SC Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 Anyone knows the answer or formula for calculating the relative extra screen size of TVs?
Jag Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 42" screen has dimensions 37" x 21". -> 777sq inch 50" screen has dimensions 44"x25". -> 1100 sq inch Hope that is what u looking for.
SC Posted February 27, 2007 Author Posted February 27, 2007 Yes, exactly what I wanted to know. It seems that the price for a larger TV is not proportionate to the price. Eg Pioneer 427 costs around $3k vs Pioneer 507 around $6k (minus freebies). One would have thought that the larger the TV, the cheaper it would cost !
Jag Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 hahaha, not true for electronics. I can't imagine an intel quad core CPU will cost less than a dual core CPU. Or a 250GB hdd will cost exactly half that of a 500 GB harddisk.
Quest88 Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 quite a different analogy, cos quad core and harddisk all increase in complexity as the size of the device is the same, while capacity increases. as for lcd panels, i'm no expert, but supposedly all they do is to take a large panel and cut it right? so instead of cutting a fabricated panel into 8 pieces for 40", they cut into 6 pieces for 50". something like that if im not wrong? the rest of the electronics shld not be too much more expensive..
armoury Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 No, I doubt they manufacture a massive panel and cut to size. Each is probably built exactly as a single piece, with the rquired number of pixels, and as we know if there are too many failed pixels, or some other defect, the entire thing is junked. As an analogy, consider the price of glass sheets used in construction, or of large mirrors: double the size is more than double the cost, because of the sheer difficulty of making large sheets of glass, and the complications in handling. I'd guess similar considerations apply to flat panels.
Jag Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 From my industry partners info, they build each tv panel by panel. The LCD glass is actually very very fragile and its makes more sense to fab each panel rather than to cutting a large panel down to size. Transportation of a super large sized panel is very fragile and if 1 super large panel fractures, the entire panel for 6 or 8 LCD panels are wasted.
pst Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 42" screen has dimensions 37" x 21". -> 777sq inch 50" screen has dimensions 44"x25". -> 1100 sq inch Hope that is what u looking for. was looking for this myself the other day, my mum was asking what is the height of the image for a 42" and a 50"... I thought it could be calculated using simultaneous equations using 4:3 and 16:9 for x and y coordinates, and I could measure the 29" tv's exact measurements and use those ... calculate until siao... shd hv just smsed you, Jag! :D pst
deano Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 it will be extra worth for your eyes if you can afford it. even going from 40" to 42" i can see a different in favour of the 2" extra. i went for a lower res 42" plasma than 40" lcdtv.
SC Posted February 28, 2007 Author Posted February 28, 2007 Now to figure out whether the Pioneer 507 is worth the extra $ over the Panasonic. Both seem to have good reviews. The 50 inch is 41% bigger compared to a 42 inch so I think the extra $ is worth it. My seating position is 12.5 feet from screen which various TV sites recommend a minimum 50 inch TV.
Quest88 Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 From my industry partners info, they build each tv panel by panel. The LCD glass is actually very very fragile and its makes more sense to fab each panel rather than to cutting a large panel down to size. Transportation of a super large sized panel is very fragile and if 1 super large panel fractures, the entire panel for 6 or 8 LCD panels are wasted. Ok. I read industry news alot due to my line of work and they frequently state that they cut from one piece. I paste some examples for you. For example, from businessweek: http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/aug2006/gb20060825_743315.htm LCD TV leaders are betting big on the technology. Sony, Samsung, and Sharp are investing billions of dollars in next-generation factories. Sharp already sells 65-in. LCD TVs and this month launched a new fabrication facility to cut eight 45-in. panels from one sheet of glass. That compares to only three panels that a nearby Sharp factory can produce from one sheet of glass. Sony and Samsung, whose existing joint venture in Korea cuts eight 40-in. TV panels from a glass sheet, have agreed to invest $1.9 billion to keep pushing for innovation. Their new plant, due to come into operation in the fall of 2007, will churn out sheets of specialized glass 2.5m by 2.2m in size to be cut into six 50-in. panels each. Am I interpreting the process wrongly?
Quest88 Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 To add on, I always thought this is the reason why tvs come in odd sizes like 37". Like Sony/Samsung is 40" while many other brands are 42", for example. It's due to their existing plants' glass size output. So for example if they want to convert the existing 8x40" factory to churn out larger sizes, it may have to be 64" (x5) instead of a round 65" for example.
tsammyc Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 was looking for this myself the other day, my mum was asking what is the height of the image for a 42" and a 50"... I thought it could be calculated using simultaneous equations using 4:3 and 16:9 for x and y coordinates, and I could measure the 29" tv's exact measurements and use those ... calculate until siao... shd hv just smsed you, Jag! :D pst Pst, simultaneous equations aren't needed. Just Pythagoras Theorem. No wonder you calculate until seow ;D I thought tew was expert at this stuff ;D Pythagoras Theorem asquared + bsquared = csquared For 16x9 42" screen, calculate y where sq root ((16squared*y) + (9squared*y)) = 42 squared y = 2.29 So height of screen = 9 * 2.29 inches = 20.6 inches width of screen = 16 * 2.29 inches = 36.6 inches Homework for you: Calculate height of 50 inch TV
kmolth Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 Just my experience guys, I bought my 50" plasma then in end 2004 and thought it is quite big and should be just nice the size. After 2 year plus now, I feel the size is not big enough hehe..... of course the viewing distance is the usual not too near or too far. My is approx. 3.5m away I think.... :)
lwm99 Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 Aiyah, just go here to compare the sizes lah http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi
pst Posted April 20, 2007 Posted April 20, 2007 Pst, simultaneous equations aren't needed. Just Pythagoras Theorem. No wonder you calculate until seow ;D I thought tew was expert at this stuff ;D Pythagoras Theorem asquared + bsquared = csquared For 16x9 42" screen, calculate y where sq root ((16squared*y) + (9squared*y)) = 42 squared y = 2.29 So height of screen = 9 * 2.29 inches = 20.6 inches width of screen = 16 * 2.29 inches = 36.6 inches Homework for you: Calculate height of 50 inch TV hahhaa I DID use pythagoras theorem! I used it to form the two equations for simultaneous equations! hahaha think I got the two initial equations wrong in the first place... so even tew couldn't solve the equations... ;D pst
Phil1624705739 Posted April 21, 2007 Posted April 21, 2007 Hmm?? Why compare screen sizes? If you have e budget, just go for the largest panel. It's not as if u will upgrade in one or two years time. But in terms of pricing-wise, the sweet spot right now is 42-inch. Phil
bloob Posted April 22, 2007 Posted April 22, 2007 I think that instead of blindly going for the largest screen size your budget allows, do consider also the optimal comfortable viewing distance that your intended HT room will allow. With my Pio 427, I found that at least 9 feet distance to be comfortable and allow for all viewers to enjoy the movie without too obtuse a viewing angle. Anything closer and we found it difficult for our eyes and brains to take in the whole screen at one go. Peripheral details begin to blur and we can't keep up with all the action and details going on.
synthesis1624705793 Posted April 22, 2007 Posted April 22, 2007 ..... With my Pio 427, I found that at least 9 feet distance to be comfortable and allow for all viewers to enjoy the movie without too obtuse a viewing angle. ..... With this in mind, we don't really need 1080. ;) http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/hitech/1137/maxing-out-resolution.html
bloob Posted April 22, 2007 Posted April 22, 2007 Good article, and it does bear out my optimal viewing distance too. :) I'm perfectly happy viewing DVDs upscaled to 720p at 9 feet viewing distance. (Oppo 981 on Pio427)
Recommended Posts