AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm debating with my dad of either getting a 37" or a 40" Samsung LNXXA550 for the living room. He constantly keeps saying that getting a TV too big while you're sitting too close is bad for your eyes. I know that, and I measured it from the couch to the stand and it's roughly around 9 feet (8.6 to be exact). So I was wondering is 40" a good size and will I see any pixelation if I get a 40" vs. a 37" LCD?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
829 Posts
People tend to think that rules of thumb that applied to old standard def TVs are the same for HD TVs, but they're not. HD TVs have a much higher resolution, so you can sit closer to them without seeing the structure of the display device.


A calculator I like to use is this one: http://myhometheater.homestead.com/v...alculator.html


You'll see that for a 40" TV, once you get farther than 5.2 feet, your eyes can't resolve all the detail in a 1080p image, so 9 feet would be plenty far to not strain your eyes. It's actually pretty hard these days to go too big; most people are more constrained by the room layout or furniture or a significant other
.


For what it's worth, I've got a 46" TV for a 7ft viewing distance; at first it looked huge, but now it's looks pretty normal. If I had more space beside the TV, and more money, I wouldn't have a problem with a 52" TV either
.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,594 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elviathan /forum/post/14277815


He constantly keeps saying that getting a TV too big while you're sitting too close is bad for your eyes. I know that, and I measured it from the couch to the stand and it's roughly around 9 feet (8.6 to be exact). So I was wondering is 40" a good size and will I see any pixelation if I get a 40" vs. a 37" LCD?

For 9 feet and 1080p resolution, you ought to be thinking WAY bigger than 40".


Check the resolution chart . With a 40" screen you'll barely be able to resolve better than SD, and certainly not HD resolution.


This means all that money you spend on the extra 1080p HD resolution will be wasted, and you might as well go for a lower resolution screen.


Oh and it's not "bad for eyes" to sit close to a large screen, that is an old wives' tale from the 50s. It is perfectly fine to sit at any distance that is comfortable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,921 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elviathan /forum/post/14277815


I'm debating with my dad of either getting a 37" or a 40" Samsung LNXXA550 for the living room. He constantly keeps saying that getting a TV too big while you're sitting too close is bad for your eyes. I know that, and I measured it from the couch to the stand and it's roughly around 9 feet (8.6 to be exact). So I was wondering is 40" a good size and will I see any pixelation if I get a 40" vs. a 37" LCD?

Dad clearly falls into the PDSF (Psychological Display Shrinking Factor) trap. PDSF tells that display which seems to be too big becomes perceived normal or even too small after a period of normal watching. So your dad after experiencing 20+" display thinks that 37" is gargantuan - but this is only PDSF effect. Thus, in your case even 40" is too small, think about 46" or even 50". Important assumption here is that the display and material watched are HD quality with no artefacts, otherwise bigger display is more annoying. In the end,it means the bigger the relative size of the display wrt to the viewing distance, the higher picture quality it should have and more HD content should be watched.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,233 Posts
I view a 57" at 8.5' and see no pixels until I get within inches on my HD Content and often I see none on quality material. My only regret is not going to the 65" when I could've had it for a mere $1500 more at the time. My TV never seems to small and is great being as large as it is for everything I view but still I crave the 65-70" at the same distance. Your Dad is carrying CRT SD 480i Concepts forward into the age of HD where even mundane viewing of local news in HD can be amazing - there are no negatives going larger unless you fail to feed it HD.


People settling for a 37" - 40" at that distance still have CRT SD on the brain which is nonsense. I had a 45" previous in the same spot and I've had zero desire to view it in my alternate room since having the bigger HT size panel. Once you go big you never go back as more WoW Factor comes with the package that's even better than a Movie House experience and I'm not exaggerating.


Same two million pixels get larger and bring out more details with dot mode 1:1 (Just or Pure et al) and the thought they don't hold clarity at larger size is utter nonsense that goes back to 4:3 CRT 480i dinosaur CRT's - do not judge a wide screen HD 1080P panel like you do those CRT's - I had a 36" Sony CRT that was great but my LCD blows it away with HT immersion - the CRT was to be watched while these panels are to be EXPERIENCED!


I cannot think of one single negative with my larger panel outside the price I paid for it nearly 2 years ago and the thought of what's lost in a 40" at ten feet is ludicrous - go view the THX VD Calculator and you'll see a 40" is a weenie size certainly not HT size at 10'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,675 Posts
Your dad is out of touch - WAY out of touch. As to your question it depends on the quality of your input. With an SD signal a person of normal eyesight can watch from a distance of 2.5 times the diagonal size of the TV without seeing signal noise. So from 9 feet that is a 42 inch set. But with good HD input this can be 2 or less, so from 9 feet you can comfortably watch HD on a 52 inch set. Some people like westa6969 like it even bigger, which I find uncomfortable but each to his own.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
554 Posts
Well westa, another excellently demeaning post to someone asking for help. Always count on you to make people feel like idiots while you try to spend their money for them. And if you can't see pixels on a 57" set until only a few inches away, I question your vision. I wonder if you are really experiencing full HT immersion. I think it's time for those reading glasses.

Elviathan, do you have a budget in mind or space restrictions? You may want to decide where the TV will go and measure the space to see how big a set will fit. Then take you dad to a store and spend some time watching (sorry, experiencing!!!) sets that will fit both the space and budget. I would try for the 40" at minimum, and 46" would be better. Don't forget to check other threads on AVS Forum for TV settings before you go to adjust the set in the store (tell salesman to help if you need to). You may want to go once or twice yourself before you take him to simplify the experience for him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Discussion Starter #9

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adult Beverage /forum/post/14278835


Well westa, another excellently demeaning post to someone asking for help. Always count on you to make people feel like idiots while you try to spend their money for them. And if you can't see pixels on a 57" set until only a few inches away, I question your vision. I wonder if you are really experiencing full HT immersion. I think it's time for those reading glasses.

Elviathan, do you have a budget in mind or space restrictions? You may want to decide where the TV will go and measure the space to see how big a set will fit. Then take you dad to a store and spend some time watching (sorry, experiencing!!!) sets that will fit both the space and budget. I would try for the 40" at minimum, and 46" would be better. Don't forget to check other threads on AVS Forum for TV settings before you go to adjust the set in the store (tell salesman to help if you need to). You may want to go once or twice yourself before you take him to simplify the experience for him.

My budget is around $1500 excluding tax, shipping, etc. I also have the 40" LNXX650 in mind as well, but my dad doesn't like the Touch of Color very much even though he saw it in person. My mom loves the color scheme, so it's kind of a love or hate thing for our family. That's why I've narrowed it down to the LNXX550 series form Samsung. I think a 40" is enough and I JUST might convince my dad to get that instead, but I'm pretty sure he won't listen to reasons when I try to explain to him that's it's perfectly fine sitting 9 feet away from a TV that's 46", so a 46" LCD is out of the question.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,594 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adult Beverage /forum/post/14278835


And if you can't see pixels on a 57" set until only a few inches away, I question your vision. I wonder if you are really experiencing full HT immersion. I think it's time for those reading glasses.

Fact is, at 9 feet away, you can't fully resolve 1080p with normal vision until your screen diagonal is about 70". Any smaller, and the pixels start to blur together, and by the time you get to a tiny 40", you can barely resolve anything better than SD.


For 720p at 9 feet, the optimal screen size is 50".


If the OP wants a small screen, he should not waste money on 1080p because the viewer is never going to see it at 9 feet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,671 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by nm88 /forum/post/14278011


For 9 feet and 1080p resolution, you ought to be thinking WAY bigger than 40".

+1

If your into HDTV (sports, movies, etc.) You'll wish the family had gone bigger
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,289 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elviathan /forum/post/14277815


I'm debating with my dad of either getting a 37" or a 40" Samsung LNXXA550 for the living room. He constantly keeps saying that getting a TV too big while you're sitting too close is bad for your eyes. I know that, and I measured it from the couch to the stand and it's roughly around 9 feet (8.6 to be exact). So I was wondering is 40" a good size and will I see any pixelation if I get a 40" vs. a 37" LCD?

Rule of thumb would be a 70-74" wide screen at 9' distance, if you have 20/20 vision and wish to be able to see better than 720p effective resolution. If we use THX recommendations, it would be a bit larger than that. If you mostly watch SD, maybe a bit smaller. As you can see, you are exceeding the maximum reasonably priced sizes of LCD and Plasma and entering into front projection space. FP has other requirements though, such as a darkened room and low / no ambient light, the ability to mount a projector on your ceiling and run wires, dark colored walls and ceiling (ideally).


Of course most people sit further away than the recommended distances and then say they see no difference between Blu-Ray and DVD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,177 Posts
Heres viewing distances in a nutshell:

Multiple diagonal of TV to find viewing distance

3.5x for 480p

2.0x for 720p

1.5x for 1080p

1.0x for 1440p (yeah, I know it does not exist yet)


Of course those are the closest (aka optimal) viewing distance to get all the quality out of your display, you can sit farther way but you won't be getting the most out of your HDTV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,675 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by reallynotnick /forum/post/14282659


...2.0x for 720p

1.5x for 1080p

....

These are only valid for the highest-quality input (i.e. a top-notch Blu-ray). In the real world of the satellite, cable or OTA signals most of us live with you would see a lot of signal noise sitting that close.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
One thing to remember.. if you have a regular 4:3 TV now, in order to have the same size SD viewing, you actually need a larger HDTV, inch wise. For example, I had a 32" 4:3 normal CRT. To keep the same size SD viewing, I calculated that I would need a 42" Widescreen at a minimum. Easiest way is to measure the height of the screen... if they are the same then the SD content will look the same size.


Anyway, I got a 52" HDTV and sit 9-10 feet away. I could easily watch it with good HD content from only 4-5 feet away.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
I currently sit about 9 ft away from my 46" screen. I can easily see the quality difference between Dish and OTA HD, and it's really too big for SD, especially Dish SD locals.


That's just my opinion of course, and I'm anything but an expert. I just think it's a pretty subjective matter and highly dependant on the quality of your HD source. But for my current use, I would rather have a 42". That's why when I upgrade to a flat screen I'm probably sticking with 46", even though I'm gaining 18 inches of distance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,458 Posts
42 inches it PLENTY big enough from 9 feet away. I have had a 42 inch plasma for around 6 years now in my living room. Not ONCE has ANYONE EVER said...That's too small. Rather, 42 inches pretty much became a standard a good while back. I have a 37 inch set in my office and sit 11 feet back from it. It is a bit small at that distance and I wouldn't recommend anything smaller than a 42 for a 9 foot distance. You can get some GREAT deals right now on the 42 and 46 inch versions since everybody is trying to sell the larger 52 inch sets. I think you can even get a 1080p WITH 120Hz featureset for around $1,500


It is small enough that SD footage still looks pretty good. It's large enough that 4:3 material is still presented in a large enough display...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
314 Posts
IMHO, 40 minimum and 46-50 maximum. Don't forget a 37 16x9 is the same vertical size as a 30 4x3, a 42 16x9 the same as 34 4x3. And... these days you need to read text for titles, descriptions, etc. If your fathers eyes are not as good as they used to be (like mine) bigger is much better.
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top