Is HD worth it on small screens?

[speckled_hen]

If I'm going to carry on with my small 26" and still sit 8-9 feet away, is there really going to be much noticable difference going hi-def, or is it just for the big screen boys

Any views would be appreciated. Quite like the idea of going hi-def, but I've got the feeling that there'll not be that much difference on smaller screens.

Thanks

[3rd Eye]

i have a 40" sony x series tv and watch HD ,sky HD / HD DVD etc and i find even though it looks stunning from my viewing distance of 8.2 ft i have now decided i need to go bigger as i find that it is way too small so i would hate to think what your tv must look like,i really dont think you will see any diffrence from your viewing distance on that size imo i belive you would have to be within 1 to 2ft to see the diffrence on a a panel of that size its just way too small to even worry about,save your money.

[Pecker]

This is what I've found, though others' experiences are different.

I have a 43" plasma, which has a screen width of c.1 meter, so it's easy to work out seating distance as a multiple of screen width.

At a seating distance of 1.5x screen widths I see a pretty substantial improvement over SD.

At 3x screen widths HD is 'a bit better' than HD.

Please note, this is with SKY HD v SKY SD channels - I expect HD-DVD/BD to be better than SKY HD, but then again SD DVD is better than SKY SD.

However, a couple of people at the SKY HD forum claim to be able to see a big improvement on a 50" screen at 6 meters - that's about 5x screen widths.

Who you believe is entirely up to you. If I were you I'd try to check it myself before buying.

Steve W

[Pincho Paxton]

Originally Posted by speckled_hen

If I'm going to carry on with my small 26" and still sit 8-9 feet away, is there really going to be much noticable difference going hi-def, or is it just for the big screen boys

Any views would be appreciated. Quite like the idea of going hi-def, but I've got the feeling that there'll not be that much difference on smaller screens.

Thanks

On a 26in screen I can't even tell the difference between VHS, and DVD.

[MAW]

Yes, 26 is way too small to get any significant benefit from HD. 42 is the kick off point really, and I haven't bothered with HD yet for my 42, viewing distance 2.8m. MY SD picture is 'good enough', and besides, I don't like to take all my work home with me.

[speckled_hen]

Originally Posted by MAW

Yes, 26 is way too small to get any significant benefit from HD

Yeah, I figured as much.

I know if everything I watched was HD I could accomodate a larger screen, but when I checked out LCDs and demoed 26, 32 and 37 side by side at my viewing distance, with an SD image I wasn't happy with the quality of even the 32. Step back another foot and I was happy, but just can't squeeze that extra foot out of the room. (And it was a good quality SD feed too - not like you get down Comet/Currys).

Thanks for the input guys.

[FoolsGold]

I have a 32" Bravia and sit around 8' away. You can tell the difference between some DVD & HD-DVDs but not others.

Watching Empire Strikes Back DVD I can see a pretty obvious drop in quality against King Kong HD-DVD but Pirates of the Carribean 2 DVD against Superman Returns HD-DVD you cannot tell the difference - infact Pirates looks better.

If you move close to the screen - say from 3' away (you obviously wouldnt sit there) its a massive difference in favour of HD so you really need a big 40" Screen at 8' to really appreciate it. Its still an improvement and for £130 (360 add on) its worth while but not really at your size and distance.

At 8' 32" would be the smallest screen HD would be decent on IMO.

Most people seem to want something bigger than what they have for HD - my cousin showed me his new projector running HD the other night and rather than getting and even bigger LCD im going to get a projector and screen just need a few years to save the cash

*Oh and why not sit closer to the TV - its cheaper than making the TV bigger! Thats what I've done for now.

[dan1979]

I have a 26" screen and don't feel HD is a waste on it. Admittedly I fire up the projector for most films but there definitely is a difference between DVD and HD on there.

[Jungle Fred]

I have read a press report of a BBC technical paper that said that the BBC technical report said the average viewer could see very liitle difference on an HD braodcast at a normal viewing distance on any set below 28 inches. So that's third hand information.

However nearly all new LCD/Plasma TVs are now HD ready as the retailers struggle to sell those that do not claim to be HD ready, even for 17 inch and 19 inch sets. So when you change your telly next you may not have the choice of buying a non-HD ready one.

HD ready has been brilliantly marketed, even to those who don't need it on sets where you can't tell the difference.

[granty]

I'm running may HD-A1 on a 26" Sammy and, imho, it's the Even the wife can see the difference between SD played on the A1 (which is stonkingly good) and HD, as can mates that have come round.

Yes, it's always good to have a big screen. As a stop gap we went for the 26" from a 40", but I might not bother until we move from our little box.

[zz101]

I can see a clear difference between SD and HD on my laptops 14" screen so screen size isnt the issue its purely down to distance from the screen.

[booth1976]

I don't agree with the people saying there's no difference.

On my 26 inch Samsung LCD if I switch the Xbox 360 to output 480p there's a massive noticable quality drop from it outputting 720p. And that's downrezzing HD material.

I'd go for HD-DVD/Blu Ray material over DVD material via component on a HD Ready set anyday.

[ianh64]

How far do you site from your 26" screen?

[Pincho Paxton]

Originally Posted by zz101

I can see a clear difference between SD and HD on my laptops 14" screen so screen size isnt the issue its purely down to distance from the screen.

How is the upscaling done on a laptop? I suppose it's just stretched.

And What res are you using, because it is unlikely to be 1080p, or 1080i?

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Jungle Fred

I have read a press report of a BBC technical paper that said that the BBC technical report said the average viewer could see very liitle difference on an HD braodcast at a normal viewing distance on any set below 28 inches. So that's third hand information.

That's all well and good, as long as we know what the BBC call a 'normal viewing distance'.

Is it the same distance, irrespective of how big your set is?

In my experience, room size (and subsequently seating distance) is a big factor in what size screen people have, though not the only factor.

Saying a 28" screen isn't big enough and a 32" screen is, only makes sense if you sit the same distance from each.

If you have a 10 foot wide screen you can sit far enough away that you don't notice pixels and line structure, or close enough so that you do, and it's the same with a 14" LCD display.

If the BBC advice is relevant for a normal sized living room, what is a normal sized living room. Maybe we should take a poll?

I recently moved into a newly built house. Our estate is made up of pretty large houses, though my house is one of the smaller ones, so I suppose it's ultimately pretty average. My living room is 5m long by 3m wide. I sit around 3.5m from my screen.

Steve W