There are always plenty of threads on here seeking advice on buying TV's. I have been doing a bit of reseach on buying guides, particularly being interested in choosing the right size for the room etc. I found a very informative site that gave these guidelines to the extent of mathmatical equations. :eek:

It discussed the distance from seating position, aswell as the height and also the tilt angle if you were to mount it on a wall. Aswell as being very informative, I found it slightly over the top.

How far have you gone with your set up?

Not very

Very commonsensical: here's a good spot for the sofa, there we can place an old piece of furniture that can act as a bench for TV, VHS/DVD etc, and there's the AC socket...

Oh, and SWMBO insists that the proper distance sofa - TV is found if you close one eye and keep your arm outstretched - then your fist should just cover the screen. I'm not the one to dispute that

I didn't really do any research on screen size as I had made my mind up that a 40" screen would do.

I did browse the avforums website for opinions on the sets I was interested in, although like most forums, you tend to hear more from people who have had problems or wish to air grivances. Also browsed review sites, viewed some sets in various shops (try and avoid the likes of Comet and Currys as they don't seem to have a clue) then, having made my choice, hunted on-line for the best price!

Ditto av amp and surround sound speakers.

I'm happy with the end result, although SWMBO says that it just looks like I've filled the lounge with boxes

The fist test is a good one apparently.

the fist should fit the viewable, from the furthest position, screen area nicely. Bigger is ok, smaller is bad.

My 32" is perfect based on this rule.

It depends. I haven't gone as far as I'd like, but that's more because of the physical constraints of my current house. I suppose I could black my lounge out with black velet and the rest, as the bright walls certainly have a negative effect on the picture produced by me projector

Next setup will probably be CIH with a true anamorphic setup for cinemascope stuff. Seating will be about 1.3 times the width of the screen. Speaker setup will be tweaked, calibrated. I'm not too bothered about all the THX mallarky as it's only really applicable to films which have the THX stuff anyway :P

Also toying with an IB sub setup after going over to see a now good friend on avforums. Check out Phil's grand designs review for Mark's Bat Barn here (I was the cameraman). I know bengie's already been there

I had a 3 stage process of scientific extrapolation to determine the perfect size TV for't room.

Stage 1 : get tape measure oot and determine what's the biggest size I could fit in the pre existing alcove next to Chimbley breast (46" came out bestest)

Stage 2 : OD on interbob reviews

Stage 3 : Price comparison is your friend!

My advice is to just go ahead and get a 42-inch plasma.

Don't get smaller, as you'll regret it.

You could go bigger, but it's likely unnecessary unless the room in which it will live is very big.

And don't bother putting it on a wall either, as it's always more relaxing looking at something on the same level as your eyes are when sitting on your sofa (or indeed below that level), than it is tilting your head back, or having to look up all the time.

Not wall mounting saves on innovative cabling 'solutions' to hide everything away, not to mention extra long HDMI, component and power cables etc that will be running to games consoles, mediaplayers, DVD players, Sky boxes etc.

Another thing to consider is that when you sprawl out on your couch, you don't want to tax your eyes by perpetually craning them ceilingwards.

Straight ahead is clearly the way forward.

And steer away from an LCD set unless gaming is your priority.

There's a lot of debate about viewing distances, but, from experience, I can tell you that I often sit two paces from my 42' Panasonic plasma and am as happy as a pig in a cloud of androstenone.

And why sit so far back that a fist at arm's length only fills the screen?

Might as well have a wee telly again.

You want to fill your field of view.

Works fine at the cinema, or Imax.

And here's something you don't often see written down...

If you go to the expense of forking out for a hi-def set (mine aint, it's an EDTV, but more of that later) then it's an idea to sit closer to it rather than far away, so that your eyes can actually resolve all that detail.

Another thing you don't often hear is that, if the majority of programmes you watch are not hi-def, then you are actually better off with an EDTV.

ED stands for Enhanced Definition and describes a picture that is Progressive rather than Interlaced.

Without wanting to bore you with tech, among other positive attributes, a Progressive picture seems to have almost double the vertical resolution.

Now, if you put a Standard Def signal into a 720p or 1080i/p hi-def set, then the TV's upscaler has to 'blow up' the picture to fit the screen.

While some upscalers are better than others, picture quality is always going to suffer... think zooming in on a digital picture... all that happens is that the pixels get bigger.

However, with a 480p EDTV, there is no upscaling, so no deterioration in picture quality.

In fact, when you play a DVD on an ED set, you actually get more picture for your money as 4:3 CRT sets of old can't generally show all the lines of picture that are on a DVD.

This is extra fine as your entire DVD collection looks better than ever and you need not upgrade all the films to Blu-Ray.

Before I bought my set I compared HD and ED Pannys side-by-side in my local Panny shop.

The result: with a Standard Def signal, the ED won hands down.

When a hi-def signal, I could hardly tell the difference. And that was at a viewing distance of two feet!

While the benefit of hi-def was apparent on rendered images, such a TV logos etc (smoother diagonals), when looking at anything it the natural world (faces, trees, all devoid of straight lines and diagonals etc) the two were indistinguishable.

Oh, and the hi-def set was £800 more, so, had I bought it, I'd have been paying a hefty premium for an inferior picture.

I think it is significant that the two Panny gents I was dealing with had ED sets.

Sadly, as far as I'm aware, only Panasonic did EDTVs (others may have done, but I never saw an example) and my TH42PD60 is no longer available.

But you never know!

When the majority of TV I want to watch is available in hi-def, then I'll consider a hi-def set, but that's going to be a few years away yet at least.

So, yeah, get a 42' plasma, a Panny if possible and a 720p one at that and a 1080i/p if there are no 720ps available.

And sit as close as you like, m'dear.

HTH.

Edited 24 November, 200817 yr by Mr Wobblytickle

And steer away from an LCD set unless gaming is your priority.

I much prefer gaming on my plasma than on the LCD I had before it, infact I'd go as far as so say it felt like I was playing a different game when I first fired up Bad Company on the plasma.

As for picture quality I really can't fault my Panasonic TH42PZ81.. no matter what source I've fed it.

As for picking the right size... I chose the largest one that would fit on the stand I have.

I've also found the PS3 gaming experience is much better on the Plasma than it was on the LCD, Bad Company and Burnout Paradise come out very well indeed

I've also found the PS3 gaming experience is much better on the Plasma than it was on the LCD, Bad Company and Burnout Paradise come out very well indeed

My sniping has improved no end.

If you have not already, have a look at AVForums.com Home

Viewing distance will also be affected by what sources you are putting through the panel. Standard Def Sky for instance will look rubbish on most screens if you have a big screen and are too close to it. Whereas it would look much better if you were 2 or 3 meters away as your eyes cant see the lack of detail.

IMO there is nothing wrong with having a screen on the wall providing its not too high and it is still a good distance away as then you only have to look slightly up at it. Again, too high and too close will mean kneck ache.

If you do get a screen to go on the wall then get one that has a seperate media box. This means that all your sources (dvd, PS3, Sky etc) plug into the media box and just two cables (power and from the media box) go to the screen. This means any cable hiding is much simpler.

Steve

This month's WhatHifi has a TV buying guide that includes guidance on what size set to buy relative to the distance from the sofa.

When the majority of TV I want to watch is available in hi-def, then I'll consider a hi-def set, but that's going to be a few years away yet at least.

So, yeah, get a 42' plasma, a Panny if possible and a 720p one at that and a 1080i/p if there are no 720ps available.

Agree with the above, I'm going for one of these for my next telly,

Panasonic TH42ph11. No built in freeview, no built in free-sat, not

even an analogue tuner, oh and no speakers. Why:confused:?

I have a freeview pvr, when I upgrade to free-sat I'll get a pvr,

as for speakers, in my opinion you should have an amp and seperate

speakers to do any big screen justice. My dad's got the predecessor

to the ph11 (the ph10) the build quality is infinitely better than any

consumer panel I've seen (including Pioneer Kuro).

Even with the added cost of terminal boards, at £760-£790 they're

good value for money.

As for viewing distances, used to be 2 and a half times screen size,

but as said by others with high-def as close as you like:)

I much prefer gaming on my plasma than on the LCD I had before it, infact I'd go as far as so say it felt like I was playing a different game when I first fired up Bad Company on the plasma.

Yeah, you and dstev2000 are right, plasma's the way to go for gaming too.

I remember now why I thought LCDs had the edge... I was in Toys R Us two Christmases ago and saw LEGO Star Wars on a 32' Bravia LCD and thought 'wow, that looks better than on my Panny'.

Now, however, I realise this was only due to the largely static backgrounds.

When things start to move, the slow pixel refresh rate makes things all smeary and not very nice, in the same way that LCDs butcher sports action.

All that said, though, you never hear of anyone wanting a plasma display for their PC.

Incidentally, exactly what is it you prefer about the way your plasma displays games?

As for picture quality I really can't fault my Panasonic TH42PZ81.. no matter what source I've fed it.

I don't doubt it, it's a cracking set

However, you would fault its SD performance were you to see it running next to 480p set.

An upscaled picture, by definition, is inferior to one that has not been upscaled.

No matter how accomplished the upscaler, new information has to be invented to fill all dem extra pixels.

This aint so on a 852 x 480 screen.

As for picking the right size... I chose the largest one that would fit on the stand I have.

Agreed.

Bigger is better.

I mean, if one of my livingroom walls could be turned into a display, I wouldn't say no.

The Difference Between HDTV, EDTV and SDTV

My advice is to just go ahead and get a 42-inch plasma.

Don't get smaller, as you'll regret it.

You could go bigger, but it's likely unnecessary unless the room in which it will live is very big.

And don't bother putting it on a wall either, as it's always more relaxing looking at something on the same level as your eyes are when sitting on your sofa (or indeed below that level), than it is tilting your head back, or having to look up all the time.

Not wall mounting saves on innovative cabling 'solutions' to hide everything away, not to mention extra long HDMI, component and power cables etc that will be running to games consoles, mediaplayers, DVD players, Sky boxes etc.

Another thing to consider is that when you sprawl out on your couch, you don't want to tax your eyes by perpetually craning them ceilingwards.

Straight ahead is clearly the way forward.

And steer away from an LCD set unless gaming is your priority.

There's a lot of debate about viewing distances, but, from experience, I can tell you that I often sit two paces from my 42' Panasonic plasma and am as happy as a pig in a cloud of androstenone.

And why sit so far back that a fist at arm's length only fills the screen?

Might as well have a wee telly again.

You want to fill your field of view.

Works fine at the cinema, or Imax.

And here's something you don't often see written down...

If you go to the expense of forking out for a hi-def set (mine aint, it's an EDTV, but more of that later) then it's an idea to sit closer to it rather than far away, so that your eyes can actually resolve all that detail.

Another thing you don't often hear is that, if the majority of programmes you watch are not hi-def, then you are actually better off with an EDTV.

ED stands for Enhanced Definition and describes a picture that is Progressive rather than Interlaced.

Without wanting to bore you with tech, among other positive attributes, a Progressive picture seems to have almost double the vertical resolution.

Now, if you put a Standard Def signal into a 720p or 1080i/p hi-def set, then the TV's upscaler has to 'blow up' the picture to fit the screen.

While some upscalers are better than others, picture quality is always going to suffer... think zooming in on a digital picture... all that happens is that the pixels get bigger.

However, with a 480p EDTV, there is no upscaling, so no deterioration in picture quality.

In fact, when you play a DVD on an ED set, you actually get more picture for your money as 4:3 CRT sets of old can't generally show all the lines of picture that are on a DVD.

This is extra fine as your entire DVD collection looks better than ever and you need not upgrade all the films to Blu-Ray.

Before I bought my set I compared HD and ED Pannys side-by-side in my local Panny shop.

The result: with a Standard Def signal, the ED won hands down.

When a hi-def signal, I could hardly tell the difference. And that was at a viewing distance of two feet!

While the benefit of hi-def was apparent on rendered images, such a TV logos etc (smoother diagonals), when looking at anything it the natural world (faces, trees, all devoid of straight lines and diagonals etc) the two were indistinguishable.

Oh, and the hi-def set was £800 more, so, had I bought it, I'd have been paying a hefty premium for an inferior picture.

I think it is significant that the two Panny gents I was dealing with had ED sets.

Sadly, as far as I'm aware, only Panasonic did EDTVs (others may have done, but I never saw an example) and my TH42PD60 is no longer available.

But you never know!

When the majority of TV I want to watch is available in hi-def, then I'll consider a hi-def set, but that's going to be a few years away yet at least.

So, yeah, get a 42' plasma, a Panny if possible and a 720p one at that and a 1080i/p if there are no 720ps available.

And sit as close as you like, m'dear.

HTH.

Couldn't have said it better myself, I have a 42'' 720p Panny plasma tv.......f'kin briliant

I found this site was quite good for those who want to understand the differences between Plasma & LCD:

http://www.plasma-lcd-facts.co.uk/home/

HTH

If you buy a large TV and sit only a few steps away, it will look very poor compared with a few meters. Even on HD.

Brother inlaw has HD service, and sit 2m away looks awesome. Sit less than 0.5m and the picture looks very grainy.

And his is a 42" Samsun with one of the best refresh rates and 30000:1 contrast ratio.

I bought What Hifi? yesterday and the best 37 inch TV is a plasma by Panasonic..Panasonic - ideas for life - Overview

I have a couple of questions. It is not full HD, merely HD ready. I myself am not even HD ready and our sky+ box is only a normal one. I have no idea on whether we will be upgrading to skyHD soon as I havn't investigated this. I don't want to be limited though.

Will this TV do the trick? I don't watch a lot of TV but Mr P does. I don't watch many movies and I don't really game unless I am able to steal games for the PS2 from unsuspecting willing parties that soon learn that it will indeed take months before they see them again.

So, really I am a normal TV user. I have read up on Plasma v's LCD and am happy with it being a plasma. My only concern is the fact that it is 1024x768 and the implications of this now and in the future for picture quality and limitations.

Any thoughts?

Edit....It has to be a 37 incher.

Edited 24 November, 200817 yr by pixi

Will this TV do the trick?

Yes.

It is a 720p, hi-def set.

Just like I recommended.

And as it's a 37-incher, and that's what you have specified, I think your search is over.

Further, to put your mind at rest, there are no implications, now or in the future, as regards picture quality or limitations.

And for the record, the resolution is in fact 1024 x 720. :P

I found this site was quite good for those who want to understand the differences between Plasma & LCD:

http://www.plasma-lcd-facts.co.uk/home/

HTH

Good site.

Read right through it and have come to the inescapable conclusion that LCD TVs are several orders of magnitude more evil than Nazi zombies.

And that's saying something.

Yeah, you and dstev2000 are right, plasma's the way to go for gaming too.

I remember now why I thought LCDs had the edge... I was in Toys R Us two Christmases ago and saw LEGO Star Wars on a 32' Bravia LCD and thought 'wow, that looks better than on my Panny'.

Now, however, I realise this was only due to the largely static backgrounds.

When things start to move, the slow pixel refresh rate makes things all smeary and not very nice, in the same way that LCDs butcher sports action.

All that said, though, you never hear of anyone wanting a plasma display for their PC.

Incidentally, exactly what is it you prefer about the way your plasma displays games?

There just seems to be alot more detail there and it's soo much quicker for FPS games like Bad Company. Nothing stopping you plugging your PC into your plasma so long as you can put up with the lower resolution.

I don't doubt it, it's a cracking set

However, you would fault its SD performance were you to see it running next to 480p set.

An upscaled picture, by definition, is inferior to one that has not been upscaled.

No matter how accomplished the upscaler, new information has to be invented to fill all dem extra pixels.

This aint so on a 852 x 480 screen.

That might be the case and I'm not doubting you here, but I wont to be changing TV again for a long time so I would rather have the full 1080P panel now, and there is plenty of 1080p material available. Not sure if it's the upscaler in the TV for the PS3 doing the work but I've had no issues watching divx avi's on my Panasonic, they still look better than freeview broadcasts.

Good site.

Read right through it and have come to the inescapable conclusion that LCD TVs are several orders of magnitude more evil than Nazi zombies.

And that's saying something.

And so the propaganda machine wins

Look at the site owners. Hardly impartial advice.

And so the propaganda machine wins

Look at the site owners. Hardly impartial advice.

A truth is a truth no matter who does spake it.

Are you an LCD sympathiser?

... you should have an amp and seperate

speakers to do any big screen justice.

Agreed.

I'm running a Denon receiver and Yamaha speakers with mine.

500 watts of floor-shaking, spatially expanded sonic seduction, so it is.

And kudos to you for escaping the pack mentality and wanting to go for a no-frills, but first rate, panel.