[CoolboyA]

Sorry if there is a thread ont his already, but I tried 3 different searches and couldn't find anything.

I have recently gotten FreeviewHD and was just wondering what aspect ratio is best? Is 16:9 the best for HD content? I can't seem to find any clear answers via Googe.

See, I'd say that 4:3 Letter Box is clearer and makes things look less "fat". However, I'm not sure if it's the best way to be watching TV shows [especially HD ones].

[upchatline]

All HD broadcasts are in 16:9.
Any 4:3 material is pillarboxed with sidebars so any playing about with the ratio will reduce the quality.

Not many tv's will let you play with HD images anyway , mainly because the way they appear on your tv is the way they are supposed to be

There's not that much 4:3 material on HD channels is there anyway?

Apart from repeats of Only Fools and Horses on BBC1HD what else is there?

You don't get 4:3 L/B on HD channels.

[koantemplation]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolboyA

Sorry if there is a thread ont his already, but I tried 3 different searches and couldn't find anything.

I have recently gotten FreeviewHD and was just wondering what aspect ratio is best? Is 16:9 the best for HD content? I can't seem to find any clear answers via Googe.

See, I'd say that 4:3 Letter Box is clearer and makes things look less "fat". However, I'm not sure if it's the best way to be watching TV shows [especially HD ones].

Things shouldn't look 'fat' unless the settings are wrong.

What model tv do you have, perhaps it is a 16:10 ratio tv?

16:9 should be fine if the settings on your STB and TV are correct.

[CoolboyA]

I have a Toshiba 32BV700B. I just think things look a bit sharper in 4:3, obviously not!

[pocatello]

If things look sharper ini 4:3 you are doing something wrong.
HD broadcasts a 16:9 signal, any 4:3 material is in a 16:9 picture with image bars built in...meaning by default a portion of the image space is wasted on black bars, meaning it is no sharper than hd.

The recommended seating distance where you can actually see rendered detail in HD on a 32" is simply ridiculous, it is a computer monitor size.

No HD material should look fat unless you've stretched it yourself.

[meltcity]

The TV mentioned does not have Freeview HD built in.

What I think what the OP is saying is that he has hooked up a Freeview HD box to it.

The next question, obviously, is whether he is connecting the box to the TV using SCART or HDMI? If he is using SCART it may explain his comments on 4:3 letterbox being less 'fat'.

[meltcity]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocatello

The recommended seating distance where you can actually see rendered detail in HD on a 32" is simply ridiculous, it is a computer monitor size.

32" would make an awfully big computer monitor.

I had to return a 40" TV because it was too big for the average viewing distances in our living room. Just because you enjoy having a pub TV in your living room it doesn't mean that everyone does.

[pocatello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by meltcity

32" would make an awfully big computer monitor.

I had to return a 40" TV because it was too big for the average viewing distances in our living room. Just because you enjoy having a pub TV in your living room it doesn't mean that everyone does.

It is a big computer monitor, but when you get 6-8 feet back, it becomes a very small tv. This isn't about enjoying, but about your visual system, to see the full resolution of 1080p at 6-8 feet back you do need much larger size than 32", to see the full detail at 32", you have to sit with your knees touching the tv pretty much, which is why I consider it a waste. Your preference is fine, but you will not get the full benefit of HD at any reasonable distance from a 32" tv.

[stylo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocatello

It is a big computer monitor, but when you get 6-8 feet back, it becomes a very small tv. This isn't about enjoying, but about your visual system, to see the full resolution of 1080p at 6-8 feet back you do need much larger size than 32", to see the full detail at 32", you have to sit with your knees touching the tv pretty much, which is why I consider it a waste. Your preference is fine, but you will not get the full benefit of HD at any reasonable distance from a 32" tv.

The 32" / "computer monitor" reference is a favourite quote of pocatellos, and gets quite boring after a while.

Yes, it's a small TV compared to what's available now, but to suggest you can't see the benefit of HD on this size screen unless your knees are touching the screen is pretty ludicrous.

If you can't see any difference between SD and HD on this size screen at a 'reasonable' distance, perhaps you need stronger glasses!

[pocatello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stylo

The 32" / "computer monitor" reference is a favourite quote of pocatellos, and gets quite boring after a while.

Yes, it's a small TV compared to what's available now, but to suggest you can't see the benefit of HD on this size screen unless your knees are touching the screen is pretty ludicrous.

If you can't see any difference between SD and HD on this size screen at a 'reasonable' distance, perhaps you need stronger glasses!

Sorry this is based on stuff like THX and other recommended distances for viewing 1080p based on what the eye can actually discern at a distance. If you can prove them all wrong, go ahead...

[niall campbell]

i just keep everything on 16: 9

stops everything auto switching when adverts come on or simply change channel

plus its wife proof !

[Nigel Goodwin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocatello

Sorry this is based on stuff like THX and other recommended distances for viewing 1080p based on what the eye can actually discern at a distance. If you can prove them all wrong, go ahead...

So what do YOU claim the recommended viewing distance is for a 32 inch TV?, and what for a 60 inch?.

You obviously view both from the same proportional distance.

[porkpie]

Its obvious that HD's improved resolution on a 32" needs to be viewed closer than on a 42" however , from what I've seen from Pocatello before his quoted distances are quite silly .

I had a 28" CRT and sat about 7 feet away and when I switched to a 32" LCD the HD improvement was obvious.
At the same distance the improvement on a 37" was also excellent.

I doubt many people have 32" computer monitors and if they did why would they sit 6 feet from it ?
Would they use their mouse by remote control?

[pocatello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

So what do YOU claim the recommended viewing distance is for a 32 inch TV?, and what for a 60 inch?.

You obviously view both from the same proportional distance.

It doesn't matter what I say is the recommended distance, it matters what the people who investigate this stuff professionally recommend based on visual acuity and visual experience.

And as I said, the 32" is so small and undersized that any recommended distance becomes nonsense, you just have to accept there is no good distance, only compromised experience unless you use it as a computer monitor. Sure some people can even watch a 19" from 8 feet back and be happy, that is fine, just don't pretend you are getting your moneys worth of 1080p.

[pocatello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by porkpie

Its obvious that HD's improved resolution on a 32" needs to be viewed closer than on a 42" however , from what I've seen from Pocatello before his quoted distances are quite silly .

I had a 28" CRT and sat about 7 feet away and when I switched to a 32" LCD the HD improvement was obvious.
At the same distance the improvement on a 37" was also excellent.

I doubt many people have 32" computer monitors and if they did why would they sit 6 feet from it ?
Would they use their mouse by remote control?

It doesn't matter if you think it is silly or not, they base their recommendations on the limits of the human visual system, so either you have beyond human vision, or your claimed improvement is exaggerated. It isn't to say you can't see some difference, but if you think you can see a full 1080p on such a small screen from 7 feet back you are kidding yourself like an audiophile who thinks they can hear the difference between 500quid cables and a piece of hanger wire.

The example of 32" computer monitor is only brought up because 1080p on such a screen does require something close to desk distance. Yes 30" monitors are even higher resolution but that is a given.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocatello

It doesn't matter what I say is the recommended distance, it matters what the people who investigate this stuff professionally recommend based on visual acuity and visual experience.

And as I said, the 32" is so small and undersized that any recommended distance becomes nonsense, you just have to accept there is no good distance, only compromised experience unless you use it as a computer monitor. Sure some people can even watch a 19" from 8 feet back and be happy, that is fine, just don't pretend you are getting your moneys worth of 1080p.

So you're basically just sprouting nonsense - you say a 32 is 'too small', but are unable to specify suitable viewing distances for any size of set!.

As I've often said here, to view HD you really need to view from two times the screen size or less - for Full HD you would need to be closer than that to see any benefit from it.

Assuming you 'need' to be only one screen size away for Full HD, that's still 32 inches away from a 32 inch, yet only 50 inches away from a 50 inch.

Do you suggest needing to view a 50 inch TV from only 50 inches away?.

[porkpie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocatello

It doesn't matter if you think it is silly or not, they base their recommendations on the limits of the human visual system, so either you have beyond human vision, or your claimed improvement is exaggerated. It isn't to say you can't see some difference, but if you think you can see a full 1080p on such a small screen from 7 feet back you are kidding yourself like an audiophile who thinks they can hear the difference between 500quid cables and a piece of hanger wire.

The example of 32" computer monitor is only brought up because 1080p on such a screen does require something close to desk distance. Yes 30" monitors are even higher resolution but that is a given.

Only in your world is 37" a small screen.
You seem to forget that I can get as close to my screen as I want to so I know how close I can sit and what I can see if I get closer .
So rather than "kidding " myself I actually know whether sitting closer is a requirement.
Having installed home cinema gear for 30 years I'm quite keen on getting the best from any system.

Industry recommendations are often total bollocks based on testbench figures and I doubt there are many people who conform to perfect testbench figures so the recommendations are a guideline only .

In fact it would be quite idiotic to assume that every person would be able to view perfect pictures all from the same distance and thats without the other variables like the room layout , the lighting , reflections , etc.

The guidelines are as worthy as the Dolby recommendations for the positioning of your 7/8 speakers.

Most people do what they can with the room and whether their figures conform to the recommended specs is of secondary importance.

[pocatello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

So you're basically just sprouting nonsense - you say a 32 is 'too small', but are unable to specify suitable viewing distances for any size of set!.

As I've often said here, to view HD you really need to view from two times the screen size or less - for Full HD you would need to be closer than that to see any benefit from it.

Assuming you 'need' to be only one screen size away for Full HD, that's still 32 inches away from a 32 inch, yet only 50 inches away from a 50 inch.

Do you suggest needing to view a 50 inch TV from only 50 inches away?.

I didn't feel like doing your homework. Or simply based on the fact that you disagree with my seating distance/size recommendations you must have a difference source of information, but apparently you didn't post anything either.

I don't specify distance because it is inherently poor and thus absurd. It is like talking about what level of audiophile quality sound you get when listening to laptop speakers playing music, you just accept it sounds like garbage. One just accepts that such a solution is a better than nothing solution.

Since you can't be bothered to use google.
http://myhometheater.homestead.com/v...alculator.html

[pocatello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by porkpie

Only in your world is 37" a small screen.
You seem to forget that I can get as close to my screen as I want to so I know how close I can sit and what I can see if I get closer .
So rather than "kidding " myself I actually know whether sitting closer is a requirement.
Having installed home cinema gear for 30 years I'm quite keen on getting the best from any system.

Industry recommendations are often total bollocks based on testbench figures and I doubt there are many people who conform to perfect testbench figures so the recommendations are a guideline only .

In fact it would be quite idiotic to assume that every person would be able to view perfect pictures all from the same distance and thats without the other variables like the room layout , the lighting , reflections , etc.

The guidelines are as worthy as the Dolby recommendations for the positioning of your 7/8 speakers.

Most people do what they can with the room and whether their figures conform to the recommended specs is of secondary importance.

In any world 37" is a small screen, which is why they are considered low end displays these days. 37" is also small because at that size, 720p pretty much becomes indistinguishable from true HD from a regular seating distance.

Sorry no, these aren't test bench figures. Simple matter of visual acuity and viewing angle, these are bare minimums before you even consider room lighting and the rest. Tv setup is in no way comparable to speakers, unless you have a skylight right over your screen and you watch during noon there is no problem with most setups, people aren't installing tv's on their ceilings. The standard setup is 9/10ths of the way there in most homes. You don't have the issue of trying to wire a tv behind your seating area, or have to deal with fuzzy things like room accoustics...so don't even bring up speakers as something even remotely similar. As an "installer" you should know this.

Most people do what they can afford. The idea of being able to fit a screen is thinking stuck in the past where a crt would literally not fit in a room. It is totally irrelevant now that they take up no room at all hung on the wall.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocatello

I didn't feel like doing your homework. Or simply based on the fact that you disagree with my seating distance/size recommendations you must have a difference source of information, but apparently you didn't post anything either.

I didn't 'disagree' with your distances, as you didn't suggest any - where as I did!.

Quote:

I don't specify distance because it is inherently poor and thus absurd. It is like talking about what level of audiophile quality sound you get when listening to laptop speakers playing music, you just accept it sounds like garbage. One just accepts that such a solution is a better than nothing solution.

Sorry, you're just sprouting more utter nonsense again, and nothing to do with the thread.

Quote:

Since you can't be bothered to use google.
http://myhometheater.homestead.com/v...alculator.html

Since you obviously can't even be bothered to use the link you posted, it specifies 4.2 feet for a 32 inch (hardly 'knees touching the screen') and 6.5 feet for a 50 inch (not really a great deal further away - as I've already pointed out).

Obviously the reason you refuse to post figures is because you know they they bear no relation to your ridiculous assertions about 'computer monitors' and 'knees touching'.

[IvanIV]

Well, 4.2 feet = 1.3 m from TV screen is quite near IMO. Anyway the problem here is that the optimal distance is quite different for HD and SD, so one has to compromise rather than change the seating distance based on the signal type. And it's very likely it will be closer to SD when various artifacts and noise become invisible in the picture, but which also means the eye won't be able to see all the details in the HD picture.

[pocatello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

I didn't 'disagree' with your distances, as you didn't suggest any - where as I did!.



Sorry, you're just sprouting more utter nonsense again, and nothing to do with the thread.



Since you obviously can't even be bothered to use the link you posted, it specifies 4.2 feet for a 32 inch (hardly 'knees touching the screen') and 6.5 feet for a 50 inch (not really a great deal further away - as I've already pointed out).

Obviously the reason you refuse to post figures is because you know they they bear no relation to your ridiculous assertions about 'computer monitors' and 'knees touching'.

Seems you can't be bothered to figure out just how close 4 feet from a screen is!!! Most seating is 6-8 feet away...at least! Flat panel distance is further increased having no depth like that of old fashioned CRT based TV where the unit literally stuck forward into the room by at least two feet, and sometimes even further due to the furniture/stands required to accommodate their size. 4 feet from the wall is so close it is ridiculous..I'm really surprised I have to explain this to you even after you used my link.

I used a little hyperbole to emphasis the truth, your eyes would be about 2 feet from the screen if your knees literally touched the tv from a comfy chair, but 2 even additional feet past that is frankly so close it is as I said basically like sitting with your knees touching the screen. If you think most people would think it is normal to have their seating placed 2 feet away from their TV/aka the wall, then you have a strange idea of what is normal indeed. This just goes back to what I was talking about, there is no point discussing the recommended or optimal seating distance for such small TV's, because the discussion is absurd.

So don't talk about spouting nonsense when you think it is normal to sit 4 feet from a TV. At this point you are just arguing to argue even after you have lost. Don't insult me by accusing me of not knowing my figures or withholding information or this or that when you rely on claiming that 4 feet from the wall is reasonable. You are grasping at straws with your accusations.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocatello

So don't talk about spouting nonsense when you think it is normal to sit 4 feet from a TV. At this point you are just arguing to argue even after you have lost. Don't accuse me of not knowing my figures or this or that when you rely on claiming that 4 feet from the wall is reasonable. You are grasping at straws with your accusations.

You mean your own figures which are now more than double what you claimed - I've no problem with you claiming you need to sit 4.2 feet from a 32 inch to get full benefit from a 32 - but you claimed your knees need to touch the screen, which is completely untrue.

My legs aren't that long!

[pocatello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

You mean your own figures which are now more than double what you claimed - I've no problem with you claiming you need to sit 4.2 feet from a 32 inch to get full benefit from a 32 - but you claimed your knees need to touch the screen, which is completely untrue.

My legs aren't that long!

You are just confirming that you are indeed arguing just to argue at this point, just as I thought.

Sorry but you lost.

I didn't do your homework for you from the start because these are fundamentals one should know, and as a long time member/hometheatre enthusiast, especially one calling someone else out on knowledge, you should have already known this, or known how to find out in no time at all. You should have done your homework before spouting off.

2-4 feet are equally absurd and besides the point, you know very well what I was saying with my figure of speech, you are arguing just to argue at this point, which frankly is undignified.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocatello

2-4 feet are equally absurd and besides the point, you know very well what I was saying with my figure of speech, you are arguing just to argue at this point, which frankly is undignified.

No, I am arguing because you posted something patently untrue - which you now admit was untrue - and claim it was a 'figure of speech'. It also took you a LONG time to admit you had posted incorrect information, and even spent most of this thread refusing to qualify your claim, never suggesting until now you knew it was incorrect all along.

Incidently, if 2 feet and 4 feet are 'equally absurb' then 4 feet and 6 feet are even more so.

Either post the truth (vastly preferable!) or mention in your post that it's a 'figure of speech'.