Size of television relevant to viewing distance?

Gimpymoo

Gimpymoo

Gimpymoo

Soldato
Joined
31 May 2005
Posts
15,640
Location
Nottingham
Our room is rectangular and as things are and will probably remain, the distance from TV to sofa is no more than 3 metres.

My head tells me a 37"/40" (maximum) would be perfect but something else is telling me, get a 42" anyway, just because it is bigger.

Would bigger mean better in this instance?

Thanks.
 
Here are some interesting articles for you.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/09/1080p-charted-viewing-distance-to-screen-size/
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/Article/How-Far-Should-I-Sit.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance


At 3 metres away you wont get the full benefit of 1080p with a 42" TV, but you should get the full benefit of 720p. However, sitting distance does depend on personal taste as well. I would go bigger if you can, it's amazing how quickly you get used to a bigger screen.
 
Last edited:
I think people are too over-cautious with this. I think most living rooms can easily take a 50" TV unless you have a chimney breast/alcove that dictates where your TV goes. When I had my flat, I wanted a 32" TV. I ended up getting a 42" TV as there was on offer on meaning it was the same price and most 32s at the time. Within a couple of months, I wished I had a 50". It's only going to take up as much room as your TV stand!
 
mame said:
unless you have a chimney breast that dictates where your TV goes
Click to expand...

Bingo.

Victorian house with Chimney breast in the middle of the room.

We could mount it on the chimney breast and get a bigger television, but on a personal level, I do not want the television to dominate the room in such a manner.
 
I'd just measure the width of that space and see that what translates to in terms of TV size then. Might sound daft, but you might be able to go up a TV size by having one of the ultra-thin bezel ones. I've been in a few houses with the TV wall mounted over the fire place and even though in some ways, it makes sense to put it there, I find it horrible looking up all the time. I once had a PC desk with a monitor stand and it used to give me a really sore neck so I ended up removing it.
 
Last edited:
Gimpymoo said:
Bingo.

Victorian house with Chimney breast in the middle of the room.

We could mount it on the chimney breast and get a bigger television, but on a personal level, I do not want the television to dominate the room in such a manner.
Click to expand...

It won't, the "dominating" thing is just marketing rubbish made up to look like the salesmen know what they're talking about when they try to sell you a TV. It goes right along side the expensive HDMI cables that contain magic and make the image quality on your TV much better.

It won't take long before you realise a 37-42" TV is actually pretty small and you wish you had a bigger one. I have a 42" from 3 metres away and it's "small".

Also DO NOT mount it at high level like over a fire place. TVs look like arse when mounted high like that, it should be a criminal offense with a heavy custodial for anyone who's found guilty of doing that.

abarth_1200 said:
Isnt a 42 inch screen meant to be the perfect size for scaling 1080p properly.
Click to expand...

No, that's just rubbish.
 
spoffle said:
It won't, the "dominating" thing is just marketing rubbish made up to look like the salesmen know what they're talking about when they try to sell you a TV. It goes right along side the expensive HDMI cables that contain magic and make the image quality on your TV much better.

It won't take long before you realise a 37-42" TV is actually pretty small and you wish you had a bigger one. I have a 42" from 3 metres away and it's "small".

Also DO NOT mount it at high level like over a fire place. TVs look like arse when mounted high like that, it should be a criminal offense with a heavy custodial for anyone who's found guilty of doing that.



No, that's just rubbish.
Click to expand...

42'' at 10ft is too small yes, our 42'' panny also looks tiny

i'm 8ft away from 55'' ....which will drop to 50'' soon, i'm not happy about this but i couldn't afford a 55'' panny and the cheap 60'' plasmas looked awfall

the bigger the tv the more awesome it is, especially if you're gaming, if i had the money i'd get a 65'' at 8ft away, because you get used to the size very quickly

over a fireplace is wrong.... put paintings there only, because your eye level must be bang in the middle of the screen

the 60'' plasmas had perfect sharpness, i was quite shocked to see how good they looked on 1080p, they were just too grey and dull looking compared to the Panny, this is not a fault of stretching a 1080p image too far.
 
abarth_1200 said:
Isnt a 42 inch screen meant to be the perfect size for scaling 1080p properly.
Click to expand...

it's like 4K TV, it's useless for anything less than 50'' you cant tell any difference, a large res is for a large screen, so 4K is best for over 60''...... 1080p is best for 50''

OLED ?......that's still 1080p, but the better the contrast ratio the sharper/ more 3D the image will look, so OLED (that has a truly massive contrast ratio and colours that you've never seen before) will look sharper than 4K :eek:

but you wont see OLED for some time now, because the production run panel failure rate is way too high, it's too hard to manufacture..
 
Mal X said:
it's like 4K TV, it's useless for anything less than 50'' you cant tell any difference, a large res is for a large screen, so 4K is best for over 60''...... 1080p is best for 50''
Click to expand...

This isn't true, people can tell the difference between 1080P and 4K on a 42" TV. Some people might not be able to, but that doesn't mean you should make such an absolute statement.

OLED ?......that's still 1080p, but the better the contrast ratio the sharper/ more 3D the image will look, so OLED (that has a truly massive contrast ratio and colours that you've never seen before) will look sharper than 4K :eek:
Click to expand...

OLED isn't "1080p", they have simply made 1080P OLED displays because it's currently the "standard". Also contrast ratio doesn't make an image sharper or "more 3D". If the display is truly 3D then the stereo imaging will determine how "3D" the image is, contrast ratio determines contrast, not sharpness. The contrast on a TV can and does influence image quality a lot, but it's not part of the sharpness. Sharpness in its most basic terms is dictated by the overall resolution of a display.

What you probably mean is that a 1080P OLED TV will look overall "better" than an LCD 4K display simply because most people are more likely to prefer the increased contrast and colour vibrancy over the increased resolution and sharpness from a 4K LCD.

For example, I have a Galaxy Note 2 phone, and I think the display on it is great. The contrast is great, the colour vibrancy is great too, but it's definitely not the shaprest of displays.

The iPhone 5 and Nexus 4 for example, have sharper displays simply because they've got more tightly packed together pixels, however I'd sooner take the black levels/contrast and colour vibrancy of the OLED display over a sharper LCD display because I prefer those factors to straight up sharpness, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't prefer the OLED display on my Galaxy Note 2 to be higher resolution (sharper).
 
If you're watching HD content you can sit pretty close to a massive screen. Go as big as you can afford :) If SD is a concern, go smaller.
 
Mal X said:
the bigger the tv the more awesome it is, especially if you're gaming, if i had the money i'd get a 65'' at 8ft away, because you get used to the size very quickly
Click to expand...

Exactly. Doesn't matter what size the tv is, it'll always appear smaller because it's what one gets accustomed to.
 
Thank you for the input guys, much appreciated.

I was swinging towards a plasma, but at 42", plasma appears no longer an option in my budget that size unless can get old stock.
 
Last edited:
I have had a 46" at 3m for about 4 years now. TBH it feels small and that is not a flippant comment. When it dies I will go for at least 50". Modern TVs are relatively unobtusive and dont have to dominate the room.
 
Well.

Looking likely to be getting a 50" Plasma. So much for a 42" - lol.

I have talked myself out of an LED to be honest so no alternative than to go for a 50".

In order of use... I would say my primary uses in order will be:

1. Television: SD/HD content (Source: Virgin Cable)
2. Computer: Extended desktop for a: Games, b: HD films

One question, regarding screen retention when in desktop mode for notification icons on taskbar etc, is that a concern? From what I can tell, 2012 Plasmas do no suffer from these problems.

Why has the industry tried its best to kill Plasma?

Before I started looking around, I was adamant that I would not be touching a Plasma with someone elses big stick.
 
Last edited:
yea well, to be honest 50'' looks too small at 8ft away, but because the PQ is so good i'll accept it, but not next time (OLED) no way, nothing less than 60''.

my old 55'' dominated my whole vision, which made it look awesome, but the P.Q was 6 years too old, the perfect tv would have been the 55'' panny but that was way too expensive...

the 50'' is only 5'' smaller, no, it's about 18% smaller in frontal area, my old TV looked miles bigger, it's very odd indeed, the difference is increadible; it does shock you.

but by the time i left home i thought ``yea that's ok, i'm used to it's smaller size now``
 
I had a 51" at about 3 metres and it was cool.. Not too big and 720p / 1080p looked good... However SD tv did not look great... Go for the 42" it will be fine I had a 42" and even SD looked ok at 3 metres. Why do you think that those apple retina displays look good or that the 4K TV's are being developed? Those guides tell you at which distance you can see the full detail of 1080p but it still looks better than 720p even if the guide says different.
 
Gimpymoo said:
Well.



One question, regarding screen retention when in desktop mode for notification icons on taskbar etc, is that a concern? From what I can tell, 2012 Plasmas do no suffer from these problems.

Why has the industry tried its best to kill Plasma?

Before I started looking around, I was adamant that I would not be touching a Plasma with someone elses big stick.
Click to expand...

why are they no longer popular ? dont know, everyone just jumped on the Backlight LED bandwagon, maybe because they look slim and sexy, but i have a feeling it's because they're similar to those annoying new internet Smart phones, it's the same sort of IT technology, similar mindset too.

as a result It's only the best plasmas that have survived, all the rest have gone LED crazy, dont worry it wont last long, OLED will destroy LED, LED will be dead in 3 years time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom