Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

False or Misleading advertising

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
August 19, 2005 6:16:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

The other day I sent an email to the Marketplace Standards and Services
Branch (at least, that is where it got forwarded to) complaining about a
large electronics chain that incorrectly identified EDTVs as HDTVs.

Has anyone complained in their jurisdiction about this? Did anything get
resolved?

Incidentally, I live in Toronto.
August 19, 2005 11:16:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I have complained about a similar problem at "Tweeter" in Ct. USA to the
local Consumer Protection Agency.
The store will not correct the problem; the problem was there months ago,
and is still. Nobody really cares.

<tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
news:YoydnXN8_KhwvJveRVn-hQ@rogers.com...
> The other day I sent an email to the Marketplace Standards and Services
> Branch (at least, that is where it got forwarded to) complaining about a
> large electronics chain that incorrectly identified EDTVs as HDTVs.
>
> Has anyone complained in their jurisdiction about this? Did anything get
> resolved?
>
> Incidentally, I live in Toronto.
>
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 2:58:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

tim@nocomment.com (tim@nocomment.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> The other day I sent an email to the Marketplace Standards and Services
> Branch (at least, that is where it got forwarded to) complaining about a
> large electronics chain that incorrectly identified EDTVs as HDTVs.
>
> Has anyone complained in their jurisdiction about this? Did anything get
> resolved?
>
> Incidentally, I live in Toronto.

In the US, there are no laws that concern this. It's only an agreement
of the CE companies as to what "HDTV", "HDTV-ready", "EDTV", etc., mean.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/Evaluation.jpg
Related resources
August 21, 2005 4:22:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:
> tim@nocomment.com (tim@nocomment.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>The other day I sent an email to the Marketplace Standards and Services
>>Branch (at least, that is where it got forwarded to) complaining about a
>>large electronics chain that incorrectly identified EDTVs as HDTVs.
>>
>>Has anyone complained in their jurisdiction about this? Did anything get
>>resolved?
>>
>>Incidentally, I live in Toronto.
>
>
> In the US, there are no laws that concern this. It's only an agreement
> of the CE companies as to what "HDTV", "HDTV-ready", "EDTV", etc., mean.
>
The FTC has the power from Congress to enforce "truth in advertising".
Of course you may be old and gray before there is any action, but we
DO have laws that concern this:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ad-faqs.htm
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 5:17:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Curmudgeon (curmudgeon@buzzoff.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > In the US, there are no laws that concern this. It's only an agreement
> > of the CE companies as to what "HDTV", "HDTV-ready", "EDTV", etc., mean.
> >
> The FTC has the power from Congress to enforce "truth in advertising".

Agreed, but a device that accepts HDTV signals as input and displays them
could conceivably be called and "HDTV monitor". The CE companies have
volunteered a different definition, but there is nothing that prevents
anyone from choosing their own definition in an ad, since there is no
legal definition.

The FTC hasn't ever bothered to challenge the "lines of horizontal
resolution" claims, and those lies and exaggerations definitely fit the
two parts of "deceptive" far more than calling a device with 853x480
resolution an "HDTV monitor":
- is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the
circumstances; and
- is "material"--that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or
use the product

The CE companies artificial definition that a device with at least 720
progressively scanned lines is an "HDTV monitor" could be seen as
"misleading" in its own right, since it can't display all HD signals at
full resolution.

Likewise, a device with 1080 scan lines but only able to resolve 1280x1080
can be called an HDTV by the CE standards, but it is fairly deceptive to
the consumer, especially if they have to compare that device to one that
is 1280x720, and is able to display that geometry at full resolution. It
makes the difference much less than the expected 1920x1080 vs. 1280x720
that the 1080 scan lines implies.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/CloseToHome/NamespacePollu...
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 12:35:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d71d86186f25bef989f45@news.nabs.net...
>
> The CE companies artificial definition that a device with at least 720
> progressively scanned lines is an "HDTV monitor" could be seen as
> "misleading" in its own right, since it can't display all HD signals at
> full resolution.
>
> Likewise, a device with 1080 scan lines but only able to resolve 1280x1080
> can be called an HDTV by the CE standards, but it is fairly deceptive to
> the consumer, especially if they have to compare that device to one that
> is 1280x720, and is able to display that geometry at full resolution. It
> makes the difference much less than the expected 1920x1080 vs. 1280x720
> that the 1080 scan lines implies.

These seem to be good points at first, but I'm not sure you want to go
there: How, then, could any 1080i TV be a legitimate HDTV if it can't
display every full frame of a 720p signal? You're going to go down the path
of "there are no TRUE HD sets other than 1080p".

In addition, are we going to start saying that any 1080i broadcast in which
any portion of the chain (from camera to compression) limits horizontal
resolution to less than 1920 (say, to 1440) is NOT true HD?
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 1:20:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew Vaughan wrote:
> "Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d71d86186f25bef989f45@news.nabs.net...
>
>>The CE companies artificial definition that a device with at least 720
>>progressively scanned lines is an "HDTV monitor" could be seen as
>>"misleading" in its own right, since it can't display all HD signals at
>>full resolution.
>>
>>Likewise, a device with 1080 scan lines but only able to resolve 1280x1080
>>can be called an HDTV by the CE standards, but it is fairly deceptive to
>>the consumer, especially if they have to compare that device to one that
>>is 1280x720, and is able to display that geometry at full resolution. It
>>makes the difference much less than the expected 1920x1080 vs. 1280x720
>>that the 1080 scan lines implies.
>
>
> These seem to be good points at first, but I'm not sure you want to go
> there: How, then, could any 1080i TV be a legitimate HDTV if it can't
> display every full frame of a 720p signal? You're going to go down the path
> of "there are no TRUE HD sets other than 1080p".

I don't see how you can justify that leap. 1280x720p is "true" HD.

> In addition, are we going to start saying that any 1080i broadcast in which
> any portion of the chain (from camera to compression) limits horizontal
> resolution to less than 1920 (say, to 1440) is NOT true HD?
>

Substitute the word "full" for "true" and I would say that 1440x1080 is
not full HD. I would also say (and have said) that 1024x720 is not full
HD. If there really was an FTC, it would probably step in with a
regulation defining how horizontal resolution is measured and require
all advertizing that mentions horizontal resolution quote the figure
derived from the method described in the regulation. That isn't going to
happen any time soon.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
August 23, 2005 4:35:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

> Matthew Vaughan wrote:
>
>> "Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1d71d86186f25bef989f45@news.nabs.net...
>>
>>> The CE companies artificial definition that a device with at least 720
>>> progressively scanned lines is an "HDTV monitor" could be seen as
>>> "misleading" in its own right, since it can't display all HD signals at
>>> full resolution.
>>>
>>> Likewise, a device with 1080 scan lines but only able to resolve
>>> 1280x1080
>>> can be called an HDTV by the CE standards, but it is fairly deceptive to
>>> the consumer, especially if they have to compare that device to one that
>>> is 1280x720, and is able to display that geometry at full
>>> resolution. It
>>> makes the difference much less than the expected 1920x1080 vs. 1280x720
>>> that the 1080 scan lines implies.
>>
>>
>>
>> These seem to be good points at first, but I'm not sure you want to go
>> there: How, then, could any 1080i TV be a legitimate HDTV if it can't
>> display every full frame of a 720p signal? You're going to go down the
>> path of "there are no TRUE HD sets other than 1080p".
>
>
> I don't see how you can justify that leap. 1280x720p is "true" HD.
>
>> In addition, are we going to start saying that any 1080i broadcast in
>> which any portion of the chain (from camera to compression) limits
>> horizontal resolution to less than 1920 (say, to 1440) is NOT true HD?
>
>
> Substitute the word "full" for "true" and I would say that 1440x1080 is
> not full HD. I would also say (and have said) that 1024x720 is not full
> HD. If there really was an FTC, it would probably step in with a
> regulation defining how horizontal resolution is measured and require
> all advertizing that mentions horizontal resolution quote the figure
> derived from the method described in the regulation. That isn't going to
> happen any time soon.
>
If a TV can display any of the HDTV formats completely without any
upconverting or downconverting, it is an HDTV (or HDTV ready).
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 7:41:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

tim@nocomment.com (tim@nocomment.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> If a TV can display any of the HDTV formats completely without any
> upconverting or downconverting, it is an HDTV (or HDTV ready).

By that definition, a 1280x768 LCD isn't an HDTV unless it displays 720p
by not lighting up 48 lines (and thus making the aspect ratio slightly
wrong). If it scales to fill the display, it wouldn't be an HDTV.

Then, too, a 4:3 set that displayed 1080i by drawing 1920x1080 "pixels" and
filling the screen with them (and *really* screwing up the aspect ratio)
*would* be an HDTV because it wouldn't be upconverting or downconverting.

--
Jeff Rife | "Ahhh, what an awful dream! Ones and zeroes
| everywhere...and I thought I saw a two!"
| -- Bender, "Futurama"
August 23, 2005 8:24:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:

> tim@nocomment.com (tim@nocomment.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>If a TV can display any of the HDTV formats completely without any
>>upconverting or downconverting, it is an HDTV (or HDTV ready).
>
>
> By that definition, a 1280x768 LCD isn't an HDTV unless it displays 720p
> by not lighting up 48 lines (and thus making the aspect ratio slightly
> wrong). If it scales to fill the display, it wouldn't be an HDTV.
>
> Then, too, a 4:3 set that displayed 1080i by drawing 1920x1080 "pixels" and
> filling the screen with them (and *really* screwing up the aspect ratio)
> *would* be an HDTV because it wouldn't be upconverting or downconverting.
>
Well, it certainly could do that, I it would probably make sense to. If
you can show black/grey bars on the side when showing 4:3 aspect ratio,
why not on the top and bottom when showing 16:9 on these TVs.
August 23, 2005 8:27:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:

> tim@nocomment.com (tim@nocomment.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>If a TV can display any of the HDTV formats completely without any
>>upconverting or downconverting, it is an HDTV (or HDTV ready).
>
>
> By that definition, a 1280x768 LCD isn't an HDTV unless it displays 720p
> by not lighting up 48 lines (and thus making the aspect ratio slightly
> wrong). If it scales to fill the display, it wouldn't be an HDTV.
>
Well, it certainly could do that, I it would probably make sense to. If
you can show black/grey bars on the side when showing 4:3 aspect ratio,
why not on the top and bottom when showing 16:9 on these TVs.

> Then, too, a 4:3 set that displayed 1080i by drawing 1920x1080 "pixels" and
> filling the screen with them (and *really* screwing up the aspect ratio)
> *would* be an HDTV because it wouldn't be upconverting or downconverting.
>
August 23, 2005 8:29:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:

> tim@nocomment.com (tim@nocomment.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>If a TV can display any of the HDTV formats completely without any
>>upconverting or downconverting, it is an HDTV (or HDTV ready).
>
>
> By that definition, a 1280x768 LCD isn't an HDTV unless it displays 720p
> by not lighting up 48 lines (and thus making the aspect ratio slightly
> wrong). If it scales to fill the display, it wouldn't be an HDTV.
>
Well, it certainly could do that, I it would probably make sense to. If
you can show black/grey bars on the side when showing 4:3 aspect ratio,
why not on the top and bottom when showing 16:9 on these TVs.

> Then, too, a 4:3 set that displayed 1080i by drawing 1920x1080 "pixels" and
> filling the screen with them (and *really* screwing up the aspect ratio)
> *would* be an HDTV because it wouldn't be upconverting or downconverting.
>
I don't think that aspect ratio would qualify the TV as HDTV. It has to
be 16:9, doesn't it?
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 1:21:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

tim@nocomment.com (tim@nocomment.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> So you can't think of any TV design that would completely satisfy all of
> the non-format specific HDTV criteria for just one of the HDTV formats,
> say 720p for instance.

Not if the definition of "HDTV" is a moving target.

I just don't see why people are having a hard time grasping this.

Since there is no *legal* definition of "HDTV", any definition could be used.
But, if you try to create a legal definition that satisfies everyone, you
will end up with just as much of a problem, because then there will be
displays that slip through the cracks and legally call themselves "HDTV"
and someone will have a reasonable claim to say they aren't, and vice-versa.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/InstallVirus.gif
August 24, 2005 12:29:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:

> tim@nocomment.com (tim@nocomment.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>So you can't think of any TV design that would completely satisfy all of
>>the non-format specific HDTV criteria for just one of the HDTV formats,
>>say 720p for instance.
>
>
> Not if the definition of "HDTV" is a moving target.
>
> I just don't see why people are having a hard time grasping this.
>
> Since there is no *legal* definition of "HDTV", any definition could be used.

Weren't HDTV specs defined by some US government organization a while
back, at least for OTA broadcasts? Are they not legal, at least in the US?
If I remember correctly, the US intentionally came up with new specs to
try to give American companies an even playing field with the Japanese
companies that were further ahead at the time.

> But, if you try to create a legal definition that satisfies everyone, you
> will end up with just as much of a problem, because then there will be
> displays that slip through the cracks and legally call themselves "HDTV"
> and someone will have a reasonable claim to say they aren't, and vice-versa.
>
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 1:12:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

tim@nocomment.com wrote:
>
> Weren't HDTV specs defined by some US government organization a while
> back, at least for OTA broadcasts? Are they not legal, at least in the US?

There are legal definitions, in the form of FCC regulations, that
defined the geomtry, type and frame rate for DTV broadcast. There is no
equivalent regulation that defines the geometry, type and frame rate of
displays.

In the absence of any regulations the manufacturers are free to call
anything they want HD, They have elected to say that anything with 480
scan lines is "Enhanced definition". They could just as well have
elected to say that anyhing with fewer than 720 scan lines is "Enhanced
definition". They chose not to do that. This does allow them to call an
800x540 final geometry display "HD".

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
August 24, 2005 1:41:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

> tim@nocomment.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Weren't HDTV specs defined by some US government organization a while
>> back, at least for OTA broadcasts? Are they not legal, at least in the
>> US?
>
>
> There are legal definitions, in the form of FCC regulations, that
> defined the geomtry, type and frame rate for DTV broadcast. There is no
> equivalent regulation that defines the geometry, type and frame rate of
> displays.
>
> In the absence of any regulations the manufacturers are free to call
> anything they want HD, They have elected to say that anything with 480
> scan lines is "Enhanced definition".

So why wouldn't the FCC or some consumer agency come up with regulations
to address this issue? They only care about the broadcasting and not the
actual reception of the broadcasts? I don't care what kind of TV people
buy but they should be aware of whether it can actually show an HDTV
broadcast properly or whether it will be show as "EDTV" or whatever.

They could just as well have
> elected to say that anyhing with fewer than 720 scan lines is "Enhanced
> definition". They chose not to do that. This does allow them to call an
> 800x540 final geometry display "HD".
>
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 1:50:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

tim@nocomment.com wrote:
> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>> tim@nocomment.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Weren't HDTV specs defined by some US government organization a while
>>> back, at least for OTA broadcasts? Are they not legal, at least in
>>> the US?
>>
>>
>>
>> There are legal definitions, in the form of FCC regulations, that
>> defined the geomtry, type and frame rate for DTV broadcast. There is
>> no equivalent regulation that defines the geometry, type and frame
>> rate of displays.
>>
>> In the absence of any regulations the manufacturers are free to call
>> anything they want HD, They have elected to say that anything with 480
>> scan lines is "Enhanced definition".
>
>
> So why wouldn't the FCC or some consumer agency come up with regulations
> to address this issue? They only care about the broadcasting and not the
> actual reception of the broadcasts? I don't care what kind of TV people
> buy but they should be aware of whether it can actually show an HDTV
> broadcast properly or whether it will be show as "EDTV" or whatever.

Take the matter up with the FTC. It's their job to make such
regulations. I doubt that you will have much luck, given the current
administration's record on protecting consumers.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
August 24, 2005 2:14:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

> tim@nocomment.com wrote:
>
>> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>>
>>> tim@nocomment.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Weren't HDTV specs defined by some US government organization a
>>>> while back, at least for OTA broadcasts? Are they not legal, at
>>>> least in the US?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are legal definitions, in the form of FCC regulations, that
>>> defined the geomtry, type and frame rate for DTV broadcast. There is
>>> no equivalent regulation that defines the geometry, type and frame
>>> rate of displays.
>>>
>>> In the absence of any regulations the manufacturers are free to call
>>> anything they want HD, They have elected to say that anything with
>>> 480 scan lines is "Enhanced definition".
>>
>>
>>
>> So why wouldn't the FCC or some consumer agency come up with
>> regulations to address this issue? They only care about the
>> broadcasting and not the actual reception of the broadcasts? I don't
>> care what kind of TV people buy but they should be aware of whether it
>> can actually show an HDTV broadcast properly or whether it will be
>> show as "EDTV" or whatever.
>
>
> Take the matter up with the FTC. It's their job to make such
> regulations. I doubt that you will have much luck, given the current
> administration's record on protecting consumers.
>
Well, apparently the previous administration wasn't too concerned either.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 4:20:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Take the matter up with the FTC. It's their job to make such
> regulations. I doubt that you will have much luck, given the current
> administration's record on protecting consumers.

To be honest, I don't want a definition of "HDTV".

What I'd like is a requirement that the following be listed ON THE PRICE
CARD for every display or projector in a store:

- the type of display technology (e.g., CRT, rear-projection CRT, LCD panel,
rear-projection LCD, rear-projection DLP, rear-projection LCoS, etc.)
- the diagonal measurement of 4:3 and 16:9 pictures...for front projectors,
this would define the size of picture that was used to measure resolution
- for fixed pixel displays, the native geometry
- for each of 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i:
1. which of these modes is accepted as input, and on which input(s)
2. how the set displays this input (i.e., how many active scan lines in the
picture area for CRT displays, and exact pixel geometries for fixed pixel
displays)
3. the TV lines of horizontal resolution adjusted per picture height (as
measured off the display using standard resolution charts)...this would
show if a fixed pixel display can't really handle a mode

--
Jeff Rife | "In those days Mars was a dreary uninhabitable
| wasteland much like Utah, but unlike Utah, Mars
| was eventually made livable."
| -- Professor Farnsworth, "Futurama"
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 8:00:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:11gm8lp5keonp9c@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Substitute the word "full" for "true" and I would say that 1440x1080 is
> not full HD. I would also say (and have said) that 1024x720 is not full
> HD. If there really was an FTC, it would probably step in with a
> regulation defining how horizontal resolution is measured and require all
> advertizing that mentions horizontal resolution quote the figure derived
> from the method described in the regulation. That isn't going to happen
> any time soon.

The problem with these distinctions is that a 1080i TV would not actually be
displaying "full HD" when it shows a 720p signal, and a 720p TV would not
actually be showing "full HD" when it shows a 1080i signal. Is that what you
really want to say?
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 8:00:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:11goshcjpace2ce@corp.supernews.com...
> tim@nocomment.com wrote:
>
> In the absence of any regulations the manufacturers are free to call
> anything they want HD, They have elected to say that anything with 480
> scan lines is "Enhanced definition". They could just as well have elected
> to say that anyhing with fewer than 720 scan lines is "Enhanced
> definition". They chose not to do that. This does allow them to call an
> 800x540 final geometry display "HD".

To clarify, I have not seen an interlaced display with only 480 lines called
"enhanced", nor have I seen any 4:3 sets with only 480 scanlines called
enhanced. So it is only widescreen displays with at least 480 progressive
scanlines that are being promoted as such, as far as I've seen. And these
diplays do, indeed, offer dramatic advantages over regular 4:3 480i
displays.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 8:43:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:11goshcjpace2ce@corp.supernews.com...
>
> There are legal definitions, in the form of FCC regulations, that defined
> the geomtry, type and frame rate for DTV broadcast. There is no equivalent
> regulation that defines the geometry, type and frame rate of displays.
>
> In the absence of any regulations the manufacturers are free to call
> anything they want HD

On the other hand, I haven't really seen CE manufacturers violating the same
guidelines used for broadcast.

While HDTV signals are indended to have essentially square pixels, so a
1080i signal would have 1920 resolution horizontally, there doesn't seem to
be a particular requirement that a broadcast actually resolves this full
resolution, and indeed in many cases it cannot, due to limitations in
cameras and other parts of the signal chain.

In addition, since there are two different primary "HD" standards, HD sets
are intended to interoperate to display each signal type, and the FCC etc.
did extensive testing to determine quality reductions during cross-format
display (1080i on a 720p display and vice versa), I think it goes without
saying that ATSC/FCC consider HD signals displayed on non-optimum displays
to be acceptable examples of "HD". So it's clear that displaying an
interlaced 1080i signal on a set that only resolves 1280 horizontal
resolution is acceptable, for instance.

I would be surprised if all 1080i sets can actually effectively resolve full
1920 resolution across, but nobody seems too concerned with this, and it
isn't making these sets unwatchable. Similarly, there doesn't seem to be a
significant issue with various flat panels with approximately (but slightly
more than) 1280x720 resolution displaying scaled images, rather than using
only a fraction of the area unscaled. I believe that if the scaling caused
significant problems with visual quality, these sets would not be
competitive in the marketplace.

On top of that, I have not seen a flat-panel set advertised as HD that had
LESS than 1280x720 resolution (other than the occasional mis-labeling of an
ED set, which I have always taken to be the usual sort of incompetent error
rather than purposeful deception). (1024x1024 is the one exception since the
horizontal resolution doesn't even match that intended for 720p, but it's
still far better than NTSC or even ED. I could possibly see a case for
action to prevent these sets from being called true HD, but I'm not
convinced the actual on-screen picture suffers enough to justify the
effort.)

So all the HD sets I'm aware of have resolution that equal or exceed
1280x720 (except the 1024x1024 format) and can display a progressive-scan
signal, or are interlaced and have 1080 scanlines. Since displaying one of
the HD standards on a set intended for the other is acceptable, I do not see
how any of these TVs, whether 1365x768 or whatever, should not be considered
true "HD" TVs.

The exception for 4:3 sets that can't attain full resolution for a 16:9
image is more troubling, but I'm again not too concerned. For one thing,
ultimately people will end up with 16:9 sets, and most 4:3 HD sets aren't
all that big anyway (they're almost all direct-view CRTs, that I know of),
and it's clear that the 16:9 image isn't using the full surface of the
screen (and that it still ends up with resolution greater than ED, let alone
NTSC).

On top of all this, resolution is only one part of the quality equation, and
these are just setting reasonable standards for TV that looks significantly
better than NTSC. There does not appear to have been any intention to
guarantee the best possible visual quality for every show broadcast to every
viewer on every possible display. Just a "good enough" result that, again,
is much better than the TV we had before.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 1:10:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew Vaughan wrote:
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:11goshcjpace2ce@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>tim@nocomment.com wrote:
>>
>>In the absence of any regulations the manufacturers are free to call
>>anything they want HD, They have elected to say that anything with 480
>>scan lines is "Enhanced definition". They could just as well have elected
>>to say that anyhing with fewer than 720 scan lines is "Enhanced
>>definition". They chose not to do that. This does allow them to call an
>>800x540 final geometry display "HD".
>
>
> To clarify, I have not seen an interlaced display with only 480 lines called
> "enhanced", nor have I seen any 4:3 sets with only 480 scanlines called
> enhanced. So it is only widescreen displays with at least 480 progressive
> scanlines that are being promoted as such, as far as I've seen. And these
> diplays do, indeed, offer dramatic advantages over regular 4:3 480i
> displays.
>

How many of the displays you cite were advertized as DTV?

Matthew
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 1:19:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew Vaughan wrote:

> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:11gm8lp5keonp9c@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Substitute the word "full" for "true" and I would say that 1440x1080 is
>>not full HD. I would also say (and have said) that 1024x720 is not full
>>HD. If there really was an FTC, it would probably step in with a
>>regulation defining how horizontal resolution is measured and require all
>>advertizing that mentions horizontal resolution quote the figure derived
>>from the method described in the regulation. That isn't going to happen
>>any time soon.
>
>
> The problem with these distinctions is that a 1080i TV would not actually be
> displaying "full HD" when it shows a 720p signal,

Why not? Are you saying that scaling does too much damage to the image.

> and a 720p TV would not
> actually be showing "full HD" when it shows a 1080i signal.

Since 720p is full HD, I don't see a problem. The system is designed for
geometry conversion.

> Is that what you
> really want to say?
>

I guessing at what you mean:

Imagine a regulation that requires advertized horizontal resolution be
measured after whatever scaling is required to convert to the display's
native geometry.

Matthew
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 11:39:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:11h0q3uqk5s7ib9@corp.supernews.com...
> Matthew Vaughan wrote:
>
>> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
>> news:11gm8lp5keonp9c@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>>Substitute the word "full" for "true" and I would say that 1440x1080 is
>>>not full HD. I would also say (and have said) that 1024x720 is not full
>>>HD. If there really was an FTC, it would probably step in with a
>>>regulation defining how horizontal resolution is measured and require all
>>>advertizing that mentions horizontal resolution quote the figure derived
>>>from the method described in the regulation. That isn't going to happen
>>>any time soon.
>>
>>
>> The problem with these distinctions is that a 1080i TV would not actually
>> be displaying "full HD" when it shows a 720p signal,
>
> Why not? Are you saying that scaling does too much damage to the image.
>
>> and a 720p TV would not actually be showing "full HD" when it shows a
>> 1080i signal.
>
> Since 720p is full HD, I don't see a problem. The system is designed for
> geometry conversion.
>
>> Is that what you really want to say?
>
> I guessing at what you mean:
>
> Imagine a regulation that requires advertized horizontal resolution be
> measured after whatever scaling is required to convert to the display's
> native geometry.

No, that's not what I'm saying. A 1080i set is incapable of showing 60Hz
progressive-scan video. So you take a 720-line video, scale it to 1080i
(which isn't a problem in itself, but doesn't add any detail), then
interlace it. You effectively end up with 720i, which would not usually be
considered HD if it were a signal encoded as such.

A 720p display cannot display 1080 lines of information, or 1920 across. So
you take an interlaced 1080i signal and down-convert it to 720. But since
the signal was interlaced, not progressive scan, in many cases you again
effectively end up with 720i (if the source is a 24fps movie, it shouldn't
be any worse than normal 720p and maybe a little better since the color is
encoded at a higher resolution, but for video that originates as 60Hz 1080i,
it does lose effective resolution due to the interlacing).

What this is basically saying is that even 720i ends up being an acceptable
HD format, since that's what you get when you display the "other" HD format
on a particular type of HDTV.

Thus fussing about a lot of the other variations that don't exactly match up
to either 1920x1080x60i or 1280x720x60p is a bit silly, as they all come out
about the same in the end anyway, usually well within the overall quality
target for HDTV generally (which is essentially 1280x720x60i).
!