42 3.5ish here to. It’s fine, I don’t really care and it’s only that big because it’s inherited. Wouldn’t go bigger but would defo go thinner or bezel-less

It’s wall mounted over a nice mid century modern teak lump and some nice plants and a 50′ Anglepoise.

It’s perfectly fine, sound could be improved.

Also a projector which just feels fantastic to watch in a movie type way. Seriously tempted to create a cinema in the basement. Complete with retro seats etc.

Sure, but it’s not OLED so I don’t really know how you can bear to watch it.

Because I haven’t watched an OLED telly yet 🙂

I can’t believe I’m saying this but you lot all need bigger TVs. Or knock down your houses and rebuild. You’re way too far from your screens. For a 65″ you want to be about 2.5m away.

looking at a 48” LG Oled but not sure if the picture would be any better than the panny on a normal HD signal when set up at home

If it’s the C-series then that’s what we’ve got and it’s really, really good. I wasn’t convinced by the whole OLED thing when I found out we needed a new telly but I was wrong. Granted it’s twice the price of the equivalent LED but it’s worth it.

I can’t believe I’m saying this but you lot all need bigger TVs.

Those charts are clearly nonsense.

At 3m UHD on a 65″ is a night and day difference. Those charts say it isn’t worth it, must buy bigger. Rubbish.

Dunno where you got that chart from but it is radically different from most advice, including from the makers themselves. About 1.5 x the diagonal size is a good rule of thumb for viewing distance. About half that for 4k

I sit 3-3.5m away from a 55″ UHD and can easily tell the difference to 1080p

Still have a 50″ Pioneer Plasma 507XD which is about 18 years old and was about the best of its time. Still a superb picture and will replace only when it packs up. The bezels are huge, so a 65″ probably would not really look any bigger.

Dunno where you got that chart from

Science apparently…

https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship

It isn’t science though, it is marketing.

Gut instinct coupled with 1st hand experience leads to my opinion that it is nonsense.

but it is radically different from most advice, including from the makers themselves.

Well they’re hardly going to suggest you need to buy a smaller, cheaper TV are they?

Well they’re hardly going to suggest you need to buy a smaller, cheaper TV are they?

Well they kind of are, in the sense that people with smaller rooms will buy a smaller tv, based in a reduced viewing distance, if they follow the advice.

50″ Pioneer Plasma 507XD

My 42″ Kuro HDMI circuit was fried by lightning strike. The insurers replaced it with a Samsung LED. Curiously, when I asked if I could buy back the Pioneer, it had errr disappeared. Best image on a flat screen. They lost money on every one and eventually sold up to Panasonic. They also still fetch very good money used.

I wonder if those charts are simply out of date. They’ve been doing the rounds for ages now and screen technology is constantly moving on. What is “worth it” today might not have been worth it several years ago?

“Worth it” is woolly anyway. Worth it how? Merely “can tell the difference between resolutions”? Assuming perfect vision?

Science apparently…

The first chart says that a 1080 65″ is just about worth it. If you are 4m away, you need bigger than 65 or just stick with an old crt

The second link puts you just over 2.5 m from a 65″ . Which is what I said originally.
Two totally different things.

@cromolyolly – The first chart is on the second link…

Apologies for not posting the link in the first place rather than an out of context image…

*MUST TRY HARDER*

I wonder if those charts are simply out of date.

Yeah, it says in the article, everybody has different perceptions in their eyes.

I think the 30-40 degree field of view thing is probably the best to go on.

Oh, its totally about viewing angle. Otherwise, move closer to your tv until you start to notice pixelation effects. Move back an inch. Presto!
That would put people of average visual acuity at a distance that will necessitate more eye/head movement so take in the whole screen than will be optimal, though.

You’ve got to ask yourself if you put a pallet down, which size would the general public tear each other apart over. That is the correct size even if you have to knock a wall down.

Remember the heady days when 42 was enough and getting your hands on a Blaupunkt was worth knocking a women out for, getting two was a measure of the man you are. How far we have come people fighting over the last packs of bog roll!

The good old days…..

Remember the heady days when ̶4̶2̶ Colour was enough and getting your hands on a ̶B̶l̶a̶u̶p̶u̶n̶k̶t̶ Furby/Cabbage Patch Doll/Tickle me Elmo was worth robbing someone for

Ftfy.

IIRC those charts were designed for viewers with average eyesight back in the day.

The OP didn’t mention if he’ll be viewing a lot of 4k but you do need to consider the screen size and viewing distance versus resolution. I’ve seen plenty of TV setups where the viewing position is too far away to benefit from the maximum resolution available.

My TV is a 14yr old 37″ Sharp thingy with a 1024 x 720 resolution, so I’m suffering severe TV envy, but as above, it won’t break and I’m reluctant just to chuck it on a tip.

(But the TV is hooked up to a massive 5.1 audio system 👍)

Living in Canada, the regular TV/cable channels are utter shite so no real incentive to “watch TV” and everything we watch is streamed. I’m curious as what sources people use for these huge 8k TVs?

Even though I have a nominal 300Mbps internet connection, I rarely get that and a much slower connection when connecting to a VPN. What sort of demand do these TVs have on bandwidth, or rather, how do they handle poor bandwidth? Presumably, they can’t supply 8k quality when bandwidth is low…

I’m sat here watching a film on Sky 😂 in UHD.

My connection is showing a measly 7.65mbs at the moment

The Gadget show tonight – Channel 5, 7pm is testing 3 entry level short throw home cinema projectors.

Even though I have a nominal 300Mbps internet connection, I rarely get that and a much slower connection when connecting to a VPN. What sort of demand do these TVs have on bandwidth, or rather, how do they handle poor bandwidth? Presumably, they can’t supply 8k quality when bandwidth is low…

When you look at the suggested or minimum internet speeds for some of the streaming services, there is some serious compression happening. Which should affect picture quality, more so at higher res. Of course given the lack of content above HD, there is some serious upsampling happening which should affect picture quality moreso at higher res.
So…..

Kind of annoying that TVs went from 1080 to 4k, as above actually getting 4k over a stream is tricky, and the TV will usually have to compensate via some sort of scaling.

Why did they never do 1440 resolution TVs? I guess it’s not a big enough jump in resolution for marketing purposes.

4k is double 1080, so it probably makes it a lot easier to neatly upscale 1080p than 1440 would.

Thanks all for the comments – who knew that TV size stirred such strong feelings! We came to terms with the living room mainly being used as a tv room long ago 🙂

I took the advice of one of the posters above and did some trig to work out how close to sit to my existing 50 inch telly to simulate the field of view of a 65 and 70 inch tv….. my conclusion was that both would be fine!

It is still to be discussed with my wife, but I suspect we’ll go with the old adage of go large or go home. For what it’s worth we mainly watch netflix, amazon, or iplayer – a mix of 1080p and 4k.

About 1.5 x the diagonal size is a good rule of thumb for viewing distance. About half that for 4k

Jeepers – so according to that I should be 5ft away from mine – thats ridiculous.  My eyesight is not fabulous and I can see it perfectly fine from 3 times that distance.  I would need to wear my reading glasses sitting that close and couldn’t see the whole screen properly without moving my head

TJ, we’ve known for years that you have Tunnel Vision.

My TV is an old skool, 1080p LCD..37 inch I think.

My next TV, will have to be a bit bigger than that but will be OLED even if that means a slightly compromising on screen size, something aroud 50 inch will be planty big enough for me.

My eyesight is not fabulous and I can see it perfectly fine from 3 times that distance

I can see my neighbours 75″ just fine from my living room. It’s not a good viewing distance though. Which reminds me, I must remember to pop a note in reminding him to close the curtains when he’s watching *those* films.

would need to wear my reading glasses sitting that close

You need a new prescription, or a new measuring tape. Reader vision is less than 18″.

couldn’t see the whole screen properly without moving my head

Either Cougar is right (f me, did I just say that?) and your visual field is unusually narrow, or you haven’t tried it. Try the math for a 30° angle for regular tv, 40° for a movie. You should be able to take in the whole screen without much eye movement.
You just might like it.

Thanks all for the comments – who knew that TV size stirred such strong feelings!

New here? Coffee, beer, brewdog, 29ers, LLS, gravel, downcountry, tyres. Wars have been fought for less on here.

Reader vision is less than 18″.

It really isn’t you know.  OK 5ft is an exaggeration but the older you get the the more you need readers even at distances over 18″  I even had a pair specially made for reading at 30″ for work

or you haven’t tried it.

I did actually try it – its far too close for comfort both eyestrain and head / eye movements

Utterly absurd

Utterly absurd

Wait, is it a PAL crt?

I sit 3-3.5m away from a 55″ UHD and can easily tell the difference to 1080p

you’re probably not seeing a difference in resolution. When your streaming service of choice gives you a full hd feed with about 5mbps of data. That’s no-where near enough data to push a clean full hd picture, so its full of artifacts – to put it into perspective a blu-ray pushing full hd is somewhere around 50mbps of data.

When you ask for uhd, your streaming service ups the pipe to significantly more – around 20mbps. a lot of that increase in bandwidth is the extra pixels, but there’s also a lot more picture data there generally – so the artifacts are basically 1/4 the size, and much less noticable.

tl:dr. put a 4k bluray on, watch it, then force your player to output 1080p and watch a bit more, its pretty much impossible to tell the difference.

I actually agree with TJ. Bloody hell

How one sorts the feng shui of a massive TV and a wood burner with two focal points in the room has not come up yet. I am disappointed standards have slipped so far.

The old french clock artist 🙂