£404.10 (after voucher discount) SAMSUNG PS-42B430 PLASMA-TV Freeview Tuner built-in FREE 2 yr warranty @ Conrad Direct Free Delivery - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
200Expired

£404.10 (after voucher discount) SAMSUNG PS-42B430 PLASMA-TV Freeview Tuner built-in FREE 2 yr warranty @ Conrad Direct Free Delivery

£404.10 @ Conrad Electronic UK
No HD Ready... But at this price, who cares? Conrad Direct has a crap site (why use frames!!!!). Use their search engine instead. Simple and elegant with great technological abilities - the new …
siliconbits Avatar
7y, 5m agoFound 7 years, 5 months ago
No HD Ready... But at this price, who cares?

Conrad Direct has a crap site (why use frames!!!!). Use their search engine instead.

Simple and elegant with great technological abilities - the new Plasma-Series by Samsung. The dynamic contrast of 2.000.000 : 1 combined with the 100 Hz technology with 600Hz Sub-fields (levels of brightness) per second and an integrated HDTV-tuner for cable and terrestrial reception give you authentic images, unbelievable details and a great image definition.

Highlights

42" screen size
Resolution 1024 x 768
100 Hz technology with 600 Hz Subfield Motion
DVB-T and DVB-C tuner with HDTV-Decoder
2 HDMI ports
Features:

DNIe+ technology
Wide Colour Enhancer 2 for vital and natural true colours (18bit)
Mega contrast rate for authentic and detailed images
262.144 levels of grey
Anti image burn-in technology
Teletext with 1000 pages memory
EPG (Electronic programme guide) via DVB-T
Energy saving mode
Integrated speakers
Dolby Digital Plus
SRS TruSurround HD
Automatic volume control
On/Off timer
Automatic shut-down mode
Display menu in 25 languages.
Deal Tags:
More From Conrad Electronic UK:

All Comments

(14) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
What is best to buy - plasma or LCD ... (noob alert) !
#2
siliconbits
No HD Ready... But at this price, who cares?
Did you mean not full HD? 'Cos this is HD ready :)
Macdory
What is best to buy - plasma or LCD ... (noob alert) !
Broadly speaking plasmas give a better picture quality overall but LCD are improving all the time, and probably not all that different to the naked eye. However, plasma TVs had a bad rep for mahoosive power consumption, but again this is improving all the time...this one for example is very good in that respect. So, unfortunately it's not so much about LCD or plasma anymore...you'll need to compare specific TVs and get the balance right depending on what is more important for you. Best bet would be to do some Google research to figure out what the current 'norms' are.
#3
I do have the Samsung PS-42B430 and think that you'll hardly get a better Plasma for this price. It's picture quality and tuner is amazing, but it doesn't have a 24p mode (if you are going to watch Blue Rays you might have a problem). For TV and DVDs it's close to perfect and for gaming it's great.

The only difference to it's "bigger brother" B450 is that there is no "Filter Bright" - you'll have more reflexions on the screen.

If you want a pretty good plasma at an amazing price: buy this one!
#4
From Wikipedia

"Older products that bear the label "HD ready" may not display the full picture resolution possible from an HD source. Most HD ready sets do not have enough pixels to give true pixel-for-pixel representation without interpolation of the higher HD resolution (1920x1080) – or (in rare cases) even the lower HD resolution (1280x720) horizontally (CRT based sets, or the plasma-based sets with 1024x768 resolution). This limitation has been removed for the "HD Ready 1080p" logo."
#5
Thank you mooncat
#6
"Resolution 1024 x 768"

Is the resolution right? If it is thats 4:3 pixel aspect ratio in a 16:9 panel. I know the earlier plasna's used to have this, but haven't seen it on a new panel for a while.

A few years ago the cost of 720p/1080p plasmas made it worth making such a compromise, but these days I think you'd be better of spending a bit more and getting a panel with a true 16:9 pixel aspect ratio. Infact even back then I think you'd have been better off going for a lower res panel, which had 16:9 pixel aspect ratio.
#7
Most HD Ready plasma TVs have that resolution. It is a true 16:9 ratio.
#8
Adamo
Most HD Ready plasma TVs have that resolution. It is a true 16:9 ratio.


1024 x 768?

might need a quick brush up on those maths skills there :whistling:
#9
So is this tv hd ready then? lol
#10
I think he was trying to write a rhetoric question asking if the we are hd ready and if not who cares at this price?
#11
snag1981
1024 x 768?

might need a quick brush up on those maths skills there :whistling:


Pixels don't need to be square.
So one can perfectly construct a screen that is 16:9 in dimension even if the pixels ratio is 4:3.
#12
yant
Pixels don't need to be square.
So one can perfectly construct a screen that is 16:9 in dimension even if the pixels ratio is 4:3.


That is why I differentiated between the aspect ratio of the panel, and the aspect ration of the pixel arrangement.

There are clearly some inherent compromises with having a 4:3 pixel aspect ratio. Given the fall in price of 720p/1080i panels and the improved scaling in modern displays, IMO those compromises are no longer worthwhile on balance.
#13
Mentos
"Resolution 1024 x 768"

Is the resolution right? If it is thats 4:3 pixel aspect ratio in a 16:9 panel. I know the earlier plasna's used to have this, but haven't seen it on a new panel for a while.

A few years ago the cost of 720p/1080p plasmas made it worth making such a compromise, but these days I think you'd be better of spending a bit more and getting a panel with a true 16:9 pixel aspect ratio. Infact even back then I think you'd have been better off going for a lower res panel, which had 16:9 pixel aspect ratio.


Why? What would be the advantage of say a screen that is 1180 x 666 (fictional to keep similar number of pixels) over a screen that it 1024 x 768 ?

There are two potential adantages of screen that are 1920x1080:
1- No scaling, perfect pixel-to-pixel display of 1080p material
2- High resolution give better fine details

There is one potential advantage of a screen that would be 1275x720:
1- No scaling, perfect pixel-to-pixel dispaly of 720p material

However, when you start doing scaling, there's really no advantage for a screen that require scaling by the same ratio horizontally and vertically vs a screen that require a different scaling ratio vertically than it require horizontally. The electronics really don't care.

In addition, I believe that the way the TVs work, the humans are more susceptible to perceive the number of horizontal lines that the number of vertical pixels per line. So subjectively, you might very well find that a 1024x768 screen appears better to human eyes that a 1275x720 despite the fewer total number of pixels. (I seem to recall reading an article about that some times ago)
#14
yant
Why? What would be the advantage of say a screen that is 1180 x 666 (fictional to keep similar number of pixels) over a screen that it 1024 x 768 ?

There are two potential adantages of screen that are 1920x1080:
1- No scaling, perfect pixel-to-pixel display of 1080p material
2- High resolution give better fine details

There is one potential advantage of a screen that would be 1275x720:
1- No scaling, perfect pixel-to-pixel dispaly of 720p material

However, when you start doing scaling, there's really no advantage for a screen that require scaling by the same ratio horizontally and vertically vs a screen that require a different scaling ratio vertically than it require horizontally. The electronics really don't care.

In addition, I believe that the way the TVs work, the humans are more susceptible to perceive the number of horizontal lines that the number of vertical pixels per line. So subjectively, you might very well find that a 1024x768 screen appears better to human eyes that a 1275x720 despite the fewer total number of pixels. (I seem to recall reading an article about that some times ago)


Well it depends which electronics your using to do the scaling. Theres no way to bypass the internal scalar with 1024 x 768 16:9 sets, because most other devices won't let you set both the aspect ratio and resolution.

So for example if you ever plugged a PC into this display, you'd have to set the resolution to something other then 1024 x 768. Resulting in a softer image.

If you ever purchased a device (DVD/BD player say) which was a better scalar then the one built into the TV, you wouldn't be able to use the scaling ability of that device.

I think the Xbox allows you to set both aspect ratio and resolution indipendantly, but the PS3 doesn't.

Rectangular pixel displays just don't seem to be worth the compromise anymore to me, when you can pickup a conventional pixel display for not much more. A year or two ago, I could have understood the tradeoff, but these days it seems pointless to me.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Looking for Twitter login?
Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!