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

42" Full HD TV £483 / €548

Options
  • 14-09-2009 8:27pm
    #1
    TPD
    Registered Users Posts: 7,814 ✭✭✭


    http://www.ebuyer.com/product/166541
    -Inputs: VGA, RF, VIDEO, S-VIDEO, YPbPr, Scart 1, Scart 2, HDMI 1, HDMI 2
    -Audio Input: Audio R/L, PC Audio, YPbPR Audio R/L
    -Support TV Mode: PAL, SECAM (B/G, D/K, I)
    - Teletext: Support 4000 pages
    - NICAM and FM Stereo Support
    - 200 Store Channels
    - Over 40 Freeview Channels
    - 7 days Electronic Program Guide
    - Now and Next EPG
    -Manual and Auto Channel Search

    Specifications

    Display

    * Screen Size: 42"
    * Ratio: 16:9
    * Resolution: 1920x1080
    * Brightness: 500cd/m2
    * Contrast: 1200:1
    * Colour: 16.7 Million

    TV

    * Blue Screen: Yes
    * Frequency Modulation: Yes
    * Timer on/off: Yes

    Input

    * AV: Yes
    * S-Video: Yes
    * Scart: x2
    * VGA: Support to 1024x768, 60Hz
    * YPbPr: Support to 720p, 1080p
    * HDMI:x2, Support to 720p, 1080p
    * Power: AC 100-240V, 50/60Hz
    * Power Consumption: 280W

    Price above is without shipping, which I think is £12.50ish. You need to use Google Checkout to get ebuyer to ship to Ireland AFAIK.

    Probably not a great TV by new TV standards, but the size and resolution for the price would be hard to match. I'm going to get one as soon as the bank account allows, it should do nicely until OLED technology is cheaper.

    *This was posted in the thread that got locked, I think it's worthy of its own thread though.*


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    ShoulderChip
    Registered Users Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭ShoulderChip


    Wow can anyone verify if this is a deal, it looks perfect to me!
    I want it.


  • Options
    #3
    ASTRACLUB
    Registered Users Posts: 434 ✭✭ASTRACLUB


    hmm

    I would not fancy this as in this money, you can get almost all brand in this size
    with this money!!!!


  • Options
    #4
    TPD
    Registered Users Posts: 7,814 ✭✭✭TPD


    ShoulderChip wrote: »
    Wow can anyone verify if this is a deal, it looks perfect to me!
    I want it.

    Ebuyer are apparently a reputable enough website, I haven't dealt with them myself yet though. Reviews I've found on this tv seem positive, a few panels with stuck pixels which were fixable, and one with dead pixels which ebuyer replaced.
    How easy the replacement scheme would be from ROI, I don't know.
    ASTRACLUB wrote: »
    hmm

    I would not fancy this as in this money, you can get almost all brand in this size
    with this money!!!!

    The same resolution? I wouldn't settle with 720p on anything over 32".


  • Options
    #5
    ballybay_eh
    Registered Users Posts: 245 ✭✭ballybay_eh


    ASTRACLUB wrote: »
    hmm

    I would not fancy this as in this money, you can get almost all brand in this size
    with this money!!!!

    Where?!?


  • Options
    #6
    noodler
    Registered Users Posts: 26,314 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    Is 1200:1 not a very low contrast ratio?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    TPD
    Registered Users Posts: 7,814 ✭✭✭TPD


    noodler wrote: »
    Is 1200:1 not a very low contrast ratio?

    Yup, but contrast ratios are generally meaningless. Each manufacturer has their own way of measuring them.


  • Options
    #8
    Rsaeire
    Registered Users Posts: 2,888 ✭✭✭Rsaeire


    noodler wrote: »
    Is 1200:1 not a very low contrast ratio?

    Yes and no. Most manufacturer's market their LCD TVs as having a contrast ratio in the tens of thousands, but this is misleading as this is the TV's dynamic contrast ratio, i.e. what ratio the TV could potentially reach. Given this fact, an LCD TV with dynamic contrast ratio of 30,000 would mean that it could display white 30,000 times brighter than black. Why this is misleading is that this figure takes into account your TVs brightness when the backlight is at full, ensuring the brightest white, and also when the backlight is off, ensuring the darkest black.

    The ratio consumers should be looking for is what's called a native contrast ratio; this is normally a lot lower than the dynamic contrast ratio e.g. the Samsung B650's dynamic contrast ratio is 100,000:1, whereas it's static contrast ratio is around 5000:1.

    You can find some additional information here and here.

    I would assume that the Sense TV only has a native contrast ratio of 1200:1 and this is what is being referred to. As such, it's not as bad as you might think, especially as most LCD monitors only have a native contrast ratio of 1000:1.


  • Options
    #9
    ShoulderChip
    Registered Users Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭ShoulderChip


    as anyone received theirs yet? let me know when you do.


  • Options
    #10
    Biro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    The Perfect Drug wrote: »
    The same resolution? I wouldn't settle with 720p on anything over 32".

    That's a bit narrow minded in a sense. One of the earlier Pioneer Plasmas was "only" 720p, at it was around 50". It still is a better set today than many TV's on sale.
    Previous poster is correct in the contrast ratio sum-up, but 1200:1 is still low for a native contrast ratio. PC monitors are crap! Shouldn't be used to compare to a 42" TV. Personally I wouldn't bother with this, I think an extra €100 could find a much better TV.
    Even if you didn't want to spend any more, here are 2 Plasmas for the same money that I'd pick way quicker:
    http://www.richersounds.com/product/plasma-tv/lg/42pg6010/lg-42pg6010
    http://www.richersounds.com/product/plasma-tv/panasonic/txp42x10/pana-txp42x10
    And 2 1080p LCD's for the same money:
    http://www.richersounds.com/product/lcd-tv/samsung/le40b530/sams-le40b530
    http://www.richersounds.com/product/lcd-tv/sony/kdl40s5500/sony-kdl40s5500
    (OK, 2 of them are £10 dearer, and another one is £30 dearer, but still!)


  • Options
    #11
    TPD
    Registered Users Posts: 7,814 ✭✭✭TPD


    Biro wrote: »
    That's a bit narrow minded in a sense. One of the earlier Pioneer Plasmas was "only" 720p, at it was around 50". It still is a better set today than many TV's on sale.
    Previous poster is correct in the contrast ratio sum-up, but 1200:1 is still low for a native contrast ratio. PC monitors are crap! Shouldn't be used to compare to a 42" TV. Personally I wouldn't bother with this, I think an extra €100 could find a much better TV.
    Even if you didn't want to spend any more, here are 2 Plasmas for the same money that I'd pick way quicker:
    http://www.richersounds.com/product/plasma-tv/lg/42pg6010/lg-42pg6010
    http://www.richersounds.com/product/plasma-tv/panasonic/txp42x10/pana-txp42x10
    And 2 1080p LCD's for the same money:
    http://www.richersounds.com/product/lcd-tv/samsung/le40b530/sams-le40b530
    http://www.richersounds.com/product/lcd-tv/sony/kdl40s5500/sony-kdl40s5500
    (OK, 2 of them are £10 dearer, and another one is £30 dearer, but still!)

    It may be narrow minded, but I will mainly be using the TV hooked up to a computer, so I would notice the low resolution a lot.

    Dismissing resolution seems illogical to me - would you buy a 42" 480p tv because it had a higher contrast ratio/refresh rate/response time than a budget 1080p lcd? The high resolution is - to me at least - the main attraction of a HDTV.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement