cheap 42 inch plasma 720P TV****299.99--deal is DEAD

[Gibson486]

RCA Brand. Best Buy.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/RCA+-+42...3493&cp=1&lp=1

Deal is dead, now 349.99.

 

[Ricochet]

Cheapest 42" I've seen, but be forewarned that reviews indicate that some of these go bad in a year. Protection plan might be in order.

Oh shit! Did I just shill BB protection plan? End me now.

 

[SKORPI0]

1024x768(4:3 with 786,432 pixels). I thought 720p is 1280×720(16:9 with 921,600 pixels)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/720p

 

[MisterE]

1024x768(4:3 with 786,432 pixels). I thought 720p is 1280×720(16:9 with 921,600 pixels)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/720p

You are thinking in terms of square pixels. The pixels are wide rectangles on this TV.

 

[reallyscrued]

Correctamundo.

It should be illegal to sell these as "HDTV's because they're not that.

I have a Samsung plasma upstairs, this model actually:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Samsung+...&skuId=4837604

And using it as an HTPC sucks ass. Why?

The native res is 1024x768, but Windows will assume that is a 4:3 resolution (assuming square pixels) and everything looks all stretched out. Native 720 videos are interpolated (correct term?) and I'm sure there's loss of detail...

but honestly with videos, pixel perfect reproductions at that screen size aren't a big deal, at least not to me. But buyer beware, it's a glorified monitor from 1997 and it may go bad in a year.

 

[Delbert]

What does the standard warranty consist of?
Duration?

 

[angry hampster]

Correctamundo.

It should be illegal to sell these as "HDTV's because they're not that.

I have a Samsung plasma upstairs, this model actually:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Samsung+...&skuId=4837604

And using it as an HTPC sucks ass. Why?

The native res is 1024x768, but Windows will assume that is a 4:3 resolution (assuming square pixels) and everything looks all stretched out. Native 720 videos are interpolated (correct term?) and I'm sure there's loss of detail...

but honestly with videos, pixel perfect reproductions at that screen size aren't a big deal, at least not to me. But buyer beware, it's a glorified monitor from 1997 and it may go bad in a year.

Aside from stretching when used as an HTPC, how do you like this TV? I am considering getting the 51" model.

 

[Gibson486]

Aside from stretching when used as an HTPC, how do you like this TV? I am considering getting the 51" model.

Should be fine. It's essentially a re badged Samsung TV.

 

[Centauri]

Ignore the qualms over rectangular pixels; they stem mostly from an over awareness of specifications.

If you're using one of these TVs with a computer, then you should set your computer to 720p 16:9 and you won't have any problems. I do.

I have the 42" model Insignia myself, last year's model, which is a Samsung through and through and even identifies itself as such when plugged into a device.

After snatching calibration codes from AVSforum, I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment there; the Samsung-sourced cheap 720p plasmas (I don't know who makes this RCA) are the stealth steal of the TV market. There are simply no other televisions that approach them in picture quality in the price range, and few under a thousand dollars.

Admittedly, I don't know how keen I'd be to go over 50" at 1024x768 but it depends entirely on viewing distance. Regardless, you'd have a vivid, beautiful picture if potentially a tad pixelated. 42-43" and 6 feet though yields a great experience for a few Bennies.

 

[Brakford]

I just ordered this for the grandkids room to play wii and Xbox and watch movies. I did read that the screen and main boards are made by Samsung. For the price, it should be fine for them. Fingers crossed I don't get a lemon.

 

[reallyscrued]

Ignore the qualms over rectangular pixels; they stem mostly from an over awareness of specifications.

...that's a new one.

Watch out everyone. Don't be "over-aware" of what you're getting.

 

[Centauri]

Right. Because specifications always matter more than end-product, especially when comparing totally different technologies or methodologies...

 

[reallyscrued]

Right. Because specifications always matter more than end-product, especially when comparing totally different technologies or methodologies...

I'm not sure I understand your stance fully, but honestly, that sounds like exactly the mentality that allows these companies to get away with this.

I assume you're trying to say "Well, the TV looks fine in the end for what it was meant to do, so I'm fine with it".

That's cool man, do whatever makes you happy, but it sure doesn't make me happy.

I suppose if you bought a car that was specified it had an 8 cylinder engine and did 0-60 in 4.5 seconds only to realize it was really a 4 cylinder (that still somehow did 0-60 in 4.5 seconds) you wouldn't feel a little misled? (For some, that maybe would be awesome since gas savings...but for the sake of argument, assume you really, really wanted an 8 cylinder)

It strikes me as odd they can market tv's with a 1024*768 native resolution as 720p HDTV's. If that's 720p, what's 1280x720 then? (Or 1366x768?) Unless the customer does the research to find this out, you will never find that information on the box.

Same goes for these 120hz LCDs and 600hz plasma marketing BS. First time I saw those numbers I got really excited, then realized it was fabricated to purposely mislead me into thinking I could play games at a smoother rate from my PC. Good thing I didn't buy those sets, because people like you would've tried to convince me, "Well, in the end, it still does it's job as a TV, why not keep it?"

No, thanks.

 

[ElFenix]

I'm not sure I understand your stance fully, but honestly, that sounds like exactly the mentality that allows these companies to get away with this.

I assume you're trying to say "Well, the TV looks fine in the end for what it was meant to do, so I'm fine with it".

That's cool man, do whatever makes you happy, but it sure doesn't make me happy.

I suppose if you bought a car that was specified it had an 8 cylinder engine and did 0-60 in 4.5 seconds only to realize it was really a 4 cylinder (that still somehow did 0-60 in 4.5 seconds) you wouldn't feel a little misled? (For some, that maybe would be awesome since gas savings...but for the sake of argument, assume you really, really wanted an 8 cylinder)

It strikes me as odd they can market tv's with a 1024*768 native resolution as 720p HDTV's. If that's 720p, what's 1280x720 then? (Or 1366x768?) Unless the customer does the research to find this out, you will never find that information on the box.

Same goes for these 120hz LCDs and 600hz plasma marketing BS. First time I saw those numbers I got really excited, then realized it was fabricated to purposely mislead me into thinking I could play games at a smoother rate from my PC. Good thing I didn't buy those sets, because people like you would've tried to convince me, "Well, in the end, it still does it's job as a TV, why not keep it?"

No, thanks.

meh, who cares about specs when you can't see a difference? or, heck, the one with the 'inferior' specs has the superior picture quality? believe your eyes, not the spec sheet.

anyway, this guy put it better than i could:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9017337#post9017337


and yes, 120hz and faster is marketing fluff. the LCD makers wanted something to differentiate themselves, knowing that people put way too much emphasis on specs, so came out with 120 and 240 and even 480 in a few cases. but it can't give you more info than the source, which is often only 30 hz anyway. plasma makers came up with the 600 hz thing just to have a number because, as i explained earlier, people place way too much emphasis on specs.