Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Samsung 42" 3D Plasma €470

Options

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    celticbhoy27
    Registered Users Posts: 880 ✭✭✭celticbhoy27


    yes it is full hd.


  • Options
    #3
    Vic Vinegar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,241 ✭✭✭Vic Vinegar


    celticbhoy27 wrote: »
    yes it is full hd.

    No, it really isn't.

    Lovely TV though, no doubt!


  • Options
    #4
    ED E
    Registered Users Posts: 36,166 ✭✭✭✭ED E


    celticbhoy27 wrote: »
    yes it is full hd.

    No, as the OP said its not full HD. Its only 1024 x 768 which is tecnically HD as its over 720p but really is shocking. A 42" should be 1920x1080 without question.


    Not really a BA as this would be a very silly purchase as you can easily get full def in a 40" for 500 and change.


  • Options
    #5
    Fnz
    Registered Users Posts: 2,848 ✭✭✭Fnz


    1024 x 768? That's not even a widescreen aspect ratio - even though the TV appears to be widescreen.

    Doesn't really seem recommendable.


  • Options
    #6
    Voodu Child
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,706 ✭✭✭Voodu Child


    1024x768 is very common in budget plasmas. The pixels are rectangular so it is a widescreen aspect.

    Yes it is a very low resolution and would be a problem if your viewing distance was relatively small.

    However it is important to note that there are a number of attributes that make up overall picture quality, resolution is just one and actually it is pretty low on the list. Someone who just looks for full HD and buys based on that actually knows nothing about TVs. Budget plasmas often make up for the low resolution by beating similarly priced LCD/LED in terms of contrast, colour depth, pixel response/motion smoothness etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    TerrorFirmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    Is that resolution not sub HD? I thought 720p was 1280x720? Which'd make this TV 576p....


  • Options
    #8
    Barr
    Registered Users Posts: 6,992 ✭✭✭Barr


    Very low price for a 3D tv like that - if only I were in the market.


  • Options
    #9
    WarZoneBrother
    Registered Users Posts: 5,532 ✭✭✭WarZoneBrother


    ED E wrote: »

    Not really a BA as this would be a very silly purchase as you can easily get full def in a 40" for 500 and change.

    Well it is 3D and from my perspective having 3DTV beats having a full HD TV.. Don't see what all the fuss is about with full HD tbh.. I use my 3DTV for gaming, only bad thing is plasmas.. Tend to leave a mark if you leave same thing on for so long but not really noticible..

    I purchased the LG PW450T from richersounds and it has given me no troubles... Well worth the 470 or so that I paid... Pretty much the exact same as this model..

    This 3DTV may not come with 3D glasses though?


  • Options
    #10
    Fnz
    Registered Users Posts: 2,848 ✭✭✭Fnz


    Voodu Child wrote: »
    1024x768 is very common in budget plasmas. The pixels are rectangular so it is a widescreen aspect.

    Yes it is a very low resolution and would be a problem if your viewing distance was relatively small.

    However it is important to note that there are a number of attributes that make up overall picture quality, resolution is just one and actually it is pretty low on the list. Someone who just looks for full HD and buys based on that actually knows nothing about TVs. Budget plasmas often make up for the low resolution by beating similarly priced LCD/LED in terms of contrast, colour depth, pixel response/motion smoothness etc.

    Rectangular pixels sound like a display headache. Squashed images, I'm imagining. Also, as you mention, very low resolution for a 42" widescreen.
    WarZoneBrother wrote: »
    Well it is 3D and from my perspective having 3DTV beats having a full HD TV.. Don't see what all the fuss is about with full HD tbh.

    Well, that makes one of us. Nobody cares about 3D - just ask the companies trying to sell us 3D. :D


  • Options
    #11
    WarZoneBrother
    Registered Users Posts: 5,532 ✭✭✭WarZoneBrother


    Fnz wrote: »


    Well, that makes one of us. Nobody cares about 3D - just ask the companies trying to sell us 3D. :D

    Maybe not for people without a PS3... But I find quite a number of PS3 gamers on here have got a 3DTV and are satisfied as new games come onto the market with 3D compatibility... The likes of Resistance 3, Killzone 3, Wipeout HD all have tremendous 3D quality and look stunning..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Voodu Child
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,706 ✭✭✭Voodu Child


    Fnz wrote: »
    Rectangular pixels sound like a display headache. Squashed images, I'm imagining.

    No.


  • Options
    #13
    jvrk
    Registered Users Posts: 210 ✭✭jvrk


    This tv comes in at €367 on littlewoods when you this code 276R8 so a very good deal.


  • Options
    #14
    Slevster
    Registered Users Posts: 591 ✭✭✭Slevster


    its quoting 419 euros +62.99 for delivery at the moment, and no glasses. The lg plasma from RS has glasses included. Both are HD ready as opposed to the full hd. HGowever, unless you are viewing the picture up close, or really looking for faults, the resolution isn't going to make that huge a difference under normal viewing. The engine behind the screen might.


Advertisement