On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 14:31:08 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
wrotf:

Nath wrote:
"u n d e r a c h i e v e r"
wrote in message
news:[email protected] ewred.gradwell.net...
Hi

I'm looking for a new TV ... any recommendations? Requirements a-

* 26" - 32" (viewing distance eight to ten feet ... is this OK?)

With that viewing distance I would consider at least 36", preferbly
42"

Why?
Not everyone wants or needs such a large screen dominating their lounge
I know plenty of people who are happy with 21" or even smaller TVs at that
distance.
My 28" is about 6ft away and is plenty large enough.
Also the costs start to increase significantly once you go above 32" meaning
that the OP would have to spend a hell of a lot more money or go for an
inferior quality product.

As always personal preference will dictate what is ultimately "acceptable". The
original poster was apparently seeking confirmation whether 8' - 10' was OK for
a 26" to 32" TV.

This NG is not a general tv.equipment group - it is media.home-cinema. One
would expect to receive "advice" and recommendations which is appropriate to the
group; namely home-cinema.

The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) recommends that
the screen should be of a size that you will see 30 degrees of viewing angle
side to side.

See a detailed explanation in this NG post :

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=...ing.net&rnum=2

For a WS ratio of 16:9, the horizontal screen size can be calculated from the
"published" size (diagonal) divided by 1.14734
(pythagoras hypotenuse = sqrt (16*16 + 9*9) = 18.357. 18.357/16 = 1.14734...)

If you know your viewing distance:

(Recommended) Screen size (Horizontal not diagonal)(") = Viewing Distance (") /
1.8664

Otherwise, if you know your screen size

(Recommended) Viewing distance (") = Screen Size (Horizontal not diagonal) (")
* 1.8664


So, back to the post. Notwithstanding that everything is subjective and down to
budgets, available space etc, the poster was seeking advice and recommendations
based on other people's subjective experiences. On that basis everyone is
entitled to their opinions, including Nath.

However, there appears to be a professional body which publishes recommended
screen sizes for a home cinema experience and supports Nath's position. Using
their recommendations and guidelines:

viewing distance 8' (assuming WS screen ration 16:9)

(Horizontal) Screen Size = 8*12 / 1.8664 = 51"

Multiply this by 1.14734 to get the diagonal size: 59"

FWIW, I have a ' 50" ' RP LCD screen viewed from about 12' feet. IMO the screen
is too small for a true 'home cinema' experience. Nice as though it is I'd like
a bigger version! :)

'My 28" is about 6ft away and is plenty large enough.'

Plenty large enough for watching TV. Not large enough for home cinema.

In my opinion. In my experience. ;-)

Mal


Remove x- for correct email addy

"Nath" wrote in message ...
No, it's because UK owners for some reason restrict themselves to stupidly small sets at large viewing
distances, ie 14" at 20' away. And this is supposed to be OK. A mate that's not into HT saw my 28"
widescreen TV and said "BLOODY HELL WHAT A BIG TV!!". Quite. And not taking into account the general
public have restrictions on AV gear.

I've used a 28" at 6' and that's OK..but a 28" in a small living room with a 8'-9' distance is way too
small -32" is a minimum, and with 8' or higher 32" is just about OK but nothing brilliant.

I speak my mind, and do not sway to the general populace or other people on this NG who prefer
"lifestyle" type audio/video systems.


You have a 28inch TV? I thought you had a 42 inch rear pro, sorry a 19 inch PC monitor. **** off you
bull****ting snakecharming foolboy.

You have been busted yet again by your own fannytalk.

****wit.

"Nath" wrote in message ...
At least I don't have a PC-Mame-Arcade machine in the kitchen. And wear sleeveless t-shirts.

What a ****ing loser.


Sleeveless T-****????? That wouldn't be a t-shirt then would it, bilgebrain;.

"Nath" wrote in message ...
Why?

Unless you wish to strain whilst watching TV then get a decent sized display.

Not everyone wants or needs such a large screen dominating their lounge
I know plenty of people who are happy with 21" or even smaller TVs at that distance.

I know people with Sony HTIB who are "happy" too. I would not switch my audio system on to show the
difference:-D. my parents initially thought the 42" CRT RP I gave them was WAY WAY too big, with about
8' viewing distance. But guess what? They're now using it all the time, and very much doubt they'll got
back to their smaller TV...which in your "opinion" is good enough. And they're not into
films/music/audio/HT as anywhere near like me.

You talk more ******** than anyone I have ever come across. The 42inch that you ****ed up you mean? How
are they watching a broken TV, if it isn't broken, why are you not using it?

You spewforth the biggest pile of horse the world has ever known.

Become something interesting, like a fannyfart. (that is when a lady get air inside her & it parps out
you ****ing VIRGIN)

On 31 Oct 2004 09:45:50 GMT, u n d e r a c h i e v e r
wrotf:

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:49:59 +0100, the dog from that film you saw
wrote:


that's just an opinion though - a 28" lcd is the equivalent of a 30" CRT and
my parents are happy with a 28" crt in their decent sized living room.
they even said maybe it was too big at first.

after discussion with partner last night we're going for 26"

any recommendations at this size?


At 8' feet viewing distance?

For home cinema?

If the answer is yes to both.....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...1/Bins08sm.JPG

:)

Mal


Remove x- for correct email addy

Nath wrote:
"Kez" wrote in message
...
Nath wrote:
At least I don't have a PC-Mame-Arcade machine in the kitchen. And
wear sleeveless t-shirts.

What a ****ing loser.

yes, you are


How appropriate. You fight like a cow. :-D

i am rubber, you are glue. :-D

Nige wrote:
"Nath" wrote in message
...
At least I don't have a PC-Mame-Arcade machine in the kitchen. And
wear sleeveless t-shirts.

What a ****ing loser.


Sleeveless T-****????? That wouldn't be a t-shirt then would it,
bilgebrain;.

i think he means vest.

"Nige" wrote in message
...

"Nath" wrote in message
...
Why?

Unless you wish to strain whilst watching TV then get a decent sized
display.

Not everyone wants or needs such a large screen dominating their lounge
I know plenty of people who are happy with 21" or even smaller TVs at
that distance.

I know people with Sony HTIB who are "happy" too. I would not switch my
audio system on to show the difference:-D. my parents initially thought
the 42" CRT RP I gave them was WAY WAY too big, with about 8' viewing
distance. But guess what? They're now using it all the time, and very
much doubt they'll got back to their smaller TV...which in your "opinion"
is good enough. And they're not into films/music/audio/HT as anywhere
near like me.

You talk more ******** than anyone I have ever come across. The 42inch
that you ****ed up you mean? How are they watching a broken TV, if it
isn't broken, why are you not using it?

It's occasional fault that effects changing channels or occasionally when
switching on. Therefore if you keep to the same channel it's perfectly
watchable. It's not broken. Please learn English. It is faulty upon certain
conditions.

And the fault is one that is fairly well know. Please explain how I could
**** it up with convergence & installing duvatyne? Or performing optical
focus?

And by the way it didn't "**** up" as soon as I did the tweaks (if I
knackered service menu) I did them all, then after a few months the fault
appeared.

"Nige" wrote in message
...

"Nath" wrote in message
...
No, it's because UK owners for some reason restrict themselves to
stupidly small sets at large viewing distances, ie 14" at 20' away. And
this is supposed to be OK. A mate that's not into HT saw my 28"
widescreen TV and said "BLOODY HELL WHAT A BIG TV!!". Quite. And not
taking into account the general public have restrictions on AV gear.

I've used a 28" at 6' and that's OK..but a 28" in a small living room
with a 8'-9' distance is way too small -32" is a minimum, and with 8' or
higher 32" is just about OK but nothing brilliant.

I speak my mind, and do not sway to the general populace or other people
on this NG who prefer "lifestyle" type audio/video systems.


You have a 28inch TV? I thought you had a 42 inch rear pro, sorry a 19
inch PC monitor. **** off you bull****ting snakecharming foolboy.

You have been busted yet again by your own fannytalk.

****wit.

I have a Panasonic 28" that I do not use (annoying NTSC flicker) parents use
my old 42" and currently using a 19" with my Neuneo until I can buy a new
display.

viewing distance 8' (assuming WS screen ration 16:9)

(Horizontal) Screen Size = 8*12 / 1.8664 = 51"

Multiply this by 1.14734 to get the diagonal size: 59"

FWIW, I have a ' 50" ' RP LCD screen viewed from about 12' feet. IMO the
screen
is too small for a true 'home cinema' experience. Nice as though it is
I'd like
a bigger version! :)

'My 28" is about 6ft away and is plenty large enough.'

Plenty large enough for watching TV. Not large enough for home cinema.

In my opinion. In my experience. ;-)

Mal

Nice one. That'll shut up the "tiny TV" fans out there. As you said, a
21"-28" TV @ 8'-10' is NOT home cinema. I find my 19" PC monitor just about
acceptable @ 5' for TV shows, but for films it's way too small. Previous set
was 42" @ 6' so it was horrible downsizing :-(