One of the more curious orthodoxies of home theater is that big is automatically better, and those of us with smaller TV sets (i.e. sub-42") are supposedly not really fully paid up members of the club. What can we possibly see on those teeny tiny sets? Well, a better picture, for a start - assuming my calculations are correct (let it be said in advance that mathematics is not my strongest skill). If we look at pixels per inch, then a 32 inch set with 1366x768 has 49 PPI, whilst 37, 42 and 52 inch sets with 1920x1080 have 60, 52, and 42 PPI. In other words, the resolution of the screen in PPI rises from 32 to 37 sets and then declines, so that at 52 inches or above, the PPI is actually lower than the supposedly 'not really good enough for HD' 32 inch set (which, to add insult to injury, has a 1366x768 rather than 1920x1080 screen). And a 42 inch set, supposedly the barely acceptable entry point, is only marginally better than a 32 inch and markedly inferior to a 37 inch. Now I immediately acknowledge that a large screen has a bigger 'wow' factor when you first enter the room, but if you are sitting the recommended distance back from the screen for the given screen size this really shouldn't matter as the retinal image should be more or less the same. But the level of detail in the picture will not be. [I also agree that if you move from screens to projectors, the loss in detail is offset by the huge increase in the picture size, but that is a different story]. So why should we assume that big screens are the only correct route into high definition TV, and those of us with smaller screens are missing on all the extra details and refinements that high def can bring. Surely it's the reverse? Note I'm not setting this up in a combatitive mood - I'm genuinely curious about this, and if I've got the mathematics wrong, I'm more than happy to be corrected.