HDTVs Shrink

[danrok]

From NYTimes:
HDTVs Shrink - Bits - Technology - New York Times Blog

Americans’ lust for big-screen flat panel TVs looks to be getting smaller.

According to data released by the research firm, Pacific Media Associates, the share of the TV market for 30 to 34-inch L.C.D. TVs jumped to 24 percent in February from 16 percent in January.

That move was at the expense of larger sets. Market share sales for 45 to 49-inch L.C.D. TVs dropped to 14 percent from 18 percent and the 40- to 44-inch L.C.D. and plasma segment moved to 18 percent from 20 percent.

The reason, according to Alfred Poor, Pacific Media Associates’ senior research associate, is obvious: it’s the economy.

...

I think he's overlooking the fact you can now buy a full 1080p HDTV as small as 32 inches, possibly smaller. E.g. Toshiba Regza 32" 32XV505DB.

[noob]

Or maybe the fact, that since they are cheaper, more people can afford the smaller size?

In my current place, having a 42" would not work. A 32"-36" would be the best size due to space restrictions.

I also currently have a 29" 4:3 Sony CRT TV, it still looks better than many LCD's even though it only does 480p.
It also has an anti theft device - it weighs in at 54kg, and requires to be screwed down as it has a chance of falling forward.

[cloasters]

We're in a recession, so entertainment dollars need careful review. I'm thinking about a 27" LCD-but I don't know if they make them that small.

[noob]

As far as I'm aware, for that size, you are best to get a computer monitor, and use a TV card, although I have seen some around that size from LG.

EDIT:

Looking at LG's site, they have 3 26", 3 22", and 3 19". The step up from 26" is 32".

But having a look at the sizes, to get the same height as a 29" 4:3 you would be looking at 36" 16:9

[danrok]

Originally Posted by cloasters

We're in a recession, so entertainment dollars need careful review. I'm thinking about a 27" LCD-but I don't know if they make them that small.

Are you after a standard definition, or a high definition TV?

[noob]

From the NZ site:
http://www.sony.co.nz/products/produ...klv26u300a.jsp

Having seen them in the shop, they are pretty impressive with their picture quality

[Daniel ~]

With a good data sourse, I'm betting it will blow your mind.":O}

[cloasters]

Thanks for the information. Maybe a 26" will do. Might as well go hi-def, all the young people are doing it these days.

[Áedán]

The downside with HDTV sets is that of the human eye. Sit the distance that most people do for SDTV, and you've thrown away most of the HDTV definition anyway. For a 32" SDTV, 11 feet is pretty much the maximum detail. For HDTV, that drops to about 4 feet for 1080i. If you view it at 11 feet, you might as well not bothered with the HD bit!

[Daniel ~]

Does that viewing distence vary with screen size > would 4 ft be the prefered distantce for a 60" as it is for a 32"?

(If so would seem to limit practical size?)

[cloasters]

Maybe I'll make do with a converter box and rabbit ears. 20," hoo woo.

[Gizmo]

Originally Posted by Daniel ~

Does that viewing distence vary with screen size > would 4 ft be the prefered distantce for a 60" as it is for a 32"?

(If so would seem to limit practical size?)

The maximum effective viewing distance will vary according to the size of the screen you are viewing, and is a linear relationship. In addition, the resolution you will be using has an effect: 1080 requires you to be closer than 720 which requires you to be closer than 480, for a given size of screen.

The math works out like this: the human eye (assuming 20/20 vision) has a sensitivity of 1/60 degree of arc in the field of vision.

With a screen size of 32" diagonal, each pixel in a 1080 image will be roughly .66mm in width.

Given the above figures, at about 3.7 feet, you can fully distinguish the pixels in a 1080 image on a 32" screen.

Now, let's double the size of the screen to 64". That doubles the pixel size to roughly 1.31mm in width. Because of that, our viewing distance has now doubled as well, from about 3.7 feet to about 7.3 feet.

Now, what if you go from 1080 to 480? Well, 480 is roughly 44% of the resolution, which means that you can sit roughly 2 1/4 times further from the same size screen. Using our examples above, with a 32" screen, you could see all of the detail of a 480 image from a distance of a little over 8', and with a 64" screen, you'd be looking at almost 16 1/2'.

[danrok]

Originally Posted by Gizmo

Given the above figures, at about 3.7 feet, you can fully distinguish the pixels in a 1080 image on a 32" screen.

Assuming the viewer has good vision, they would still appreciate that they're looking at a 1080 image at a slightly longer distance - even if they can't quite make out each pixel individually.

I would say that a 1080p HD screen starts to become pointless at over ~5 feet. Of course, it will look more detailed at 3.7 feet.

[cloasters]

I had no idea that you have to be that close. HDTV seems unwieldy, I'm not going to sit 3.7 ft away from a 2.66 foot wide screen. Why not buy "3D" goggles instead? Or ocular implants?

[Gizmo]

Originally Posted by danrok

I would say that a 1080p HD screen starts to become pointless at over ~5 feet. Of course, it will look more detailed at 3.7 feet.

That's in the context of viewing on a 32" screen, which actually is a bit on the smallish side. Obviously, as I pointed out, larger screens are viewable in full detail at greater distances. In addition, as you point out, it's possible to appreciate the improved detail at moderately greater distances, even if you can't make out each individual pixel distinctly.

Of course this all assumes you have content that takes advantage of the 1080 resolution. Does anything, yet?

[Gizmo]

Originally Posted by cloasters

I had no idea that you have to be that close. HDTV seems unwieldy, I'm not going to sit 3.7 ft away from a 2.66 foot wide screen. Why not buy "3D" goggles instead? Or ocular implants?

You don't have to, of course. It's just that to experience the 'optimum' viewing experience, you need to be that close. If you are willing to downgrade your expectations a bit, you can sit further away.

[Daniel ~]

Both Direct TV and Comcast claim to broadcast in 1080i. My set is 720p, but recives, everything up to 1080i. JVC says it out puts everything at 720p, But Cable, PS3 and Direct tv all swear it out puts at 1080i, I suspect that JVC kinda knew what they were selling me...":O}

So help as math cripple out... at 61" optimum distance for a 720p set?

[Áedán]

Here is a handy chart that'll give you an idea of distance vs screen size vs resolution.