecessarily."[/I]
Resizing is not the only issue to be aware of.
We'd been using a HDTV to evaluate picture quality.
At first I thought OK, maybe the old EX1 really is that noisy although it never seemed that bad on my monitor.
Neither the PMW-200 or PMW-350 looked any better really.
Then I tried the C300 and even as I wound back the ISO (gain) nothing much changed. Surely a C300 has got to a bit better than an old EX1?
Then it dawned on me, that wasn't noise at all, it is the HDTV dithering. Quite obvious really because it wasn't in the blacks, it was in the low saturation midtones.
Not to say that a HDTV isn't a bad monitor however it's definitely not the right tool for forensic pixel peeping.
I realise that what Grazie is looking at isn't a HDTV at all and as far as I know the Asus ProArt monitors do not dither. I just mention this issue as a heads up to others tempted to go down the path of using a HDTV. They're actually pretty good these days so long as you're not trying to see every pixel.