Info on selecting a screen size

http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoffreymorrison/

Not sure I agree entirely, but good info.

On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 17:12:05 -0700, "Lost"
wrote:

http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoffreymorrison/

Not sure I agree entirely, but good info.

Yes, but I would change the criteria a little bit for when resolution
is wasted. The writer's idea is that if you can't resolve the pixels
it is a waste of resolution.

My opinion is that if you can resolve the pixels (in a panel with
sharp pixels like LCD or plasma) the image will not look smooth and
natural. You need a pixel size somewhat smaller (or a larger distance)
so that you DON'T see the pixels.

I agree with the example that a 42" panel with 1366x768 at 10' should
be fine. But I don't call it a waste of resolution. It's about the
closest distance I would aim for.

The bottom line is however that there are several parameters that
matters, besides resolution.
/Jan

"Richard C." wrote

Almost all HD buyers wish they had bought a bigger set.

Not sure this is true, after a couple of years reading here and the AVS
Forum. It may be true that talkative people tend to say things like that,
but many people who have sets around the 2 1/2 rule size (the seating
distance should be 2 1/2 times the diagonal screen size) say that it works
for them. And after a year sitting 11 feet from my 52 inch JVC, I agree.

We need to remember that the bigger the set the more obvious the defects in
the image. Good sets (advanced software, 1080p, LCoS etc) can to some degree
improve things, but the defects in the input signal will eventually show
through if the screen is too big.

"Richard C." wrote

I sit about 9 feet from my 64" set and wish it were a 100" FP instead.
High quality equipment displays few defects.

Well, my friend, I certainly wouldn't dispute your right to sit wherever you
want and have whatever TV you choose. But since my point was to dispute your
statement that "Almost all HD buyers wish they had bought a bigger set.",
and you ignored that matter, I take it you're no longer making that claim.

As to your second point, I'm envious of the quality of your TV input. Only a
fraction of my programming (from satellite) has "few defects". The rest is
overcompressed HD and SD, both with many defects.