What is Your HDTV "Number" -- Read Instructions

[TromboneAl]

If (and only if) you are happy with your HDTV size, this poll is for you.

Divide the advertised size of your HDTV (e.g. 42 inches) by the distance, in feet, from your HDTV to where your nose is when you watch it (the "viewing distance") in feet. Choose the number in the poll that is closest to your calculated number.

For example, if you have a 32 inch HDTV, and you sit 10 feet away, your number is 3.2, and you should choose "3" in the poll. If you have a 47 inch HDTV and you sit 8 feet away, your number is 5.9 and you should choose "6."

Remember, if you think your HDTV is too small or too big, don't participate in the poll. Also, if you don't have an HDTV, sit this one out.

["above," I know]

 

[RonBoyd]

I hate a poll that prevents me from grumbling about how small my 42" TV is.

 

[aaronc879]

I voted 4. I have a 32" TV and am just over 8 ft away for a value of about 3.9

 

[VaCollector]

Nothing low enough in the poll for me....47" TV is in the den with the girl folks and I am normally in the "boy cave"......about 40 feet away

OK....I do have my own 47 incher in the "boy cave"...about 7 feet in front of me....uhhh....let's see....carry the one....double naught per Jethro Bodeen.....gives me a big ole' 7!!

 

[FIREd]

Living room: 42" from 10'-12' away: perfect - HDTV number ~ 4
Bedroom: 37" from 15' away: OK - HDTV number ~ 2.5

 

[ziggy29]

32", about 9' away in my favorite chair... guess that would round up to 4.

 

[Caoineag]

46" at 10 feet (perfect). Used to have 32" at 10 feet and that had me squinting. Hadn't realized that my old place had the tv at 8 feet so I thought my vision was going at first.

 

[Life_is_Good]

T-Al ..... what are you figuring? Optimal distance or preferred distance?

Just the other day I realized that If I sit on the coffee table (in front of the couch where I normally sit) I can follow the hockey puck so much easier. I normally rely on watching the players to see which spot on the ice they all move toward.

I haven't decided yet if I'm going to watch future games sitting on the table.

Maybe for the playoffs

 

[MasterBlaster]

Here's a link to an online calculator to compute optimal sizes and such for any viewing distance...

Viewing Distance Calculator

 

[thefed]

12.5 ft away from a 65"....saaaaweeeet

 

[TromboneAl]

Well, here's my situation. We are completely happy with our regular old 27" Sony trinitron, viewed at 10 feet. Maybe it's partly because we haven't been exposed to anything better. Partly, I think that when you "get into" a TV show, size doesn't matter. I discovered this when watching a 13" TV once.

Anyway, the problem is that our TV is too low (when viewed from our recliners), and too heavy to put on the top of the entertainment center. One low-cost solution is to get a 32 inch HDTV, and put it up high. All the calculators say that this is too small.

Many calculators base it on the minimum size necessary to be able to appreciate the high definition.

So I wanted an indication of whether we'd be just as happy as we are now with a set that is no bigger than our current one.

What I should ask is: Does anyone have a number of 3.2, and find that their TV is too small?

 

[MasterBlaster]

Keep in mind the motives of those who made the calculator.

For years we had a small portible 4 inch black and white TV in the kitchen that you could watch while cooking from maybe 10 feet away.

really - It was just fine. Now whats my ratio.

 

[ls99]

Depends. Like that word.

The calculators are usually based on clear focused field view of the eye which is several degrees. Can't remember the number.

The question is how much detail you really want to see. If too close on digital screen you start seeing pixilation.

Another consideration is do you want to be fully focused on the image or do you want see the tv's surroundings.

Show producers and advertisers want you as close as possible to be fully involved. Selfish buggers that they are. It is easier to get/be detached and turn the d*mn thing off if you are at the outer limits of the recommended distance or even farther. Mind games are being played, and the recommended distance or closer ensures full boob ( in this case the boob is the viewer) mode.

Our viewing distance is about 15 to 16 feet from a 42" plasma.

Enjoy
.

 

[RonBoyd]

What I should ask is: Does anyone have a number of 3.2, and find that their TV is too small?

I have a 4.2 and found my TV to be too small.

 

[calmloki]

Well, here's my situation. We are completely happy with our regular old 27" Sony trinitron, viewed at 10 feet. Maybe it's partly because we haven't been exposed to anything better. Partly, I think that when you "get into" a TV show, size doesn't matter. I discovered this when watching a 13" TV once.

Anyway, the problem is that our TV is too low (when viewed from our recliners), and too heavy to put on the top of the entertainment center. One low-cost solution is to get a 32 inch HDTV, and put it up high. All the calculators say that this is too small.

Many calculators base it on the minimum size necessary to be able to appreciate the high definition.

So I wanted an indication of whether we'd be just as happy as we are now with a set that is no bigger than our current one.

What I should ask is: Does anyone have a number of 3.2, and find that their TV is too small?

We went from a CRT to LCD - was pleased with the size of the CRT and wanted to not go to a smaller size when viewing a 16x9 aspect ratio LCD vs. a 4x3 aspect ratio CRT. We are fairly happy, though when viewing the LCD in 4x3 mode to avoid super fat 16x9 wide screen tv people the screen size is still somewhat smaller. One does get used to people looking like normal Americans rather than models after awhile. That old jibe about the tv adding 10# to your looks? Make it 50# if its an LCD. Do you get over the air, picked up by antenna tv down there? Many of those channels will be in HD - which is even more amazing when its free.
http://www.generalcadd.com/pdf/MeasuringScreensizeWhitePaper.pdf

 

[W2R]

T-Al, when I traded in my old 33" Sony Trinitron for a new Plasma TV a few years ago, I discovered something. Flat screen TV's are usually wide-screen whereas the Sony wasn't. Due to the difference in aspect ratio, my 33" Sony was the same dimension (top to bottom of viewing area) as my 42" plasma TV, approximately and they look best from about the same distance.

Yours is 27", but those are 27 very robust inches. I would suggest a 36" flat screen TV. Take a tape measure and measure.

 

[aaronc879]

What I should ask is: Does anyone have a number of 3.2, and find that their TV is too small?

I have a 3.9 and wouldn't want to go much smaller. If I was 10 ft away i'd get a 42" if it was affordable.

 

[ERD50]

What W2R said. A 27" diagonal WS is going to be much shorter top-bottom than a 27" diagonal CRT. It'll seem tiny in comparison.

You might also want to find out if you are in the same group as I am - the group that absolutely cannot stand the 'stretched' picture to make the older aspect ratio 'fit' the wider screen. I don't know how people can watch that way, but they do. For me it's like saying I couldn't reach Bb, so this A will be just as good. If that is the case, the older formatted shows will only use a part of the screen.

-ERD50

 

[soupcxan]

We sit 12 ft away from the TV. I was never particularly bothered by our 27" CRT but last year we upgraded to a 52" 120hz LCD. All I can say is - I now hate watching TV on CRTs, it's painful. If you watch a lot of movies or sports (or any widescreen content which is letterboxed on your CRT) it is totally worth the upgrade.

 

[Westernskies]

I usually watch TV with a thousand-yard stare...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand-yard_stare

 

[Payin-the-Toll]

Put me in ERD50's camp. Sons-in-law are just the opposite and don't seem to care. I keep pointing out that Jennifer Aniston is not 4' 2" tall and weighs 240 lbs., and I don't want to see her that way, but nobody cares. When our 32" Panasonic CRT got zapped by an electrical surge, I purchased a 40" Samsung LCD--should have gone bigger, but I didn't want the TV to be all encompassing. When I first fired it up on a regular program, I got out the tape measure and it was the same square inches as the old 32", so I guess I didn't lose anything.

 

[donheff]

Go with a minimum 42" Al. You will never look back.

 

[davemartin88]

T-Al ..... what are you figuring? Optimal distance or preferred distance?

Just the other day I realized that If I sit on the coffee table (in front of the couch where I normally sit) I can follow the hockey puck so much easier. I normally rely on watching the players to see which spot on the ice they all move toward.

I haven't decided yet if I'm going to watch future games sitting on the table.

Maybe for the playoffs

We have a home theater with a projection tv where the screen is just over 100", that's the place to watch a hockey game! When we move in a year or so, will really miss that room.

 

[lostball]

50" TV, viewing distance of 14', rounds up to 4.

 

[samclem]

We finally bought a flat screen TV last month (CRAZY! Our 21" JVC was still working fine after 25 years, no need to change anything!). We now have a 47" LG and I view it from 9 feet away (so, a "5" on T-AL's scale). We'd considered a 42", but figured our eyes wouldn't be getting any better in the coming years, and we intend to hang on to this thing for a long time. Amortized out over 15 years, a bigger screen cost just $1.50 more per month (that's the kind of math/rationalization that gets folks in trouble . . . ). It's a nice size, and we sure don't need anything bigger. It was cool to watch the winter Olympics on a big screen. We're still DVD (Netfix) and over-the-air broadcast only, none of that newfangled sat-o-lite or cable for us!