High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource

Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
Rules HDTV Forum Gallery LINK TO US! RSS - High Def Forum AddThis Feed Button AddThis Social Bookmark Button Groups

Flat-Panel TVs Plasma, LCD

What size LCD or Plasma for a 12X13 ft room?

Reply
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-11-2007, 03:16 PM   #1  
High Definition is the definition of life.
Thread Starter
 

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 114
Default What size LCD or Plasma for a 12X13 ft room?

Hello everyone, I want to buy a Flat Panel for a room which is 12ft X13ft in size. It will mostly be used by my kids for watching TV and I suppose Gaming with their X-box. Can you suggest what size would be good? Also at what height should it be mounted? and should I get a plasma or an LCD? I was going for a Plasma, considering that the blacks are better, and the prices of Plasmas has come down..... Would a 42 inch be too big? should I get a 37 if there is such a Size? and should I get a 1080 P unit? Thanks....... Sony, Sharp, LG, Pioneer or Panasonic? Samsung is out because I read a thread that it has issues with fios..... Also I am not interested in the cheaper sets, as I would like reliabilty........ Thanks again.....
Seabreeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2007, 03:59 PM   #2  
"Shitter was Full"
 
Bigloww's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In a van, down by the river.
Posts: 8,321
Default

12x13..... Well 42'' would definately be as big as you want to go. What will be the average viewing distance for games/movies?? That would be the key. 42'' is the smallest plasma they make now a days (panny made a 37'' a couple years back). Depending on the distance thingy, perhaps a 37''LCD would fit the bill, but a 42'' Panny would also be sweet.
Bigloww is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2007, 04:01 PM   #3  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 144
Default

There are a lot of factors beyond pure room size:

1. Seating distance from screen (not always the same as room dimensions).

2. TV - SD or HD feed? - HD looks clear on much larger screens than SD does. In fact SD can get pretty sh*tty on screens over 42" although whether or not its noticible depends again on the seating distance from the screen. SD can also look worse on full HD as more processing / interpolation is needed - this quality varies from tv to tv as its depends on the qulaity of the SD conversion hardware.

3. Plasmas have better blacks and more natural colour reproduction especially on faces (not important for gaming but important for TV / movies)

4. Plasmas still slight worry with gaming as screen burn still a slight concern due to extended static images found in video games (usually menu bars etc) LCD's however suffer some blur under fast movement and have unnatural colours with TV / movies so neither technology is perfect

5. Of the manufacturers you mention, for Plasma, Pioneer Kuros are the king (428XD, 508XD), Panny's are the next best option with the PZ700, PX70 and PZ70 being good choices. The other manufacturers are also rans in my opinion when it comes to plasma. For LCD, Sony are the King with the new KDL 42W3000 being one of the very best. Samsung's are highly regarded in the LCD field.

As for LCD vs Plasma, the main considerations are above and the choice is yours as neither is perfect. For me personally if buying a tv, a Pioneer Kuro plasma is the way to go or if too expensive a Panny but then again I don't play video games so burn isn't a worry. However just be aware that both technologies have drawbacks with gaming. Some people do game successfuly on plasmas but you need to adhere to a care program for your screen.

Last edited by Alsone; 10-11-2007 at 04:05 PM..
Alsone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2007, 04:33 PM   #4  
High Definition is the definition of life.
Thread Starter
 

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 114
Default

Thanks alsone, and Bigloww.....

Viewing Distance, I guess my boys are going to sit right in the middle of the room and not all the way back. I always find them sitting close to the TV when they are playing X-box.... So my guess would be anywhere between 5ft and 8 ft...... I suppose if the Tv is bigger they would automatically move further back?...... My 9 year old, has a tendency to leave the game paused!!! So burn in will be an issue. I don't think he will switch it off, even if I explain the burn in issue, he won't want to lose points!!!!!! There is a sharp LC 32GPU1, which they say is specifically made for gaming... What do you think? Is it just marketing Hype? Should I give up the plasma for the LCD, considering they will be playing a lot of games?

HD feed, as I am getting fios.....

Maybe a Sony Lcd, might be the right way to go? I don't want to spend the xtra money of a Kuros for the kids.... I need to buy 2 more Tv's..... A 60 or 70 DLP for the family room, I have the space for it, and its a waste to buy a Flat Screen, so if you have any ideas on that, it will be great help..... And then I need a 50 or 60 Flat Plasma for my bedroom...... So any ideas on that would be helpful as well... U can see why I dont think I should get a kuros for the boys room..... Thanks again.....
Seabreeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2007, 05:05 PM   #5  
"Shitter was Full"
 
Bigloww's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In a van, down by the river.
Posts: 8,321
Default

I have gamed on my plasma (360, PS2 and PC) for over a year now and it is great. Burn in is not as much of a concern today, but still a possibility. Since we are talking about a 9 year old in control, I would steer away from plasma. Unless you want to constantly worry that they don't leave it on pause for hours on end. A 37-40'''' LCD would be a bit more worry free. Samsung and Sharp are my 2 tops. And they have very good response times 6-8 ms, that helps with fast action games and movies for lag....

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listi...2144020&sr=8-1

Last edited by Bigloww; 10-11-2007 at 05:10 PM..
Bigloww is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2007, 06:00 PM   #6  
High Definition is the definition of life.
Thread Starter
 

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 114
Default

Thanks Bigloww.... I will look at the sharp, I have not heard good things about the samsung. I know sharp make one that they are claiming is specifically good for gaming.....the LC 32GPU1... Do u know anything about it? ........ I agree I will go for the LCD for the boys as I cannot watch over themm 24/7.....
Seabreeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2007, 02:08 AM   #7  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 144
Default

One other compromise you could do, money allowing would be to buy yourself a plasma for cinema and then buy a smaller LCD for the kids for gaming.

From 8ft I'd say a 42" would be as large as you want to go and maybe even a bit smaller.

If money isn't a problem you could get say a 42" plasma for cinema / tv and a 32" LCD for gaming for the kids.

How you place them depends on your room / seating arrangement but as I presume you don't all game and watch tv at the same time, considering you were originally after 1 screen, having both in the same room shouldn't be a problem. The plasma could go on one wall and the LCD on another. An L shaped seating arrangement would be ideal for this as then you just sit opposite whichever screen you intend to use.
Alsone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2007, 08:00 AM   #8  
High Definition is the definition of life.
Thread Starter
 

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 114
Default

Thanks again, the tv's will be in different rooms. Therefore I will get the boys an LCD to avoid burn in, I will check out the cost between a 32 Vs a 42 inch model...... If I am going to hang this TV up, how will I connect all the 360 connections to it? Maybe it's better on a stand? Any thoughts on that from all the gamers out there? Or should I post a new thread on this topic?.....Thanks.... For the other room I am going to get a 60 or bigger DLP, havent decided which? and for the bedroom a plasma 50 or bigger..... any suggestions will be great... thanks
Seabreeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2007, 12:00 PM   #9  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 144
Default

DLP quality not great compared to plasma / lcd, just a warning. If you have the cash a 60" plasma may fit the bill.

Best 50" plasma - Pioneer Kuro 508XD. Check out seating / lying distance before deciding on 50" though.

Can't comment on the gaming aspect.

My
Alsone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2007, 08:26 PM   #10  
But a TV in every room!
 
techchallenged's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 71
Default

My experience is that, when in doubt, go for the bigger size. (Yes, I know that many women would agree.)

Last year about this time I was debating between getting a 32- or 37-inch set. Went for the 32. Nice TV (Toshiba), good picture, etc.

But I shouldn't have played it so conservatively and gone for the 37.

We're moving that TV to another room. This time, I'm going up to a 40 or 42...
techchallenged is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2007, 01:00 PM   #11  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by techchallenged View Post
My experience is that, when in doubt, go for the bigger size. (Yes, I know that many women would agree.)

Last year about this time I was debating between getting a 32- or 37-inch set. Went for the 32. Nice TV (Toshiba), good picture, etc.

But I shouldn't have played it so conservatively and gone for the 37.

We're moving that TV to another room. This time, I'm going up to a 40 or 42...
Its important to test with SD sources. With respect, you experience is built around screens of less than 42". The problem is that once you get over 42", SD becomes very poor in quality due to the amount of expansion / interpolation of the signal that goes on. You have to remember that a 1080P image has 4 times as many pixels as an SD image and a 720P, twice as many. These pixels don't exist in the broadcast and so have to be made up by the TV's hardware and this can lead to artefacts and a large degree of unsharpness amongst other things. Even with a relatively low def screen, there's still expansion as the pixels have to be bigger in size to fill the screen so the pixels on a 1024 x 768 screen of 32" will be smaller than the pixels on a 42" screen of the same resolution (otherwise the screens would physically be the same size with the same pixel count!).

To see the effects of interpolation / expansion, try blowing a still picture up in a photo editing program by 4 times on your PC, then see if its as sharp as the original at 100% resolution as this gives a good idea of happens in your tv.

Whereas I agree with your advice bigger is usually better up to 42", I have to disagree beyond with SD as then seating distance to the screen becomes a big factor. It my be better or it may be substancially worse, it all depends on your TV's hardware and your distance from the screen.

My advice for anyone seeking a screen of, or over 42", would be to measure your distance to the screen then view it in a showroom from your own viewing distance (take a tape measure and measure it out). You can then also compare it to smaller screens. Make sure its an SD aerial feed though as many showrooms only show DVD's / HD feeds for this very reason.

One last point, is note that I said SD, generally HD or even DVD has more leaway in size vs viewing distance because with HD there's no upscaling if the disc matches the panel and with DVD whilst its upscaled, theres a lot less compression so the upscaling tends to be more accurate and produce less problems. Thus generally you can comfortably watch DVD / HD discs on a large screen at a size where SD may be a disappointment.

Last edited by Alsone; 10-13-2007 at 01:08 PM..
Alsone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2007, 02:03 PM   #12  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,121
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alsone View Post
. . . Its important to test with SD sources. . . . The problem is that once you get over 42", SD becomes very poor in quality due to the amount of expansion / interpolation of the signal that goes on.
At the same viewing distance, correct.
At the same "viewing angle" there will be no perceived difference.
It is VERY important to make that distinction.

Quote:
You have to remember that a 1080P image has 4 times as many pixels as an SD image and a 720P, twice as many.
Actually SD = 640x480 = .307m pixels
HD 1024x768 = .786m pixels = 2.6 times more
HD 1280x720 = .922m pixels = 3 times more
HD 1366x768 = 1.05m pixels = 3.4 times more
HD 1920x1080 = 2.07m pixels = 6.75 times more

Although, it is academic. In general, 1080 is better as long as you are close enough to see the difference, and 720 is sufficient as long as you are far enough away to to NOT see the difference.

Quote:
These pixels don't exist in the broadcast and so have to be made up by the TV's hardware and this can lead to artefacts and a large degree of unsharpness amongst other things.
True, the pixels are not there in the SD signal. And they must be INTERPOLATED by the TV's hardware AND SOFTWARE (or the STB's, or the Satellite Receiver's , or . . . .. Some equiment can do an exemplary job of this and some can't.

Quote:
Even with a relatively low def screen, there's still expansion as the pixels have to be bigger in size to fill the screen so the pixels on a 1024 x 768 screen of 32" will be smaller than the pixels on a 42" screen of the same resolution (otherwise the screens would physically be the same size with the same pixel count!).
Which takes us back to "visual acuity" and "viewing angle".

Quote:
To see the effects of interpolation / expansion, try blowing a still picture up in a photo editing program by 4 times on your PC, then see if its as sharp as the original at 100% resolution as this gives a good idea of happens in your tv.
Which takes us back to "visual acuity" and "viewing angle"

Quote:
Whereas I agree with your advice bigger is usually better up to 42", I have to disagree beyond with SD as then seating distance to the screen becomes a big factor. It my be better or it may be substancially worse, it all depends on your TV's hardware and your distance from the screen.
Bigger is better if:
1) that's what the consumer wants . . . and
2) the seating distance is such that the larger screen does not cross the perception point to the consumer's visual acuity.

Quote:
My advice for anyone seeking a screen of, or over 42", would be to measure your distance to the screen then view it in a showroom from your own viewing distance (take a tape measure and measure it out). You can then also compare it to smaller screens. Make sure its an SD aerial feed though as many showrooms only show DVD's / HD feeds for this very reason.
Why aerial feed??? What if consumer never uses OTA?
This won't tell anthing with respect to cable or satellite compression issues.
Perhaps a SD DVD would be of limited use.

Anyway, I think the earlier poster was suggesting "one-step" comparisons; that is, deciding between a 32 vs a 37, or a 37 vs a 42, or a 50 vs a 60. I don't think there was any suggestion that it is always best to go from 32" to 60" in "every case.
billinprinceto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2007, 05:14 PM   #13  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 144
Default

As I read it I think we agreed on most points, its just that I didn't use the words "Visual Acuity".

You are more technical than me in this though.

Whereas I can't be bothered to work pixel counts out, being in the UK, our SD PAL signal has a higher resoltuion than your NTSC signal so that might explain the difference in our figures. However the principle remains the same be it 4 or 6 times, you are interpolating - read guessing the missing pixels with the tv's hardware / software and this leads to loss of sharpness / artefacts. I think we agree on that also.

Its OK not trying to be a point scorer here only to ensure that the topic starter is aware that whereas we both said it in different ways, there is a concensus in what we said and thus he should consider testing out his viewing distance vs screen size if hes going to be using an SD broadcast feed for his tv.
Alsone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2007, 05:40 PM   #14  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,121
Default

Right. Or, to attempt to really simplify, perhaps the message should/could be:

For any fixed viewing distance, there is a size at which the screen size can be considered too big because either pixels or artifacts will become more visible . . . especially with SD programming.

How's that?
billinprinceto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2007, 06:15 PM   #15  
I love my plasma
 

Join Date: Dec 2006
Age: 61
Posts: 1,699
Default

Just go get a 42" and get a hd cable/sat. source and pop a cold one....
z28rod is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


to What size LCD or Plasma for a 12X13 ft room?
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
help! lcd vs plasma, sammy vs pioneer ??? mtb Flat-Panel TVs 7 01-06-2007 12:03 AM
Plasma Bites the Dust...Hitachi Looking To Quit Plasma Market eHDMI High Definition News & Informative Articles 88 12-09-2006 02:38 PM
LCD will still have it's advantages over SED HD_Lunatic Flat-Panel TVs 6 03-29-2006 05:18 PM
37-42" Plasma or LCD fstevenj Flat-Panel TVs 18 02-04-2006 09:31 PM
Should I buy Plasma or LCD??? hidefman30 Flat-Panel TVs 1 09-30-2005 06:50 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:14 PM.



Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2018, MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands