Corning recommends 65-inch LCDs for "average" American living rooms
By Steven Kim 
posted Oct 20th 2007 4:02PM
posted Oct 20th 2007 4:02PM
For today's installment of "lost in translation," we have a recommendation from Corning -- a 65-inch LCD is just about right for the average North American home. We're totally on board with that, and it's not surprising that the substrate glass manufacturer is pushing LCDs. But the "average" figures used to come up with the recommendation leave us scratching our heads: a viewing distance of 6.5-feet in a living room measuring 8 x 9-feet. By most sizing charts we've seen, below about 9-feet viewing distance on a 65-inch display, you'll be wishing you'd purchased that 1440P set. And while we're doing the math, what's with the average living room size of 8 x 9-feet? That can't be the average size of the 21st century American living room, especially for the kind of consumer who can afford a 65-inch LCD.
I have a 61" 1080p jvc 61FH97 that I watch at 8 ft or 9 if reclined and I wouldn't ever want to go any smaller again
Ridiculous. The average family hasn't even made the jump to HDTV yet. Great pic, btw.
You know I've been saying this for a while. I've got the Sharp Aquos 52D62U. Looks awesome, but I still want larger, but 65 is probably as large as reasonable for the size of my room or any room I've ever put a tv in.
Just for the record I also use the tv as my computer monitor. For HD tv viewing it's great, but for computer use I can still see pixelation on my 52. If you stay at 1080P on a 65 it'll be horrible.
Using the tv as a monitor is becoming increasingly common. Several of my friends have done it and the rest want to. So if the average tv ends up maxing out around 65 then your going to have to increase the resolution. I think in two years the standard resolution on 55+ tv's will be 1440.
Ok so here's my question. Do people really believe that if there's enough tv's out there at this resolution that they won't want to make disks that can display it. I mean 1080p movies will have competition from HD tv, downloadable movies, hd on demand, ... all which will be the same resolution as the current HD disks, well 1080i instead of p. Don't you think the movie industry would love to start selling the higher resolution disks. I mean they get to sell us all those movies again. Also you know people will want the higher resolution disks and when there's demand someone will fill it.
This has been one of my arguments against HD-DVD for a while now. From my calculations the size of the movies for 1440 will run between 40-60gbs depending on the length of the movie. That's going to put half of the movies outside the range of HD-DVD even if they get that 51gb disk to work. So even if HD-DVD wins now Blu-ray will make a come back later just because it'll be the only medium capable of handling the new resolution.
Just to be fair though. I should note that even if Blu-ray wins. When they come out with higher resolution players, you'll still have to get a new player and still be buying the disks again so this argument doesn't really have an effect on the war right now. They only benefit would be an easier transition since the new players would be instantly backwards compatible with your current disks.
You think in 2 years the standard on 55+ TV's will be 1440p? You're delusional. 1080p isn't going anywhere for a while.
Well maybe standard is too strong, but I do expect there to be plenty of TV's out there with it available. I'm 35 and the computer/Tv integration is becoming increasingly popular among my age group. Especially with people living in the city that have limited space.
I searched for a long time for the right TV that I could use as a monitor and one conclusion I came up against was that once you started going above 52 the picture quality started going down. 1080P just isn't good enough for larger tv's to be used as a monitor.
I think maybe the high end might be 1440p in a couple years. Two years ago, we didn't even get 1080p except in some of the upper top-end, now it's getting pervasive.
65" is a bit much when half the US households can't be bothered to get an HDTV. A 37"-42" set is a lot more realistic for more budgets, especially if you consider Black Friday sales.
Your right and that's what I was basing my time estimate on. The time that we moved from 720p to seeing 1080p as the popular choice.
As far as who will buy them. I think it'll be popular for people living in the city who have limited space and want to integrate their tv and computer. That's who most of my friends are and the one's who haven't gone in that direction want to. Especially after seeing my setup. 42 is more popular now, but it's too small to be effective for computer use. Especially if you want to telecommute and work from home. You'd get eye strain.
I have a 12*12 room and honestly couldn't fit anything bigger than a 46" in here. That actually takes up a majority of my wall. I couldn't even imagine having a 65" in here. It would seriously be 75% of my wall. While awesome, it'll cause me to go blind within a short period of time.
I think there is a lot smoke being blown here. With a 50" plasma @ 1 to 1.5k it is out of reach for the avg family. To equate a 30+ urban professional as avg is reaching. The majority of these homes have pc's with crt monitors if at all and not receiving any HD programming. With the majority of homes still watching 480i how can you think that 1440p will be anytime soon, when have yet to get 1080p broadcast. 1080p and HDM is niche market which we enjoy but to most their dvd's look well enough.
Actually I think your misunderstanding the article.
It's not talking about what the average family is going to by, it's talking about the optimal size for the average living room. It's basically answering the question - At what point will people stop getting bigger televisions? Based on room size and viewing distance 65 is that max. In 20 years 65 inch televisions could be $300 and every family has one.
What I'm talking about is that 30+ urban professionals are increasingly following a trend of integrating their computer into their tv. Microsoft has been talking about this for a while now and the technology is finally making it a reality. 42' is too small. A friend tried this setup and it was just too small you couldn't read anything from the sofa. Even 52 is small. I have to get up every now and again because I can't read something. The trouble is 1080p won't let me go any higher without sacraficing picture quality.
The 30+ Urban profession is going to hit that 65' max a lot faster than the average family and they're going to want a better resolution.
Sounds about right to me!
Bob - "Just for the record I also use the tv as my computer monitor. For HD tv viewing it's great, but for computer use I can still see pixelation on my 52."
Isn't that because you are sitting too close? I know you need to see the text, for a large-size 52" LCD (or 65" LCD/plasma etc) you would need to sit back at least 8 feet or more for normal viewing (and to avoid eye strain in low light viewing conditions).
But to use that large of a screen for computer monitor use (and sitting closer), pixelation is probably unavoidable. For movie watching it's OK, but not for computer viewing.
I think that a lot of people would like to hook up a computer to their TV, but primarily for entertainment purposes. I can't imagine typing up a word or excel document on a screen from across the room (that is what the laptop is for). On the other hand, watching youtube, interacting with iTunes, downloading and watching TV shows won't need any super high resolution to enjoy in a living room setting.