42" (106cm) HD Plasma TV. Sale starts Thursday 4th February - while stock lasts (might not be many).
Not a bad price for the size. No idea what the picture quality is like, but could be good for a games room or bedroom ^_^
Was a bit surprised it had not been posted yet. I agree it is not the best nor current technology, but still not a bad price.
just out of interest how much content do you watch in 1080p?
Me? Virtually nothing………..
With no 10 HD and soon no ABC HD, it seems to becoming less relevant, unless you're one of the few who watch bluray or game a lot.
dse deal was better for 599
Can't argue with that……I wonder if it's still available?
rectangular pixel 1,024 x 768 is crap
probably fine for an RSL club but practically useless for PC and marginal for console use
Really? I was think about getting this for my Xbox 360. Does it matter too much that its not full HD?
not ideal, but will do the job.
The Core system came bundled with composite video cables, capable of only SDTV resolutions. It was however capable of the same HDTV resolutions (up to 1080i) as the other models when connected to a separately sold Component cable. In October 2006, 1080p support was added for all models in a system update,
so 1080P looks best on a you guessed it full HD TV… thats not to say it wont work and still look good on something like this.
Crap for pc, yes. Works just fine using my PS3 with HDMI at 1080i or 720p
I don't see why you would use a 42" TV for a PC unless it's a media centre, you can buy 1080p 23" monitors for $170-190. Gaming? Majority of games only run at 720p and below. It would be great if you want a big tv for a home gym or something due to its power consumption, but your RSL club comment is just too poor to take into consideration (Plus RSL tv's are always on, so it would get the nicest screen burn so you can see what bingo numbers were noted on the 24th of June 2005), 720p is a good resolution, many people still even watch analogue tv. 1080p now is a buying for the future purchase, rather than a necessity, it's like purchasing a blu-ray player.
for 42" you're better off waiting for a 1,080p possibly LCD TV
i'm not gonna get into a plasma vs. LCD argument but LCD is recognised as better for games
having owned both plasma is infinitely better no blur better blacks and better detail. much better for fps
I don't want to get into this argument, as they both have their benefits, but personally I prefer to watch TV on a Plasma.
Don't wish to enter this argument either but.. LCD. No burn in, newer technology, better technology.
@Bargain Seeker: Don't wish to fuel the argument further, but… we allll know oled owns da both of yas. Wait fer dat! (joking)
@Rocket: SED TVs are supposed to be all the rage… not led back lit LCD TVS!!!
SED where are thou SED!!! damn you canon.
@Bargain Seeker: Dont wish to put more fuel on the fire but plasma's don't suffer from burn in any more than LCD's do, and they produce a much nicer picture for watching movies.
@winter: That is totally untrue, and I'm unsure how the salesmen get away with claiming it. Plasma DO suffer from burn-in, and very rapidly. We have a recently purchased, current model Plasma here that is already burnt in badly enough that you can easily notice it when playing widescreen format. All we did was use it for playing fairly consistently bright 4:3 content, now the black parts on the side that aren't used for 4:3 playback are significantly different to the rest of the "black", when used in widescreen.
Plasma may be ok - possibly better - for TV, but I could not recommend getting one for anything that is in any way static, such as a PC.
@thei: Have a pnasonic plasma no burn play hours of modern warfare
Had a hitachi plasma for 9 years an original 1024X1024 ALIS panel played heaps of halo guess what no burn!!!
Computer screens at work LCD have static background on wallpaper/charts guess what screen burn
@aussman: hardly a fair comparison.
wanna try a static background on ur Plasma, and play some MW an Halo on the work LCD, then report back?
@thei: @thei Does your Plasma have burn in protection? We burnt our Plasma in bad the very first night, we fell asleep during "Snatch" and then the DVD menu was on all night.. our Plasma has burn-in protection, you can set the screen on full white, or get a grey scrolling over white, that refreshes the pixels. Our burn in was bad, we could read the whole DVD menu, but we got it out no worries, and now every now and then when I remember (which is every couple a months) I turn the grey scrolling on with the sleep timer when I go to bed.. its a little bit a maintenance and it saved me over a Grant compared the a 50" LCD which I got to spend more on the amp ;-)
P.S. Our TV is a Samsung Series 5 and 2 years old, so if your is new, it would have some burn in protection. Also at the start don't have the contrast etc too high.
@thei: i thought that plasmas have a bit of a memory effect when they are new which makes it look something appear like a burn in but it eventually comes good again ? ive read that somewhere, no idea if true.
Both have advantages and disadvantages. There really is no right answer, rather, for some people one is more suitable than the other.
But as the technology continues to improve, both the plasmas and LCDs will start to look the same image wise, and we will move on to arguing about whether OLED or Laser screens look better!
@Mixhael: Totally. I remember the days when Plasmas were great with movement and LCDs bragged about their Full HD. Funny how both technologies can offer Full HD and smoother movement though obviously you will want to find what suits your needs best.
1080p LCDs won't hit this price range for a long time. Plasmas are essentially at the end of their line.
True, I think it will take a while until LCD's are replaced by LEDs, maybe it would differ to the way Plasma's are phasing out because both LCD and LEDs both use the same panel.
nah it won't take long for ccfl back lit LCDs to be replaced by LED back lit LCDs, prob cheaper to make anyways. eventually all LCDs should be LED backlit makes alot of sense. And i wish they'd stop calling em LED TVs, LED TVs are those massive displays where each pixel is made from 3 leds not these LCD TVs with an LED light in the back. What if i put a candle behind my lcd panel it becomes a candle TV??? bleh
@fenrer: Yeah, it's just a marketing fad, there are benefits, but not to the extent that manufacturers like Samsung explode words of elegance as if it was a revolutionary product that has no relation to LCD tv's. Just let them do what they do best… BS.
@fenrer: COULDNT AGREE MORE
stupid nomenclature… led tv my ass lol
my calculator has a Nuclear Display cos thats how the light was produced… by da sun
@fenrer: It's unlikely the release of LED backlit LCDs will reduce the price of CCFL LCDs… The panels haven't changed and because of this, the manufacturing costs aren't driven down. We will see a definitive drop next year with LCDs, when capacities will leap from less than 50 million per year, to 10 million per month. There is a drop in LCD prices coming, but it won't be as significant/noteworthy as these plasma drops; they'll only be a few hundred dollars, if that.
@pais: well ccfls will drop, the last ones that no one wants once LED become mainstream and is superior in every way (color etc.) top end LEDs would still get a premium for thier local dimming tech which can get close to Plasma black levels….
Was watching Tennis on a full HD LCD the other day and couldn't help notice how blacks are just black with no depth at all…. ahh plasmas are the bomb
@fenrer: LED LCDs won't become "mainstream" for a good 6 months or so — once the Chinese start producing lower-grade units with lower-grade Taiwanese panels.
The Energy rating makes me skeptical
Is it a good price? No it's a fair price. You can get the same thing at DSE. Benefits of an electronics store:
1. You don't have to pay extra if you use a credit card(Aldi you do).
2. You can buy an extended warranty in store and have piece of mind.
3. If you buy from Aldi there is none set up, no idea on picture quality, no idea on how well the remote is. You don't even know the brand. It's most likely Tevion which is an Aldi brand that doesn't even have a website.
4. My family bought an 81cm LCD from Aldi for a $100 less than DSE. Trouble was: no HD tuner, 1 year warranty. Remote not too good and lastly a buzzing noise developed just out of warranty.
5. Although it has been stated before the resolution is bad. It's a poor resolution plasma with a 1 year warranty. I am sure it doesn't have a long life planned.
。。。have piece of mind。。。
LOL, I love this.
stop it! that's my piece!
Rung up aldi. Its a Vvivd. 1 year warrenty. Im guessing this might be it
The money you save on a plasma you'l lose out on running costs.
55" Samsung UA55B6000 LCD LED use's 220W Operation power consumption
55" Samsung 650B LCD CCFL use's 250W Operation power consumption
58" Samsung PS58A650 Plasma use's 670W Operation power consumption
and i know its not apples to apples but even if you take away that extra 3" from the plasma i dont think it would cut that 670W down much.
You could have 3 55" Samsung LED TV's in your house running at the same time and you would still use less engergy then ONE! Plasma
Cost wise that makes virtually no difference.
Feed the figures into this cost calculator including your local suppliers cents per kw-hr rate. I used 1,500 hours as a round figure of ~4hrs per day for a year and 25c per kw-hr (don't have my electricity bill on me, so that's a guess based on google results).
The approximate difference per year between the 55" 220W LED and 58" 670W Plasma?
$165 a year.
And that's with a high estimate of usage (4hr a day is pretty high) and a high estimate of cost (20c per kw-hr is probably more accurate).
Sure there are strong reasons to get low power devices - environmental, the heat it generates being an issue, general wariness of consumption or maybe if you have your TV on 24/7 because, I dunno, you're a terrible parent :P
But cost of electricity usually isn't going to factor in.
thats not the true power consumption.
if a 58" area was dissipating 670W continuously, i'd be over 100degrees hot.
I'm not contending it is. Hence the use of the kw-hr calculator.
Both power usage for LCD and plasma are maximum levels. However an LCD draws maximum power all the time it's turned on, however a plasma only draws maximum power while displaying a bright white screen. I'm not sure exactly how to compare them, but if I made a (probably wrong) assumption that plasma spend most of their time at half brightness, then the power consumption suddenly becomes very similar…
$1000 extra over 6 years isnt exactly "virtually no difference"
Usage in my household would be closer to an extra $2000 over 6 years
It really comes down to personal choice, Plasmas are a EOL product but still offer better image quality in most cases but the gap is closing quickly as alternative technologies hit the market OLED. ect..
I went from a Pano Plasma 42" to a Samsung LCD 52" Series 8 and to be honest the Samsung leaves the Panosonic for dead, I noticed a deterioration in the plasmas image after 8 months of us, and some Burn in from Windows Mediacenter. I would never go back to a Plasma.
You use the TV for 8+ hrs a day? Damn. I thought 4 hrs was a bit excessive.
On Plasma vs LCD quality, like I said, there are reasons other than cost.
@[Deactivated]: Families use it way over 8 hours, watch the news, series, gaming and so on. Some even can't be bothered turning it off.
the 58" must've been rated by MAX
LCDs use constant power whereas Plasma uses a variable amount depending on the brightness of the content. average consumption is likely less than Half the max rating. i.e. less than 335W
True. My crappy old no-name brand 42" Plasma consumes 300-400W according to a cheapo power meter. And it's, as I said, a crappy brand and an old outdated model.
I imagine even with the extra 16" the Samsung draws around the same or less.
Makes you wonder how accurate the LED/LCD ratings are too.
so missinformed, Plasma = high maximum power but variable depending on the amount of darkness in the picture, more shadows less power as each pixel is individually powered, LCD on the other hand have the backlight permanently on so it is fixed usage, real world values are alot closer then what the stars tell you.. Also LED would be good only in the local dimming TVs, current stock probably don't have local dimming.
Those numbers are from the Samsung website :) Plasma use's 2-3 times more then LCD of the same size this is a FACT! and its just how thing are..
LCD is a technology originally designed to run on battery power! sometimes even powered from the sun on those old school calculators, Over the years its come a long way, moving into phones, Laptops, cars, household appliances, mp3 players pretty much everything you can think of use's LCD and now with big screen TV's it draws more power then it ever has in the past but is still the most power efficient display technology to date.
"plasma had a time and place but with advances in LCD its now behind in picture quality And efficiency with price its only card left to play.
2010 Samsung dynamic Colour Backlit LED LCD's have blacker blacks and better images then any plasma on the market. And all the new 3D TV's coming out this year are all {LED LCD's" .. to put the final nail into the Plasma Tech coffin!
calculators and watches don't have backlights, which is where the majority of an LCD power consumption is, and besides you used to be able to find handheld crt based Tv's so a device being run from battery power is no indication of efficiency.
Current tvs of the same vary by maybe 25% in power usage, so its hardly a factor to consider unless your running several screens all day.
I just bought a 50" panasonic plasma, and from what I saw it looked the best. Trust your eyes
"Plasma use’s 2-3 times more then LCD of the same size this is a FACT!"
Producing a white screen of the same brightness… yeah
Do you prefer diffuse white light to regular programming? lol
I have both plasma and lcd. having a feel of the hot air coming off it tells me plasma uses more, but less than 2X for sure.
I have a 32" 720p LCD, and at times I regret it. I mean, 720p is more than enough for a good picture 32", but when watching blu-ray content I don't have the same awe as I do when watching it on a 1080p tv. At the 42" size, I think the resolution for this Aldi tv is just too low. For some, it's a cheap big tv, but I would highly recommend investing a bit more for a much better, more watchable screen.
Europe already ban some big plasma TV since it uses much more power than LCD. Even at this price I will give it a pass, it's better to buy LCD with Full HD than buying dead, out dated plasma technology. LG already stop making plasma TV, soon enough these plasma will become clearance stocks.
Yeah. I'd never consider anything that isn't Full HD. I'm a little surprised people continue to argue that the resolution isn't that important. Even if you don't game or watch Bluray at this moment, you'll know that if you ever do in the future you won't be getting the optimal picture quality.
I don't think anyone's ever argued that resolution is not important. More to the point, the resolution becomes less important at smaller screens (i.e. it's unlikely you'll notice any difference between 720p and 1080p on a 26" TV from 2m away).. And I think you'll always find the general consensus that rectangle pixels (like 1024x768 in this one) suck for, well, everything beyond TV.
!!Bargain!! 50" SAMSUNG S4 Plasma $1195
Hey all !
JB-Hifi at the Hyperdome have Samsung Series 4, 50" Plasma's marked for clearance at $1,195 !!!
The good guys will price match (and have plenty in stock)
It's not Full Hi-Def, but it's still a great buy, not sure when the sale/clearance ends so if you want to take advantage of this deal, get in quick !
yeah saw this but didnt post cause its not full HD, bit of a waste of 650 bux, id rather put that money towards a better FULL HD also plasma is old news :P
yeah good deal if you want a cheap TV, but you'd be better off saving up and putting your money towards a Full HD TV that isn't already out dated.