• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

55 or 65 inch TV

M

maverick786us

2[H]4U
2FA
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
2,416
I like watching movie on big screen to feel mini theatre experience. My room is small. I cannot provide the exact dimensions of my room. But these pictures can give a rough idea.In the second picture I used Augmented reality to place a 65 inch TV on the wall. My TV will be connected to my Gaming rig using HDMI and I will be viewing movies at a distance of 7-8 feet while laying on the bed.
So what size should I go for?
 

Attachments

  • 655a16d5-c154-49a6-8bb7-37d1c98b762e.jpg
    655a16d5-c154-49a6-8bb7-37d1c98b762e.jpg
    75 KB · Views: 0
  • 31c89754-cadf-402c-b893-7b390c4315b0.jpg
    31c89754-cadf-402c-b893-7b390c4315b0.jpg
    163.8 KB · Views: 0
You have an actual augmented reality to "test" what 55 inch vs 65 inch would look like, in a room we do not have the dimension for... make sure to use the actual TV model full dimension and not just the screen itself if you want to be sure, compare the weight of the 55 vs 65 if you have mounting limitation, but otherwise you are pretty much the world best expert at which TV size you would prefer in that room.
 
Last edited:
Either. 65" vs 55" isn't as big an increment as some think. So, to me, it's up to "what you can get and at what price".

As for my house, we're happy with our now ancient LG 1080p 55" OLED.
 
Shoganai said:
I must wholeheartedly disagree.
Click to expand...
Me too, 1,293->1,805 square inch going from 55 to 65 inch TV (+40%) it is a massive difference, jump in visible surface tend to ~square the jump in diagonal... not just the 18% the number could suggest
 
LukeTbk said:
Me too, 1,293->1,805 square inch going from 55 to 65 inch TV (+40%) it is a massive difference, jump in visible surface tend to ~square the jump in diagonal... not just the 18% the number could suggest
Click to expand...
Yeah ... when I went from 55" to 65" (and now 75") it's been a night and day experience. And now I'm eyeing the 98" I keep seeing on sale at Best Buy, but it wouldn't fit on my wall anyway. 😭

pendragon1 said:
must be one of those guys that lies about what an inch is ;)
Click to expand...
Clearly. It's not the size of the TV ... it's how you use it.
 
maverick786us said:
I like watching movie on big screen to feel mini theatre experience. My room is small. I cannot provide the exact dimensions of my room. But these pictures can give a rough idea.In the second picture I used Augmented reality to place a 65 inch TV on the wall. My TV will be connected to my Gaming rig using HDMI and I will be viewing movies at a distance of 7-8 feet while laying on the bed.
So what size should I go for?
Click to expand...
If you're a tech/TV/movie person then always get the biggest you can afford that will fit or you will have buyers remorse and get the upgrade bug far sooner.
 
grifter_66 said:
If you're a tech/TV/movie person then always get the biggest you can afford that will fit or you will have buyers remorse and get the upgrade bug far sooner.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. There's also picture quality. There's always more accurate colors, brighter, better HDR, etc. coming next year. Unless you have a big budget or your room is small you're going to be balancing size vs. image quality, or at least you should be. Now that I've gotten used to OLED, a basic LCD isn't good enough no matter how large. You can get a low end 100" for $1300, but you'll pay more than that for a really good 65".
 
zandor said:
Not necessarily. There's also picture quality. There's always more accurate colors, brighter, better HDR, etc. coming next year. Unless you have a big budget or your room is small you're going to be balancing size vs. image quality, or at least you should be. Now that I've gotten used to OLED, a basic LCD isn't good enough no matter how large. You can get a low end 100" for $1300, but you'll pay more than that for a really good 65".
Click to expand...
That plays directly into the "afford" metric. Find the TV you want, buy the biggest you can afford that will fit your space.
 
If you’re going to be watching it from the bed then 65” as it looks like that overhang on the right blocks anything bigger and 55” from that distance would feel small.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Buy a $5 tape measure and find out the dimensions. Then you'll know!
Click to expand...
I used the iOS Measure app to determine the width of the area where the TV can be placed. In Picture 1, the space between the door and the AC is the section where I plan to mount the TV. In Picture 2, I measured this area, and it comes to 6 feet 5 inches. Pictures 3 and 4 show how the TV would look in that space using augmented reality. I will be viewing the TV while lying on the bed, from a distance of approximately 8–10 feet.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1036.jpeg
    IMG_1036.jpeg
    297.3 KB · Views: 0
  • IMG_1037.jpg
    IMG_1037.jpg
    111.3 KB · Views: 0
  • IMG_1034.jpg
    IMG_1034.jpg
    188.9 KB · Views: 0
  • IMG_1035.jpg
    IMG_1035.jpg
    195.8 KB · Views: 0
Looks like you have enough room for a 75" if you wanted to step up to that. I'm assuming that's a concrete wall so will hold the weight. If it's a TCL you're after, for the price I've heard they are good. Not Sony good (worse upscaling, may need colour calibration out of the box if you have that OCD like me), but then TCL will be making all of Sony's TV's soon anyway.
 
zehoo said:
Looks like you have enough room for a 75" if you wanted to step up to that. I'm assuming that's a concrete wall so will hold the weight. If it's a TCL you're after, for the price I've heard they are good. Not Sony good (worse upscaling, may need colour calibration out of the box if you have that OCD like me), but then TCL will be making all of Sony's TV's soon anyway.
Click to expand...
Budget was a major consideration for me. I couldn’t afford an OLED TV of that size from premium brands like Sony, Samsung, or LG, so I researched alternatives and found that Mini‑LED technology offers picture quality very close to OLED at a more affordable price. TCL, in particular, provides some of the best value-for-money Mini‑LED TVs in this segment
 
It's a very simple question of viewing distance. How far are you sitting when you typically watch it? The longer the distance, the larger screen you typically want.

I've owned a 65" C9 and ended up selling it because it was a bit too big for our current apartment (fine in the previous one). 55" would be ideal, but I'm using a 48" model since I already owned it.
 
kasakka said:
It's a very simple question of viewing distance. How far are you sitting when you typically watch it? The longer the distance, the larger screen you typically want.

I've owned a 65" C9 and ended up selling it because it was a bit too big for our current apartment (fine in the previous one). 55" would be ideal, but I'm using a 48" model since I already owned it.
Click to expand...
My viewing distance will not be less than 8 feet and not greater than 10 feet. I want to enjoy realistic effects while watching movies like Dune, monster movies where these objects look scary as if they are realistic.
 
Big screen is fun to watch. But I can only watch it while laying on the bed. While sitting on the chair, I feel stress on my neck in 5 minutes. Any suggestion?
What is your suggestion on the clarity? Do i need to make any changes in the TV and PC settings?
 
maverick786us said:
While sitting on the chair, I feel stress on my neck in 5 minutes. Any suggestion?
Click to expand...

Don't put the TV so high on the wall. You want the height of your eyes to fall in the middle third of the screen. The height of your monitor is a reasonable height for a screen you're looking at from a chair. It would probably be a comfortable height for watching in bed too. But you'd need to do something else with your monitor.
 
toast0 said:
Don't put the TV so high on the wall. You want the height of your eyes to fall in the middle third of the screen. The height of your monitor is a reasonable height for a screen you're looking at from a chair. It would probably be a comfortable height for watching in bed too. But you'd need to do something else with your monitor.
Click to expand...
Tilt adjustment or moving the TV 6-8 inch down will it work?
 
Last edited:
toast0 said:
Tilting the TV isn't going to help your neck. Maybe tilting your chair would. I don't think 8 inches is enough, but it might help a bit.
Click to expand...
I prefer to watch it while laying on the bed, it works. But sometimes, we as a family want to watch movie together, we will watch on chairs, that's where it will get complicated.
 
What model of TV did you get? Which size?

I would expect sitting at your desk and watching a TV at that distance mounted above your monitor to be unpleasant. It could be ok if you have a chair with a headrest that you can lean back in. Even then, better to move the chairs farther back so you're not tilting your heads up at the screen. You sized the screen to watch from your bed, right? So watching from a chair should be at about the same distance.
 
I've used gaming tvs on a slim "hutch" that is 16" x 48", or on freestanding tv floor stands, the type with a post/bar/spine and either a flat foot or caster wheels.

My desk and chair are also on caster wheels, so I can move things around a bit if I need to, but it's pretty constrained beyond where it is now since it's a small room and has another desk in it.

-------------------------------------------------------------

For central viewing of a screen, I stick to the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees. Any 4k screen, of any size, (or any 4k central portion of a 2160high ultrawide) , when filling that central 60 to 50 deg will get 64 to 77 PPD, and it won't push the side pixels off axis into your periphery on a 16:9.


field-of-vision-of-a-human-showing-the-binocular.2-images_small.png


Using that central viewing angle as my foundation, that requires these kinds of viewing distances below.

---------------------------------------------------

4k_human.central.viewing.angle_1.png


If you extrapolate that to 55" and 65" screens you'd see:

https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/

55" 4k screen at 60 deg to 50 deg viewing angle would be at ----> 42" to 51" viewing distance


65" 4k screen at 60 deg to 50 deg viewing angle would be at -----> 49" to 61" viewing distance

. .

That would mean at least a
~ +18" gap behind a 24" desk to hit 60 deg viewing angle at 42" view distance on a 55 inch 4k screen
~ +25" gap behind a 24" desk to hit a 60 deg viewing angle at 49" view distance on a 65inch 4k screen.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you sit much closer than that, you are seeing perceived pixel sizes more like what a desktop monitor at normal viewing angles would get on a ~ 1550p screen or worse. Imo 60ppd is a minimum for anything at this point, and with OLED if you are doing anything with text it would benefit from 70PPD+ or as high as you can get.

Sitting nearer than within the human central viewing angle, you'd also get off axis pixels on the sides, progressively more of the screen and to more extreme amounts toward the ends of the screen the nearer you sat.

screen.optimal.viewing.angle_flat.screens_near-and-far_1.png


That's why people who use three screen across typically turn the side screens (which would be in those highlighted side fields) inward to face them head on, so that the pixels are on axis directly facing them, avoiding larger uniformity and distortion issues.
Click to expand...


===========================================================


If I couldn't achieve that kind of human central viewing angle viewing of a 4k screen space due to room dimensions/layout/room design perferences, etc. - I'd opt for a smaller screen personally. I have a 48" 4k now and have considered a 55" gaming tv but it would really be pushing the limit, and would probably lower my PPD slightly if I can't manage to set it back any farther and were to have a 55" one at the same distance as the 48".


..............................
If you are only viewing a screen from far away, then most screens in typical "tv room" viewing layouts would not even fill that 60 to 50 degree viewing angle, so typically the larger the better. The caveat usually is that you can typically get a better PQ screen for a more reasonable price at 55" - 65" vs. getting a poorer PQ larger one at the same price (or spending a lot more for flagship PQ on a 77" - 100" screen).
 
Last edited:
pendragon1 said:
110"
Click to expand...
pendragon1 said:
well, then the 65". get as big as you can fit.
Click to expand...


I agree, but budget wise, you may have to balance PQ vs size. I have a 77" in my living room but 100" would fill my central viewing angle more. At the time the 77" was fairly costly, which I considered more than enough to spend on a TV. If I were to go 100" for the same price, it would have had much worse PQ.


The 110" is (technically) just about right for 7 foot viewing distance (optimally vs your human central viewing angle that is, if ignoring room feng sui, other furnishings and walkways, and other things). I'd rather a higher PQ on a somewhat smaller screen (55 - 65 in this case) for the money depending on priorities.

firefox_CasE2TtcGI.png
 
Last edited:
pendragon1 said:
you over complicating things, its just a tiny bedroom...
Click to expand...

yeah... I'd prioritize PQ bang for the buck with a reasonable size if it's a regular movie viewing scenario. My bedroom watching isn't much, so I just threw a 50" roku 4k in there.

.
 
Last edited:
Shoganai said:
Yeah ... I couldn't care less about the "rules" of TV watching. I get what I enjoy.
Click to expand...

It's not the rules, it's more about how human eyesight works. Like pendragon initially said, " 100 inch" , which would fill your view more from ~ 8' away while not grossly, and unnecessarily, going out of bounds of your (biological ~ human eyesight) central view. . It was a good intuition and on point imo. There's a lot more to consider about rooms and living spaces than filling your entire human central viewing angle though, of course, and 100" tvs are either ridiculously expensive or worse picture quality than a more reasonable sized screen, while a 100" screen would also likely compromise normal room usage and have layout issues. . With a smaller space and budgeting 55" to 65", his follow up , saying "65 or as big as you can fit" (and/or afford) also made sense to me.

.
 
Last edited:
elvn said:
It's not the rules, it's more about how human eyesight works. Like pendragon initially said, " 100 inch" , which would fill your view more from ~ 8' away while not grossly, and unnecessarily, going out of bounds of your (biological ~ human eyesight) central view. . It was a good intuition and on point imo. There's a lot more to consider about rooms and living spaces than filling your entire human central viewing angle though, of course, and 100" tvs are either ridiculously expensive or worse picture quality than a more reasonable sized screen, while a 100" screen would also likely compromise normal room usage and have layout issues. . With a smaller space and budgeting 55" to 65", his follow up , saying "65 or as big as you can fit" (and/or afford) also made sense to me.

.
Click to expand...
No thanks. I'll continue doing everything overkill and melting my face off via overstimulation of my sensory system.
 
pendragon1 said:
you over complicating things, its just a tiny bedroom...
Click to expand...
Yes, that bedroom will eventually be adjusted, the hutch and the dresser will go out, and that aquarium will take its place to allocates some space. All i want is to enjoy my gaming PC and mini cinema experience in my bedroom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top