32" or 37" LCD, is 37 too big?

[southsayer]

I'm looking into buying an LCD for the bedroom. It's going to be sitting on the back of a 30" deep desk and ideally performing double-duty as a monitor and TV/gaming system with my PS3. I'm looking at the Samsungs 32" and 37" LCDs (1080p, 60Hz) and I'm pretty confident I can handle the 32" on size. I'm just wondering if I should step it up to 37" since my PS3 would love the extra 5 inches.

When in monitor mode I don't want to have to sit across the room to avoid getting a headache from the screen - much prefer to sit at the desk. Maybe the 37 is just too big?

Any other comments - e.g. is it a nightmare to get a MBP to display properly on a 1080p LCD that size... is there any reason that getting a 120Hz would be worth spending an extra $250 on besides watching 24Hz output movies... would be much appreciated.

Oh and this is my first post on the site so pardon if this thread ends up in the wrong spot.

 

[topgunn]

In my opinion, both sizes are "too big" to use as a computer monitor at 1920x1080 especially if you are sitting closer than a few feet away. The pixels per inch on the 30" is 73.43 and on the 37" is a miserable 59.41. In comparison, the PPI of a cheap Dell 20" monitor is 84.91 while a 24" iMac is 91.79.

 

[Maclarny]

I agree with the above poster. Two years ago, I used a 32" LCD TV as a temporary monitor and quickly found it to be quite unwieldy and headache inducing. If your budget has some wiggle room, I would wholeheartedly suggest that you consider buying a smaller monitor with your new television set.

 

[ajones46]

1080p on a 32in would be a waste. All a higher definition does is allow it to fit more things on the screen, making them smaller. And on a smaller (yes, 32 inches is now considered smaller... sad) tv, I don't think you'd want text becoming any smaller. 720p would be just fine, not to mention the buttload of money you'd save. I have a 42in Panasonic, and when I messed with the TV output signal on my PS3 (720 to 1080) all it did was make the font MUCH smaller. And if you're going to use it as a monitor, I would go 720.

 

[AAPLaday]

Save some money and leave the 37 inch alone, they a lot bigger once you get them home to how they look in the shops

 

[windowsblowsass]

I agree get a 720p 32" and buy a a monitor with the money you save from the 1080. the fact of the matter is with a tv as small as 32 you cannot physically see the difference from a 1080p set not to mention that HDTV is normally broadcast in 720p or 1080i a 1080p tv isnt going to help you.

 

[southsayer]

Sounds like just generally I shouldn't be using the TV as a monitor. 720p might be equivalent to 1080 at 32", but wouldn't it make a difference at 37"? If I don't use it as a monitor I'd have to say I'm leaning toward the 37.

And thanks for the posts. Much appreciated and very helpful.

 

[cawesjmu]

Check out this graph

I think the general consensus is that from "normal" viewing distances, 50 inches is where most people might start noticing a difference between 720p and 1080p. That actually lines up about right with the graph as most people are ~10 feet away from their TV. So figure out how far away from the TV you'll be most of the time and get an appropriate screen size and generally, if you're getting a smaller screen, don't waste the money on higher res.

Here's another article you could read if you want to see other people's opinions about 720p vs 1080p.

Like others said, get a monitor for the computer.