http://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/ Engadget HD Comments for Corning recommends 65-inch LCDs for "average" American living rooms http://hd.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://hd.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2009 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/Oct 20th 2007 5:33PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/Oct 20th 2007 5:40PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/
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. ]]>Oct 20th 2007 5:54PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/Oct 20th 2007 6:21PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/
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.

]]>Oct 20th 2007 6:45PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/
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.]]>Oct 20th 2007 6:29PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/
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. ]]>Oct 20th 2007 7:01PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/Oct 20th 2007 7:33PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/Oct 20th 2007 7:42PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/
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.]]>Oct 20th 2007 9:01PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/Oct 20th 2007 7:49PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/
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.]]>Oct 21st 2007 3:36PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/10/20/corning-recommends-65-inch-lcds-for-average-american-living-ro/Oct 21st 2007 9:42AM