This was posted 12 years 7 months 2 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

51" VIVO HD Plasma $399 + Delivery ($24.95 to Brisbane)

140
51" VIVO HD Plasma $399 + Delivery ($24.95 to Brisbane)
Go to Deal
markis10 on 19/04/2012 - 10:01 dicksmith.com.au (440 clicks)
Last edited 19/04/2012 - 10:02

Not full HD but at that price a good backup TV or one for the kids!

Product Specifications

? Product Code : GE6819WEB
Audio info
? Audio Features NICAM
Boxed Contents info
? Boxed Contents Vivo Plasma TV PTV51HD, Instruction Manual, Remote Control
Connectivity info
? Internet Capabilities No
? Number Of HDMI Inputs 3
? Number Of USB Ports 1
? Terminals AV x 1, RF in x 1, PC Analog Port x 1, USB x 1, COAXIAL x 1, VGA x 1, HDMI x 3, YCbCr/YPbPr x 1, Earphone x 1
Dimension info
? Packaged Weight (kg) 39
Functionality info
? Teletext Yes
Power info
? Power Consumption <330w
? Power Consumption Stand By <3w
? Power Source 100-240V~50/60Hz
Screen/Display info
? Aspect Ratio 16:9
? Brightness 550 cd/m²
? Contrast Ratio 10,000,000:1
? Response Time 8ms
? Screen Definition High Definition
? Screen Resolution 1365 x 768
? Screen Size (Inch) 51
? Viewing Angle (Degrees) 160
Signal info
? Signal System PAL

Electrical & Electronics 51inch Plasma TV Vivo

Related Stores

Dick Smith / Kogan
Dick Smith / Kogan
Marketplace

closed Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2012 - 10:05
    +4

    1365*768 - no thanks

    • panderiz on 19/04/2012 - 10:11
      +1

      Hell I paid $2400 for an LG 42" LCD 5 years ago thats 1300x700, works like a dream.

    • izzeho on 19/04/2012 - 10:12

      Wow I'm surprised they are still making the panels for 720p large plasma.

      Would have been an incredible, incredible deal for 1080p, and I'm in the market for a large 1080p TV.

    • Withdr4wn on 19/04/2012 - 10:15

      Where did the other 768 pixels go ;)

    • wisc on 19/04/2012 - 10:27
      +1

      apparantly for plasmas it doesnt really make too much of a difference at normal viewing distance when the tv is < 55" (32 for LCD) if its 1080 or 720, that said, think i still feel better having a 1080… i was ready to argue for 1080 but read quite a few sources that said 720 to 1080 is unnoticable.

      • izzeho on 19/04/2012 - 10:29
        +3

        Perhaps for regular television. It is, however, very noticeable for PC connection, among other things.

        If you just want to watch TV this would look perfectly fine.

        • wisc on 19/04/2012 - 10:35
          +1

          LOL… yeah 51" is probably a bit big to sit that close to comfortably- but each to there own… i should add normal television viewing distance maybe?

        • izzeho on 19/04/2012 - 10:41

          Who said anything about sitting close? For HTPC usage you definitely want 1080p, as 720p just can't cut it for PC fonts etc

      • StewBalls on 19/04/2012 - 13:18
        +1

        i was ready to argue for 1080 but read quite a few sources that said 720 to 1080 is unnoticable.

        Finally, some commonsense!

        Yep, there's literally thousands of resources out that that have proven this very fact. It still astounds me that in the face of this overwhelming evidence you consistently get people telling you that they can see a difference at viewing distances over 3m. Talk about buying into the hype!!! :o

  • Keef on 19/04/2012 - 10:20

    Cant find any specific details about the USB function on this model? Anyone know if it plays AVI, DIVX, MPG etc?

  • mrfluffy on 19/04/2012 - 10:23
    +6

    Wow. They will even sell you a 1.5M HDMI cable for only $9.96 if you buy this TV, which is apparently a saving of $40. How do they do it?
    ; )

    • Kill Joy on 19/04/2012 - 10:37
      +3

      I regular the site for comments like these.

  • samfisher5986 on 19/04/2012 - 10:46

    As mentioned above.

    1365 x 768 is very noticeable on a 51" Plasma on any 720p content or higher. Its even noticeable on a 32" TV….

    If your planning to only watch our FTA TV with bitrates so low you might as well make it 480p then this will look as good as it can get.

    Any real 720p/1080p content is going to have a noticeable reduction in quality compared to a proper 1080p TV.

    • StewBalls on 19/04/2012 - 13:02
      +2

      As mentioned ad nauseum, what a lot of utter nonsense!!!

      FFS Sam, please do some research on resolutions, human visual acuity & sensible viewing distances for goodness sake before you start giving out advice!

      Not trying to be mean or anything, but the simple fact that you've demonstrated below an utter lack of knowledge about 1080i interlacing shows that you lack the chops to be giving out advice on these matters.

      • samfisher5986 on 19/04/2012 - 13:08

        ???

        Tell me one place I can buy a 1080i TV… I have never seen one in my life.

        Its clearly you who doesn't understand.

        Also just FYI, I own a 1366x768 TV as well as a 1920x1080 TV, do you?

        • StewBalls on 19/04/2012 - 13:10
          -1

          Most sets that are natively 1366x768 can interlace the image to 1080i…that's common knowledge. Look it up mate!

          [edit] In answer to your stealth edit, yes I own several at both resolutions…that's how I know! Actually, run off & check your 1366x768 set, I suspect you'll find that it has 1080i mode as well!!! :)

        • samfisher5986 on 19/04/2012 - 13:23

          What are you even talking about?

          Everyone else in the thread is talking about how the TV only has 1366x768 pixels on the screen.

          Are you trying to say 1366x768 TV's have a feature that makes them as good as 1920x1080 TV's?

          lol?

          It sounds to me your trying to talk about how awesome 1080i FTA in Australia is? or how awesome these non existant 1080i TV's are that I've never seen in the shops?

          Do you need to sit down and have some water?

        • StewBalls on 19/04/2012 - 13:30
          -1

          Ok, so I'm ignoring that clumsy attempt at sidestepping the issue. I'm also trying to refrain from a solid facepalm!

          Not trying to belittle you, but once again you've demonstrated that you do not grasp the underlying technology of native (progressive) vs interlaced resolutions. As I said, it's ok to be wrong, but please go off & do some research so you can contribute to the debate with at least some background knowledge.

        • samfisher5986 on 19/04/2012 - 13:31

          What issue are we sidestepping?

          The TV is 1366x768

          I'm saying 1920x1080 is better.

          What do you think I'm trying to say?

        • StewBalls on 19/04/2012 - 13:36
          -1

          Go back & read the thread from the beginning. There are several topics you are sidestepping, please…you're embarrassing yourself here.

        • samfisher5986 on 19/04/2012 - 13:52

          The TV has nothing to do with 1080i, the 1366x768 resolution is progressive not interlaced. The discussion is about how a 1920x1080 progressive TV is superior.

          At what point do you think its relevant to talk about 1080i?

        • StewBalls on 19/04/2012 - 14:10
          -1

          No, the salient discussion topic is that you don't know what you're talking about with regard to TV resolution; and that you shouldn't be giving out advice for that very reason. A topic that you've most ably demonstrated by going off on a tenuous semantically linked tangent, I might add!

          Now, when do school holidays finish??? :o

        • samfisher5986 on 19/04/2012 - 14:12

          The only time I've ever mentioned 1080i was it was mentioned that somebody owned a 1080i TV, to which I didn't think they sold them.

          Nobody has provided a link yet of this 1080i TV, I'm going to assume it doesn't exist, why would it?

          Every single TV I've seen is progressive.

        • StewBalls on 19/04/2012 - 14:15

          Facepalm!!! That is all. :)

        • samfisher5986 on 19/04/2012 - 14:15

          Its funny because you realise you are wrong and now just respond with stupid posts :)

        • StewBalls on 19/04/2012 - 14:22

          Nobody has provided a link yet of this 1080i TV, I'm going to assume it doesn't exist, why would it?

          Now, even though Izzeho & Keef have busted that myth for you already, I presume Google must be broken on your computer, so here's a nice simple link for you to get your head around it: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/what-does-1080i-mean.ht…

          Have a nice day! :)

        • samfisher5986 on 19/04/2012 - 14:27
          -2

          That article talks about 1080i content, not physical TV's.

          If you want to prove you have a brain, show me a link to a 1080i TV, you'll never find one.

          Seems like you need to get googling.

        • StewBalls on 19/04/2012 - 14:33

          Ok, it's clear that rudeness, obstinancy & sheer ignorance is going to win this argument for you Sam, congratulations. Sorry to bow out, but I won't be dragged down to your level, my time is a little more precious to me than that.

          As I said, have a nice day! :)

        • samfisher5986 on 19/04/2012 - 14:34
          -3

          in other words

          "Oh shit! I can't find a 1080i TV, I was wrong this whole time! quick, better try to end the conversation before people find out I'm ignorant and arrogant!"

        • Withdr4wn on 19/04/2012 - 15:11
          +2

          There's no such thing as a 720p, 1080p or 1080i TV. It is a combination of resolution (i.e. maximum height) and scan type (i.e. progressive or interlaced) generally associated with a video format.

          LCD's and Plasmas can only display progressive formats. In order for a 1080i broadcast to be used on either a television with a native resolution of 1920 x 1080 or 1280 x 720, the content must be de-interlaced and for a lower resolution, also downscaled to 1280 x 720). Depending on the de-scaler, the quality will vary.

          What makes things worse for 1366 x 768 is that not only is the content scaled down to 1280 x 720 as a factor, it's then re-scaled to fit 1366 x 768 so what you end up is a much more blurred / stretched / inconsistent image. This is also true for 720p content when being blown up to 1366 x 768.

          I could go into more detail, but I'm sure the internet is full of vastly more information on the topic.

        • samfisher5986 on 19/04/2012 - 17:47
          -4

          When a TV is called a 1080p TV, its saying the native resolution of the panel is 1920x1080 (the amount of pixels the TV has to produce an image) and its a progressive TV (not that its possible to be interlaced)

          This is the case regardless of video, it will perform this in the menu when you turn the TV on.

          As you mentioned it can scale it however it wants, even a 1366x768 TV can scale a 1920x1080 signal.

          What stewballs will never understand is that more pixels is better and there is no such thing as a 1080i TV (A TV that only displays interlaced picture on the panel)

  • siuol on 19/04/2012 - 11:15

    In this resolution - you will still be doing fine for watching tv shows downloaded online.

    You will not have the maximum pleasure for watching blu-ray.

  • abc on 19/04/2012 - 11:36

    Is this the start of the rumour that Dick is flogging off its excess/old stock of TV's ala their gaming stock. Eg. 50" for $200-250 sometime soon?

  • weezlebub on 19/04/2012 - 12:08

    i've been using a 42" 1080i TV for the last few years, it just doesn't cut it … bring on the 1080p deals!!

    • samfisher5986 on 19/04/2012 - 12:18

      You can buy 1080i TVs???

      I don't understand how/why.

      • izzeho on 19/04/2012 - 12:25

        Yeah I can't understand why you'd interlace an LCD/plasma screen.

        Fun fact for those following along at home: 1080i is, in fact, inferior to 720p.

        • StewBalls on 19/04/2012 - 13:08

          Fun fact for those following along at home: 1080i is, in fact, inferior to 720p.

          That is very much individual TV set & source dependent!

          I've seen many setups that look total shite @ 1080i, making 720p look much better; but by the same token, I've also seen several that actually scale the image pretty damn well indeed, so that the interlaced image is actually better! You don't know til you try it! ;)

        • izzeho on 19/04/2012 - 13:41
          +1

          I should have made it more obvious. They are inferior from a technical perspective.

          1080i essentially only draws every second line on refresh, so every refresh only updates half the vertical lines. The only real solution to this (sort of) is to double the framerate to compensate for the half refresh rate. In general, however, you end up with 1080i having an effective 25fps, half that of 720p.

          Without this however, you essentially have 1920x(1080/2) = 1.036MP
          Or with this TV (assuming the same framerate) you have 1366*768 = 1.049MP

          Essentially your better of with this set than an interlace in theory.

          But your correct, different panels are going to look different regardless of resolution. Also your requirements may not need the refresh rate, and rather have the absolute need for more vertical space, so 1080i will be better.

        • Kill Joy on 19/04/2012 - 23:49
          +1

          Though stewball you are right most the time, you fail to explain yourself and it makes you look silly.

          Izzeho your correct, technicall 720p is better, but as you understand even a 1080p set can look crap in comparison. A bottom end soniq or generic brand 1080P tv is not going to match a top of the line Samsung. Then viewing distance and refresh rates step in, blah blah…

        • StewBalls on 20/04/2012 - 00:12
          +1

          @kill joy,

          WTF didn't you chime in 10+ hours ago with an explanation if you're so full of wisdom??? FFS, for that matter exactly what have YOU explained??? All that you've just offered now is essentially only an agrammatical mish-mash of the same old rhetoric we always see parroted in any TV thread, mixed with the usable stuff that was already available here! You'll have to forgive me, but I find your own comment at this point in time makes you look rather silly, to use your own vernacular!

          But that said, I really would like you to explain exactly how "A bottom end soniq or generic brand 1080P tv is not going to match a top of the line Samsung. Then viewing distance and refresh rates step in blah, blah…" in this context…that's too technical for me, lay on MacDuff…I eagerly await your clear & concise explanation! :)

          There was enough information already here in an extremely accessible form, it didn't need further clarification for anyone with even half a brain to understand…I don't suffer fools gladly I'm afraid. It doesn't take a lot to do your own research & get your own interpretation. When someone posts that they have a TV that clearly offers a 1080i mode, as do MANY, MANY sets, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out…therefore, "Duh, I've never heard of that, so it doesn't exist" just doesn't cut the mustard as far as sensible responses go to that premise! :p

          FFS, I even posted a link to the simplest site I could find to explain interlaced resolutions & image scaling to the one single person who probably still doesn't get it, and who also managed to deftly sidestep the original issue of nonsensical perceptual differences with a singular display of obtusely artful ineptitude!!!

          Let's face facts, IMHO this guy spins a few tall tales, the last 'discussion' myself & other members had with him regarding giving misinformation, he couldn't provide the manual or model of a supposed Pana TV he said he owned to support his wildly inaccurate assertions about the lifespan of a PDP. To wit: http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/65163 :o

        • samfisher5986 on 20/04/2012 - 01:33
          -1

          Stewballs, weezlebub said he has a 1080i TV, which doesn't exist.

          You just can't read and are now just mashing your keyboard with your head.

          I suggest you go here http://www.angermanagement.com.au/

        • StewBalls on 20/04/2012 - 02:06

          Stewballs, weezlebub said he has a 1080i TV, which doesn't exist.

          Herpity-derp…we're back at the beginning again. So if I'm hearing you right, you're calling weezlebub and Keef both liars for having TVs with 1080i mode? FFS, I have two of them! Now read this next quote really slowly so it sinks in…interpreting it is most certainly not brain surgery…

          Most sets that are natively 1366x768 can interlace the image to 1080i…that's common knowledge…Actually, run off & check your 1366x768 set, I suspect you'll find that it has 1080i mode as well!!!

          If you can manage to work out the menus or remote for your own TV, you should be able to find the mode in question! The crux of the whole matter, however, which you've been avoiding, is this load of drivel you initially gave as firm advice:

          1365 x 768 is very noticeable on a 51" Plasma on any 720p content or higher. Its even noticeable on a 32" TV….
          If your planning to only watch our FTA TV with bitrates so low you might as well make it 480p then this will look as good as it can get.
          Any real 720p/1080p content is going to have a noticeable reduction in quality compared to a proper 1080p TV.

          It's full of half-truths, misconceptions and old wives tales to be frank. You persistently give advice that is equally banal. You embody the worst of OzB IMHO, blatant ignorance & stupidity, proffered as wisdom. The myths have been busted already by others in this very thread!!! That's why I called you on it, and to date you have not addressed the real issue in any way…you keep parroting on about the same old thing, you can't give it up because you're just so angry that I used your own demonstrated ignorance of interlaced modes to highlight your lack of knowledge, and that's what it surely did; and continues to do every time you fall back on the tactic.

          What part of that do you not get??? Even you should have no trouble grasping that clear message. As I've said, you're nothing but evasive, ignorant & clearly being deliberately obtuse with your wording…or are you genuinely this thick??? Either way, your track record of poor comprehension means that discussing anything with you is frustrating at best. You're right about one thing, it truly is like mashing one's head against the keyboard, or a brick wall.

          Look, I can see I've really gotten to you…you're following me & negging comments all over the shop. I think you should have a nice warm glass of milk & go to bed, dream up some more stories to tell tomorrow! Plus, you'll have some more negs to use! :)

          BTW, what model pana do you have, and how long did the manual say the 'lamp' would last??? You never did answer that question either! :p

        • samfisher5986 on 20/04/2012 - 10:41

          Stewballs, a 1080p TV can display 1024x768, that doesn't change the fact that its a 1080p TV.

          1080i TV's don't exist, any TV with a HDMI can display 1080i through the built in scaling etc, it doesn't change anything.

          Again, LCD and Plasma TV's are incapable of displaying actual interlaced picture, all it does it deinterlace it to display it on its progressive screen.

        • Kill Joy on 20/04/2012 - 10:53

          Haha mounting the offensive there buddy?

          I didn't mean any offence, but you just go on how everyone is wrong and don't justify yourself. Fair enough its been said enough times on the Internet, but its common knowledge that if your not going to backup your view points with more then some personal viewing experiences, of which is different to the point izzeho was making, (which was on the more technical and scientific side of the coin) then your going to look silly.

          And i was dumb-ing my post down for other not so computer literate users.

          And if you actually read what people are typing, they are saying there is no TV that actually outputs 1080i in that exact format9which personally I am not sure off). Its usually rescaled to 720p and then upscaled to fit the native resolution. Which is something it appears you cant wrap your head around? People aren't denying TVs have a 1080i mode, just they cant directly output that signal pixel for pixel on their display again from a technical aspect, not what I can see on my screen because I know everything about televisions.

          Your constant insults make you look like a troll as well as immature; it takes away your credibility.

          Ps. there is nothing to explain. Your both right. Televisions to my knowledge cannot pixel for pixel output 1080i (the other guys point, but have a 1080i mode in which it can be either de interlaced by a middleman or upscaled/downscaled/resize to fit the native resolution(your point). Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, but you really have gone about this discussion wrong.

        • samfisher5986 on 20/04/2012 - 10:59

          Kill Joy thats exactly right.

          There are multiple issues with StewBalls

          He's trying to say 1366 x 768 is nearly as good as 1080p

          He's trying to say you can buy 1080i TV's (LCD/Plasma can display progressive only, everything else is deinterlaced)

          He's trying to say this 1080i mode somehow fixes something, when it fixes nothing.

          He doesn't understand that interlaced picture is horrible in most shows, maybe if you like to watch boring shows with little movement you wont notice it.

        • Kill Joy on 20/04/2012 - 14:37
          +2

          Thanks Sam. And its strange because I respect Stewballs from his previous comments on this site, and this attitude is fairly out of character.

        • samfisher5986 on 20/04/2012 - 14:58
          +1

          I thought the same, never seen him post like this before…

        • StewBalls on 20/04/2012 - 17:26
          +2

          Yes, please accept my sincere apologies for my behaviour last night. I can't really say it's totally out of character, coz I can be a cranky smurf; but I let my frustration get the better of me…insomnia wasn't helping my case either, so it's quite likely I wasn't making myself clear!

          To answer your queries Sam:

          He's trying to say 1366 x 768 is nearly as good as 1080p

          No, what I meant; & others have verified both here & multiple online reviews; is that once you are over 3-4m (reasonable viewing distance) from a display under 55" it is difficult; almost impossible in fact; to see a difference between 720p & 1080p. I have 20/15 vision & I can't do it on either my 55" LCD or 50" plasma…maybe someone with 20/10 or better can, but those eagle-eyed folks are pretty rare! I think Wisc actually put it fairly succinctly:

          "apparantly for plasmas it doesnt really make too much of a difference at normal viewing distance when the tv is < 55" (32 for LCD) if its 1080 or 720, that said, think i still feel better having a 1080"

          He's trying to say you can buy 1080i TV's (LCD/Plasma can display progressive only, everything else is deinterlaced)

          No, all I was getting at was that we both know that you can most certainly buy TVs that offer a 1080i mode.

          He's trying to say this 1080i mode somehow fixes something, when it fixes nothing.

          No, I never said that at all, it simply is what it is, FWIW. As Izzeho & I discussed, the quality of the image obtained from 1080i mode on a 1366x768 set is highly individual, dependent on both source & unique AV/TV setup.

          You are right Sam, on some setups 1080i mode looks abominable; but on some (my old AWA/KTV 42" LCD for one) the image could be scaled & deinterlaced very nicely indeed, making it a worthwhile addition for that one particular model using HDMI from my Astone media player (also set to 1080i mode). Any altered variables could well have produced a markedly different result.

          Again, please accept my humble apologies for the vitriol. If it's any consolation, I took my own advice & had a glass of warm milk & went to bed shortly after my latter tirade! ;)

        • samfisher5986 on 20/04/2012 - 17:39
          +1

          Fair enough StewBalls, it was late at night after all :)

        • Kill Joy on 20/04/2012 - 20:18
          +2

          No harm done, I knew you were a bit off for some reason haha. But I think we all understand what everyone is talking about now :)

      • Keef on 19/04/2012 - 13:30
        +1

        I used to own a 1080i. Whats your point/mission here brother? Is it possible that you are mistaken? Everyone makes mistakes :)

  • Pandabargain on 19/04/2012 - 12:38
    -8
    1. its only a $125 saving from buying in store
    2. its dicksmith
    • markis10 on 19/04/2012 - 12:57
      +5

      Your right, a 25% saving is not worth it LOL

  • Grok on 19/04/2012 - 14:15

    Whoa, the world has moved on from HD screens and from "Consumption <330w"

  • boonanza on 19/04/2012 - 20:26
    +1

    For what it is $399 is a bargain great find OP

  • natman on 20/04/2012 - 04:44

    Most people use their TVs to watch TV. TV Channels are not broadcast in "full hd". So does the average person need "full hd"?

    It looks a good deal to me except for the high power consumption.

    • Keef on 20/04/2012 - 08:33

      The channels I watch are in full hd. Austar/Foxtel HD channels :)

  • natman on 20/04/2012 - 12:57

    "Any real 720p/1080p content is going to have a noticeable reduction in quality compared to a proper 1080p TV." -samfisher5986

    So a 1080p resolution is better than 1366x768 for displaying 720p? Are you sure?

    • samfisher5986 on 20/04/2012 - 13:00

      Yes 100% sure.

      This is for real 720p content though for example from Bluray, not anything to do with Free to Air Television.

      • natman on 20/04/2012 - 13:23

        Ok I don't know much about it, but 720p is closer to 1366x768 than it is to 1920x1080, so wouldn't it be more suited to 1366x768?

        • samfisher5986 on 20/04/2012 - 13:29

          Withdr4wn made a good point:

          "What makes things worse for 1366 x 768 is that not only is the content scaled down to 1280 x 720 as a factor, it's then re-scaled to fit 1366 x 768 so what you end up is a much more blurred / stretched / inconsistent image. This is also true for 720p content when being blown up to 1366 x 768."

          In addition to the fact that 720p content upscaled to 1080p will look great if the 720p source is good quality (bluray etc)

          Everyone needs to remember this is a 51" TV. 1366x768 is generally for 32" TV's, so I'm sure you can see why its going to look bad.

          If you can't imagine it, imagine 640x480 on a 80" TV, the pixels would be giant and it would be unwatchable, the same idea can be applied to big TV's with low resolution panels, there are simply not enough pixels to produce a good picture at the 51" size.

          Look at your computer screen right now, the work PC I'm on has a 17" monitor at 1280x1024. This bad work monitor has more pixels then this 51" TV.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join