DELETED_1840

You can get 27" and 28" screens, however, I think it's simply down to the fact that anything below 32" is considered small, or that 32" is considered the "starting size" for a living room TV.

You may feel that 32" is too big, but I genuinely doubt it is.

When I got my 42" in my room, I thought it looked absolutely massive, it now looks very comfortably sized if not a little small. :o :D
 
like the guy says above i wouldn`t worry about a 32" screen m8 an thats what most ppl buy for the living room now a days ...

i got a 50" screen an for a while it looked huge but after a while u get the feeling it`s shrunk !!! i wish i`d had gone for the 58"/60" now ;)

u get use to the size an does feel it fits ya room after a while ..
 
People that buy anything smaller than 32" don't deserve an LCD, that's why and the plebs that do buy a 26" get ripped off. As it should be. :D

My 40" is feeling small. Need an upgrade!
 
Mav said:
i got a 50" screen an for a while it looked huge but after a while u get the feeling it`s shrunk !!! i wish i`d had gone for the 58"/60" now ;)
Click to expand...

I hear this all the time and it is so true. Everyone gets used to their TV set size and then after a week or two go "hmm maybe I could have got the size up". So as a rule, always buy bigger than what you think or finally decide on. I started with a 42" LCD and even had to talk myself into that over a 37" LCD. A month or two later I swapped it for a 46" :)

The reason there is a "big" gap is because there does not need to be 2 LCD size in between the "small range LCDs" and the "medium range". I would describe small screen market as 19 and 22 inchers. Then the medium sized ones are 32 and 37 and larger are 42+. The market generally goes for small aka 19 or 22 for a purpose, or if they want bigger typically they will go 32. We only really need one to fill that gap and there in lies the perfect 26" for those that want a sort of bigger little set for a bedroom.
Honestly a 26" in the lounge will look tiny. Get a 32 atleast.
The most popular size for lounge these days is 37" LCD.
 
32" 16:9 will give same picture height as a 4:3 25" CRT. 26" 16:9 gives same height as a 21" CRT. These used to be the main TV sizes in living rooms for the last 20-30 years
 
starfighter said:
People that buy anything smaller than 32" don't deserve an LCD, that's why and the plebs that do buy a 26" get ripped off. As it should be. :D

My 40" is feeling small. Need an upgrade!
Click to expand...

Depends some people actually like their living room to be that not a small cinema with the ugly black void in the corner. TV's look awful when they are off.

Which they should be when entertaining, playing games etc.
 
Hope you manned up and went for the 32 inch! I'd go for Samsung and steer clear of any unfamiliar sounding manfacturer, or get a projector and you can scale it to whatever inch-age you want.



skolem said:
Hi all.

I searched a thread for a similar discussion but didn't come up with anything.


Am I the only one that thinks it is odd that there don't seem to be any offerings in the TV market between 26" and 32" screens?

The difference in size between the two is quite a big jump. My lounge is not huge, and a 32" TV would probably be larger than what we would like, as we don't want the TV to dominate. And although a 26" screen would be quite adequate, it would be nice to have something a bit larger. Afterall you get 19,22,23 inch screens with hardly any difference in screen size, then a 6 inch jump to 32 seems quite big!


Presumably there isn't much of a market for screens in this range or manufactuers would make them. I've seen a couple of 28" screens around, but they are made by random manufacturers who I don't know if I could trust.


So does anyone know of any good screens in this range? Or can anyone offer up a better reason than me as to why these screens don't seem to exist?!
Click to expand...
 
For flat screen TVs the screen area difference from 26" to 28" is 16%. That's just not enough of an appreciable difference to make the cost of manufacturing worthwhile. Nor is it a big enough difference to make it worth stocking and displaying for a retailer.

26" - 32" is a 51% difference.

28" (if it existed) - 32" would be a 31% difference


As someone else has said, the old CRT widescreen TV sizes came about in part because they gave the same 4:3 picture area as previous standard size 4:3 TVs. You should also remember that CRT tube size doesn't equal picture size. There's a portion of the tube area hidden by the screen surround and edge masking, so a 28" CRT set had a visible picture area closer to that of a 26" LCD.
 
Pug said:
you can get 28" TVs though :confused:

Hannspree do them for a start
Click to expand...
Yeah, true, but if you look at the traditional TV brands (Sony, Pana, Philips, Samsung, LG etc) that offer a sets from small to very large, and study the way they construct a range you'll see that they base it on size steps. Niche brands will always try to exploit the gaps.

Sizing is becoming less well defined now as new panel production is coming online and there are far more brands available, different display technologies (plasma, LCD, OLED).

Anyway, if there are 28" TVs (even if it's from less well known manufacturers) then what's the OP's problem? ;) :D
 
MrLOL said:
Hanspree arent Sony/Samsung/Sharp/Panasonic etc..

most of the big name manufactuers do nothing inbetwee 32 and 26 inch.
Click to expand...

indeed, but on a screen thats too small for the room its in anyone would be hard pressed to notice a difference, and besides Hannspree aint too shabby tbh
 
kylew said:
You can get 27" and 28" screens, however, I think it's simply down to the fact that anything below 32" is considered small, or that 32" is considered the "starting size" for a living room TV.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. I think 32" was the small sized living room TV when CRT's were about!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom