relative screen sizes

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

can anyone link me to a site that will display the relative sizes of TVs to
each other? the numeric specs are tough to visualize...

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net wrote:
> "Khee Mao" <big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>can anyone link me to a site that will display the relative sizes of TVs
>>to each other? the numeric specs are tough to visualize...
>
>
> http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi
>
> Is this what you are looking for?
> Chip

The Cave creations site is a useful one. But the math is not that hard
for 4:3 (4^2 + 3^2 = 5^2) versus 16:9 (16^2 + 9^2 = 18.36^2). Screen
height for a 4:3 set is 0.6 (3/5) of the diagonal versus 0.49 (9/18.36)
for the widescreen.

The rule of thumb if you want at least the same screen height (and
thus size for 4:3 material) is to replace the 4:3 TV with a 16:9 TV that
is 1.2 times the diagonal dimensions of the 4:3 set. In short, replace
the 27" 4:3 with at least a 32" or 34" widescreen, a 32" 4:3 with a 37
or 38" widescreen and so on.

Alan F

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

<cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net> wrote in message
news:20050331160550.925$3M@newsreader.com...
> "Khee Mao" <big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> can anyone link me to a site that will display the relative sizes of TVs
>> to each other? the numeric specs are tough to visualize...
>
> http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi
>
> Is this what you are looking for?
> Chip
>
> --
> -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
> Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB


not exactly. I was looking for one that would show 2 different sized
rectangles, one for my current set, and one representing a newer set, so I
could gauge about how much bigger the new set would actually be...I
currently have a 27inch sd that sits no more than 11 xbox game case lengths
from my viewing location (I still have to look up what those measure), and I
wanted to see how much bigger a 34 and 44 inch widescreen would be...I guess
I'm more of a picture person.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

<mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112309910.615480.122680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Khee Mao wrote:
>> not exactly. I was looking for one that would show 2 different sized
>
>> rectangles, one for my current set, and one representing a newer set,
> so I
>> could gauge about how much bigger the new set would actually be...I
>> currently have a 27inch sd that sits no more than 11 xbox game case
> lengths
>> from my viewing location (I still have to look up what those
> measure), and I
>> wanted to see how much bigger a 34 and 44 inch widescreen would
> be...I guess
>> I'm more of a picture person.
>
> No matter how you put it, widescreen is smaller than fullscreen. (Hint:
> why do they call it fullscreen?) To be more specific:
>
> 15" standard nodebook is reasonably sized, while 15" widescreen
> powerbook is a joke.
>
> The widescreen movie on 27" standard TV is unbearable.
>
> The 100" home projection sceen is fantastic, while 100" widescreen is
> just an average size.
>
> If you think that theater-sized widescreen is impressive, then you have
> yet to see the IMAX.
>

I'm looking for something like:

++++++++
++++++++
++++++++
++++++++ =27 inch

++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ =34 inch

+++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++ =44 inch

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

<mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112312178.227003.119520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Note that widescreen and letterbox are wider, as adverticed. Do you
> care?
>


NO, I DON'T CARE, BUT THANKS FOR THE HELP ANYWAY!

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

The CaveCreations link is likely the best at giving what the relative screen
images will be based on diagonal size and aspects ratio. BTW, I went from a
27" tube to a 42" LCD at the same 8-9 foot distance and it seemed HUGE for
about 2 weeks. After another month or 2, I was thinking I could have gone to
a 50 incher. I don't think you can avoid effects of initial impressions and
the desenitization that comes from having the new set around for a while. If
need be, why not just make cut-outs of the relative sizes? I have heard of
people who do that when trying to figure out how to move a "big box" unit
down basement stairs, for example.

YMMV
--
"Sleep is a poor substitute for coffee."
- Anon

"Khee Mao" <big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news2hu3n$tl6$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>
> <cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:20050331160550.925$3M@newsreader.com...
>> "Khee Mao" <big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> can anyone link me to a site that will display the relative sizes of TVs
>>> to each other? the numeric specs are tough to visualize...
>>
>> http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi
>>
>> Is this what you are looking for?
>> Chip
>>
>> --
>> -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
>> Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
>
>
> not exactly. I was looking for one that would show 2 different sized
> rectangles, one for my current set, and one representing a newer set, so I
> could gauge about how much bigger the new set would actually be...I
> currently have a 27inch sd that sits no more than 11 xbox game case
> lengths from my viewing location (I still have to look up what those
> measure), and I wanted to see how much bigger a 34 and 44 inch widescreen
> would be...I guess I'm more of a picture person.
>

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 13:33:15 -0700, "Khee Mao"
<big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>thanks, Mike, that's actually a good idea. are you still wishing you went
>larger? if all goes well, I'll have a 44 incher about 7 feet off, which is
>a bit smaller (or further) than the thx recommendation (but still a lot
>better than 27"!)...I haven't looked much at the 50 inchers as I really
>don't want to spend more than $2000 unless I "have" to.

My JVC 52" was ridiculously huge the first couple of days. Pushed the
couch back to get another foot of viewing distance (9'). I thought for
sure I had gone overboard ... maybe the 42" would have been enough.

Now, I can picture a 61" at the same distance

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Alan Figgatt" <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LZOdnZeolc2rLszfRVn-oA@comcast.com...
> I got a 42" plasma and have had the same experience. I don't regret
> getting the 42" as part of the reason I went for the 42" (besides the
> extra $ for the 50" HD) as it is the largest size I can move around
> without asking for help from a neighbor. (It sits on a table stand). But
> sitting there I sometimes think how much better movies and HD would look
> on a 50" widescreen. Going for big screens with NTSC SD meant you just got
> a big fuzzy picture. But both DVDs and HD are a different kettle of fish.
>
> In a few years when I am ready to upgrade to a new HD flat screen set -
> be it LCD, plasma, SED - I expect I will go for a 50" to 55" 1920x1080
> wall mounted set - or even bigger. And likely will very rarely head out to
> a movie theater, if at all.
>
> Alan F


damn! everyone says they wished they'd bought bigger! you're not making
this any easier for me! I wish there was a website that would let you see
how big a set would be in a given room, argh!!!

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

<cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net> wrote in message
news:20050404184429.276$ng@newsreader.com...
> >
>> damn! everyone says they wished they'd bought bigger! you're not making
>> this any easier for me! I wish there was a website that would let you
>> see how big a set would be in a given room, argh!!!
>
> Why not make up a cardboard mock-up of the size you are thinking of
> buying?
> Chip
>
that's what Mike suggested, and is a good idea...the only trouble is finding
a piece of cardboard that big! too bad there's not a webpage that can show
you relative sizes

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

<cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net> wrote in message
news:20050404192359.282$0B@newsreader.com...
> "Khee Mao" <big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> <cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:20050404184429.276$ng@newsreader.com...
>> > >
>> >> damn! everyone says they wished they'd bought bigger! you're not
>> >> making this any easier for me! I wish there was a website that would
>> >> let you see how big a set would be in a given room, argh!!!
>> >
>> > Why not make up a cardboard mock-up of the size you are thinking of
>> > buying?
>> > Chip
>> >
>> that's what Mike suggested, and is a good idea...the only trouble is
>> finding a piece of cardboard that big! too bad there's not a webpage
>> that can show you relative sizes
>
> You COULD tape two or more pieces together to make one big one.
> I don't know what you mean by relative sizes.
> Chip
>
> --
> -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
> Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

relative to each other...a 17inch computer screen can't show the actual size
of a 44 inch tv...but it could show how large a 44 inch tv is relative to a
27 incher...will someone please start work on this?

unfortunataly, the only cardboard I have is a budweiser 18 pack! maybe if I
drank more, I could tape a few together!

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 15:07:02 -0700, "Khee Mao"
<big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Alan Figgatt" <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:LZOdnZeolc2rLszfRVn-oA@comcast.com...
>> I got a 42" plasma and have had the same experience. I don't regret
>> getting the 42" as part of the reason I went for the 42" (besides the
>> extra $ for the 50" HD) as it is the largest size I can move around
>> without asking for help from a neighbor. (It sits on a table stand). But
>> sitting there I sometimes think how much better movies and HD would look
>> on a 50" widescreen. Going for big screens with NTSC SD meant you just got
>> a big fuzzy picture. But both DVDs and HD are a different kettle of fish.
>>
>> In a few years when I am ready to upgrade to a new HD flat screen set -
>> be it LCD, plasma, SED - I expect I will go for a 50" to 55" 1920x1080
>> wall mounted set - or even bigger. And likely will very rarely head out to
>> a movie theater, if at all.
>>
>> Alan F
>
>
>damn! everyone says they wished they'd bought bigger! you're not making
>this any easier for me! I wish there was a website that would let you see
>how big a set would be in a given room, argh!!!
>
Read somewhere that seating distance for HD is 1.5 to 2 times screen
width. That worked for me. My screen width is 80" and seating distance
is 13'.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"klaatu" <blobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4pu351dngun11c627t51qjftu4vsvr7nl7@4ax.com...
> Read somewhere that seating distance for HD is 1.5 to 2 times screen
> width. That worked for me. My screen width is 80" and seating distance
> is 13'.


wow! that's a big tv! but you are still out of spec!!!

http://www.myhometheater.homestead [...] lator.html

I'm sure you'll have many sleepless nights over this

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Khee Mao wrote:

> <cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:20050404194106.229$nR@newsreader.com...
>
>>If you are referring to square inches, just do the math yourself.
>>You do know how to find the dimensions of a 17" or 44" screen, don't you?
>>
>>How about using some paper and tape the sheets together. Come on, now!
>>Chip
>>
>>--
>
> I was hoping for a more "hi-tek" solution...

Buy a couple of thin wooden sticks at the local hardware/lumber store
or art supplies store. I did this and marked off width and height of a
37", 42", 50" widescreen and laid them against my 10 year old 27" 4:3
CRT. Gave me a feel for how big the screen would be compared to what I
had. A drawback to the 37" was that letterboxed 2.35:1 movies would
still be rather small in my opinion compared to 4:3 material on the old
27" CRT. If you can't do the math, the web site posted earlier in this
thread will do it for you: http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi.

Alan F

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"klaatu" <blobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4ab651pchs82js8obivohponrua36klqdr@4ax.com...
> It's a front projector. I basicly kept the same screen height (44" )
> and just increased the width when I went from 4:3 to 16:9. It's like
> going to the movies every night.


God bless technology!