24" Widescreen: Are they worth buying?

06-02-2002, 6:41 PM

I have a smallish living room and think that a 28" widescreen would be too large for viewing comfort as we sit too close to the TV (6.5-9 feet). Is a 24" widescreen worth buying? Or is it just too small to deliver "the widescreen experience

06-02-2002, 7:08 PM

The way I look at it is to measure not just the angle size, but also the height. My current tv screen is 13.5" top to bottom, and the 28"w/screens are only about 12", so if I'm going to spend 1200-1500 quid on a tv then I don't want anything smaller (depthwise) than I'm currently watching. That's why I'm opting for the 32". It's only my opinion, but I think this is a valid criteria that should be applied when making your decision. I just think that a screen which is <=28" would just looked to "squashed" compared to what I've been used to watching. Happy hunting!!

HBK757 · 06-02-2002, 7:14 PM

Anything under 28" isn't worth buying in my opinion unless you live in a cupboard

Kevo · 06-02-2002, 9:42 PM

I've always found 24" WS TVs to look like stretched portable TVs.
Ok for the kids bedroom or the kitchen I suppose, but not much else.

**LV426** · 07-02-2002, 11:29 AM

The bigger the better, that's definitely true. But if 24 inches is all you have room for, go for it.

"Size" isn't a simple matter of inches width or height. You also have to take account of your distance from the screen.

A screen which is 32 inches wide, viewed from 12 feet away, is the same "size" as a screen 16 inches wide viewed from 6 feet away. They will both generate an image on your retina that is the same size.

The only other factor is a simple matter of street-cred. When you are telling your pals about your setup, it doesn't sound too impressive if you tell them you have this wonderful 24 inch TV, when theirs is a 36 inch.

07-02-2002, 12:19 PM

I've got a 28" widescreen, and I've just re-organised the living room so the optimum viewing position is 6 feet away or so, and I'd say that's perfect, as long as you've calibrated the set to a sane contrast setting.

I wouldn't go for a 24" widescreen - it's only 11.7" tall, which is pretty mingy, and anything in 4:3 will be distinctly unsatisfying (15.6" x 11.7"). If space is an issue, I'd suggest finding a 26" (or so) 4:3 TV with a proper 16:9 mode. This is the same width as a 24" widescreen, so anything in widescreen will be the same size and quality (assuming the same tube dot pitch), and your 4:3 pictures will be a much more sensible size (20.9" x 15.7").

This probably isn't the route to go down if you've got a psychological problem with black bars though, as it leads to your widescreen content being "smaller" than 4:3 content - but looked at logically you're better off than with a 24" widescreen.

Now, the trick is to find a decently equipped 26" 4:3 TV. That might be the stumbling block

If you do go widescreen, just make sure it's got a 14:9 zoom mode, preferably automatic, otherwise you'll be really fecked off with black bars all the way around on all the 14:9 content around at the moment.

07-02-2002, 2:44 PM

I have a Sony WEGA 24" in my bedroom. It's a great little set, perfect for the bedroom. However, I'd definatley be thinking of at least 28" for the living room.

If you shop wisely you'll find some 28" sets have small dimensions and really aren't that much bigger than some 24" sets.

mark

MartinImber · 07-02-2002, 3:29 PM

I'd say 32" for 6ft

07-02-2002, 3:38 PM

Kevin,

Quote:

If you do go widescreen, just make sure it's got a 14:9 zoom mode, preferably automatic, otherwise you'll be really fecked off with black bars all the way around on all the 14:9 content around at the moment.

I thought you only got 14:9 on terrestrial TV?

I assume anyone buying a 16:9 Widescreen set would have digital TV of one sort or another!

Just my 2p!

DaveP

07-02-2002, 4:50 PM

I thought lots of the cheaper and nastier digital channels (and some cable providers) still used 14:9 sometimes.

I wouldn't know much about it - I'm not particularly inclined to get digital until we get HDTV, and no on-screen logos or red dots.

Kevo · 07-02-2002, 5:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kevin Bracey
I'm not particularly inclined to get digital until we get HDTV, and no on-screen logos or red dots.

So I take it you'll never get digital then.

What are you going to do IF, and I mean IF they switch off analog in the future?

07-02-2002, 8:31 PM

BTW: Because the uptake of integrated digital tv's has been poor haven't they come up with a little box now that you will be able to plug into your normal set which gives you digital. hence no need for a integrated digital tv??

( I personally already watch bbc, itv etc digitally through sky anyway)

06-02-2002, 6:41 PM	#1
Andrew Shand Guest Posts: n/a	24" Widescreen: Are they worth buying? Advertisement Want to Advertise? I have a smallish living room and think that a 28" widescreen would be too large for viewing comfort as we sit too close to the TV (6.5-9 feet). Is a 24" widescreen worth buying? Or is it just too small to deliver "the widescreen experience
	Quote

06-02-2002, 7:08 PM	#2
xanthos Guest Posts: n/a	The way I look at it is to measure not just the angle size, but also the height. My current tv screen is 13.5" top to bottom, and the 28"w/screens are only about 12", so if I'm going to spend 1200-1500 quid on a tv then I don't want anything smaller (depthwise) than I'm currently watching. That's why I'm opting for the 32". It's only my opinion, but I think this is a valid criteria that should be applied when making your decision. I just think that a screen which is <=28" would just looked to "squashed" compared to what I've been used to watching. Happy hunting!!
	Quote

07-02-2002, 12:19 PM	#6
Kevin Bracey Guest Posts: n/a	I've got a 28" widescreen, and I've just re-organised the living room so the optimum viewing position is 6 feet away or so, and I'd say that's perfect, as long as you've calibrated the set to a sane contrast setting. I wouldn't go for a 24" widescreen - it's only 11.7" tall, which is pretty mingy, and anything in 4:3 will be distinctly unsatisfying (15.6" x 11.7"). If space is an issue, I'd suggest finding a 26" (or so) 4:3 TV with a proper 16:9 mode. This is the same width as a 24" widescreen, so anything in widescreen will be the same size and quality (assuming the same tube dot pitch), and your 4:3 pictures will be a much more sensible size (20.9" x 15.7"). This probably isn't the route to go down if you've got a psychological problem with black bars though, as it leads to your widescreen content being "smaller" than 4:3 content - but looked at logically you're better off than with a 24" widescreen. Now, the trick is to find a decently equipped 26" 4:3 TV. That might be the stumbling block If you do go widescreen, just make sure it's got a 14:9 zoom mode, preferably automatic, otherwise you'll be really fecked off with black bars all the way around on all the 14:9 content around at the moment.
	Quote

07-02-2002, 2:44 PM	#7
Guest Posts: n/a	I have a Sony WEGA 24" in my bedroom. It's a great little set, perfect for the bedroom. However, I'd definatley be thinking of at least 28" for the living room. If you shop wisely you'll find some 28" sets have small dimensions and really aren't that much bigger than some 24" sets. mark
	Quote

07-02-2002, 4:50 PM	#10
Kevin Bracey Guest Posts: n/a	I thought lots of the cheaper and nastier digital channels (and some cable providers) still used 14:9 sometimes. I wouldn't know much about it - I'm not particularly inclined to get digital until we get HDTV, and no on-screen logos or red dots.
	Quote

07-02-2002, 8:31 PM	#12
Markster Guest Posts: n/a	BTW: Because the uptake of integrated digital tv's has been poor haven't they come up with a little box now that you will be able to plug into your normal set which gives you digital. hence no need for a integrated digital tv?? ( I personally already watch bbc, itv etc digitally through sky anyway)
	Quote