Size of new HDTV?

[supervij]

In my research regarding which HDTV to buy, I recently came across the following article: http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=1137&page_number=1 that talks about optimizing your seating distance for your screen size. This can of course be interpreted in the reverse, as in figuring out what screen size to buy for a fixed seating distance.

My primary seat has my eyeballs 8.5 feet to the screen. According to the graphs included in this article, I should be looking for a 64" 1080p screen. Sixty-four inches?! Seems kinda humoungous, but is that right? I was initially considering a 50" screen, which fits with the "seating distance divided by two" rule of thumb.

I'd be using the HDTV for both HD programming, standard-definition DVDs, and eventually (hopefully) HD-DVD/Blu-Ray discs. (And once in a blue moon, for VHS -- hey, I've a lot of musical performances that are unavailable on DVD.) Is a 64" 1080p a better choice, or is a 50" 1080p for my seated distance?

cheers,
supervij

 

[BMXTRIX]

Seating distances vs. screen sizes are almost always some sort of compromise. About the only time they are not is if you are only watching ONE type of source material.

Here's the deal - you can get a 1080p display if you want, but if you are watching regular TV or DVD then you are viewing 480i material. Just because the screen offers a resolution that allows for you to be a certain distance away, does not mean that the actual source material is actually going to be that much better. If you do some searching around, you will find numerous people who complain of how lousy regular television looks on their big screen display. (see pixelation post)

So, in your situation I would definitely not go larger than 50" and I might even drop to 42" in size. I often recommend larger sizes for home theater front projection setups, but in those cases people really will only be watching HDTV broadcasts and DVDs played over a upconverting player.

A good thing to do is to go into a store that has displays and step back to the exact distance you will be sitting - then ask them to put on REGULAR television. Not HDTV, not DVD, but the normal stuff. See how it looks from your standard seating distance. Try some different sized displays, then make a decision. Throw into that decision how often you will be using it and what type of material you will honestly be using most of the time. I personally believe that my setup is used 90% of the time for standard analog cable television viewing. At 50" from 13 feet it still may be to big.

 

[clayman88]

While Sound & Vision's suggestions are a good rule of thumb, I would suggest testing it out in the real world just to make sure you and your family are comfortable. Go to your local tv store, measure out 8.5 feet from the screen, plop yourself down and see what you think. Do this on a 64 incher and a 50 incher. It's going to come down to your preference in the long run. No sense in paying for a huge tv if you don't really need/want it.

 

[supervij]

Hey guys, thanks for the responses!

Actually, BMXTRIX, HD programming and DVDs would comprise most of my viewing. My present DVD player doesn't upconvert, but the TV would do that anyway, right? And I can always buy a good upconverting player should I not like the results. There is a very small amount of SD programming I will continue to watch (still waiting on two channels, Showcase and Space, to become available in HD), and there will be the odd VHS that I'll pull out every once in a while, but on the whole, it will be almost entirely HD programming and DVDs. So, as per your third paragraph, do I really need to go down to the 42"? Or would HD programming and DVDs look great on a 50" from 8.5 feet?

clayman, I'm dying to get my sorry butt down to a store and see for myself! Work has gotten unexpectedly busier than usual, but I'm hoping within a week or two, that it will have died down and I can check it out.

cheers,
supervij

 

[CaliHwyPatrol]

I sit about 8 feet from my TV and I'm going to get a 50". I've tried it out at that distance and it isn't overwhelming, nor does it seem too small. I, however, only watch movies on my TV. I don't watch TV at all, therefore I will never be seeing SD on mine, so that part of it wasn't an issue.

Like I said, from 8 feet, the 50" seems just right. You could even go with 42" like BMXTRIX said, and I don't think you would be disappointed. 64" from that distance seems massive, and I don't think I would like that.

Out of curiosity, what TV were you looking at getting?

~Chuck

 

[supervij]

Hey Cali. Yeah, the 50" seems ideal for around 8 feet. I've been doing a little more trolling around the net and that seems to be a good size for the distance according to a few other people.

To be honest, there wasn't any specific TV I was looking to get. For a while, I really, really wanted the Sony 50" XBR. Still kinda pricey, but isn't full 1080p, which is something I want for the whole HD-DVD/Blu-Ray thing. Since I don't need an HDTV right away, I'm content to wait for a while until I find just the right set in terms of pq vs. price.

cheers,
supervij

 

[3x10^8]

50" should be plenty. That samsung CaliHwyPatrol mentioned in this forum (Link) has full 1080p connectivity and may be what you are looking for.

 

[supervij]

Hey 3x, thanks for the recommendation! Unfortunately this model isn't available in the three big stores (Future Shop, Best Buy, 2001 Audio/Video) here in Toronto. I'll do some poking around and see if I can find it in some other stores around town.

I know this is straying off-topic, but heck, I started the thread. Is there a list anywhere online that lists all the full 1080p sets out there? I just want to see what else is out there. Thanks!

cheers,
supervij

 

[3x10^8]

I remember somebody starting a thread over at AVSforum sometime back with a growing list of 1080p televisions. If you dig around, I'm sure you can find it. However, that list changes every day, as more and more tv's that are 1080p-capable are added to the various manf. lineups. But samsung seems to actually be one of the leaders in this arena, quite impressive, actually...

The funny thing is, as far as I know, Sony does not have a 1080p television at this point (by 1080p, I mean capable of accepting a 1080p signal). And this coming from the company which is hoping that it's 1080p source (Blu-ray) is going to take off. And I'm not sure that they will by the time BR is set to be released.

 

[supervij]

Thanks 3x, I'll check AVS out for that. I've read that Sony's upcoming SXRD line will be full 1080p (capable of accepting a 1080p input), but that will likely be hugely expensive, consequently something I can't consider, at least right away. Fortunately, I'm in no hurry to get an HDTV, so maybe by the time I'm ready, the prices on them will have dropped to a level I like.

Samsung, eh? I'll keep my eyes open. Thanks again!

cheers,
supervij

 

[MACCA350]

My eyeball is 12' from my 100" screen and thats a SD Projector. That chart says I should have a 34" screen and 92" at 1080 resolution.

I tried it smaller when I first set it up but I couldn't live with it, I love the big picture and wouldn't have it any other way I'ts all personal preference, so try out a few different sizes at your distance and see what you like.

cheers

 

[supervij]

A hundred-inch screen . . . droooooolll . . .

Do I ever wish I had a room appropriate for a front-projector! MACCA, yer makin' me jealous!

Yeah, I'm gonna have to get down to a store sometime and try 'em out for myself. Sigh. I can't wait to finally have HD!

cheers,
supervij

 

[BMXTRIX]

50" is an excellent size from 8 feet if you understand the limitations for lower quality source material. DVD, is 480i. Always. Upconversion is not a way to make 480i into something better, it is just a way to convert the 480i material to something else. All digital displays convert to their native size... it doesn't necessarily mean the image will look better and it doesn't truly add any detail to a DVD.

But, more generally, DVDs look phenomenal, and HDTV looks better and 50" at 8' is great! Either 1080p (1920x1080) or 768p (1365x768) will be great resolutions at that distance with that screen size and most 50" plasmas will be 768p (WXGA/1365x768).

Just be aware of how poor SDTV will look, and if that is something you can live with happily - then you have your decision!

 

[supervij]

Yeah, I'm aware that SD programming will look yucky; that's why I'm waiting on my two favourite channels to go HD before I take the plunge. I was also thinking today that I might wait to go with an HD set when I feel ready to buy the second or third generation of the winner between HD-DVD/Blu-Ray players.

I was at a high-end electronics store today, and had a chance to see some D-ILA sets in action. I made sure to be standing about 8 feet away from the 50" set, and I really didn't like the picture quality. I kept seeing a "fuzziness" to the picture. The salesguy admitted that the set hadn't been properly calibrated and that the HD feed had been split many times. Would that be the cause of the fuzziness I saw in the broadcast? If so, I'd think it nearly impossible to find a store that had sets with individual HD feeds, so maybe going to a store makes little sense. Maybe I should be looking at specs and reviews only. Sigh. It's tiring just thinking about all this stuff . . .

But yeah, I'm gonna go with a 50 incher. And when the time is right, that 50" 1080p is gonna be mine, all mine!

cheers,
supervij

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

In my research regarding which HDTV to buy, I recently came across the following article: http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=1137&page_number=1 that talks about optimizing your seating distance for your screen size. This can of course be interpreted in the reverse, as in figuring out what screen size to buy for a fixed seating distance.

My primary seat has my eyeballs 8.5 feet to the screen. According to the graphs included in this article, I should be looking for a 64"

If you can afford it..........

DO THE 64"!!!!!!! Dont stoop for less!

If you buy a 50"(or whatever), you'll always be second guessing your decision for not buying something bigger!!

Just do it.......
You wont regret your decision to go with the larger screen.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Hey Cali. Yeah, the 50" seems ideal for around 8 feet.

Bah humbug...

Dont kid yourself. A 64" would be better and you know it. If you can afford the bigger screen, you'll be selling yourself short by going for the smaller alternative.

My 2 cents....

 

[InTheIndustry]

Don't go too big. Too big can lead to the TV dominating the room (even when it's off). The worst thing about having a set too big is the "tennis match effect". Having to turn your head to follow the action across the screen is bad news for reasons like fatiguing of the eyes and/or neck. It gets annoying through out the corse of a movie or ball game.

 

[mfabien]

Don't go too big. Too big can lead to the TV dominating the room (even when it's off). The worst thing about having a set too big is the "tennis match effect". Having to turn your head to follow the action across the screen is bad news for reasons like fatiguing of the eyes and/or neck. It gets annoying through out the corse of a movie or ball game.

Not a valid example. Tennis is always shot from the back of the front court, never from the side.

There is no question that 64" is tons better than 50"... if it can fit in the room.

 

[Jedi2016]

Not a valid example. Tennis is always shot from the back of the front court, never from the side.

You are aware that's a metaphor, right? He's not referring to the way tennis looks on TV, he's referring to people at the event, the ones seated on the sidelines that have to constantly rotate their heads back and forth throughout the match. Surely you've seen it.. it's used fairly often in Hollywood for comedic effect.

I think it largely depends on the arrangements of the room. My living room is quite small, and even 50" is probably far too large for it, although that's the size I'm aiming for.

 

[supervij]

As much as I love the idea of a 64" screen, I am mildly worried about the tennis match effect. It's like when the whole theatre is packed except for a couple of seats in the very first row. I've been forced into that situation a couple of times, and it's never fun.

A 64 incher would take up pretty much the whole space between my left and right speakers. It seems like a ginormous area to fill with image, and while I, at my prime seating location, wouldn't be moving my head left and right constantly, I'm sure my eyes would be moving all the time so that I feel like I'm seeing everything on the screen. I'm starting to wonder if that WOULD be fatiguing.

Would a 64" TV dominate the room? No question. Would I care? C'mon . . .

cheers,
supervij

EDIT: But, y'know, it's funny. When I plug in my seating distance into various internet calculators, I'm advised to go even smaller. Like dtvcity.com -- it says that for 8.5 feet distance, I should consider a 34 to 37" screen. But cnet.com doesn't give an exact number, just says that I can consider anywhere from 34" to 64" and I'll be fine. Futureshop recommends a 51". So whose advice do I follow?

Sod it, I'll try to find something between 50" and 55". I don't want to be missing stuff on the screen cos my eyes are going haywire, but I do want BIG. I think 50-55 is a nice compromise.