This would have made more sense if it factored resolution in. Now that HD is the norm it changes everything, is he going to see artifacts that close to a HD show?
I don't know - i'd liketo see the math
Oh also a video regarding PC moniter size would be handy too
i was going to get a 65 inch tv just because i wanted the biggest tv i can get.. after doing this i got 48 inches.. awsome.. this will save me a couple thousand dollars.. thanks..
you should have gotten the 60". unless you have seats in your living room with your knees touching the screen there is no way its a home theater experience. i bet you sit 6-8 feet back right? at that distance its just a tiny image in your vision. basically so small that most theaters wouldn't have seats far enough back to give the same impression.
thats completely wrong. such formulas were from the sd era. an 83"dlp at 5 feet doesn't fill your visual field. a 65"playingbluray has the same pixel density as a 27"playing dvd. meaning if you think that watching a 27" tv at 5 feet gives you ugly artifacts well you have eyes of an eagle. the reality is most can't afford a screen that is really too big for your room. at 7 feet a 42" is rather tiny in your visual field, hardly cinematic. perhaps the last row of the theater if you like that.
Yes this is true. My husband went of to buy one and he tried to tell me. That the size of our living room need a 60. Because the sale person said so. I went I got the 40. The sale person was not happy. I was. LOL
This would have made more sense if it factored resolution in. Now that HD is the norm it changes everything, is he going to see artifacts that close to a HD show?
I don't know - i'd liketo see the math
Oh also a video regarding PC moniter size would be handy too
roidroid 1 year ago
i was going to get a 65 inch tv just because i wanted the biggest tv i can get.. after doing this i got 48 inches.. awsome.. this will save me a couple thousand dollars.. thanks..
215RANDOM 1 year ago
you should have gotten the 60". unless you have seats in your living room with your knees touching the screen there is no way its a home theater experience. i bet you sit 6-8 feet back right? at that distance its just a tiny image in your vision. basically so small that most theaters wouldn't have seats far enough back to give the same impression.
omgwtfbbqstfu 2 years ago
thats completely wrong. such formulas were from the sd era. an 83"dlp at 5 feet doesn't fill your visual field. a 65"playingbluray has the same pixel density as a 27"playing dvd. meaning if you think that watching a 27" tv at 5 feet gives you ugly artifacts well you have eyes of an eagle. the reality is most can't afford a screen that is really too big for your room. at 7 feet a 42" is rather tiny in your visual field, hardly cinematic. perhaps the last row of the theater if you like that.
omgwtfbbqstfu 2 years ago
Yes this is true. My husband went of to buy one and he tried to tell me. That the size of our living room need a 60. Because the sale person said so. I went I got the 40. The sale person was not happy. I was. LOL
Tonks1967 2 years ago
1st view
narutoxgy 2 years ago