83°
EXPIRED
SAVE a MASSIVE £800 on this HUGE 50" HD ready Philips plasma TV - was £2299.99
SAVE a MASSIVE £800 on this HUGE 50" HD ready Philips plasma TV - was £2299.99

SAVE a MASSIVE £800 on this HUGE 50" HD ready Philips plasma TV - was £2299.99

Buy forBuy forBuy for£1,499
GETGet dealVisit site and get deal
HD ready: Yes
Reception: Digital Tuner with all Freeview channels
Sound system: Virtual Dolby Surround
Contrast ratio: 10000:1
Pixel resolution: 1366x768
Brightness: 1400 cd/m2

26 Comments

Don't forget another 3.5% off with quidco

Thanks for your first post satshergill and welcome to HotUKDeals!!

I've added a pic (to see how to do this click the link in my sig)

Cheers.

This is a really good price for a massive 50" plasma.......

Phillips dont have a great reputation when it comes to plasma screens though, the LG sets are better thought of generally and with some patience and shopping around can be had for the same sort of money.

I have also read their are issues with the hd input of these things unfortunately.

I think it is a price error .

as Dixons have it listed at £1499 but say its a 42" (it is a 50") i wonder if its an internet price match error.



]http//ww…amp

Welcome to HotUKDeals from me too and Thanks for the post satshergill

Today I HAVE Been To My Local Shop And It Is 50" For That Price

it has also been advertised on tv for that price. good buy but they are dropping in price everywhere. Reckon they will be even less after christmas.

I have a 42" Phillips LCD and the picture is amazing!! i think this could be a great tv! :-)

just wondering if Plasma screens are as good as lcds? Sorry, I'm no expert.

they are about even in terms of life (before they die)

LCDs seem to be a bit cheaper, and are lighter

Plasmas are heavier but produce a better black than an LCD so is good for films/games etc. Also Plasmas tend to have a superior contrast ratio, but that isn't to important to most people.

ok, that makes sense, what about picture resolution though, I thought LCD was superior?

I have been looking at LCD v Plasma. I think plasma is cheaper than equivalent LCD... Plasma has a better picture in terms of blacks and handling fast moving scenes... but is heavier and is subject to screen burn. I may be shot down on that but that's the conclusion I came to.

well they both come with different resolutions. depending on which one you pick, but neither types out do each other.

as this post is about a HD television, the HD resolutions available are:
1080i
1080p
720i
720p

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/11/Standard_video_res.svg/480px-

i stands for interlaced
p stands for progressive

Progressive is the better of the two, but to be honest I am unable to tell between the two, others will be able too.

1080p is what films going to cinema are filmed in (assuming it was filmed in HD) but you will be able to watch the film on any TV, you don't need a 1080p capable TV for watching the film!

Searcher2

I have been looking at LCD v Plasma. I think plasma is cheaper than … I have been looking at LCD v Plasma. I think plasma is cheaper than equivalent LCD... Plasma has a better picture in terms of blacks and handling fast moving scenes... but is heavier and is subject to screen burn. I may be shot down on that but that's the conclusion I came to.



screen burn is nothing to worry about anymore to be honest.

the first generations were prone to this, but now all TVs come with a "screen saver" funtion whereby the screen will usually start moving the still image around to prevent it burning. also playback equipment tends to come with this nowadays too, eg xbox360 where the video signal will go darker after a period of idleness to prevent burning!

hope this helps

You can get a 1080P LCD for less than a 1080P plasma. LCDs are prone to motion blur, so fast moving images are better on plasma, better blacks on plasma as well. Most HD samples you see on LCDs in the shops are slow moving video scenes, looks brilliant, but maybe better to view a football match to see the blur. As for resolution, you need to have eagle eye vision to see the difference between 1080i/p. For smaller TVs ,less than 32 inch you don't need all these pixels anyway.
I was initially hell bent on getting a 1080P screen but now realise this is unnecessary, have a Hitachi PD9700 plasma which has an amzing picture. will maybe get a 1080P screen in 5 years when they are £250, lol.

I can understand the screen savers helping reduce screenburn... but from the posts I had read some people were concerned about watching channels which had a logo e.g. CBeebies where heavy watching of such a channel would cause the logo to be burnt into the screen. Is this an outdated view too? Ii know I have seen it on pub screens with the 'pint glass' burnt into the screen from Sky Sports.

Searcher2

I can understand the screen savers helping reduce screenburn... but from … I can understand the screen savers helping reduce screenburn... but from the posts I had read some people were concerned about watching channels which had a logo e.g. CBeebies where heavy watching of such a channel would cause the logo to be burnt into the screen. Is this an outdated view too? Ii know I have seen it on pub screens with the 'pint glass' burnt into the screen from Sky Sports.



valid point, to be honest i am not sure, i am guessing this would burn possibly if the tv is left on that channel for days.

should be ok though but i have never seen it to comment reliably. i would of thought that if it was the case then everyone and everywhere would make a major thing of it.

also if you are looking for a TV at 42" or more, then Plasmas are the best bet. Anything less than 42" can go either LCD or Plasma

this may be stating the obvious but screen burn would ruin your nice new plasma screen for life....how annoying would that be ?

at least with an LCD you can be 100% positive you won't get a burnt screen ;-)

somebody somewhere said LCD's last twice as long as plasma's but don't quote me

plasma's tend to be a little ' thicker ' than LCD's coz they use gas (don't worry, it won't affect your central heating :giggle: )

The real worry points of the LCD vs Plasma debate are generally the following...

Plasmas have a better picture, they hande blacks and colous better, fast moving images better and the contrast is better.

However even if you don't worry about image burn (mentioned above) if you're the kind of person who leaves the tv on a lot, like over 8 hours a day, then don't be thinking you're keeping that tv for the next ten years. I leave my tv on a 'lot', maybe 16 hours a day and at that rate if I had a Plasma I'd probably need a new one in 4 years and the quality would suffer in maybe 3.

LCDs have a smaller but just as annoying problem with pixel burnout. If there's a constant white or black dot in the center of the screen it will definitely start to get on your nerves and you cannot fix it.

CRTs are still the best imo. It's only because of the size that Plasmas and LCDs have become so popular. Buy an HD ready CRT (you can get them over 32" pretty readily) from a company known for longevity, stick it in the corner of the room so you don't notice the extra bulk and laugh at the people paying thousands for flatscreens

Searcher2

I can understand the screen savers helping reduce screenburn... but from … I can understand the screen savers helping reduce screenburn... but from the posts I had read some people were concerned about watching channels which had a logo e.g. CBeebies where heavy watching of such a channel would cause the logo to be burnt into the screen. Is this an outdated view too? Ii know I have seen it on pub screens with the 'pint glass' burnt into the screen from Sky Sports.



This is why I didnt buy a plasma and went for LCD instead. I often leave the music channels on in the background for a few hours while I'm on the computer, doing housework etc as it act's as my stereo due to the 5.1.

Was told by the two blokes in comet not to go for the plasma unless I change channels at least every 2 hours, at bare minimum, 3 because of the Sky logos.

Some channels now have transparent logo's, so there is a bit of movement in the logos, behind them if you get what i mean, look close enough you will see the picture in the background. This aids stopping screenburn. However, some logo's haven't caught up yet.

Now, this was coming from 2 people in Comet, who had the choice of selling me a £999 set, or a £600 set, they were telling me to go for the £600 set! Not normal for comet. Didnt buy either in the end anyway and got the same set elsewhere.

Evrything you nee dot know about "screen burn, ghosting, burn-in etc etc" and how to prevent it on new sets.

plasmatvbuyingguide.com/pla…tml

Artemis

The real worry points of the LCD vs Plasma debate are generally the … The real worry points of the LCD vs Plasma debate are generally the following...Plasmas have a better picture, they hande blacks and colous better, fast moving images better and the contrast is better.However even if you don't worry about image burn (mentioned above) if you're the kind of person who leaves the tv on a lot, like over 8 hours a day, then don't be thinking you're keeping that tv for the next ten years. I leave my tv on a 'lot', maybe 16 hours a day and at that rate if I had a Plasma I'd probably need a new one in 4 years and the quality would suffer in maybe 3.LCDs have a smaller but just as annoying problem with pixel burnout. If there's a constant white or black dot in the center of the screen it will definitely start to get on your nerves and you cannot fix it.CRTs are still the best imo. It's only because of the size that Plasmas and LCDs have become so popular. Buy an HD ready CRT (you can get them over 32" pretty readily) from a company known for longevity, stick it in the corner of the room so you don't notice the extra bulk and laugh at the people paying thousands for flatscreens




Good point :thumbsup:

And they are really cheap! Currys do a 32" 100hz flat crt for £299! It's a pity that they have none of any model in stock!

going back to screen resolutions, bear in mind that the "shape" of the display wont change if you have a different resolution
e.g. 1366 x 768 would give you a nice widescreen shape rectangle if you drew it out, but there are tvs that show a widescreen display and have a resolution of 1024x1024
all this means is that the pixels are packed closer together horizontally than vertically

Artemis

The real worry points of the LCD vs Plasma debate are generally the … The real worry points of the LCD vs Plasma debate are generally the following...Plasmas have a better picture, they hande blacks and colous better, fast moving images better and the contrast is better.However even if you don't worry about image burn (mentioned above) if you're the kind of person who leaves the tv on a lot, like over 8 hours a day, then don't be thinking you're keeping that tv for the next ten years. I leave my tv on a 'lot', maybe 16 hours a day and at that rate if I had a Plasma I'd probably need a new one in 4 years and the quality would suffer in maybe 3.LCDs have a smaller but just as annoying problem with pixel burnout. If there's a constant white or black dot in the center of the screen it will definitely start to get on your nerves and you cannot fix it.CRTs are still the best imo. It's only because of the size that Plasmas and LCDs have become so popular. Buy an HD ready CRT (you can get them over 32" pretty readily) from a company known for longevity, stick it in the corner of the room so you don't notice the extra bulk and laugh at the people paying thousands for flatscreens



New plasmas offer lifetimes of 60,000 hours which means a lifetime of ten years at 16 hours a day. 8 hours a day will give you 20 years. Enough for anyone I should think, as 99% of us change our TVs long before that.

General consensus seem to be that large plasmas offer a better picture than LCDs and suffer less from motion blur. However, LCDs are cheaper to make so manufacturers are pushing them. Also LCDs are supposedly better for gaming. At the moment I think if you're thinking of buying larger than a 32" screen, you should seriously consider plasma.

Screen burn varies between sets. Better sets (Panasonic/Pioneer etc) have few problems with it. Buy cheaper and you might have to be more careful. Most instances of screen burn can be cured in a few minutes by changing the channel or running a special DVD.

The HD-CRT sets from Samsung have many many problems and people should think very carefully before buying - go to AV-forums to see just how bad they can be for some people.

WindupBird

New plasmas offer lifetimes of 60,000 hours which means a lifetime of ten … New plasmas offer lifetimes of 60,000 hours which means a lifetime of ten years at 16 hours a day. 8 hours a day will give you 20 years. Enough for anyone I should think, as 99% of us change our TVs long before that.



'Highly' unlikely. Panasonic decided to randomly claim that a while ago and then all the other major manufacturers jumped on board 'without' changing a damn thing about their manufacturing process. They simply changed the way the longevity was worked out

The newest plasma probably can last 30 thousand hours, however to get that kind of lifetime out of them you'd need to view them at a low brightness and contrast (very annoying when viewing in the daytime as anyone with a plasma can probably confirm), not have them on for great amounts of time, never show static images for longer than 15-30 minutes and so on. There's also the fact that simply due to the technology as plasmas get older and fade you will have to increase the brightness and contrast and so it will start to fade faster and faster.
A CRT has no real such restrictions and for the same picture quality to the human eye will cost a buttload less money for equivalent screen size.

For now anyway, plasmas and LCDs are catching up.

Artemis

'Highly' unlikely. Panasonic decided to randomly claim that a while ago … 'Highly' unlikely. Panasonic decided to randomly claim that a while ago and then all the other major manufacturers jumped on board 'without' changing a damn thing about their manufacturing process. They simply changed the way the longevity was worked out :)The newest plasma probably can last 30 thousand hours, however to get that kind of lifetime out of them you'd need to view them at a low brightness and contrast (very annoying when viewing in the daytime as anyone with a plasma can probably confirm), not have them on for great amounts of time, never show static images for longer than 15-30 minutes and so on. There's also the fact that simply due to the technology as plasmas get older and fade you will have to increase the brightness and contrast and so it will start to fade faster and faster.A CRT has no real such restrictions and for the same picture quality to the human eye will cost a buttload less money for equivalent screen size.For now anyway, plasmas and LCDs are catching up.



Do you have a source for the assertion that new plasmas will last only 30,000 hours or that 60,000 hours is just a figure plucked out of the air? I would've thought the ASA would be very interested if this is true.

I don't pretend to be an expert, so I'd urge anyone thinking of buying an LCD or Plasma (or CRT for that matter) to have a read of
avforums.com/for…php
before going ahead.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text