new TV advice

Hi

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

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

* Flat panel (not just flatscreen)

* Good picture quality. 90% of our viewing is off a Nokia Mediamaster;
also some use of a DVD player and and as a screen for the Mac.

* Long warranty; reputable brand

* RGB capable Scart input

* Prog. Scan capable component video input

* VGA input (unless it has DVI instead...)

Nice to have:-

* HDTV ready

* DVI or HDMI input

* Digibox built in

* PVR built in

thanks...



--
u n d e r a c h i e v e r

"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"

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.
--
Alex

"We are now up against live, hostile targets"

"So, if Little Red Riding Hood should show up with a bazooka and a bad
attitude, I expect you to chin the bitch! "

www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk

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.

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.

No way could I see "movie buffs" accept 21" TV's (or smaller) unless you use
binoculars.

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

So was mine- Panasonic 28" at 6'. OK for TV shows/news etc. -even so; for
films you need something bigger. You don't get the immersion whilst watching
a film on a small screen. There is something special when watching a Borg
cube 6' accross, you get that tingly feeling which is not there with a
crummy small TV. A 32" flat panel is a minimum for 6' (true viewable over a
CRT of course) so bigger than 32" CRT.

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.
--
Alex

Cost is irrelevant, since he stated no price.

So was mine- Panasonic 28" at 6'. OK for TV shows/news etc. -even so; for
films you need something bigger. You don't get the immersion whilst
watching a film on a small screen. There is something special when
watching a Borg cube 6' accross, you get that tingly feeling which is not
there with a crummy small TV. A 32" flat panel is a minimum for 6' (true
viewable over a CRT of course) so bigger than 32" CRT.

That should be 32" minimum for films at 6'

"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


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.



--
Gareth.
Quote of the day.
You're disgusting! you say he is sex lupines and sweep him away.
A chinese actress suffers the indignity of bad subtitles in the film 'red to
kill'

Nath wrote:
Why?

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

We are talking about looking at a screen , not having a dump.
A 28 or 32" screen would not give most people eye strain , far from it.

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.

And what does that prove , other than your parents got used to a bigger
screen?

No way could I see "movie buffs" accept 21" TV's (or smaller) unless
you use binoculars.

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

So was mine- Panasonic 28" at 6'. OK for TV shows/news etc. -even so;
for films you need something bigger.

No I don't.
**You** might need something bigger.
If I wanted a bigger screen I would go out and buy one.

You don't get the immersion
whilst watching a film on a small screen.

A good film will hold the attention no matter what the screen.

There is something special
when watching a Borg cube 6' accross, you get that tingly feeling
which is not there with a crummy small TV.

What defines a crummy small tv?

A 32" flat panel is a
minimum for 6' (true viewable over a CRT of course) so bigger than
32" CRT.

Minimum according to who?
It's down to the individual concerned to decide how large a screen they want
, not you.



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.
--
Alex

Cost is irrelevant, since he stated no price.

Of course cost is relevant you ****ing idiot.
--
Alex

"We are now up against live, hostile targets"

"So, if Little Red Riding Hood should show up with a bazooka and a bad
attitude, I expect you to chin the bitch! "

www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk

Nath wrote:
No, it's because UK owners for some reason restrict themselves to
stupidly small sets at large viewing distances, ie 14" at 20' away.

Why are you suddenly talking about using a portable TV at the end of a long
lounge?

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!!".

So your friend thinks that a 28" screen is quite large

And not
taking into account the general public have restrictions on AV gear.

What restrictions would those be?
Or do you mean that fact that a lot of people aren't as obsessed with you
about home cinema to the exclusion of everything else.


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

According to what criteria?
The law of home cinema according to some ****ing retard?

-32" is a minimum, and with 8'
or higher 32" is just about OK but nothing brilliant.

Again , according to who?

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.

Who is talking about lifestyle systems?
The OP asked about 28" or 32" flatscreen sets as thats a size that he feels
would be fine.
He is the one that is going to watch it , not you.

--
Alex

"We are now up against live, hostile targets"

"So, if Little Red Riding Hood should show up with a bazooka and a bad
attitude, I expect you to chin the bitch! "

www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:37:02 +0100, "Nath" wrotf:


"u n d e r a c h i e v e r"
wrote in message
news:[email protected] newred.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"

FWIW Toshiba have their own rules of thumb re TV size / Ratio and distance.

http://www.toshiba.ca/web/link?id=57

Apparently they have the following recommendations...

High Definition-Compatible 16:9 Aspect Ratio
34-inch: 4.5 feet
42-inch: 5.0 feet
50-inch: 6.0 feet
57-inch: 7.0 feet
65-inch: 8.0 feet

Of course they're a TV set manufacturer and no doubt want to push the bigger
pricier items. But they appear to have "backed" this up with statements re the
field of vision and how to optimise it.

Mal



Remove x- for correct email addy