Solved! Is a 32" display better than 42" for 1080p

[rtindru]

1080p basically means 1920X1080 pixels in the display.
Now by crude math, this means that the pixel density on a 32" display will be higher than a 42".
We all know higher pixel density = better image.
Hence will a 32" monitor produce a sharper and better image than the 42" display?
Also extending that to a 50" plasma display, the image should be grainy considering the number of pixels remains the same.

I am pretty sure I am missing something...kindly help me understand.

Thanks

Indrajit

 

[daveyjane]

I think you got it about right. However, the larger set is for viewing from a greater distance, so there is a minimum distance from which these sets can be viewed. Shorter distances than the minimum will become intolerable and produce a worsening of the quality of the view. I buy the size set that puts me (in my local environment and its conditions) at that minimum distance, and that way I've got the biggest widest view without any degradation... There are many equations to satisfy the distance vs size question.
The other thing about buying a monitor (or tv) is the speed. P is twice i, and then there is Hz. 60,120, 240, each one doubling again the speed. So a moving scene will be sharper with more drawings per second.
Speed and density, viewing size and distance. + Color quality. That about does it.

note: a computer monitor and a good graphics card will go much higher than 1080p, making for a higher definition than the 720 and 1080 that is considered HD by today's standards. That, and a small set, and a close viewing distance and you've got the best definition that there is today. Then, of course, you will find a dearth of source material that is dense enough to actually max out your setup.

 

[anwaypasible]

besides.. pixel size can be changed.
ideally each pixel touches the next pixel to form a seamless picture.
overlap is bad and having gaps is also bad.

i like to think that the number of pixels remains the same and they simply shrink or expand the pixel size to fill the screen no matter what size it is.
therefore the details will remain exactly the same as long as color quality and sharpness are the same

you do lose some of the sense of realism if you are too close to large pixels.

 

[rtindru]

Thats kind of a catch... Lets consider a 24" and 42" 1080
By what you said the same picture will look much better on 24" than 42" at a close distance and thats sad.
The reason we go for the bigger display is the bigger size and life size pictures... if one has to move back to get same clarity then that destroys the purpose of the bigger screen right???

Also I did not get the part about the GPU producing a higher pixel density than 1080 on a comp.
Isnt that again limited by the max resolution of the screen??

Thankz for d replies

 

[anwaypasible]

i agree.. people purchase a bigger display to make things shown on the screen more life-size.

its not something that is necessary.. and i think such a thing wouldnt generally become a concern IF it wasnt for video games.
because there is a lot of zooming in and zooming out with regular video.

clarity is made up of ONE thing.
how many pixels you can fit into the size viewable by your eyeball.

if you have an 80 inch screen running at 1080p
BUT
you are so close to it that you cant see the edges and corners of the television..
you are missing pixels and will degrade your experience.

i know you might want to zoom in on a particular area.. but doing that without increasing the number of pixels will not allow you to see more details.
what details can been seen from 10ft away are almost the same details that you see with your face 1ft away from the television.

i dont think there is any reason you should have to move from 10ft away to 1ft up close.. if what you are looking at needs to be viewed with such detail, the camera person should have simply zoomed in on the object.

24 inches at 5ft away should be the exact same thing as 48inches at 10ft away.
EXACT same thing.
same number of pixels.. except those pixels have been enlarged.


if you really really want to play around..
i would suggest that you find a picture of graph paper and view it on the computer.
look at it at normal distance.
then use the zoom function of either your browser or picture viewer and make it double sized.. then step back away from the screen.

the idea behind this demonstration is to realize the space of the grids CAN remain the same size regardless of how far away you are.

kinda cute.. kinda fun..
should help determine a proper size television for viewing distance.

 

[rtindru]

Thanks for the clarification

And I do agree... I guess the LCD size depends on where my couch is relative to the TV.
Also now that I know this, I feel that larger displays are not worth the money.

I am gonna try the graph thing, But I do get your point about the pixels.
What I fail to understand is the fascination of the larger display when the ultimate experience is the same, only the distance matters.
Why do people crave huge 50" displays and pay mammoth sums of money for no special benefit.
Wouldnt a 24" display do?? At a closer distance?? and you can get many for the same price 😛 😛

Thanks again
Indrajit

 

[anwaypasible]

i can answer that fascination myself since i was one whom would grab the very front row at the movie theater.

realize that my choice of front row was in the main theater with the biggest screen available at the location.
you can see the room i am talking about here:http://www.classiccinemas.com/Content.aspx?page=17
the screen is where the gold covers are.. not the angled walls.

but the reason for being close is to have the ability to pan and scan because the entire screen wont fit into perspective without moving your eyes and head.
the detail wasnt increased.. but you could see further into the background if you chose to.
i would look around at the set being used when the acting wasnt drawing me into the story.
instead i would use the scene rather than the dialog.
yea.. i would listen to what they were saying to follow along.
but i dont really need to look at a persons face or body language to listen with my ears.

doing that, i have learned there is some scene by scene language.
its kinda like a drug.
you are someplace and then the new set really sets the mood for the new scene.

an easy example would be going from inside to outdoors.
once you go outdoors, you have the choice of making the street busy with vehicles or busy with people.
you can focus on the vehicles without adding much of the sidewalks.
place the camera at eye level or up higher to get the appropriate angle of the vehicles.

doesnt take a genius.. just takes desire.
you should know already that if the cars are pointed right at you because the camera is low enough that the headlights are pointed right at you (directly at you like a satellite)
you are going to get a feeling of danger and/or a desire to step out of the way so you dont get hit or run over.
having the camera up higher will make you feel safer, unless the camera is zoomed out and the street is busy with gaps between cars and people who are in the way and dont leave an escape route so you can run away from the street to avoid a vehicle.

indoors is quite the same thing.
you can have the room empty and minimal to give a sense of space.
or you can add shelves and tables and fill 'em up with a bunch of mess to provoke a different sense of calm.

one might think that an empty and minimal house is too clean and suggests that the person is too stupid to make any decisions.
perhaps they have problems with being organized and are simply avoiding those problems.

one might think that an overly cluttered house is too dirty and suggests that the person is too stupid to keep clean and organized.
perhaps they are not as busy compared to an empty house (because it takes time to build up clutter).

if you hold a ruler in front of your eyes and keep it at the same distance away from your eyes.. you can do the graph test and see that the lines are the same space apart.

the only difference is that the original image uses one pixel per detail to draw the image.
when you zoom in on it, you are using more and more pixels to draw the same detail.
of course that detail isnt going to change because the picture has already been taken and there is no new information.

but that is the key reason why they simply increase the pixel size rather than increase the number of pixels.
the best way to 'blow up' a picture is to 'blow up' the size of the pixel.

you will probably see quite a few different 'blow up' techniques that do not increase the size of the pixel.
these pictures will have lots and lots of dots .. which will look terrible.
they fill in the gaps between each pixel with a color.
sometimes that color can be changed manually.. other times it is preset.
generally they use an upper shade of grey because it doesnt brighten the picture and it doesnt darken the picture.
but you still see all of the grain and uglyness because the pixels havent been blown up enough.

i mean you can take an 8 inch by 10 inch photo and blow it up to 800 inches by 100 inches and it will look exactly the same except that it is on a bigger piece of paper.

if you stick your nose up to the 800x100 photo .. of course you are going to see something that doesnt make any sense because the resolution is low.
its like looking at a picture on the computer at full zoom.

to really burst peoples bubble.. take a ?? megapixel photo and view it on the computer.
if the photo doesnt have the resolution.. you wont be able to zoom in and maintain clarity.

you know when the camera is doing software trickery to your photos when you see the picture zoomed out .. then you zoom in and the details dont get any worse.
OR
if you are zoomed in and then you zoom out and the picture looks the same.

you should be zoomed in and then zoom out to watch the picture go from standard definition to high definition right before your eyes and you zoom out with the mouse or keyboard.

what about a video game?
the wall looks real when you are like 20ft away from it.
but
if you walk up to the walk and look closely, you will see that the wall really doesnt look good at all up close.
in fact, the picture doesnt even make any sense sometimes.

people want to be surrounded by the screen.
people want the images on the screen to be real life sized.
people want the images to be bigger than life sized.

the only exception should be when people sit closer or they simply do not care to benefit from the extra resolution.

24 inch screen from only 8ft away will start to degrade the superb detail.
doesnt matter what size the high definition television is.. if you move away from it, you will lose the ability to see the extra details.

i swear..
i have seen some 'high definition' video that looks like the same picture as viewed on a $1,500 CRT tube.

i have seen picture comparisons that try to compare 1080i .. 720p .. 480p
the validity of the benchmarks come into question because of focus and actual pixel count of the image used for comparison.
skewed is one thing.. but done wrong on purpose for consumer advertisement is different.

there was one that really says the difference between 480p and 720p is a small bump.
and then another small bump between 720p and 1080i

using that picture comparison.. you would be looking at the same old 420p amount of detail if the screen is too small.

its like going from a generic RCA crt television to a top of the line sony crt.
and it makes me laugh because there is more to be had than simply switching televisions.
some would say that not all of the pixels are getting to the screen on the RCA, which is why it doesnt look as good.

i'd say that if you are going to increase the amount of pixels .. you should actually see the upgrade for its full worth rather than handicap the results because of a bad decision.

thats like buying new tires for better traction but you dont fill up the tires with the proper amount of air to get all of the tread on the road.
half-hearted attempt..!