Samsung UE22C4000 - 22" Widescreen HD Ready 50Hz Slim LED TV with Freeview - £183.19 @ Amazon
470°Expired

Samsung UE22C4000 - 22" Widescreen HD Ready 50Hz Slim LED TV with Freeview - £183.19 @ Amazon

£183.19
37
Found 10th Apr 2011Made hot 11th Apr 2011
I already have this TV and just noticed the price has dropped again, great picture and sound is also good which is unusual. Not many LED TVs at this price and being Samsung is never a bad thing.

Samsung HD Ready LED TV with 2 HDMI and Freeview
Wide Colour Enhancer Pro gives some of the fullest, most lifelike colours ever seen on a TV
Connect your movies, photos and music easily to your TV via USB
Anynet+ lets you one-touch control any compatible Samsung device connected via HDMI
Digital noise filter to reduce signal interference and reproducing clear images with sharp details

37 Comments

Sharp LED TV 22" for £169 @ Pixmania and other stores just as good as this Sammy.

50hz

Honestly, what is the point of a super flat TV? You should be looking at it from the front, not from the side :-).

And this one is just substandard. Maybe ok as a second TV in the kitchen, but then it is a bit expensive.

Not really Hot at this price, its an end of line outgoing model (newer one UE22D5000 already out). I got this brand new from Argos just over a month ago for 157£. The new D series seem to have some good features,so i woud rather wait for the price to drop on that one.

MrPuddington

Honestly, what is the point of a super flat TV?


For wall mounting.

That's for a refurbished model

werdas

tesco outlet £164.99


rev6

For wall mounting.



Even if its 1mm thick it still won't be in line with the wall so i don't see the point personally

stezo2k

Even if its 1mm thick it still won't be in line with the wall so i don't … Even if its 1mm thick it still won't be in line with the wall so i don't see the point personally



It's called evolution.

JoeUK

It's called evolution.



Not really, yes they look good from the side but sound is usually very poor, give me a thicker TV with better speakers any day.

Yes you could get a sound system but the vast majority of people don't want to do that or wall mount it

deanos

Not really, yes they look good from the side but sound is usually very … Not really, yes they look good from the side but sound is usually very poor, give me a thicker TV with better speakers any day.Yes you could get a sound system but the vast majority of people don't want to do that or wall mount it


Agreed. I don't fancy wall mounting a slim TV, but they do look sexy!

MrPuddington

Honestly, what is the point of a super flat TV? You should be looking at … Honestly, what is the point of a super flat TV? You should be looking at it from the front, not from the side :-).And this one is just substandard. Maybe ok as a second TV in the kitchen, but then it is a bit expensive.



So you can put it into a corner and save space... of course

and being Samsung is never a bad thing



have you ever owned a Samsung!?!

MrPuddington

Honestly, what is the point of a super flat TV? You should be looking at … Honestly, what is the point of a super flat TV? You should be looking at it from the front, not from the side :-).



Yes, let's go back to 3 foot thick TVs, they were great when you looked from the right angle
Edited by: "jhw" 11th Apr 2011

werdas

tesco outlet £164.99



It says 'Seller Refurbished' --- so they are ex display models. So £164.99 seems a little on the high side for a second hand unit.

A cheaper alternative at Staples

DGM 22" LED £160 delivered

staples.co.uk/22-…=se

It looks slick. End of

If only i hadnt spent up Hopefully will stay this price for a while... I was looking at this tv a few months back

werdas

white one for £171.47



Nice, will go well in kitchen

MrPuddington

Honestly, what is the point of a super flat TV? You should be looking at … Honestly, what is the point of a super flat TV? You should be looking at it from the front, not from the side :-).



May agree if you only have one eye, but since most of us are blessed with stereoscopic vision we have pretty good depth perception. Therefore when looking anywhere but dead centre we can quite easily perceive the difference in volume between a 6-7cm set and a 3cm set. As a result my 46" "super flat" TV which replaced my 37" "non super flat TV" actually dominates the space less. I'm still unsure wether I should have bought the Panny, but I can't argue with my GF's point this one fits the room much better.

Hope that helps.

Substandard - and what exactly are you basing this opinion on?
Maybe it's the excellent amazon reviews or the superb expert reviews. Do people on here just spout rubbish and expect people to take their word for it.

Speaking from first hand knowledge, seeing as I installed 2 of them at the weekend I can say these are cracking little sets, great picture quality and the sound is actually quite impressive for a samsung LCD and even better than a few sony's I've had experience of. Also worth noting for the fashion conscious they look superb and absolutely perfect for a bedroom.



MrPuddington

Honestly, what is the point of a super flat TV? You should be looking at … Honestly, what is the point of a super flat TV? You should be looking at it from the front, not from the side :-).And this one is just substandard. Maybe ok as a second TV in the kitchen, but then it is a bit expensive.



Edited by: "forest2002" 11th Apr 2011

forest2002

Substandard - and what exactly are you basing this opinion on?



I'd base it on the fact that its resolution is only 720p (1366 x 768). pretty poor IMO

naz400r

I'd base it on the fact that its resolution is only 720p (1366 x 768). … I'd base it on the fact that its resolution is only 720p (1366 x 768). pretty poor IMO



The general consensus (from the pro's) is that there is almost no benefit in 1080p over 720p in anything under 32" (never mind 22") so it's a bit harsh to call it sub-standard.

poing

The general consensus (from the pro's) is that there is almost no benefit … The general consensus (from the pro's) is that there is almost no benefit in 1080p over 720p in anything under 32" (never mind 22") so it's a bit harsh to call it sub-standard.



I wouldn't describe anyone that told you that as a "pro" as clearly screen size alone will not tell you if you are able to resolve all the information a 1080p image has to offer. Unfortunately its a comment that seems to be regurgitated accros the net with very little sound reasoning behind it

WRT this deal I'm not suggesting this is a bad set because it isn't 1080p.
Edited by: "Mentos" 11th Apr 2011

UE22C4000 is £177.51 at DIXONS use code 5DXTV For 5% Off At Checkout With Free Delivery

£186.85 with a Discount of £-9.34

Edited by: "beamo" 11th Apr 2011

Sorry mate but you clearly haven't got a clue what your talking about if you think 1080p is important on 22 inch tv. Its only really becomes important at over 32 inch. to call a 22 inch tv substandard for not being full hd is crazy.

naz400r

I'd base it on the fact that its resolution is only 720p (1366 x 768). … I'd base it on the fact that its resolution is only 720p (1366 x 768). pretty poor IMO


Ive got a 23" Sammy thats 1080p using as a TV / PC monitor and for playing 360/PS3. All that for £180.

I assure you I know what i'm talking about, first hand experience you may call it. 22inch mostly gets used for pc monitors or gaming. So for £180 you;d want the best hardware you can get right

And is that led back lit? My argument is not whether you can get a better set for the money,
Obviously if there were 2 identical tvs for the same price and one was full hd, and one wasn't you'd pick the full hd one.

You just can't call this substandard for not being full hd, as even viewing it at monitor distances id be willing to bet every penny i own on you not being able to notice the difference.

As an aside I'd never use a screen like this as a monitor, for me the two don't mix, like you say you want the best and for me an ips screen is a must as a computer display.


naz400r

Ive got a 23" Sammy thats 1080p using as a TV / PC monitor and for … Ive got a 23" Sammy thats 1080p using as a TV / PC monitor and for playing 360/PS3. All that for £180.I assure you I know what i'm talking about, first hand experience you may call it. 22inch mostly gets used for pc monitors or gaming. So for £180 you;d want the best hardware you can get right


Actually how much better is an LED TV over and LCD? I'm sceptical.

SpudUK

Actually how much better is an LED TV over and LCD? I'm sceptical.



"LED TV" is a shorthand for LED-backit LCD.

older LCDs tended to use CCFL for backlights, LEDs can if done right offer better colour purity, local dimming, dynamic contract, lower power consumption, better reliability.
Unfortunately on cheap TVs it's often not done well and leads to fog at the edges aka backlight bleed.

forest2002

You just can't call this substandard for not being full hd, as even … You just can't call this substandard for not being full hd, as even viewing it at monitor distances id be willing to bet every penny i own on you not being able to notice the difference.



You'd be losing every penny you own then :D. We have several monitors ranging from WXGA to WUXGA and the resolution differences are plainly obvious from further then "monitor distances" (guess this can vary depending on if you're lean forward or lean back type).

The highest density display I have is on my laptop, which is 1600 x 768 @ 8" and thats fully resolveable (with my eyes and all of my colleagues) sitting at my desk.

The subject seems to have got a little bit confused, I'm talking about using this as a tv, and putting a hdmi source through it.

There are lots of variables but the maths speak for themselves, here's an excellent graph to show at what point various resolutions become important

hometheaterforum.com/for…ith

You've obviously got very good eyesight

forest2002

The subject seems to have got a little bit confused, I'm talking about … The subject seems to have got a little bit confused, I'm talking about using this as a tv, and putting a hdmi source through it. There are lots of variables but the maths speak for themselves, here's an excellent graph to show at what point various resolutions become importanthttp://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/280526/what-size-tv-does-1080p-really-matter-withYou've obviously got very good eyesight



Well if I can see the difference between a video/image delivered through DVI, not sure why I wouldn't be able to see the difference between video/image delivered through HDMI, or one which is a MKV/BD/HD broadcast.

Unfortunately that graph is another example of something which is taken out of context and banded around as absolute proof for something else. "The maths" only (possibly) tells you what someone with one eye could "fully resolve" if they had 20/20 vision, under certain environmental conditions. Ironically that type of analysis was originally put together to justify the need for 1080p resolution so THX viewing distances and screen resolutions were compatible. It's now being used to tell people you don't need 1080p under 32"

In any case even if we take that graph as gospel it appears to show 1080p should be resolveable on a ~22" screen at ~2.5 feet. So I'm afraid its not going to save you from losing all those penny's

In all seriousness if you haven't tried a 22" WUXGA monitor I suggest you do. Everyone that has used one of ours has been converted and always comments on the boost in productivity once they take the leap themselves. You'd be amazed how good your eyes really are, once you start testing them yourself rather then taking other peoples word for what you can and can't see.

ramiuk1

50hz



Might not be a disaster, what with UK TV being broadcast at 50Hz

spannerzone

Might not be a disaster, what with UK TV being broadcast at 50Hz



Plus many people find frame interpolation mechanisms extremely distracting. We always turn 100hz/200hz off on our sets to avoid the dreaded "soap opera" effect.

Expired - no longer available
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text