TV Viewing Distance

LucianH

I've searched through recent threads on advice on buying a new TV and recommended viewing distance. What is often quoted is that the viewing distance is twice that of the screen size - therefore, for a 42" this is about 7ft. But I've seen other sites recommend larger minimum viewing distances for a 42".

Given that the minimum viewing distance is obviously dependent on the video source (SD vs HD) - what I would like to know is the "two times screen size" rule for HD?

I do not have Satellite or Blu-Ray. Most of my viewing will be via Freeview (with its limited HD offering at the moment) and a Panasonic DVD Hard Disk Recorder. Most of the Hard Disk recordings are done in Long Play Mode (two kids... lots of recorded rubbish... can't afford a multi-Terabyte HDD!!!). Will also be looking for a TV with DLNA for iPlayer viewing.

I want to get the biggest screen that will be comfortable to watch from a viewing distance of 8ft so has anybody got advice/experience on screen size when the majority of the viewing will be with standard Freeview, long-play-recorded Freeview or iPlayer?

John_Gray

Have a look at this TV viewing distance calculator?

fwor

Or the next one down on the Google results page?

Unfortunately, as that site suggests, it's subjective.

Bear in mind that you may be at the optimum distance to fully resolve an HD picture, and yet it may still not be comfortable - and you may still have to watch SD material on it for years to come.

Some people can't tolerate being too close to the screen. For 'live action' material such as motorsport, I can't stand being any closer than 3 times screen width, as the amount of eye movement to cover the whole screen is too tiring.

John_Gray

fwor wrote: »

Or the next one down on the Google results page?

Gosh, you never thought of looking at Google, did you?! :A

Notmyrealname

You need to look at the Lechner Distance Chart which shows how close you need to be to a screen to notice the differences in resolution. In the UK, the average viewing distance is so great you'd need a 60" TV to notice the difference between 720p and 1080p. For a 42", its 6.5ft!! I have a 42" Panasonic TV that I view from just short of 8ft and it looks like a portable. a 50" would be comfortable viewing but I'm not sure how good standard definition would look for any 50" or larger TV that doesn't have Panasonic on - a mate of mine has an £1800 52" Sony from a few years ago and the SD picture to me is unwatchable.

But aside from that, you need to see how well it handles standard definition and also how it copes with fast movements. TVs in stores typically show cartoons that have little or no fast movement in them and show bold colours. See if you can find some sports or action films to view on them and look at the motion blur, how well it copes with shade gradients etc.

LucianH

I'm just resurrecting this post to feedback to anybody else who may have similar concerns on viewing distance and screen size.

At the end of the day, I decided to go for a Samsung 46" 7000 series TV. Although I knew this would be great for HD viewing, I was very concerned that this would be too big for the minimum view distance I have which is about 9ft.

And the result - I was right to be concerned. Although watching HD is phenomenal, watching SD freeview is very poor - combination of blurred/blocky. The good news, however (and something I didn't know), is the Samsung has a Smart View mode which reduces the image size (with black border) depending of the source. For SD freeview channels, this equates to about a screen size of approx 34" which is much more watchable.

Now I'm chuffed - since we had an old 30" CRT we have now ended up with better quality SD viewing and stunning 46" HD.

Notmyrealname

Quite an innovative solution there from Samsung in respect to SD content.

jaydeeuk1

And also a waste of 12"!

TVs haven't come on as much as I thought then, SD content on my 4 year old 40" Sony looks pretty good with the TV setup correctly from about 4ft away even (media center / gaming, so perch myself right next to it) Although some of the lesser known Sky channels do appear blocky, but thats Sky's fault, not the TV.

almillar

jaydeeuk1 - TVs have certainly got better in the last 4 years, but the broadcast system has remained the same (let's say we did have HD 4 years ago). The broadcasters are constantly squeezing the bandwidth available to each channel, and trying to improve the compression, to squeeze more channels in. Some channels are a complete joke, music channels (fast movement, lots of colours) especially show up the squeeze, so the TV is better, but the broadcast is getting worse!

iwb100

There are a few things in this thread that are incorrect, and I'd just like to correct so people don't use them to poorly inform their buying choices.

Firstly, viewing distances, is not so much about the quality or resolution of the image on the screen per se, and much more about the physical size of the screen in relation to the distance the user sits. Sit too close in front a 60" screen and its impossible to take in all the information on said screen without a lot of lateral neck/eye movement. You will miss details, or just spend the whole time trying to take in the picture. Yes its a subjective thing. Most of the real videophile guides would still have us with far bigger screens in our living rooms than we actually do. Use some judgement.

Secondly, the blocky SD picture is nothing to do with viewing distance. It is a non widescreen source being stretched across a widescreen TV panel. So basically the native picture is being stretched. All TVs will offer a way (or should) to view this SD (non widescreen) image natively (4:3) and leave black bars. So what Samsung is doing, is standard, not clever, and essential for viewing non widescreen programs. Same with HD films, you should in many cases have black bars on the top and bottom as that is the format many films are filmed in so watching natively leaves black bars. You could stretch the image to fill the screen, but it would look poor. Even though its an HD source.

So please do not confuse blocky pictures with viewing distances. It is to do with screen resolution and native picture source.

almillar

iwb100 - your 1st point is fine - I know what you're saying, and I'm one of those videphiles you speak of - people go and sit at the front of a cinema and wreck their necks looking around them, but at home it's slightly different, I want to get my TV to fill my field of vision, and I'm not there yet!
Your second point is completely wrong though. Blocky pictures are caused by over-compression, just like a JPEG photo. Read my post above about the broadcasters squeezing bandwidth. Now, sitting closer to the TV, you'll NOTICE the blockiness more, just like zooming in, but it's still there, no matter how close you are. If you get a bigger TV, and put the same broadcast on it, you're just taking the same information (say, 1080 lines) and making them bigger. And you'll do the same if you move closer.
What you're talking about is aspect ration. Viewing at the wrong aspect ration causes stretching, not blockiness. People don't like the black bars on the screen, and prefer to fill it, but what's the point in that if the picture's the wrong shape?!
Old 'square' TV's are 4:3 (as in 4 accross and 3 up), 'Widescreen TVs' are 16:9, and Films, HD or not, are often 2.39:1. If you see a film that doesn't have bars, chances are it's been converted for home viewing from its original shape.