Truth in HDTV advertising
I
know it's the weekend and we should all be relaxing in front of our
HDTV sets, but I have to rant a little. Ok; maybe more than a little.
It's not even a new rant; I covered this a few months back in an open
letter to the FCC on clear, accurate product labeling for HDTVs.Today I saw an ad in my Best Buy flyer for a Magnavox 42-inch widescreen Plasma HDTV. Now, as we all know from our personal experience and from our HDTV defined feature a few weeks back, for a set to carry an HDTV label, it must output a minimum resolution of 720p. Less than 720p is either EDTV or SDTV; a pair of acronyms we never utter in my house.
So, what's the resolution per the ad and per the Best Buy website?
1024 x 768, which isn't HDTV, folks. In fact, it's 256
Let's look at the "Maximum Resolution" that Best Buy indicates this very set it capable of: 1080i. Huh? Whaddya talking' 'bout; this is NOT a 1080i set. Can it receive a 1080i signal; yep, it sure can, but that's not the "Maximum Resolution" by any means. I'm not trying to pick on Best Buy; this is simply an example and just another reason that we need mandated, consumer-friendly labeling for truth in HD advertising. Who's with me?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Kevin @ Nov 6th 2005 2:57PM
I completely agree, it's a shame that people who don't do their research are going to end up with the sub-par product and still have paid thousands for it. I would love to see these retailers come up with a simple easy to read/understand, and honest definition of the new TV sets.
Ryan Olsen @ Nov 6th 2005 3:33PM
What is the native resolution of HD TV? And does it require 1280 vertical lines of resolution? Though what does the 1024 x 768 mean?
Kevin C. Tofel @ Nov 6th 2005 3:58PM
Ryan, the typical resolution of 720p for HDTV is 1280 x 720; 1,280 vertical lines and 720 horizontal lines or roughly 921,000 pixels. While we're on the subject, 1080i is a higher HDTV resolution, but because the signal is interlaced, only half of the lines are drawn during each "pass". 1080 resolution is typically 1920 x 1080; 1,920 vertical lines and 1,080 horizontal, or 2.1 million pixels.
The advertised set is about 786,000 pixels and not in a 16:9 or true widescreen format.
Kevin C. Tofel @ Nov 6th 2005 4:02PM
Ryan, I forgot your other question. 1080i compatible on this particular set (or any other that doesn't display 1080i resolution natively) means that it can accept the signal, but it will downcovert it to the native resolution of the set. My sets display 1080i resolution, so they will show the 2.1 million pixels of an NBC or CBS HD broadcast, for example. Those same broadcasts on this set would show roughly 37% of the number of pixels as on my set.
K Nakamura @ Nov 6th 2005 4:11PM
For folks who are too lazy to read the original article, the problem isn't the number of vertical pixels (the Magnavox's 768 horizontal pixels is more than 720 pixels required in 720p), the problem is the number of horizontal pixels. With a standard 16:9 screen, the 720p format requires 1280 pixels in a row horizontally. The Magnavox only has 1024 pixels. This means the horizontal resolution must either be squished or that the screen has to be letterboxed in order to show 16:9 content.
Karen
photoethnography.com/blog
From one of the postings on the other page:
> 720p 1280x720
> 1080i 1920x1080
> 1080p " "
D Berrett @ Nov 6th 2005 6:33PM
Just a quick addition. The screen itself is a 16x9 screen, but the pixels are not square pixels, so each pixel is stretched to fit the screen. So if you pass it a 720p component signal, it will display correctly, but will lack some resolution in the horizontal dimension.
One of the frustrating thing about these "non-standard" displays is that when you hook them up via VGA or DVI to a PC (such as MCE), Windows will recognize them as a 4x3 screen and stretch everything. To get around this you either have to go into the display settings and try and force it into a 16x9 resolution (usually 1280x768 works) or hook it up via component cables and send a true 720p signal (1280x720).
I'd love for someone to start coming out with affordable native 720p plasma's.
Gene Cowan @ Nov 6th 2005 7:19PM
The whole thing is really screwy and the numbers never add up. For example, few digital stations broadcast a full resolution signal. In fact, they reduce that vertical resolution so that they can use the bandwidth to broadcast another SD channel at the same time. Just because something is produced at 1080x1920 doesn't mean it's anywhere near that resolution when it reaches your set. One PBS station I know broadcasts an SD channel together with an HD channel. To do this, they reduce the vertical resolution of the HD segment, sending out something like 1080 x 1200. Frankly, you can't really tell the difference.
There comes a point where you must stop worrying about whether your set displays each and every pixel, and concentrate on whether the picture looks fantastic or not.
Ryan Olsen @ Nov 6th 2005 9:16PM
Also, if something is HDTV signal compatible, does that mean that it displays HDTV, or just capable of receiving HDTV signals?
Matt Johnson @ Nov 6th 2005 9:48PM
Resolution aside, I think there is another problem with HDTV advertising today. I don't think that retailers should be able to call something a television if it doesn't have a tuner in it. Most of the HD sets out there are only HD monitors. Very few of them are acutally televisions. This is just a way retailers get people to buy expensive sets. If you were looking at an HD monitor or an HDTV and the monitor was more expensive, why would you buy it? With the way these sets are advertised today, who knows what they are? The ad in the example doesn't say if it has a tuner or not. It really is false advertising to call an HD monitor an HDTV. You don't see computer monitor makers advertising their monitors as TV's without tuners do you? So why should television makers be able to?
Marshall @ Nov 6th 2005 10:30PM
Just a quick question in my quest for an HDTV. A lot of the resolutions I'm seeing are 1366 X 768. How does that relate to the 1280 x 720 of 720P?
Jeff Johnson @ Nov 6th 2005 10:43PM
This is a big problem. I know of people returning thier TV's after seeing mine, when they recognize that the 1080i HD signal into an LCD 1080 TV Faroudja DCDi equipped monitor looks like it really does.
A 1366x768 LCD downsampled by the monitor from 1080i hd signal can look crappier than you would expect.
Adelphia cable here puts out full 1920x1080i - when it has a 1440x1080i source , they add HD bars on each side to make up the display. HDnet and INHD1 +2 produce perfect 1080i HD for comparison...
When someone buys a new "HD" set - they want to be happy and proud of it and will in fact consider a crummy image to be a good one until they gain proper exposure to a real example.
Best Buy ( Magnolia ) will eventually get sick of open box returns, but im sure they will never diaply INHD cable in the store since it would immediately expose 80% of thier inventory as junk.
Shawn @ Nov 7th 2005 10:18AM
Marshall with 1366 X 768 you are obviously getting the real deal to recieve 720p and 1080i. So feel confident that you researched enough and if you came here to look at info, you are getting it from a reliable source.
Jason @ Nov 7th 2005 10:36AM
Unless you're getting your HDTV over-the-air you should also be concerned about truth-in-advertising from DirecTv and cable companies, both of whom compress the sh!t out of the signal. the house democrats tried to attach this to a bill a few weeks ago (watched it on cspan) and the republicans shot it down.
em-tv @ Nov 7th 2005 11:09AM
Just another reason I do not shop at Best Buy anymore.
mediaphile @ Nov 8th 2005 4:03AM
Shawn, Marshall:
1366x768 is enough to recieve show a true 720p signal, but not enough to show a native 1080i. the 768 would have to be at least 1080. it's that simple.
Bj?Elias Hesthamar @ Nov 8th 2005 4:28AM
Well, a 720p stream will look better on a 1280x720 set than a 1366x768 set (given that all other factors are equal). The extra scaling needed to convert 1 pixel to 1.075 pixels just make the quality worse. Some 1366x768 sets can display 720p natively (you will get a smaller image and a black frame, but you will be native baby!)
F Lara @ Nov 8th 2005 8:28AM
I'm planning to buy an xbox360 and I want that my videogames looks awesome, this will help me?? I see this in walmart.com
51MP392H
51 16:9 Widescreen HDTV Monitor/Receiver TV HD Component inputs (1080i/480p) Side stereo AV in with headphone jack 3 Rear AV inputs -- CVI and S-Video Digital comb filter 10 watt stereo sound system 2 speaker surround sound Integrated NTSC Tuner On Screen Clock 16:9 widescreen Remote control
Andrew Rush @ Nov 8th 2005 9:59AM
Folks, I think this rant is actually causing more confusion than enlightenment. The screw up here is that Best Buy is publishing the wrong specs in the picture (and on their website) based on what Magnavox gives as the "suggested scan rate". They are posting that the monitor is suggested to run at an XGA resolution (1024x768), for a PC! The specs on the Magnavox user guide also states that it is capable of 1080i/720p via component or DVI inputs. Now based on the dimensions of the set, it is my guess that the monitor should display something more like 1280x768 when displaying a PC screen, but the manual doesn't state that. I also wouldn't bet $2299.99 that it does. I would ask Best Buy to connect a PC and see what the native resolution is. This may not be false advertising, but instead dumb advertising.
podfather @ Nov 8th 2005 10:00AM
The problem here is not just HDTVs or Bestbuy, but technology companies and resellers in general. The marketing folks do not undersand the technology. They get some information and blast it out to the unsuspecting public. I see this all the time from just about every technology company out there. It gets especially bad when the marketing people have to put out weekly publications and don't have time to have a "technical" person actually proof or fact check what they are publishing. With the fast pace of technology these days what needs to happen is the marketing firms or in house marketing need to hire peopple that are not only good at marketing, but that have a techincal backgroud as well, and stay up to date on current technologies.
I bet if you were to aks the person that wrote that add what the defenition of HDTV is, they wouldn't have a clue, or would be mis-informed.
Of course getting the companies to pay extra to hire these types of dual role marketing folks is going to take a "truth in HDTV advertising" mandate.
podfather @ Nov 8th 2005 10:01AM
The problem here is not just HDTVs or Bestbuy, but technology companies and resellers in general. The marketing folks do not undersand the technology. They get some information and blast it out to the unsuspecting public. I see this all the time from just about every technology company out there. It gets especially bad when the marketing people have to put out weekly publications and don't have time to have a "technical" person actually proof or fact check what they are publishing. With the fast pace of technology these days what needs to happen is the marketing firms or in house marketing need to hire peopple that are not only good at marketing, but that have a techincal backgroud as well, and stay up to date on current technologies.
I bet if you were to aks the person that wrote that add what the defenition of HDTV is, they wouldn't have a clue, or would be mis-informed.
Of course getting the companies to pay extra to hire these types of dual role marketing folks is going to take a "truth in HDTV advertising" mandate.
Matt @ Nov 8th 2005 10:47AM
Actually this set wouldn't be SD or ED either. Maybe they should muddy things even more by adding a new label for each resolution? I think things are already confusing enough for consumers. All HD displays are going to have to deal with some level of upscaling or downscaling to meet the display's native resolution because the signal varies from source to source (ABC, NBC, INHD, etc). This set will show all the specified formats (albeit not nearly as well as a native set would), but i'm not aware of a set that is capable of showing every format pixel perfect. BTW, I believe that the 1024X768 in the 42" plasma has more to do with the limitations of the manufacturing process then some sort of conspiracy to screw the end consumer. That's why you don't see 720p 42" plasma displays. That should change next year though.
Ty @ Nov 8th 2005 11:15AM
I'm looking at the Mitsubishi WD-52627 and the Samsung HL-R5078W, do you guys have a strong opinion on either set? I'm looking for a TV that will be able to handle a SD signal at least reasonably well... I live in the sticks and my HD options are limited.
M Rapoport @ Nov 8th 2005 2:44PM
Ok, explain this: since a 720p requires a 1280x720 pixel display, why is it that most sets are coming out with 1366x768 screens? What happens to the extra pixels? Is it a Japanese thing?
Wilbur Pan @ Nov 8th 2005 6:03PM
I may be stupid here, but I've been combing over the ATSC website as well as the fed. government's DTV website, and nowhere can I find any regulation regarding horizontal resolution in the HDTV standard. Now for a 16:9 screen it's easy to do the math and come up with 1280x720 or 1920x1080 assuming square pixels, but, again, nowhere on the government's website can I find reference to this. The only reference I've found so far is defining vertical resolution.
Anthony Saturno @ Nov 8th 2005 9:52PM
Don't the tv manufacturers share some blame here? I mean they are the ones making 1024x768 sets, not Best Buy. You can't buy a plasma under 50" with the proper resolution (1280x720) for 720p. Why not??
Jake @ Nov 9th 2005 9:20AM
Setting the record straight:
1) 1366x768 is a maximum resolution. I've seen plenty of TV's that CAN display that resolution, but never any that do so "natively". They don't "upscale" the 720p signal to 768. You simply end up with a miniscule (5mm) black band around the picture. If your viewing from the proper distance for your set size, you won't notice.
2) Andrew: It is not misadvertising. The maximum resolution is just that. That a TV lists "compliance" with 1080i or 720p in the specs doesn't mean that it displays the entire signal: only that it will display both signals. But in either case, you only get the maximum picture that the set can display. Want an awful example? Hitachi's 42HDM12 Plasma. Its a 16:9 TV, and the first "Key Feature" is that its a "1080i High Definition Display." But the maximum resolution is only 1024x1024. It will therefore either cram the 1920x1080 signal down to 1024x576, or display, pixel for pixel, only 1024 of the 1920 horizontal pixels, so that you are basically only seeing about half the picture.
3) I believe the manufactures know what they are doing. Too, too many of them are selling 1024 sets as either 720p or 1080i capable to not know. All of the sets ACCEPT the HD signal, but none of them can DISPLAY the whole thing without condensing it. Is it really possible that every technical writer, graphic designer, and advertising layout producer for Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, Pioneer (yes, Pioneer does it, too), Mitsubishi, Hitachi, Philips (need I go on?) is completely ignorant that they are defrauding their customers? I find that so unlikely as to be laughable.
No, what we have here is a collusive effort by the industry to keep costs down and prices high be "fudging" the specs on just about every TV on the market. Keep the public guessing, keep them ignorant of the standards, make them think "compliant" means "displays" and not "accepts", don't give them what they think they're getting, and charge them more for it than we could if they knew what they were getting.
Email you member of Congress. This is getting out of hand.
Andrew Rush @ Nov 9th 2005 2:07PM
Jake, it would be funny if we were discussing this pre-LCD panels. Recall that CRTs would claim that they could display 1024x768, but the dot pitch (remember that spec?) was also crucial to the resolution. The point is how these images get scaled by the technology. You seem to be denigrating the Hitachi because it "only" does 1024x1024. Well it is one step above ED and below true HD, but it still displays HDTV and that's the point. We're getting hung up on specs. And I know maunfacturers play games with them. That's why you should use your eyes when you buy a monitor (at home as well as the store). Hook it up to different sources and see how it does. If you like it buy it.
From the question before, why 1366x768? Its just another way to get to the 1.78:1 ratio. It's just another way for manufacturers to use/abuse specs. This is a setting I use for playing DVDs on my PC. BTW, I am using the Westinghouse LVM-37w1 which is great for PC display. It supports native resolution at 1920x1080. That's 1080P native! Got it at Best Buy (I know can you believe it?) for $1899 before a 10% off coupon. See the review by Robert Heron (it's also the display Digital Life TV uses for the show) at http://gearlog.com/blogs/digitallifetv/archive/2005/09/20/722.aspx
Everything he says about PC display being great and the analog video being less impressive is true. I use it to display Beyond TV HTPC, DVDs played in Power DVD, as well as Divx and WMV HD. Spectacular!
Zinn @ Nov 9th 2005 2:51PM
Good thing I live on the other side (europe) here the they must fullow this http://www.eicta.org/press.asp?level2=24&level1=6&level0=1&docid=398 in order to be called hd-ready. And all tvs have this logo. http://www.eicta.org/files/HDreadyLogo-144853A.jpg
will @ Nov 9th 2005 2:52PM
Its funny that this has been going on for a few years and now people get freaked out. Nearly all the plasmas I've seen on the market have misleading specs. The employees at Best Buy type stores have no idea, they don't usually even know what 720p or 1080i is.
It doesn't bother me. An educated person may buy a plasma knowing full well they have rectangular pixels and not care. Uneducated people are probably still watching SDTV anyway, or if they have HDTV are probably more than happy with the results. Or maybe they just want to say they have a "flatscreen tv" like all the idiots on MTV cribs.
Information Central @ Nov 11th 2005 4:30PM
Blame the incompetent FCC. They failed to state a horizontal resolution requirement for "HD"; they only stated a vertical requirement of 720 or 1080. So a one-pixel-wide line 720 pixels tall can be called "HD" by their standards.
What do you expect from the agency that allowed interlacing and 29.97 FPS in a "modern" TV system?
Wilbur Pan @ Nov 12th 2005 2:21AM
I think I've found where the issue is regarding whether 1024x768 displays meet the HDTV standard.
The document describing the ATSC standards regarding HDTV, and DTV in general can be found at http://www.atsc.org/standards/A53D.pdf
The 1920x1080 and 1280x720 standards for HDTV are set by SMPTE, which is a trade organization. Being a trade organization, they ultimately have no regulatory power. Only the ATSC has regulatory authority, being part of the federal government.
In Section 9 of the ATSC standards, it says:
"9. POSSIBLE VIDEO INPUTS
While not required by this standard, there are certain television production standards, shown in Table A1, that define video formats that relate to compression formats specified by this standard.
The compression formats may be derived from one or more appropriate video input formats. It may be anticipated that additional video production standards will be developed in the future that extend the number of possible input formats."
Table 1 shows three standards. Two are from SMPTE -- the aforementioned 1920x1080 and 1280x720 standards. The third is ITU-R BT.601-4, which is a 720x483 DTV format.
Notice that this section specifically says "not required by this standard". By this, the ATSC is saying that the ONLY requirement for HDTV is that the display meets the vertical resolution requirements for 720p or 1080i. A 1024x768 display meets this criteria. One can argue as to whether the picture is worse on a 1024x768 display compared to a 1280x720 display, but both are HDTVs regardless.
Matt @ Nov 13th 2005 3:41PM
I've worked in retail for a big box one and let me tell you that there's very little if any training it's basically a supermarket mentality with other types of goods.
The other thing is they don't make up the ads so when they are questioned on something they can't really adjust it. Case in point I've seen things like this
"New Lower Price: $10.88 Was $10.89"
One cent was the difference!
The other thing is some retailers are known for not exactly being the brightest on things. Back in the day Lechmere used to sell products for MSRP and claim THAT was a sale. Case in point they sold way back in 1989 the Atari Lynx for $180....claimed the MSRP was like $240 when it wasn't...
Of course these days you can shop around. Companies are deathly afraid of price matching and will do ANYTHING to prevent it. For example a customer came into my store and asked if we'd match something, we said yes but we'd HAVE to confirm with the other store that price....
Now think about this one for a moment. Your competition calls up asking to confirm a price...would you REALLY tell them that if you know you would lose a sale? The customer tried this at a store down town and our competitors actually hung up on us when they realized that!
panasonic-man @ Nov 14th 2005 5:43PM
so i guess what i'm reading here is that there really aren't that many (if any) plasma's (or otherwise) out there that will display a "true" HD signal of 720p or 1080i (1920x1080 / 1280x720).
i'm 1 day away from buying a 42" Panasonic PHD8UK. it's native res is 1024x768. i'll obviously get the 720, but falling 256 short with the 1024. from what i've read....the difference isn't too much. but will trying to broadcast a 1080i really look messed up?
i'm not that bothered about HD "TV" per sey. i don't watch too much TV....i just LOVE to watch movies. is this going to matter much to me? and should i use DVI, HDMI or Component from the DVD player to this screen to get the best picture quality?
this forum has been very helpful. thanks to all that have posted and thanks in advance if anyone has any answers to these questions.
Sawyer Jinkens @ Nov 24th 2005 11:07PM
As this market grows, measures will be taken to regulate the advertising in it.
However, some people "don't care," and more importantly to most it "doesn't matter."
Joe @ Nov 29th 2005 7:39PM
I dont understand the confusion. Admittedly it isn't able to do 720p, but most every set in a 42" has the same specs. Just take a look at the Pioneer web site.
http://www.pioneerpurevision.com/pna/product/detail/0,,2076_4123_277312046_tab=B,00.html?compName=PNA_ProductDetailComponent
Funny thing is they also call it HD. So you should also pick on the Pioneer web site. Seems like many of you haven't ever shopped for a HDTV. If you did you'd note the specs on most every HDTV in that screen size will be 1024x768, unless its EDTV which will be 852 x 480 Pixels. I have never seen a 42" set with a screen resolution greater than that size. The confusion lies between what the Magnavox site says, labeling it an ED set, and the Best Buy site. Which is correct? Perhaps the Magnavox site is wrong. I dont know, but having seen the site perhaps its an EDTV. Remember they don't list the specs on the site. As a side note specs alone dont tell the entire picture. Its the quality of the material on the inside that makes one set more expensive and thus a better picture. And I always say you get what you pay for.
William Baker @ Dec 12th 2005 6:15PM
I bought a Thanksgiving Day newspaper and found the Best Buy ad. It stated I could buy a 30 HDTV for 399.99. The ad stated it was a (IS-TVHD30) 7279198 with a regular price of $649.99. I arrived at the Best Buy in Geneva, IL on Thanksgiving evening before 10:00 p.m. to insure I could get one of the 2 minimum at the store. The store opened at 5:00 a.m. After I paid for the TV, someone was dispatched to fetch the TV from the warehouse. They brought the TV out on a dolly and rolled it out to my car. I needed to get the seats down to fit the huge box into my car so I waived the sales person on and told him I could get it in the car without any help. While pushing the box into the car, I notice the box said HD-ready and not HDTV. I returned to the store and complained to 2 sales people. I explained to them that a HDTV stands for High Definition Television. The product actually sold to me was not a television but only a 30 HD-Monitor or HDTV-Ready unit. A television has a built in tuner but what sold does not. Both sales people indicated I was wrong and that HDTV did not mean it had a built in tuner. I left with the TV.
I am now researching a class action suit against Best Buy. I am looking for others who have been mislead by Best Buy ads on HDTV's. Send your info to me: wmbgvb@msn.com
Mark @ Jan 2nd 2006 3:02AM
Hello,
I'm going to buy an hdtv and am considering the Panasonic CT-34WX15 TAU. (crt)It supports HDTV @ 1080i and EDTV @ 480p. My question is what happens when I view a resolution at 720p? Is this set going to display it properly? Also, the Panasonic DVD-S77 player puts out 1080i and 720p. Where is the 720p on the T.V.? Would appreciate your comments. Thanks, Mark.