|
||||||||
Do larger TVs have bigger pixels? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,299
|
Do larger TVs have bigger pixels?
Was discussing today and realised I don't know the answer, and it might be out there on the Internet but I sure couldn't find a definitive answer.
Sooo...40 and 50 inch 1080p TV. They both have exactly the same number of pixels, but one is around 10 inches larger. What is going on with those 10 inches and how come they both have the same number? Are the pixels just larger? |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scottish Borders
Posts: 11,989
|
Quote:
Was discussing today and realised I don't know the answer, and it might be out there on the Internet but I sure couldn't find a definitive answer.
Sooo...40 and 50 inch 1080p TV. They both have exactly the same number of pixels, but one is around 10 inches larger. What is going on with those 10 inches and how come they both have the same number? Are the pixels just larger? ![]() ETA: I mean, I know what you are getting at. You are wondering if there was maybe a standard size pixel that just got surrounded by space the larger the screen. But that wouldn't work, as it would affect the picture. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,039
|
Yes in that case, it is that simple, the pixels are larger and so is the pixel pitch on the larger "diagonal size panel".
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,299
|
Quote:
Yes in that case, it is that simple, the pixels are larger and so is the pixel pitch on the larger "diagonal size panel".
It's all very confusing... I do understand is, but with a bigger TV you have to sit further away - LOL. Stupid technology! Thanks for the replies! Still confounded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scottish Borders
Posts: 11,989
|
Quote:
That's sooo confusing. So the pixels are larger on a larger telly, which means you get a less clear image at the same distances?
It's all very confusing... I do understand is, but with a bigger TV you have to sit further away - LOL. Stupid technology! Thanks for the replies! Still confounded. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,728
|
Quote:
That's sooo confusing. So the pixels are larger on a larger telly, which means you get a less clear image at the same distances?
It's all very confusing... I do understand is, but with a bigger TV you have to sit further away - LOL. Stupid technology! Thanks for the replies! Still confounded. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,039
|
The "clarity" is the same. Same number of pixels. At the same viewing distance the larger one has a larger area, so will appear slightly more pixelated.
You would have to be close enough to discern pixels in that case, that's too close. Sat further away you just have a larger area with exactly the same. If you sat further from the 50" such that it was the same visual size as the 40" then there would be no difference. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,782
|
Quote:
Was discussing today and realised I don't know the answer, and it might be out there on the Internet but I sure couldn't find a definitive answer.
Sooo...40 and 50 inch 1080p TV. They both have exactly the same number of pixels, but one is around 10 inches larger. What is going on with those 10 inches and how come they both have the same number? Are the pixels just larger? The point of a larger screen is so you can view it from further away, although to be fair at 1080 you can't see the pixels at any remotely sensible viewing distance. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 7,514
|
You can just about see HD pixels at 3 times picture height
And Uhd 1 pixels at 1.5 H ..... But most in the uk view at over 5 H See Katy Nolands bbc white paper http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/w...les/WHP287.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 17,848
|
I think this is similar to the bitness of mobile phone camera sensors. The size of the sensor is as important, or more important than the number of pixels
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,400
|
Because most people view their TV from quite a distance away there really won't be much difference between 40" and 50"
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,816
|
Quote:
That's sooo confusing. So the pixels are larger on a larger telly, which means you get a less clear image at the same distances?
It's all very confusing... I do understand is, but with a bigger TV you have to sit further away - LOL. Stupid technology! Thanks for the replies! Still confounded. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,455
|
Quote:
That's sooo confusing. So the pixels are larger on a larger telly, which means you get a less clear image at the same distances?
It's all very confusing... I do understand is, but with a bigger TV you have to sit further away - LOL. Stupid technology! Thanks for the replies! Still confounded. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
|
Kell Factor, anyone ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,455
|
Quote:
Kell Factor, anyone ?
If you really want to open a can of worms ask the Hi Fi world about its relevance to the frequency response of CDs. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,782
|
Quote:
Interesting that it applies to all analogue, digital and even mechanical sampled systems. Kell discovered it while working on mechanical TV systems I think in the 30's
If you really want to open a can of worms ask the Hi Fi world about its relevance to the frequency response of CDs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,455
|
Quote:
Must say I've never heard of the 'Kell Factor', and presumably HiFi people wouldn't have either?, but WOULD have heard of the 'Nyqvist Frequency'
![]() All textbooks happily show the Nyquist limit at the point where the two half cycles of a sine wave can be measures with two samples. However if you move the sine wave by a quarter of a cycle the o/p is zero simply due to dear old Kell's factor. Whether it matters or not is a matter of opinion, we don't look at test charts and frequencies above say 15kHz on CDs are likely to be the tizz of cymbals and so on, but if you want to upset some know all Hi Fi nut it's a great conversation stopper. I do wonder if the improved benefits that some people can hear on wide bandwidth sources are due to the wider frequency response or the higher sampling frequency moving any Kell effects out of the range of human hearing. Personally I'm too old for such improvements to be audible to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kell_factor |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:06.


