I believe the viewing distances are artificially shortened to sell larger more expensive TVs.
I sat 10 ft from a 19 inch Sharp when that was a $200 TV and I could finally afford color in the 1980's. Then I bought a 25 and then a 27. But my living room was smaller by then, and I sit 8 to 9 feet from them. If you measure a 32 inch widescreen showing 4:3, it's about 27 inches diagonal. This then is like watching a 27 inch TV SD 4:3
But the books all said I needed a 47 to 48 inch TV at least. Whose standards?
My son has a 42 inch Vizio and it looks pretty good, but shows mega blocking and artifacts more than mine. His is 720p as well as mine. Bigger does show more faults in the video, why those with big 1080p screens are the first to complain that the sub channels on
OTA mess up the main
HD video, where on my set 1080i barely looks better than 720p.
Big sets are fine, but I know so many people driving to work on old tires because they can't buy new ones, credit maxed out , late on other bills, but spent $4000 on their TV. Just saying that is not my priority. Ine the end all the pretty pictures mean nothing if the content stinks. Billy Mays looks just as dead in 480i.
