Smallest 4k TV available?

Evoss

Evoss

Evoss

Associate
Joined
4 Jun 2011
Posts
2,428
Location
London
Hello all,

I want to change my PC monitor that I connect as the main screen for my rMBP.

Currently I have a 24" Dell monitor, but I want to also use the TV/Monitor to watch movies with, so looking around the 27-32" mark.

A TV of that size would not be high enough resolution as a display, so I was wondering if you can get a 4k tv in the size between 27"-32"?

Does a 27-32" 4k TV exist?

Thanks
 
I don't think UHD TVs exist in anything less than 39" at the moment.

With the small bezels and low profile designs though, they take up a lot less space than older designs, so you might be able to get away with a 40" display.
 
Clov!s said:
What will you be using to watch TV on? Sky? virgin?

Or will you just be using it to watch films on from your pc?
Click to expand...

Ill be using the TV for standard computer work and using it for watching movies/tv from the rMBP.

My current screen is fine apart from when watching at a distance it is just far too small. So I want something that will enable this, but I don't want to be looking at pixels when doing computing work.

Thanks
 
Evoss said:
Ill be using the TV for standard computer work and using it for watching movies/tv from the rMBP.

My current screen is fine apart from when watching at a distance it is just far too small. So I want something that will enable this, but I don't want to be looking at pixels when doing computing work.

Thanks
Click to expand...

A 40" should be quite suitable then in that case. My mum has a 32" TV with quite a thick bezel, which puts its actual size from corner to corner at around 36-37", for example. A 40" would be only slightly larger from a physical space perspective, but with quite a bit more viewable display, at a nice pixel pitch of around 110 per inch.
 
spoffle said:
A 40" should be quite suitable then in that case. My mum has a 32" TV with quite a thick bezel, which puts its actual size from corner to corner at around 36-37", for example. A 40" would be only slightly larger from a physical space perspective, but with quite a bit more viewable display, at a nice pixel pitch of around 110 per inch.
Click to expand...

Yes it would be great for watching films, but imagine trying to do work on that at a less than an arms length. Ill get neck ache looking up to the corners. ha
 
Evoss said:
I'd say roughly 50-60cm. A 40" as a monitor is going to be bad for your neck, even arms length.
Click to expand...

I use 3 27" screens at the same sort of distance. a 40" is bigger than a 27" obviously, but it's not actually that much bigger that it'll give you neck problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom