lcd screen size comparison in stock

A lot goes into determining the best viewing distance, and there are several different criteria you can use. Aside from size, things like resolution and even how strong your eyesight is can affect how you see the screen. Because everyone"s eyesight is different, this is less an exact science and more of a general guide based on scientific principles of vision and resolution.

That doesn"t mean you should be sitting a foot away from your TV. Having the largest screen possible isn"t always ideal. The human visual system has a total horizontal field of view of about 200 degrees, although a portion of that is peripheral vision. While it makes some sense to get as large a TV as you can for movies, not all content is made to fill the entire field of view. This becomes very apparent if you try to watch sports from up close while fixating on a single part of the screen, which quickly starts to feel nauseating.

The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers recommends sitting at a distance where the screen fills up a minimum of 30° of your field of vision for a good experience.

This is generally good guidance, but people who use their TVs mostly for watching movies might benefit from sitting a bit closer to get a more theater-like experience. The SMPTE "reference" position for movie theaters and the THX recommendation is about 40°. The minimum angle of vision works well for most usages, though, and sitting at a distance where the screen fills 30° of your horizontal field of view should be comfortable for most people.

Our size and distance tool above is based on the 30° guideline that is suitable for mixed usage, but you can find distances for a variety of sizes at 40° here.Learn more about the human visual field.

For instance, sitting close to a 1080p TV can look almost like watching through a screen door because you can see the individual pixels, even if it"s playing a high-quality 1080p HD movie. Increasing your distance to the TV also increases the density of details, producing a better image. Since 4k TVs have such a large density of pixels, it"s much more difficult for this issue to arise. You need to be quite close to a fairly large TV for the pixels to be noticeably distracting.

With 8k TVs, that density increases further, making it even harder to notice flaws with the resolution unless you"re sitting extremely close. However, this also decreases the point at which the perceived difference in picture quality becomes noticeable. Because the pixels are more densely packed with an 8k resolution, you need to sit closer to actually resolve those details. For that reason—content aside—8k only really makes sense if you want a really big screen and plan on sitting close to it. Learn more about the difference between 4k and 8k.

This chart shows the point at which an upgrade in resolution becomes worth it depending on size and distance to the TV. Each line represents the optimal viewing distance for each resolution, but any TV that falls within the range of that color will be suitable to notice a difference in picture quality. So, for example, if you have a 65 inch TV, the viewing distance at which the eye can actually process the details of 4k content is about 4 feet. However, any distance between 4 and about 8.5 feet will be enough to appreciate the difference between 4k and 1080p on a 65 inch TV. Go too far, and the image will look identical to 1080p HD.

You"re probably thinking something along the lines of "My couch is 10" away from my TV, which according to the chart means I need a 75 inch TV. This is insane!" It"s true that if you want to take full advantage of higher resolutions, that"s the ideal size you should get. That said, this may not be possible for everyone, which brings us to budget.

The price of a TV is usually exponential to its size. Size isn"t the only factor though, as resolution, panel type, and features all play into it as well. Looking at 65 inch TVs, for instance, an OLED like the LG CX OLED is inevitably going to cost more than a budget LED TV like the Hisense H8G, and both of these will seem downright cheap compared to an 8k TV like the Samsung Q900TS 8k QLED. Fortunately, though, as technology improves and the availability of higher resolution TVs expands, larger TVs have become more common and therefore more affordable. Feel free to compare the prices of our picks for the best 65 inch TVs, the best 70 to 75 inch TVs, and the best 80 to 85 inch TVs to really see the difference that size makes.

We recommend a field of vision of about 30 degrees for mixed usage. In general, we also recommend getting a 4k TV since lower resolution TVs are becoming harder to find. To easily find out what size you should buy, you can divide your TV viewing distance (in inches) by 1.6 (or use our TV size calculator above) which roughly equals a 30-degree angle. If the best size is outside your budget, just get the biggest TV you can afford. These are guidelines, after all, and since most TVs nowadays are 4k, you can"t really go wrong with the size that works for you, especially since picture quality also depends a lot on the content and viewing conditions. Ideally, you would optimize the capacity of your TV by getting one that"s large enough for you to notice all the visual detail that 4k has to offer, but ultimately, you should watch however feels most comfortable to you, whatever the size and distance may be.

There are plenty of new and confusing terms facing TV shoppers today, but when it comes down to the screen technology itself, there are only two: Nearly every TV sold today is either LCD or OLED.

The biggest between the two is in how they work. With OLED, each pixel provides its own illumination so there"s no separate backlight. With an LCD TV, all of the pixels are illuminated by an LED backlight. That difference leads to all kinds of picture quality effects, some of which favor LCD, but most of which benefit OLED.

LCDs are made by a number of companies across Asia. All current OLED TVs are built by LG Display, though companies like Sony and Vizio buy OLED panels from LG and then use their own electronics and aesthetic design.

So which one is better? Read on for their strengths and weaknesses. In general we"ll be comparing OLED to the best (read: most expensive) LCD has to offer, mainly because there"s no such thing as a cheap OLED TV (yet).

The better LCDs have local dimming, where parts of the screen can dim independently of others. This isn"t quite as good as per-pixel control because the black areas still aren"t absolutely black, but it"s better than nothing. The best LCDs have full-array local dimming, which provides even finer control over the contrast of what"s onscreen -- but even they can suffer from "blooming," where a bright area spoils the black of an adjacent dark area.

One of the main downsides of LCD TVs is a change in picture quality if you sit away from dead center (as in, off to the sides). How much this matters to you certainly depends on your seating arrangement, but also on how much you love your loved ones.

A few LCDs use in-plane switching (IPS) panels, which have better off-axis picture quality than other kinds of LCDs, but don"t look as good as other LCDs straight on (primarily due to a lower contrast ratio).

OLED doesn"t have the off-axis issue LCDs have; its image looks basically the same, even from extreme angles. So if you have a wide seating area, OLED is the better option.

Nearly all current TVs are HDR compatible, but that"s not the entire story. Just because a TV claims HDR compatibility doesn"t mean it can accurately display HDR content. All OLED TVs have the dynamic range to take advantage of HDR, but lower-priced LCDs, especially those without local-dimming backlights, do not. So if you want to see HDR content it all its dynamic, vibrant beauty, go for OLED or an LCD with local dimming.

In our tests comparing the best new OLED and LCD TVs with HDR games and movies, OLED usually looks better. Its superior contrast and lack of blooming win the day despite LCD"s brightness advantage. In other words LCD TVs can get brighter, especially in full-screen bright scenes and HDR highlights, but none of them can control that illumination as precisely as an OLED TV.

OLED"s energy consumption is directly related to screen brightness. The brighter the screen, the more power it draws. It even varies with content. A dark movie will require less power than a hockey game or ski competition.

The energy consumption of LCD varies depending on the backlight setting. The lower the backlight, the lower the power consumption. A basic LED LCD with its backlight set low will draw less power than OLED.

LG has said their OLED TVs have a lifespan of 100,000 hours to half brightness, a figure that"s similar to LED LCDs. Generally speaking, all modern TVs are quite reliable.

Does that mean your new LCD or OLED will last for several decades like your parent"s last CRT (like the one pictured). Probably not, but then, why would you want it to? A 42-inch flat panel cost $14,000 in the late 90"s, and now a 65-inch TV with more than 16x the resolution and a million times better contrast ratio costs $1,400. Which is to say, by the time you"ll want/need to replace it, there will be something even better than what"s available now, for less money.

OLED TVs are available in sizes from 48 to 88 inches, but LCD TVs come in smaller and larger sizes than that -- with many more choices in between -- so LCD wins. At the high end of the size scale, however, the biggest "TVs" don"t use either technology.

You can get 4K resolution, 50-inch LCDs for around $400 -- or half that on sale. It"s going to be a long time before OLEDs are that price, but they have come down considerably.

LCD dominates the market because it"s cheap to manufacture and delivers good enough picture quality for just about everybody. But according to reviews at CNET and elsewhere, OLED wins for overall picture quality, largely due to the incredible contrast ratio. The price difference isn"t as severe as it used to be, and in the mid- to high-end of the market, there are lots of options.

If you’ve ever been shopping for a computer screen or TV you’ve undoubtedly come across one or both of these terms. Today we’ll be diving right in to give you all the info you need to know about monitor resolutions and aspect ratios so you can make the best decision when selecting the right monitor for you.

In addition to a monitor’s panel type, screen size, refresh rate, etc., monitor resolution is usually one of the first specifications considered when shopping for a new monitor. Monitor resolution describes the visual dimensions of any given display. Expressed in terms of width and height, monitor resolution is comprised of a specific number of pixels.

In the case of a monitor with an industry-standard Full HD 1080p resolution, this display has a resolution of 1920 x 1080. This means that the screen will have a width of 1,920 pixels while the height of the screen will be 1,080 pixels. This results in a grand total of 2,073,600 pixels on-screen.

The higher a monitor’s resolution is, the more detailed an image can be because a higher resolution monitor will be made up of more pixels than a lower resolution monitor. This will, of course, depend on the resolution of the content you are viewing. Additionally, more viewable content can fit onto a higher resolution computer screen than on a lower resolution screen.

Pixels, or picture elements, are the smallest physical points on a display, as well as the base components. Pixels are therefore the building blocks of any image you see on your screen. Pixels and resolution are directly correlated and a higher resolution equals a higher number of pixels on a monitor screen.

PPI or DPI is a description of a monitor screen’s pixel density. A higher pixel density will mean that there are more pixels packed into every square inch of your screen.

Pixel density is a significant factor because it determines the quality of your image in that a higher pixel density will generally give you better-looking images. That being said, pixel density also depends on screen size.

Picture this – you have two monitors side by side, both with a Full HD 1080p Full HD resolution. This means that both have 1,920 horizontal pixels and 1,080 vertical pixels. Now imagine that one screen is a 32-inch screen, while the other is a 25-inch screen. Now you can see how pixel density comes into play because you will have the same number of pixels spread across a larger screen with the 32-inch monitor. Thus, the smaller monitor will have a more densely packed pixel density, resulting in smoother lines and sharper images.

Otherwise known as ‘fullscreen’, the four-by-three aspect ratio was once the standard for films, broadcasts, and computer monitors in the 20th century. With the advent of HD resolutions, 4:3 is no longer quite as common.

The sixteen-by-nine aspect ratio, also known as ‘widescreen’ has been the international standard for all things related to high definition. Since it overtook 4:3 in popularity, 16:9 can now be found in DVDs, televisions, cinemas, and video games.

The twenty-one-by-nine aspect ratio is a marketing term used to describe 64:27. As the logical next step from 16:9, the current international standard, 21:9 has yet to fully penetrate the market. Thus far, its use has been limited to ultrawide computer monitors and televisions, as well as cinematic widescreen projectors.

When viewing content, 4:3’s fullscreen experience yields a more ‘box-like’ display, while 16:9’s widescreen results in a letter-shaped appearance. In total, 4:3 gives newer media a feeling of being cropped, while 16:9 results in black bars manifesting on the top and bottom of the screen.

Considering its current novelty, 21:9 lacks broad utility, with compatible products limited to those that are ultrawide. Compared to 16:9, 21:9 touts the lack of black on-screen bars when viewing content. You can read our ultrawide vs. dual monitor comparison to learn more about the differences between ultrawide and standard aspect ratio monitors.

While having a monitor with a high resolution is a good start, it doesn’t mean that you can start enjoying all of your content in that resolution. This is because the resolution of an image you see on your screen also depends on the resolution the content you are viewing was recorded in.

Besides the resolution and aspect ratios, the curvature of the monitor also affects your viewing experience. Learn about the differences between a flat-screen or curved panel here. Or discover a variety of monitors for different needs from ViewSonic here.

OLED displays have higher contrast ratios (1 million : 1 static compared with 1,000 : 1 for LCD screens), deeper blacks and lower power consumption compared with LCD displays. They also have greater color accuracy. However, they are more expensive, and blue OLEDs have a shorter lifetime.

OLED displays offer a much better viewing angle. In contrast, viewing angle is limited with LCD displays. And even inside the supported viewing angle, the quality of the picture on an LCD screen is not consistent; it varies in brightness, contrast, saturation and hue by variations in posture of the viewer.

There are no geographical constraints with OLED screens. LCD screens, on the other hand, lose contrast in high temperature environments, and lose brightness and speed in low temperature environments.

Blue OLEDs degrade more rapidly than the materials that produce other colors. Because of this, the manufacturers of these displays often compensate by calibrating the colors in a way that oversaturates the them and adds a bluish tint to the screen.

With current technology, OLED displays use more energy than backlit LCDs when displaying light colors. While OLED displays have deeper blacks compared with backlit LCD displays, they have dimmer whites.

LCDs use liquid crystals that twist and untwist in response to an electric charge and are lit by a backlight. When a current runs through them, they untwist to let through a specific amount of light. They are then paired with color filters to create the display.

AMOLED (Active-Matrix Organic Light-Emitting Diode) is a different form of OLED used in some mobile phones, media players and digital cameras. It offers higher refresh rates with OLEDs and consume a lot less power, making them good for portable electronics. However, they are difficult to view in direct sunlight. Products with AMOLED screens include Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy S II, HTC Legend and PlayStation Vita.

Contrast ratio is a measure to compare the darkest black with the whitest white. Plasma TVs score well on this parameter with a contrast ratio of up to 3000:1. LCD TVs have a contrast ratio of up to 1000:1; however, this metric is calculated differently for LCDs so it"s not an apples-to-apples comparison. Plasma TVs, in general, offer a better contrast than LCDs.

Older models of Plasma TVs can suffer from burn-in produced by static images. After extended periods, stationary images "burn in" the screen and produce an after-image ghost which remains permanently on the screen. This no longer affects new Plasma displays, as they continually shift the image around to prevent the image from being stationary.

LCD TVs do not suffer from burn-in. However, it is possible for individual pixels on an LCD screen to burn out. This causes small, visible, black or white dots to appear on the screen.

In comparison, the nature of LCD technology – where a backlight shines through the LCD layer – makes it hard for it to achieve true blacks, i.e. true absence of light. There is always some light leakage from adjacent picture elements in an LCD panel.

LCD TV displays reproduce colours by manipulating light waves and subtracting colours from white light. This makes it more difficult for maintaining colour accuracy and vibrancy. But, LCD TVs have colour information benefits from the higher-than-average number of pixels per square inch found in their displays.

In plasma TVs, each pixel contains red, green, and blue elements, which work in conjunction to create 16.77 million colours. Colour information is more accurately reproduced with plasma TV technology than it is with any other display technology, including LCD TVs.

Plasma TV displays refresh and handle rapid movements in video about as well as normal CRT TVs. LCD TVs were originally designed for computer data displays, and not video. Refresh rates are therefore not as good, but LCD TVs are fast catching up.

LCD TVs life span is typically 50,000-60,000 hours, which equates to about 6 years of 24/7 use. However, LCD TVs will actually last as long as its backlight does, and those bulbs can be replaced - so in essence there"s nothing which can wear out.

Plasma TVs do not use Mercury while LCD TVs do in their CCFL backlight. However, this issue is a red herring. Most common high-efficieny phosphorescent lamps use mercury and it is not a big deal. The amount of mercury used in LCD TVs is very small and besides, the user never comes in contact with it.

Most electronics retailers carry both LCD and Plasma TVs, including Best Buy, Amazon.com, Wal-Mart, Dell, Target, P.C. Richard & Son, Sears, Costco and hhgregg.com.

However, different sizes are better suited to different people and to different use cases. So to help you find the right size iPhone for you, below we’ll look at what the good and bad points of each size is, and what type of user they’re best suited to.

We’ve split Apple’s iPhone selection into three different size ranges for this article, and one of the three will likely be ideal for you, so read on to find out which.

The biggest iPhone models have screens of over 6 inches. These include at the very top size the 6.7-inch iPhone 14 Pro Max, iPhone 14 Plus, iPhone 13 Pro Max and iPhone 12 Pro Max, followed by the likes of the iPhone 11 Pro Max at 6.5 inches and the iPhone 14 at 6.1 inches. The chart below details all the iPhone models in this size range.

These phones are of course trickier to use with one hand than smaller iPhone models, and may prove especially awkward if you have small hands. The large size also makes them less friendly to small pockets.

Though it’s worth noting that all of these biggest screen models have the modern iPhone design that lacks a home button. That means smaller bezels, so while the screens are big, the overall footprints aren’t always any bigger than some of the 5.5-inch models below.

For example, the iPhone 12 with its 6.1-inch screen is 146.7 x 71.5 x 7.4mm, while the 5.5-inch iPhone 8 Plus is 158.4 x 78.1 x 7.5mm, making the phone with the smaller screen longer, thicker and wider.

On that note it’s also worth noting that the iPhone 14 Pro and iPhone 14 Pro Max feature an even more modern design, with no notch. This has little impact on the size though.

That caveat aside, a big screen (as opposed to just a big phone) is beneficial if you want a large view of apps, games, and videos. It’s especially useful for videos, games and photos, where having a larger view can make a real difference (after all, watching a film at the cinema is better than on a TV, and by the same logic it’s better on a large phone than a small one).

If you want the most immersive screen possible though then size is only one factor – you should also opt for OLED rather than LCD (as the former offers better contrast and is generally superior). Better yet, go for one of the newer OLED models – the iPhone 13 Pro and 14 Pro are both OLED for example, but the 14 Pro is better, as Apple improves the tech with each generation.

Though interestingly the iPhone 13 Mini and iPhone 12 Mini are actually the sharpest of all, as while their resolutions are the lowest of the range, their pixels are packed into a much smaller screen. The difference is still small though, so you only really need to worry about pixel density when buying an older iPhone or a budget one like the iPhone SE (2022).

iPhones of between 5 and 6 inches are the mid-size ones, though in practice they’re almost all more towards the 6-inch end, coming in at either 5.5 inches or 5.8 inches, with the exception being the 5.4-inch iPhone 13 Mini and iPhone 12 Mini.

iPhones in this size range are still a reasonable size but – particularly in the case of ones with a fairly modern design (meaning a notch at the top and no home button) – they’re fairly manageable in the hand.

Of course, the trade-off is that the smaller screen makes them slightly less good for things like watching videos and playing games, where a larger screen makes for a more immersive experience, and in the case of games also allows more room for any on-screen controls.

As with the larger models above there are also a few other considerations beyond just screen size. Firstly, there’s whether to go LCD or OLED – and again, OLED is the better choice, as it’s a typically superior display technology, with the newest OLED models (the iPhone 14 range) being the best of all.

Then there’s the fact that old-style iPhones such as the iPhone 8 Plus, which have big bezels above and below the screen, can actually be a lot bigger than modern-style iPhones, even if they have a smaller display. The 5.5-inch iPhone 8 Plus for example is larger overall than the 6.1-inch iPhone 12 Pro.

So if you’re more concerned about overall size (which affects how easy it is to use one-handed, and fit in a small pocket) than screen sizes (which affects viewing immersion) that’s something to bear in mind.

It’s worth noting also that the iPhone 13 Mini and iPhone 12 Mini are the only recent iPhones in this size range – all the other models are getting on a bit, so it’s clear that Apple is more focused on bigger phones.

The smallest iPhone models are those that are under 5 inches, and this isn’t a size range that Apple often goes in for anymore, though the company has of course launched the iPhone SE (2022) and the iPhone SE (2020), which each have a 4.7-inch display.

At the time of writing these are the only particularly recent iPhones of under 5 inches, so they’re probably the ones you’d be considering (and generally the only ones you should consider). And from a screen and overall size perspective these two phones are identical, with the iPhone SE (2022) gaining 5G, a faster chipset and a higher price tag, but not much more.

Those caveats aside, there are plenty of reasons you might want a compact iPhone, the main reason being just how comfortable and easy such a device is to use with one hand, as most people will easily be able to reach right across the screen without employing a second hand.

That means you can operate your phone while holding, say, a drink in your other hand. And the small size also means these models easily fit in even tiny pockets and bags.

However, all compact iPhone models at the time of writing sport Apple’s older iPhone design, meaning big bezels above and below the screen, so they’re not always quite as tiny as you might expect from the screen size. They also all use LCD, which is inferior to the OLED screens on some other iPhones.

The small size plus the use of LCD means they’re significantly worse for watching content on, or even playing games and viewing photos, than some of the larger iPhone models. So that’s a mark against them.

Both Sony A7 III and Sony A7 II have Full frame sized 24.0 MP resolution sensors so sensor size and resolution is not a differentiator between these two cameras.

Sony A7 III and Sony A7 II have almost the same sensor size so none of them has any significant advantage over other in providing control over depth of field when used with same focal length and aperture.

Sony A7 IV has a 33.0MP Full frame (35.8 x 23.8 mm ) sized BSI-CMOS sensor and features Bionz XR processor. On the other hand, Sony A7 III has a 24.0MP Full frame (35.8 x 23.8 mm ) sized BSI-CMOS sensor and features Bionz X processor.

On the other hand, please keep in mind that Max sensor resolution is not the only determinant of resolving power. Factors such as the optical elements, low pass filter, pixel size and sensor technology also affects the final resolution of the captured image.

Sony A7 IV and Sony A7 III have the same sensor sizes so they will provide same level of control over the depth of field when used with same focal length and aperture. On the other hand, since Sony A7 III has 37% larger pixel area (35.50µm2 vs 25.88µm2) compared to Sony A7 IV, it has larger pixel area to collect light hence potential to have less noise in low light / High ISO images.