| stof said: That's an impressive TV, But I used to play N64 on a projector all the time. Oh sure, the resolution was nowhere as good... But who cares! Mario Kart was HUGE! Anyways, the difference between that first picture and the Wii boxing one looks like it's a hell of a lot more than an extra 40 inches. And by the way, the picture was taken from a cruise ship, as one series of cruise ships has installed Wii's in their ships. How's that for great advertising! |
That is because the 200" one is widescreen while 240" one is not.
The measure that companies use for TV is the diagonal. Our perception of the TV size is given by the picture area.
If you get any TV measured by the diagonal, the greatest area you will get is if it has a square projection. From there, the wider you make the screen, the less area you get and the smaller your TV viewing area will be.
Take my 32" 4:3 TV for example. It has a viewing area of 491 square inches. If it was a square TV, I would have a viewing area of 512 square inches. If it was 16:9 (widescreen), it would have a viewing area of 437 square inches. Everyone should know that a square inch is a 1" x 1" square. In this case, if I had gone widescreen, I would have lost 54 of these little squares. Quite a lot, I think.
Now let's get to those two examples. I will suppose the first picture is a 200" 16:9 screen and the second one is a 240" 4:3. The first screen has a visible area of 17,091 square inches. The second screen has 27,648 square inches. A difference of more than 10,000 of those little squares.
That is why one looks so much bigger than the other. 
