Screen size of your main TV

I'm sure i'll be corrected if i'm wrong but after reading on this forum and a few others, that people seem to be going for a 55" screen or over as their main TV. Is 55 the new 40/46" ?.

What size screen do you have as your main TV in your sitting room ?.


Just curious*

Thanks for any/all replies.
«1

Comments

  • StilianStilian Posts: 150
    Forum Member
    Currently it is 32 and I think this is as far as I will ever go.These 46...55 are just ridiculous sizes, you need to have a barn for TVs this big.
  • Deacon1972Deacon1972 Posts: 8,171
    Forum Member
    Stilian wrote: »
    Currently it is 32 and I think this is as far as I will ever go.These 46...55 are just ridiculous sizes, you need to have a barn for TVs this big.

    If you are viewing HD then the viewing distances for these size TV's are minimal, around 8ft for 55", so even an average room would accommodate a TV of this size. The deciding factor is whether the consumer wants the TV to be discrete or a feature, not room size.

    I split my viewing between two screens, 50"/100".
  • fmradiotuner1fmradiotuner1 Posts: 20,476
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I have my LG 50 inch in my bedroom as its my TV.
    The main one in the Lounge is 37 inch.
    The other one is an old CRT Toshiba 32 inch.
    My monitor is 24 inch which has HDMI.
    Also have a 7 inch portable digital TV to.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,784
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Deacon1972 wrote: »
    If you are viewing HD then the viewing distances for these size TV's are minimal, around 8ft for 55", so even an average room would accommodate a TV of this size. The deciding factor is whether the consumer wants the TV to be discrete or a feature, not room size.

    I split my viewing between two screens, 50"/100".

    You beat me to it Deacon lol. We don't have a big sitting room but we do have a 55" TV and it doesn't look out of place and as you said, around 8 feet from the screen is the ideal viewing position. I think people make the mistake of thinking that a large screen (55" or over) requires a huge room and that's just not the case.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 137
    Forum Member
    43" Samsung Plasma in Main Room

    32" Toshiba LCD in Bedroom

    Sweeeeet...!!!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,856
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    My only telly in the world, let alone calling it main, is a 23.2" 4:3 CRT Toshiba 2512 DB screen-as-monitor giving 21.6" viewing experience when watching widescreen.

    In the bedroom I only listen using TVOnics MFR-300 as a tuner conected to the Line In on my radio.
  • stud u likestud u like Posts: 42,100
    Forum Member
    26 inches. Most sitting rooms look ridiculous with huge televisions dominating the room when no one had televisions when the house was built.
  • c4rvc4rv Posts: 29,538
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    26 inches. Most sitting rooms look ridiculous with huge televisions dominating the room when no one had televisions when the house was built.

    lucky you opinion is not shared by the majority
  • emptyboxemptybox Posts: 13,917
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    40" in the sitting room. But will certainly go bigger on next replacement.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,784
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    26 inches. Most sitting rooms look ridiculous with huge televisions dominating the room when no one had televisions when the house was built.

    sorry but I disagree with you. Just take a look at most slim tv designs nowadays and they look stunning regardless of size. Our TV is our main feature and the first thing that gets noticed when entering our sitting room and it's far from looking ridiculous but your welcome to your opinion.
  • LION8TIGERLION8TIGER Posts: 8,484
    Forum Member
    42 inch Panasonic plasma.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,784
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It would be good to get a post or posts from TV installers to see if most people are indeed buying larger screen sizes or what they think is the average screen size that people are going for nowadays :)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 17
    Forum Member
    Stilian wrote: »
    Currently it is 32 and I think this is as far as I will ever go.These 46...55 are just ridiculous sizes, you need to have a barn for TVs this big.

    Likewise 32". I might go slightly bigger - say 37, but no more than that.
  • tim59tim59 Posts: 47,188
    Forum Member
    50 inch LG, in Lounge, 42inch samsung in bedroom on wall, 32 inch digihome for xbox + ps3
  • anthony davidanthony david Posts: 14,461
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    40 inch Sony. From 12 feet most HD looks excellent, good SD (DVD/BBC4) looks quite acceptable but Sky news looks like it it has been shot through a sweaty sock!
    The EBU SD recommended domestic viewing distance is 9X picture height (about 4.5 times widescreen screen size) at that distance pictures should be "acceptable to an average viewer", (EBU grade 3). Although it was set in the 4x3 analogue era, because viewers are fussier than they used to be it still is a good guide.

    In a civilized home your TV should never be larger than your bookcase.
  • jackthomjackthom Posts: 6,621
    Forum Member
    40 inch Sony. From 12 feet most HD looks excellent, good SD (DVD/BBC4) looks quite acceptable but Sky news looks like it it has been shot through a sweaty sock!
    The EBU SD recommended domestic viewing distance is 9X picture height (about 4.5 times widescreen screen size) at that distance pictures should be "acceptable to an average viewer", (EBU grade 3). Although it was set in the 4x3 analogue era, because viewers are fussier than they used to be it still is a good guide.

    In a civilized home your TV should never be larger than your bookcase.

    Unfortunately with a 40" TV at 12 ft, although SD will look good I'd say HD would be a waste unless your eyesight is extremely good.

    I watch a 50" plasma at that distance and while the SD pictures are quite acceptable, HD is noticeably better.

    Unless we move to a house with a very small lounge I doubt I'll ever go for anything with a smaller screen than 50".
  • ArcanaArcana Posts: 37,521
    Forum Member
    80 cm / 32"

    It doubles as my desktop PC monitor so naturally I sit only about 1-1.5m away from it.
  • GroutyGrouty Posts: 33,943
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Was 32" till today, replaced it with a 40" :p
  • Leo91Leo91 Posts: 259
    Forum Member
    People really underestimate how big they can go. I watch a 42 inch tv at just over 7ft/2metres which is perfect, a lot of people would be happy with a much smaller screen though. But you don't know what you're missing until you experience it.
  • bobcarbobcar Posts: 19,424
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It would be nice if TVs gave you the option to only use a part of the screen. That way you could watch a smaller image for SD and a bigger one for HD.
  • derek500derek500 Posts: 24,887
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    47" in lounge, 42" in bedroom, 19" in kitchen.
  • anthony davidanthony david Posts: 14,461
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jackthom wrote: »
    Unfortunately with a 40" TV at 12 ft, although SD will look good I'd say HD would be a waste unless your eyesight is extremely good.

    I watch a 50" plasma at that distance and while the SD pictures are quite acceptable, HD is noticeably better.

    Unless we move to a house with a very small lounge I doubt I'll ever go for anything with a smaller screen than 50".

    It seems that I am indebted to Dollond and Aitchison, now owned by Boots. Not only can I clearly see the difference between HD and SD but I could also see it on my previous 32 inch Sony as well. If I sit closer than 10ft from my TV all SD looks pretty grim hence the EBU guide lines.
  • Brady12Brady12 Posts: 796
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    42" in the living room, will probably go bigger when it's replaced.
    32" in the bedroom, wouldn't bother with a bigger one.
  • anthony davidanthony david Posts: 14,461
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    bobcar wrote: »
    It would be nice if TVs gave you the option to only use a part of the screen. That way you could watch a smaller image for SD and a bigger one for HD.

    A very sensible idea that manufactures could easily include, otherwise all SD archive material will be unwatchable as screens get even bigger.
  • Nigel GoodwinNigel Goodwin Posts: 58,329
    Forum Member
    A very sensible idea that manufactures could easily include.

    Not at all - people would just complain about the picture not fitting the screen, just as they complain about black bars with 4:3. A tiny picture in the middle of a big black screen would look pretty crappy anyway :D
Sign In or Register to comment.