Page 6, Herald Sun, Wednesday 8 April 2009
Samsung 42" Plasma TV with HD Tuner
PS42A410
Was $1,499, NOW $999
(Shopbot cheapest is $1,149)
TV offer until sold out
Confirmed, available in NSW
i was gonna buy a plasma but then i saw this
key specifications
Screen Size : 42"
Resolution : 1,024 x 768
Contrast Ratio : 20,000:1
FilterBright : Yes
and wait for it….
380 watts operating power consumption 0_0 more than double lcd? can someone work out how much extra that works out to be in electricity over 1 yr lol!
How about you recommend something better for under $1k? :)
:P
If you're paying around 17c/kwh - thats about 6.5c per hour for 380w
If you're watching 4 hours tv per day - thats 26c / day
= $92.50 / year
if an LCD is about half - thats about a $45 saving a year.
Other things to consider are of course colour reprodution (plasma is apparently better)
and longevity/reliability of the TV
And as far as longevity/life-expectancy of TVs go, LCDs are better.
You can pickup 'home brand' models at Kmart/Big W that use older LG/Phillips LCDs for a similar price. Still, quite a good deal for a sammy.
but while LCDs consume their full rated power all the time, plasma will use less power for displaying darker scenes etc (as pixels are dimmed/switched off). so although plasmas do end up using more power, it doesn't end up being twice as much.
Confirmed, available in QLD
got one. pick up on wednesday
actually wanted a PS50A550S1F but no one has stock anymore so this will have to do for now
1k cheaper for 8" less, cant complain.
On Samsung's wesite it says the resolution is 1024X768. That is not 16:9 ratio. Doesn't that mean widescreen picture would be stretched or letterboxed?
http://www.samsung.com/au/consumer/detail/spec.do?group=tele…
I'd check it out at the shops before jumping the gun on this one guys.
no, the image will be interpolated to fit on the required number of pixels in the correct aspect ratio.
personally, this is my main concern with non fullHD tvs. its not only that they don't display as high resolution, but also that further signal processing and is required to make the image fit the pixel array.
Bargain price - I bought this in August 07 for about $1800 (actually a slightly earlier version, the Q series). I had some concerns about resolution as well since it wasn't "native" widescreen, but it has absolutely no impact on performance when you're sitting in your living room watching the TV. Any supposed degradation from reprocessing or whatever is not noticable when you're watching a TV signal or DVD or whatever, but then again, let your own eyes be the judge :)
It's kind of like those HDMI cables which they market as providing superior image quality, and charging an extra $200 for them :)
Uh. No.
The price of HDMI cables are not justified because the signal is digital, it either works or it doesn't. Hence paying 20X the amount for a Monster cable makes no difference picture quality wise.
A higher resolution on a LCD however WILL produce a visible difference to picture quality WHEN THE SOURCE IS OF EQUAL OR HIGHER RESOLUTION. Watching a 1080p movie on a 1080p screen will look better than on a 720p screen of the same size.
I don't know much about degradation from reprocessing but the extra step most likely will have an affect for the worse (however little it may be).
On a side note:
I’m sick of people telling others that resolutions don’t matter when you are buying TVs smaller than 40”. It does depend on what the price difference is for an individual to decide if it’s worth it. But to say that 720p screens look the same as 1080p screens is just ludicrous.
I agree with fufufu
Limitations you seem to neglect factoring in:
Most TV is not broadcast in full HD.
DVDs are only upscaled.
Blu-Rays (for the most part) are only re-processed movies filmed on non-hd cameras.
Your eyes. This is the big one. Sure, having more lines per inch is fan-****ing-tastic to tell people about, but considering only children will be able to notice the difference between 720p and 1080p on smaller screens (and considering they could not care less), who cares?
Maybe in 5 years time or so, when it's time to buy a new TV, full HD may have a few more significant benefits (i.e. sources catch up to tv specs), but for the time being, no, there really isn't much differnce.
And yes, I have a full hd lcd.
I understand that you have a very valid point, the source. I did say that you will see a difference only if the source is 1080p.
All of the HD channels in Australia broadcasts 1080i signals. Although 1080i is different from 1080p it still denotes a resolution of 1920X1080, so HD channel videos will be down scaled from 1920x1080 to 1366x768 on a 720p TV, whereas it displays in its native resolution on a 1080p TV without processing.
Furthermore, xbox 360 and PS3 are both capable of 1080p games. If you connect your computer to the LCD (via DVI or HDMI, both are digital and better than the old analog VGA format) you will IMMEDIATELY see a difference between 720p and 1080p resolutions. Another thing to think about is how long do you wish to keep your TV for, some people don't have the money/heart to change to a better TV when they want/need it.
So it all comes down to what you do with the TV to justify paying for the extra pixels.
BUT back to topic, I'd really advice against getting this one though as I am quite confident that you will notice a difference in picture quality between this TV and a proper 720p TV (ie. 1366X768).
@fufufu: 106cm, DVB-T (HD tuner built-in), Plasma TV, 1366 x 768 , 720p HD resolution,1080p 24Hz input, 2 x HDM1, HDM1 1.2,Natural True Colour,DNIE +,Sports Mode,Movie Mode, Smart User Interface, Auto Wall Mount Compatible
It is 720p, with the exact res. you stated.
@pais: What?
Where did you get that? It clearly states on the Samsung webstite that this TV has a resolution of 1024 x 768.
http://www.samsung.com/au/consumer/detail/spec.do?group=tele…
@pais: You OBVIOUSLY just went on to a random website and copy-pasted that.
Probably from here: http://www.digitalcentre.com.au/p/523926/samsung-ps42a410-pl…
Now, scroll down and you'll see, "Resolution 1,024 x 768".
I'm going to vote negative on this because:
@fufufu: Ah, sorry - I didn't actually grab that from the sammy website. Just so you know though, 1366x768 isn't technically 720p either… :)
But you're right, that resolution does suck.
@pais: I am well aware that 1366X768 isn’t technically 720p. But let's not go in to a long discussion as to why.
Although it does make a good reason to just go 1080p.
And to the post below us, if we didn't discuss about this deal and just offered alternatives it would be easy, however, nobody would know why this TV isn't good enough.
No the ' Q ' series kills this one , has motion control ( movie plus ).
The comparitive model is the ' C ' series..
Slightly off-topic… Hornsby KMart still has a Sony Bravia 37" LCD TV recently on clearance / catalogue sale for $999.
It's back at $1450 or thereabouts tagged price, but I bought one at $999 because I told them the trouble I had getting one when they sold out in one day.
http://www.bargainconfidential.com/blog/?p=283
This info is just for anyone keen to get a TV and preferring LCD in this price range. Of course, it could be possible to get a Korean brand for $999 if you negotiate cleverly.
I'm happy with a nice Plasma (Kuro) for movie/sport viewing and the LCD Bravia for TV in bed. :)
[I hope this info is useful… better to offer an alternative than to just argue over resolution and power specs of this Plasma deal, right? ;)]
Cheers,
Bizi
Yes, it's a really good price. Saw a full page ad for Myer on both of the major newspapers in Melbourne yesterday.