|
||||||||
What size tv to get? |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,700
|
What size tv to get?
still have an old CRT tv and unsure of what size lcd tv to get to replace it.
Outr living room isn't huge, we will be viewing from 7 or 8 feet away. Don't want a tv that dominates. 37 inch? 32 inch? other? What are the issues? |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
|
What size was your old TV?.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Posts: 779
|
This is a very personal question. the dominance of a TV in a room is really only an issue when it is not running. When it is on, you are watching it (unless you are one of the legion of people who seem to use TV as wallpaper) and then the matter of size depends how much you wish to be immersed in the experience.
My real advice is, go for the largest model you think you can tolerate, you'll be amazed how quickly you get used to it. We have a 46" set in a 4m x 6 m room and sit about 4m from the set. I would not mind the next size up, say 50" but, at this stage of the technology, no bigger. And one more point, have a look at the new LED sets, much better and faster refresh than LCD with a probable longer life, brighter colours and definitely use less power. The 37" sets look quite reasonably priced too. Also a 37" LED screen is housed in a smaller cabinet than an LCD with the same size screen. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,884
|
Quote:
(unless you are one of the legion of people who seem to use TV as wallpaper) .
And one more point, have a look at the new LED sets, much better and faster refresh than LCD with a probable longer life, brighter colours and definitely use less power. The 37" sets look quite reasonably priced too. Also a 37" LED screen is housed in a smaller cabinet than an LCD with the same size screen. by LED tv, you must mean LED backlit tv - which are infact, still LCD tv's at the end of the day. ...until OLED tvs become more affordable, that is. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North of England
Posts: 2,997
|
Quote:
still have an old CRT tv and unsure of what size lcd tv to get to replace it.
Outr living room isn't huge, we will be viewing from 7 or 8 feet away. Don't want a tv that dominates. 37 inch? 32 inch? other? What are the issues? I sit a similar distance away to you. Our last TV was a 32inch and at the time I thought that was fine. Now we have a 42 and I'm not sure how I found a 32 to be acceptable. If anything, I'd want to move up again in size next time. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 17,858
|
bigger the better I would say - yoiu get used to it very quickly.
note that a w/s 32" is less tall than a 4x3 28", I think. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: At college, in L.A.'s office
Posts: 54,221
|
Depends on how big your living room is. We have a 37" and it suits our living room (which is quite big) fine. Anything bigger would have looked too big in our living room. So my advice would be to have a look at different sizes and then maybe try to imagine how it would look in your living room and take it from there. Good luck
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,770
|
Quote:
bigger the better I would say - yoiu get used to it very quickly.
note that a w/s 32" is less tall than a 4x3 28", I think. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Heart of England.
Posts: 8,633
|
ffawkes, with regard to your concern about a large TV dominating your room, if you have a Sony Store near you, they have a handy "screen size" booklet that folds out to different screen sizes - that way you can get an idea of how big a TV will look once you get it home.
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Essex
Posts: 3,906
|
We went from a 26" LCD to a 32" HD LCD, that seem big enough for our living room, without being swamped by a 'black' monster in the corner when i's not on
![]() we could get away with 37", but certainly no bigger, would be too intrusive, seen quite a few in houses on the estate looking through windows whilst dog walking, with 42" / 50" TV's, they look like they take up half a wall!...... no thanks |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,700
|
Quote:
ffawkes, with regard to your concern about a large TV dominating your room, if you have a Sony Store near you, they have a handy "screen size" booklet that folds out to different screen sizes - that way you can get an idea of how big a TV will look once you get it home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,622
|
6-7 feet is a significant distance.
If you failed to consider the depth taken up by the crt and the potential extra distance of a tv shoved closer to the wall or even wall mounted, the distance is even further. Anything below 40 is way too small, 46 is getting closer, even 50 would be fine. 32" is a serious mistake, those are computer monitors, not for the main room viewing. http://myhometheater.homestead.com/v...alculator.html 32...37..seem big to folks at the shop, on the shelf, standing up close, but once you sit back, you are watching a tiny picture frame, and it is just neither impressive or really worth the money. Plus if you ever get bluray or whatever, you won't be able to see most of the detail, the screen is just too small from your seating distance. Don't let the psychological barriers set up by decades of crt fool you, yes back in the day a 32+ crt was a boulder in the room, impractical and enough to scare most people off, and was the main consideration, but now that doesn't apply anymore. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,622
|
Quote:
Sounds like a good idea. I suppose there are two things really - the way the set may or may not dominate the room when it's switched off, the other is whether a larger screen would make the individual pixels or whatever they are called look too prominent when viewed from 7 feet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: At college, in L.A.'s office
Posts: 54,221
|
Quote:
We went from a 26" LCD to a 32" HD LCD, that seem big enough for our living room, without being swamped by a 'black' monster in the corner when i's not on
![]() we could get away with 37", but certainly no bigger, would be too intrusive, seen quite a few in houses on the estate looking through windows whilst dog walking, with 42" / 50" TV's, they look like they take up half a wall!...... no thanks |
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,622
|
Quote:
I've noticed that with my neighbours' TVs as well (I often see them when leaving the house or coming back in the evenings).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 340
|
Don't be misled by the 'bigger is best' brigade, it's not the case.
Your concerns about seeing "individual pixels or whatever" is probably down to you seeing the noticeable artefacts on DTT transmissions, and something to bear in mind on choosing the screen size. If you are a keen bluray fan or HD subscriber, then a going for a bigger screen will be of benefit. If you're happy with just your freeview channels, then buying a bigger screen can lead to an even bigger disappointment. I've seen this so many times... over-sized TV out the box in excitement... scan for channels... and 'oh dear!'. A bit like the 'emperor's new clothes' syndrome... everyone admiring the size of the new TV, until some honest person comes along and says the picture looks sh*t! (confirming what you initially thought but didn't like to admit) Be sensible about it (as I'm sure you are because you've raised the very questions that a lot of people ignore) and don't be afraid to buck the trend of 'biggest you can afford' statements
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,622
|
Even freeview is becoming HD, like it or not the future is coming quick, so buying for yesterdays sd channels is short sighted. No one should care if you can see a few artifacts during loose women, who the hell pays that close attention to that dreck anyways. When something is on that matters, it is in hd now, and when you watch film on bluray, that is when it matters.
It is 2011, the argument you used might have worked years ago.... "ENGLAND Manchester Winter Hill - December 2, 2009 London Crystal Palace (advance network) - December 2, 2009 Newcastle and Tyneside Pontop Pike (advance network) - February 2010 Leeds / Bradford Emley Moor (advance network) - March 2010 Birmingham Lichfield (advance network) - March 2010 Liverpool, central Lancashire, Cheshire, north Staffordshire Winter Hill relays (retrofit) - March 2010 Exeter, parts of Devon, Somerset, Dorset Stockland Hill (retrofit) - April 2010 Bristol, Somerset, Dorset, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire Mendip - April 2010 Devon, Cornwall, and the Isles of Scilly Beacon Hill, Caradon Hill, Huntshaw Cross and Redruth (retrofit) - August 2010 Cumbria and the Lake District Caldbeck (retrofit) - October 2010 Following this schedule, Freeview HD will then be implemented in line with the rest of the switchover programme: 2011 - Bedfordshire, Berkshire (parts), Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, East Anglia, East Midlands, East Yorkshire, Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Humberside, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, Shropshire, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire (parts), Stoke-on-Trent, West Midlands (remainder), and West Yorkshire (remainder). 2012 - Berkshire (remainder), County Durham, Greater London (remainder), Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Kent, Northumberland, North Yorkshire, Surrey, Sussex, Teesside, Tyneside. WALES Cardiff, Newport Wenvoe - March 2010 Swansea Kilvey Hill March (retrofit) - 2010 West and central Wales Blaenplwyf - March 2010 Carmarthenshire Carmel (retrofit) - April 2010 rest of Wales Long Mountain, Moel y Parc, Presely Mid (retrofit) - June 2010 Anglesey Llanddona (retrofit) - July 2010 SCOTLAND Glasgow, central Scotland Black Hill (advance network) - February 2010 Shetland Bressay - May 2010 Orkney Keelylang Hill - May 2010 Caithness, North Sutherland Rumster Forest - June 2010 Lewis, Wester Ross, North West Sutherland, Western Isles Eitshal Skriaig - July 2010 Angus, Dundee, Perth, and parts of Fife Angus - August 2010 Aberdeenshire Durris - September 2010 Morayshire, Strathspey, and parts of Easter Ross Knockmore - October 2010 South West Scotland Caldbeck Scotland - October 2010 Inverness and the Great Glen Rosemarkie - October 2010 South West Highlands and Islands Torosay - October 2010 Scottish Borders Selkirk (retrofit) - November 2010 retrofit Following this schedule, Freeview HD rolls out in line with the rest of the switchover programme until the whole of Scotland can receive the service by the end of Q2, 2011. NORTHERN IRELAND Freeview HD will rollout in line with the rest of the switchover programme so that the whole of Northern Ireland can receive the service by the end of 2012. OTHER AREAS Isle of Man Douglas (retrofit) - October 2010 Channel Islands Fremont Point - end 2010" http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitalt...timetable.html Time flies, things change fast, don't get stuck in the past. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 340
|
Quote:
Even freeview is becoming HD, like it or not the future is coming quick, so buying for yesterdays sd channels is short sighted. No one should care if you can see a few artifacts during loose women, who the hell pays that close attention to that dreck anyways. When something is on that matters, it is in hd now, and when you watch film on bluray, that is when it matters.
Don't watch 'Loose Women' myself, but I then again I don't want to be distracted by the artefacts on other SD programming due to the screen being way to big for the room. Simples!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 340
|
Thank you for the cut-and-paste info added to your post, but not needed... as my previous reply shows
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 82,848
|
Quote:
still have an old CRT tv and unsure of what size lcd tv to get to replace it.
Outr living room isn't huge, we will be viewing from 7 or 8 feet away. Don't want a tv that dominates. 37 inch? 32 inch? other? What are the issues? I am now a fully paid up member of the get the next size up from what you think will be too big club. Within a few months I wished I had gone for a 50"; realistically, that was not an option as 2 years ago I would not have found one HD ready for £500. Even with a big stand flat screen tvs take up less space than a CRT on a deep stand so you are further away from the screen than before, if this makes sense? The screen is no longer at the very front of the stand, it is set back on mine. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,622
|
Quote:
The problem is that the vast majority of programming on freeview is SD!. Having said that, I did try and 'future-proof' myself a little by making sure the 2 new TVs I bought last month had HD tuners fitted, ready for our switchover in a few months.
Don't watch 'Loose Women' myself, but I then again I don't want to be distracted by the artefacts on other SD programming due to the screen being way to big for the room. Simples! ![]() I think you are making too much of it. Sd looks like Sd when on a larger screen, it is no big issue, it just looks like it should. The artifacts are nothing as bad as watching a 360p stream on youtube, and people watch those all the time, it is hardly unwatchable. Making too much of the so called artifacts of Sd just doens't make sense to me, I watch a few Sd channels on my 50" and it is fine. Like when watching youtube, your level of scruitiny just goes way down when watching such things. When you buy small to try to hide the imperfections of Sd at the cost of everything else...all you are doing is is sacrificing a gem to polish a turd. As mazey says, things look small very quick, people have been long too used to screens of crt's limitations, and once they get over that and experience flat panels they see how small their screens are when they mistakenly purchase things like 32-40" tv's. Those folks will be back for new tv's soon enough
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 82,848
|
Quote:
I think you are making too much of it. Sd looks like Sd when on a larger screen, it is no big issue, it just looks like it should. The artifacts are nothing as bad as watching a 360p stream on youtube, and people watch those all the time, it is hardly unwatchable. Making too much of the so called artifacts of Sd just doens't make sense to me, I watch a few Sd channels on my 50" and it is fine. Like when watching youtube, your level of scrutiny just goes way down when watching such things.
When you buy small to try to hide the imperfections of Sd at the cost of everything else...all you are doing is is sacrificing a gem to polish a turd. As mazey says, things look small very quick, people have been long too used to screens of crt's limitations, and once they get over that and experience flat panels they see how small their screens are when they mistakenly purchase things like 32-40" tv's. Those folks will be back for new tv's soon enough ![]() That is like saying it is better to have poor sight so you do not see reality. I have no idea what both of you are talking about re artefacts/artifacts either. That is my lack of tech knowledge not a criticism. If it is based on a notion that a bigger screen will magnify the faults in a poor quality input then that is not my experience. My plasma tv does its best to upscale, no effort with settings on my part and even when showing my laptop screen, it looks better on the tv than on a good spec laptop. My tv is now 2 years old so I would expect better of new models. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,700
|
Although I know HD is the future, I will be mainly watching SD transmissions for the foreseeable future.
My issue about whether a large screen will exaggerate defects is based on this: I was watching an SD transmission on a very large screen in a bar. From the other side of the room it looked great but as I got nearer to the screen the picture became a little rough looking. I can only compare with a painting that from a distance looks great but when you get up close you lose the overall impression and see the blotches and blobs |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,622
|
Well you must have seen a bad set up or an incredibly huge tv like a 70" projection unit because regular sd on a large tv looks about as it does when playing a dvd. Or a very old set, because while there isn't as much detail, with a decent digital transmission signal the image is clean and acceptable on any size screen you would even begin to consider. We aren't talking about the days of analog transmission anymore where the general haziness and static of analog would scale most horribly...now it is a clean sd signal that is enlarged, and unless you walk right up to the screen, you won't see anything that bad. Pub tv is not a benchmark, especially if you have no idea if it is hooked up right, it could be using some legacy analog connection for all you know.
On occasion I've even used web streaming on my plasma 50", and even sd streams like redlettermedia look passable at my 8 foot seating distance. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 340
|
Quote:
Although I know HD is the future, I will be mainly watching SD transmissions for the foreseeable future.
My issue about whether a large screen will exaggerate defects is based on this: I was watching an SD transmission on a very large screen in a bar. From the other side of the room it looked great but as I got nearer to the screen the picture became a little rough looking. I can only compare with a painting that from a distance looks great but when you get up close you lose the overall impression and see the blotches and blobs
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:47.




(confirming what you initially thought but didn't like to admit)
That is like saying it is better to have poor sight so you do not see reality. I have no idea what both of you are talking about re artefacts/artifacts either. That is my lack of tech knowledge not a criticism. If it is based on a notion that a bigger screen will magnify the faults in a poor quality input then that is not my experience.