Best sized TV to play 2600+ games (2600 and 7800)

[DhaemonX]

I don't want it too look stretched out and even in 4:3 I'm sure a big screen it wouldn't look right.

 

What's everyone's opinion on the right size screen for sitting on the couch playing this awesome system?

 

24" or smaller I was thinking.

Note: playing on my 60" is just to much...you can tell it was made for a much smaller screen.

 

Edited June 5 by DhaemonX

[tradyblix]

77" OLED. Looks great. 

[Plumbob]

I just use a projector and project the games up onto my ceiling so I can play while laying down.  If I need the image to be smaller, I just raise the projector farther off the floor and adjust the focus accordingly.  For me, it works pretty well. 

[JetmanUK]

3 hours ago, DhaemonX said:

I don't want it too look stretched out and even in 4:3 I'm sure a big screen it wouldn't look right.

 

What's everyone's opinion on the right size screen for sitting on the couch playing this awesome system?

 

24" or smaller I was thinking.

Note: playing on my 60" is just to much...you can tell it was made for a much smaller screen.

 

Nah mate, go big! It looks great.

 

I have a 55 inch OLED and I'm sat quite close in my living room. Bugger the better I say! I mostly play 4:3 now but I do flip to 16:9 occasionally, depending on the game. 

[Marc Fiorillo]

I use a 48" TV, and it works great.

[Brad_from_the_80s]

The bigger the better, the sharp graphics are glorious.

[MrChickenz]

My opinion I think it depends on the TV and quality of the TV. When I first hooked up my Atari 2600+ to my TV in the living room I liked it but after playing a bit for me it was to large. When we started playing Breakout on the multi cart that came with the 2600+ we immediately noticed lag in the paddles. It was not playable. When I hooked it to a smaller TV monitor there was no lag. 
It might just be my TV but in my opinion 32 inch or smaller is ideal for 2600 / 7800 games or any Retro Games.

I also noticed playing modern PC games on that same TV also had issues. But not on my other smaller screens.

 

I also remember playing an Arcade Deck on the large TV, we were playing Tapper and it had lag. Again no lag when I play on a 32 inch or smaller.

 

So is it my TV or is there lag with larger screens IDK!

[MrChickenz]

All of you who are using large screen TVs and especially the ones who are stretching the screen to 16:9.

 

CAN YOU SEE THIS EYE CHART CLEARLY?

 

 

[shane857]

It all depends on what size TV you prefer and your preference to playing Atari 2600/7800 games. Everybody is different...

Me personally, I have a 55' LG 4k TV. I use all directional zoom, thou have personally customised my TV settings to have as little borders as possible playing 2600 and 7800 games. Not every game has the same resolution. Pitfall etc. 

Just find that Personal display sweet spot you are happy with switching games, and leave the 2600+ on 4:3 aspect ratio not 16:9...

Edited June 5 by shane857

[shane857]

15 minutes ago, MrChickenz said:

My opinion I think it depends on the TV and quality of the TV. When I first hooked up my Atari 2600+ to my TV in the living room I liked it but after playing a bit for me it was to large. When we started playing Breakout on the multi cart that came with the 2600+ we immediately noticed lag in the paddles. It was not playable. When I hooked it to a smaller TV monitor there was no lag. 
It might just be my TV but in my opinion 32 inch or smaller is ideal for 2600 / 7800 games or any Retro Games.

I also noticed playing modern PC games on that same TV also had issues. But not on my other smaller screens.

 

I also remember playing an Arcade Deck on the large TV, we were playing Tapper and it had lag. Again no lag when I play on a 32 inch or smaller.

 

So is it my TV or is there lag with larger screens IDK!

In my experience it differs from TV brands/makes and the processing they use. You really have to go through all your TV display settings to find the picture quality that is right for you.

[CPUWIZ]

4 hours ago, DhaemonX said:

I don't want it too look stretched out and even in 4:3 I'm sure a big screen it wouldn't look right.

 

What's everyone's opinion on the right size screen for sitting on the couch playing this awesome system?

 

24" or smaller I was thinking.

Note: playing on my 60" is just to much...you can tell it was made for a much smaller screen.

 

 

They way the original was designed, was to bunch up in front of a smallish TV (just look at the advertising), so that's what I would go for.  Get a 15 or 17 inch 4:3 LCD with VGA and a converter from HDMI to VGA (cheap).

[JetmanUK]

2 hours ago, JetmanUK said:

Bugger the better I say!

Erm, I mean't bigger the better, no buggering.

[tradyblix]

1 hour ago, MrChickenz said:

All of you who are using large screen TVs and especially the ones who are stretching the screen to 16:9.

 

CAN YOU SEE THIS EYE CHART CLEARLY?

 

 

When I go to the eye doctor and read the line out, I always get stuff wrong, but he never tells me if it's wrong or not. 

[tradyblix]

1 hour ago, shane857 said:

In my experience it differs from TV brands/makes and the processing they use. You really have to go through all your TV display settings to find the picture quality that is right for you.

in 2016 I bought an early 4k TV from LG which I still have, even tho I don't use it. It was a 65" OLED. It developed burn in.

 

in 2021 I updated it to my current TV, also from LG, which is FAR better in every respect. In retrospect I bought the 2016 TV at the wrong time. on the newer TV, it has enough HDMI inputs and plenty of USB inputs, unlike the earlier one. Also they're the standard (2.1 or whatever is its) and the older TV isn't. the Older TV doesn't do HDR very well (it supports it, but doesn't look much different honestly).

So TVs have been doing better. Also, if you get an expensive TV, vs a cheap model, you usually have better options. The Game mode and what they call Filmmaker mode, which just turns off all the settings that make things worse, usually) are primarly what i use. 

 

The one thing they don't do well is look good with component input, which is an afterthought now if you even have it anymore. So there's that. That's why the 2600+ was important. 

 

Honestly, I really don't like buying TVs as, unless you get a cheap one when they're desperate to sell them, like now, They are a big waste of money and get out of date quick. I know we are about due for another hype cycle that will no longer be good the year after you get it as it will be obsolete, so trying to resist reading about it 

Edited June 5 by tradyblix

[John Stamos Mullet]

3 hours ago, JetmanUK said:

Erm, I mean't bigger the better, no buggering.

[Trebor]

Having utilized numerous screen sizes from 9" through 36" CRT,  I found 27" to be the best maximum size for the screen, to feel big, but not too big.

 

In order to have the same screen real estate on a modern 16:9 TV, while maintaining a 4:3 aspect ratio, that would equate to a 16:9 display that is 36".

 

That being stated, I currently view the 2600+ primarily on a 50" Samsung OLED.   Picture is beautiful with motion very fluid and smooth.

 

My current CRT viewing is primarily on Commodore 1702 monitors, in which the screen size is 13" and the picture is gorgeous, leveraging original console hardware.

 

Regardless of the screen size, quality of the picture matters arguably more.  There are plenty of large screens out there that provide a relatively lousy picture, and smaller screens too vary in quality.

[Atari Dogs]

It was gone by the time I got back with my CR-V.

[John Stamos Mullet]

I play mine on a 55” OLED. It’s glorious. 

[+LS650]

I have a 42" screen sitting on a coffee table.  Looks fine to me.

[+Intellivision Master]

I play the 2600+ on my 55'' 4K LG TV.  The picture quality looks great.

[Maztr_0n]

Ngl i rarely used a television so when time came for me to buy one i just got a 19" one from best buy for 60-70$, works nicely with 2600+

[Gabe]

I use a 50" 4k TV with mine. Looks great. 

[Video]

Old school it was better with smaller tv, I mean, bitd I always played on 13-19" tv. Atari, especially 2600 (which already only uses half the horizontal resolution of TVs of the era) looked much better. Bigger TVs showed more obvious scan lines and such, which for some reason some people prefer. Even bitd I looked at that as a negative, but with modern TVs and the plus being digital, you don't get scan lines anymore wo settings. I do prefer the modern crisp lines of LCD, and the size of the TV is only affected by your intended view distance. Sit 2' from the display, sure, A smaller tv, but across the room, sure, mo bigger mo better (within reason)

 

I got a 24" tv and sit moderately close, on my gaming desk, but I'm usually a loner playing. I'd have no prob hooking it to the living room set (67") if I was going to have friends over, granted most my friends would be more interested in modern consoles or call of duty than "some old shit" what? Come on man, that's not cool, check out this game...."old shit" oh, well be that way