js_king

I'm trying to pick a TV set for my bedroom.

Can't decide between a Panny 27" super flat screen
model or a Tosh 32" A series TV. Features for both
are about the same, about the same cost $500.

I've been going to stores to compare sets for myself, but
I wanted some input.

Bigger is better? or flatter is what matters?

DigIt

IMHO, bigger is better. Flatter don't matter.

audrey

Hmmmm . . . to each his own . . . i much prefer a flat screen. i'd rather have a smaller, flat screen than a larger curved one. a flat screen reduces glare and presents a more movie like experience---straight lines appear straight (assuming the set does not suffer geometry problems). The differences will seem subtle in the show room, so you can’t make a quick A/B comparison. since i've become accustomed to a flat screen, i find it difficult to watch programs on a large, curved television. of course, YMMV.

Thunderball

Well, I'm on my 2nd flat screen, about to get my 3rd. It's the same set.....but I keep suffering technical problem.
I'd say go with the Toshiba 32. If you've never had a flat screen, you'll love the Toshiba 32"....once you go flat, you cannot go back.

matchpenalty

flats are great, but the 32/27 difference is HUGE. Tosh makes an excellent set. Have had my 35 in one since '92. Also have a 27" Wega.

Didn't realize this was a SECONDARY SET. [see comment below] sorry

[Edited by xcheckers on 03-21-01 at 12:11 PM]

DigIt

I hadn't thought of this before, but another thing to consider is that the 27" flat screen TV, while being more expensive and more difficult to produce, will likely have better features than a similarly priced 32". For that reason, you may find that the 27" TV is "better made" and has a better picture or longer lifetime. Sort of like a Porsche and a Ford Explorer: one is bigger, but one is invariably better made.

Still, for a secondary TV, I'd go for the increased size.

matchpenalty

I just realized you said bedroom.. 32" is LARGE for a bedroom. We have our 27" Wega there and love it.. More than enough size.

jumbojp

If you have the room for the 32" in the bedroom I would get that. The 5" makes a huge difference! I have a 40" Mitsubishi and would never be able to go to a 35-36" TV after having it.

Toshiba is a good brand and once you calibrate the set it will look great. Yes you won't have the "cool" flat screen, but it isn't like you invite that many visitors into the bedroom

tanman

i for one enjoy flat screen very much. when making your decision remember certain things.

1. it is true that once you go flat you can't go back, or at least dont want to.

2. 27 is a very nice size for a bedroom set (opinion, depending on size of room etc. 32 in my opinion is overkill.)

3. flat screen looks bigger than a regular screen of the same size. this is especially evident in larger sets.

4. screens ALWAYS look smaller at the store.

happy hunting

Static Cling

Man, that's the TRUTH. I guess it's like watching NBA players on TV and thinking "Eh, that guy isn't so tall" b/c he's surrounded by 9 other 6-7 footers. After wondering if I'd be happy with the size of my 32" VVEGA, I got the thing delivered and thought that it was almost TOO big! I probably could have gotten away with a 27"-er, but with all the widescreen DVDs I watch, I'm dealing with a smaller picture right off the bat.

CaptainMarvel

I was using a 32" tv for several months before I bought a 27" WEGA. It worked great for a month, and then it died on me. I decided I didn't really get much use out of the WEGA's 16x9 squeeze on a smaller screen, so I just bought another 32" (but I made sure this one had component inputs). I'm happy now; my only wish is that my 32" had one more rear composite input (it has 1 component rear, 1 shared s-video/composite rear, and one front composite). I'd choose the regular 32", but YMMV.

namja

How huge is this difference?

I'm trying to decide between a well-equipped 27" and a bare-bone 32". The major differences are that the 27" has a flat tube, component inputs, s-video inputs, front and rear a/v jacks, 100 more lines (600 on 27" vs. 500 on 32"), but costs about the same.

Will the picture be that much better in the 27"? Will it offset the HUGE differences that xcheckers mentioned?

[Edited by namja on 03-29-01 at 06:09 PM]

peskoe150

Well I don't think component inputs will matter that much, but if the 32 incher doesn't even have S-Video that could be a problem. It's a tough call - I think it would depend on the size of the room you're putting it in. Unless the 27 incher has the squeeze trick - then I would definitely go with that.

namja

What's a squeeze trick? Is that the stretch function on the 16x9 TV's?

Both TV's I'm considering are the regular 4:3 TV's. The 32" TV not having S-Video is sort of a bummer. I'll probably get the 27". It's for a small bedroom (I'll only be 7 feet away).

Supposedly, you are to divide the distance in inches between the TV and your chair by four to get the optimal TV size. I've never been happy with that. At 7 feet, or 84 inches, the recommended TV size is 84/4 = 21 inches. I used to have a 25" TV a year ago and I sat about the same distance away as now, and it didn't seem big enough.

Maybe the 27" (350 sq in) will be just right for now, since it is about 17% larger than the 25" (300 sq in).

[Edited by namja on 03-30-01 at 12:31 PM]

stevevt

I think the rule of thumb you're referring to is this (I bolded where this version differs from yours):

For standard broadcast and cable material, divide the distance in inches between the TV and your chair by four to get the optimal screen height.

Illinois Enema Bandit

about 40% bigger, IIRC

namja

Thanks Dr. Dank.

Here are more figures:

25" TV (diag) = 15" H x 20" W = 300 sq. in.
27" TV (diag) = 16.2" H x 21.6" W = 350 sq. in. (16.6% larger than 25")
32" TV (diag) = 19.2" H x 25.6" W = 492 sq. in. (63.8% larger than 25", 40.5% larger than 27")
You sure about the screen height? That means that for 7 feet away, I'll need a 35" TV! Most web sites I've looked at mentioned the diagonal size, not the screen height...

stevevt

Ahh. I think I figured out the biggest difference in what we're saying (and I don't think we disagree, and heck, maybe I was kinda confused).

The rule of thumb I stated in my post was to calculate the maximum screen size (height) a person with average vision could use without seeing or being distracted by resolution.

Josh H

I had a similar dilemma a few months ago and went with a 27" Wega. I don't regret my decision. I sit pretty close to the tv, 5 or 6 feet, so the size doesn't make much a difference. The flat screen, and 16 x 9 squeeze on the Wega does though. I can actually watch tv from the recliner off to the side now. With my old Panasonic tv, the curved screen looked funny, and picked up a ton of glare, making it unwatchable from the chair. It's really just a matter of preference. To me a superior picture is worth much more than a bigger screen, which is the main reason I pass on projection tv's. The picture just can't compare with a good tube tv, especially if it's in a well lit room.