Originally Posted by benareeno
If I like this distance, then that's that. Why would you argue with me about it? That's ridiculous.
I saw a 4k today...didn't look any better than 1080p to me. At least, not much better.
Take any issues with pic quality, like noise, dither, artifacting...and they are more visible on a larger screen. It's really as simple as that.
The difference between 42 and 50 is not like night and day. So, my pref is to minimize the pic issues and maximize pic quality. I feel that a 42 is the best compromise...I could be wrong. But, that point is really not up for debate as it's simply my choice.
I'm no longer disappointed in this set...I think it's the best 42 inch set ever produced, regardless of display tech.
I tried to mention this earlier but I don't know if I explained it well enough. so i'll try again
I understand your theory, smaller screen, more pixels per degree(field of vision) better picture.
but something I've noticed with my projector and screen, is that it's not all about the pixels. having a tv twice as big and sitting twice as far back does not give you the same picture, it's actually gives you a better one. some things don't scale up. with the projector, a good example of that is screen texture. if I can see the texture from 10feet, it doesn't matter how small I go I will always see the texture. and if I can't see it from 15feet, it doesn't matter how big I go, I will never see it.
now i'm not 100% sure this applies to all your problems, but I will say for me, dithering follows this rule. when I upgraded from the 50" to the 64" I did not find the dithering any more noticeable at all. I needed to be about the same distance away from both sets to see it. so the larger size screen, allows me to sit further back, thus reducing the dithering affect. so i'm just saying, if it's possible to move back, consider that going with a large screen would allow you to do that. and being farther from the screen does have it's benefits to hiding flaws.
the other thing i'd say, is considering they don't make a small vt60, the 55" vt60 may very well provide a superior picture than a 42" s60 even with that extra size. sure a 42" vt60 might be better with your theory, but that's not an option. I don't think it's safe to assume all large TV's will be worse than all small TV's.
i'm with you on this one. I will always choose quality over quantity. but that doesn't mean i'll always pic the smallest screen. it means i'll pick the best one in my eyes. for me, it meant that I was going to drop down to the 60" zt instead of the 65" vt(similar prices) if the zt had a superior picture. ended up with a Samsung f8500 that negated that whole thing, but that was my plan.