419 replies to this topic

[alanh]

scottylans,
Keep moving towards the screen until you can see lines or rectangles. That will give you an indication as to whether you need glasses.

AlanH

[big_marcelo]

Guys,

What would you think of a Pioneer 505 with about 3 metres viewing distance -

to clarify further -

- I intend to have DVDO HD+
- Source woudl be Topfield

I mostly watch the likes of CSI, L&Order, etc..

I think DVD 'should' be fine - I'm worried about real life TV .. .which is what he Plasma will be used for mostly....

Thanks,

Marcelo

[Trev]

I think it depends on which room you intend placing it if its 3m in a bedroom its probably too big for the room I tried it with viewing from 3.6 m and settled for the 435 which just looks right and with live transmission I prefer it. But thats just my opinion. Good luck

[big_marcelo]

Trev, on Apr 28 2005, 02:43 AM, said:

I think it depends on which room you intend placing it if its 3m in a bedroom its probably too big for the room I tried it with viewing from 3.6 m and settled for the 435 which just looks right and with live transmission I prefer it. But thats just my opinion. Good luck

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Trev,

It will be for my lounge room - had a quick look at the panels again today.... and I'm between the Pio 435 or the Fuji 42 or 50 ..... I can't see any screendor effect or solarisation on the 50" fuji at 2.5m ..... which is amazing.... on the other hand I can see some on the 435 and lots on the 505......

all depends on price for me now I think .... even though the 42" would be more than fine for my requirements... just being greedy really !

Cheers,

Marcelo

[danadelaide]

big_marcelo, on Apr 29 2005, 12:06 AM, said:

Trev, on Apr 28 2005, 02:43 AM, said:

I think it depends on which room you intend placing it if its 3m in a bedroom its probably too big for the room I tried it with viewing from 3.6 m and settled for the 435 which just looks right and with live transmission I prefer it. But thats just my opinion. Good luck

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Trev,

It will be for my lounge room - had a quick look at the panels again today.... and I'm between the Pio 435 or the Fuji 42 or 50 ..... I can't see any screendor effect or solarisation on the 50" fuji at 2.5m ..... which is amazing.... on the other hand I can see some on the 435 and lots on the 505......

all depends on price for me now I think .... even though the 42" would be more than fine for my requirements... just being greedy really !

Cheers,

Marcelo

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Marcelo,
I deliberated between the 435 and the 505 for months and went with the 505 and couldn't be happier.
I view at distances from 2.8 to 3.3 with 3.3 being main position.
I am surprised how good it looks but this is after a lot of tweaking, they look terrible in store!
Go the 50 you won't look back in fact I think now the 43 would definitely be too small.
Everyone says they look bigger once you get the screen home but for me this was not the case!
Cheers,
Dan.

[big_marcelo]

Thanks Dan,

I'm definitely set on a 50" now ..... just waiting to see what happens to price after the financial year and want to check out the 50 fuji US model ..... it will probably be between the fuji and the Pio.

Thanks,

Marcelo

[nitrobusa]

Im pretty hopless with figures so ill just ask!

What would be the common screen size to distance away be? i asked sales man at domayne and he said 1m screen sit 1.5m away would this be accurate?

The reason im asking is i currently have a 4:3, 80cm celestial, its good and i can see the tv when i play xbox in my recliner (2.5ms away) but when i wanto watch movies on the lounge (3ms) away i have trouble seeing the tv!

The screens were looking at are the LG 52inch and 62inch DLP REAR PROs, were moving towards the 62inch because of the built in HD tuner, plus both of us dont like the desighn of the 52inch, but im thinking the 62inch will be to big for 3ms away viewing?

I want a screen thats as big as my 80cm in high but wider. thats why wont go for 42inch because although it is "bigger" the height is smaller!

The other reason im looking at REAR Pro is i dont like the look of plasmas!

Im currently trying to find company that will let us rent the 52/62inches so we can "trial fit" them in the house see how big they actually are?

[rosco99]

nitrobusa, on Jun 23 2005, 09:26 AM, said:

I want a screen thats as big as my 80cm in high but wider. thats why wont go for 42inch because although it is "bigger" the height is smaller!

The other reason im looking at REAR Pro is i dont like the look of plasmas!

Im currently trying to find company that will let us rent the 52/62inches so we can "trial fit" them in the house see how big they actually are?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My son has a 50" RPTV and my daughter a 42"RPTV and I have a 42" plasma. The thing I don't like about the RPTV is the angle of viewing. It is fine when you sit down in front of them but if you stand or view more than 30 degrees off centre you can't see at all.
With my plasma you can see clearly from any where in the room, whether standing or sitting.
My favourite chair is 2.5m away on a 20 degree angle and I can see perfectly. I can also watch from the kitchen sink 5m away whilst standing up. I couldn't do that with a RPTV.
Do you not like the plasma picture because it is too bright? Most shop displays have them that way. Why don't you also try one of these in your room I think you would be pleasantly surprised.

[big_marcelo]

nitrobusa, on Jun 23 2005, 09:26 AM, said:

Im pretty hopless with figures so ill just ask!

What would be the common screen size to distance away be? i asked sales man at domayne and he said 1m screen sit 1.5m away would this be accurate?

The reason im asking is i currently have a 4:3, 80cm celestial, its good and i can see the tv when i play xbox in my recliner (2.5ms away) but when i wanto watch movies on the lounge (3ms) away i have trouble seeing the tv!

The screens were looking at are the LG 52inch and 62inch DLP REAR PROs, were moving towards the 62inch because of the built in HD tuner, plus both of us dont like the desighn of the 52inch, but im thinking the 62inch will be to big for 3ms away viewing?

I want a screen thats as big as my 80cm in high but wider. thats why wont go for 42inch because although it is "bigger" the height is smaller!

The other reason im looking at REAR Pro is i dont like the look of plasmas!

Im currently trying to find company that will let us rent the 52/62inches so we can "trial fit" them in the house see how big they actually are?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you check some of the newer plasmas, Fujitsu, Hitachi, NEC, Pioneer they should all give you good images... RPTV prices are crashing down and I'm not sure for how long more they will be on sale... unless you're talking about Sony's XBR RPTV (japan & US only rigt now) which offers true 1080p .... but is around the 25k mark ....

Fuji is my favourite, followed by Pioneer ... the NEC image looks great, but some people in the forum have mentioned that it has 'too much judder' ....

with a 42" you'd want to seat at least 1.5 - 2 metres away .... or more depending on the quality of the sets...

At the begining of the year I was thinking of RPTVs.... my short list was the Sony Grand Wega, Toshiba and Lowe ... Lowe was too expensive... toshiba looked too 1980's and so i was left with the Grand Wega.... didn't buy it as it was too expensvie back then ... but Sony has readjusted the price at least twice this year.... it's probably a good buy if you're going that route....

I will go for a Fuji plasma later in the year....

Have fun with your new TV.

marcelo

[nitrobusa]

rosco99, on Jun 23 2005, 10:52 AM, said:

Do you not like the plasma picture because it is too bright? Most shop displays have them that way. Why don't you also try one of these in your room I think you would be pleasantly surprised.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I dont like the plasmas because i havnt seen one setup properly! in my harvey norman there playing finding nemo and hes got a 1m tail following him!

The other reason is the plasmas iv bean looking at dont have enough imputs that i want, i want at least 2 component (dvd player, xbox) and i want to run DVD/HDD and eventually set-top box (when i have to).

Plus we still think there WAY overpriced for what they are!

The other is i play xbox live ALOT! (up tp 16hrs some days) and my mate has just brought a hitachi plasma and he said that in some games theres like a "burn in" like in halo2 theres the hud down the bottom of the screen and when he turns it off he can still see the image!

The angle of veiwing dosent bother us very much because you basically have to sit directly infront of the tv to watch it, we "kindof" watch tv when cooking tea but we soon plan to put fish tank in the gap so then we wont be able to!

[DrEv|l]

Owen, on Apr 2 2005, 03:17 AM, said:

Obviously  people will want to use whatever viewing distance they feel works for them. However, if that  be the case, why do they need a guide?
The point of my post was to raise the bar on people’s expectations, and make them aware of what is possible with today’s best technology.
Most displays and replay systems are not up to the task, but some are.
We should strive to achieve the minimum THX compliant viewing angle of 26 degrees which corresponds to about 4 times screen hight.
Obviously a large screen is required if you want to sit more then 2 meters away, and  SD Plasma displays are not up to the task, as they have only half the required resolution.

The recommended viewing angle for THX compliance is 36 degrees (about 2.8 times screen hight). There are VERY few, if any displays on the Australian market that can manage that, and top quality HD source is required for good results.
1920x1080 HD was designed to achieve the above goal and provide a true cinema experience in our homes.

Regards,

Owen





P.S.
By the way Alebonau, I like your contented cat.
I would have thought that he would be sad you bought a Plasma, as there is not enough room on top for him to sleep. :blink:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

erm try the 86 cm toshibah, u will find that it can do as u have stated

[Owen]

Sorry, but you have got to be joking dude.
I have an 86cm Rank which uses the Toshiba tube, and I can see the pixels at two meters.
It’s not even close to what I am talking about.

A 26 degree viewing angle would require the 86cm to be viewed from 1.6 meters and a 36 degree viewing angle would require 1.2 meters.
At those distances, the Toshiba, Rank and even the fine pitch Sony look like crap.

[DavoNogo]

I certainly would NOT recommend watching an 86cm display at 1.2 metres!

1.6 metres is more ideal, as Owen says. :blink:

[frozenblaze]

With my 40" Bravia LCD, If I sit back at the recommended distance, would I be correct in thinking that even if my screen could output 1080P, sitting back to the distance of 720P, the 1080P would not give much improvement in picture quality. (Trying to justify that waiting to purchase a 1080P set is noy really a must)

[RodN]

frozenblaze, on Jan 15 2006, 07:51 PM, said:

With my 40" Bravia LCD, If I sit back at the recommended distance, would I be correct in thinking that even if my screen could output 1080P, sitting back to the distance of 720P, the 1080P would not give much improvement in picture quality. (Trying to justify that waiting to purchase a 1080P set is noy really a must)

Well id depends on what end of the scale you are at but yes (wether you are just inside the maximum distance or not), the theory is that if you move beyond the ability of  your eyes to resolve the extra resolution then you don't get the benefits.

[frozenblaze]

From reading all the posts, I cant believe how close you must sit near the sets for the THX setting. Surley sitting only 2 metres from a tv over 42inch's cant be good for you. I sit back 3 metres from my 40", and if anything would probably go back an extra half metre if my room was big enough

[RodN]

frozenblaze, on Jan 16 2006, 09:14 PM, said:

From reading all the posts, I cant believe how close you must sit near the sets for the THX setting. Surley sitting only 2 metres from a tv over 42inch's cant be good for you. I sit back 3 metres from my 40", and if anything would probably go back an extra half metre if my room was big enough

I know it's strange, easy enough to do with a projector however direct view displays are somehow much more imposing when viewing at those distances. However I do drag my chair forward to about 1.8 meters on special occassions and it's awesome when the lights are down.

[NeoG]

I have my sofa at 1.9m eye distance from a 42" plasma. For me it's the sweet spot. Any further and the screen starts feeling small, any closer and you start getting what I call 'screen searching' where you have to start looking around alot to get the whole picture.

[Alfred Smee]

I honestly think that it is time to remove this sticky as it is totally incorrect for widescreen movie viewing on large displays. The figures are merely an opinion offered by someone with no real scientific knowledge of the subject. (Where are the moderators when you want them?) Why mislead forum readers any further?

I suggest we just show a link to: Collins Home Theatre Site Viewing Calculator  The calculator at this particular site is based on information provided by the "Society of Motion Picture Television Engineers" and is far more useful.

[:)]

Alfred Smith, on Feb 7 2006, 06:18 PM, said:

I honestly think that it is time to remove this sticky as it is totally incorrect for widescreen movie viewing on large displays. The figures are merely an opinion offered by someone with no real scientific knowledge of the subject. (Where are the moderators when you want them?) Why mislead forum readers any further?

I suggest we just show a link to: Collins Home Theatre Site Viewing Calculator  The calculator at this particular site is based on information provided by the "Society of Motion Picture Television Engineers" and is far more useful.

yes but unfortunately as we also know - and as many smaller display owner will tell you.... the hometheatre calculater as good as it is for PJs and extremely large displays is completely irelevant for smaller displays. Soem real world comments from plasma and other smaller display owners as in this thread I see of greater benefit.

[alanh]

Alfred Smith,
I take exception to your remarks.
The pinned post I put on there are based on scientific evidence. The smallest size of pixel is 1 minute of arc for 6:6 m or 20:20 vision. If you then use trigonometry  you will get the figures I calculated. Our resolution for PAL is finer than for NTSC as we have more lines. Also mine is all metric.

If you do not have 6:6 vision you will come up with different answers.

AlanH

[Alfred Smee]

alanh, on Feb 7 2006, 08:47 PM, said:

Alfred Smith,
I take exception to your remarks.
The pinned post I put on there are based on scientific evidence. The smallest size of pixel is 1 minute of arc for 6:6 m or 20:20 vision. If you then use trigonometry  you will get the figures I calculated. Our resolution for PAL is finer than for NTSC as we have more lines. Also mine is all metric.

If you do not have 6:6 vision you will come up with different answers.

AlanH

I think that the SMPTE would be better qualified at suggesting what screens and viewing distances are appropriate. Your comment about "our resolution" is false. As someone who is supposedly familair with digital HD TV I would have thought that you realise that 1080i in NTSC is exactly the same as 1080i in PAL.

The Collins site's calculator has the option of Metric or Imperial units. Perhaps your eyesight is failing and you didn't notice that.  :blink:

[alanh]

Alfred Smith,
Where do you think the SMPTE got its original specifications from? The opthalmologists who have defined the 6m:6m (20:20) vision which gives you the 1/60th of a degree is the smallest thing the average good sighted human can see.

Secondly,
I do not make a distinction between PAL & NTSC 1080i because there is none. They do not exist. Only the frame or field rates are different, all of the rest of the standard is common. There is even a push to make 24 frame/s progressive an HD standard. Then there would be a single HD worldwide standard.

The only place I make that distinction is in SD where the number of transmitted lines is greater in our system than theirs. The Collins calculator is typically US and glosses over the fact that we have more lines than them. You will also note, I have included the drop in resolution which occurs when the SD system is used to transmit wide screen to a 4:3 screen.

You seem to think that only the Americans, know it all. This is not true and their are areas of the world which can give them a run for their money. The BBC research labs for a start. I have read their articles and the SMPTE.

Why would my eyesight be failing when I am using what is an accepted norm in the eye testing community. I know it will convert the answer to metric units, I did that. I would rather take it back to the original maths and optics.

In addition I made the calculations for the size screens available in this country.

AlanH

[Alfred Smee]

alanh,

In the first row of your chart you specify a pixel size of 290.9um for a screen that is 283mm high and capable of 1080i. Well I calculate that 283 divided by 1080 equals (0.262037m) 262um.

Then at the 720p column I figured that 188/720=0.261. Again 261um not 290.9um as you claim.

Similar discrepancies exist throughout the whole chart.

[technoboy]

GEES , lets make it simple read this simple chart from hitachi http://www.hitachi.u..._plasma_lcd.pdf
:blink: