LCD and Plasma Bargains and Discussions thread

[PostmanPot]

Nope max brightness on my screen and I still cant make out what box is sitting below the screen. Also no proof whatever the box is its yours, nor if it is a HDPVR that its running the premium bouquet.

You aren't supposed to. So just to tally things up, you're accusing:

1) No HD PVR in the pic
2) The pic isn't of my equipment
3) HD PVR without premium

 

[PostmanPot]

An expert, as you portray yourself as around here, would know precisely.

Quote it, these portrayals.

The point is that 98% of channels are SD. The point is that other people may have different viewing habits to yourself. The point is other people may watch SD content, DVDs, downloaded, etc.

It's only you who selfishly can't think further than your own situation and understand that some people on a budget may like having the best of both worlds. Plenty of us have alluded to appreciation of SD quality, just accept that it is still an important factor for some others but yourself!

 

[greg_SA]

What do you think this is?

Hehe - that photo just confirms that your viewing environment has to be pitch darkness for that plasma Just kidding

 

[PostmanPot]

Sorry, but the vagueness with which you portray your experiences and the lack knowledge about basic facts like how many HD channels there actually are, tell me you're talking bull.

 

[PostmanPot]

Roman, if still doubting, just say if you want the other/next pic I took.

 

[Azbubu]

Glad I'm not the only one who occasionally indulges in Big Brother Africa

 

[PostmanPot]

Glad I'm not the only one who occasionally indulges in Big Brother Africa

Emphasis on occasionally.

My flame suit is on ...

 

[BlackWasp]

Samsung 40” (102cm) 3D Full HD Slim LED TV
• Model: UA40D6000 • Resolution: 1920 x 1080 • HDMI x 4 • USB 2.0 • Allshare (wireless DLNA)
• 24 month guarantee
R6999
Makro

 

[PostmanPot]

Any opinions on the LG 47LS4600 on special at game for R7999 this week?

I am looking for a TV for my parents that will go in a very bright lounge with some direct sunlight during the day, so this rules out most plasmas (which I would have preferred, I have a Samsung 51D550).

The set is 100Hz so should be ok for sports.

The other option is the Sony 46CX520 at R6999, but it seems a couple of people have complained that it is quite dim compared to most other sets. It does seem to have a very matte finish screen which will be good.

Another option is the Samsung 46D550 which are also available at good prices.

Size must be 46" as 40" would be too small and the maximum budget of R8k does not allow for anything bigger.

They will only watch SD DSTV at this stage, hoping to convince them to go for an HD PVR soon.

http://www.makro.co.za/p/3547/samsung-46-117cm-full-hd-lcd-tv/
http://www.makro.co.za/p/14998/sony-46-117cm-full-hd-lcd-tv/
http://www.makro.co.za/p/16067/multichoice-hd-pvr-decoder-plus-dstv-drifta-bundle/

Would take the Samsung with its 2 year warranty over the internet capabilities of the CX520 (of which are basically limited to YouTube and browsing), and its 1 year warranty.

(Maybe you can keep the Drifta. )

 

[iceman23]

Samsung 40” (102cm) 3D Full HD Slim LED TV
• Model: UA40D6000 • Resolution: 1920 x 1080 • HDMI x 4 • USB 2.0 • Allshare (wireless DLNA)
• 24 month guarantee
R6999
Makro

does that have wifi built in?

went to get the UA46ES6200 but there was not stock on Sunday. I think that 46 is too big for the bedroom after thinking about it. But I need wifi and the ability to use Plex...

 

[Roman4604]

The point is that 98% of channels are SD.

Thats a simplistic view, not taking into account the relative value of the content for the majority of viewers. A parlimentary debate cant hold a candle to the Euro 2012 final. Variety of low grade content in my opinion is far less important than the premium experience of (limited) high value content.

The point is that other people may have different viewing habits to yourself. The point is other people may watch SD content, DVDs, downloaded, etc.

None of this is at issue. My point has remaind very from the clear start, if you're going to be spending your hard earned money on new (HD) equipment, why purchase stuff that will perpetuate the experience standard you're already used to (SD, with some minor enhancements). Far wiser to invest in stuff that will carry you forward to experience the benefits of full HD.

Based on my long-term 1st hand experience of comparing (full) HD to SD, HD is worlds apart, no other upgrade provides quite the same wow factor. So your continued insistance that its fine to carry on ploughing money into SD (optimised) equipment leads me to the conclusion that you do not have the 1st hand experience to have appreciated the vast difference.

 

[PostmanPot]

does that have wifi built in?

went to get the UA46ES6200 but there was not stock on Sunday. I think that 46 is too big for the bedroom after thinking about it. But I need wifi and the ability to use Plex...

Not built in, allows for an adapter. Haven't seen Samsung specific ones. Perhaps one of the PC brands would work...

 

[BlackWasp]

does that have wifi built in?

went to get the UA46ES6200 but there was not stock on Sunday. I think that 46 is too big for the bedroom after thinking about it. But I need wifi and the ability to use Plex...

Needs a wi-fi dongle.

 

[iceman23]

darn, those things cost like R1000 so the price of the tv just shot up... will get the ES6200 when they get stock I guess.

 

[Roman4604]

Roman, if still doubting, just say if you want the other/next pic I took.

Still doesnt prove its yours, and that you use it day to day. Also no confirmation that its running premium bouquet. And finally even if it is, running it on a 1024x768 display does not prove you understand/appreciate the difference full HD has over SD.

 

[PostmanPot]

Thats a simplistic view, not taking into account the relative value of the content for the majority of viewers. A parlimentary debate cant hold a candle to the Euro 2012 final. Variety of low grade content in my opinion is far less important than the premium experience of (limited) high value content.

None of this is at issue. My point has remaind very clear start, if you're going to be spending your hard earned money on new (HD) equipment, why purchase stuff that will perpetuate the experience standard you're already used to (SD, with some minor enhancements). Far wiser to invest in stuff that will carry you forward to experience the benefits of full HD.

Based on my long-term 1st hand experience of comparing (full) HD to SD, HD is worlds apart, no other upgrade provides quite the same wow factor.

Really have no idea what you're going on about (and why). Please quote the post you take issue with.

If anything you confirm the fact that the difference between HD and SD TV is such that people who might watch SD programs/content (whom you aren't concerned about) appreciate SD being displayed well. The difference between SD on a 720p plasma (particularly 43") and a 1080p LCD is equally big.

As someone who up until recently had a 54cm CRT, replaced with a 32" FHD LCD, not to mention the 42" HDR plasma, I can sympathise with them.

Not one forumite in the past 2-3 years who's bought a 42/43" HDR plasma has complained. Okay there was one, killadoob, because he connected it to his PC for gaming and it didn't look good close up. This is something always advised.

So your continued insistance that its fine to carry on ploughing money into SD (optimised) equipment leads me to the conclusion that you do not have the 1st hand experience to have appreciated the vast difference.

Nonsense on both accusations.

CNET raise other important issues which I raised but you refused to acknowledge. Always assuming close up viewing and other such preferred conditions.

How important is resolution?
Although resolution separates HDTV from standard-definition TV, it's not as important to overall picture quality as other factors. According to the Imaging Science Foundation, a group that consults for home-theater manufacturers and trains professional video calibrators, the most important aspect of picture quality is contrast ratio the second most important is color saturation, and the third is color accuracy. Resolution comes in fourth, despite being the most-cited HDTV specification.

The point is, once you get to high-definition, it's difficult to discern further improvements in the sharpness of the picture. All other things being equal--namely contrast and color--HDTV looks more or less spectacular on just about any high-definition television regardless of its size, native resolution, or the HDTV signal's resolution itself. The leap from normal TV to HDTV is so big that additional leaps in resolution--from high-definition to higher-definition, let's say--are tiny by comparison.

Despite the obvious difference in pixel count, 720p and 1080i both look great. In fact, unless you have a very large television and excellent source material, you'll have a hard time telling the difference between any of the HDTV resolutions. It's especially difficult to tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p sources. The difference between DVD and HDTV should be visible on most HDTVs, but especially on smaller sets, it's not nearly as drastic as the difference between standard TV and HDTV.

Technically speaking, all of these numbers are accurate and useful, but don't put too much stock in them. In the real world, it's difficult to tell the difference between native resolutions once you get into high-definition. For example, despite the fact that a 37-inch LCD with "only" 1,366x768 pixels has to throw away a good deal of information to display a 1080i football game on CBS, you'd be hard-pressed to see more detail on a similar 37-inch LCD with 1,920x1,080 resolution.

The truth about 1080p
In the last couple of years, HDTVs with 1080p native resolution have taken over the market at nearly every price and size point. But as we've been saying all along, once you get to high-definition, the difference between resolutions becomes much more difficult to appreciate. We've done numerous side-by-side tests between two same-size HDTVs, one with 1080p resolution and another with lower resolution, and every time it's been almost impossible to see the difference with regular program material, especially when that material is moving. The difference becomes even more difficult to see at smaller screen sizes or farther seating distances--say, more than 1.5 times the diagonal measurement of the screen. For example, to see the benefits of stationary 1080p content on a 50-inch screen, you'll generally need to sit about 6.5 feet or closer. Few viewers want to sit that close, especially when low-quality content seen at that distance (remember the "garbage" maxim?) looks so bad. The main visible benefit of 1080p native resolution comes when the display is asked to show computer sources. With a PC set to output 1080p resolution and a 1080p display that can accept it, computer desktops and text generally look superb, and quite a bit better than when displayed on a TV with lower native resolution. But for movies, games, and other standard video material, the benefits of 1080p are negligible unless you're sitting quite close. That doesn't matter much anymore though. 1080p native resolution is so common among HDTVs, and has so little impact, that you shouldn't even consider it as a factor in your purchasing decision. As we mentioned at the top, factors like contrast and color are more important to image quality, and unfortunately, you can't depend on a specification sheet for an accurate representation of those factors.

So while resolution is important, I think it's disengenuous to suggest to laymen so much reliance on it. As I said, someone sitting relatively far back who isn't able to tell the difference between HD resolutions would be better off with a higher contrast (plasma) TV, perhaps bigger too.

You refuse to acknowledge these people.

 

[PostmanPot]

Still doesnt prove its yours, and that you use it day to day. Also no confirmation that its running premium bouquet. And finally even if it is, running it on a 1024x768 display does not prove you understand/appreciate the difference full HD has over SD.

Need I get other forumites to confirm for you?

I've sat behind a PC since I was 10 prior to Y2K and have experienced all the techs. I can well tell the difference, lol, I've had 1024x768 CRTs, 1440x900 PC LCDs, 1920x1080 PC LCDs, a 1920x1200 PC LCD; an HD PVR2P for close to 2 years, a 42" HD Ready plasma, a C550 32" FHD LCD used as a PC screen (now TV/PC) for 1 year running a multitude of SD and HD sources, gaming, and HD PVR, I've had >100 hours experience analysing a CX520 46" FHD LCD with HD PVR and PS3.

It's bonkers how you're accusing me of underestimating HD quality.

 

[Roman4604]

So while resolution is important, I think it's disengenuous to suggest to laymen so much reliance on it.

Please show me one recent HD-Ready (1024x768) professional review where the outcome is something like "This set is so brilliant that we've changed our minds and are now recommending that you shouldnt be investing in a full 1080p HDTV"?

In my experience they go something like this (commenting on the Samsung PS43D450 vs LG 42PT350, both 1024x768 plasma displays) ...

The Samsung showed resolution scaling problems just as bad as the LG, along with some color performance issues. That said, we were impressed with the black level and contrast ratio. It’s not a great TV, but neither is the LG PT350. They’re both entry-level slackers that get the job done but don’t excel at it.

Source: http://www.televisioninfo.com/content/LG-42PT350-Plasma-HDTV-Review/vs-Samsung-PN51D450.htm

 

[PostmanPot]

Please show me one recent HD-Ready (1024x768) professional review where the outcome is something like "This set is so brilliant that we've changed our minds and are now recommending that you shouldnt be investing in a full 1080p HDTV"?

In my experience they go something like this (commenting on the Samsung PS43D450 vs LG 42PT350, both 1024x768 plasma displays) ...



Source: http://www.televisioninfo.com/content/LG-42PT350-Plasma-HDTV-Review/vs-Samsung-PN51D450.htm

This really achieves nothing. Once again it's test/ideal scenarios, conditions, sources, which do not take into account individual users, their viewing distance, their viewing content.

It's childish. I wouldn't ask why HD Ready plasmas continue to get rated better than FHD LCDs.

1) Most people cannot tell the difference between native HD resolutions
2) Many people's viewing involves much SD content
3) 720p plasma, especially 43", performs better at SD than 1080p LCD
4) #1, it does good at HD as well. Best of both worlds!

The notion of any other points you choose to draw from my argument, are simply fabricated by you.

 

[Roman4604]

It's childish. I wouldn't ask why HD Ready plasmas continue to get rated better than FHD LCDs.

Certainly not by professional reviewers.

1) Most people cannot tell the difference between native HD resolutions

The point of spending money on HD is to appreciate it, so choose the correct viewing distance relative to the largest size of screen you can afford. If you're not in the position to do this, then you might as well go to Cash Crusaders and pick up a CRT for far less money, it aint going to make a difference.

2) Many people's viewing involves much SD content

This discussion is about the appreciation of (full) HD

3) 720p plasma, especially 43", performs better at SD than 1080p LCD

With an HDPVR upscaling to 1080i, I'd put them very close. Anyway answer to 2) applies as well.

4) #1, it does good at HD as well.

The objective is not to do it 'well', to appreciate full (HD) you need to see it at its full potential (1920x1080).

Best of both worlds!

Hardly, as illustrated in the review excerpt above.