"Allan" wrote in message ...


The guy in Tesco's last week gave me a guide figure with a wonderful mix of
units, that the screen size should be 10 to 12 inches for every metre that
you will be viewing from. So if you are viewing from 3 metres away you
should have a 30-36 inch screen

Allan




i sit about 2 metres from a 40 inch screen - looks fine, even SD ( a half
decent channel ) looks fine - albeit not as fine as HD channels.



-- Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....
http://dsbdsb.mybrute.com
you fight better when you have a bear!

"Allan" wrote in message
...
"Endulini" wrote in message
om...
Hi All,

Is there a general rule of thumb for determining what the
largest screen size is per size of room (I guess viewing
distance would more relevant). I have some vague recollection
of seeing some guides a while ago but can't find them now and
want to avoid the mistake I've seen at a number of houses
where the TV is so large and close to the viewer that the
picture looks really rubbish.

Cheers

The guy in Tesco's last week gave me a guide figure with a
wonderful mix of units, that the screen size should be 10 to 12
inches for every metre that you will be viewing from. So if you
are viewing from 3 metres away you should have a 30-36 inch
screen

Allan



Now that is interesting as it agrees - suprisingly - with a
booklet from Currys (of all places!) before Christmas.

There was a thread on here a few months back by someone who
understands resolution and how the eye works and his maths showed
that for 1080p you should have a screen size of 10.8" for every
metre of viewing distance. I have applied this formula three
times now and it works a treat.

One of the things about having a screen that is too big is that
you have to move your eyes to see different areas of it which is
eventually tiring. Get the screen size right and most of the
screen is in view - well, perceived at least - when looking at
the middle of it. As I said, works for me.



--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

On Jan 13, 11:15*am, bugbear
wrote:
the paper emulation
was (I now know...) completely unrepresentative.

Unless you're a Channel-5 viewer.

--
WH

On Jan 13, 9:52*pm, "Woody" wrote:
"Allan" wrote in message

...









"Endulini" wrote in message
news:C6GdnbdyqbUaqLPQnZ2dnUVZ8mOdnZ2d@brightview. com...
Hi All,

Is there a general rule of thumb for determining what the
largest screen size is per size of room (I guess viewing
distance would more relevant). I have some vague recollection
of seeing some guides a while ago but can't find them now and
want to avoid the mistake I've seen at a number of houses
where the TV is so large and close to the viewer that the
picture looks really rubbish.

Cheers

The guy in Tesco's last week gave me a guide figure with a
wonderful mix of units, that the screen size should be 10 to 12
inches for every metre that you will be viewing from. So if you
are viewing from 3 metres away you should have a 30-36 inch
screen

Allan

Now that is interesting as it agrees - suprisingly - with a
booklet from Currys (of all places!) before Christmas.

There was a thread on here a few months back by someone who
understands resolution and how the eye works and his maths showed
that for 1080p you should have a screen size of 10.8" for every
metre of viewing distance. I have applied this formula three
times now and it works a treat.

If you mean 10.8" diagonal per metre, then you'd have to have near-
super human eyes to fully resolve the detail in a 1080p image. It's at
the point where absolutely perfect eyes will resolve 1 pixel to 1 rod
in the retina. Normal people, given the choice, will feel they need to
be about half that distance to "appreciate" the picture. If you mean
10.8" picture height per meter, then that's about right. I reckon
11.3" of height per metre, or 23" diagonal per metre.

Europeans tend to think that such a TV is too large. This is cultural
conditioning which trains us on how large the box should be in the
room. It has nothing to do with appreciating the picture.

I doubt shops want to be honest about this. "How large a TV do I need
to fully appreciate full HD in all its glory?" "Larger than you can
afford sir, and it'll make SD look unwatchable".

One of the things about having a screen that is too big is that
you have to move your eyes to see different areas of it which is
eventually tiring.

Interesting thought. I've read the opposite - that widescreen films
are shot and projected in cinemas with the intention that the viewer
_has_ to move their eyes to follow the action (or even the two parties
in a conversation) - just like in real life. We don't just stare at a
single point without moving our eyes for an hour or two in real life.

Get the screen size right and most of the
screen is in view - well, perceived at least - when looking at
the middle of it. As I said, works for me.

I wonder if the way in which the content is made (i.e. scene
composition) has an effect? They shoot things very differently for
IMAX than for 1980s 4x3 TV. As TV screen sizes get larger, maybe
shooting styles will change?

Cheers,
David.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:09:25 -0000,
wrote:
If you mean
10.8" picture height per meter, then that's about right. I reckon
11.3" of height per metre, or 23" diagonal per metre.

Nobody seems to have commented on the BBC White Papers to which I linked,
but taking their figures for viewing distances (3H for HD, 6H for SD) that
corresponds to about 13" picture height per metre for HD or 6.5" height
per metre for SD.
Converting to diagonal measurements gives about 27" diagonal per metre for
HD and 13.5" diagonal per metre for SD.

These are for 'critical viewing' so a slightly smaller screen size may
reduce the visibility of the artefacts associated with DTT or D-Sat
reception.

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/

In article 4e82ec77-e848-4a4a-95b6-
,
wrote:
One of the things about having a screen that is too big is that
you have to move your eyes to see different areas of it which is
eventually tiring.

Interesting thought. I've read the opposite - that widescreen films
are shot and projected in cinemas with the intention that the viewer
_has_ to move their eyes to follow the action (or even the two parties
in a conversation) - just like in real life. We don't just stare at a
single point without moving our eyes for an hour or two in real life.

Not as tiring as having to keep moving your head, which is what happens
if the screen is too big, and the director hasn't thought about this
when composing the shots and deciding the pace of the editing.

Get the screen size right and most of the
screen is in view - well, perceived at least - when looking at
the middle of it. As I said, works for me.

I wonder if the way in which the content is made (i.e. scene
composition) has an effect? They shoot things very differently for
IMAX than for 1980s 4x3 TV. As TV screen sizes get larger, maybe
shooting styles will change?

They should, but they probably won't. We have more different sets of
viewing conditions now than ever before, and the best shooting styles
for each are all different. Not only have we large cinema screens, home
video screens of various sizes, and tiny pocket devices, but sometimes
we can casually view something piecemeal, as we might read one chapter
of a book at a time, and in other situations we are compelled to sit
through a whole programme in one go. Material prepared for one type of
presentation won't necessarily translate well to all of them, but I
expect many programme makers will just give us the usual fast-cutting
closeup wobblycam style for everything because they won't have given the
matter a moment's thought.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On Jan 18, 9:00 pm, Mike Henry wrote:

So with your calc about, that 59" TV would be roughly where the RED line
is - the "full benefit of 1080p is visible" line (actually more like 56"
but it was rough). However you don't necessarily want to be hitting the
red line; that is the point at which you can see all the pixels. You do
however want to be in the red *zone*.

As I mentioned, the BBC's figures are for 'critical viewing' so one would
expect them to correspond to the 'full benefit is visible' line. With
off-air HD (less so with Blu-Ray) compression artefacts etc. could be
annoying, so as you say it makes sense to use a somewhat smaller screen
size. How much smaller is down to personal preference and eyesight!

Just calculating based on distance and height/diagonal and getting one
number back as "the answer" isn't half as good IMHO.

A single number is nevertheless useful in identifying the screen size
above which there is no point going, since you'll see no more detail.

A2) Getting 'too' close means you are allowing yourself to see the pixels
and or scan-lines and that is a distraction and reducing the enjoyment of
the viewing.

Of course *theoretically* there should be no point at which you see
"pixels or scan-lines" because as with any sampled system there ought to
be a post-DAC reconstruction filter that eliminates them. Unfortunately
(at least at a sensible price) it isn't practical to fit a suitable
optical filter to a TV, so there is some reliance on the limited acuity of
your eye to substitute for this filter.

If things off of the screen (e.g. speakers, accent plants,
frame pictures, etc.) then you can again become distracted.

Reducing the ambient lighting can largely solve that problem (I wonder
what you feel about Philips Ambilight?). One thing I would always
recommend is buying a TV with a black surround, because otherwise 4:3
pillarbox pictures look awful.

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/