Both the manufacturers and the motion picture industry recommend much larger sized screens than one would think, claiming that it is much easier on the eyes. My viewing distance is 9 or 10 feet, and they recommend 50" as the minimum for that distance. I didn't believe it until I tried it, and I am definitely a convert. It is so much easier on the eyes with the larger screen size, and that is reason enough for many.
How Big is Too Big?
As the resolution has increased for video monitors, I have been using a 32" 1080 HDTV for a computer monitor, which seems to work just fine.
In fact, now that I am becoming a bit far sighted, I am wondering if I might even use a BIGGER HDTV for both cable TV and PC applications, streaming video etc etc.
Have any of you experimented with using one or more 1080 screens, 32" or more?
How about an array of screens - 40? 46?
Thanks for any ideas.
- ...
- 16 posts total
Learsfool You make a good point. A question I have always wanted to put to the forum is why do so many discuss the simple, screen dimension when it seems we should all be discussing screen size plus viewing distance which when combined might give a "perceived" screen size. A drive in movie theatre screen might look like a postage stamp from sufficiently far away, yet a notebook computer can create a cinematic experience if it is close enough to your nose. So instead we should discuss perceived screen size, and the factors that would optimize that viewing experience? I am not clear on why your set u would be easier on the eyes. What factors contribute to optimizing the perceived screen size? I work in a business where we are immersed in data and information constantly, might also monitor news and television on one or more channels, and have multiple PC applications, emails and IMs all open at the same time. So I am trying to configure an array that I can comfortably use for long hours every day. A final note, I am having an industrial designer help me suspend the montiors from ceiling brackets, so using 46" or even bigger monitors will not require a bigger desk surface, or affect how far away I must sit. Buconero, Yes, I am sure this is true and have found even two monitors or bigger monitors to be very helpful with respect to productivity. I believe microsoft also did some work to try and better understand what configuration(s) of multiple monitors best enhanced productivity. I am thus always surprised when people think it is over the top or eccentric to have more than one screen. Glad this is of interest to others. |
You can calculate THX recommended screen sizes here. The recommended screen size for a given viewing distance is often a lot bigger than you might think. I started with 42", then 50", now 60". Bigger is often better, and it's not just Freudian. Having said that, strictly following the THX guidelines can result, IME, in a screen size/viewing distance that allows you to see the limits of the image's resolution (i.e. pixels), which I find very distracting. So you have to let your eyes make the final judgment. |
Bryoncunningham Thanks for the THX calculator.... Not understanding all the viewing angle calculations, it seems: For a 55" screen, THX recommends 6.1 feet For a 46" screen, 5.1 feet For a 40" screen, 4.5 feet and For a 32" screen, 3.6 feet These distances are similar to my preferences and make sense to me for an immersive, cinematic experience. But it seems that most people sit significantly farther away from their screens that that. Maybe their parents told them it would make them go blind? Yet reason that an array of 46 or even bigger monitors might make sense for computing, despite being counterintuitive. |
- 16 posts total