I was in a local mid-end respected brick-and-mortar retailer recently, checking out the new Panasonic plasmas and other things. A couple next to me was looking at the 50" 1080p plasmas (which was playing a high-def TV loop), and asked what size of TV they should be getting.

The salesperson asked their viewing distance. It was 8-10 feet. So far so good. Then the salesperson said with confidence "you should get a 42" TV". I had to say something. I told them I sit 10' (well, more like 11 if my reclining chair is back), and have a 60", and it is not too big. I admitted that SD TV is a bit blurry (to which the salesperson condescendingly interjected "yeah, a LOT blurry"), but upscaled DVD or high-def content from TV or HDDVD/BluRay is wonderful.

The salesperson, vehemently (almost angrily) said "I strongly disagree. You shouldn't get any larger than a 42 inch".

I let things go at that, because its not my business, but I can't help thinking that advice like this is another reason killing HD movie formats. With a 42" TV from 9 feet, that couple will NOT be able to see any benefit from anything better than a 720p signal, and will likely decide that upscaled DVD is "good enough". And, they will be right.

I had a friend over yesterday that just bought a 42" TV. He said that for 8-10 feet, 42" was the correct size. I was flabergasted that he came up with the exact same information. He was probably told it by someone, but said he thought that's what consumers reports says as well.


I was pleasantly surprised to see this chart on the Consumers Reports website:

Widescreen HD set
Approximate viewing distance Screen size
2 feet 14 to 17 inches
3 18 to 24
4 25 to 31
5 32 to 38
6 39 to 45
7 46 to 52
8 53 to 59
9 60 to 66
10 67 to 73
11 74 to 80
12 81 to 87
13 88 to 94
14 95 to 101
15 102 to 108


The 42" is best for 8-10 feet recommendation is likely for Standard Definition content (and TVs) only -- though I haven't found a source.

My question - is this (mis)information widespread? Is small TV sizes one of the reasons why HD media may have a hard time taking off?

You may have a few conflicts here . . .

1. A salesman who is trying to make a sale. He may have direct knowledge that sellimg a 42" HDTV is easier than a 50" because the resistance to the price is much less.

2. A "Pseudo Expert" salesman who is making a HUGE blunder by telling a consumer what they should have versus asking questions to see what they would like to have.

3. A Stupid Salesman - a 50" HDTV will bring in more revenue for his company than a 42" HDTV and should also bring in a higher comission.

4. Company Orders - overstocked on 42" HDTV's . . "Move them!"

5. A SPIF program that yields a better comission on a 42" then a 50" HDTV.

i don't think it is the cause of the slow adoption of HDM.

One must remember as an enthusiast we want the largest for our budgets, for the casual users they want large but not overpowering. Also it depends on the room in ones house, if it is in a dedicated room than larger is great. But to most esp wives in terms of decor it needs to blend/match the rest of the room.

Also you have to take into account the amount of SD viewing. I only watch approx. 1 to 5% SD a week so it isn't an issue.

below is a good link

http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

You may have a few conflicts here . . .

.

I believe your points 1, 2, and 3 are spot on! However, I believe the sales-person believed what he said. He had obviously seen a chart somewhere, or learned this in training (he was an older person, and not a new person to the store).

I would love to know where this mysterious SD distance chart is coming from that people are using to size HDTVs!

With a 42" TV from 9 feet, that couple will NOT be able to see any benefit from anything better than a 720p signal, and will likely decide that upscaled DVD is "good enough". And, they will be right.

No there is a huge difference.

I was pleasantly surprised to see this chart on the Consumers Reports website:

Widescreen HD set
Approximate viewing distance Screen size
2 feet 14 to 17 inches
3 18 to 24
4 25 to 31
5 32 to 38
6 39 to 45
7 46 to 52
8 53 to 59
9 60 to 66
10 67 to 73
11 74 to 80
12 81 to 87
13 88 to 94
14 95 to 101
15 102 to 108





I'll have to use this for my next purchase. Should be good for a 73" :D

I believe your points 1, 2, and 3 are spot on! However, I believe the sales-person believed what he said. He had obviously seen a chart somewhere, or learned this in training (he was an older person, and not a new person to the store).

I would love to know where this mysterious SD distance chart is coming from that people are using to size HDTVs!

I know this may sound silly but whenever I go shopping for something that I require a saleman's help with - I always make it a point to find, out on my own, if there is a "wall of fame" which shows the top salesman for each month. If I can't find it - I ask.

Because that person, especially if that wall shows that it is not a one time thing, knows how to sell. And selling is all about finding out what your customer knows . . . not telling your customer everything YOU know.

Hey - got a specific model in mind - did your homework - then all it is, is a question of price - what is the best deal you can get.

But if you need help in making a decision then the salesman should find out what you already know . . . what you have already looked at . . . your price range . . . and what you liked and didn't like from what you have already seen. This makes it MUCH easier to fit a round peg into a round hole . . . as opposed to using brute force trying to get a sqaure peg to fit into a round hole. The LAST thing ANY salesman wants is a return - WORSE than a lost sale.

So the big issue is . . . are you being "told" . . or are you being "sold?"

One must remember as an enthusiast we want the largest for our budgets, for the casual users they want large but not overpowering. Also it depends on the room in ones house, if it is in a dedicated room than larger is great. But to most esp wives in terms of decor it needs to blend/match the rest of the room.

Also you have to take into account the amount of SD viewing. I only watch approx. 1 to 5% SD a week so it isn't an issue.

Well I must be a casual user because bigger isn't better. When we upgraded this fall, I wanted the 46" screen to replace the 42" one; the spouse wanted 52" (we got the 52" set). Frankly, based on viewing distance, room size, etc., I thought 52" was over-kill (it almost is but, having lived with it for a bit, it's perfect).

For this enthusiast, room decor DOES enter into it since the "TV space" is also the "entertaining friends" space and "pushing the cat to one side to sit down, veg, and watch regular TV" space. It's gotta blend; it's gotta be functional.

And while I watch HD TV almost exclusively (that is, SD upconverted content on disc; HD content on disc; and HD cable TV ... and in that order), the other half watches mainly SD channels over cable. He's very annoyed that Golden Girls on upconverted disc looks bloody awful whilst Perry Mason -- in B&W and 30 years older -- looks awesome. 52" didn't help: Bea Arthur looks even worse; Raymond Burr and Barbara Hale look more fabulous than ever.

My point is lots of folks have lots of different perspectives but I doubt if the guy in the sales showroom is going to drive a stake through the heart of HDTV adoption. At the end of the day, HDTV is better than SD, and getting better: J6P and his cousins will catch up and in the meantime the rest of us can fuss about sitting 7 feet away from a 42" inch set or if a distance of 215 cm yields a better result.

Somebody needs to publicize the THX-recommended viewing angles....do the math. The sizes resulting from those angles lead to really solid viewing.

I think there may also be a historic issue here. Think about the 4:3 (SD) viewing area on an old-style 40" CRT. Now think about the 4:3 (SD) viewing area on a 42" 16:9 LCD. Truth is, you get less 'scale' from a 16:9 42" than from on older 40" 4:3. If the salesman learned from a chart intended for 4:3 sets, he may just be giving bad advice based on outdated info....

Truth is, you get less 'scale' from a 16:9 42" than from on older 40" 4:3.

Specifically, you get less screen area in a wider aspect ratio with the same diagonal measurement. In going from a 42" 4:3 set to a 42" 16:9 set you go from roughly 847 square inches of screen to 754 square inches.

Of course, that's only meaningful if you are comparing material that fills both screens! With 4:3 material the 4:3 set has an even bigger advantage with only 565 square inches in use on the 16:9 set. That's only about 66% of the perceived size of the 4:3 set! With 16:9 material the situation is reversed and the 4:3 set only uses 635 square inches of its real estate making the 16:9 set appear almost 20% larger.

A little off topic, but potentially interesting when considering screen sizes.

Watching HDTV is like taking a picture: Get closer than you think and then get closer. I sit 12' from my 10' wide screen and it's not close enough.;)

Approximate viewing distance[/B] Screen size
2 feet 14 to 17 inches
3 18 to 24
4 25 to 31
5 32 to 38
6 39 to 45
7 46 to 52
8 53 to 59
9 60 to 66
10 67 to 73
11 74 to 80
12 81 to 87
13 88 to 94
14 95 to 101
15 102 to 108

Does Consumer Reports differentiate between 720p and 1080p sets? I wonder which resolution these distances are based on.

We sit 8 feet from a 51" screen and my wife still swears it's too close. Of course she can't stand to sit closer than the middle of cinema so I think this issue for her really all boils down to personal taste/opinion. I suspect there is minority out there that would also be uncomfortable with the typical recommended sizes. Maybe that's what was going on....

One also has to consider the hit in sharpness as you sit closer. I sit about 9 feet from my 50 inch 720p and it looks excellent. My brother has a 70 inch 1080p and at the viewing distance of 11 feet the image is softer and less punchy due to poor reception defects being much more noticable.

With all of the nonsense that get spewed at these places, recommending a 42" TV at a viewing distance of 8-10 feet is NOT even worth mentioning. Not everyone needs to sit 5 feet away from their 70" TV to appreciate it. I always sat in the backs of the theaters and I(and many others) dont like being on top of the TV/screen.

10 feet from a 42" TV is NOT bad at all....IMO.

Long story short , my sister and brother in law were buying a tv. I went with them. After much fighting I made my sister get a 52 inch tv which she claimed was to big. My brother in law got it home and set it up. After looking at it she felt it was to small for the room.

Thankfully i got to yell at her for a good hour about my being right (it doesn't happen often)

One also has to consider the hit in sharpness as you sit closer. I sit about 9 feet from my 50 inch 720p and it looks excellent. My brother has a 70 inch 1080p and at the viewing distance of 11 feet the image is softer and less punchy due to poor reception defects being much more noticable.

I don't really understand this. I sit ~11' from a 100" 1080p projection screen, and it looks pretty darned good when the source is good. Yes, it looks pretty fuzzy with SD DVD or broadcast, but it looks PLENTY sharp with HD media.

I think the point the OP was making is that when they sell people on a screen size selection based on masking the resolution issues with SD sources, the buyers won't then see the need for HDM.....but they're missing out.

In our home cinema room, we sit at a distance of 7 feet from the TV, which is a 60 inch LCOS projection model. For high definition material, my wife and I find it just perfect, with the picture appearing very sharp at our viewing distance yet big enough that we feel like we are at the theater
We watch standard definition TV on a 32 inch CRT in the living room, so we are not bothered by its blurriness on the big screen tv

My rec's for anybody looking for a HD TV has always been "GET ONE SIZE LARGER" then you initially want.

I don't really understand this. I sit ~11' from a 100" 1080p projection screen, and it looks pretty darned good when the source is good. Yes, it looks pretty fuzzy with SD DVD or broadcast, but it looks PLENTY sharp with HD media.

I think the point the OP was making is that when they sell people on a screen size selection based on masking the resolution issues with SD sources, the buyers won't then see the need for HDM.....but they're missing out.

I sit about 9 feet away from a 110" screen with a 1080p picture. For HD it looks great.

As for the OP, if someone is mostly watching analog broadcasts and some digital cable (still 480i), then I actually agree with the guy at BB. If you are buying a large TV, you need to have access to some kind of HD programming.

I sit about 9 feet away from a 110" screen with a 1080p picture. For HD it looks great.

As for the OP, if someone is mostly watching analog broadcasts and some digital cable (still 480i), then I actually agree with the guy at BB. If you are buying a large TV, you need to have access to some kind of HD programming.

Completely agree...:) A lot of people I know who recently purchased HDTV sets say that 85% of their viewing is SDTV. In that case I agree that 42" is definitley better. My 50" is barely watchable in SD when compared to HD...

You may have a few conflicts here . . .

1. A salesman who is trying to make a sale. He may have direct knowledge that sellimg a 42" HDTV is easier than a 50" because the resistance to the price is much less.

2. A "Pseudo Expert" salesman who is making a HUGE blunder by telling a consumer what they should have versus asking questions to see what they would like to have.

3. A Stupid Salesman - a 50" HDTV will bring in more revenue for his company than a 42" HDTV and should also bring in a higher comission.

4. Company Orders - overstocked on 42" HDTV's . . "Move them!"

5. A SPIF program that yields a better comission on a 42" then a 50" HDTV.
Lee, you pretty much nailed it.

I'll add a sixth:

6. They didn't have a 50" of that model in stock.

I'm afraid I agree with the salesman.

You are suggesting choosing a display size based upon how much difference you can see between SD & HD at the distance you sit.

Surely most people (rightly) choose their display based on the size of their room (which in turn will have a large impact on how far away from their display they like to sit).

Most of the public do not see a display as a means to A/V nirvana. It's just a box on which they watch their TV programmes.

If HD isn't improvement enough over SD on a TV set that fits the consumers lounge, at the distance at which the consumer comfortably sits, then frankly it's HD's fault - not the consumer's.

2160p 60" sets will not look better than 1080p sets unless you sit 3 feet away, or closer. Are you going to suggest that as a seating distance if resolution lines double?

Steve W


I was in a local mid-end respected brick-and-mortar retailer recently, checking out the new Panasonic plasmas and other things. A couple next to me was looking at the 50" 1080p plasmas (which was playing a high-def TV loop), and asked what size of TV they should be getting.

The salesperson asked their viewing distance. It was 8-10 feet. So far so good. Then the salesperson said with confidence "you should get a 42" TV". I had to say something. I told them I sit 10' (well, more like 11 if my reclining chair is back), and have a 60", and it is not too big. I admitted that SD TV is a bit blurry (to which the salesperson condescendingly interjected "yeah, a LOT blurry"), but upscaled DVD or high-def content from TV or HDDVD/BluRay is wonderful.

The salesperson, vehemently (almost angrily) said "I strongly disagree. You shouldn't get any larger than a 42 inch".

I let things go at that, because its not my business, but I can't help thinking that advice like this is another reason killing HD movie formats. With a 42" TV from 9 feet, that couple will NOT be able to see any benefit from anything better than a 720p signal, and will likely decide that upscaled DVD is "good enough". And, they will be right.

I had a friend over yesterday that just bought a 42" TV. He said that for 8-10 feet, 42" was the correct size. I was flabergasted that he came up with the exact same information. He was probably told it by someone, but said he thought that's what consumers reports says as well.


I was pleasantly surprised to see this chart on the Consumers Reports website:

Widescreen HD set
Approximate viewing distance Screen size
2 feet 14 to 17 inches
3 18 to 24
4 25 to 31
5 32 to 38
6 39 to 45
7 46 to 52
8 53 to 59
9 60 to 66
10 67 to 73
11 74 to 80
12 81 to 87
13 88 to 94
14 95 to 101
15 102 to 108


The 42" is best for 8-10 feet recommendation is likely for Standard Definition content (and TVs) only -- though I haven't found a source.

My question - is this (mis)information widespread? Is small TV sizes one of the reasons why HD media may have a hard time taking off?

Of course practical matters such as room setup and budget are always factors. But in an ideal situation there are limits based on visual acuity that determine an optimal size vs. seating distance. A 42" set from a 10' viewing distance is a poor choice. At 10' a set of about 48" is just seeing the full benefits of a 720p signal. And I would almost bet the misguided sales person was pushing 1080p at this size/distance (which would be a waste). Here's a handy chart to reference size vs. resolution vs. distance.

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

Home Theater Magazine did a similar study with about the same results.

.

2160p 60" sets will not look better than 1080p sets unless you sit 3 feet away, or closer. Are you going to suggest that as a seating distance if resolution lines double?

Steve W


If someone would pay what they will need to pay for a 2160p 60" set and then sit too far away from it to get the benefit, then they are morons.

So yes, if a friend says he is looking at buying a 2160p in the future the 'first' thing I would say is, "Are you sure you want to spend the extra money? You do know you'll have to sit right up on it to get the benefit. don't you? So maybe you should just get a 1080p set."

Best Buy may have also found that more returns happen for a TV being "too large" than "too small." TVs do look a LOT smaller in store than they do once you get them home. 9 times out of 10 if I ask someone who has seen my 40 inch TV in my living room to point out the same size set in the store, they will point at a 46 inch model and act flabbergasted when I say that no, it's only a 40 inch.

The fact of the matter is, many people don't want their TV to overpower their living space. They do not want it to be the primary object of focus in the room. I know my mom has always viewed the TV as a 'necessary evil' sort of thing in the living room and would never think about arranging the decor of the room to accommodate the TV first. Their viewing is done at a 8-10 foot distance and I guarantee you that a 50 inch TV would be on it's way back to Best Buy the instant it was unpacked due to it being too large for the room. They both think my 40 inch is too large for my apartment when I sit 6 feet away from it.

I've long been saying that the size/viewing distance problem is going to be a primary factor in HDM adoption. Most people do not have an ideal setup to see the full effects of even 720p and they also have a lot less critical eye on picture quality to the point where upscaled 480p is "good enough."

You could have joined the conversation late, and missed the part when the couple told the salesguy how much money they can spend on a TV. ;)

No offense, but HD is a newer technology. Since when did old people ever adopt new tech. well?

No offense, but HD is a newer technology. Since when did old people ever adopt new tech. well?

Multi-generational adoption of DVD is what made it the successful format we have today. Even my 80 year old grandparents have the means to watch a DVD.

If we resign HDM to being the plaything of 30 somethings that have ample disposable income as well as waiting for 20 somethings and those below to have the purchasing power to be a market force in the segment, then HDM has lost. The only way HDM will be a success is if it achieves the same demographic spanning support that DVD currently enjoys. If it must wait on a generation to grow up, then newer and more accessible technologies are going to move in and replace HDM altogether.

I see your point of view, but would argue there aren't too many people over say 70 that have the eyesight to get the benefits of HD.
I was thinking the groups you listed plus peopke in their 40's and 50's and even some in their 60's were the buying public target that they need.
-jmo

Keep in mind much of this depends on a persons sensitivity and awareness of resolution and encoding and display artifacts, and of course eyesight. I always suggest people start by standing back from the screen, then slowly move closer until they can notice artifacts, pixelization, banding, etc. Then move up very close until they can see individual pixels and inter-pixel lines and slowly move back until they find the picture pleasing and can no longer notice anything other than the movie. You would be shocked at just how different the results are from person to person.

I personally enjoy sitting a little further back at the cost of losing some of the wide angle immersive experience. This is because once I have noticed a flaw I find it difficult to ignore (a personal problem I suppose). I got my first ATSC 1080 set the beginning of 2002 so I may be more aware of diffrences than some of my friends that are much newer to HD.

I was thinking the groups you listed plus peopke in their 40's and 50's and even some in their 60's were the buying public target that they need.
-jmo

Well, that is kind of my point. My parents are in their 50s and HD in generally isn't anything more than a novelty. My dad wants an HDTV for sports, but they have a perfectly good 36 inch Trinitron that fits nicely in a entertainment cabinet and that's unlikely to change in the near future. Any new TV will likely have to fit into that piece of furniture so with widescreen that means they would likly have to go DOWN in size to a 32 inch or so. All the while they sit at 8-10 feet from it. They COULD rearrange the room for a more optimal viewing experience or get an new entertainment center that would allow for a larger TV, but it isn't a priority.

All that said, they do have a pretty sizable DVD library. They don't even have a supplemental sound system, but they were able to see a clear advantage to DVD. These are the people that made DVD successful and they are the same people that HDM is going to be a near impossible sale.

That, and the price of HDTVs has a long way to go still. My mom pitched a fit that this TV they have came close to $800 when they bought it. Dropping over a grand on a TV is out of the question.

I think some people get too caught up in HD and home theaters to the point where they overlook that the vast majority of the public doesn't really make it a point to have an optimized viewing room for TV and movie content, yet they do still buy dvd's. If you need to break out viewing distance charts, spend thousands of dollars on hardware, and go through hours of calibration to properly enjoy HDM, then I'm afraid we are looking at another niche product for the enthusiasts crowd rather than a mainstream product like DVD.

Well, when HD broadcast becomes the norm and everyone sees the difference I believe that will help any existing HDM format sell very well. Just like when they saw the big improvement of DVD.

Well, that is kind of my point. My parents are in their 50s and HD in generally isn't anything more than a novelty. My dad wants an HDTV for sports, but they have a perfectly good 36 inch Trinitron that fits nicely in a entertainment cabinet and that's unlikely to change in the near future. Any new TV will likely have to fit into that piece of furniture so with widescreen that means they would likly have to go DOWN in size to a 32 inch or so.these are some of the things that I think need to be changed in the J6P, before screen size -> seating distance can be adopted.

1) The idea that a TV/Display can be put in a corner!
2) The idea that a TV/Display can be put in an "entertainment center"
3) Every home must have a room dedicated to viewing. it is important that in this room, equipment is NOT purchased based on asthetics such as furnature, room size, WAF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I see your point of view, but would argue there aren't too many people over say 70 that have the eyesight to get the benefits of HD.

I hope that remark burns itself into a dementia-safe part of your brain so you can recall it, years later, and shake your head in disbelief. Fortunately, by that time, no one will wear glasses thanks to implants so you won't have to utter "oh, my aching back!" when you stoop to pick up your glasses from the floor. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry if you took offense, but is it not true that vision degrades, along with many other things as a person ages?....personal feelings aside.

Well, that is kind of my point. My parents are in their 50s and HD in generally isn't anything more than a novelty. My dad wants an HDTV for sports, but they have a perfectly good 36 inch Trinitron that fits nicely in a entertainment cabinet and that's unlikely to change in the near future. Any new TV will likely have to fit into that piece of furniture so with widescreen that means they would likly have to go DOWN in size to a 32 inch or so. All the while they sit at 8-10 feet from it. They COULD rearrange the room for a more optimal viewing experience or get an new entertainment center that would allow for a larger TV, but it isn't a priority.

All that said, they do have a pretty sizable DVD library. They don't even have a supplemental sound system, but they were able to see a clear advantage to DVD. These are the people that made DVD successful and they are the same people that HDM is going to be a near impossible sale.

That, and the price of HDTVs has a long way to go still. My mom pitched a fit that this TV they have came close to $800 when they bought it. Dropping over a grand on a TV is out of the question.
I think some people get too caught up in HD and home theaters to the point where they overlook that the vast majority of the public doesn't really make it a point to have an optimized viewing room for TV and movie content, yet they do still buy dvd's. If you need to break out viewing distance charts, spend thousands of dollars on hardware, and go through hours of calibration to properly enjoy HDM, then I'm afraid we are looking at another niche product for the enthusiasts crowd rather than a mainstream product like DVD.


They can easily purchase a much nice TV the same size easily for under a grand. Most likely under $800.

That, and the price of HDTVs has a long way to go still. My mom pitched a fit that this TV they have came close to $800 when they bought it. Dropping over a grand on a TV is out of the question.


32-36 inch sets are already below 800.00. 40-42 inch sets start at 900.00+. My sister has actually talked about getting a flat panel, and she doesn't view a TV set as a high priority. Those who thinking HDM is only going to be niche, are mistaken...in my view. You have hunt to find a non-HD tv at retailers now. When the majority of people have HDTVs in 1 or 2 years, the demand for HDM will only increase. The price needs to be right though. 25-39 dollars is just too much. DVD adoption rates soared when the prices came down. It will be the same for HDM.

Widescreen HD set
Approximate viewing distance Screen size
2 feet 14 to 17 inches
3 18 to 24
4 25 to 31
5 32 to 38
6 39 to 45
7 46 to 52
8 53 to 59
9 60 to 66
10 67 to 73
11 74 to 80
12 81 to 87
13 88 to 94
14 95 to 101
15 102 to 108
If you look at this graph,
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/0602_tech_talk2_large.jpg
the numbers above almost exactly follow the line for 1080 screens...

Diogen.

32-36 inch sets are already below 800.00. 40-42 inch sets start at 900.00+. My sister has actually talked about getting a flat panel, and she doesn't view a TV set as a high priority. Those who thinking HDM is only going to be niche, are mistaken...in my view. You have hunt to find a non-HD tv at retailers now. When the majority of people have HDTVs in 1 or 2 years, the demand for HDM will only increase. The price needs to be right though. 25-39 dollars is just too much. DVD adoption rates soared when the prices came down. It will be the same for HDM.

It's already been pointed out though that those lower sized sets at normal viewing distances usually found in homes are not going to see much, if any advantage with HDM over DVD.

Also, most people buy flat panels for the form factor, not necessarily for picture quality.

HDTV adoption does not automatically translate to HDM demand. The majority of early adopters think their DVDs are already HD, what do you think is going to happen when the masses finally get onboard with HDTV?

DVD looks stunning on a high resolution display, especially at lower sizes and longer viewing distances. DVD is going to look better to these people than it has ever looked before as most of them have been watching their discs with 1/3rd of the resolution missing due to anamorphic downconversion, they aren't going to rush out to buy something brand new to fix something that doesn't look broken to them.

Eagles--regarding vision--I'm 53 and have 20/10 vision.

Oh--and as for us old geezers being laggards, I'm an early adopter of all kinds of things. IN HT, current set up--Sony Pearl, PS3, HDA2 in room 1; HD-70 A2 in room 2; 50 inch Toshiba DLP and HD A2 in room 3. 7.1 HDMI sound in all rooms. I can't wait to add another BD source in Room 2.

My 83-year-old mother has PCs in every room, an HD TV installation, and 2 ipods (one exclusively for video!).

You'd be amazed at what old people get up to ;)

Peace,

Brian

I've got a room in the basement for HD, all hard wired from stem to stern, 6.1, internet for the 360 at one end and PC at the other. But upstairs in the main living room (where the wife watches SDTV, HD= who cares?) 10 years ago we bought some major matching furniture that only holds a 36" 4.3 CRT. The furniture is not going away any time soon, and its not going to be fun downsizing the screen size to fit into it when it time to replace it. :(:(:(

When I got my 50 inch 720p TV there were two reasons I didn't go bigger:
The wife said anything bigger would overwhelm the room.
Poor quality SD broadcasts would look blurry from my 9' viewing distance.
The second problem would be fixed by having a TV that could fit an SD picture into the central 640x480 portion of the screen. In fact it would be best if it could shrink HD broadcasts for those times the station is up-converting what looks like a VHS tape to broadcast it in HD. I hope the first reason takes care of itself; now that the wife is used to a 50" set moving up to a 65" 1080p set may not seem so bad. My dad got a 42" set that he watches from about the same or greater distance than I watch from but he insisted it had to be 1080p to be future proof. I am pretty sure he can't see the difference between a DVD and HDM at that distance on his set even after his cataract surgery so I haven't mentioned HD-DVD and Blu-Ray to him.

If you're watching any kind of HD, bigger is better (in my opinion). When I replaced my 65" in July I had some trepidation about going to a 70" given the size of the room and my viewing distance (either 5' or 9' depending on where I sit)... in retrospect I am SOOOOOOOOOO glad I opted for 70" than 60".

[...]
I was pleasantly surprised to see this chart on the Consumers Reports website:

Widescreen HD set
Approximate viewing distance Screen size
2 feet 14 to 17 inches
3 18 to 24
4 25 to 31
5 32 to 38
6 39 to 45
7 46 to 52
8 53 to 59
9 60 to 66
10 67 to 73
11 74 to 80
12 81 to 87
13 88 to 94
14 95 to 101
15 102 to 108

[...]

Do they have a chart that won't get me divorced on the spot?

I see your point of view, but would argue there aren't too many people over say 70 that have the eyesight to get the benefits of HD.
I was thinking the groups you listed plus peopke in their 40's and 50's and even some in their 60's were the buying public target that they need.
-jmo

My dad is 78 and last Xmas he wanted to get a HDTV. He was actually obsessed about it. This came about because he saw the HD sets at my house and my brothers house.

Of course, he had an entertainment cabinet that I could not get him to replace which meant the largest set he could get was 37". And it's in the corner. ;)

BTW: Also talked him into getting a universal remote (a MX850) which I programmed for him and my mom. They love it. And they also bought a computer 8 years ago and now have computers at both their home and vacation house with high speed hookups at both. Maybe not the norm but ya gotta love those old folks! :D

HDTV adoption does not automatically translate to HDM demand. The majority of early adopters think their DVDs are already HD, what do you think is going to happen when the masses finally get onboard with HDTV?


I keep reading these quotes about HDTV owners not watching HD sources. Who are these people? Every single person I know who has an HDTV has an HD cable box, or OTA set to the HD channels.

Sure, DVDs look much better on an HD set, than SD, but once you see true HD it's hard to go back.

I don't think the conversion will be overnight, but it will happen in time. You don't turn the clock back on technology.

I see your point of view, but would argue there aren't too many people over say 70 that have the eyesight to get the benefits of HD.
I was thinking the groups you listed plus peopke in their 40's and 50's and even some in their 60's were the buying public target that they need.
-jmo

Actually people over 70 probably would benefit from HD because of that poor eyesight.

If you're watching any kind of HD, bigger is better (in my opinion). When I replaced my 65" in July I had some trepidation about going to a 70" given the size of the room and my viewing distance (either 5' or 9' depending on where I sit)... in retrospect I am SOOOOOOOOOO glad I opted for 70" than 60".

I really hope you realize that you are a statistical outlier due to the fact that you are not only already replacing an HDTV, but you are replacing an HDTV with a size already of 65 inches. To most people, TVs are decade lasting purchases. They aren't something that's purchased every other year. Because of that, you are most defiantly the type of person who sees the benefit of HDM and knows how to utilize it. However, you exprience isn't something that can be applied to the general public.

Hell, half the people I know wouldn't be able to physically fit a 65 inch TV into their living space.

I keep reading these quotes about HDTV owners not watching HD sources. Who are these people? Every single person I know who has an HDTV has an HD cable box, or OTA set to the HD channels.

Sure, DVDs look much better on an HD set, than SD, but once you see true HD it's hard to go back.

I don't think the conversion will be overnight, but it will happen in time. You don't turn the clock back on technology.


You anecdotal evidence does not invalidate surveys done by professional groups like NPD which indicate otherwise. There is a certain logic to the fact that if you are into home theater that people you have relationships with would be into home theater, even if only on a casual level. This skews your personal experience slightly so it doesn't align with survey data. It does not, however, invalidate that data.

I disagree that once you see HD, it's hard to go back. Once you watch OTA HD or a select few Cable HD stations, it's hard to go back to SD cable, but the back and forth between HDTV and upconverted DVD is much less painful. I have a LNS4095d Samsung 40 inch LCD so while I don't have the biggest and best thing in the world, I still have decent display equipment. I also sit about 6' from that display as well so I'm close enough to at least start to see the advantages of 1080p at that size, but I'm really not finding my viewing experience degraded a whole lot when going back down to DVD. Sure, if I sit there and technically nitpick the presentation and I can very clearly see where the differences are, but if I'm doing that I'm not enjoying the film. I buy the movies that are special to me on HDM. Movies that I wouldn't mind owning but really aren't in my upper echelon of favorite movies, I'm more than happy to own on DVD.

If HDM were a true replacement for DVD, I could see HDM fully replacing DVD down the line. It's not positioned as a true replacement though. The studios are positioning it as a premium product along side DVD and the merits of HDM are not enough to convince the average person to give up on <$9.99 media pricing and wide compatibility with a plethora of cheap playback devices. You can sit someone down and show them how you can see the texture of the cloth in this scene or read the background signs in another scene, but most people aren't going to care if it requires more cost and effort than DVD because those tiny incremental things aren't anywhere near what they saw when they switched to DVD from VHS.

If standard tv had never existed, and if 1080p tv had just arrived as the only tv people knew anything about, people would be calculating to the inch just how far they should be from the screen, and people would remodel rooms just to achieve the correct distance (average people! I know many of us do this!). The problem is that everyone has had a tv for years, and the average person thinks that he or she knows where a tv should go and what size it should be. Most people naively believe they can replace say a 32" standard tv with a 32" hd tv and keep everything the same, except now they will see "hd." To people here on the AVS forum this would seem absurd, but I know too many people who intend to someday get an hd tv and put it exactly where the current tv is. The idea that they would need to sit closer, or buy a larger screen, or toss that outdated entertainment center always comes as a surprise to them. Sad but true.

FWIW I was sold on the PQ benefits of HDM on a 26" LCD. Everyone I showed a HD title to could instantly see a difference. Display size was never an issue with me.

I have upgraded to a 42" plasma though.:)

Thank you audioNeil for the viewing distance chart. My gf keeps saying a 46" set is too big, but now I've got a better argument :)

My bedroom has limited space, but I'm sure happy with my Sony XBR-60" which I between 3-5' away from. I considered getting a projector, but don't think I can get that much of a larger image since my room isn't that large, and I would have to have it projected fairly high otherwise I would block the image.

R Miyashiro

Hang the projector outside on a tree and let it come through a window, that should back it up enough.

I keep reading these quotes about HDTV owners not watching HD sources. Who are these people? Every single person I know who has an HDTV has an HD cable box, or OTA set to the HD channels.

Sure, DVDs look much better on an HD set, than SD, but once you see true HD it's hard to go back.

I don't think the conversion will be overnight, but it will happen in time. You don't turn the clock back on technology.

They are people who are buying a TV set for the form function - a George Jetson, hang on the wall TV . . . that just happens to be called an HDTV.

As far as this "hard to go back" issue - not everyone is enamored with PQ. Most really don't care. They understand the plot just as well in SD as you do in HD.

Amd many are paying very high CBL bills already and feel that extra $20 a month for HD is not worth it to them.

They are people who are buying a TV set for the form function - a George Jetson, hang on the wall TV . . . that just happens to be called an HDTV.

As far as this "hard to go back" issue - not everyone is enamored with PQ. Most really don't care. They understand the plot just as well in SD as you do in HD.

Amd many are paying very high CBL bills already and feel that extra $20 a month for HD is not worth it to them.

1. Gotta love informed buyers.

2. I have yet to meet a person who wasn't enthralled with the PQ of a big HD display. Doesn't mean they went out and bought one, but alot of people are cheap or just don't have the money for a properly set-up system.

3. To me it's a no-brainer. XX amount per month without or xx + $10 a month for HD. Unless they are on some $30-$40 per month plan, the extra ten is more than worth it.....if they are set-up properly to enjoy it.

I know this is anecdotal, but I pay $2 extra a month for HD through Comcast Boston. That's just the increase for the HD box, HD is actually free. I also have a 74 year old mother who called up and bitched at Comcast a few weeks back because the HD went out on her box just before game 1 of the World Series. If a 74 year old woman is screaming "I paid for HD and if I can't watch the Red Sox in the World Series in HD, I want my money back!!", I think some people underestimate the impact HDTV has on the average consumer. Especially sports fans.

PS - They were out with a new box the very next day. :D

3. To me it's a no-brainer. XX amount per month without or xx + $10 a month for HD. Unless they are on some $30-$40 per month plan, the extra ten is more than worth it.....if they are set-up properly to enjoy it.

It may not be just +$10 depending on your locality or service provider. Comcast in this area requires you to upgrade to digital service in order to get HD on top of box rental. That's a minimum $15.99 per month increase if you are on expanded basic and can be something like a $40 /month increase if you only have basic cable service.

The only reason why I'm keeping HD service with Comcast right now is because the deal I have worked out makes it cheaper than what I was paying for expanded basic until the end of the year. I'm likely going to drop their HD service (and digital service) at the beginning of 2008 because it's absolute junk and not worth paying for. I'll settle for OTA HD until I can get a real service provider.

We sit 8 feet from a 51" screen and my wife still swears it's too close. Of course she can't stand to sit closer than the middle of cinema so I think this issue for her really all boils down to personal taste/opinion. I suspect there is minority out there that would also be uncomfortable with the typical recommended sizes. Maybe that's what was going on....

Agree. Correctness is in the eye of the beholder. I sit 11' away from my 40" 1080i display and I think it's perfect.