ThunderPeel2001 Posted November 26, 2008 (edited) I'm not sure why I'm posting this here*, but I'm very interested in this at the moment. Basically Which have just published a complete "High Definition/Blu-Ray" round up and, as usual, their panel of completely-independent experts have come to their conclusions... Except I was a little shocked to read what they were: Nine of the 10 "Best Buys" were 32" or smaller. "So?", I hear you cry. Well, let me explain: -- in response to their expert's previous email --This is a young technology, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised if the bigger TVs have lower picture quality. (It has been the same for LCD PC monitors, and CRT screens before them, afterall.) Of course, there are many thing to take into account when assessing picture quality; contrast ratio, color saturation, color accuracy are all more more important than resolution (according to the Imaging Science Foundation). But when a consumer is deciding on whether to upgrade to High Definition or not, resolution is seen as the primary benefit (I guess this is where consumer confusion, like mine, arises), and because of this, I have one question, if you wouldn't mind answering it. I have done a bit of research and learnt more about the abilities of the human eye. As it turns out perfect visual acuity (20/20 vision) is recognised by a person's ability to percieve 1/60th of a degree of an arc, otherwise known as an arc minute. This is useful information because it can be applied to the required viewing distance for a HD TV. (A blogger named Carlton Bale made a famous chart based on this information. Please see it here: http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html). As you can see, people cannot technically see the full difference between ~480x720 (480p/SD) and ~720x1280 (720p) on a 32" HD set without sitting 6 feet or closer. (On a 26" screen this figure it just below 4 feet!) I realise that contrast ratio, color saturation and color accuracy are more important, but if there isn't a very noticeable difference when viewing HD over SD, it doesn't make any difference and thus cannot be recommended as a High Definition TV upgrade. A good HD TV needs to have good contrast ratio, color saturation, color accuracy AND the ability to allow a consumer to see the difference between SD and HD at a comfortable viewing distance. If the TV does not have this last ability, then the previous three do not make any difference whatsoever. With this in mind, can you explain why Which's Best Buy "top 10" features nine 32" or smaller displays? I look forward to your explanation. Best, - Johnny Walker, London * - If you're not interested, please ignore Edited November 26, 2008 by ThunderPeel2001 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roderick Posted November 26, 2008 Interested to hear what they'll say to that. I have read similar stories when I was in the market for an HD(-Ready) tv myself earlier this year. I settled on a 37" HD-Ready tv (about 88cm) because if I had gone larger, it would have needed to be Full HD to be really crisp. Now I only notice graininess if I get really close. Otherwise it's really nice. The only drawback is that my particular tv suffers from a lot of ghosting, which is shit especially with games that feature bright, saturated colours. It's a Samsung, by the way, which usually comes recommended but in this case it was a bit of a letdown. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miffy495 Posted November 26, 2008 Another reason why I'm still incredibly happy that rather than a good HD TV, I got myself a good computer monitor. When I'm playing multiplayer on the larger SDTV, people don't care so much about the visuals. When I play by myself on my 1080p 28" screen, I'm about 2' away and getting the full benefits. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roderick Posted November 26, 2008 Peas & Rice, you use 28" (wide, I presume) as a computer screen? Can you actually take in everything at once while playing, or do you find the need to 'scroll' from left to right like reading a book? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miffy495 Posted November 27, 2008 Yeah, I have it set back in my desk far enough that I can see the whole thing. It's actually pretty good on the eyes because it means I'm far enough away that I'm not damaging my retinas as much as I could. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ginger Posted November 27, 2008 * - If you're not interested, please ignore You could have put that at the start of the post Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
