dixie Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 Hi Guys, I am a 60 year old member, who is about to make the upgrade to a large flat screen TV. We have been watching a 68cm for years, but most of our friends now are buying the bigger screens, either Plasma or LCD. I have read dozens and dozens of posts on this Forum, regarding makes, models, sizes, etc etc and I can safely say, I am still rather confused in what to upgrade too. I think I have decided to purchase one of the new Samsung 1920x1080 LCDs' about to be released in April, but am unsure what size to get and the advantages and disadvantages associated. Both the wife and I wear glasses to watch TV, we have a smallish 20'x12' well lit loungeroom, with windows on three walls. My wife watches TV throughout the day, with full daylight bursting through and we settle down at night and watch with a small table lamp, beside one of our chairs. Viewing distance from eye to screen for a flatscreen TV, would be approx 3.9 metres (or just under 13 feet). Obviously at our age we don't play games and the the TV would not be required for computer use....just Television and DVD movies. Money is no object, I just want the best buy I am able to get, with regard to picture clarity, resolution, response time etc and of course the correct size unit to suit. What are the advantages and disadvantages I should be considering (other than screen reflection). Would I be better off with a 40", 42" or 46"? I did have for a short time a 42" Panasonic Plasma, which had a terrific picture, but every time I watched it, I developed a headache and I finished up sending it back (unsuitable). I just couldn't absorb fast moving objects on such a large screen, without it affecting me. It has been suggested, I may have had it set to Dynamic or something, but whatever it was, I was getting sea sick watching it. This again may be a problem for me irrespective of what size I get (it didn't affect the wife though). Anyway enough rambling on, I would appreciate your thoughts on this purchase. Thanks and Regards..............Dixie.
JPP Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 I have a very similar room to yours and I sit at 4m away from my screen. I have a 40in Samsung LCD panel. I prefer LCD over plasma for a cleaner and crisper picture. The only downside IMO of an LCD panel is the restricted viewing angle if you want to maintain maximum contrast. Not a problem for us as we sit directly in front of it. Another important point for us is that daytime viewing is better that what plasma can offer as reflections are virtually non existant with LCDs - contrast and black level during daytime viewing is also better than what I've been able to see on plasmas. At night we have two pedestal lights positioned in each corner of the room on the same wall and at the same height as the display. We find that having these lights (60W each) makes viewing much easier on the eyes - believe me, a 500mcd light output from a display at night is pretty bright and can become tiresome. It also helps in attaining a better black level (the only other downside of current generation LCD displays, athough that too has much improved). Would I buy another similar sized panel if I were to replace my 40 incher? Yes, although I might just stretch it to a 42 incher. Two reasons - it's the maximum I can fit in my cabinet , but more importantly, it's about the right size for the viewing distance. Keep in mind that the brain can "see" only about an area of 4 x4 inches - you may think you can see more, but if you look carefully, you really can't see/process details - try lip reading one person's lips whilst looking at another's only a foot away. All this is saying that too large a screen will make your eyes more tired as you try to "follow" the action. I haven't seen the new 1920 x 1080 LCD panels in the flesh, but, all things being equal, you should get a better picture using this resolution than a more standard 1366 x 768 unit. This is even though you won't be able to resolve individual pixels at your viewing distance. One reason is that you will have to rely less on the display's internal scaling performance using a 1920 x 1080 display as that is/will be the resolution of all HD broadcasts in the (near?) future. Hope this hasn't made things more confusing for you, and I hope I haven't fuelled the endless debate of LCD vs Plasma technologies. Have a read also of this. It disusses why high res displays look better when low resolution source materail is being scaled up - part V in particular. Phil.
50mxe20 Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 There is no need to double post. Most permanent residents of this forum see and read most posts and certainly most new topics. I read your first post much earlier today. My suggestions are probably not relevant because you clearly state that a 42 inch plasma is not suitable so my recommendation of a 50 inch would be even sillier. I find the fact that you had a motion problem with plasma to be strange because it is my experience that there is more motion blurring with an LCD but perhaps it was the screen size that was the issue. Certainly I can relate to that because my spouse has a similar isssue. If you are buying a screen smaller than 42 inch I don't see the need for 1920 x 1080 resolution because at the distance you are sitting you won't resolve it anyway. All I can suggest is that you go the shops and sit and watch the kind of material you like to watch on a vareity of displays and try to make a qualitative rather than a quantitative resolution.
Owen Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 Sorry mate but I have to disagree with you. I’m typing this while watching a 70” 1080 display from 4 meters, and no way is a 40” or 42” display even close to big enough at that distance. You just don’t know what you are missing. I’ll accept that everyone’s perceptions are different however.
Fokker70 Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 I went from a 68cm to a 60" in a room which was at a 3m viewing distance. New house and new TV now and I'm at 4m on a 70" screen. I could never go smaller than this. In fact, I still want bigger! A friend has the Teac 42" plasma, sits at 2.5m and drools every time he comes to my place over my new set. At 4m, I really think you want to be looking at 50" and above or be prepared that you may find yourself wanting a screen size upgarde in the not too distant future. Edit: Easier imo to cut out some light in your room if needed than turning a 40" set into a 50" one. I'd go LCD for a bright room but for me, the screen size would be the more important factor and I'd be looking away from LCD to get the bigger size unless you really have unlimited funds! We can all live with our 68cm until we have a chance to view larger and higher res screens. At this point, we begin to realise we may have been missing something years gone by! Port me back in time to the 60's to watch some TV and I honestly think I'd go nuts!
BribieG Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 You mentioned vertigo when watching a big screen. How do you go at the movies? If you don't have any problems on the big screen then it's hard to explain what happened with that plasma you had. We have a smallish lounge room and have a 37 inch LCD that we watch from about 3 metres away, and it's fine. However we could probably go a TAD bigger to 40 or 42. At those sizes, for the usage you have indicated, 1080p could be overkill. Our set is a 768 unit. When we were shopping I was DEFINITELY going to get a BENQ 1080 but couldn't see any real difference at around 40 inch screen size and went more on colour quality and crispness. Look at it this way, with the current hours of HD and if you are not going to buy a BLU-RAY or HD-DVD player you could set yourself up for far less than 2 grand. In 2 or 3 years time if you need to upgrade, then 1080p could well be the same price or less. This way you still pay 4 grand but do it in 2 stages and end up with a sparie for the bedroom BTW for DVDs scrap your present player and get a decent 'upscaling' player that puts out an HD signal, for around $200 and you should get brilliant viewing.
pgdownload Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 Hi Dixie, Well despite the double post foe par (although you did give an explanation ) I thought I'd add to JPP's excellent run down. First up you'll see that 1920x1080 screens are not really being recommended. This is for a few reasons (mostly relating to expense (not your issue) and practicality) One, FTA digital TV will almost certainly never be broadcast to a quality that will use this screens potential. Two, on a 42" screen at 3 metres the eye cannot perceive any appreciable PQ increase over (as recommended) a more standard 1024x768 screen. Three at 60, your eyes began deteriorating a fair while ago and whilst you might have 'good' eyesight it's very unlikely to take advantage of such crystal clear images. As you've noticed resolution is only one part of PQ and viewing enjoyment. I'd probably suspect some issue in setting up your previous screen correctly (some sets have 'advanced image control' which only serves to destroy the image). if you have the $ to spend I'd suggest hitting a top end AV store (Where are you located?) and have them install the TV and set it up correctly for you. As some have said a 50" TV would sit easily in your room, but personally I find such a TV pretty dominating. A good HD 42" screen would be just as effective and satisfying. As a diversion, if you like watching DVDs then looking into getting a HD-DVD (or Bluray) player might provide a lot of enjoyment (although titles are still very limited, that should change markedly by time the year is out). The other area to investigate is a HD PVR which allows you to record HD digital TV. You can skip past ads at the press of a button, or if the phone rings hit pause until you're ready and start watching again - great little gadgets. Regards Peter Gillespie
50mxe20 Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 Sorry mate but I have to disagree with you. Are you disagreeing with me or the OP? There is no way you can speak for someone else, only yourself and your experience. If the OP suffers from motion problems then he has to take it into consideration.
PanaSung Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 I find the fact that you had a motion problem with plasma to be strange because it is my experience that there is more motion blurring with an LCD but perhaps it was the screen size that was the issue. Certainly I can relate to that because my spouse has a similar isssue. It's probably the pixel boundaries. To my eyes, I've yet to see any motion blur on any 06/07 LCD.....and even if there was some present in cricket or tennis, it's possibly irrelevant when you factor in the advantage of screen size, ie, a 46in LCD is a massive leap over a 76cm CRT, even if the CRT handles "very' fast moving action better.
PanaSung Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 .I think I have decided to purchase one of the new Samsung 1920x1080 LCDs' about to be released in April, but am unsure what size to get and the advantages and disadvantages associated. I would get the 46, cause if you end up thinking it's too small, well at least you've still got a massive TV....also audition the new Sharp 1080's{best LCD PQ I've ever seen}.....granted the Samsungs will have similar specs, ie, very high contrast ratio's{extremely important for large TV's} Problems with the 1080 res will be Pay TV and DVD{unless you run it via a upscaling player}.
Owen Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 Are you disagreeing with me or the OP? There is no way you can speak for someone else, only yourself and your experience. If the OP suffers from motion problems than he has to take it into consideration. Sorry Lyle, I was referring to JPP”s assertion that a 40-42” screen was about the right size for a 4 meter viewing distance, its plainly not. I wonder how many 50” or larger display owners would want to go back to a smaller screen for a 4 meter viewing distance, not many I’ll bet.
50mxe20 Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 Sorry Lyle, I was referring to JPP"s assertion that a 40-42" screen was about the right size for a 4 meter viewing distance, its plainly not.I wonder how many 50" or larger display owners would want to go back to a smaller screen for a 4 meter viewing distance, not many I'll bet. Sorry, touchy point with me cause I want to go bigger and better but the missus does suffer (a bit) from this motion thing and I think it's why (one of the reasons anyway) that she is holding me back. Not much chop if she can't sit and watch it with me. So I'm in a dilemna.
50mxe20 Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 To my eyes, I've yet to see any motion blur on any 06/07 LCD.....I have a mate that has an LG LCD and watching the cricket I could see blurring of the bat when swung. That was enough to put me off.
Nevyn72 Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 I have a mate that has an LG LCD and watching the cricket I could see blurring of the bat when swung. That was enough to put me off. I would have though the brand would have been enough!
50mxe20 Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 I would have though the brand would have been enough! Yes I wondered who would pick that up. Good on ya.
BribieG Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 Have an LG LCD and it's brilliant. Plasma owners who see it in action are quite disgruntled. Never had a momen't problem with it and it s*** all over everything else in the store except for the new (at that time) Bravias. I always do HEAPS of market research and shopping around for everything (e.g. my Mazda, zoom zoom) and it wasn't an impulse buy I can assure you. God I'm grumpy this morning. Stay of that lambrusco
aztec Posted March 22, 2007 Posted March 22, 2007 It's probably the pixel boundaries.To my eyes, I've yet to see any motion blur on any 06/07 LCD.....and even if there was some present in cricket or tennis, it's possibly irrelevant when you factor in the advantage of screen size, ie, a 46in LCD is a massive leap over a 76cm CRT, even if the CRT handles "very' fast moving action better. I can't see where the OP said anything about blur, just motion sickness My wife suffers this also but with our Hitachi 55" plasma she has never had a problem. Whether this is due to better processing or whatever is unknown to me. The OP said money is no issue, needs glasses just to see the TV so perhaps the Fujitsu 55" would be better, or maybe wait for the new Hitachi 60".
PG44 Posted March 22, 2007 Posted March 22, 2007 I can't see where the OP said anything about blur, just motion sickness My wife suffers this also but with our Hitachi 55" plasma she has never had a problem. Whether this is due to better processing or whatever is unknown to me. The OP said money is no issue, needs glasses just to see the TV so perhaps the Fujitsu 55" would be better, or maybe wait for the new Hitachi 60". Everyone keeps talking about this new Hitachi 60" Plasma - (Any info on it?) Have searched OS Hitachi sites including articles on what Hitachi is releasing in 2007 - Can't find a bloody thing.......
diesel Posted March 22, 2007 Posted March 22, 2007 I find that with "reality" shows such as 24 and the like, the way they shoot the show with the cameras wobbling around abit (instead of a fixed camera position) that I sometimes have to look away because I start to feel a little queasy. It's mostly on close ups of peoples faces. I have a 50" palsma and sit about 3m away. It's only very occasional...
AndrewWilliams Posted March 22, 2007 Posted March 22, 2007 A great test for motion sickness is 'The Bourne Supremacy" It has some of the most annoying camera movement in the history of film and it's relentless for the entire movie.
aztec Posted March 22, 2007 Posted March 22, 2007 A great test for motion sickness is 'The Bourne Supremacy" It has some of the most annoying camera movement in the history of film and it's relentless for the entire movie. That was one that made my wife sick, we saw that at the cinema.
50mxe20 Posted March 22, 2007 Posted March 22, 2007 The OP said money is no issue, needs glasses just to see the TV so perhaps the Fujitsu 55" would be better, or maybe wait for the new Hitachi 60".Or the Pioneer 60MXE20. Stunning. $10K
Looch Posted March 22, 2007 Posted March 22, 2007 Money is no object, I just want the best buy I am able to get, with regard to picture clarity, resolution, response time etc and of course the correct size unit to suit. Hi dixie, I was in similar situ as u, apart from the wife factor, after looking for 12 mths, yes 12, I settled on a Metz LCD 37S (the specs are some of the best in the LCD brands) coupled to a Strong HDPVR, again one of the better brands. Metz has SD tuner built in, great PQ for normal viewing (Ch 7, 9, 10, 2 etc). If I want to watch HD progs (Ch 90, 70, 12, 20 etc) or to record, I go thru the Strong, the PQ is better again. Happy hunting.... Looch
Ata Posted March 22, 2007 Posted March 22, 2007 I have a mate that has an LG LCD and watching the cricket I could see blurring of the bat when swung. That was enough to put me off. Motion blur in LCDs is generally a thing of the past. More likely you are seeing the crude noise reduction algorithms in action. Make sure they are turned off (as well as all other image "enhancements") when you evaluate the picture of a TV/monitor. This is true for all display types.
Recommended Posts