Any 32" TFT with 1920 x 1080 pixels & full progressive?

Discussion in 'LCD & LED LCD TVs Forum' started by JohnKen, Mar 15, 2006.

Tags:
  1. JohnKen

    JohnKen
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2006
    Messages:
    132
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +13
    I've been ploughing though the sites looking for a 32" LCD with 1920 x 1080 pixel screen to give true HD progressive for future proofing. Can't find any in UK market - and although several well known brands have, or are, bringing out new models with this - they usually only start at 42" or 45".

    Most 32" are now 1366 x768 - which with 6% overscan (?) equates to 1280 x 720, but need complicated processing to give fair SDTV (625 line = 540 visible) and 720p or 1080i HDTV. (The 1920 x 1080 makes nice multiples for line and pixel scanning from SDTV, i.e 1080 / 2 = 540 or 720 / 3 x 2 = 480 - thus making for less fancy processing.)

    I've looked at some of the sites describing viewing distance and eye resolution e.g: http://www.crutchfieldadvisor.com/ISEO-rgbtcspd/learningcenter/home/tv_faq.html - and they seem to suggest about 10ft for 32" SDTV & 6 ft for 32" HDTV - with little differentiation between 720p and 1080i - though some comment 1080p will be viewable even closer.

    So my techy and practical question! Is there any point in waiting for 1920 * 1080 for 32" models [I view from around 10'] and feel the lounge would be overpowered by anything bigger. Will manufacturers bring any 32" (1920 x 1080i or p models) out in the UK - and at my viewing distance will the human eye see the difference anyway!?

    So should I wait or just go ahead and buy the best 1366 x 768p model [i.e Panny 600?] now, or hang on till full 1920 x 1080 comes down to 32" panels with p for HD DVD or Blue Ray?:lease:
     
  2. bobsie

    bobsie
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Hi, yes I am interested in this as well. Laptops seem to have no problem with higher resolution - why can't we have 1080P in 81 cm tv's?

    :clap:
     
  3. Lin3ar

    Lin3ar
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    6,858
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +2,779
    I have read that from a certain distance there would be virtually no difference between a 720p and 1080p picture.I would say, from my limited experiences viewing 720p pictures on my 32" Panasonic, that to get the most from HD you either need a bigger telly or to sit nearer to it.I sit 8/9 feet away and for SD viewing it is spot on but put a good quality HD feed through it and I would prefer to be nearer.
    I am sure there will be 32" sets capable of displaying 1080p in the future but from your viewing distance I don't see there being any great advantage(espeacially as 1080 sets will be a lot pricier).
    In my opinion you would be better either getting a larger panel or spending some of the cash you would spend on a 1080 set and get a TOP 32" 720p display.
    Lastly, the only thing on the horizon that will display 1080p is the PS3.Everything else will be in 720p/1080i.In theory, a set with 1920*1080 will produce a inferior picture displaying 720p due to the scaling involved.
     
  4. NicolasB

    NicolasB
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    6,686
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    137
    Location:
    Emily's Shop
    Ratings:
    +1,068
    If we assume a viewing distance of 8 or 9 feet, a good size for a 1280x720 screen would be 42". A good size for a 1080p screen would be 65". There is really not a lot of point in having a 32" 1080p screen, unless you're proposing to sit about four feet from it.
     
  5. JohnKen

    JohnKen
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2006
    Messages:
    132
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +13
    Thanks for the replies so far - I'd quite like to go up to 37" or 42" for the reasons stated, but I feel (as does my wife) they would be too big for the room, as I said. Further searching has discovered this linked article - really helpful confirming my concern and your comments: http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id=5&article_id=1137

    I've embeded the Log Graph - which basically means that much further than 6.5 ft from a 32" 16/9 means you are missing detail available from the HD running at 720 (the light blue line) , or 4'4" for 1080i (the green line). The Top red line is SD [DVD] - ideal for 32" SD! [For other line colour defintions see the full link]

    [​IMG]

    Interestingly the range of Panels manufactured by Sharp in their P Series (e,g: http://www.sharp.co.uk/Product.aspx?ID=1002) make the point that by designing for 960 x 540 they avoid all the signal processing that generally means a poorer performance on SD signals. The are thus ideally suited for most broadcasts we will still be getting for years - and will downscale 720p & 1080i - with no discernable loss of detail. I saw one in a display set up our local Hadwins and had a discussion with him - about just how good they were with SD & no discernable difference past 6 or 7 ft from the 1366 8 720 panels. Interesting!

    However - I guess I'll go for a good 1366 x 768 panel and move closer when watching HD material - so its worth - as you suggest - spending the money on the very best spec for SD - and best update capacity [twin HDMI, 3 Scarts, Card reader for my pics, networking cpability, etc, - and see how it goes!

    But lets see if we can keep this discussion running as it seems its major issue for most buyers!:hiya:
     
  6. mhuk05

    mhuk05
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,721
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    J6 M5
    Ratings:
    +214
    Why do you have to sit closer when viewing HD? Is the quality of picture not higher and more lines with an HD source and TV? :confused:
     
  7. Lin3ar

    Lin3ar
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    6,858
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +2,779
    The greater the distance, the less detail the eye can pick up.You loose some of the benefits of HD.
     
  8. NicolasB

    NicolasB
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    6,686
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    137
    Location:
    Emily's Shop
    Ratings:
    +1,068
    It's not that you have to sit closer, it's that there's no point in the picture being HD in the first place if you don't.

    The eye can only resolve a certain amount of detail. If you assume that the viewing distance and screen size remain constant, but that you're making the resolution higher and higher, what you're doing is making the pixels smaller. After a while you get to a point where the picture doesn't actually look any better, no matter how small the pixels are (i.e. no matter how high the resolution goes) because you simply can't see well enough for the extra detail to be visible.

    If you have a 32" screen and you're watching it at a distance of about eight and a half feet, and the signal is a 4:3 aspect ratio programme on DVD, then you are already at the point where increasing the resolution is useless. If you feed the screen the same programme, but sampled at 1080p, it doesn't look any better than the SD version does.

    The other way to look at it is that you wouldn't want to sit any closer the screen than eight and a half feet, because if you did the picture would become annoyingly pixellated or annoyingly blurr. If you increase the signal resolution then this means you can sit closer (or make the screen bigger) without that happening. So HD doesn't force you to sit closer, it allows you to sit closer. The poorer the picture the picture is, the further back you have to sit to hide how bad it is.

    Btw, the graph higher up the thread is based on the horizontal resolution of an anamorphic SD signal rather than a 4:3 one, which is why it would suggest 11.1 feet rather than 8.3. :)
     
  9. Rob1698

    Rob1698
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'd say the graph is a bit on the pessimistic side.
    I use a 24" diagonal screen on the computer which I view at about 2'. The resolution is 1920x1200 so the numbers for 1080p HDTV should apply.
    But I easily can read even the smallest fonts from this distance. The "limit of what size pixels could be seen" is not yet reached. Yet the graph tells me that 1.5' would be the viewing distance. At that kind of distance it gets difficult to oversee the entire screen without moving my head.

    But sure, a 1920x1080 pixel 32" screen at 9-10' would not be very useful. I have a 1366x768 screen at that distance and it is impossible to read small text from it, when displaying computer output. I have to walk to a few feet distance do do that. So increasing th resolution even further is not really useful.
     
  10. Evil Engineer

    Evil Engineer
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    994
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    South of Heaven
    Ratings:
    +60
    Dammit!

    Scientific proof that the 46" Sony X-series just ain't big enough for my 1080p viewing needs!

    Looks like it's going to be a toss up between the 52" X-series and Pioneer's 50" 1080p plasma to suit my 2m viewing distance.

    Better start saving those pennies. :)

    By the way, interesting to see that 1080p isn't up to scratch for THX viewing!
     

Share This Page

Loading...