1. Join Now

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

Would I get away with a 28" rather than 32"?

Discussion in 'Televisions' started by Adele, Jan 16, 2002.

  1. Adele

    Adele
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    My living room's fairly small (I'm currently watching a 21" 4:3 TV which seems a sufficient size)

    I had been thinking of getting a 32", but looking at the dimensions of these, I might struggle to fit it in, plus I don't want the TV to totally take over the room.

    Do you think a 28" would do if I'm sitting 2m away from the TV? Also, getting a 28" would free some of my budget for either a better TV or more expensive AV receiver/speakers!

    Advice welcome.
    Thanks,
    Adele.
     
  2. Adele

    Adele
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    ...meant to add - I'm now looking for 16:9 28" or 32", rather than another 4:3

    Cheers!
     
  3. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I've gone for a 28 inch widescreen Adele, and after a couple of days I had got used to it, no problems at all. I'd previouisly had a 24 inch 4:3 TV for years. When it arrived I was very relieved I hadn't ordered a 32 inch, as just the 28 inch seemed massive!

    32 inch are lovely if you have the room, but like you say, you don't want it taking over your room.

    If you buy from somewhere like John Lewis who offer a return within 28 days if you are not satisfied with any product bought from them, you could always order and try a 32 inch if you wanted, and send it back for the 28 inch model if you find it is too big.

    Carol
     
  4. jspone

    jspone
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2000
    Messages:
    89
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Lancs
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'd say if you are sitting 2m from the screen, then 28" should be fine, and you'll save a few quid by going for a smaller screen.

    John
     
  5. DavidT

    DavidT
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,468
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +255
    I have read somewhere that the minimum viewing distance from an TV should be 5x the screen diagonal size, therefore the approx. minimum distances are;

    28" - 3.5 metres
    32" - 4.0 metres
    36" - 4.5 metres

    Can't remember where I saw this though.
     
  6. Adele

    Adele
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    ...that'll be why my eyesight's so bad then?

    I have a terrible habit of moving closer and closer to the TV whilst watching something engrossing (as I tend to spurn the sofa for floor cushions!)

    Thanks for the responses - I'm fairly certain I'll go for a 28" instead of a 32" - it really isn't that big a living room!

    Now all I have to do is choose a make & model! I'm really finding all of this decision-making quite stressful y'know!
     
  7. sparrow-07

    sparrow-07
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2002
    Messages:
    177
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +8
    I read the following in Home Cinema Choice magazine January 2002 edition (pg 159 if you have it).
    Personally, I wouldn't sit in the front row of the cinema, so I don't subscribe to that particular point of view.

    I had also read the same as DavidT somewhere else.

    So the choice is yours!
     
  8. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I know what you mean about making a decision! I am just weeks away from getting a w/s set, but cannot choose between a 28" or a 32".

    It's for a bedroom, and for a long while I was convinced that a 28" would easily be big enough, however now I'm not so sure because as I understand it (and please, someone correct me if I'm wrong here), with a 28" you obviously gain the width, but lose some height, therefore a 32" is a better 'all-round' set.

    I mainly want the w/s for watching DVDs.
     
  9. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    You could get the best of both and go for the Tosh 32ZP18p. It's the same cabinet size as a normal 28" but with a 32" screen.
     
  10. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    A 16:9 tv has a much smaller looking picture than an equivalent 4:3 tv. So a 28inch widesceen looks like a 24inch normal.

    My advice would be to go for the 32inch widescreen or consider a 28/29 inch 4:3 TV which will still show a picture virtually as big as the 16:9tv 28inch when showing widescreen broadcast.

    I have a friend that was in a similar position to you (small lounge) and making the same argument went for the 28widescreen. Now the friend constantly moans about the size and regrets not buying the larger set.

    Remember, A TV is for five years, not just for your birthday
    El
     
  11. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    On this whole subject - I am getting my first w/s telly this week. It's for a bedroom and I had convinced myself that a 28" was easily 'big enough'. However, today I went into a few stores and had a good look at both 28" and 32" sets. Basically, I now know that 32" is for me.

    Can't wait to get it!
     

Share This Page

Loading...