1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

So How Big Is the screen??

Discussion in 'TVs' started by Steve T, Feb 1, 2002.

  1. Steve T

    Steve T
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2000
    Messages:
    438
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Redditch
    Ratings:
    +3
    This is my first post - so apologies for any apparent ignorance concerning the question!

    I've got a 5 year old 28" 4:3 Toshiba which has served me well, but I've been desperate to get hold of a widescreen set since I got my first DVD player 3 years ago.

    Due to the size and configuration of my lounge, a 32" is about as big as I can go and my question is - actually how much bigger is the screen in terms of Inches (width x height) compared with a 28" 4:3 set.

    I know it's not going to have as much height, but I really want to know what I'll be gaining in terms of width to see if it's really worth upgrading (there's actually nothing wrong with the Tosh). I want the largest viewable screen possible for watching my DVD's.

    My alternative is to get the builders in, block off the double doors leading to the dining room. Then buy a new three and two seater sofa which would in turn free up the bay window to accomadate a 36" widescreen or 42" Plasma. While more preferable, my budget is unlikely to stretch something this drastic!

    Can anyone help?

    Cheers!
     
  2. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    There won't be a lot in it - obviously it'll be wider but the height won't be much different - but it's worth it.

    I replaced a 29" Sony 4:3 with a 32" Philips W/S and was happy with the difference but then I swapped that for a 36ZP Tosh (Picture Frame) it only takes up the same space as the 32" Philips but is a BIG dfference - if you're game for spending the cash get the 36" Tosh.

    Cheers
    OG
     
  3. Nelly

    Nelly
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    hmm tricky. You are right you will lose a few inches from the height but I only have a 28" wide screen :( so I don't actually know. I guess the safest thing is to pop down to your local dealer and get a little tape measure.

    Or you could check out some TV manufacturers websites and see if they list the size of the things?

    Just a thought :)
     
  4. Zacabeb

    Zacabeb
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2002
    Messages:
    474
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Ratings:
    +9
    To get the width and height of a screen, find out what the viewable diagonal is. On plasma screens and projection TV's, it is the same as the screen size. On regular TV's, it is a pair of inches smaller since the size specifies the diagonal of the entire faceplate of the tube and not just the phosphor.

    Using Pythagoras theorem, we find that

    the width of a 4:3 screen is 80% of the diagonal, the height 60%

    the width of a 16:9 screen is roughly 87% of the diagonal, the height roughly 49%

    This makes a 32" widescreen smaller in height than a regular 28" screen. The 32" widescreen has a diagonal of 760mm, making it 662mm wide and 373mm high; the 28" regular screen has a diagonal of 670mm, making it 536mm wide and 402mm high. In other words, even one size bigger the widescren is about 3cm lower than the regular screen. However, you gain more than 12cm in width.

    So, in order to get a similar height on a widescreen set as a regular set, you need to step up at least one screen size or even two. Remember that once you reach the plasma and projection sets, you get an additional 5cm 'for free' to the diagonal than on a tube relative to screen size, because of the different way of measure.
     
  5. Mitch2000

    Mitch2000
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2001
    Messages:
    158
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +0
    A 32" (76cm) widescreen screen is the actual screen width from side to side but the old 4:3 screens are usually measured diagonally across trhe screen. So a 32" widescreen is actually more than 3" wider than an old 29" 4:3.
    I have just gone from a 25" Sony to 32" W/S and it is much better.
    Can you switch your old set to W/S. If so try it and then measure the black strip top and bottom and the picture width. Then pop down Currys with your tape measure and compare.
     
  6. mjn

    mjn
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Messages:
    18,385
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Herts, England
    Ratings:
    +5,471
    are u sure they are measured width ways for widescreens??
     
  7. Steve T

    Steve T
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2000
    Messages:
    438
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Redditch
    Ratings:
    +3
    Thanks alot for the feedback.

    OG, you could have hit the nail on the head. I've just checked out the dimensions of the 36ZP cabinet and you're right - it is hardly any bigger than the 32" set cabinet (885mm x 620mm x 601mm)

    I take it you haven't experienced any of the problems other forum members have with this set?

    I would gladly shell out the extra cash for a 36" TV if it will fit and if it's recommended.

    Thanks to Zacabeb for the maths refresher - it's been 15 years since I scraped a C in Maths. Before I posted the question, I actually tried to work it out using this method, but couldn't for the life of me remember the formula!

    Cheers
     
  8. bob007

    bob007
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    That's a bummer, thought i were watching a 36" screen now it's down to 30"..........been had again.........!!!
     
  9. Kevo

    Kevo
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Messages:
    5,364
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +146
    :confused:

    Get your measuring tape out Mitch.
    I think you'll be surprised to find that the width of your TV is somewhat smaller than 32".
     
  10. mjn

    mjn
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Messages:
    18,385
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Herts, England
    Ratings:
    +5,471
    thought so....its always measured diagonally....
     
  11. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Steve

    I'd recommend it 100% - I'm a fussy b45t4rd and I'm over the moon with it. I know people have had problems but many have also stressed how pleased they are with it.

    Any set can have problems, the Sony I bought in '92ish had problems as did the £500 VCR I bought at the same time and the main dealer I got it from didn't want to know, no chance of a replacement or refund. I had the Philips replaced more than once etc etc.

    What ever model you decide on, there's a fair chance that you may have a problem so the key is to pick what you fancy and buy it at the right place - an Internet retailer is a good start because they can't argue about giving you a refund within 7 days if you don't like it (Distance Selling Act). I got mine from www.qed-uk.com who were excellent when I was having problems with the Philips.

    Good luck!!!!!!!!!

    Cheers
    OG
     
  12. Steve T

    Steve T
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2000
    Messages:
    438
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Redditch
    Ratings:
    +3
    OG,

    Many thanks for that - I've been down to Allders to have a look at the set and I reckon it should fit OK in the space. It looks great.

    It could be a winner....now I've just got to sell the benefits of a 36" TV to the missus....

    Cheers!
     
  13. jGrahamD

    jGrahamD
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Messages:
    260
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +2
    I had the same space problem, but smaller. I could only fit in a 28 inch widescreen, or 32 if I went for the Tosh. However, I don't really want to spend that much money. Since I'm only limited widthways, I'm seriously considering getting the Thomson 33" 4:3 TV. This gives a widescreen picture that's equivalent to around a 30.5" set, but of course gives a much bigger picture on 4:3 broadcasts. They do a 37 inch model which I've read a good review of on the web, but unfortunately can't remember where. You can find the set at unbeatable.co.uk (Thomson 37MH44E). Might be worth a look, even if just out of curiosity.
     
  14. Mitch2000

    Mitch2000
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2001
    Messages:
    158
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +0
    Oops!. Must of had a bad hangover that day......
    Anyway, Size doesn't matter, its what you watch on it that counts.

    I still think a 32" widescreen is visibly much better than a 29" 4:3
     
  15. jGrahamD

    jGrahamD
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Messages:
    260
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +2
    The argument is that widescreen is a closer approximation of the human field of view. I agree with this argument when it comes to cinema, and you're seeing the screen in part with your peripheral vision. But the quality of TV's is not good enough to have such a wide viewing field, so a TV will only ever occupy the centre of your field of vision. Our central stereo field of view (that which we can see with both eyes) actually has the oppostie aspect ratio (tall and thin, portrait mode, etc). This is why books are generally this way up. This argument would make a 4:3 TV better, and personally I go along with this, though it doesn't look so hi-tech. The problem is, films are made for the big screen, so if you want to see it like it was made, you need widescreen. Modern 4:3 TV's should switch to 16:9 mode, so you still get 625 lines, but squashed as appropriate. You will get the black bars top and bottom, which some people find unacceptable. If you view 4:3 transmissions or videos on a widescreen, you have to put up with bars at the sides or a stretched picture, both of which I find ugly. More and more transmissions will go widescreen with time. Has a widescreen TV got extra width or less height? You'll have to make your own mind up.
     
  16. Grubert

    Grubert
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2001
    Messages:
    601
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +72
    But note that having a widescreen set won't mean you'll get rid of the black bars. If you watch 4:3 material (TV series, old movies), you'l get vertical black bars on the sides of the screen. If you watch movies with an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 (most big-budget action movies), you'll get thin horizontal black bars at the top and bottom.

    The whole point of getting a widescreen telly is to use your screen optimally when watching movies at home. This should be clear.
     
  17. jGrahamD

    jGrahamD
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Messages:
    260
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +2
    Grubert, I totally agree. In my case, as I believe is the case in the first post, there is a limitation on the maximum width (space restriction). Thus for me, the optimal is to have a 4:3 set. This may not be true for most people.
     

Share This Page

Loading...