Am I going to big for the distance??? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 44 Old 05-12-2011, 07:10 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
jmsnyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 12
So my sofa will be about 7.5' from the tv. I was thinking of getting a 50" plasma but now I am leaning towards a 55" LCD. Most likely 3D.

Is 55" too big for that short of a distance?
jmsnyc is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 44 Old 05-12-2011, 07:35 PM
Member
 
Emerick99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Nobody can tell you except yourself and your own eyes. Personally, a 32" screen is perfectly suitable for a 7.5' distance. Before that I was watching 20" from a 7.5' distance. I image 55" at that distance would give me crazy eye strain, but do as you wish, right?

EDIT: I find it kind of fascinating how we need 55" screens from such a distance when we used to watch tube TVs a third of that size from even further back and never had a problem. Strange world.
Emerick99 is offline  
post #3 of 44 Old 05-12-2011, 07:53 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
jmsnyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I currently have a 32" tube that I'd be replacing. I wanna go big though, I def do not want eye strain - I do not want it to be so big that its not comfortable watching which is why I am posting.
jmsnyc is offline  
post #4 of 44 Old 05-12-2011, 07:53 PM
crb
Member
 
crb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmsnyc View Post

So my sofa will be about 7.5' from the tv. I was thinking of getting a 50" plasma but now I am leaning towards a 55" LCD. Most likely 3D.

Is 55" too big for that short of a distance?

Speaking from PERSONAL preference: I sit 6.5 feet away from a 60" LCD. Started in 2004 with a 60XBR950 rear proj, and now I just bought a 60EX720. Won't "turn back!" :-)

FYI in a fit of "impatience" I DID consider the 55EX720; thank heaven I didn't!

If you do a Google search, I BELIEVE that THX viewing distance guidelines say that 55" at 8' is at the low end of of OPTIMAL viewing.
crb is offline  
post #5 of 44 Old 05-12-2011, 08:01 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
jmsnyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 12
According to this chart, 6' maximum suggested is 46" and 8" is 63" so averaging that we get 7' at 54.5"



source http://www.smartreview.com/hdtv-how-...en-do-you-need

The 55" LCD will actually be about same weight as a 50" plasma.
jmsnyc is offline  
post #6 of 44 Old 05-12-2011, 08:05 PM
Member
 
Iorek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Iorek is offline  
post #7 of 44 Old 05-12-2011, 08:07 PM
Member
 
Emerick99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
That chart is bullsh/t. Tell it to all the people who sat (and continue to sit) 9' or more from their 20" CRT sets, and have no problems whatsoever. Obviously there are some who have issues with this (videophiles, cinephiles, etc.) but to suggest one needs to sit that close to such a giant screen is so silly.
Emerick99 is offline  
post #8 of 44 Old 05-12-2011, 08:30 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
jmsnyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emerick99 View Post

That chart is bullsh/t. Tell it to all the people who sat (and continue to sit) 9' or more from their 20" CRT sets, and have no problems whatsoever. Obviously there are some who have issues with this (videophiles, cinephiles, etc.) but to suggest one needs to sit that close to such a giant screen is so silly.

Hey we all sat far from school screens in the crt days, and they did not have hdtv then either

I am not talking about a need to sit close to a big tv, I'm talking about the want - its sort of a luxury that is available to us in todays market as tvs grow and prices fall.

I guess you are right its a personal pref.... I guess your pref is that 55" is too big for that distance while other posters feel it isnt. I'm just trying to figure out if it the magnanimosity of it would look cool or as you point out "silly"
jmsnyc is offline  
post #9 of 44 Old 05-12-2011, 08:37 PM
Advanced Member
 
zoman504's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 659
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emerick99 View Post

That chart is bullsh/t. Tell it to all the people who sat (and continue to sit) 9' or more from their 20" CRT sets, and have no problems whatsoever. Obviously there are some who have issues with this (videophiles, cinephiles, etc.) but to suggest one needs to sit that close to such a giant screen is so silly.

Sounds like you're just upset you're stuck with a 32" screen lol. 55" TV's, ftw!

LG 55LHX
PS3 60gig | HTPC (building now) | WDTV | AT&T UVerse
ATT UVerse
Denon 1712 receiver | JBL 190's, 130's, and 120c
zoman504 is offline  
post #10 of 44 Old 05-12-2011, 08:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kevin. W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm about 8-9ft away from my new 55 inch. Would have gotten a 60-65 inch if they had it in the model I bought. Its all about how your eyes and brain perceive the picture. If your too far away with a small TV then it won't matter whether your sending a 1080p or 720p signal to the set as you won't be able to tell the difference.
Kevin. W is offline  
post #11 of 44 Old 05-12-2011, 09:27 PM
Member
 
Emerick99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoman504 View Post

Sounds like you're just upset you're stuck with a 32" screen lol. 55" TV's, ftw!

LOL, no. I would never, ever buy a 55" TV for the space I currently have, no matter how much money I had. Sorry.

EDIT: although I am upset the TV has serious issues Samsung won't address.
Emerick99 is offline  
post #12 of 44 Old 05-12-2011, 09:51 PM
Advanced Member
 
jbdawson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 538
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by crb View Post

Speaking from PERSONAL preference: I sit 6.5 feet away from a 60" LCD. Started in 2004 with a 60XBR950 rear proj, and now I just bought a 60EX720. Won't "turn back!" :-)

FYI in a fit of "impatience" I DID consider the 55EX720; thank heaven I didn't!

If you do a Google search, I BELIEVE that THX viewing distance guidelines say that 55" at 8' is at the low end of of OPTIMAL viewing.

Yeah bigger is better I sit 4ft away from a 70" projector
jbdawson is offline  
post #13 of 44 Old 05-12-2011, 09:57 PM
Member
 
Scrumhalf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Beaverton, OR
Posts: 99
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I sit about 7" from a 70 in LCD TV. I feel like I am hovering just above the infield when I watch a baseball game. It is great! I would go even bigger if a bigger TV existed. IMHO you can't go too big.
Scrumhalf is offline  
post #14 of 44 Old 05-13-2011, 02:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
westa6969's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: From Michigan now Retired to Naples, FL
Posts: 6,965
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 200 Post(s)
Liked: 196
I've viewed a 57" from 8.5' for five years and it's not only never been a problem considering my content is over 90% HD and with 1:1 dot mode I crave larger and will go to a 65"-70" in the near future. I view so little SD that Turdvision won't get in the way of the rest of my viewing and the immersion size brings to the table = WoW Factor. I also have a 55" Samsung in an upstairs loft with about the same viewing distance for my wife and she loves it.

My biggest regret after buying this panel was not going with the 65" but these panels were far more costly 5 years ago - I could buy two 70" Sharps today for what my 57" cost on sale back then and the new panel will blow away the black levels of my 5yr Sharp.

Go as big as your wallet can go provided you max HD viewing sources. My goals are either the Sony HX929 65" or the high end 70" X5 Sharp in August.

Samsung 65F8000, 60D8000, 40HU6350, Panasonic 50E60 LCD's
westa6969 is online now  
post #15 of 44 Old 05-13-2011, 04:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
joed32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,035
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 38
8' from a 55' here and it's great, no eye strain at all. I would be disappointed if I had gotten a 46". It's a matter of taste but do what you want not what others tell you to do. I was going to get 3D until someone told me to wait because passive glasses are coming so I waited and have a little buyer's remorse. Should have got it anyway it would be fun to play around with and would not have cost much. Get the 55 if you're so inclined.
joed32 is offline  
post #16 of 44 Old 05-13-2011, 05:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
BoilerJim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 6,235
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 105
I have nothing against large TVs for those who want them and I also have nothing against smaller panels for those who want them. I do agree with Emerick99 that determining the size of your TV based on some stupid chart is asinine.

I would suggest going to an electronics store and auditioning the various sized televisions from the approximate distance that you will be viewing from home and making your final determination based on what is comfortable for you. I will make one concession to those who say "bigger is better" and say that if you are torn between two sizes, then you should probably get the bigger one.

However, the final decision rests not with Emerick99, crb, Kevin.W, jbdawson, scrumhalf, westa6969, joed32, and especially not with BoilerJim.

The final decision rests with jmsnyc... His money, his choice. Good luck in whatever you decide.
BoilerJim is offline  
post #17 of 44 Old 05-13-2011, 05:24 AM
Member
 
Scrumhalf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Beaverton, OR
Posts: 99
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by westa6969 View Post

My goals are either the Sony HX929 65" or the high end 70" X5 Sharp in August.

I just picked up the 70" 732 Sharp a week ago. Let me tell you, it is quite an immersive experience watching stuff on that size from close up. Remember a few years ago when they started having the cable cams hovering over the line of scrimmage in NFL games and it made the viewer feel like they were standing on the field just behind the quarterback after the snap? That's how it feels a lot of times now watching games.

I have never had a projector and my room configuration does not allow for it, but if there were a 80" panel that was consumer priced, I would snap it up.
Scrumhalf is offline  
post #18 of 44 Old 05-13-2011, 05:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
serialmike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,745
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
The charts are out there to as a guide to get optimal performance when trying to get that movie theater experience.

They in no way mean to tell you that you cannot enjoy a smaller set in said distance.

In fact Imo(just my opinion the smaller end of the scale should be used when setting up a home theater that is used for everyday viewing.

The large end should be used when setting up a movie theater only type enviroment.

A chart is a chart to be viewed and interpreted by each individual. Common sense tells the rest of the story.

I for instance have about 10 ft from the screen, slightly less. Min is 40 Max is 80. I after having many sets of different sizes have a 60. A 60ex500 to be exact. I think it is near perfect size for everyday use.
serialmike is offline  
post #19 of 44 Old 05-13-2011, 06:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
[Irishman]'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,443
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emerick99 View Post

That chart is bullsh/t. Tell it to all the people who sat (and continue to sit) 9' or more from their 20" CRT sets, and have no problems whatsoever. Obviously there are some who have issues with this (videophiles, cinephiles, etc.) but to suggest one needs to sit that close to such a giant screen is so silly.

It's not silly if you understand the point behind it.

When you go to the movies, usually the screen you watch the movie on fills a certain degree of your peripheral vision. What they've done is taken that perceived field of horizontal vision and put it in a formula that will let the TV you watch fill your peripheral vision to that same degree.

Also, there is a functional difference between the tvs we used to watch 30 years ago and today. With the advent of full HD (1080p), on screens of certain sizes and at certain viewing distances, you can see amazing detail. But, should you get a little bit smaller TV or sit a little bit further away, the human eye can't resolve the detail that your TV and Blu-ray player can reproduce.

So, in the interest of getting what you paid for, and reproducing the movie experience at home (hence the clever moniker "home theater") sit between 7' to 9' to see the best detail on that 55" TV you're considering. You'll have fun. I'm also a big believer in the power of the first impression. For your first movie on the set, pick a title that was mastered right and rated as a reference quality title. "Dark Knight" was mine. I'll NEVER forget it. And don't forget to pick up your jaw off the floor.

COMING SOONFinding the Ark of the Covenant by Brian Roberts, in the iBook Store on iTunes, a new investigation into the Hebrew’s Most Sacred Relic!
[Irishman] is offline  
post #20 of 44 Old 05-13-2011, 07:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
BoilerJim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 6,235
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Irishman] View Post

It's not silly if you understand the point behind it.

When you go to the movies, usually the screen you watch the movie on fills a certain degree of your peripheral vision. What they've done is taken that perceived field of horizontal vision and put it in a formula that will let the TV you watch fill your peripheral vision to that same degree.

Also, there is a functional difference between the tvs we used to watch 30 years ago and today. With the advent of full HD (1080p), on screens of certain sizes and at certain viewing distances, you can see amazing detail. But, should you get a little bit smaller TV or sit a little bit further away, the human eye can't resolve the detail that your TV and Blu-ray player can reproduce.

So, in the interest of getting what you paid for, and reproducing the movie experience at home (hence the clever moniker "home theater") sit between 7' to 9' to see the best detail on that 55" TV you're considering. You'll have fun. I'm also a big believer in the power of the first impression. For your first movie on the set, pick a title that was mastered right and rated as a reference quality title. "Dark Knight" was mine. I'll NEVER forget it. And don't forget to pick up your jaw off the floor.

I think that's great for those who ascribe to such theories.

Some of us do and some of us don't. There is no right or wrong. That's like saying you need a certain size of car for maximum driving pleasure without taking individual preferences into consideration.
BoilerJim is offline  
post #21 of 44 Old 05-13-2011, 07:52 AM
Member
 
Winky65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoilerJim View Post

I think that's great for those who ascribe to such theories.

Some of us do and some of us don't. There is no right or wrong. That's like saying you need a certain size of car for maximum driving pleasure without taking individual preferences into consideration.

I think that is true to a point. I believe there is a distance from a specific size screen one can sit where the viewer will not perceive a difference between 720p and 1080p. Now, if that is not important to the viewer, then more power to them. But they should then save a bunch of $ and buy a 720p tv. (not that you will find a new one these days)

Just as some people do not need a car that can do 200mph, no need to buy one.
Winky65 is offline  
post #22 of 44 Old 05-13-2011, 11:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 7,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Liked: 253
Careful everybody. This thread is starting to sound like another recent thread that was closed because the "bigger is better" opinions started to get out of hand. Whatever the OP is comfortable with as far as viewing, budget, environmental conditions, is fine for him. Constructive suggestions is what the OP is asking for.
Otto Pylot is offline  
post #23 of 44 Old 05-13-2011, 11:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Steve S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Fresno CA
Posts: 5,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 46
The bigger the screen the more any imperfections in the picture will distract from your enjoyment. If you're still going to be watching a lot of SD cable or satellite channels be prepared for them to look pretty bad with the bigger set at that distance. Same is true, though to a siginficantly lesser extent, with typically overcompressed HD from satellite, cable, or OTA stations with too many sub-channels--compression artifacts will be a little more noticeable. Well mastered Blu Ray disc, with it's much higher bitrate, will look fantastic at virtually any screen size.

Eyestrain isn't just a matter of size, in fact size is, imho, a relatively minor factor in eyestrain.
Having the picture cranked up to maximum light output by leaving the set in "Vivid" or "Dynamic" mode with the sharpness turned up too high will be the real culprit in most cases.

Those charts are meant as guidelines for trying to duplicate the movie theater experience in your home, which is not everyone's priority. Not everyone needs or wants to see their local newscasters faces blown up to 3 feet high. That being said, if you have a good HD source too small a screen would be cheating yourself as you won't see all the detail available.

Look at sets in the store from your normal viewing distance to get an idea of what you like but keep in mind that the ambient light in most stores is way too bright and the sets are all going to be in "torch" mode. I've found that most people's experience is that the set will shrink one size within a month of getting it home, so if you're torn between two sizes get the larger one, unless you're still going to be watching a lot of SD stuff.

If you seriously want a 3D set and want the best 3D experience a larger set is more immersive.

Steve S.
Steve S is offline  
post #24 of 44 Old 05-13-2011, 11:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 7,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Liked: 253
@Steve S

Excellent response.
Otto Pylot is offline  
post #25 of 44 Old 05-13-2011, 12:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MrEastSide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 53
I rarely feel like you can ever go too big. But, that's just me.

Quote:
Of course, I got it modified with the TK-427, which cheeks it up another, maybe, 3 or 4 quads per channel.
MrEastSide is online now  
post #26 of 44 Old 05-13-2011, 02:57 PM
Senior Member
 
davenport47's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The sad truth is that we really need two screen sizes---one large screen of 50" or more for "home theater" (Blu-ray movies) and a smaller one of 40" or less for normal programming such as news and information. (Who wants to watch giant talking heads?)

On larger sets, football and baseball look great when the camera is over the field---but my wife nearly got seasick watching football on a 50" set when the camera lingered on close-ups of the players walking back to the huddle, etc. Great big bobbing heads can be annoying after a while.

Steve S. makes a good point about sources. The smaller the screen, the more forgiving of the source. Regular DVDs (upscaled by a good Blu-ray player) start to get soft to a trained eye from 10ft. away on screens of 46" or more. If you watch older, classic movies not yet transferred to Blu-ray (and it'll be many years before a majority of good ones are), you'll want to stick to 47" or under. And these old movies look wonderfully sharp and clear on a 40" or 42" screen---perhaps better than in a real theater when they were first shown.

From a "perspective" point of view, if you want a genuine theatrical experience, 50" is minimal. There's just enough peripheral sightline on that size to be satisfying from 10ft. But you'd better be watching 1080p or you'll lose sharpness (and nothing is broadcast over cable in higher than 780p or 1080i). Of course it may depend on how experienced you are at evaluating this, or how much you care about sharpness vs. size. To me, sharpness and color accuracy---hence realism---are paramount.

Since I watch many different sources, I finally decided to compromise with a 42" set, which I am quite satisfied with (though I had to return three other brands, including Sony, Samsung, and LG, before I got a set free of picture defects).

As more and more good movies come out on Blu-ray (90% of the choices today seem like garbage) I may get a 55" set and create a home theater in a larger room. For now, the 42" is a great all-around size for all sources, and of course the Blu-rays are stunningly clear from somewhat closer than our ordinary 10ft. viewing distance.
davenport47 is offline  
post #27 of 44 Old 05-13-2011, 03:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BoilerJim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 6,235
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 105
Yep, that's why our two main TVs are of different sizes, a 37" for normal viewing in the family/sun room and our "giant screen" 46-incher for that amazing home theater experience in the living room with Blu-ray player & 5.1 surround sound.
BoilerJim is offline  
post #28 of 44 Old 05-13-2011, 04:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
[Irishman]'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,443
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoilerJim View Post

I think that's great for those who ascribe to such theories.

Some of us do and some of us don't. There is no right or wrong. That's like saying you need a certain size of car for maximum driving pleasure without taking individual preferences into consideration.

Well, it's not a theory. It's reality. If you follow those directions, that predictable end result will happen.

COMING SOONFinding the Ark of the Covenant by Brian Roberts, in the iBook Store on iTunes, a new investigation into the Hebrew’s Most Sacred Relic!
[Irishman] is offline  
post #29 of 44 Old 05-13-2011, 04:42 PM
Advanced Member
 
Guibs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Montreal, Qc, Canada
Posts: 995
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Irishman] View Post

Well, it's not a theory. It's reality. If you follow those directions, that predictable end result will happen.

The predictable end is if you sit too close to a large screen, not only are you going to perceive more detail in the picture, but also more flaws. Unless you only watch top quality bluray, you are going to see artifacts in your picture while watching any other source but bluray. Also, being this close to a big TV will allow you to see a more pixelated picture because even if the screen is bigger, the resolution remains the same.

THX guide line is for this, cinema experience with optimum source quality. If this doen't represent that vast majority of your TV time, than going bigger is not always better.
Guibs is offline  
post #30 of 44 Old 05-13-2011, 05:30 PM
Member
 
james93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmsnyc View Post

I currently have a 32" tube that I'd be replacing. I wanna go big though, I def do not want eye strain - I do not want it to be so big that its not comfortable watching which is why I am posting.

I was in your situation, had a 32" tube and was deciding on a new TV. I ended up getting a Sammy 55" LCD and its great. The main difference is I sit about 10' from the TV, that was the same distance with the 32".

James
james93 is offline  
Reply LCD Flat Panel Displays

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off