Revised! 35-37 inch HD telly recomendation!

Hi all, looking for some advice on choosing a decent plasma (or lcd or crt)
with HD capability, about 35-37 inches screen size. 2 grand to spend. (just
measured spacefor 42inches and it will over dominate the room!...shame cus
id set my heart on a pioneer 42"!

I have decided on Aego T 5.1 Series...they aren't to big and have had a good
review. Still need advice on an amp though.....

I use sky and have a half decent DVD player.


Cheers in advance!

Steve

"R.P.McMurphy" wrote in message
...
Hi all, looking for some advice on choosing a decent plasma (or lcd or
crt) with HD capability, about 35-37 inches screen size. 2 grand to
spend. (just measured spacefor 42inches and it will over dominate the
room!...shame cus id set my heart on a pioneer 42"!


I think room domination is a bit of a myth. I have a Pioneer 43" in a normal
sized room and there is no sense of domination. Previously I had a Sony CRT
32" which definitely dominated the room because of the cabinet size. I have
the Pioneer on a wall mount and it can be comfortably viewed from a range of
7ft.

R.P.McMurphy wrote:
Hi all, looking for some advice on choosing a decent plasma (or lcd
or crt) with HD capability, about 35-37 inches screen size. 2 grand
to spend. (just measured spacefor 42inches and it will over dominate
the room!...shame cus id set my heart on a pioneer 42"!

I have decided on Aego T 5.1 Series...they aren't to big and have had
a good review. Still need advice on an amp though.....

I use sky and have a half decent DVD player.


Cheers in advance!

Steve

Get the 42", it might look like it dominates the room at first but you'll
very soon get used to it. Hi-Def on smaller screens is of little advantage
unless you sit very close to them.
--
Adrian

"Adrian A" wrote in message
...

Hi-Def on smaller screens is of little advantage
unless you sit very close to them.

*Hi-Def* on larger screens is of little advantage because of the compression
artifacts.

In article ,
Adrian A wrote:
R.P.McMurphy wrote:
Hi all, looking for some advice on choosing a decent plasma (or lcd
or crt) with HD capability, about 35-37 inches screen size. 2 grand
to spend. (just measured spacefor 42inches and it will over dominate
the room!...shame cus id set my heart on a pioneer 42"!

I have decided on Aego T 5.1 Series...they aren't to big and have had
a good review. Still need advice on an amp though.....

I use sky and have a half decent DVD player.


Cheers in advance!

Steve

Get the 42", it might look like it dominates the room at first but you'll
very soon get used to it.

but SWMBO might not agree with that ;-)

--
From KT24 - in drought-ridden Surrey

Using a RISC OS5 computer

Slurp wrote:
"Adrian A" wrote in message
...

Hi-Def on smaller screens is of little advantage
unless you sit very close to them.

*Hi-Def* on larger screens is of little advantage because of the
compression artifacts.

Can you back up your statement? Or are you, as I suspect, talking out of
your arse?

"Adrian A" wrote in message
...
Slurp wrote:
"Adrian A" wrote in message
...

Hi-Def on smaller screens is of little advantage
unless you sit very close to them.

*Hi-Def* on larger screens is of little advantage because of the
compression artifacts.

Can you back up your statement? Or are you, as I suspect, talking out of
your arse?



Assuming an average eye resolving angle of 0.03 degrees, and assuming a
widescreen 16:9 image with a horizontal resolution of 1920 pixels,and using
H.264 compression (MPEG4 with 8x8cell compression) the following optimum
screen sizes apply. (by optimum I mean the pixel size is *just* on the limit
of being resolved by the eye, i.e. any closer to the screen and you will
start to see jaggies and motion artifacts).

Screen size(inch) 17 21 28 32 36 42 50 80
ViewDist(m) 3 3.6 4.8 5.4 6.3 7.5 9
14.1


And just to make it even worse in the UK $ky has decided to use the 1280
horizontal resolution variant for their *HDTV* offering. LOL! - and with
"optimal" compresion LMAO!

Don't know about you but a 42" screen requires a min 7.5m viewing distance
for optimal viewing which I don't have. A large screen may look good nailed
to the wall but as far as viewing quality is concerned you are on to a
looser.

Slurp

"Slurp" wrote in message
...

"Adrian A" wrote in message
...
Slurp wrote:
"Adrian A" wrote in message
...

Hi-Def on smaller screens is of little advantage
unless you sit very close to them.

*Hi-Def* on larger screens is of little advantage because of the
compression artifacts.

Can you back up your statement? Or are you, as I suspect, talking out of
your arse?



Assuming an average eye resolving angle of 0.03 degrees, and assuming a
widescreen 16:9 image with a horizontal resolution of 1920 pixels,and
using H.264 compression (MPEG4 with 8x8cell compression) the following
optimum screen sizes apply. (by optimum I mean the pixel size is *just* on
the limit of being resolved by the eye, i.e. any closer to the screen and
you will start to see jaggies and motion artifacts).

Screen size(inch) 17 21 28 32 36 42 50 80
ViewDist(m) 3 3.6 4.8 5.4 6.3 7.5 9 14.1


And just to make it even worse in the UK $ky has decided to use the 1280
horizontal resolution variant for their *HDTV* offering. LOL! - and with
"optimal" compresion LMAO!

Don't know about you but a 42" screen requires a min 7.5m viewing distance
for optimal viewing which I don't have. A large screen may look good
nailed to the wall but as far as viewing quality is concerned you are on
to a looser.

Slurp

I agree with you Adrian A, he definitely is talkinbg out of his arse!

"Malcolm H" wrote in message
...

"Slurp" wrote in message
...

"Adrian A" wrote in message
...
Slurp wrote:
"Adrian A" wrote in message
...

Hi-Def on smaller screens is of little advantage
unless you sit very close to them.

*Hi-Def* on larger screens is of little advantage because of the
compression artifacts.

Can you back up your statement? Or are you, as I suspect, talking out of
your arse?



Assuming an average eye resolving angle of 0.03 degrees, and assuming a
widescreen 16:9 image with a horizontal resolution of 1920 pixels,and
using H.264 compression (MPEG4 with 8x8cell compression) the following
optimum screen sizes apply. (by optimum I mean the pixel size is *just*
on the limit of being resolved by the eye, i.e. any closer to the screen
and you will start to see jaggies and motion artifacts).

Screen size(inch) 17 21 28 32 36 42 50 80
ViewDist(m) 3 3.6 4.8 5.4 6.3 7.5 9
14.1


And just to make it even worse in the UK $ky has decided to use the 1280
horizontal resolution variant for their *HDTV* offering. LOL! - and with
"optimal" compresion LMAO!

Don't know about you but a 42" screen requires a min 7.5m viewing
distance for optimal viewing which I don't have. A large screen may look
good nailed to the wall but as far as viewing quality is concerned you
are on to a looser.

Slurp

I agree with you Adrian A, he definitely is talkinbg out of his arse!


----- spoken by the man with a 43" Pioneer *comfortably* viewed from 7 feet
LMAO!

Slurp wrote:
Assuming an average eye resolving angle of 0.03 degrees, and assuming a
widescreen 16:9 image with a horizontal resolution of 1920 pixels,and using
H.264 compression (MPEG4 with 8x8cell compression) the following optimum
screen sizes apply. (by optimum I mean the pixel size is *just* on the limit
of being resolved by the eye, i.e. any closer to the screen and you will
start to see jaggies and motion artifacts).

Screen size(inch) 17 21 28 32 36 42 50 80
ViewDist(m) 3 3.6 4.8 5.4 6.3 7.5 9
14.1

Following this through for SD (where the pixel width is more than
double), you are suggesting that I should sit over 10m away from my 28"
TV?!

Surely Shume Mishtake!


Cheers,
David.