Is bigger better?

Forums › Home Theatre (incl HTPC) › Is bigger better?

Gemini

330 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 9

Topic # 33178 1-May-2009 22:57

Everyone wants a big TV but when I go into the stores and look at the TVs the picture always looks much better on the smaller screens!
It's quite annoying!!

Anyone else thought the same thing?

I imagine you'd need a Blu-ray quality picture and alot more technology in the bigger screen to match the picture on a smaller screen.

1 | 2

Infrastructure Geek
4057 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 195

Trusted

Microsoft NZ

Subscriber

Reply # 211490 1-May-2009 23:38

its all about viewing distance and input resolution:
http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/12/09/1080p-charted-viewing-distance-to-screen-size/
http://www.hometheatermag.com/gearworks/0105viewvrez/

Technical Evangelist
Microsoft NZ
about.me/nzregs
Twitter: @nzregs

Gemini

330 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 9

Reply # 211500 2-May-2009 00:26

First time I went TV shopping for a 29" CRT (few years back) I actually bought a 21" CRT because SD TV broadcasts looked so much better at 21"s than 29"s!

Bought an upscaling 29" TV a few years later which fixed the problem.

Things have improved with 720p/1080i broadcasts but i don't think the technology in the 40"s (1080p res) is enough to make a 720p/1080i picture look as good as it does on a 32" yet.

So not sure where to from here

Marmion

59 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 211592 2-May-2009 09:34

From the same viewing distance & set-up, my Sony 40" X4500 series has a noticeably better picture than my 32" W4000 series (both with Freeview built in). However, I suspect the difference is due to the processing engine (BE2 Pro as against BE2), and the higher specs of the X since its Sony's top of the line model :)
HD shows like Go Girls etc really do look absolutely amazing though!

Gemini

330 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 9

Reply # 211618 2-May-2009 10:57

Good to hear.
The W is about as good as it gets in 32" so all the extras in the X must make the difference.
My viewing distance is 3m how far back are you?

Batman

Mad Scientist
19809 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2678

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 211621 2-May-2009 11:07

bigger is always better! i used to have a 1280x768 50" LCD - it's all about how you calibrate your picture (source setup and tv setup) ... but yes i agree there are tvs that produce better picture eg 1080p vs low res, contrast ratio, but there are also source imperfections - divx vs dvd vs blu ray, analog tv vs dvb-t etc etc ... but i still stand by bigger is always better!

Swype on iOS is detrimental to accurate typing. Apologies in advance.

Marmion

59 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 211647 2-May-2009 12:37

Gemini: Good to hear.

The W is about as good as it gets in 32" so all the extras in the X must make the difference.

My viewing distance is 3m how far back are you?

Yea my viewing distance is around 2.5-3m. Changed the room around a bit since but the X is definately a step up above the W, although I don't know how the W5500 compare now as they have BE3 for processing pictures. Having said all this the X is a lot more expensive! (although Harvey Norman had a real good price when I got it).
At 3m I'd say you can't go wrong with 40" if your budget allows for it.

Gemini

330 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 9

Reply # 211654 2-May-2009 13:09

Yeah looked at those when they came out but the new W5500 is not a 10 bit panel anymore so probably better buying a V5500 also 8 bit with BE3 or W4500 for 10 bit and Motionflow 100Hz.
Was actually set to buy a W4500 which is a top rated TV, until I read about light bleeding issues.
Don't want a TV that needs to be returned or repaired which brings us back to a Z or an X which is a different price range.
Did you compare your X to a Pioneer PDP428XG Plasma?

Marmion

59 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 211676 2-May-2009 14:06

I never compared to a plasma. The X was kind of like an 'impulse' buy due to Sony's promotion of the home theatre + PS3 for $200 and Harvey Norman's price (the X cost me $3300 and everywhere else its still $4k+). My W is the 8 bit panel (as its only the 32"). There is barely any noticeable difference with the 8 vs 10 bit colours - only when looking at the PS3 menue background did I notice, but I'm not exactly the most discernable video person!
I see Harvey Norman is advertising a Full HD 42" Panny for $2500 and the 50" for $3500 but I don't think they have the Freeview built in. If you're between the W5500 and W4500 try and get a side by side comparison going, especially with SD signals to see the difference between BE2 and BE3. The 100hz is worth it over the V series as it does make video more smooth, but I'm not sure about the 200hz on the Z.
I think the new X will be coming out with 200hz and all the rest so that might make the X4500 cheaper still when released.

Gemini

330 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 9

Reply # 211688 2-May-2009 14:55

Sounds like you got a great deal.
Because I sit past the 2m Full HD appreciation mark (as per Regs post) I'll need to look into the other picture improving features more expensive TVs have.
Some big screens like the 46V4500 or 50PV80 seem to be just bigger versions of the same screen with no additional technology to compensate for displaying the same image over a bigger screen.

tkr001

348 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 25

Reply # 211696 2-May-2009 15:36

I have a 65" plasma. Trust me bigger is better.

geekiegeek

2149 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 385

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 213502 8-May-2009 16:18

I run a 720p projector at 100" and have to say that once you go big you will never go back! Once the 1080p projectors come down in price I'll be upgrading.

When you live your life on Twitter and Facebook, and are only friends with like minded people on Twitter and Facebook, you are not living in the real world. You are living in a narcissistic echo chamber.

My thoughts are my own and are in no way representative of my employer.

yipan

15 posts

Geek

Reply # 214666 13-May-2009 17:26

I have always been a person to shout out at the top of my lungs,that bigger the screen the better,but thing it totally comes down to viewing distances. Also you should have a look at the Samsumg range of tvs

clevedon

950 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 154

Reply # 214755 14-May-2009 07:32

We brought a new Panasonic 50PY800 Full HD Plasma last July, stepped up from a 42, now I think I should of just gone and got the 65 - yep bigger is better. And yes, we sit at the recommended distance. Since we are slowly sorting the gamesroom, you can guess what is near the top of the list now.

Gemini

330 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 9

Reply # 218312 27-May-2009 13:41

So an SD 4:3 broadcast doesn't look worse on a bigger 1080p screen than perhaps a smaller 720p screen?

clevedon

950 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 154

Reply # 218319 27-May-2009 14:04

Might do, I don't get too bothered by it at all personally, try to store as much HD stuff off MySky HDi on the HDD and between that, hired Blurays from Fatso and PS3 games, don't really watch alot of SD stuff anyway. But watching / playing Bluray on a big Full HD screen is unbeatable and Sky HD not too bad at all, more advantages than disadvantages in our house.

1 | 2