272°
EXPIRED
LG 42PJ350 42 inch Plasma TV HD Ready (720p) 349.95 @ RicherSounds
LG 42PJ350 42 inch Plasma TV HD Ready (720p) 349.95 @ RicherSounds

LG 42PJ350 42 inch Plasma TV HD Ready (720p) 349.95 @ RicherSounds

Buy forBuy forBuy for£349.95
GETGet dealVisit site and get deal
Just picked this TV up.

Good TV with good reviews.

Before voting cold because it’s ‘not 1080p’ please read this: carltonbale.com/108…ter

Also Richer also offer 5 years warranty for 10% of the price:
TV only = £349.95
TV with 5 years warranty = £384.94

20 Comments

Original Poster

http://www.e-weekly.co.uk/images/Jimages/prodimg/lg42pj350ov1.png

Voted hot, but I can tell the difference between 1080 p and 720 p sitting 10 feet away from a TV. Maybe I have super eyes ! Interesting article though.

Superb quality picture even at 720, excellent price.

Soulreape

Voted hot, but I can tell the difference between 1080 p and 720 p sitting … Voted hot, but I can tell the difference between 1080 p and 720 p sitting 10 feet away from a TV. Maybe I have super eyes ! Interesting article though.



you must have. cos i cant even with my lenses in or glasses on

that chart is complete rubbish imo, the calculator recommends that i need to be 4ft from screen to fully benefit from 1080 and 6 ft for 720... i can tell the difference on my couch 10 ft away from the screen. I have excellent eyesight so either my eyes are super human or the chart is pants.

slackrat77

you must have. cos i cant even with my lenses in or glasses on

That article is ridiculous. I can tell the difference between 1280x800 and 1440x900 and 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 on a laptop screen less than 2 feet away. And yes, when it's playing video and not just when it's being used to display the OS GUI.

There were a LOT of articles about Apple's iPhone 4 "retina display" claim. The general verdict was that it's 960x640 3.5" display came close to being as good as your eye can distinguish. To make the same claim about a 1366x768 42" TV is absolutely ridiculous. Just please ignore that article.

That said, this looks like a good deal.

Posted last week. Apparently you can hack to play divx. I went for Panasonic TX20 in the end for twenty more.

Yes, the article is simplistic. As others said above, it ignores eyesight - you can't just consider one factor, you need them all. Eyesight + screensize + resolution + sitting distance.

Here's the definitive research from the BBC:

downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/…pdf


See page 6, on a 42" at standard viewing distances (3 metres), 720p is right for about 65% of the population, but something like 10% need 1080p, and another 10% need an even higher resolution.



Edited by: "arfster" 19th Sep 2010

I have the 42PJ550 and its an awesome T.V and got my 500GB external HDD attached to it now with all my music and movies on.

i got a lg 42" from Richer and HD is a good picture but standard digital is very good too. I paid £385 with 5 year warranty, easy choice

ta2

That article is ridiculous. I can tell the difference between 1280x800 … That article is ridiculous. I can tell the difference between 1280x800 and 1440x900 and 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 on a laptop screen less than 2 feet away. And yes, when it's playing video and not just when it's being used to display the OS GUI.



And your point is?

arfster

Yes, the article is simplistic. As others said above, it ignores eyesight … Yes, the article is simplistic. As others said above, it ignores eyesight - you can't just consider one factor, you need them all. Eyesight + screensize + resolution + sitting distance.



It says at the start it's based on 20/20 vision.

Anyway, good deal but just to let people know this model can't play video through the USB port. Might be worth looking for a deal on the 42PJ550 if that's an important feature for you.

spacemanzx

It says at the start it's based on 20/20 vision.



Sure, but the point is that's only a chunk of the population. A lot of people have much better, many have a lot worse.

You really need 3 graphs for something like this, 20/15, 20/20, and 15/20.

I can't tell the difference between an upscaled pic and HD.

I cant tell the difference between B&W and Colour! in fact I cant see 2 Dimensional images! But I can taste smell and smell from over 1 mile away, being a dog is so very difficult.

So basically what we are saying is some can see a difference and some can't. Wow, people are different! Why not just check out the product if you are interested and see if it's right for you. Interesting article by the way - I can hardly wait until 2009 when we all have 1440p tellys!!

The thing is before anyone had HD all reports and tests released about the advantages of HD like "if you look at the screen it's like opening up the window and looking out into a real garden the picture is so lifelike"
have not for many people been realised.

It's been hyped up far too much just to sell product.


And if you are looking at broadcast tv in the UK there isn't that much to watch so for many people HD is just a marketing ploy.


If you have Blue Ray players etc perhaps it is worth getting HD, but surely we can all express our opinion on boards such as this.

This board is very good for deals but there is far too much sarcastic and rude comments from some people.

Remember we all have a different opinion.

HD shouldn't be thought of as som

halfpenny

The thing is before anyone had HD all reports and tests released about … The thing is before anyone had HD all reports and tests released about the advantages of HD like "if you look at the screen it's like opening up the window and looking out into a real garden the picture is so lifelike"have not for many people been realised.



Yes, those were always daft expectations.

HD should be thought of as something made necessary for 40"-60" sets. If you send SD to such a set, there essentially isn't enough detail there. HD provides that extra detail.

For "gobsmacking" quality, the question isn't resolution, which is all HD vs SD is. Rather it's about bitrate, where broadcast HD is so short. It also needs even better camera work and film transfer - eg a grainy film poorly shot will look no better in HD than on DVD, because there's no extra detail there to be found.

would this tv be suitable for watching SKY HD on it or would i need a full hd tv? cheers

arfster

HD shouldn't be thought of as somYes, those were always daft … HD shouldn't be thought of as somYes, those were always daft expectations.HD should be thought of as something made necessary for 40"-60" sets. If you send SD to such a set, there essentially isn't enough detail there. HD provides that extra detail.For "gobsmacking" quality, the question isn't resolution, which is all HD vs SD is. Rather it's about bitrate, where broadcast HD is so short. It also needs even better camera work and film transfer - eg a grainy film poorly shot will look no better in HD than on DVD, because there's no extra detail there to be found.



Thanks for that info.

I wonder if French and German HD broadcasts are better than UK HD broadcasts as I am multisat and can get foreign sats ?
Edited by: "halfpenny" 20th Sep 2010
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text