Minimum full HD LCD size

[ugh]

Hi folks,

I'm planning to buy a 37" LCD for my living room which only has a distance of ~6.5 feet from sofa to TV cabinet. I'm leaning towards Sharp (can't remember the model). But the more important thing is that am I going to benefit from going FULL HD in a 37" model compared to 40-42"? Will I be able to see the difference?

Another thing: is a 42" LCD too big for that aforesaid distance?


Thanks.

 

[sivart]

I would get the 42" if you can afford it. I've never had someone regret that they bought a TV that was too big. Too small on the other hand....

This calculator (http://myhometheater.homestead...stancecalculator.html) gives a recommended distance for 42" sets of 6.6 feet.

 

[ugh]

I was at my sister's place and she has a 42" plasma. I felt rather dizzy after watching it a while. I think I should try and see if that's the case again.

Thanks for the link.

 

[krotchy]

Truthfully, Im not a fan of the 37" size class. For the most part is costs similar to the 40" class and the panels tend to be a bit inferior. Especially with Samsung, where the 37A550 and 40A550 are almost the same price, but the contrast ratios are significantly different between 2 panels in the same series. If you found a 42" you like I say go for it for sure. Also I doubt it would even be close to too big. I am about 6' from a 47" LCD at the moment (1080p) and I feel like I could go bigger without complaint in a heartbeat.

What models in particular are you looking at?

Also as far as dizziness when watching, I tend to hear this often has to do with cranking up the brightness too much. Torch mode can wear you down a little more since you are getting much more significant stimuli. Might want to try calibrating your sisters black/white levels for her and then watching the 42" plasma for a while

 

[erwos]

Stop saying "full HD". It makes you sound like a Sony marketing tool, and I say this as a guy who has a Sony HDTV, Sony receiver, and PS3. Just say "1080p" like everyone else.

IMHO, you can tell the difference at any size, but it's going to depend on how far away you sit. I think you would be able to tell with 37" at 6.5', if you looked carefully and had the right sources.

 

[DrunkenSano]

I would seriously avoid getting 1080p LCDs unless you're planning to buy a 50" or larger, studies have shown that you can't tell the difference between a 720p or 1080p at the smaller size range. As for 37", might as well bump it up to 40" or 42", 37" is like an uncomfortable middle number.

 

[techwanabe]

Originally posted by: DrunkenSano
I would seriously avoid getting 1080p LCDs unless you're planning to buy a 50" or larger, studies have shown that you can't tell the difference between a 720p or 1080p at the smaller size range. As for 37", might as well bump it up to 40" or 42", 37" is like an uncomfortable middle number.

Maybe, but when viewing the 46-inch TV's at my local BB and CC, I could see the difference between 720 and 1080 lines of pixels. I'd suggest people look for themself and decide if 720 is sufficient. I'm pretty sure my brother in law has 720 on his 32 or 36 inch TV and from 8 feet, it looks great - no pixels visible.

Stop saying "full HD".

It's a term you still see often, Sony or no. Isn't the term full HD meant to differentiate 1080P sets from those limited to 720P?

 

[erwos]

Originally posted by: techwanabe
It's a term you still see often, Sony or no. Isn't the term full HD meant to differentiate 1080P sets from those limited to 720P?

It's purely a Sony marketing term. It means nothing. IMHO, 720p and 1080i are just as much "full HD" as 1080p. There is no standard for what HD is, period. Most people just use the ATSC definition.

If you want to get really specific, HDMI 1.3b1 currently supports 2560x1600p75 at 24-bit depth, or 1920x1200p60 at 48-bit depth (via deep color). If they can hit either of those, I'll be OK with "full HD". Otherwise, no, it's marketing BS - just like the "X.V.Color" term for XvYCC.

 

[techwanabe]

Originally posted by: erwos

Originally posted by: techwanabe
It's a term you still see often, Sony or no. Isn't the term full HD meant to differentiate 1080P sets from those limited to 720P?

It's purely a Sony marketing term. It means nothing. IMHO, 720p and 1080i are just as much "full HD" as 1080p. There is no standard for what HD is, period. Most people just use the ATSC definition.

If you want to get really specific, HDMI 1.3b1 currently supports 2560x1600p75 at 24-bit depth, or 1920x1200p60 at 48-bit depth (via deep color). If they can hit either of those, I'll be OK with "full HD". Otherwise, no, it's marketing BS - just like the "X.V.Color" term for XvYCC.

Ah. I see. I suppose in some practical terms (ie for non videophiles), those people understand the higher resolution concept. I really could care less if it's a marketing term, similar to the PR rating on AMD processors. People get the drift.

As for the "full HD" spec's you mentioned, those would be a theoretical maximum resolution right? I mean, what "content" is available and what TV set's can display 1200P or 1600P (computer monitors maybe).

 

[erwos]

Originally posted by: techwanabe
As for the "full HD" spec's you mentioned, those would be a theoretical maximum resolution right? I mean, what "content" is available and what TV set's can display 1200P or 1600P (computer monitors maybe).

The 30" Dell and Apple displays can do 1600p. You could drive one of those with an HDMI 1.3 or dual-link DVI card and game on it. If the software player is up to it, I suppose you could even upscale a DVD, HD-DVD, or BR-D from 1080p to 1600p.

Calling 1080p "full HD" might sound good right now, but what happens in the inevitable progression towards 1600p and beyond? What are you going to call those? Better to start using the right terms right now rather than make things confusing later.

 

[techwanabe]

Originally posted by: erwos

Originally posted by: techwanabe
As for the "full HD" spec's you mentioned, those would be a theoretical maximum resolution right? I mean, what "content" is available and what TV set's can display 1200P or 1600P (computer monitors maybe).

The 30" Dell and Apple displays can do 1600p. You could drive one of those with an HDMI 1.3 or dual-link DVI card and game on it. If the software player is up to it, I suppose you could even upscale a DVD, HD-DVD, or BR-D from 1080p to 1600p.

Calling 1080p "full HD" might sound good right now, but what happens in the inevitable progression towards 1600p and beyond? What are you going to call those? Better to start using the right terms right now rather than make things confusing later.

Well, unless something can actually upscale 1080 content, it seems useless to have a large display that can run 1600.

As for terminology, it probably works for the near term and I'd imagine it will be a long time before there is another leap in higher def content like there was from 480 lines on DVD's to 1080 on HD-DVD or BR.

 

[krotchy]

First off 1200p and 1600p and 1600p are not video resolutions, they are computer resolutions, since computers use 16:10 not 16:9. Using them referring to video does not make sense, because they are not video standards. The next steps in video is 1440p (2560x1440) and 2160p (3840x2160) with companies already having demonstration video monitors on display (I saw a few 2160p monitors at CES in January). However the bandwidth to send content at these sizes still does not exist for broadcasting video, and live h.264 encoders and whatnot would struggle without using 4 HD encoders in parallel, which could be incredibly expensive. In fact for both 2160p monitors I saw at CES, they simply used 4 HDMI connections in the back and treated it as 1 screen having 4 full-res TV feeds built in and fed it a computer feed since they did not have video ready (though the Red 4K camera could at least make acquiring the content easier if it ever becomes mass market)

Also Full HD is not just a marketing term used by Sony. Alot of companies adopted it to signify 1080p, since there was alot of confusion when 1080p was first becoming available as to whether a monitor was 1080i (really 720p) or actually 1080p. I see no reason the op cant use it if everyone knew exactly what he meant. This is like when people argue you cant use the term home theater unless the person has a dedicated room with a projector, it makes no sense and when used "wrong" everyone still knows what it means, so who cares.

 

[techwanabe]

Originally posted by: krotchy
First off 1200p and 1600p and 1600p are not video resolutions, they are computer resolutions, since computers use 16:10 not 16:9. Using them referring to video does not make sense, because they are not video standards.

Makes sense to me.

The next steps in video is 1440p (2560x1400) and 2160p (3840x2160) with companies already having demonstration video monitors on display (I saw a few 2160p monitors at CES in January). However the bandwidth to send content at these sizes still does not exist for broadcasting video, and live h.264 encoders and whatnot would struggle without using 4 HD encoders in parallel, which could be incredibly expensive. In fact for both 2160p monitors I saw at CES, they simply used 4 HDMI connections in the back and treated it as 1 screen having 4 full-res TV feeds built in and fed it a computer feed since they did not have video ready (though the Red 4K camera could at least make acquiring the content easier if it ever becomes mass market)

Also Full HD is not just a marketing term used by Sony. Alot of companies adopted it to signify 1080p, since there was alot of confusion when 1080p was first becoming available as to whether a monitor was 1080i (really 720p) or actually 1080p. I see no reason the op cant use it if everyone knew exactly what he meant. This is like when people argue you cant use the term home theater unless the person has a dedicated room with a projector, it makes no sense and when used "wrong" everyone still knows what it means, so who cares.

I'm ok with that! I can still sleep at night if someone uses the term full HD!