Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best tv for couch browsing?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
July 12, 2011 6:13:31 PM

Hello,

What tv (LCD, LED or Plasma) is best for text (web browsing) from the couch (3m away)?

More about : couch browsing

a b x TV
July 13, 2011 3:07:28 AM

at the bare minimum for size i'd say get something that looks to be around the same size in your field of view that a normal pc monitor appears like. the farther back you sit the bigger it has to be. do some calculations yourself by walking back from a few tvs and seeing what size looks right.

as for ease of reading text, i've done everything from chaging sharpness settings, adjusting font settings, etc and i still say (in my opinion) that text is definitely harder to read on a "lcdtv" than on a "pc monitor". you might have to bump up the text sizes and internet browser zoom up 15-20% or so and put your windows zoom level to "large" to make things look easy to read. doing this doesnt affect things too much but definitely makes you squint less!

i'd definitely go with 1080p for the resolution and increased desktop real estate. 720p just doesnt give you enough to work with..however you could still make it work if you had to.

as for between ccfl lcd and led lcd (the only difference is backlighting) or plasma it all comes down to what you expect from a monitor. plasma leads the way with better contrast ratios but has a poor lifespan and the required service is expensive. lcd panels usually last longer but blacks can appear as dark grey. the difference between ccfl and led backlighting is minimal if the led is edgelit. the only noticible difference is when the panel has leds arranged in a grid behind the screen which turn off certain sectors completely resulting in an improved contrast ratio. it definitely looked to be worth checking out when i saw the display model.

its hard to suggest a particular model but hopefully the above ideas get you thinking in the right direction. i'm a huge sony fan so i tend to recommend sony products, and i can tell you that sony actually backs their products with accessible repair parts unlike alot of other manufacturers which make it very hard to get parts for (i know someone who used to be a tech).

good luck. happy hunting.
July 14, 2011 2:45:40 AM

Since Ssddx gave you a generalized opinion I will be more specific.

If you're going to use the internet, I suggest you purchase a 3D LED TV such as the LW5600, here are the reasons.

This model has one of the best 3D/ Smart TV interfaces out of the HDTVs. They also implement a wand-like remote which is very very simple to use. The reason why I state that you should purchase a 3D model is because of the quality it brings for the 2D. 3D LED TVs have a much better 2D image than regular 2D HDTVS. This is because the rendering of 2D to 3D requires more "hardware processing". You will also have numerous content to view with a 2D to 3D conversion feature equipped on this model. You tube is now showing 3D content as well as some other media sites. If you're going to use the internet on your couch, great content is a must have.

On a final note, the recommended viewing distance for this model is 8-10 feet (around 3m), perfect for you.
Related resources
a b x TV
July 14, 2011 11:08:04 AM

you do not require a 3D tv for 2D content. if the pixel by pixel resolution is the same then image quality will not be improved. the only thing that you really gain is a higher refresh rate (but most computer monitors run at 60hz anyways) so this is negligible. extra post processing while it might sound good also might change the image in a bad way also. typically i just adjust settings through the video card and leave the onboard (tv) settings at default or off.

the only reason you might want a 3d tv is for 3d content.

@vgaladlo, i'm not saying anything against your suggestion (since it would be viable) i just wanted to mention a few other comments to the op.

if you need any more information op (original poster) please let us know.
August 8, 2011 9:26:38 AM

I actually agree with vgoladlo because I also read an editor's review called HDTV buying guide, saying that he ended up looking at 3D TVs even though he had no interested in 3D at all. He pointed that as he narrowed down his options, he discovered that the best 2D TVs were the ones that had 3D capability. In other words, all the high-end HDTVs are mostly 3D capable. It is almost impossible to find the 2011's TV models that are not 3D ready these days.

He also indicated that 3D TVs have to have better picture quality due to its purpose to display good 3D pictures, which make sense to me also. I think 3D TVs that have the same pixel resolution as regualr TV are better overall. 3D TVs have higher picture quality and higher refresh rates; as a result you get a clearer and brighter picture without any motion blurring. Plus you get a variety of cool features that you can enjoy.

I say 3D TVs are not just for 3D contents. 3D TVs have their advantage to show both 2D and 3D pictures, and the ability to show 3D pictures are one of their many great features. I think there is no reason for you to reject the 3D TV from your choice because of the biased "3D TVs are only to watch 3D" It is one of TVs feature and you can always turn on and off this feature when you want it or not.
August 8, 2011 11:44:06 PM

ssddx said:
you do not require a 3D tv for 2D content. if the pixel by pixel resolution is the same then image quality will not be improved. the only thing that you really gain is a higher refresh rate (but most computer monitors run at 60hz anyways) so this is negligible. extra post processing while it might sound good also might change the image in a bad way also. typically i just adjust settings through the video card and leave the onboard (tv) settings at default or off.

the only reason you might want a 3d tv is for 3d content.

@vgaladlo, i'm not saying anything against your suggestion (since it would be viable) i just wanted to mention a few other comments to the op.

if you need any more information op (original poster) please let us know.


maybe you could consider the shape, size, or the orientation of the pixels .. IF they are any different than a completely generic standard for 2d televisions.


i could imagine the pixels being re-arranged for 3d and thus those pixels are a bit easier to read the text.
but
i think it is only logical to represent the screen size as the biggest problem.
it is very VERY true.. browsing the internet on a television from 6ft or more away ... the text gets very very small.

people really dont realize it but..
sitting 2-3ft away from a 19inch computer monitor ... the screen takes up 50% of your vision.
to do that from a couch.. you would need a screen that takes up the entire wall from ceiling to floor.
i really dont think most people can actually sit back far enough for a screen that size.
and
i really dont think most people can sit up close enough to make a smaller screen size work.


you really need to consider a chair that can be moved closer for internet and moved back for movies (or regular sitting).

i find it a bit hard to hear about people trying to use the television for a pc monitor when the screen size is anywhere from 36 inches - 52 inches.


here is some ugly truth..
for every 1ft you move backwards.. the screen size needs to be increased 50% - 100%
so..
if you have a 19 inch screen and usually view from 2ft away ... you could try to squint and ruin your eyes at 3ft .. or you could add another 10 inches to the diagonal measurement.

another 1ft away from the new 30 inch monitor ... now you need another 15 inches of screen space.
another 1ft away from the new 45 inch monitor ... now you need another 23 inches of screen space.

5ft away and your screen size is already 68 inches !!

another 1ft away from the new 68 inch monitor ... now you need another 34 inches.

6ft away calls for a 102 inch screen .
and these are the bare minimum increase increments to keep you from totally squinting.
that doesnt even begin to really help with over-sized text that you simply cannot help but read.

i think it is absolutely stupid for anybody to be reading a 19 inch screen from anything more than 2ft. away.
i usually lean it to make it clearer.
and my resolution is at 1024x768
i have used 1280x960 ... but the resolution makes the text very small and i had to lean in most of the time.



there is a method to the madness.
televisions come with their own programs to browse a limited portion of the internet.
these software applications have bigger text to make it easier to read the menus.
but
really these applications are for reading enough words to pull up a video or a picture.
they are NOT for going to a forum and reading .. or pulling up an information article and reading.


if you think you are going to be 6ft away and reading from a 102 inch screen with the default text dot per inch ... i'd say you are inexperienced.
that resolution is way too high for a desktop unless you make everything bigger.
and then all of your icons might look ugly because they were never ment to be stretched out that far.

sometimes it is simply better to decrease the resolution and let the television scale the picture to the edges of the television.
1024x768 has been the standard for 4:3 monitors.
so..
i dont see why 1024 would suddenly lose its rank as standard.
as a matter of fact..
some of the websites are getting smaller again, and that means 1024 might be too high because everything is small and smashed together.

just have a look at the visual difference between yahoo's website/homepage and msn's website/homepage.
the words are about the same size.. but at least msn put plenty of spaces around the words?
i think msn could have zoomed in their text to finalize a point.

because this is the point..
your webpage can be as big or small as you want it to be.
a lot of website designers dont want ANY scrolling left to right.
and the rest of the designers dont want massive amounts of scrolling up and down.

it is more pleasant to see all of the left/right information without needing to scroll the website.
but
16:9 is the standard aspect ratio.. i think you are either coming up short on the sides
or
scrolling up and down is going to be something that is forced upon the readers.


something else you should be able to see easily..
msn's headline is much bigger than yahoo's
that means less leaning in for some details.

when the crt monitors get phased out.. there will probably be some bit of standardization changes for the website layouts.
i am willing to bet all of the sidebar ads are seriously going to be met with some 'get out of my useable space' mentality.
and that means those ads are going to be hovering over the website somehow as a daily occurance/regular placement option.

how annoying is it to get slapped in the eyeball or face by a floating ad while you are reading a paragraph or sentence?
it means those advertisements are going to grow an even bigger need to load faster.
as it is now.. a lot of websites are slow loading or responding.. simply because the advertisements are impacting performance.
turn 'em off and some webpages are back to loading as fast as lightning.
while other websites seem to have a dedicated spot in the loading script for the ads to load.. and if you turn them off, the website still hiccups (only faster this time).


please dont over-work your eyeballs trying to read small text.
there are a number of different ways to make the text bigger.

-decrease resolution
-increase the desktop dpi
-use the operating system magnifying glass mouse
-get a bigger screen
August 9, 2011 7:06:54 AM

This is fabulous information.It will surely help me to buy a TV.
!