10 of the worst scams, lies, and ripoffs surrounding HDTVs
The consumers electronics industry is full of scams, lies, and ripoffs; but this list from our friend Gary Merson is particularly interesting to HD fans. We got a kick out of every one of 'em, but really enjoyed hearing our own sentiments echoed about things like Deep Color, x.v Color, HDMI and fake HD channels. At the same time we're surprised to see that 120hz and CableCARD enabled TVs didn't make the list. So do yourself a favor if you're shopping for new HD gear or an HD provider, and click on the read link to avoid these scams.
Filed under: Misc
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
TrentD @ Apr 28th 2008 4:39PM
Agreed on the 120Hz topic - I saw a frame-interpolating 120 Hz set last night and it was the most unnatural, weird-looking movie experience I've ever had. It looked so smooth that it looked fake - weird, I know, but film at 24 Hz is much more pleasing than video at 60 Hz - the subtle jerkiness makes it more dramatic. 120 Hz frame interpolation ruins that.
*not all 120 Hz sets are frame-interpolating - the ones that just insert a black frame don't seem to have the same negative effect.
Student Driver @ Apr 28th 2008 5:51PM
You know, I do agree with this on some things with my Samsung 4671. However, when watching something like "Cars" and episodes of "Law and Order," the effect is amazing and addictive. When gaming, the smoothness and flow become hypnotic.
I can see how many would be bothered by it (I have read of at least one person that returned his set because he didn't like the effect) but I really like it. In fact, that's what sold me on this model of TV; there was a looping HD demo, and it had an excerpt from the Blu-ray release of "Cars." The segment looked like it was filmed with an HD camera, rather than rendered. It also seems to extend the "3D" nature of CG material. Oh, and cartoons like Yin Yang Yo! look awesome in HD with the 120Hz engine on high. :-)
Peter J Cat @ Apr 28th 2008 5:56PM
120hz shouldn't mean frame interpolation, it should just mean 120hz. A 120hz panel taking a 24fps source and just displaying each frame 5 times is a thing of beauty and is actually one of the more useful developments in HDTV over the last year. Of course, if you don't just repeat the frames but try to guess where they're going next, you ruin everything.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Apr 28th 2008 7:01PM
Turn off all sharpening, all frame interpolation, etc.
The great value of a 120Hz TV is you can input 1080p/24 and get zero judder on your films.
I disagree that 24Hz film looks better than 60Hz video. Watch the intro movie to Gran Turismo 5 Prologue, which is 1080p/60, and you'll realize that the motion representation on film is poor.
El perron @ Apr 28th 2008 8:36PM
I need some help guys, I'm thinking of buying the 42" 720p kuro elite, but I'm having second thoughts because the native resolution is 1024x768, 720p, I have my ps3 and I watch a lot of blu ray and play a lot, I would like to take full advantage of my ps3 but 1024x768 seems kind of low. So the battle is between Sony XBR4 or 5, Samsung 81F, or the Kuro Elite 42", I cannot go any higher than 42".
Nfinity @ Apr 28th 2008 4:54PM
Blu-Ray? ;)
bobthehdbuilder @ Apr 28th 2008 5:19PM
"Don’t be surprised if your HDMI hookups do not provide any image on your HDTV"
Seriously? This isn't exactly HDMI spec 1.1 anymore, HDMI has come a long way, and is now being used by many customer installers, even commercial installers, for short runs. To blindly say you should EXPECT to not see an image is just a flat out prejudice. There are still some issues with HDMI, however not to this extreme.
Dave Zatz @ Apr 28th 2008 6:27PM
Not sure what his beef with HDMI is - it wasn't clean. Every now and then HDCP has been problematic, but typical stuff has been fine for me.
Regarding "fake HD channels" - should they just not broadcast during hours when they don't have new shows in HD? We're in a period of transition and some shows from years past are never going to be HD. But in many cases, the content outweight the resolution. Perhaps, he'd feel better if they were presented in 4:3 and folks could choose to scale or not scale. The uninitiated probably prefer the scaling over bars though...
The biggest scam is the broadcasters being forced off NTSC so they could sell the bandwidth for a ton of dough. A lot of people are probably buying new TVs who may not have chosen to do so on their own and may not completely understand the transition.
Achilles @ Apr 28th 2008 6:32PM
Contrast ratio DOES matter if you're comparing the same brand. However, I'm not sure where the cut-off is. In other words, like a CPU, after so many Ghz, it started to become irrelevant due to heat concerns (hence, dual and quad were introduced). Comparing two same brand TV's, there is a difference between 15,000:1 and the 50,000:1, if you know how to compare. 500,000:1? Not so sure.
120hz also makes a difference but you should have the option to turn it on and off (example: the Samsungs carry the option). It works differently with BRay compared to sports. It's not to be turned on ALL the time. It's to your particular taste.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Apr 28th 2008 6:57PM
The 1,000,000:1 contrast ratios aren't even dynamic. They're bullshit in a different way. The figures you see between 10,000 and 20,000:1 are dynamic and are bullshit in the way stated.
My 23" Dell monitor is 1920x1200, I see no reason to buy a less than 1080p TV, even below 42".
120Hz HDMI cables may be BS, but there is a higher bandwidth spec (much higher) for deep color. If you are going to use deep color (and no one is, as mentioned above), you need much more higher bandwidth cables.
HDMI is not a scam. Don't buy shitty TVs and you'll do just fine. And to be honest, any problems you are having are most likely from poor HDCP implementation in your TV, not because of a problem with HDMI. To be honest. HDCP should be the top item on this list, with a bullet. It does nothing but cause problems and enrich Intel. Want an amp with on-screen overlaid UI? Too bad, HDCP doesn't allow it.
Andy Anonymous @ Apr 28th 2008 7:02PM
I don't care what that guy says: I can tell the difference between a 1080p set and a 720p set at viewing distances above what he claims. It's not so much that I can see "all the detail" in the 1080p display, but that the 720p display has a visible pixel/stairstep effect around some edges of things -- particularly lettering -- that the 1080p set does not.
Chad @ Apr 28th 2008 10:42PM
No you can't, but feel free to think you can. It's not possible for the human eye to discern the difference beyond a certain point.
Andy Anonymous @ Apr 29th 2008 1:18AM
Sure, because it's not as though I did a side by side comparison using same-brand models or anything. ;) Of course my vision is better than 20/20, but even so, the "rule" is not universal.
So, yeah...I will go right on believing my own eyes, thanks.
bobthehdbuilder @ Apr 29th 2008 9:17AM
You aren't seeing the difference between 1080p and 720p, what you're seeing is better deinterlacing, and a better scaling chip. The stairstepping you referred to is not a resolution issue, look it up.
Andy Anonymous @ Apr 29th 2008 10:34AM
Thanks, I'm well familiar with deinterlacing and scaling errors and what they look like. That's not what this was.
chad @ Apr 29th 2008 12:05PM
Most of the time when one sees a "stair stepping" effect on the diagonal lines of text, the problem is that the sharpness control is turned up too high. For instance, this effect is easily visible on all the 768p Pioneer Kuro displays in a local retail store, but it has nothing to do with pixels. If you pick up the remote and turn down the sharpness, this will go away immediately.
Andy Anonymous @ Apr 29th 2008 3:36PM
I install and calibrate HT for a living, so I'm also familiar with what edge artifacts look like when TV sharpness is turned up. And that also is not what I experienced. I just have good eyesight.
bobthehdbuilder @ Apr 29th 2008 4:39PM
You just have a good imagination.
The human eye is physically incapable of distinguishing the differences below 46" screens. Either you really don't know what you're seeing, or it wasn't clearly described. The "stairstepping" you referred to is a processing error, not something solved by increasing resolution. Go to AVSFORUM, start a thread, and see where they take you...
Andy Anonymous @ Apr 29th 2008 4:50PM
bob, spend all the time you like trying to tell me what I saw. My comparison was an A-B using the same source, displayed on two Pioneer plasma sets from the same product line, so the processing was being done by similar hardware. As I said, my eyesight is better than 20/20 and I'm often capable of reading signs from extremely far away that others can't. I'm already active on AVSForum, and as I said, I work with this stuff professionally. I know what I've seen. You don't.
keith @ Apr 28th 2008 7:56PM
Cablecard TV's are great. I have an Hitachi 1080 plasma with cablecard and TV Guide on screen. I can edit the TV Guide to put the channels in the order I want and delete the channels I don't watch. I can set reminders with the TV Guide to automatically turn on the TV and switch to the channel when the program starts. A cable box can't do those things.
El perron @ Apr 28th 2008 8:36PM
I need some help guys, I'm thinking of buying the 42" 720p kuro elite, but I'm having second thoughts because the native resolution is 1024x768, 720p, I have my ps3 and I watch a lot of blu ray and play a lot, I would like to take full advantage of my ps3 but 1024x768 seems kind of low. So the battle is between Sony XBR4 or 5, Samsung 81F, or the Kuro Elite 42", I cannot go any higher than 42".
why not the LS2LS7? @ Apr 28th 2008 9:59PM
1024x768 isn't 720p. It's only about 80% of the pixels even of 720p.
Loban @ Apr 29th 2008 10:09AM
1024 x 768 is a very common resolution for a 42" plasma. Do NOT buy an HDTV based solely on resolution. Kuros are the absolute best HDTV you can buy, regardless of resolution. Eventually 42" full 1080 Kuros will drop to an affordable price, but until then, if you want the best, you're gonna have to take your mind off the "low" resolution and buy based on the quality of the panel itself. But if you want to waste your money on a cheap 1080p LCD, be my guest.
DrXym @ Apr 29th 2008 8:09AM
The price of some HDMI cables is a scam but I don't have any objection with the cable format itself. It's pretty tidy and delivers an excellent signal.
HDMI far more pleasant to deal with than the hideous SCART cable that it replaces in Europe. SCART is okay in so far as it unifies all cables into a single connector, but boy is it chunky.
Loban @ Apr 29th 2008 10:03AM
I'm completely confused why HDMI made the list. My entire setup is HDMI. I have a cable STB, a DVD player, and an Xbox 360 all hooked up via HDMI, and through a Belkin switch no less and I've had zero problems for over a year.
John @ Apr 29th 2008 10:57AM
I totally agree with #1 HDMI. It's such a consumer grade piece of crap. Why do we even have component video? Because someone decided the decades old RGB analog wasn't good enough for the consumer electronics market. The only reason for HDMI is to have HDCP. And running a high bandwidth signal through an unshielded twisted pair cable is a big problem for long cable lengths.
DrXym @ Apr 29th 2008 1:21PM
HDCP isn't the only reason. HDMI produces a noticeably superior picture over analogue cables.
Ben @ Apr 29th 2008 1:23PM
DrXym,
It's comments like that which made HDMI make the list. The few improvements (1080p) over component that HDMI provides are artificial at best.
HDMI, is more expensive and more troublesome then component and in most cases doesn't provide any better video quality. Otherwise it wouldn't have made the list.
Andy Anonymous @ Apr 29th 2008 3:40PM
Ben,
HDMI may not deliver HD video at a noticeably better quality than component video, but it does deliver that HD video along with digital audio via a single convenient cable, and with 1.3a delivers high bandwidth audio formats that toslink does not support.