AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,175 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm a little curious as to the preferences of others concerning the size of HDTV display they prefer, and the reasons. Personally I prefer the large screen. I have a 65" Mits and the F38310. While I think the RCA is an exceptional TV, I believe getting a "perfect" picture on a large screen is preferable. I think the smaller the screen size, the harder it is to appreciate the difference between 1080i and 480i. Any future HDTV purchases of mine will definately be in the 50"+ range.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,539 Posts
It all depends on your viewing distance from the screen. You don't want a 65" screen if you are in a small room and 5feet viewing distance for example. If you have a large living room and 15feet distance its a different story.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,123 Posts
Well when it comes to watching real HDTV I dont think theres any question that bigger is better.. at least within reason. For one thing, theres almost no such thing as being "too close" to the screen. But certainly you want to be close enough to appreciate all the extra detail. Get far enough away, and you wont.


So if I feel that 6-7 feet away for example is optimum for my 55" WS when watching HD, how close would I have to sit if I had a 30" WS? Three feet? Hell, I might as well be sitting at my computer.


By the same token though, even with HD I still only consider it to be "watching tv" 90% of the time so I dont know I'd want to fire up a projector on a 120" screen just to watch Everybody Loves Raymond.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,175 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
DP1...I wouldn't mind having that projector and 120" screen to view "Bikini Destinations".
 

·
Registered
LG 55" C9 OLED, Yamaha RX-A660, Monoprice 5.1.2 Speakers, WMC HTPC, TiVo Bolt, X1
Joined
·
45,617 Posts
The bigger the better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,102 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by DP1
Well when it comes to watching real HDTV I dont think theres any question that bigger is better.. at least within reason. For one thing, theres almost no such thing as being "too close" to the screen. But certainly you want to be close enough to appreciate all the extra detail. Get far enough away, and you wont.


So if I feel that 6-7 feet away for example is optimum for my 55" WS when watching HD, how close would I have to sit if I had a 30" WS? Three feet? Hell, I might as well be sitting at my computer.


By the same token though, even with HD I still only consider it to be "watching tv" 90% of the time so I dont know I'd want to fire up a projector on a 120" screen just to watch Everybody Loves Raymond.
DP1, I fire up my PJ onto a 150" screen for HD (even the HD sitcoms). I think all HD looks great on a front PJ and very rarely watch HD on my pioneer RPTV (although I think SD is better on it). It's funny, but I think that most people will use a front PJ for all HD just because the PJ looks any HD look amazing and you sometimes forget you're watching a "TV" show, it's more like you're in the audience watching the show live.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
587 Posts
I couldn't watch HD on anything less than a 6ft. wide screen!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
Watching HD on my HS10, priceless:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,220 Posts
I wouldn't recommend a HDTV smaller than 47" because you will not get the real HD effect. Personally I have a Toshiba 65" and I sit 9' from it. My wife talked me out of the 73" and she now admits she was wrong.


Rick R
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,772 Posts
Well I guess someone needs to offer the counter argument.


Its not size that matters, but rather the effective resolution.


That F38310 can only look a bit better than 480p not because it is 38" wide, but because it has "fat pixels". It has a dot pitch bigger than .6mm


A 24" Sony GDM-FW900 with a .25mm dot pitch can produce a remarkable, window-like HD picture... And can be quite enthralling for one viewer sitting right in front of the screen.


That 24" GDM-FW900 can show more detail than most 50-60" RPTVs. Maybe even more than most 7" CRT based FPs.


For a single viewer, small can actually work quite well.


For a multi-person "audience" you need the big screen!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Rick_R
I wouldn't recommend a HDTV smaller than 47" because you will not get the real HD effect.
What??


Even on my 15" laptop LCD, there's a BIG difference between DVD, and HD.

You're missing a big point. It's not about the size. It is combination of effective resolution, and fill factor. (viewing distance, and viewer's eye-sight as well)


PVR mentioned Sony's FW900 24" CRT montor. This small monitor will blow any of RPTV out of water in terms of resolution, detail, "HD effect"....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,102 Posts
Effective resolution is only part of the equation. As you said Nusim, viewing distance. I don't think many people are going to put their face close a 15" screen for more than 5 minutes to get the HD effect vs. DVD. I believe that viewing distance is preference but it seems most would prefer sitting (or lounging) on a couch or recliner a few feet from the display, and when we do this a larger screen is preferred.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,425 Posts
I have a 40 inch now and I am very happy with it but the next one will be in the 50+ range. However having said that I do get nervous watching standard tv on to big of a screen to me the bigger you get the crappier it looks. But for pure HDTV bigger is better. Now that the prices have dropped so much it may be time but my wife wants a plasma and I am not they are ready just yet for primetime from what I have read. Maybe in another year or so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,220 Posts
Sitting 18" from a 17" screen will certainly give you an HD effect. The problem is that at 18" your eyes are focusing at 18" and sending to your brain a message that the object is close when you are viewing a scene that is of a distant object. If the screen is 6' or further, your eyes focus at or near infinity, sending a message to your brain that the object is far away. This prevents headaches and side effects of close viewing.


They tried reality goggles that had view screens for each eye. Same problem. Massive headaches and perception problems because your eyes were focusing at inches when the object appeared to be dozens of feet away.


Just my opinion.


Rick R
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,772 Posts
I liked VR goggles. Maybe my brain has an easier time avoiding headaches and "reality distortion" issues from being up close.


I find that many of the other problems on RPTVs (blurry image, interlace flicker, DLP rainbows, convergence problems, etc, etc.) give me more of a headache than sitting up close to a nice display.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,772 Posts
Besides, some of the material being watched is up close.


Looking at a bug 5 inches away on DHD:Insectia, or a face dialog closeup on Sopranos doesn't make sense if it is viewed as if you are 10 feet away.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
I have read that in a theater the ideal viewing distance is one to 1 1/2 the screen width from the screen. If one gets too close there is too much eyestrain from trying to track the entire screen and one loses the big picture.


Goggles seems like an option if done correctly. The two separate screens would eliminate the sense of looking at something close because the eyes would be directed at infinity rather than turned in to focus on a near object. They would also require very high quality optics of powerful lenses to focus that close. The screen resolution would be important as well as the input signal type and electronics.


Any practical experience here?


neo
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,772 Posts
The most effective use of goggles has been in the military. They have had the budget, development cycle, and strong desire to make this technology work.


Many factors work against consumer friendly solutions - including cost, reliability and comfort.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
871 Posts
Ever the contrarian, I have to agree with my good friend Tom.


The most compelling "looking through the window" like HD pictures are still produced by HD professional broadcast monitors and they ain't big. No consumer rear projector (CRT or digital) nor plasma display rival the accuracy of this tried and true technology, although with each passing year the gap continues to close.


However, I'm not dismissing the bigger is better school.


I just don't think any of the affordable large digital displays (with a single exception) really do justice to an HD source.


Plasma continues to improve and is certainly the choice for one needing a 40-60 inch screen in a typical light uncontrolled direct view CRT environment.


If I had the room for a front projection system I wouldn't hesitate to purchase the JVC SX-21 DILA projector.

It has essentially rendered obsolete the three gun CRT front projector.

The damn box is tiny but puts out HD pictures that are simply gorgeous. Extremely bright, incredible colors, no visible pixel structure even with nose pressed to screen. No muss, no fuss.


Sony is about to release a similar product with a native resolution of 1920x1080 and reported 3000:1 contrast ratio. Sure hope they have a rear projector version...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,772 Posts
Gripes with the SX-21:


#1: 4x3 native, so you need an anamorphic lense... Even with that you still don't quite get full HD res (1400x1050)... probably pretty darn close though.

#2: Uses a UHP bulb, not Xenon, so color accuracy is actually not quite as good as the older JVC DiLAs. (Although bulb life is better now)

#3: DVI input was said to not support DHCP, but I think they can fix this if you have one of the early units retrofitted.


We still don't have "the perfect" display that everyone can agree about. Perhaps the upcoming Mitsu 83" will be close? A G90 coupled to a Faroudja 5000?
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top