Radiology has readily made the transition to the digital reading room. One commodity left behind when moving to digital displays however is display real estate. Even with multiple monitors radiologists cannot display numerous images as they did on a film alternator. We evaluated a large-screen rear-projection display (Philips Electronics) for potential use in radiology. Resolution was 1920 x 1080 with a 44-inch diagonal size and it was a color display. For comparison we used the IBM 9 Mpixel color display (22-inch diagonal) set to a comparable resolution and maximum luminance. Diagnostic accuracy with a series of bone images with subtle fractures and six observers was comparable (F = 0.3170, p = 0.5743) to traditional computer monitor. Viewing time, however, was significantly shorter (t = 6.723, p < 0.0001) with the large display for both normal and fracture images. On average, readers sat significantly closer (t = 5.578, p = 0.0026) to the small display than the large display. Four of the 6 radiologists preferred the smaller display, judging it to yield a sharper image. Half of the readers thought the black level was better with the large display and half with the small display. Most of the radiologists thought the large-screen display has potential for use in conferencing situations or those in which multiple viewers need to see images simultaneously.