Why no mid-sized LCD? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 13 Old 12-22-2009, 09:29 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Mike999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Why don't they produce a 34" or 35" mid-size LCD to replace the 27" bedroom CRT? A 32" LCD - most are only 31.5" - is clearly too small for watching 4:3 material, and 37" and 40" models are often too big for a bedroom. Now that the 37" size is going out of production, people looking for an LCD for a smaller room are going to be left with no choice but a monster 40" model or a 32" set that's too small.
Mike999 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 13 Old 12-22-2009, 11:03 PM
Senior Member
 
Marty1781's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Washington DC metro area
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well I bought a 32" LCD specifically to replace my 27" bedroom CRT and feel the picture size is comparable between the two sets. Granted, I watch mostly 16x9 HD programming on the LCD though. However, if you do the math, a 4:3 image on a 32" 16x9 LCD is the equivalent of a 4:3 image on a 26.1" 4:3 CRT. The 32" LCD produces a 4:3 image of 328.13 sq inches while the 32" CRT produces a 4:3 image of 349.92 sq inches. So you get a decrease of roughly 6.2% of the 4:3 image size when going from the 27" tube to the 32" LCD - not that much IMO. By contrast, when viewing 16x9 programming, you get a minimum of a 40% increase in viewing area by going from the 27" CRT to the 32" LCD. So I guess when you look at the numbers, at least IMO, the 32" LCD gets you in the same ballpark for 4:3 viewing as the 27" CRT and greatly surpasses the 27" CRT for 16x9 programming in terms of viewing area. My educated guess would be that's good enough for most people (but obviously not all) and thus why tv manufacturers probably don't see a need to produce something between 33" -36".
Marty1781 is offline  
post #3 of 13 Old 12-23-2009, 12:36 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Mike999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty1781 View Post

However, if you do the math, a 4:3 image on a 32" 16x9 LCD is the equivalent of a 4:3 image on a 26.1" 4:3 CRT.

As I pointed out though, most 32" LCDs are actually 31.5" diagonally. Some would appear to be slightly smaller than that. 31.5" is equivalent to a 25.7" 4:3 CRT. The width of the screen and the black bars make the 4:3 center frame appear even smaller. Also take into consideration that you have to sit further back from an LCD in order to minimize artifacting with SD material, and now it's more like a 20" set. Having owned a 32" LCD for the past couple of years, there's no question what's annoyed me the most is the small size of the 4:3 center frame, and yet right now, I have no alternative, as a 37" or 40" set would clearly be too big for the room.
Mike999 is offline  
post #4 of 13 Old 12-23-2009, 05:56 AM
Member
 
Mike00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike999 View Post

As I pointed out though, most 32" LCDs are actually 31.5" diagonally. Some would appear to be slightly smaller than that. 31.5" is equivalent to a 25.7" 4:3 CRT. The width of the screen and the black bars make the 4:3 center frame appear even smaller. Also take into consideration that you have to sit further back from an LCD in order to minimize artifacting with SD material, and now it's more like a 20" set. Having owned a 32" LCD for the past couple of years, there's no question what's annoyed me the most is the small size of the 4:3 center frame, and yet right now, I have no alternative, as a 37" or 40" set would clearly be too big for the room.

If you could fit a 27 inch crt why can't you fit a 37 inch lcd?

Panasonic P65S1
Onkyo TX-SR607
DefTech Mythos One Fronts
DefTech Mythos Three Center
DefTech BP1.2X Surrounds
PS3 Blu-Ray
Mike00 is offline  
post #5 of 13 Old 12-23-2009, 07:08 AM
Member
 
integra1972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 179
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike999 View Post

Why don't they produce a 34" or 35" mid-size LCD to replace the 27" bedroom CRT? A 32" LCD - most are only 31.5" - is clearly too small for watching 4:3 material, and 37" and 40" models are often too big for a bedroom. Now that the 37" size is going out of production, people looking for an LCD for a smaller room are going to be left with no choice but a monster 40" model or a 32" set that's too small.

I think the trend is mid-size is around 40in in todays market.
integra1972 is offline  
post #6 of 13 Old 12-23-2009, 07:56 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
walford's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 16,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
If you have a 27" standard 4:3 aspect ratio CRT TV you need a 32" 16:9 widescren TV in order not to have a shorter screen and therefore a loss of physical screen size of meaningfull video content.
A 37" wide screen model is ony about 12% taller then a 27" standard screen model so I don't see why it is obviously too big unless the fact that it is about 50% wider is a problem.
walford is offline  
post #7 of 13 Old 12-23-2009, 08:23 AM
Advanced Member
 
Zivman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: MPLS/St Paul
Posts: 766
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Maybe it is just me, but anything under 42" seems small. I have a 42" display in my bedroom and from a lot of the comments I see, a lot of people buy 50" displays for their bedrooms. While others move to a 60"+ display in their main room and move their 50" into the bedroom.

Not only do I feel a 30-something display is small, my only choices are LCD....no thanks. That and the price of a 42" panel is very resonable now.
Zivman is offline  
post #8 of 13 Old 12-23-2009, 09:02 AM
Senior Member
 
Marty1781's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Washington DC metro area
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike999 View Post

As I pointed out though, most 32" LCDs are actually 31.5" diagonally. Some would appear to be slightly smaller than that. 31.5" is equivalent to a 25.7" 4:3 CRT. The width of the screen and the black bars make the 4:3 center frame appear even smaller. Also take into consideration that you have to sit further back from an LCD in order to minimize artifacting with SD material, and now it's more like a 20" set. Having owned a 32" LCD for the past couple of years, there's no question what's annoyed me the most is the small size of the 4:3 center frame, and yet right now, I have no alternative, as a 37" or 40" set would clearly be too big for the room.

Yes, but there are also several 32" LCDs that are actually 32". We are talking about 0.5" here and I really don't think its that significant (though I'm guessing you disagree). "The width of the screen and the black bars make the 4:3 center frame appear even smaller" is just your perception and only something you personally can deal with. If you feel you have to sit further back to enjoy SD material, then even more reason to go with a 37" unit. I don't know why you think 37" is too big for the bedroom (unless your furniture cannot accomodate it) but I know several people that have 50" and 60" tvs in their bedroom so clearly there are a good number of people that don't share that sentiment. In any case, to answer your question, it appears there aren't a lot of people out there that feel the same way you do about the need for a 33" - 36" LCD otherwise tv manufacturers would have likely released such a unit by now. Since a 32" LCD is too small for you and a "mid-sized" LCD doesn't appear to be coming out anytime soon, my recommendation would be to get a 37" LCD and enjoy the extra screen real estate. Once people get their tvs in their homes, I don't think I've ever heard "I wish I had gone smaller" (its usually the opposite).
Marty1781 is offline  
post #9 of 13 Old 12-23-2009, 09:19 AM
 
maxdog03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,804
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike999 View Post

Why don't they produce a 34" or 35" mid-size LCD to replace the 27" bedroom CRT? A 32" LCD - most are only 31.5" - is clearly too small for watching 4:3 material, and 37" and 40" models are often too big for a bedroom. Now that the 37" size is going out of production, people looking for an LCD for a smaller room are going to be left with no choice but a monster 40" model or a 32" set that's too small.

Why produce a bunch of different sizes that may not sell that well? We're already starting to see the 46" size go away as many buyers jump to the 50" with cost being very similar. As far as fitting a certain size TV there's very little difference between a 32" LCD and a 37" LCD and both take up less real-estate than a 27" CRT. I think we might actually see the 37" size go away and will be left with 32", 40", 52-55" and then the 60"+ sizes.

It all comes down to demand and I think there's very little if any demand for a size between a 32" and a 37".
maxdog03 is offline  
post #10 of 13 Old 12-23-2009, 10:04 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Mike999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by walford View Post

A 37" wide screen model is ony about 12% taller then a 27" standard screen model so I don't see why it is obviously too big unless the fact that it is about 50% wider is a problem.

Yes, it's mostly the width that's the problem, as well as viewing distance. I would be about 5.5 feet from the display, so SD wouldn't look very good.
Mike999 is offline  
post #11 of 13 Old 12-23-2009, 12:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
walford's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 16,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
You should not consider width as an issue since all TV broadcasts and movies are produced totally aware that they may be watched on 4:3 aspect ratio TVs/display so they make sure that the 15% of the video content on each side 16:9 video content contains no meaningfull content.
If you watch sporting events or even the evening news on a sidescreen HD unit you will quickly that they do this.
walford is offline  
post #12 of 13 Old 12-23-2009, 04:06 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Mike999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxdog03 View Post

I think we might actually see the 37" size go away and will be left with 32", 40", 52-55" and then the 60"+ sizes.

Why not then 34", 40", 52" and 60"+? It seems to me that the manufacturers sized everything slightly too small, and that's why most classes are now being bumped up a notch, 37" -> 40", 42" -> 46", etc. My hope is that 32" will be the next to move up.
Mike999 is offline  
post #13 of 13 Old 12-23-2009, 04:55 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
walford's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 16,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
The most efficient panel size yield of as individual LCD or Plasma fab facility is not adjustable. For example the latest 10th generation LCD fab that is just coming on line is most efficient(the least scrap) when makiing 60" or 40" panels.
walford is offline  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

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