How much smaller is a 32" WS than a 27" CRT?

post #1 of 5

2/7/08 at 5:49pm

Thread Starter

136 Posts. Joined 11/2006
Location: Manchester, NH
Select All Posts By This User

16:9 32" vs a 27" 4:3. I am talking height wise. The reason is because I was going to get a budget 37" but I am kind of thinking of getting a high in 32" to replace my 27" CRT. This is for my bedroom. Does anyone have a picture comparing the two?

Reply

post #2 of 5

2/7/08 at 5:56pm

523 Posts. Joined 12/2007
Location: Seattle
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by M. Brown

16:9 32" vs a 27" 4:3. I am talking height wise. The reason is because I was going to get a budget 37" but I am kind of thinking of getting a high in 32" to replace my 27" CRT. This is for my bedroom. Does anyone have a picture comparing the two?

This is an unscientific response so take it with a grain of salt since I have not officially measured. However a 32" 16:9 TV looks to me much the same size as a 27" 4:3 set. If anything the 32" set might be slightly shorter then a 27" but the wider view more then makes up for it. I believe the viewing distance rules based on diagonal screen sizes still work the same for 4:3 and 16:9 sets.

Reply

post #3 of 5

2/7/08 at 6:16pm

15 Posts. Joined 11/2007
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by M. Brown

16:9 32" vs a 27" 4:3. I am talking height wise. The reason is because I was going to get a budget 37" but I am kind of thinking of getting a high in 32" to replace my 27" CRT. This is for my bedroom. Does anyone have a picture comparing the two?

Mathematically calculated, the 32" 16:9 will be 0.5" shorter than a 27" 4:3.
The 32" 16:9 will be 6.3" wider than the 27" 4:3.

Someone care to check my math? (This would be a lot easier to explain if I could include pictures of the triangles, but I don't have a scanner handy - sorry).

4:3 is a perfect 3-4-5 triangle so if the "5" side is 27" (diagonal) then the "4" side (width) is 21.6" and the "3" side (height) is 16.2". This is a straight ratio.

16:9 is a little more complicated (but not much). A right triangle with dimensions 16 & 9 will have a diagonal of 18.358 ( c=sqrt(16^2+9^2) ). Applying the 18.358 ratio to the diagonal screen size in question (32") gives a multiplier of (32/18.358)=1.743. So, the "16" side (width) is multipled by 1.743 to get 27.9". The "9" side (height) is multiplied by 1.743 to get 15.7"

The differences are:
Width: 27.9-21.6 = 6.3" (the widescreen 32" is 6.3" wider than the 27" CRT)
Height: 15.7-16.2 = -0.5" (the widescreen 32" is 0.5" shorter than the 27" CRT)

Thanks for the opportunity to use some real math. I don't get a chance very often.

Reply

post #4 of 5

2/7/08 at 6:29pm

Thread Starter

136 Posts. Joined 11/2006
Location: Manchester, NH
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by smhyde

Mathematically calculated, the 32" 16:9 will be 0.5" shorter than a 27" 4:3.
The 32" 16:9 will be 6.3" wider than the 27" 4:3.

Someone care to check my math? (This would be a lot easier to explain if I could include pictures of the triangles, but I don't have a scanner handy - sorry).

4:3 is a perfect 3-4-5 triangle so if the "5" side is 27" (diagonal) then the "4" side (width) is 21.6" and the "3" side (height) is 16.2". This is a straight ratio.

16:9 is a little more complicated (but not much). A right triangle with dimensions 16 & 9 will have a diagonal of 18.358 ( c=sqrt(16^2+9^2) ). Applying the 18.358 ratio to the diagonal screen size in question (32") gives a multiplier of (32/18.358)=1.743. So, the "16" side (width) is multipled by 1.743 to get 27.9". The "9" side (height) is multiplied by 1.743 to get 15.7"

The differences are:
Width: 27.9-21.6 = 6.3" (the widescreen 32" is 6.3" wider than the 27" CRT)
Height: 15.7-16.2 = -0.5" (the widescreen 32" is 0.5" shorter than the 27" CRT)

Thanks for the opportunity to use some real math. I don't get a chance very often.

Your welcome. Better you do the math than me LOL. And thanks for working the math out too.