Size of new TV for room

nottingham13

Out of interest how large is your room, how far will you sit from the tv and what is your maximum budget?[/QUOTE]


I will be about 7 foot away. But like I said before most of the programs will not be in HD. I was thinkinf of a 32 inch/.

jackieb

phillh79 wrote: »

I have the Sony 32" TV, I calculated the distance required and rearranged my bedroom to fit.

I now have no room either side of my bed but I get a great view of the tv.

My son has a small room but a big bed and a 42'' TV. We have to climb over his bed to get to the other side! It's great to watch though.

phillh79

I sit about 1.5m away, the picture quality is fine for blu-ray, i very rarely watch tv as I have an old portable aerial hooked up so can't comment too much on the picture quality but on the few occasions when it does work SD is fine.

pault123

The most enjoyable viewing experience is had at a cinema. This follows my logic of buying the biggest screen you can afford!

A tv can never look too big :T :rotfl:

My brother has a 50" in his box room....


looks great!

-Ad-

nottingham13 wrote: »

Out of interest how large is your room, how far will you sit from the tv and what is your maximum budget?

I will be about 7 foot away. But like I said before most of the programs will not be in HD. I was thinkinf of a 32 inch/.[/QUOTE]

A 32 will be ok for that distance but consider something larger if it won't be overbearing in your room.

For that distance and for watching normal tv/dvds I would recommend one of the 37 or maybe 42 panasonic plasmas, they are excellent sets. After you have owned a flat panel tv for a while it will seem to shrink as you get used to it, so definately go for the biggest you can!

Leopard

nottingham13,

nottingham13 wrote: »

When you say recommended viewing distance is 8 feet, does that mean a foot either way wouldn't make much difference?

(actually I will be a little under 7 feet)

Well, personally, I wouldn't like to sit much, if any, closer than those 1080 distances recommended in the chart.

When it comes to sitting further away, I think it would probably be better to work in percentages, rather than feet – say, about 10% to 12%, with a maximum of 15%. At 15%, I start to feel noticeably deprived with 1080 and want to move closer.

Are you measuring from eyes position when seated (as opposed to from front or middle of seat) to screen?

With Sony LCDs the model range jumps from 46" to 52". At less than 7 feet you'd probably find a 52" a mite too large but a 46" would be nice. Usefully cheaper, too! I'd certainly find anything smaller than 46" disappointing, at that distance, though.

As the very knowledgeable and visually perceptive aliEnRIK :A has mentioned, in some other threads, the 46" Sony is a really superb television and you should certainly give it serious consideration. But, if I were he, I would rearrange the furniture and watch it at the 1.8 metres – just under 7 feet - that Sony recommends. (And I suspect that, once he gets used to it, he will! )

There really is a big difference in moving from an old television to a modern LCD or plasma and those who underestimate just how much they would enjoy a large screen at the recommended distance make a serious mistake.

One of the things you notice, even at the optimum viewing distance, is a different perception of the image. On a 20" television it's like looking at scene through a porthole; on a 32" or 37" television it's like looking out at it through a window; but on a 46" to 52" television it's like looking out at it through a patio door – there is more of a three-dimensional effect and when the camera zooms in or out, or moves through a scenario, you feel as though you are moving with it. On a 68" television, you feel as though you're actually in the scene! I've perhaps not expressed the sensation very well but it's something you would see if you stand in front of a range of televisions displayed around each other, horizontally and vertically together on a wall, at the same distance, in a darkened showroom. It's not just about sheer size; there's more to it than that.

What's true for most people is that if your new television looks huge to begin with, you'll probably find that after a fortnight of looking at it that it's the right size. But if, however, it looks fine when you first get it, after a month of looking at it you'll wish you'd bought a larger one. And, as I cautioned before, that's an expensive mistake to make.

At the end of the day, a simple but good yardstick is to be comfortable with the size of the newsreaders' faces when you're watching the thing!




(PS. Many thanks for giving me my thousandth "Thanks" with my previous posting.
Indeed, thanks to everyone who gave me other 999, as well. :beer:
I don't seek them but, for one as frequently attacked as I , it was a welcome and reassuring personal endorsement that I much appreciate. )

nottingham13

Leopard wrote: »

nottingham13,




Well, personally, I wouldn't like to sit much, if any, closer than those 1080 distances recommended in the chart.

When it comes to sitting further away, I think it would probably be better to work in percentages, rather than feet – say, about 10% to 12%, with a maximum of 15%. At 15%, I start to feel noticeably deprived with 1080 and want to move closer.

Are you measuring from eyes position when seated (as opposed to from front or middle of seat) to screen?

. )

Thanks for your help,
I was measuring from eyes positioned when seated.

I am just a bit worried that if the tv is too big and as I will be watching mainly standard definition programs, sometimes the tv picture can be a bit pixelly? even with a good panasoic or sony tv.

pault123

Leopard wrote: »

One of the things you notice, even at the optimum viewing distance, is a different perception of the image. On a 20" television it's like looking at scene through a porthole; on a 32" or 37" television it's like looking out at it through a window; but on a 46" to 52" television it's like looking out at it through a patio door – there is more of a three-dimensional effect and when the camera zooms in or out, or moves through a scenario, you feel as though you are moving with it. On a 68" television, you feel as though you're actually in the scene! I've perhaps not expressed the sensation very well but it's something you would see if you stand in front of a range of televisions displayed around each other, horizontally and vertically together on a wall, at the same distance, in a darkened showroom. It's not just about sheer size; there's more to it than that.







)

I think what your trying to say is its like the feeling you get when watching a cinema screen

Leopard

nottingham13,

nottingham13 wrote: »

Thanks for your help,
I was measuring from eyes positioned when seated.

I am just a bit worried that if the tv is too big and as I will be watching mainly standard definition programs, sometimes the tv picture can be a bit pixelly? even with a good panasoic or sony tv.

At that distance, I really would urge you to consider a 46".

The secret lies in how well the television upscales the image. Sony, Panasonic and Samsung do an impressive job with this.

If anything, with these, the problem with SD is not pixelly, it's just lack of fine detail in the original image.

What you need to remember is that you'll want to keep this television for several years and not be disappointed when the broadcast pictures improve and HD starts to become the normal standard.



Anyway, here's a little story (because, thanks to you, I'm in an end-of-school mood! )

Some years ago, I measured up our lounge, looked at the furniture layout we prefer and decided that we would best be served by something of about 50". At the time, we had an excellent 36" Sony CRT (which cost me £2,600 in 2000 :eek: ). Sony televisions gradually got larger: 37'...40"...46". I resisted domestic pressure that 40" would be fine; then that 46" would be fine. Not for our lounge and our room layout. I held out. I wanted a 50". A 50" would be the right size. Sooner or later, there would be a Sony 50" :coffee: . Eventually it came; and as a nice little bonus it was 52" _party_ ! It was gorgeous :heart2: . But it cost several limbs – £4,500, and the technology was still advancing . Sooner or later, the price of a 52" would fall (sure as Hell, the price of the 36" CRT had.). So, I continued to resist domestic pressure and settle for a smaller one. Finally, last December, I tracked down a 52w4000 at a good price – £1,115 – consulted :A aliEnRIK :A ; he gave me the thumbs-up and I nailed it. :money:

We absolutely love it ! :dance:

And my companion, who is super-fanatical about image quality, was so delighted with it, and so pleased that I had resisted her urging that we didn't need anything larger than a 40", that she promptly insisted on giving me half the price of it! :kisses3:

If your viewing distance is just a little shy of 7 feet, go for a 46" Sony! :EasterBun
You won't regret it. :grinheart

( :A aliEnRIK :A clearly didn't. )




pault123,

pault123 wrote: »

I think what your trying to say is its like the feeling you get when watching a cinema screen

Yes. It's not just the luxury of sheer size; somehow you get a greater sense of involvement and participation is was what I was really trying to say.

But, if I may qualify your earlier observation, the most enjoyable viewing experience is at a private cinema.

Mind you, sitting on a yacht in the Mediterranean that somebody else is paying for, and watching attractive young ladies cavort on it, is not a viewing experience that is without merits, in its own way. :cool:

Bikertov

goggle wrote: »

Personally I think a 22" tv is PLENTY big enough

What is wrong with my trusty 14" portable :rolleyes: