Search
Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

relative screen sizes

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Register or log in to remove
Anonymous

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

Alan Figgatt wrote:
> 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.

In other words, your 34" widescreen is as "big" as standard 27".
Anonymous

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

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.
Anonymous

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
Related ressources
Ask the community
Anonymous

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

Khee Mao wrote:
> I'm looking for something like:
>
> ++++++++
> ++++++++
> ++++++++
> ++++++++ =27 inch
>
> ++++++++++++++
> ++++++++++++++
> ++++++++++++++
> ++++++++++++++ =34 inch
>
> +++++++++++++++++++
> +++++++++++++++++++
> +++++++++++++++++++
> +++++++++++++++++++
> +++++++++++++++++++ =44 inch

Here we go:

Standard 50 inch
+++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++

Widescreen 50 inch
++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++

Letterbox 50 inch
++++++++++++++++++++++

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

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!
Anonymous

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
Anonymous

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.
Anonymous

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
news:D 2hu3n$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.
>
Anonymous

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

"MrMike6by9" <MrMike6by9@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:m5idnax-MskaNc3fRVn-jQ@comcast.com...
> 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.
>
>

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.

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 :) 
Anonymous

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

DaveR wrote:

> 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 :) 

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
Anonymous

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!!!
Anonymous

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'.
Anonymous

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.com/viewingdistancec...

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

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

"Khee Mao" <big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:D 2s8ab$ls3$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>
> 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.

You'll do fine with that. Then, in a few years when you are ready to get to
a newer set, you can see if you want a larger size. That is part of my
thinking. I've had this set about 18 months now.

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

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

>
> 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

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
Anonymous

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:( 
Anonymous

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

"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
Anonymous

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!
Anonymous

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

"Khee Mao" <big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <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!


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

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
Anonymous

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

<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...
Anonymous

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
Anonymous

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

"Alan Figgatt" <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:a9ydnc5RJrK3hs_fRVn-og@comcast.com...
> 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
>

I emailed Albert, the guy responsible for the calculator found on your link,
and he was agreeable to getting this content added. look for an updated
calculator soon!
Anonymous

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!
Register or log in to remove
 
Ask the community
Read discussions in other Home Theatre categories
!