Will the screen size of 10 inches make a difference?

[Osage_Winter]

eugovector wrote:

You will be able to discern the difference, but as to whether or not it will be significant to you is entirely subjective.

I see; seems to be the standpoint Leonard has as well...

I currently have a 50" screen and sit 12 feet away typically. My next jump will be a 92" screen because, for me, 60" would be discernible, but not significant enough. If 60" is the biggest you can go, and you can't change your seating location, then there's not a lot else you can do beyond that.

Do you have any pics of your setup? What kind of 50 do you have -- plasma, LCD, RP? Also, you are at the exact distance I am from my 50 -- how have you been with it thus far? I know you said that 60 wouldn't be significant enough for you at this distance, but how has the 50" been in terms of viewing film? Have you been at least okay with it?

Indeed, I absolutely cannot change the seating position for this room -- the idea of "scooting up a chair much closer to the screen" when using this room as our HT viewing area so that my 50" screen seems larger just doesn't appeal to me (this has been suggested before) as I can't imagine bringing a dining room chair in and placing it where I want to sit in front of the screen. Further, this would throw the whole audio calibration part of my system completely out of whack.

Additionally, the entertainment center that holds the screen and A/V gear can maybe squeeze a 60" in, as I said in the first post of this thread -- and that would really be pushing it. It would have to be, say, one of the new Samsung LCDs that have the very small trim bezels, the ones that look like there's no trim around the screen at all...and even so, the screen would have to stick out a bit from the wall unit to accommodate its size. We're not in a position to get a new entertainment center of any kind for a massive screen (say, one of the Mitsubishi DLPs that come in the 70, 80 and 90 inch screen sizes) right now, so this one must work for us.

[mojojojo]

We went from a 46 to a 55, so 9 inches and it definitely made a difference with no change in seating position. Actually, the tv went back some 18 inchs as we switched from a rear projection to a plasma.

eugovector wrote:

A 60" screen at 12' will fill the same field of vision as your 50" screen at 10'. Move your chair up 2 feet, temporarily, and see what you think.

That's an interesting way to test it out.

[KalaniP]

mojojojo wrote:

We went from a 46 to a 55, so 9 inches and it definitely made a difference with no change in seating position. Actually, the tv went back some 18 inchs as we switched from a rear projection to a plasma.

That's an interesting way to test it out.

That's my current issue... I have a 65" CRT-based RPTV, and while I would like to upgrade to a flat panel (except for perhaps the new Sharp Elites, there are questions as to whether any flat panel would truly be an "upgrade"), that would move the set almost 2' farther back from the viewing position. I really need a fairly significant boost in size to have an upgrade actually "upgrade" my size, as well. Even those gorgeous 70" Sharp Elites would look smaller, under the circumstances! There's the new 80" Sharp, but it's not an Elite, and would be a step backwards in quality, as such. I guess I'll have to wait for an 80" Elite... and a winning lottery ticket!

[eugovector]

Osage_Winter wrote:

Do you have any pics of your setup? What kind of 50 do you have -- plasma, LCD, RP? Also, you are at the exact distance I am from my 50 -- how have you been with it thus far? I know you said that 60 wouldn't be significant enough for you at this distance, but how has the 50" been in terms of viewing film? Have you been at least okay with it?

There will be a video shortly as I talk about my new SVS PB12-NSD, but the 92" projection setup is still very much in the planning phase. I'd say 1 year away.

So, I went from a 51" RPTV to a 50" plasma. We had previously been sitting about 6' away per the 1.5x the screen diagonal guideline (this is loosely spec'd to NTSC and THX guidelines). Upon moving to our new house, we sat at this same distance for a while, then moved to 8', then moved to 12" to open the room up and accommodate guests.

How've I been with it? I like having more space to move, but I miss the immersive experience of a theater-like screen size to seating distance ratio. If it wasn't such a change in distance, I would probably position/calibrate my system for 6' and move the couch up when doing serious viewing. However, we've been entertaining for work and pleasure more, so we need the sq ft more than we need a theater-like experience. I can't wait until a 92" screen gives us the best of both worlds.

So yeah, I'm okay with it, but I miss the old days.

[Osage_Winter]

mojojojo wrote:

We went from a 46 to a 55, so 9 inches and it definitely made a difference with no change in seating position. Actually, the tv went back some 18 inchs as we switched from a rear projection to a plasma.

Thanks Mojo; appreciate the input.

So you would feel by staying at the same distance for us -- which would be 12 feet -- the 10 inch jump to a 60" would be significant? Do you think film watching -- particularly scope presentations at 2.35:1 and 2.40:1 with heavy letterboxing -- would seem more immersive at 12 feet with a 60 incher?

How far are you from your plasma now? Do you have any pics of your room and setup?

[Osage_Winter]

KalaniP wrote:

That's my current issue... I have a 65" CRT-based RPTV

Wow...I'd love to run a 65 inch screen in our room...

and while I would like to upgrade to a flat panel (except for perhaps the new Sharp Elites, there are questions as to whether any flat panel would truly be an "upgrade")

Why do you feel this way? Do you mean you don't understand why going from a rear pro like yours to a flat panel would be "upgrading"?

I feel the same way, kinda...like my Sony SXRD rear pro is fine, as we don't hang our displays on walls, and don't need the "foxy" allure of a flat screen, but we have outgrown the 50" size...and so I wonder what the "upgrade" to a flat screen really is...

Here's the thing though -- only Mitsubishi from what I understand is making the really huge TV screens, like the 70-inch-up-to-92-inch DLPs they sell now...so, to get a screen under these sizes you gotta go LCD or plasma, and these are the "flat" displays. However -- you mention the huge Sharp sizes below, so let me address that...

that would move the set almost 2' farther back from the viewing position. I really need a fairly significant boost in size to have an upgrade actually "upgrade" my size, as well.

That's what I'm thinking for our room, too -- and hence why I began this thread. I'm worried that the 60 inch screen won't seem that dramatic of an increase in size based on how far we sit from the screen area, even though it is indeed 10 inches more than what we have now...if you look at official distance vs. resolution charts that everyone throws around in other forums, you would need like a 110-inch-plus screen in front of you at a distance of 12 feet in order to fully see the benefits of 1080p...that's ridiculous to me. There's no way we could afford or make fit a screen that large in our room, yet we would be lead to believe that at least a 90-inch screen needs to be installed for a distance of 12 feet. Sure -- if you want to stick with TV displays, Mitsubishi makes those aforementioned DLP models and if you want you could go with front projection on a screen as huge as you want...but what about those of us who can't do either of these things? At 12 feet there's no screen that we could utilize that would make us feel better immersed in a film while resolving and enjoying the detail that comes with 1080p?

Even those gorgeous 70" Sharp Elites would look smaller, under the circumstances! There's the new 80" Sharp, but it's not an Elite, and would be a step backwards in quality, as such. I guess I'll have to wait for an 80" Elite... and a winning lottery ticket!

I hear you on the lottery ticket -- as I said, I'd snatch up one of those 92 inch Mitsubishis if I won a lottery in a heartbeat and find a way to make it work in a room!

But I didn't know Sharp actually made screens as large as 80 inches -- wow. How much are their TVs in these huge sizes?

[Osage_Winter]

eugovector wrote:

There will be a video shortly as I talk about my new SVS PB12-NSD, but the 92" projection setup is still very much in the planning phase. I'd say 1 year away.

I meant do you have any still images as of right now depicting your 50" display...?

Being an owner of a 50" screen myself, I'd just be curious to see how you set everything up...

So, I went from a 51" RPTV to a 50" plasma. We had previously been sitting about 6' away per the 1.5x the screen diagonal guideline (this is loosely spec'd to NTSC and THX guidelines). Upon moving to our new house, we sat at this same distance for a while, then moved to 8', then moved to 12" to open the room up and accommodate guests.

Why the drop to one inch less -- were you having issues with your RPTV?

How've I been with it? I like having more space to move, but I miss the immersive experience of a theater-like screen size to seating distance ratio. If it wasn't such a change in distance, I would probably position/calibrate my system for 6' and move the couch up when doing serious viewing. However, we've been entertaining for work and pleasure more, so we need the sq ft more than we need a theater-like experience. I can't wait until a 92" screen gives us the best of both worlds.

So yeah, I'm okay with it, but I miss the old days.

I understand; but when you watch films on the 50", can you still get "somewhat immersed" with this display? If you dim the lighting in the room, do widescreen films seem a bit immersive and theatrical?

[KalaniP]

Osage_Winter wrote:

Why do you feel this way? Do you mean you don't understand why going from a rear pro like yours to a flat panel would be "upgrading"?

I feel the same way, kinda...like my Sony SXRD rear pro is fine, as we don't hang our displays on walls, and don't need the "foxy" allure of a flat screen, but we have outgrown the 50" size...and so I wonder what the "upgrade" to a flat screen really is...

Here's the thing though -- only Mitsubishi from what I understand is making the really huge TV screens, like the 70-inch-up-to-92-inch DLPs they sell now...so, to get a screen under these sizes you gotta go LCD or plasma, and these are the "flat" displays. However -- you mention the huge Sharp sizes below, so let me address that...



That's what I'm thinking for our room, too -- and hence why I began this thread. I'm worried that the 60 inch screen won't seem that dramatic of an increase in size based on how far we sit from the screen area, even though it is indeed 10 inches more than what we have now...if you look at official distance vs. resolution charts that everyone throws around in other forums, you would need like a 110-inch-plus screen in front of you at a distance of 12 feet in order to fully see the benefits of 1080p...that's ridiculous to me. There's no way we could afford or make fit a screen that large in our room, yet we would be lead to believe that at least a 90-inch screen needs to be installed for a distance of 12 feet. Sure -- if you want to stick with TV displays, Mitsubishi makes those aforementioned DLP models and if you want you could go with front projection on a screen as huge as you want...but what about those of us who can't do either of these things? At 12 feet there's no screen that we could utilize that would make us feel better immersed in a film while resolving and enjoying the detail that comes with 1080p?



I hear you on the lottery ticket -- as I said, I'd snatch up one of those 92 inch Mitsubishis if I won a lottery in a heartbeat and find a way to make it work in a room!

But I didn't know Sharp actually made screens as large as 80 inches -- wow. How much are their TVs in these huge sizes?

Sharp's biggest LCD HDTVs get even bigger with a new 80-inch model:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/27/s...w-80-inch-mod/

The 80" Sharp will be $5,499 (MSRP) when it starts shipping in early October. Preorders are already popping up for sub-$5k prices, I've read.

BUT, it's not an Elite... this model (LC-80LE632U) is actually an even lower-end panel than their 70" 732 model (the 735 is better, and the Elites are better still).

Flat panel TVs are just plain dead appealing. I WANT one. I LOVE the look of one on a wall. The PQ of a still looks absolutely fantastic (different when things move, more on that below). My wife would be thrilled to get that much more open air in our living room. (You still need a long piece of furniture underneath to hold the components and center channel, but you still get back a decent chunk of air and the room looks more open.)

But here's the deal: NOTHING can beat CRT in terms of overall PQ, IMO (and that of many others). The best of the Plasmas brag about black levels that are "like CRT". Plasmas have good motion, too, and good color (once calibrated) but they don't have a huge amount of brightness. Burn-in of static images and screen elements CAN be an issue (less with newer models, but it still has to be at least somewhat in your mind) Quite good off-axis viewing. LCD, by comparison, tend to have LOUSY black levels (one exception: the new Sharp Elites), and frankly they SUCK at motion. But they do well in lit environments. Color quality is a mixed bag, some do better than others. Off-axis viewing is often an issue. DLP-based sets can get huge, but they have their own share of issues. Black levels aren't as good as CRT. DLP motion is better than Plasma, but not always perfectly natural-looking. Color management can be an issue. Bulbs have to be replaced regularly.

Each competing technology has issues, and each compares itself to CRT as the reference standard. A well-calibrated CRT will have PERFECT color. It will have PERFECT motion. It will have PERFECT black levels. It outputs enough light to do fine in well-lit rooms (reflections can sometimes be an issue, but that can happen with other tech, too).

CRT's, however, are BIG (the cabinets, not just the screen... tho the screen can be found (used, at this point) in 65" easily, and 73" if you get a little lucky). And they top out at 1080i: they can't do 1080p. I can live with big, but it's not appealing. And because they're old, they usually don't have HDMI, mandating Component connections as the best option, and needing special converters to deal with HDMI. Burn-in can be an issue if you're careless. (Although my set is over 10 years old and has no burn-in, tho I do take care to make sure it remains this way.) CRT is not without issues, but as long as you have enough space, by most metrics that matter most to a true videophile, CRT is still king. (possible exceptions to be made for the Plasma Pioneer Elite Kuro sets, but they don't get as big as CRT and are nearly impossible to get... while used CRTs with another decade of life remaining can be had CHEAP on Craigslist.) But it's not appealing... until you turn off the lights and start the show.

[KalaniP]

Osage_Winter wrote:

I understand; but when you watch films on the 50", can you still get "somewhat immersed" with this display? If you dim the lighting in the room, do widescreen films seem a bit immersive and theatrical?

I can tell you this:

I have a buddy with nearly the exact same TV as me (65" RPTV). He sits about 8' from the screen (basically dead on at 1.5x screen size). I sit (sat, actually... new house I'm closer) 11' from the screen.

He wins, from an immersion standpoint, no contest.

I'm enjoying the newer, closer seating position (similar to his... unless I add 2' for a switch to flat screen!), at the moment, and am loathe to give it up.

[eugovector]

Osage_Winter wrote:

I meant do you have any still images as of right now depicting your 50" display...?

Being an owner of a 50" screen myself, I'd just be curious to see how you set everything up...

Why the drop to one inch less -- were you having issues with your RPTV?

I understand; but when you watch films on the 50", can you still get "somewhat immersed" with this display? If you dim the lighting in the room, do widescreen films seem a bit immersive and theatrical?

I'll try to get one taken. It's a standard wall mount setup, but I'll try to get a pic soon.

The only problem that I had with the 51" was that it didn't have HDMI, was a big as a couch, and weighed 150lbs.

Immersion = Field of vision for me. Life is widescreen, corner to corner, and that's what I try to reach with the display in my theater. For my 50" set, that's about 6', but that doesn't work with my seating. So, my answer is no, I'm not satisfied with my current setup, but you may be. It's all a matter of opinion.