I recently bought a 42" Sony A90k because I want to get into 4K and upgrade from my current TV, a 32" Sony HDTV which I've had since the early 2010s. But I'm starting to feel uncertain about it considering there's also a 48 inch model available and when googling my TV it seems everyone is using it as a monitor.
I bought it for my bedroom and I usually sit about 2.5 to 3.5 ft away from the TV. I'm usually not a fan of big screens which you have to scan your eyes around unless sitting a good distance away, for example I use a 24 inch monitor and I've read that the recommended distance for a 48" is sitting about 2 metres away.
But I'm also a "cinephile" and I want a really great TV to watch films in an immersive, detailed and impactful way, plus I'm going from a small LCD HDTV to a 4K OLED so I want it to be a significant upgrade.
42 might be just right for my situation but I'm worried I'm missing out on something better by not getting the 48 inch instead.
Help me out bros. Is it good enough? What sized TV do you watch kino on?
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Oh and incase it wasn't already obvious I haven't unboxed it yet.
Sounds like you're sitting far too close to the TV.
It's OLED so that's good.
I personally have a philips ambilight 55" I site 2.5-3m away from and it's great. Ambilight is a great feature.
I sit close so I can plug my headphones in easily without having an extension or a bunch of cable running on the floor and I can rest my feet on the edge of my shelf, plus it's just kind of what I like to do.
>48"
Stop being a homosexual.
>TCL
>122 reviews
>4.7 stars
TCL tv's are good you moron. Just don't be a raging autist, but I know that's asking a lot for this board.
Huge cheap TVs like that have shit backlight uniformity
Cope. Just admit it's too big and you can't handle it.
How is “it looks bad” cope?
You’re a poorgay that can’t afford a projector or a higher quality display, from the sounds of it.
I have a 65" OLED in my house and a projector. The logical next step is a 98" TV. Don't be dense. And it doesn't look bad. Every review says it's a good TV. You're just coping by convincing yourself you don't want it when the truth is you just can't handle it.
Why not just be satisfied with what you've got?
Can you please cool it with the antisemitism? Thank you.
>every review
Ok moron
I literally owned several of these big ass TCL TVs, returned three of then because the backlight was very uneven, and eventually just got my money back.
>Just admit it's too big and you can't handle it.
sounds like you tiny dick homosexual can't handle the BIG ZEUS SCREEN (BZS) tm.
>98 inches
for what fricking reason?
What are you, a TV cop?
I'd rather have a projector with that kind of size.
why not go the extra mile then?
The Zeus, from Titan Screens, measures a full 370 inches.
what are you some kinda gay?
I ain't no gay.
>$1.7 million
I might be a gay.
>not even 8k
Kek get this poorgay shit away from me
wtf aspect ratio is that? imagine the big black bars
>not getting OLED in 2024
>42"
too small. will not satisfy you. go at least 55"
i wouldn't recommend anything below 55inches
you don't really save any more, in fact in a few cases, those smaller screens are *more* expensive, because they can also be used as a monitor
55inches if you don't want a big screen, 65inches if you do (larger than that and the price premium shoots up)
>because they can also be used as a monitor
I've use 55" and larger TVs as a monitor (for my laptop) often, what is it about smaller screens that make them better as monitors?
for certain kind of games, eg FPS, you definitely want a smaller area, just to make it easier/faster to look at the edges of the screen
so if you're pretty serious about CS/fortnite/apex/whatever, id totally suggest 27inches max
but for other use cases, more screen is more better, at least up to a point.
personally im rocking a 32incher, which i feel is about as large as i'd ever want, at least height wise. side to side, i could do with more
but since im not into FPS, i'd totally go up to a 55inch 8k once prices drop and there's more options*(see below)
for the kind of games i play(cinematic AAAs, autism simulators like factorio/ksp/minecraft, strategy games), i don't mind having a very large screen, and im not in a rush to look at some radar at the corner really quickly
the height would definitely be too much, but you can always run games windowed/in ultrawide mode, and ofc for desktop apps you can use a window tiling manager and relegate less important/less frequently needed stuff to the top part which is hard to see.
and ofc having a shitload of desktop real-estate is always nice for work and stuff
*re: current 8k options:
right now there's only a couple 55inch 8k options
one is an LG IPS miniled with a not-great dimming zone count, which is also locked to 60fps without variable refresh.
not bad as a work only panel, but i wouldn't take it for anything else
then there's a samsung option (a couple actually, same model from different model years), again 55/8k, but this time VA miniled, with a better zone count, VRR, and able to run at 4k/120hz for gaming.
the problem here is that a VA at this size/distance will definitely have color/gamma washout problems at the edges
what we need to make this properly viable/desirable is a 55inch 8k oled that can also run at 4k/120hz.
even better would be a 42/43 inch 8k oled, which would be basically ideal. all the goodness of current 42inch oleds, which are pog gaming displays, but also the ppi for awesome text.
>I bought it for my bedroom and I usually sit about 2.5 to 3.5 ft away from the TV.
Then you're already using it like a monitor, you fricking moron.
I use a 43" screen as a monitor at 2.5 feet. I'll eventually upgrade to an 86" 8k one later. 4k is a total waste of time for video, compression kills any advantages it could possibly offer and modern camera CCDs are fraught with problems.
>I'll eventually upgrade to an 86" 8k one later
homie what the frick
there's already 55inch 8k TVs that would work for a monitor
tho right now that's only available in miniled, OLED 8ks are 77inches minimum iirc.
but yea, in the hopefully pretty near future, a 55inch 8k oled would be a very endgame monitor.
>4k is a total waste of time for video
what in the..
no its fricking not, its fricking pog
especially when we're talking large format displays as monitors
like, in the TV space, i can accept that for most people, meaning most tv size/viewing distance combos, 4k is not strictly necessary in theory
and i say in theory because in practice 4k is cheap as dirt and it comes with HDR and backlight dimming/oled, which you can't get on a 1080p.
's already 55inch 8k TVs that would work for a monitor
That would be absolute garbage. Why would I want a 27" 4k screen, or to make it more sensible for you, a 13" 1080p monitor? I'm not a fricking laptop cuckold, I want a monitor that is a sensible size.
The only reason to increase resolution beyond the 20/20 vision sweetspot is after you have already maxed out the available visual field, which happens around the 86" mark. So you could get a 16k 86" screen eventually if you care that much about sharp text.
>no its fricking not,
Yes, it is. I've done lots of A-B testing, 4k is completely worthless in the majority of cases, you're better off just remuxing down to 1080p to save filesize.
On some new digital video you can see mild improvements in picture quality in slow moving scenes. But given 24hz is still the standard, motion blur kills the format dead. 4k is amazing for uncompressed content, gaming, computer use, but for shitty video? There's no point. Half the "4k" content coming out now is on streaming platforms where the bitrate wouldn't even be suitable for 1080p.
>Why would I want a 27" 4k screen
because ppi = text quality, see picrel
this is even more needed for oled, where your subpixel layout is suboptimal for text, and you need all the help you can get on this front
>The only reason to increase resolution beyond the 20/20 vision sweetspot
yea, exactly, you need at least 60ppd for that. per apple, "retina", aka can't see pixels anymore, is at 60ppd at least.
now, i do wanna say, if text quality is not a main concern, you can absolutely get decent picture quality with less.
especially if you're a gamer, and going 4k means spending $$$ on a gpu to run it, i can absolutely see sticking with 27/1440p as a budget/midrange option
but for non-gamers, and especially for kinosseurs and office workers who deal with text all the time, 4k is the ONLY sensible option
personally, id suggest 32/4k instead of 27/4k, since you get more real-estate and are still in retina territory
but yea, all else being equal, more ppi is more better.
>Yes, it is. I've done lots of A-B testing, 4k is completely worthless in the majority of cases, you're better off just remuxing down to 1080p to save filesize.
get new eyes. im currently rocking a 32/4k, and i can absolutely see a difference between 1080p and 4k.
not to say that a good quality 1080p rip or remux is unwatchable, far from it
but yes, going to 4k is absolutely visible and preferable for me.
>Half the "4k" content coming out now is on streaming platforms where the bitrate wouldn't even be suitable for 1080p.
you have half a point here.
given the option of a 1080p remux vs a 15-20gb 4k file, i'd say quality is a wash
i'd stick pick the 4k option realistically, but only because HDR.
>yea, exactly, you need at least 60ppd for that.
60PPD is met by an 86" 8k screen at 2.5 feet away. When you go down to 55", you're going well beyond 60PPD, which might be useful if you bought OLED junk with a fricked up subpixel layout, but isn't useful for anyone else.
More PPI is never better. An ideal screen would have a very low PPI and be positioned very far away, but because this isn't reasonable given you'd need 2000" screens, you're better off going for the sweet spot, which is the smallest usable screen for the distance. For desktop distances of 2-3 feet, the minimum usable screen at 4k is 40", and the same goes for 8k at 80".
Can you live with a 10" 1080p screen? Yes. But it's not going to be nice to use. Either you scale and lose 75% of your real estate, or you sit uncomfortably close.
different people want different things
>NOOOOO ARRRG FRICK YOU!!!
why is Cinemaphile like this?
>60PPD is met by an 86" 8k screen at 2.5 feet away
indeed
but its also ridiculously huge for a monitor
see picrel comparing it to my 32inch monitor, which i already find to be pretty large
in contrast, a 55incher is basically equivalent to 4x 27inch panels glued together
which is also a bit taller than comfortable, but not quite by such a ridiculous margin...
still, if you were willing to place the 86 incher sufficiently far away, it would work
but why go there when a 55incher can basically work on your desk, and is much cheaper to boot.
You keep talking about moronic shit.
You said 55" 8k. That's not 27/1080p, you fricking donkey, that's 13" 1080p. 55" is moronic at 4k, because 43" is cheaper and fits better in desktop distances.
86" is huge for a monitor, no shit. It's meant to cover your entire field of view, so you have complete freedom of where you place windows and how big they are. You only think 32" is big because you haven't used a real monitor.
48" wouldn't be "too big". It's the difference from going between a 21" 1080p monitor and a 24" 1080p monitor.
>You said 55" 8k. That's not 27/1080p, you fricking donkey, that's 13" 1080p
its the same ppi as 27/4k. 55/8k is essentially 4x 27/4k glued together.
but if you were to run the 8k/60hz panel at 4k/120hz for gaming, then its EQUIVALENT to 4x 27/1080p, because half resolution.
if you tried that with an 86incher, you'd get 4x43/1080p, which would look like utter shit
unless ofc you placed it far enough so the FOV matches what you'd get from a 55incher at your desk
but then we're back to the "why bother, just get the cheaper, smaller screen" point.
>55" is moronic at 4k, because 43" is cheaper and fits better in desktop distances.
the point of 55inchers is to get 8k
as i mentioned, 43/8k would be better, but that's not available now, and in fact may not be available ever
but right now, if you wanted, you can go 55/8k on the desktop
its not a great idea unless you ONLY want it as a productivity panel, for the reasons i explained above
but if you DO want it only as a productivity panel, a ~1k 55inch 8k from LG gets you essentially 4x 27/4k for a discount and without bezels.
and if we ever get 55inch 8k oleds capable of running at 4k/120hz, those will be awesome too, as the ultra high ppi will solve the poor oled text quality issue.
>86" is huge for a monitor, no shit. It's meant to cover your entire field of view,
its still pretty tarded
for the price, you'd be far better off with going with triple 55(or 43)inchers
the main problem as monitor sizes increase is the height, that's what makes them uncomfortable. you'll get neck pains looking up all the time
its far preferable to have more width instead
as i said before, my 32incher is already pretty much at the limit, height wise, imo.
>but if you were to run the 8k/60hz panel at 4k/120hz for gaming,
Nobody would ever do this willingly, they'd just run at 8k/120. What a fricking moronic argument based purely on aging HDMI limitations.
>as i mentioned, 43/8k would be better, but that's not available now, and in fact may not be available ever
Of course it will be, 8k isn't available now because nothing can really drive it. They'll need a new gimmick to sell eventually, and it's the perfect "upgrade" for morons like yourself who use tiny 32" 4k screens.
>right now, if you wanted, you can go 55/8k on the desktop
Which will offer little to no improvement over 43/4k, and cost you 10x. Might as well just buy 10 4k panels for that price and assemble the omnisphere around you.
>my 32incher is already pretty much at the limit, height wise, imo.
Adjust your monitor stand, moron. Or your table height, whatever. 86" does require floating table designs to not run into height limits though, the current workflow is built on the assumption that the bottom of the monitor touches your desk, 86" requires an offset so the screen can sit much lower, with your keyboard and mouse much higher so your eyes can still hit above the midpoint of the display.
>Nobody would ever do this willingly, they'd just run at 8k/120
anon, what the frick
for one thing, there's no gpu that can even dream of running games at 8k/120. 4090s can barely manage 4k/120. literally 4x the load is out of the question for at least another 2-3 gpu generations
but even if there was such a gpu right now, we don't even have connectors that can push that kind of bandwidth. 8k/60 is all you can get from current dp/hdmi, cables and ports.
8k/120 just doesn't exist at the moment, not even for just working on the desktop, much less for gaming.
>Which will offer little to no improvement over 43/4k, and cost you 10x.
the improvement is in text quality.
43/4k is fine for gaming and media, but is pretty borderline in text quality. its worse than 27/1440p even, and not even close to the ultra-crisp, retina text you get from 27 or 32/4k.
and its even worse in reality, because the only people buying 43/4k right now are those going with the lg oleds, which are great for gaming, but the weird oled subpixel layout makes text even worse
so, going with an 8k panel (55 for now, but in the future, hopefully 43 inch too) solves that issue.
>86" requires an offset so the screen can sit much lower
86 inchers are NOT table monitors, essentially
yes, you *could* use it, but you'd need to place it behind your desk, either wall mounted or on a dedicated stand
and if you wanted to be able to have it lower like you suggest, you'd probably also run into issues with the desk itself obscuring the bottom part of the screen
so, yea, im gonna go ahead and repeat that imo its a moronic idea.
just stick to 43 inchers (or 55inchers if you want 8k right now), and if you need more real-estate, go with triples
price wise, from what im seeing from a cursory search in my local e-shops, 3x55inch is fairly comparable to 1x 86inch, so there's no real reason to try to work around the monster instead of getting the far more practical triple setup.
>there's no gpu that can even dream of running games at 8k/120
No shit, not yet. Give it a few years, I'm not expecting to buy an 80" monitor tomorrow.
>but is pretty borderline in text quality. its worse than 27/1440p even
Man, you're moronic. 27" 1440p at 2.5 feet is 60 PPD. 43" 2160p at 2.5 feet is 60 PPD.
They are IDENTICAL in text quality.
>retina text
Apple mentality moronation. 60 PPD is "retina text", smaller 4k monitors absolutely have higher PPD, but this also means they have far lower visual field coverage and have to be run with scaling to achieve the same fidelity, which means your 4k monitor quickly becomes 1440p tier.
>you'd probably also run into issues with the desk itself obscuring the bottom part of the screen
I've done all the calculations, it fits fine. Really depends on your floating desk, though.
>I'm not expecting to buy an 80" monitor tomorrow
but you could buy a 55/8k tomorrow.
>They are IDENTICAL in text quality
close, not quite, its 109ppi vs 102ppi.
but as i mentioned the bigger issue is that the vast majority of 43 (well, 42) inchers in use today are oleds, which worsens text quality even further because subpixel layout.
another thing worth noting is that most people using 27inchers are not placing them 2.5ft away
that's basically all the way back in a pretty wide desk, or even wall mounted
most 27inch users have them closer to 2ft, dropping the ppd to 50 or so, which is definitely not retina
>Apple mentality moronation
i don't like apple neither, but credit where credit is due
they're the ones that pioneered using ultra high ppi displays and scaling to give us awesome text quality
and it does work and its absolutely worth spending some money to get, especially if you're using the monitor for work/productivity instead of only gaming
having said that, i mostly use retina as a shorthand, not because im an applegay or anything. its just a convenient shorthand for "sufficiently high ppi/ppd so that pixels are not visible anymore and text is ultra crisp"
>most 27inch users have them closer to 2ft
I'm sorry you're blind.
>credit where credit is due
have a nice day. Legitimately. They coined a buzzword for something that had been SOP for DECADES.
> ultra high ppi displays
You do know WHY they did this, right? It's because they didn't want to pay for cleartype. Enjoy running twice the resolution you need for slightly crisper text, man.
samegay
i forgot to add another thing
a 55incher monitor can reasonably be run at 4k/120hz, which is basically the only way to go right now, since not even a 4090 can manage 8k for gaming, let alone at >60fps
and this way, your effective ppi is the same as a 27/1080p monitor, which is not great, but liveable
but with an 86incher, forget about it. run it at 4k and the "pixels" will be thumb sized.
samegay as
forgot the picrel
>itt screenlets frickin STEAMING about their shitty b***hmade babby tvs after realizing they fricked up bigly by not screenmaxxxing as hard as possible
Ya hate to see it.
>for example I use a 24 inch monitor and I've read that the recommended distance for a 48" is sitting about 2 metres away.
I have a 65" tv and sit 5 1/2 feet away. I zoomed out a bit to 0.6 to take this photo, but this is basically what it looks like sitting from my recliner. I never feel like I have to turn my head or any of that bullshit and I play games on this television as well. Keep in mind that viewing distance is the distance from the television to your eyes. If you're really 2 1/2 - 3 1/2 feet away from your screen then 42" is probably perfect if you're viewing your television head on.
Thanks for the non-dick measuring response anon.
I'll probably stick with the 42" then, it makes sense for my circumstance.
I made this thread just to try and figure out if I should return it and get the 48" model, I certainly wouldn't go any bigger than that.
If I ever get a place of my own I can probably still get a big TV for the main room and repurpose the 42" in my bedroom for retro gaming (with a retrotink) and occasionally connecting to my PC for some gaming.
Looks like a comfy room and nice display btw.
>I'll probably stick with the 42" then
i wanna again suggest you at least look at prices
under no circumstances should you pay more for a smaller screen
and frankly, even if you don't strictly need it, as long as prices are similar, go for the larger one.
It would probably be uncomfortable, at 3.5 maybe I could deal with it. Oleds are a lot brighter, its a lot of fricking light burning your retinas. It literally hurt my fricking eyes using the thing for the first couple days till I got used to it, and now its enjoyable. 42" is already nearly twice as big as what is recommended for 3ft anyways.
I might have cataracts in a fricking decade, who knows.
don't worry about the brightness, you can always just lower it from the settings
most people using 42inch oleds are monitors are rocking 50% oled light or less
and as for the size, don't worry too much either, as long as you're sticking below 55, which you will, as prices jump up when you to go 65, and even more if you go higher
if people can use 42inchers as monitors a 2-2.5 feet, you'll be fine with a 48 or 55 at 3.5
You wont want to lower the brightness though cause it looks worse. I dont think what looks "best" is actually healthy for your eyes, especially lomg term, and like anything, its hard to limit yourself from over indulging
realistically, i'd say at monitor distances you definitely want to lower the brightness, at least for HDR
iirc lg oled panels like the one in the c2/c3 can throw 700nit highlights at you in HDR
which is fine at 3-4-5ft away in a bright room, but in a dark gamercave at monitor distances, that shit is eye-searing.
anyways, its up to the op where to set the brightness
im only saying, unless you want it for a monitor, there's 0 point paying more for a smaller screen.
I use it (c2) at 100% brightness with HDR and game with it for hours. I am using reduced blue light mode and dark room lvl 1 on it so its only slightly limited. I'll let you guys know when HUDs are burnt into the screen and my eyes are burnt out of my head.
I do think i am getting more floaters in my eye
OP here. The particular Sony TV I've gotten was said in a review I watched to be somewhat "lacking in brightness" compared to the LG C2 or C3 and watching in daylight was like it being at 80% (not the exact words but you know what I mean)
So I think I'll be fine.
The only factor you need to consider when deciding tv size, and even resolution, is how far youre going to be sitting from it, and theres plenty of charts online to help you figure that out.
To add to this, i have a 42" oled and I sit about the same 2.5-3.5 ft distance and its just right.
If you had a 48" would be too big or would you get used to it or what?
OP, get a tape measure and measure the distance from your TV to your head at your normal sitting position.
Use this calculator and find your viewing angle and decide if you need to go up or down.
>http://www.hometheaterengineering.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html (scroll down)
THX recommends a viewing angle of 36 degrees but that's really just the minimum for "immersion". I would personally say anything from 38-45° is ideal. 50+ degrees is kinda pushing it. I personally have a 77in @ 7.5 feet which gives me a viewing angle of 40.9°. It's alright but I honestly wish it was bigger sometimes. Also remember it takes a while to get used to a new tv.