why would you? The chart suggests Peejay who is 2.5m away would require a minimum of 30" and maximum of 60" you sure you're reading the chart right? because obviously budget determines size. If I had the cash (serious cash) I'd opt for maybe the 60" if I were Peejay, but I would ensure the whole room was set up like a cinema. As I don't, I'll stick to a 40" which I think is perfect
TV's already bought, this one in fact: http://www.imagedigitals.com/tv_data/plasma.asp?id=5717 but for 300 delivered from M&S with 5yr guarantee. Think they mispriced as myself and my mate both had them. My Mum ordered the same but told her out of stock when about to be delivered.
What that chart ACTUALLY shows is how far away from it you HAVE to be for the TV to give you the benefit of it's screen size. NOT how far do you sit from the TV. So if you are sat 5ft away from a 1080p TV, you will possibly notice the pixellation. Trust me, I see it all the time... blokes with 60" TV's on Sky HD and the picture is crap in their bedsit! (I'm a Sky Engineer )
FWIW I sit about the same distance away peejay and it isn't too "in your face" and the quality is good from that distance so 40" sounds right
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/search/r...035011&low-price=400&high-price=500&x=12&y=11 Decent selection there
I'm sat 14 feet from a 30" 10 year old CRT that someone was throwing away. you really don't need anything bigger unless you are you lads need a pescription screen if think you need 50"
Aha. That's something I've wondered about for a while - the angular resolution of the eye VS viewing distance. Unless you're sat close to a normal sized telly, or have a massive telly, HD's pointless
i can see the appeal of a 200mph car, but a huge telly with hi resolution seems a bit of an extravagance, unless it's for porn close ups
poke around the shops and seen this http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B003DNSJ...de=asn&creative=22206&creativeASIN=B003DNSJ6I seems to tick all the boxes
When did everyone start believing this 100hz cobblers. That was the big selling point of 32" Tube tv's ffs, did they bring out plasma/lcd and just forget about the refresh rate or lose the fag packet with the specs on or something? Smoke and mirrors.
been reading around the AV forums, seeing as everything is made in 50Hz, it makes no difference having 100hz for now.
I can't see how the 100Hz stuff was ever relevant to tellys. Back in the day, 14" CRT computer monitors often ran at 60Hz. Because you were sat very close to them, and they took up most of your field of vision, you could pick up the flicker of the electron beam scanning down the screen, and it could make you feel a bit headachey. As soon as bigger screens started coming in, they were all at least 75Hz, and all was well. The the thing is, who ever sat so their telly takes up as much of their field of vision as a decent sized computer monitor does? Anyhow, as for LCD / LED panels, lots of monitors now run at 60Hz again. On a CRT, the picture is literally drawn by an electron beam scanning the screen line by line - the left to right stuff is far too quick to notice, but you can pick up on the vertical element of it. On an LCD, there's no technical reason why the entire image isn't drawn at once, so it is, so there's no flicker I do wonder how much of this technology is for the Yank market and just gets flogged to us anyway - the yanks have 60Hz power, so all their tellies ran at 60Hz. Films are shot at 24fps, or 24Hz if you like, and 24 doesn't fit evenly into 60, so they've always tended to get the ****ty end of the stick when it comes to watching films on DVD and video. We've always had 50Hz power, 50Hz tellies and all that's needed is to play the film a smidge faster to get it up to 25fps, and everything's dandy.
