[darrenchristoper]

Just chatted with a friend about TV size. He told me that to get the best out of bluray movies, you have to get a TV with the size of 55". Is that the truth? or is it just a personal opinion?

Currently I already have a Sony Bravia 46" LED 4K TV.

 

[Lils Roro]

It depends on the distance between the viewer & tv. I would say that at 10', it would take at least a 60" screen for most people to discern the difference between bluray & 1080i. Some tests have shown the distance needs to be even shorter. Bottom line is the bigger the better unless you sit very close to the tv.

 

[OneStepAhead]

Just chatted with a friend about TV size. He told me that to get the best out of bluray movies, you have to get a TV with the size of 55". Is that the truth? or is it just a personal opinion?

Currently I already have a Sony Bravia 46" LED 4K TV.

I'm not sure why the above poster is comparing 1080i and 1080p? The difference between 480p dvd vs 1080p bluray will be obvious even on a 46". Not to mention the better sound quality that comes on many bluray releases.

However, 4K is 100% useless on a 46" screen unless your within a couple of feet from it. I would say 4K is pretty much useless until you get to 65". However, manufacturers are putting 4K resolution on most of their high end sets regardless of their size.

What bravia set comes with 4K? I thought Sony only used 4K on their XBR line.

 

[Lils Roro]

Excuse me. I assumed the OP's alternative to BD was cable and streaming, not upscaled DVD's. I've got some 360p home movies that would make BD's look even better.

 

[Squirrel!]

It all boils down to the seating distance from the screen. The closer you are, the smaller you can go, while the farther away, the larger sizes is what will be required for optimum viewing.

 

[darrenchristoper]

It all boils down to the seating distance from the screen. The closer you are, the smaller you can go, while the farther away, the larger sizes is what will be required for optimum viewing.

Well this is what I thought..... so considering this comment, you will get a good pic quality out of 32" LED TV? suppose it's in a bedroom and you are watching about 6 feet away from the TV.

 

[Squirrel!]

That would work. Tho personally, 40" is the smallest I will go. But 32" @ 6' would be fine as long as you like it.

 

[8mile13]

I had all kind of sizes. For ''homecinema-ish movie experience 46'' is really the minimum imo..bigger will get you a even better experience.

 

[colour]

That's really a stupid statement for your friend to make.

http://www.rtings.com/info/television-size-to-distance-relationship

 

[CherylJosie]

Just chatted with a friend about TV size. He told me that to get the best out of bluray movies, you have to get a TV with the size of 55". Is that the truth? or is it just a personal opinion?

Currently I already have a Sony Bravia 46" LED 4K TV.

This is a complicated question.

Every opinion on screen size is 'just a personal opinion' but it really helps to know the background facts that such opinions are based upon.

Your '4K' TV might not be able to do 'real 4K', depending on what HDMI standard it has and what additional tech is included. Your '4K programming' might not be 'real 4K' depending on the source device and program.

To keep things simple, assume that your TV is fully compliant with 4K and all your sources and programs are also fully 4K.

Try these links.

Start here because it has a great graphic illustration of screen size, viewing distance, and number of pixels the eye can discern at a given resolution:

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

Each 'full benefit' line on the chart indicates the viewing distance threshold beyond which the display resolution becomes 'retinal' or has more detail than the average 20/20 eye can discern.

If your vision is poor, you can decrease these distances to match your vision by applying the ratio i.e. divide by 10 for 20/200, or just put your lenses on/in if they help.

The chart illustrates that in order to start seeing any noticeable benefit from 4K resolution on your 46" TV compared to 1080P the distance to your eye must be no more than 6' and to get the full benefit of 4K where you see all its detail the distance must be no more than 2'.

That does not mean that your TV looks just like 1080P beyond 6'. There could be other improvements to the panel or processing that come along with the 4K resolution.

Note also that a 46" 1080P TV is also a 'retinal display' at any distance greater than 6' but visibly better than 720P up to 8' where 720P also becomes 'retinal'.

This article adds context to that chart:

http://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/

...Modern TVs are made from huge sheets of "motherglass." From this big piece, companies slice up smaller pieces to make televisions. It's easier (read: cheaper) to make a big piece and cut it into smaller TVs....

...Instead of slicing up one piece of motherglass into four 42-inch 1080p LCDs, what if you just kept the whole thing as one piece?...

...TV companies are pushing 4K because they can. It's easy, or at least easier than improving the more important aspects of picture quality (like contrast ratio, color accuracy, motion blur, compression artifacts, and so on )...

Then skim here for background info:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance

Now look here for practical buying info, because resolution, screen size, and viewing distance are typically traded off against each other in a compromise that fits the use, plus things like 3D complicate the matter:

http://www.cnet.com/news/how-big-a-tv-should-i-buy/

Finally here is a random-ish googled link for some comments that mention some interesting additional info:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2025111

 

[CherylJosie]

This link gives you a 'one size' sort of output that takes into account the actual perceived benefits as opposed to the theoretical limits. It can be very difficult to see any image improvement or degradation near the 'retinal display' threshold so they move the 'ideal' away from that threshold to compensate.

For the 46":

ideal viewing distance = 3'4"

For the 32":

ideal viewing distance = 2'4"

http://referencehometheater.com/2013/commentary/4k-calculator/

Based on the output of this calculator I would not use a 4K TV of either size for anything other than a computer monitor and then only when sitting very close, unless the increased resolution comes with nearly zero cost or the display includes improvements in picture quality besides resolution.

For comparison, I sit approximately 6' from my 46" 1080P LCD and it is barely 'retinal' at that distance. I use it for everything with no resolution issues, but it has the usual LCD issues with color, motion, contrast, viewing angle, uniformity etc.

BUT I also sit approximately 6' from my 100" projection screen when it is deployed in order to gain the benefits of a more immersive experience. It is only 1080P at this time and theoretically I can see the pixels (not with the junk screen that I installed temporarily), but if I upgraded to 4K it would also be barely a 'retinal' display at that distance, so I plan on building a DIY 4K screen for it just in case I upgrade the projector later when 4K becomes available with a short throw.

 

[Mark12547]

... you will get a good pic quality out of 32" LED TV? suppose it's in a bedroom and you are watching about 6 feet away from the TV.

Since I own both a 32-in HDTV and a 50-in HDTV, I thought I might contribute based on my experience. Note, however, I am not a perfectionist, nor is my eyesight the sharpest (but it is corrected to 20/20), nor is my ear particularly discerning, so I do ok with the TV speakers. A fair assessment would be to state that I am addicted to watching TV but not obsessed with getting the best picture or the best sound. (Knowing my biases may help you discern how much weight to put on my experience.)

I just got out my tape measure to measure distance from eyes to TV.

TV Size|Viewing Distance|Comments
32-in|7 feet|Sitting in recliner or laying in bed. (Maybe 10 feet if I recline in recliner, but then I am not really watching but more just listening and chances are I'll fall asleep during whatever I am watching.)
50-in|7 feet|Sitting upright in my "man cave"

If you check my signature, you can see what equipment I have connected to which TV.

The only HD signal I have going to the 32-in is from the HD DVR when playing an HD program. I can usually tell the difference between SD and HD, not just because SD usually is 4:3 and HD is usually 16:9, but also HD usually has more fine detail. (Seeing locks of hair on the head during a close-up vs. seeing the strands in the locks of hair is what I usually notice first.)

On the other hand, if it is a movie I want to be immersed in, I will want to watch that on the 50-in HDTV:

• The HD detail is easier to see on the 50-in at 7 feet than it is on the 32-in at 7 feet, that is, if it is a HD source (such as a Blu-ray disc) and there are times when I would want to see detail that I can't on the 32-in unless I walk right up to the screen.
• The "immersion" (the amount of being "in" the movie as contrasted to being a distant observer) is greater on the 50-in than the 32-in (again, with both at a 7-ft. viewing distance), and that makes many enjoyable movies more enjoyable.
• The 50-in at 7 feet happens to match my preference when I used to go to theaters as far as percent of field of view (or screen size / distance) goes: close enough to get my desired level of "immersion", but not so close that I can't see the entire screen without moving my eyes.

So, yes, I can say that for some titles a 50-in screen (at 7 ft.) will show detail that one wouldn't perceive on a 32-in screen (again, at 7 ft.).


On the other hand, there are times I am really glad that I didn't get a larger screen for the bedroom, in spite of the reduced "immersion", because ...

• In the bedroom, I don't want a TV that lights up the whole room if I am using the TV to dose off or wake up. Some nights I play one of the music channels to help me fall asleep and I don't want lots of light flickering around when I am trying to sleep. The smaller the TV, on the average, the less domineering its light will be.
• When faced with compression artifacts (part of the picture temporarily breaking up, macroblocking), a smaller screen makes them a bit less painful, whereas a large screen would magnify those flaws. Compression artifacts are more common through the cable (especially when The Flash flashes), but I have yet to notice compression artifacts on Blu-ray. (I have read that over-the-air would typically have fewer compression artifacts than cable.)
• Poor SD source is poorer on a larger screen (again, the larger screen would magnify the flaws). Some shows I watch were originally taped (yes, as in magnetic video tape) in SD and show various artifacts of that technology (such as "ringing" and sometimes ghosting), with the modern digital transmission technology faithfully reproducing those captured artifacts, and I don't want my nose rubbed into them. Some shows (especially those that were filmed on film, typical for the Desilu Studios, such as the original Star Trek or the Mission: Impossible TV series) look ok on the small screen, but their special effects fall apart when magnified on a large screen (e.g., revealing the threads supporting "flying" models, or disturbance in the picture revealing the string tugging on some creature to get it to move). So, for some content that was originally designed for a 21-in color TV, viewing on 32-in is more enjoyable than viewing on 50-in.

So, for Blu-ray viewing, I prefer the 50-in HDTV in most cases.



But if the bedroom TV breaks, would look for another 32-in to replace it, not a 50-in.


On the other hand, if the VHS/DVD player in the bedroom breaks, I would look for a Blu-ray player to replace it. Even though I wouldn't get the full benefit from Blu-ray on the 32-in at 7 feet, I would still get some noticeable benefit from the increased resolution.