I don't get it. I've had a Dell Inspiron laptop

My laptop is over 2 years old and has a 1920 x 1280 15.4" widescreen UXGA screen. There are a number of large (> 40") lcd hdtv's w/ 1920 x 1080. Dell has a 30" widescreen monitor, very pricey (oops... hope I don't get in trouble for saying that) that has better than 1920 x 1080.

So, I don't get it. Manufacturers can make small screens w/ that many pixels, large ones, and monitors -- but NO HDTV's in the mid-size of 26 - 32" w/ native 1080P. Why?? I'm one of those holdouts for 1080P. And I've been waiting and waiting and like what's going on? When? I'd get the 37" Westinghouse, but it's really too big for the room I'd use it in. I don't want to argue (oops... I mean discuss) the need for 1080P... I want, and want yesterday.

[deleted by moderator]
-- rc

Why? Why bother?

For most humans, you wouldn't notice the bump in resolution, I don't think...

Unless it's a large set, most people can't really tell the difference in resolution after being a few feet away from the set (dependent upon size, at least)...

So unless the screen is large, or you'll be sitting close to it, I don't think it's much of an issue...

Then why even broadcast in 1080i? Why even have that as an HD spec? From 480 to 720 to 1080 -- diminishing returns, but still a 240 line and 360 line increase... which is significant. I watch hd on my uxga laptop screen, and I can discern the difference between 720p and 1080i. An hdtv is a big expense and I don't think it makes sense to settle for the half-way there resolution.

So I'm still puzzled -- no 32" 1080p... and no one seems to care much (certainly not the manufacturers)... I don't get it. Yet when these are available, the 1080p capability will certainly be promoted. And whoever does come out w/ one, will get my business.

-- rc

Then why even broadcast in 1080i? Why even have that as an HD spec?
Just so people will obsess over counting the pixels on their screens. Works great, eh? :D

I've been wondering the same thing. Most 23-inch LCD monitors are 1080p or higher so I don't get what is so hard about making a 32-40-inch 1080p display.

samsung has shown 32" lcd 1080p monitor

I think you'll find that by next year, 1920x1080 native resolution TVs will be available. The reason that I say this is that manufactures started with the over 40" first since they could recoup the R&D by charging a premium price. Recently some have been manufacturing 1920x1080 TVs in the above 30" market. Also this year, computer monitors with 1920x1080 or larger resolution started to appear for 22"-24" monitors. By next year, the two technologies should converge allowing moderately priced TVs in the 26"-32" size.

kylebisme: I beg to differ -- too many rubes don't know what they're buying when they buy hdtv's. Besides, members of avsforum are not obsessive... we're just... special sorts ;)

maccrazy: it's been frustrating... I've been waiting and waiting for what's obviously doable for manufacturers. I know some discount 1080... that if you're x-feet away you can't tell... but I can tell on my laptop screen... a fairly static picture at 1080i is stunning.

erdega79: I'll do a search on the Samsung... sounds hopeful.

mterzich: I agree... I'm sure they're right-around-the-corner. Certainly in a couple years most everything will be 1080p... whe blu-ray and hddvd starts picking up steam.

I came across the thread on the HP LC2600N... not 1080p, but very good price... I'm this close to just getting one... dunno... or wait, wait, wait... Anybody have any info on up and coming 26 -32" 1080P's (will check on the Samsung)?

-- rc

kylebisme: I beg to differ -- too many rubes don't know what they're buying when they buy hdtv's. Besides, members of avsforum are not obsessive... we're just... special sorts ;)

I was being a bit of a smartass, but my point is that there is a lot more to image quality than what is provided by the pixel count. People around AVSForum know that more than the average Joe who just sees that HD content is all 1280x720 or 1920x1080 and assumes that a display that doesn't exactly match the resolution of the content will be automaticly inferior to one that does. The simple fact or the matter is, the smaller they make the pixels the harder it is to retain the contrast and such in them, so when opting for a high pixel count you are gaining potential sharpness but often at the expense of over-all image quality.

Beyond that, on a 32" display even 20/20 vision isn't going to alow you to fully resolve 1080p at anything much over 4' and most people don't sit that close to their TVs, so manfuactures don't have much reason to build 1080p displays at that size when they can build ones for less cost so they can sell for cheaper and which will look just about as good if not interly as good in most situations.

Then of course on the other side there are situations where people will want to sit close enough to a small display where a higher resolution really counts, that is why PC montors reach those resolutions and greater today and as it becomes more practical to build such displays we will find them coming out in the TV market as well. We just haven't quite got to that point yet.

kylebisme - You provide good info and I didn't think you were being a smartass (in any case, better to be a smartass than a dumbass -- I read somewhere ;)).

I'd sit close (at least at times), and would like double-duty as a pc monitor... so 1080p would be of real value. 16:9, abt. 32" size, 1080p... those are just my baselines... then pq factors come into play. You make a point though that a quality 720p may have better pq (factors other than sharpness) over a lesser quality 1080p.

-- rc

Then of course on the other side there are situations where people will want to sit close enough to a small display where a higher resolution really counts, that is why PC montors reach those resolutions and greater today and as it becomes more practical to build such displays we will find them coming out in the TV market as well. We just haven't quite got to that point yet.

Bingo.

It will happen, just not yet, and maybe not "soon". The market for HT-sized 1080p displays is much larger right now. Eventually, though, I think that 1080p displays will be offered in just about every size, including for handheld devices.

I want my 32" 1080P <8ms DVI input fine pixel pitch LCD for a computer monitor.

I'm currently using the Westinghouse LVM-37w3 at 2-3 feet. It's a bit large but works well!

Well, I'm currently interested in hearing when JVC will actually have a 1080p set that will actually accept sources like Blu-Ray players and HD-DVD players, PCs, PS3s, X360s, etc, yet display them at 1080p. To me, this just baffles me, why on earth are JVCs HDTVs 1080p, but don't accept the sources? On top of that, their 32" models are 768p, which is slightly better than 720p, but that's only 48 more lines, instead of the 360 additional lines that 1080p gives ya.

I for one want 32" 1080P to use as a computer display via dvi/hdmi. I need more screen size when using for pc tasks then current 1366x768 provides.

There are a few 37" panels out there that do 1080P but that's a little too big for sitting at normal computer distances. 32" would be ideal!

Bob

p.s. Don't suggest connecting via VGA. I want max visual quality of the native digital signal.

I'm in the same boat. I need (yes, need, actually--the old set is dying) to replace an old TV. I wanted to wait for another year, but no such luck. I spent the whole week looking for a 1080p TV that would fit in the 35"ish space it needs to go in. At least now after finding this thread, I know I'm not the only one wishing for this!

For those who are curious why I want a 32"-35" 1080 TV, here are my reasons:

1. I want to be able to plug in my laptop and display a decent optical resolution without nasty resampling. A 32" 720p TV is under 50ppi -- fine for across the room, but just good enough for computer use with pixels that large. A 1080p 32" display would be up around 68ppi -- just right for working from eight to ten feet away or so.

2. I need less than 37" because my room is small.

3. I need more than 24" because the primary use will still be standard aspect-ratio TV. I'm a graphic designer and the display on my desk at work is the 1920x1200 24" Dell--lovely for computer work, even fantastic for HD signals at close range, lousy for standard definition display, and just too darn small for a living room TV (especially at 3/4 aspect ratio.)


I don't need speakers or even a tuner since I've got a kickass 7.1 surround system and HD cable service (no HD broadcast in my area yet). So I know I sound like the perfect candidate for using a large PC monitor like the Dell. That would be true if there was anything between the 24" 1920x1200 monitors and the 37" 1920x1080 TVs. I'd buy the Dell 30" RIGHT NOW if it had any input other than the dual-DVI which makes it impossible to use it as a TV (try finding a cable box with DVI-D Dual-Link output). Dell makes some very nice 720p HD TVs, but no 1080p, and only the crazy single input on the massive-res 30-incher. If anyone has any ideas how to connect anything other than a PC to that Dual-Link input, that would solve all my problems and pretty much make my whole year.


But again, the obvious question here is: Why the heck if Dell can make a jaw-dropping 30" 2560x1600-pixel display for $1100 can't ANYONE make a 35" 1920x1080 TV/display AT ANY PRICE? Seems like an obvious omission to me.

*sigh* Guess I'll have to buy another piece of crap tube TV to hold me over until TV manufacturers finally pull their heads out and realize that not everyone who wants "full HD" has a theater-sized room to put a massive TV in. Please, if anyone hears of new developments in this area, POST HERE and let everyone know!

In a few more years I doubt you'll be able to find a TV in anything but 1080p. Rome wasn't built in a day.

The answer here is pretty simple: viewing distance.

A computer monitor is viewed pretty close up. Your eyes can resolve those extra pixels and you benefit from them because of it.

Laptops have space at a premium and generally during use your eyes are even closer to the screen than a normal computer monitor, so they squeeze in more pixels that are still useful.

Also, computers in general benefit alot from extra resolution for extra desktop space and such.

TVs on the other hand, are viewed at a MUCH farther distance for the average person. The extra resolution is simply wasted in many cases, as your eyes cannot resolve the difference between say.. 720p and 1080p from 9 feet away on a 35" screen, there's simply no reason to put more pixels (ie: higher build costs) into a 35" TV screen designed to be viewed from a minimum of several feet away.

Also, the vast majority of content viewed on a TV is NOT 1080. And when you take lower rez material (720, 480 and lower) and scale it up to 1080, it looks worse than it would on a screen with less total pixels to begin with because the scalers aren't that great. So adding pixels means extra resolution you cannot use (unless you sit far closer than a standard viewing distance) and very likely a worse picture with lower rez material. When all content is 1080 & higher, then there probably won't be many new panels out with less than 1080 lines.

You're basically looking for a computer monitor here, and those only go up to 30" so far.

BTW - good luck reading non-resized text from a computer on a 32" 1080p screen from 10 feet away.

Heh-heh, thanks. And you're right about viewing distance being the main issue here. I guess that what I should be doing is complaining to Dell for not making more inputs on their 30" computer monitors. Or more specifically, for forcing me to pay six timer per pixel and buy their TV if I want to view television on a Dell-branded display larger than 24". Regardless, it certainly isn't TV manufacturers' fault for not making TVs that work as "good" computer monitors. TVs aren't designed to be good computer displays, and if they happen to work well for that, it's an extra bonus not a core feature.

On the other hand, there does seem to be a demand for this sort of product--something high-res enough to provide a decent amount of desktop working area when used with a computer (and free of processing/resampling), yet large enough in total area to be used as a TV. I'm sure it will come eventually, and I wouldn't be surprised if it came from Dell or another PC monitor manufacturer.

If I find one, I'll certainly let you all know.

I wonder if the yield factor at the panel fabrication plants has something to do with the sizes that are marketed. I don't have any details on yield factors, but I've read some posts on this site related to this and I think it may apply. But, all the reasons so far seem good, too.

I think the gist of this thread is that we want a display device to connect to our computers that provides the performance, color fidelity and artifact free viewing of video images (HDTV, HD-DVD, etc) in their native digital format. Todays computer monitor targeted lcd's do not stand up to the task. Yet ... 1080P tv displays are too big to use at typical desktop distances. So for someone that wants a display device that's 60% close up TV viewing and 40% computer application use, I need something in the 27-32" range and 1080P.

For now ... I'm going back to my 22" widescreen 1280x720P byd:sign HDTV (dvi) and just accept the limited vertical space when using it for pc applications. The color fidelity and performance of it blows away anything in the computer monitor LCD category.

Bob

For what it's worth, both the large Dell computer monitors (24fwp, 24", 1200x1920, which I own) and the Dell LCD TVs (from 23"-37", all 768x1366, auditioned at a Dell store) have excellent color fidelity and performance for computer work. In fact, I'm an art director at a graphic design firm, and we use Dell displays with most of our Macs.

I was pleasantly surprised at how good the Dell 37" LCD TV displayed the 1366x768 video output from my Mac. It's by far the best PC video output image I've seen on any large TV--most get blurry, chunky, and/or chopped up from resampling and video processing.

Granted, it's all that video processing that makes low-res video input signals look much better on large TVs, but many have no way to turn OFF all that processing in order to accurately display a PC video input. The salesmen at the TV stores tried to convince me that the problem was my Powerbook or the DVI to HDMI adapter required for units without DVI inputs, but they recanted when one of the 20 or so TVs in the store actually displayed the native PC output very cleanly and sharply without resampling or processing.

I agree with the general consensus that there will most likely be a convergence of these two currently separate markets. (PC display and HDTV) It's partially there now--those Dell 720p displays looked really darn nice with the PC inputs--and it's only a matter of time before Dell or someone else makes a medium-sized 1080p HDTV. Hopefully they'll understand that a large segment of the potential market for this product will be people who want to plug in their PCs, and will give these smaller 1080p HDTVs good PC display capabilities.

I think the "normal viewing distances" argument against smaller 1080 displays is put forth by reasonable and experienced people, but for me this argument just doesn't fly.

In my world, for every body seated across the room at a normal viewing distance there will typically be at least two bodies occupying the larger space in the middle of the room--adults standing and milling about, kids laying on the floor right in front of the screen. And if I want to get a better look at something, my instinct is to move closer--like looking out a window. If I am showing off the new set, I don't want to tell my guest that they'll best appreciate it if they just step back behind the line on the carpet indicating normal viewing distance.

Admittedly, most of the content available via TV broadcasts or DVDs will probably not benefit from a 1080 display. But it's a small step in the right direction (toward film). And a very cool thing about hd flat panels is that they're increasing capable of uses beyond tv and dvds and HTs, because they're flat and fit easily into apartments and rooms not dedicated to the tv. I am interested in using the panel for displaying digital photo slide shows at parties and family gatherings (via a usb or media card slot on the panel itself). I think this use would certainly benefit from a "full" 1080 line display.

Give me a 32-37 incher with all the best tech--including 1080 lines.

But again, the obvious question here is: Why the heck if Dell can make a jaw-dropping 30" 2560x1600-pixel display for $1100 can't ANYONE make a 35" 1920x1080 TV/display AT ANY PRICE? Seems like an obvious omission to me.I have to agree here, I was looking for a 32 TV with high res for pc work, actually I do need about that res, so I may check out Dell. It would be nice if Sammy made a high res - high contrast TV/PC monitor with enough real estate for professional use. My 1600x1200 does not cut it for side by side program/Excel/Word use. Need the width and height increase.

Sharp is coming out with a 32" in 1080P next month. It is geared towards gamers(Vyper Drive) and will be priced at $1699.
http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/12/12/sharp.32.inch.1080p.tv/
http://www.sharpusa.com/products/FunctionPressReleaseSingle/0,1080,642-34,00.html

OLED TVs in a couple years will be in 1080P, consume a lot less power, and be about a quarter inch thick.
http://www.about-electronics.eu/2007/01/12/sony-prototype-telly-on-a-diet/

Ahh, can I have the 40" version? :cool:

How hard can these be to make? - just run a sheet of plastic past an inkjet printer, attach a chip, some connectors, and away you go.

Personally I'd like to have a 42" monitor/tv that could easily switch resolutions. Like 1080p for watching the tube, and super high resolution for serious web tasking. The old 21" CRTs were great at switching resolutions. Sometimes I think these flat panels are a step backwards. If I they still made 37" CRT wide screens they would be great for watching TV. But the best thing is that standard definition would not have to upconverted to that fuzzy/ugly/crappy/inferior/stinky/sucky picture.

Sharp is coming out with a 32" in 1080P next month. It is geared towards gamers(Vyper Drive) and will be priced at $1699.
http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/12/12/sharp.32.inch.1080p.tv/
http://www.sharpusa.com/products/FunctionPressReleaseSingle/0,1080,642-34,00.html

YIKES......32" for $1700? hahahaha...thats insane, regardless of refresh rate.

Yeah, but that's list, I bet. Give it a couple months and it will be down with the rest of the low-end 1080 stuff.

But yeah, OLED. *dreamy*

I think the real answer to the original question is a simple, albeit unsatisfying, one.

Market.

What you're essentially looking for is a very large, high peformance, LCD monitor not really a consumer TV.

In other words, a true niche market.

The size you're looking for is, generally, way too small to meet consumer demand for a flat panel TV.

It's also way too big for mainstream computer monitor use.

As stated earlier, 1080p is, basically, "wasted" on a "smaller" TV unless your viewing distance is far closer than the overwhelming majority of folks could ever sit.

1080p is not cheap to produce and the profit margin on "smaller" sets is already low.

So, unless the market for what you're looking for grows signifcantly, not many manufacturers are going to devote their production to those types of set/monitors.

And, those that do will charge the appropriate premium.

Sadly, I'm afraid you're right. The key here is that it's between markets--too small/high-res for a (profitable) tv model, too large/low-res for a (profitable) computer monitor.

I did see that Dell has recently released a 27" 1920x1200px model (2707WFP) that at least edges up from the computer monitor end. But I understand that they can't keep the computer monitor target audience and push that much further in size without upping the resolution, too. Which will then make it less likely to work well as an HDTV monitor (or at all, if it lacks "standard" inputs like all the big high-res 30" models).

How about we re-focus this thread on the best currently-available solutions. Does anyone here have an opinion on which 1080p small HDTVs also work best as computer monitors? I know that at least one manufacturer offers a "native display" mode that turns off resampling and edge sharpening effects. Anyone have any experience with this?

Would 1080p on a 32" look great at A DISTANCE OF 3 FEET?

Sure! Why not? It would look even greater at a distance of 5 feet.

And 1080p content looks absolutely stunning at native resolution on my 1920x1200 (letterboxed with 120 lines of black above and below) 24" Dell monitor at about two feet.

It looks great at 15 feet on a 50" display.

But the point is that if you want to use your display for your PC, then you really do need higher pixel density than if you're just watching movies. A 1080p 32" display should be fully capable of beautifully displaying 720p content or standard 480p DVD movies, assuming it has a decent scaler. But the vast majority of 32" and 37" HDTVs have a native resolution of 1366x768, which isn't great for PC use (even if you can find one that is capable of displaying non=resampled/sharpened/hacked-up signal) and will be resampling any HDTV or DVD signal it gets anyway!

If there were enough people with high-definition signal sources (game consoles and PCs) who want high resolution and high pixel density, then someone would start making 1080p displays in the mid-30-inch range. Maybe in a year or two when the whole market is saturated, manufacturers will find it profitable to start targeting this niche.

Sharp announced two 1080p "gaming" LCDs. One is a 32" and the other is a 37" (I think it's 37"). I can't remember the exact specs but I know they are 1920x1080, 120Hz (?), and have 4 ms response time.

Fantastic news. Thanks, wsfan!

The Sharp gaming models are the new GP1U series.

link:
http://www.sharpusa.com/products/FunctionPressReleaseSingle/0,1080,643-16,00.html

In fact, Sharp's 2007 line evidently has (or will have) TWO sets of 1080p options in 37" and 32":
The GP1U (game player?) series mentioned above -- LC32GP1U and LC37GP1U
And the D62U series -- LC-37D62U and LC-32D62U

Woo-hoo!

link:
http://www.sharpusa.com/products/FunctionPressReleaseSingle/0,1080,643-16,00.html

In fact, Sharp's 2007 line evidently has (or will have) TWO sets of 1080p options in 37" and 32":
The GP1U (game player?) series mentioned above -- LC32GP1U and LC37GP1U
And the D62U series -- LC-37D62U and LC-32D62U

Woo-hoo!

Did they release these TVs yet? Are these also optimal for general HDTV viewing or watching blu ray players? I am going crazy looking for a 1080p HDTV in the 32 inch range.

ANy help would be great.

Go to newegg and look up item # N82E16889101108

and item #N82E16889101117

Two 32" Sharp 1080p displays

yep! they're starting to trickle in. FINALLY! 32" 1080! In a few months, we might even have some more choices.

Actually, Sharp has 2 models of 32" 1080p the LC-32D62 & the LC-32GP1.

I don't get it. I've had a Dell Inspiron laptop

My laptop is over 2 years old and has a 1920 x 1280 15.4" widescreen UXGA screen. There are a number of large (> 40") lcd hdtv's w/ 1920 x 1080. Dell has a 30" widescreen monitor, very pricey (oops... hope I don't get in trouble for saying that) that has better than 1920 x 1080.

So, I don't get it. Manufacturers can make small screens w/ that many pixels, large ones, and monitors -- but NO HDTV's in the mid-size of 26 - 32" w/ native 1080P. Why?? I'm one of those holdouts for 1080P. And I've been waiting and waiting and like what's going on? When? I'd get the 37" Westinghouse, but it's really too big for the room I'd use it in. I don't want to argue (oops... I mean discuss) the need for 1080P... I want, and want yesterday.

[deleted by moderator]
-- rc

Actually, Sharp has 2 models of 32" 1080p the LC-32D62 & the LC-32GP1.

But you replied to a post that was over a year old.

If you read through the rest of the thread (usually a good thing to do before you post, BTW), then you'll see that that those Sharp models were brought up a couple months ago right after they were announced.

Can anyone tell me if Sharp plans to release similar models in the UK? Or perhaps if there is a similar alternative in the UK (1080p 32" LCD)?

Thanks,
-Dom

I find it ridiculous that there aren't more models that are 32" with 1080p. I use a 768p Westinghouse TV as a monitor at my desk on a daily basis, but I think 1080p would be a perfect resolution to fit more text. Too bad I can't upgrade because TV manufacturers haven't caught onto this yet.

I find it ridiculous that there aren't more models that are 32" with 1080p. I use a 768p Westinghouse TV as a monitor at my desk on a daily basis, but I think 1080p would be a perfect resolution to fit more text. Too bad I can't upgrade because TV manufacturers haven't caught onto this yet.

Why can't you upgrade? It's not as if there are no 1080p displays in this size at all. Are you saying that none of the ones on the market fit your needs?

With a 32" set, you would have to be about 4 feet from the screen to gain the benefit of 1080p. Most people aren't watching TV from 4 feet away. That's why you won't see 32" sets with 1080p. You'll be lucky if you can find anything below 50" 1080p in the next year or two.

For more explanation see this article:

http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/

With a 32" set, you would have to be about 4 feet from the screen to gain the benefit of 1080p. Most people aren't watching TV from 4 feet away. That's why you won't see 32" sets with 1080p.

You'll be lucky if you can find anything below 50" 1080p in the next year or two.


Huh? There seems to be plenty of sets below 50" that are 1080p these days.

Even 32" 1080p is not all that uncommon anymore.

because 23in. monitors are usually right in front of your face so you will see the benefits.
not many people put a 32in in front of their nose. its too big to use as a monitor. its also too small to use for general viewing and get the benefits of 1080p. you'd have to squish your whole family 3-4 feet from the screen.
its a size thats too big for a monitor and too small for a tv.
its probably suitable for a budget concious single male gamer or something. not a big demographic so it'll be one of the last sizes made.

What currently is the smallest 1080p display in the world?

because 23in. monitors are usually right in front of your face so you will see the benefits.
not many people put a 32in in front of their nose. its too big to use as a monitor. its also too small to use for general viewing and get the benefits of 1080p. you'd have to squish your whole family 3-4 feet from the screen.
its a size thats too big for a monitor and too small for a tv.
its probably suitable for a budget concious single male gamer or something. not a big demographic so it'll be one of the last sizes made.

Yah, 32" is usually for apartment-dwelling singles who don't really care about having a good set. Not necessarily gamers though... we like 'beeg' sets. :)

More like, well... chicks.

Kinda makes me think 1080p is a waste in that size on that basis alone. They don't usually care about image quality that much.

What currently is the smallest 1080p display in the world?

In production, or in any form at all?

I recall a few years back there was a 1080p OLED prototype that was about 7" in size.

In production, it would be 32" for televisions, but there has been 1920x1200 16:10 LCDs in sizes as small as 15" so in theory LCD televisions as small as 15" (and probably even smaller) are possible.

I didnt even read the first post so let me just say, Is this a real question? the answer is simple

Size vs distance. You need more then 42" to even begin to notice 1080p. and you ALSO need to stay within distance or will NOT notice the resolution.

as for the other question why make better resolution??? it looks sharper then 480i even though it may not be 1080p, more detail better.

seriously whats with the questions im sure you know the answer but want a further explation. well theirs notin much to it just size distance and content

put those 3 together then you can worry about resolution, In this case you skip the size as 32" is not enough whats your distance? and so on.

I hope this helps

Also i've sold 32" sharp 1080p lcd a year ago when i was working for sears

its just marketing as you wont see 1080p in a 32" again like i explained.

Yah, 32" is usually for apartment-dwelling singles who don't really care about having a good set. Not necessarily gamers though... we like 'beeg' sets. :)

More like, well... chicks.

Kinda makes me think 1080p is a waste in that size on that basis alone. They don't usually care about image quality that much.

(1) Well 32'' sets can be for anyone, say for a bedroom or a study. An apartment living room is not the only place you can find such a thing.

(2) A large fraction of gamers are teenagers, and they probably game on 32'' or smaller size tvs because that's the kind of size their parents would give them.

(3) Girls tend to like big screen tvs as well. They just tend not to jump on spending huge amounts of money on them is all!:p

(4) Pixel count doesn't determine quality.

(5) Size doesn't determine quality.

I know your post was tongue in cheek, but it begged for a response!

(1) Well 32'' sets can be for anyone, say for a bedroom or a study. An apartment living room is not the only place you can find such a thing.

(2) A large fraction of gamers are teenagers, and they probably game on 32'' or smaller size tvs because that's the kind of size their parents would give them.

(3) Girls tend to like big screen tvs as well. They just tend not to jump on spending huge amounts of money on them is all!:p

(4) Pixel count doesn't determine quality.

(5) Size doesn't determine quality.

I know your post was tongue in cheek, but it begged for a response!


Well, at least you got that I was kinda joking. :cool:

I have a question- will BluRay look as good on a 32 inch that isn't 1080? 40 inch?
Is there much of a difference???

Thanks.

^^^^ grace i can answer that, in terms of quality it if its a say 32" exact model of the 40" the quality will remain the same HOWEVER on the 40" you are more likely to see 1080p theirs a bigger chance vs on the 32" you wont thus making you "feel" that it looks better.

So in other words if you were to ask me, what would i enjoy more my blu ray movies, in a 32" flat screen or a 40" flat screen

my answer would be a 40" for various of reasons..

really theirs no advantage in going for smaller size other then watching SD and even then YMMV based on how good the processing and signal are.

Well, at least you got that I was kinda joking. :cool:

As a single person living in an apartment with a 32 inch tv, I'm defensive! But I really am going to buy a bigger tv, if I could only choose between lcd and plasma.:D