55" or 66" WS HDTV at 13 feet?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Pete Jennings, Apr 4, 2001.

  1. Pete Jennings

    Pete Jennings Second Unit

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 1999
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello!
    I'm considering buying either a Mitsubishi WS-55807 or a WS-65807 Widescreen HDTV in the next few months. My wife wants the 65" one pretty bad, but I'm a little unsure (what a switch!). Our room fill fit the monster 65-incher OK, so dimensions are not the problem. What I'm wondering about is the couch to the side of the sweet spot. It is perpendicular to the television, measuring about 6' to 13' away. My two primary recliners are about 13' back from our present little 'ole 27 inch Sony, and I guess distance would be OK for the 65" Mits. But what about the poor people on the couch? Will the 65" be too much? I think my requirements are to be able to watch it from between 7 and 13' away.
    Any suggestions?
    Thanks!
    Pete
     
  2. Pete Jennings

    Pete Jennings Second Unit

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 1999
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, I forgot to mention, I watch about 10% NTSC, 60% DirecTV and 30% DVD.
    Thanks again!
    Pete
     
  3. Richard Driskill

    Richard Driskill Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2001
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Pete,
    Each manufacturer will have slightly different minimum viewing distances in reference to their particular screen size. As an Example: my 64" HDTV requires a minimum of 8' between the screen surface and the closest set of eyeballs. In my particular arrangement, my screen surface is 10'-9" from the closest set of eyeballs (center seat), with the seating speading out sideways from that point in both directions for 7'-6" (total seating 15' wide). No one gets "gypped" on the view and 7-8 people can watch at the same time.
    6' (for the close end of the side couch) is probably going to be too close (with a 65' set, I'm thinking 8'-3"), and the persons sitting there will be looking off at a (severe?) angle, not the most comfortable position. How about swapping the postion of the side couch with the 2 recliners? The couch can only be fix in one direction, but the 2 recliners can be vectored toward the set, and if need be withdrawn or re-arranged when necessary.
    I still agree with your wife, buy the bigger set (65") and become creative in solving the problem. (which "DUH", is what your asking about here!) [​IMG]
    At least you have some time to get creative feedback here.
     
  4. Jeff Stabell

    Jeff Stabell Auditioning

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2001
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just got the WS65807 and I love it..I wish I had your problem, as my wife belives it is TOO wide...
    Anyway I sit back 12 feet to my primary chair. I have seen the figure of 3x the screen heighth for proper distance. On the WS65807 at a SH of 32" this makes it 8 Feet. (A 55" WS55807 is 28" high = 7' back). If you got the wife to go for the 65" go for it!
    For comparison my old 50" 4:3 oshiba is right at 30" Screen Heighth..
    -Jeff Stabell
    Walled Lake, MI
     
  5. Pete Jennings

    Pete Jennings Second Unit

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 1999
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the replies!
    Richard, that couch is not about to replace my recliner in the sweet spot!! [​IMG] I guess if I position the RPTV a little more over to the right, centered on MY chair, it'll take some of the severe angle off the viewers seated on the couch. The negative aspect of this is it'll effectively make watching a movie unrealistic from the couch seat closest to the RPTV. The other two couch positions might be OK however. I could use this to my advantage (like in the Miller Lite commercial), He who brings the best gifts will get the best seating position!
    I'm leaning to the 65", but I'll probably spend a lot of time at viewing distance in Sears making sure this is acceptable.
    Thanks again for the replies!
    Pete
     
  6. AllenD

    AllenD Second Unit

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2000
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pete,
    I'm 13' away from my 65807 and watch cable. Your DirecTV will look good from where you're sitting. As far as the poor people on the couch, tell them to buy their own HD set if they don't like the pic. [​IMG]
     
  7. Eric Lipp

    Eric Lipp Agent

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 1999
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pete,
    One thing I want to address about your comment "I'll spend a lot of time viewing it at Sears."
    I just got a 56" 16:9 tv with about an 8' viewing distance.
    Viewing that thing in the showroom is NOTHING like viewing it at home. The large showroom floors, high ceilings, etc... It just doesn't look the same.
    After I ordered the 56", I kept thinking, "I wonder if I should have gotten the next size bigger."
    Now that it's installed, HOLY COW! There's no way the next bigger size would have worked in my space.
    Just something to think about. The much large open area of a showroom floor make things deceiving.
     
  8. Steve Shubick

    Steve Shubick Auditioning

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2000
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd go for the 65". Yes, it will look much, much bigger in your house than at the showroom, but your viewing distance is plenty for the larger screen. Bigger is truly better. Of course, bigger also means that the relatively poor picture quality of NTSC and DirecTV is accentuated. I had a 55" RPTV, and DirecTV was OK. When I moved to a FPTV and the image size became 85", DirecTV was just about unwatchable.
    However, I just switched to the Panasonic HDTV STB and it upconverts the SDTV (to 1080i) so well, I'm watching more sat than ever on the big screen.
    ------------------
    Steve - -
    Visit my HT at www.thecitycinema.com
     
  9. Pete Jennings

    Pete Jennings Second Unit

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 1999
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a rather large living/dining room with a 16' vaulted ceiling, about 17' wide and 23' deep. The effective seating area in this room, due to a walkway and dining table, is about 13' x 13' pushed to one side, with the usual fireplace ruining one wall. [​IMG] I was in Sears earlier today, and I noticed that it "seemed" easier for me to take-in the widescreen from 6' to 8' than a standard 4x3 with the same approximate (65") screen size. The 4x3 seemed VERY tall, and harder to focus on. It actually seemed intimidating from 6' to 8'. The 65" Widescreen Mits actually seemed easier to me to focus on from a relatively close distance, since the screen itself wasn't so tall, just wider. Am I delusional?
    I'm kinda leaning to giving up the one seating position on the couch closest to the RPTV if necessary, and I think due to the vaulted ceiling maybe the RPTV won't be quite as overwhelming size-wise. My room isn't as wide as Sears, but my ceiling is certainly higher!
    Altough the 65" screen size is probably perfect from my two recliners 13' back, I would like to at least provide a enjoyable watching experience for the occasional guest. I appreciate all of your replies, and do not consider this a closed matter.
    Thanks!
    Pete
     
  10. MickeS

    MickeS Producer

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    5,058
    Likes Received:
    1
    "I would like to at least provide a enjoyable watching experience for the occasional guest."
    Good. I don't even have a big TV, but one of the points of it, to me, would be to invite people over to watch sports and movies. Nobody will come if they know they will have to sit off to one side with a terrible picture. [​IMG]
    /Mike
     
  11. Richard Driskill

    Richard Driskill Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2001
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pete,
    You wrote:
    ....The 65" Widescreen Mits actually seemed easier to me to focus on from a relatively close distance, since the screen itself wasn't so tall, just wider. Am I delusional?....
    Answer:
    No, you are not. The 16 X 9 (1.78:1) aspect ratio was selected for a specific reason. It's the most natural aspect ratio for beings with stereoscopic vision.
     
  12. Pete Jennings

    Pete Jennings Second Unit

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 1999
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for all the replies guys! After turning it over and over in my tiny little mind, I finally picked up a Mits 55807 up from Sears for $2865 including tax and delivery (no interest until May 2001).
    When it came right down to it, the 65807 was simply too tall for my needs and tastes. I compared it to other 16x9 sets and I don't think any other manufacturer makes a set this size that is so tall. I spent hours at Sears and a local Hi-Fi shop, and decided I didn't like the viewing angle. My eyes are at 38" while I'm viewing television. The center of the 65807 is at about 44". I felt that the 55807 was easier to watch at about 36". I would rather look slightly down than up.
    The added 10" of cabinet height also would have affected the imaging of my front three speakers, since it would have moved the center channel tweeter from 19" to 29" higher than the mains. Putting the center on a stand simply wasn't an option in our house (a dog and a 7 year old boy!).
    I pulled my chairs a few feet closer, and am very happy with the set so far! I bought a JVC Progressive Scan DVD player, and The Fifth Element never looked so good!!! The setup really looks balanced in our living room with my rack and stands, and I installed a 6500K backlight to finish the job off. I need to build a shroud for the backlight, it over-extends to the ceiling and side walls more than I would have liked.
    I really appreciate all your suggestions, they were all valid and well taken. But sometimes you have to go with what your gut feeling is on the right choice. This whole process reaffirms what my wife knows to be a fact - I am the most nit-picky person on those whole doggone planet! [​IMG]
    Thanks again!!
    Pete
     

Share This Page