Yep, running all of a Mac Mini (which can output native into 1080p), DVD and cable into a 46" Sony. Streaming NetFlix, all music ripped lossless, the internet at your fingertips, any other software-based platform you can dream up, the whole shooting match -- and very common these days (and the basic premise behind HTPC, home theater pc, applications). So yes. Definitely.
16 responses Add your response
That sounds like a lot of fun and glad to hear it is working for you.
For my next system, I have actuallly been thinking of an array of 3 x 46" LCDs, mainly because only a 46 Samsung which had an unusually clean and thin bezel and case to my liking....
Funny how you find so many things on the web which suggest that anything bigger than 26 is too big, "like watching tennis" etc etc.
Perhaps people were just jealous when the bigger 1080 monitors were still prohibitively expensive?
A good question as I have been trying to figure that out myself since seeing one in the store.
I believe it was a UN46C6500VF or a UN46C6900, but looking at the specs, I cant figure out why the 6900 costs more and apparently weighs almost 10 pounds more....the only obvious spec is a higher contrast ratio.
For both, however, or the one I noticed in the store, they have a more elegant and expensive looking brushed aluminum bezel, rather than the typical black plastic.
Re "thin" I am also referring to the back to front dimension, where from the side they are significantly thinner than say, most of the Sonys I saw.
This I thought might help make my desktop a bit less crowded.
I use a sony 32 inch lcd, and sometimes a 37 inch lcd as a monitor. Works great. The 37 I have in my bedroom and I use it to read books via Kindle for the PC. Wonderful bedtime stories. Viewing distance is about 10 feet.
Years ago, I toured Microsoft offices in Washington and was taken back by the number of LCD monitors that were used in arrays of three. Most of the screens were 30 inch. I was told that the arrays significantly increased productivity of the programmers.
Both the manufacturers and the motion picture industry recommend much larger sized screens than one would think, claiming that it is much easier on the eyes. My viewing distance is 9 or 10 feet, and they recommend 50" as the minimum for that distance. I didn't believe it until I tried it, and I am definitely a convert. It is so much easier on the eyes with the larger screen size, and that is reason enough for many.
You make a good point.
A question I have always wanted to put to the forum is why do so many discuss the simple, screen dimension when it seems we should all be discussing screen size plus viewing distance which when combined might give a "perceived" screen size.
A drive in movie theatre screen might look like a postage stamp from sufficiently far away, yet a notebook computer can create a cinematic experience if it is close enough to your nose.
So instead we should discuss perceived screen size, and the factors that would optimize that viewing experience?
I am not clear on why your set u would be easier on the eyes. What factors contribute to optimizing the perceived screen size?
I work in a business where we are immersed in data and information constantly, might also monitor news and television on one or more channels, and have multiple PC applications, emails and IMs all open at the same time.
So I am trying to configure an array that I can comfortably use for long hours every day.
A final note, I am having an industrial designer help me suspend the montiors from ceiling brackets, so using 46" or even bigger monitors will not require a bigger desk surface, or affect how far away I must sit.
Yes, I am sure this is true and have found even two monitors or bigger monitors to be very helpful with respect to productivity.
I believe microsoft also did some work to try and better understand what configuration(s) of multiple monitors best enhanced productivity.
I am thus always surprised when people think it is over the top or eccentric to have more than one screen.
Glad this is of interest to others.
You can calculate THX recommended screen sizes here. The recommended screen size for a given viewing distance is often a lot bigger than you might think.
I started with 42", then 50", now 60". Bigger is often better, and it's not just Freudian. Having said that, strictly following the THX guidelines can result, IME, in a screen size/viewing distance that allows you to see the limits of the image's resolution (i.e. pixels), which I find very distracting. So you have to let your eyes make the final judgment.
Thanks for the THX calculator....
Not understanding all the viewing angle calculations, it seems:
For a 55" screen, THX recommends 6.1 feet
For a 46" screen, 5.1 feet
For a 40" screen, 4.5 feet and
For a 32" screen, 3.6 feet
These distances are similar to my preferences and make sense to me for an immersive, cinematic experience.
But it seems that most people sit significantly farther away from their screens that that.
Maybe their parents told them it would make them go blind?
Yet reason that an array of 46 or even bigger monitors might make sense for computing, despite being counterintuitive.
Cw - I agree that most people sit much farther from their screens than the THX guidelines recommend. I sit at 9 feet from a 60" screen, so I too am farther away than the guidelines, but probably closer than most viewers.
I find the distance at which I can start to see pixilation, then move back a couple feet. That maximizes the impact of the screen's size while not allowing me to see the limits of the image's resolution.
Of course, the higher the source resolution, the closer you can sit without seeing the limits of the image's resolution. This may explain why people sit so far from their screens - they developed their habits with low resolution images, which require farther viewing distances to avoid seeing the limits of the image's resolution, and they have not adjusted their habits as high resolution sources have become more common.