LG 50PG3000 50" Plasma TV HD Ready Freeview Inc spks & stand £599.95 @ RicherSounds
530°Expired

LG 50PG3000 50" Plasma TV HD Ready Freeview Inc spks & stand £599.95 @ RicherSounds

50
Found 13th May 2009Made hot 13th May 2009
For a truly cinematic experience at home you can't beat a 50" plasma TV!

Given its size, performance and price, the LG 50PG3000 has to be one of the best plasma TVs in its class. Key to the LG plasma's appeal is the stunning picture quality. With technologies such as the latest version of LG's highly acclaimed Dual Engine and 100Hz picture processing, the 50PG3000 offers up brilliant realism, true depth of image and smooth, blur-free motion. The figures showing a contrast ratio of 20,000:1 and brightness of 1500cdm say a lot, but the proof of the LG's superior picture quality is in the watching.

As you'd expect from an HD plasma, the LG 50PG3000 comes with a full range of both digital and analogue socketry. To cope with the digital generation, no fewer than 3 HDMI sockets are included as are twin SCARTs, component, PC and S-Video connections. With this being a Freeview plasma, you'll also find a handy optical digital output that's ideal for connecting the LG plasma to your home cinema system.

Although sound quality won't be up to the standards of a home cinema system, the 50PG3000 does still offer impressive sonics. SRS TruSurround XT processing is usually found in much more expensive TVs, and gives a credible "surround sound" effect. With its "invisible speaker" system, the LG's smooth style has no visible speakers, enhancing the already sleek style of a plasma TV. Not only does using the front bezel as a speaker radiator improve the looks but it also gives a more direct and discernable sound quality - especially used in conjunction with the Clear Voice function

For an HD plasma TV with talent, check out the LG 50PG3000 today.

50 Comments

http://uk.lge.com/download/product/ETC/50PG3000/PG3000_3_LG02.jpg

Thats a sweet price for a 50" if anyone has a fairly biggish sitting room- LG formerly Goldstar are making a mark with their flat screens.

In before 720 vs 1080p


and LCD vs plasma


lol

Too big for me but very hot

It's only 720p, why not just spend another couple of hundred or so and get 1080p?

A set this size would definitely benefit from it.

Voting HOT @ £599.95 :thumbsup:

I wrote this for another thread and I'm going to make it my mission to post this on every HDTV post! Hopefully before anyone starts to comment that 1080p is the best for everyone

When to buy 720p (HD) or 1080p (Full HD)
Simply put (excluding screens over 52"):
If your source is 1080p (Full HD) it will look better on a 1080p TV than an equivavlent quality 720p TV (However, having a screen size below 52ish" and a 'normal' viewing distance it's very very hard to tell the difference.) but it'll still look great on a 720p TV
If your source is 720p, it'll look best on a 720p TV
If your source is Standard Definition, it'll look better on a 720p TV due to less upscaling

What the hell is upscaling?!
If the TV has a resolution greater than that of the source, it must 'stretch' the image to fill the screen. This creates 'gaps' between the pixels that make up the image - which would look awful if uncompensated for.
Upscaling looks at the pixels adjacent to the gap and makes an educated guess at what to fill that with. The better quality the upscaling software, the better the end result.

1080p Sources:
Most BluRay discs (not all)
PC (if supported)
Some (not many) PS3/X360 games

720p Sources:
Everything else branded HD!
Sky/Virgin HD
FreesatHD
Almost all PCs
Almost all X360/PS3 games
Those remaining BluRay discs that arent 1080p

SD Scources
Sky/Virgin
Freeview
Freesat
DVD

So, work out how much you'll be using the TV for each of the above sources, and you will know wether to get 720p (most people) or 1080p
It's also worth noting that TV broadcast resolution won't reach 1080p for years, if ever.

Following logic, the safest bet for the best picture quality for the next few years is 720p. Unless you go over 52ish" then pixel density (or lack of) starts to make a difference.

^^^ you forgot to include HDDVD in your "1080p sources" section...:p

grex9101;5203259

^^^ you deliberately forgot to include HDDVD in your "1080p sources" … ^^^ you deliberately forgot to include HDDVD in your "1080p sources" section...:p

:whistling:

mooncat;5203352

:whistling:



Jealousy is a terrible thing

grex9101;5203386

Jealousy is a terrible thing

I also didn't include VHS or even betamax in the SD list lol

mooncat;5203425

I also didn't include VHS or even betamax in the SD list lol



Not a very good list then, is it? :p:-D

grex9101;5203460

Not a very good list then, is it? :p:-D

:cry: lol

mooncat;5203227

I wrote this for another thread and I'm going to make it my mission to … I wrote this for another thread and I'm going to make it my mission to post this on every HDTV post! Hopefully before anyone starts to comment that 1080p is the best for everyone :).



Applaud the concept of helping inform people about some of the issues BUT could at least try to make it accurate and include the 1080i sources AND recognise that viewing distance and eyesight are also relevant (and I wasn't aware that 52" was a magic number where physical properties altered - surely that's just 42 ?)

MKD

The problem with your post is that it generalises far too much.

You are correct in that Sky HD outputs a 720p (or 1080i) signal. But the varying quality of the feeds between the 100's of channels on Sky means that some channels look horrible whether on a 720p or 1080p TV.

I've always been of the opinion that for a 42" or less TV then a 720p would be fine, anything more than that and if 1080p is within a couple of hundred of pound then it is well worth the upgrade.

mooncat;5203425

I also didn't include VHS or even betamax in the SD list lol



What about LED? No mention of LED TV's :whistling:

mk-donald;5203557

Applaud the concept of helping inform people about some of the issues BUT … Applaud the concept of helping inform people about some of the issues BUT could at least try to make it accurate and include the 1080i sources AND recognise that viewing distance and eyesight are also relevant (and I wasn't aware that 52" was a magic number where physical properties altered - surely that's just 42 ?)

Well I thought that too, but did a little googling and I found some pretty in-depth calculations that determined that pixel spread from around 52" was just as bad as excessive upscaling.
Interlacing is a whole different issue, and IMO should be avoided due to it's negative effects (motion blur, etc). I just really wanted to stop people from avoiding 720 IF it is actually a better choice for them.

themilkman23;5203574

The problem with your post is that it generalises far too much.You are … The problem with your post is that it generalises far too much.You are correct in that Sky HD outputs a 720p (or 1080i) signal. But the varying quality of the feeds between the 100's of channels on Sky means that some channels look horrible whether on a 720p or 1080p TV.I've always been of the opinion that for a 42" or less TV then a 720p would be fine, anything more than that and if 1080p is within a couple of hundred of pound then it is well worth the upgrade.

Of course, but it'd be far worse on a 1080p than a 720p. Some would agree on your second point, but again the spread of pixels on the 720 resolution really hits from 52" upwards, and not everyone can afford the extra, and might avoid the TV altogether when in fact a 720 would give them a great image quality.

Again, it's just a brief post just to help those confused or potentially missing out.

Tom Pickering;5203598

What about LED? No mention of LED TV's :whistling:

lol, I don't know enough about them to be objective

themilkman23;5203574

The problem with your post is that it generalises far too much.You are … The problem with your post is that it generalises far too much.You are correct in that Sky HD outputs a 720p (or 1080i) signal. But the varying quality of the feeds between the 100's of channels on Sky means that some channels look horrible whether on a 720p or 1080p TV.I've always been of the opinion that for a 42" or less TV then a 720p would be fine, anything more than that and if 1080p is within a couple of hundred of pound then it is well worth the upgrade.



I've been looking at 50 inch tv's for a while and the LG sets, like this one do seem the best value for money. I would ideally like a 1080p set, so for 'a couple of hundred pound' more what alternative would you recommend?

The Range are also selling this instore and online for £589.99 (+£19.95 delivery).

therange.co.uk/inv…098

If you want the smaller 42" LG plasma then they're doing this for £499.99 (+£14.95 delivery).

therange.co.uk/inv…103

shame its not the 6000, now thats a cracking TV

I was looking in richersounds yesterday, at the cheap 32" hitachi monitor.
This 50" really impressed me, playing BBC HD. It was hard to make a judgement on the hitachi as it was sitting in the shop window on a sunny day.

looks like a lot of TV for £600. You need a decent size room to benefit from it.

Ive had this TV for about 6 months with Sky HD. May not be 1080p etc (sky hd is only 720/1080i anyway), but the picture on the HD is STILL stunning. SD pic looks pretty good too. Great buy at £600.

craigstewart638;5203713

I've been looking at 50 inch tv's for a while and the LG sets, like this … I've been looking at 50 inch tv's for a while and the LG sets, like this one do seem the best value for money. I would ideally like a 1080p set, so for 'a couple of hundred pound' more what alternative would you recommend?



If you search for LG 50PS3000 you will be able to find that for £800.

The other option is to go for a 47" set - There are numerous LG 1080p sets that are around the £700 mark.

I had a 50" LG plasma which broke under warranty and had the choice of a 50" 720p set or a 47" 1080p set. Because of what I would be using it for and the viewing distance I went for the 47" 1080p LG.

Tom Pickering;5203598

What about LED? No mention of LED TV's :whistling:



just lcd with different backlighting :thumbsup:

Few points you may want to correct:

mooncat;5203227

I wrote this for another thread and I'm going to make it my mission to … I wrote this for another thread and I'm going to make it my mission to post this on every HDTV post! Hopefully before anyone starts to comment that 1080p is the best for everyone :)When to buy 720p (HD) or 1080p (Full HD)Simply put (excluding screens over 52"):If your source is 1080p (Full HD) it will look better on a 1080p TV than an equivavlent quality 720p TV (However, having a screen size below 52ish" and a 'normal' viewing distance it's very very hard to tell the difference.) but it'll still look great on a 720p TV



You haven't defined a normal viewing distance, and there is no common concesus what is a normal viewing distance. Infact, I think you'll find the screen size one chooses is often related to the viewing distance. It's a bit pointless throwing in the 52" figure, when on its own it means little.

Essentially three combined factors determine if you will notice the difference in resolution of a panel, Screen Size/Viewing Distance/Your eyesight.

mooncat;5203227

If your source is 720p, it'll look best on a 720p TVIf your source is … If your source is 720p, it'll look best on a 720p TVIf your source is Standard Definition, it'll look better on a 720p TV due to less upscaling



I would suggest most legitimate HD sources available in the UK are 1080i/1080p.

The second statement I have to disagree with. The quality of the upscaler is a greater determining factor. SD looks far superior on my GF's new 1080p set, then on her outgoing 720p set. And thats despite the new set being 9" bigger with the viewing distance having been maintained.

I have found the same to be true accross many panels I've seen.

It should be remembered the upscaling abilities of TV's is constantly improving as manufacturers pump money into this (and existing technology drops in price). Samsung are rumoured to have spent $1bn on there new generation of upscaling hw. Given a larger and larger proportion of sets now appear to have 1080p native res, I would suggest that the statement 720p sets are better for SD viewing will be true less often.

mooncat;5203227

What the hell is upscaling?!If the TV has a resolution greater than that … What the hell is upscaling?!If the TV has a resolution greater than that of the source, it must 'stretch' the image to fill the screen. This creates 'gaps' between the pixels that make up the image - which would look awful if uncompensated for.Upscaling looks at the pixels adjacent to the gap and makes an educated guess at what to fill that with. The better quality the upscaling software, the better the end result.



Thats probably a fair lamens description. You may want to add that downscaling generally works far better.

mooncat;5203227

1080p Sources:Most BluRay discs (not all)PC (if supported)Some (not many) … 1080p Sources:Most BluRay discs (not all)PC (if supported)Some (not many) PS3/X360 games720p Sources:Everything else branded HD! Sky/Virgin HDFreesatHDAlmost all PCsAlmost all X360/PS3 gamesThose remaining BluRay discs that arent 1080p



Sky is 1080i.
I thought Virgin/ HDFreesat HD was 1080i aswell, but not sure.

It would be best to point out that most legitimate HD sources in the UK will be 1080p/i (since SKY HD and BD/HD DVD represent the largest mainstream userbase).

mooncat;5203227

So, work out how much you'll be using the TV for each of the above … So, work out how much you'll be using the TV for each of the above sources, and you will know wether to get 720p (most people) or 1080p



Look at how you will be using the TV over its lifetimes. Also look at the additional cost of a 1080p panel and all the features it offers. Many of the newer ones will have improvements in scaling/contrast/black level/power consumption/etc. Not sure how you deduce 720p will be better for most people, your ruling out most of the newer panels with that comment.

mooncat;5203227

It's also worth noting that TV broadcast resolution won't reach 1080p for … It's also worth noting that TV broadcast resolution won't reach 1080p for years, if ever.



As I already pointed out, Sky broadcast at 1080i/50 already. For movies which are shot at 24fps (pretty much anything apart from made for TV), provided your TV can deinterlace correctly, that is no different to 1080p. For the rest of the material, you will still lose detail if your sets native res is less then 1080p, since the source will need to be downscaled.

mooncat;5203227

Following logic, the safest bet for the best picture quality for the next … Following logic, the safest bet for the best picture quality for the next few years is 720p. Unless you go over 52ish" then pixel density (or lack of) starts to make a difference.


[/QUOTE]

Infact, following logic the safest bet is to buy a set within your budget with the best upscaling ability. That will not always be a 720p set. Infact it will be a 720p set less and less, since most newer panels appear to be largely 1080p.

Moreover, if HD is your key concern, logic would suggest you go for a 1080p set, since the two biggest legitimate sources for HD in the UK material right now are BD (1080p) and Sky HD (1080i).

And again I don't know why you have a fixation with 52" being the tipping point for when 1080p becomes worthwhile. To reiterate, the size of the set on its own is irrelevant. Its the size of the set/viewing distance/your eyesight which matters. Pulling figures out of thin air is just going to mislead people.

My ultimate advice would be to go and view your short list of sets in store. And ask the salesman to switch sources for you, so you can see how they perform with SD & HD sources. And don't forget to make sure you are at the same viewing distance as you will be at home.

mooncat;5203227

I wrote this for another thread and I'm going to make it my mission to … I wrote this for another thread and I'm going to make it my mission to post this on every HDTV post! Hopefully before anyone starts to comment that 1080p is the best for everyone




And you also forgot to include HD video cameras. I bought my 50" Samsung plasma to watch my Panasonic SD9 footage at 1080i/1080p. In fact, it's my only HD input ( and it looks absolutely stunning I might add ! :thumbsup:)

I've voted this hot.

But if you can stretch an extra £115. i'd go for this:

pixmania.co.uk/uk/…067

(not sure if this is the best price, just an example).

The new Panny prices are staggering so early in their lifetime. Hope the 60"'ers follow suit.

People are also missing the power consumption issue of Plasma vs LCD.
I prefer LCD's as they are much more efficient (hence the reason a lot of countries have banned, or will be banning large plasma TV's).

For example, this 50" plasma uses 420w. Compare that to a Samsung LE52A556 which only uses 280w, yet is a bigger screen.

While buying a plasma may be easier on the pocket now, after a couple of years use I'm pretty sure you have would have lost more than what you saved in electricity bills.

How do people get these things home? Aren't plasmas supposed to be kept upright, or is that an old wives tale?

jukkie;5205661

People are also missing the power consumption issue of Plasma vs LCD.I … People are also missing the power consumption issue of Plasma vs LCD.I prefer LCD's as they are much more efficient (hence the reason a lot of countries have banned, or will be banning large plasma TV's).For example, this 50" plasma uses 420w. Compare that to a Samsung LE52A556 which only uses 280w, yet is a bigger screen.While buying a plasma may be easier on the pocket now, after a couple of years use I'm pretty sure you have would have lost more than what you saved in electricity bills.



It doesn't work like that I'm afraid mate. Your statement was far from reality. The fact is plasmas power consumption is calculated base on the max contrast that the screen may output. In a simple words the brighter the output displayed on the screen the more power it will consume. I believe the set wouldn't consume as much energy as you stated when watching gloomy movies ie matrix for example.

Unlike lcds which power consumption is steady regardless any output displayed on the screen.

Nonetheless it's worth to state that if you have both of them you'll notice that total annual electricity usage of plasma compared to LCD (providing equal hours of usage of both sets) won't be much than £10. That's just another standard manufacturers protocol to display as such amount of power consumption mate..

bigbak;5205936

How do people get these things home? Aren't plasmas supposed to be kept … How do people get these things home? Aren't plasmas supposed to be kept upright, or is that an old wives tale?



Delivery service? Or get yourself a vehicle with sufficient space? You really don't want to lay this set down to it's screen nor back I'm afraid mate.

ezak2211;5205967

It doesn't work like that I'm afraid mate. Your statement was far from … It doesn't work like that I'm afraid mate. Your statement was far from reality. The fact is plasmas power consumption is calculated base on the max contrast that the screen may output. In a simple words the brighter the output displayed on the screen the more power it will consume. I believe the set wouldn't consume as much energy as you stated when watching gloomy movies ie matrix for example. Unlike lcds which power consumption is steady regardless any output displayed on the screen.Nonetheless it's worth to state that if you have both of them you'll notice that total annual electricity usage of plasma compared to LCD (providing equal hours of usage of both sets) won't be much than £10. That's just another standard manufacturers protocol to display as such amount of power consumption mate..


So all the experts that have said otherwise are wrong?

Hmmm.

jukkie;5208998

So all the experts that have said otherwise are wrong?Hmmm.



can u state who those experts are? as i said earlier plasma manufacturers were adhered to regulations that needed them to inform consumer max power consumption per hour for each their plasma/lcd products. however plasmas power consumption may vary depending on the input sources and your panel setting

Not FULL HD. So pass on that one.

I found some of the posts on this thread to be very enlightening, but an inner voice (possibly the voice of reason) tells me that at 50" one would require a Full HD TV.

dickslash;5210440

I found some of the posts on this thread to be very enlightening, but an … I found some of the posts on this thread to be very enlightening, but an inner voice (possibly the voice of reason) tells me that at 50" one would require a Full HD TV.



As someone said earlier if your only watching television then full hd is pointless

jukkie;5208998

So all the experts that have said otherwise are wrong?Hmmm.



Seconding ezak2211 post. Please tell us who are these "experts" and if at all possible provide us with a reference or a link.

I guess it could be the anti-standby brigade that claims that buying a remote controlled power strip is greener than leaving a 1W appliance on standby. Totally neglecting the pollution generated by manufacturing and distributing this remote controlled power socket and the batteries it uses....

Mentos;5205131

I've voted this hot.But if you can stretch an extra £115. i'd go for … I've voted this hot.But if you can stretch an extra £115. i'd go for this:http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/2557144/art/panasonic/tx-p50x10-plasma-screen.html?srcid=198&mctag=uk_16067(not sure if this is the best price, just an example).The new Panny prices are staggering so early in their lifetime. Hope the 60"'ers follow suit.




digitaldirect.co.uk/pan…tml
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text