Why no HDTVs between 26 and 32 inches?

[bobnielsen]

I'm looking for a new TV for my bedroom to replace a 20-year old 27 in. Sony analog set. I can find all sorts of smaller sizes, like 19, 20, 22, 24 and 26 inches but then it jumps to 32 inches. 26 is a bit small for the location in question, but 32 is a too large and something in-between would be preferable. Why doesn't anyone make sizes like 28 or 30 inches?

[LarryFlowers]

Now, generally I am not the conspiracy type.. but you may have hit on something here. 27" CRT's were the most popular size, but the actual viewing area was substantially less...under 26" closer to 25.5"... so a 26" LCD is actually bigger than a 27"... but there is a marketing angle here. Most people don't realize that CRT's were actually smaller than the stated diagonal measurement, so a 26" LCD seems alot smaller... rather than go with a smaller set they opt for the next one up..a 32", which is really bigger than the old 32" CRT... and so on... and so on.

The important thing to remember is that the 26" LCD is at least a half inch bigger than your old 27" CRT.


I'm looking for a new TV for my bedroom to replace a 20-year old 27 in. Sony analog set. I can find all sorts of smaller sizes, like 19, 20, 22, 24 and 26 inches but then it jumps to 32 inches. 26 is a bit small for the location in question, but 32 is a too large and something in-between would be preferable. Why doesn't anyone make sizes like 28 or 30 inches?

[Cholly]

Don't forget that you're replacing a 4:3 TV with a 16:9 TV. In actuality, a SD picture on a widescreen 32 incher will be a little smaller than that of your 27 inch CRT receiver.

[davring]

I remember reading that a 32" 16X9 set was designed to be a suitable repalcement for 27" CRT and the 37" 16X9 were to be comparable replacements for 32" CRT's. I think they were very close in veiwable square inch comparisons.

[Grentz]

Because the panel factories do not make panels of those inbetween sizes. The sizes that they do make are all based on numbers that work out nicely within many of the processing machines they use.

I used to have more details on it, but I dont anymore.

This is also the reason that companies either make 40" or 42" panels, it depends on what equipment they are using for the creation of the panels.

[Ken S]

Here you go...

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=223-9379

[Stewart Vernon]

I haven't paid close attention to the widescreen TVs (even though I own one) but traditional 4:3 TV measurements were most often the diagonal measurement too.

So... if you had a 27" CRT, you would want probably a 32" or somewhere thereabouts widescreen TV to maintain the same "size" of viewing for average programming.

[rebkell]

I think these numbers are correct:
for a 16x9 TV, multiply the diagonal by
.8715 to get the width
.4902 to get the height

on 4x3 multiply the diagonal by
.8 to get the width
.6 to get the height

using the above numbers you would need approximately:
a 16x9 that is approximately 1.22 bigger diagonally to get the same height as a 4:3 television:

a 26" 4x3 would require approximately a 32" 16x9 to get the same size 4x3 picture and a
32" 16x9 would require approximately a 34.9" 4x3 to get the same 16x9 picture.

the numbers are purely size and have nothing to do with resolution.

[machavez00]

32 inch "brand name" LCD for ≈$390 at Fry's Black Friday. Most likely a 60Hz model

[BobaBird]

Check http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi to compare sizes of any 2 TVs.

[BattleZone]

Because the panel factories do not make panels of those inbetween sizes. The sizes that they do make are all based on numbers that work out nicely within many of the processing machines they use.

I used to have more details on it, but I dont anymore.

This is also the reason that companies either make 40" or 42" panels, it depends on what equipment they are using for the creation of the panels.

Correct! The panels are made on large pieces of glass, and then the final panels are laser-cut out of the one big panel. The manufacturers want to use as close to 100% of the sheet as possible, so they choose sizes that will fit evenly. That way, they can maximize the amount of finished product that they can get out of one panel sheet.

You can think of it like using cookie cutters on cookie dough; you cut out cookies as close together as possible so that you get as many cookies as you can out of the sheet of dough.

[Mike Bertelson]

A while back I made this spreadsheet when I was looking for a TV.

I wanted to make sure that the screen had at least the same height as my old TV.

Don't know if anyone cares but here ya go.

Mike

[B Newt]

And why do most LCD tv stop at 52"? I would like to see a big selection of 60" LCD tv's.

[curt8403]

And why do most LCD tv stop at 52"? I would like to see a big selection of 60" LCD tv's.

i think it has to do with the voltage needed to push the image. I think the 52 inch is the practical limit.

I could be all wet however

[B Newt]

I saw just one 62" lcd once. Sams Club had it. Cant remember the brand???

[davring]

i think it has to do with the voltage needed to push the image. I think the 52 inch is the practical limit.

I could be all wet however

I don't think voltage would be a factor for LCD screens as no high voltage is used as in a phosphor based set. I think manufacturing(cost) limitations are the reason. I think Sony makes a 60 or 70 inch LCD but I read it is over 6 or seven grand.

[BattleZone]

And why do most LCD tv stop at 52"? I would like to see a big selection of 60" LCD tv's.

At that size, a couple of dead pixels ruins the entire cost of the panel. Yield rates continue to increase, though, and demand for ever-larger displays will cause sizes to grow. Today, the cost of such large screens is so high that the risk/reward isn't high enough.

[compac]

Same here, also replacing a 27" but I think a ~ 32" hd sanyo dp32648 will just be about the same as an SD 27"...

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=9106635#

should be fine for a master bedroom or small family room...

IIrc 2x the diag in inches of a HDTV will give you a mid-range of best viewing distance
ex. 60" = 5 ft x 2 gives a ~10 foot for best viewing. :)

I'm looking for a new TV for my bedroom to replace a 20-year old 27 in. Sony analog set. I can find all sorts of smaller sizes, like 19, 20, 22, 24 and 26 inches but then it jumps to 32 inches. 26 is a bit small for the location in question, but 32 is a too large and something in-between would be preferable. Why doesn't anyone make sizes like 28 or 30 inches?

[russdog]

you may have hit on something here. 27" CRT's were the most popular size, but the actual viewing area was substantially less...under 26" closer to 25.5"... so a 26" LCD is actually bigger than a 27"... but there is a marketing angle here. Most people don't realize that CRT's were actually smaller than the stated diagonal measurement, so a 26" LCD seems alot smaller... rather than go with a smaller set they opt for the next one up..a 32", which is really bigger than the old 32" CRT... and so on... and so on.

The important thing to remember is that the 26" LCD is at least a half inch bigger than your old 27" CRT.
The story about CRT-based TV's being rated bigger than they really are is very-ancient news.
It used to be that way, but the feds changed the rules on that way back about 35 years ago.
At that point in time, 21" TV's instantly became 19" TV's. Same TV's, just different fed rule about how you measure it.
It's been decades since they lied about the size of CRT-TV's being bigger than they really are.
For example, my 7-yr-old RCA 16:9 CRT-HDTV is listed as 38" diagonal, but when you put a tape on it, it measures to be 39".


If somebody is used to 4:3 sets, and wants to know how big a 16:9 set is needed to get the same size SD 4:3 picture on it, take whatever 4:3 size you're used to and multiply by 1.22. For example, if the baseline is a 26" 4:3 set, multiply by 1.22 and get 31.72, or 32". So, you need a 32" 16:9 set to get the same size SD picture as you get on a 26" 4:3 set.

If somebody is thinking about a 16:9 set, and wants to know how big it's SD 4:3 image will be on it, multiply the 16:9 diagonal size by .817. For example, if the set in question is a 50" 16:9 set, multiply by .817 and get 40.85, or 41". So, a 50" 16:9 set will produce the same size SD 4:3 image as a 41" 4:3 set.

ps: Whatever size HD set you think you want, you really want a bigger one and just don't realize it yet. (Really. Honest.)

[davring]

I have yet to meet a person who felt they purchased too large of a set, once they had it home for a while:).

[Grentz]

At that size, a couple of dead pixels ruins the entire cost of the panel. Yield rates continue to increase, though, and demand for ever-larger displays will cause sizes to grow. Today, the cost of such large screens is so high that the risk/reward isn't high enough.

And why do most LCD tv stop at 52"? I would like to see a big selection of 60" LCD tv's.

It is yield/cost and factory ability.

For awhile 37" was the largest LCD you could get, remember those fun days! Then LG put a factory online in Europe and a few other companies opened new factories in asia that could put out larger 40" and 50" panels. Amazingly there are only about 4 different factories in the world that make panels larger than 40", other companies buy them and put their own electronics behind them.

To make, quality check, ship, and distribute larger sizes are a huge hindrance. Already 40"+ sets have to have freight carriers instead of just using standard UPS or Fedex for delivery.

I can order 70" 1080p Samsung LCDs if anyone is interested...I must warn you that they cost about the same as a Audi A4 or 3 Series BMW though :lol:

[BattleZone]

Sony 70" XBR7 (http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665532063)

That bad boy is only $20,000...