I am just starting some research into claims that watching these new big hd tv's can effect your health and wellbeing.

I am looking into claims that watching in widescreen can you make you tired quicker than watching on an old 4 :3 set. Your eyes are more strained, particulary with these vivid HD sets, and the fact that people often buy 42" plasma's even though they have a living room 6ft X 6ft!!

Also, constantly flicking through hundreds of channels with nothing on can make you more tense and your stress levels can heighten. Possibly leading to more serious health matters.

In 15-20 years time, its possible that such conditions wil be more commonly acknowleged. And many people will be lookin to sue tv manufacturers and tv companies.

Ha. Haha. No.

We haven't had a 4:3 TV since 1999. No complaints.

Cinemas are far wider screens than 16:9 TVs, pick on them

-Chris

I dont think it matters wether its widescreen or not. If anything, i though widescreen was closer to your eyes' natural viewing range than 4:3.

But you are probably right about the size of the screen. It does not do you any good to sit too close to the screen - a 42" in a small living room probably isnt a very good idea :S

I'm not to sure about the effect of aspect ratio, but I'm sure that continious watching of Eastenders will leave you terminally depressed, if not suicidal, and watching to much Big Brother will leave you brain damaged.
Are BBC going to show EE in hd - please pass the Prozac.

Surely looking at a small screen is worse for your eyesight than a large one. A small 4:3 screen means you'll be shifting your focus much less than you would with a large wide screen - which sort of makes it more realistic and therefore less tiring.

Perhaps videographers should make more use of the available space, using the centre of the screen a little less often - forcing the viewer to "look around" the scene.

Just my 2p's worth.



Never mind what format it's in. It makes better digital radio, where it'll never be seen or heard by anyone

Nonsense. The problem is most people sit too close or have the tv set up all wrong.
Far too bright, too much contrast and set to wrong ratio.
You even see this on the high street in many stores.
Take time and set your tv up properly with a calibration disc if you can, you will be amazed at the difference it can make.


www.highdefbargains.co.uk

I notice you have made your conclusions before you start.
A large screen too close could cause problems but 16:9 is based on your field of vision so if anything it would be easier.

probaly has more todo with the tvs refresh rate
a 50hz update on a smaller tv wouldn't be as noticable as on a larger 40"+ set as the field of vision would be much smaller
on my tv(normal viewing mines set to 100Hz)but if i set it to 50Hz i do notice a slight stroby effect and more so if you sort of look away with the tv image in the side of your field of vision which after a while i would probaly find quiet uncomfortable.

I totally agree here. Research's aim is to gain facts and insight into a subject matter. It's only once you have gained the facts and scrutinised the sources that you can come to a conclusion that will have much less chance of being biased.

Anyway, to be honest, I don't see any reason why the 16:9 aspect ratio is worse than 4:3. As others have stated, 16:9 is a more natural viewing shape as the eyes have a wider field of vision from left to right than they do up and down.

This results in less eye strain as your eyes don't have to scan up and down as much, but can make use of the wider field of vision from left to right.

But most people these days now have much bigger TVs than they used to and need.
with them being much cheaper you can now get a 42in for £500.

Most people dont need this size even me

I went from a 32in to 42in.