A short question for readers - follow up

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Rodolfo,

I appreciate and enjoy your current report style. I would not wish
you to change anything about it. As others have said, there are
numerous sources for partially researched expert opinion.

Regards,
Jeff

On 1/29/07, Rodolfo La Maestra <[email protected]> wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Larry, Scott,
>
> Thanks for your comments and guidance.
>
> Just to make sure that my question/comments were understood correctly,
> although I made comparative reference of similar efforts from other
> magazines, this IS NOT about money, it never was nor will be for me, is
> about effort and time I dedicate, and where they should be dedicated more
> effectively for the audience we have while I can do it.
>
> I would like to consider adapting to the needs of the readership, I must not
> write in vacuum and convince myself I am helping a public that does not
> read, but I do not want to respond to the same question for years.
>
> Just check any forum, including ours, same questions, over and over;
> expecting the author to digest and re-digest the same produced (and
> available) content to respond again in one line for a particular question.
>
> Maybe we are not adapting to the audience's way to consume information, but
> maybe we should not, and let the pin point repetitive question audience find
> their way doing the reading that others do, and let this be the best
> intellectual source, and concentrate in the production of
> intellectual/analytical material for research and educational purposes,
> judging by your two responses you prefer the second for its permanent value,
> is that what the rest wants as well?
>
> In other words, is the "question from the readers page" of this magazine
> (usually two pages of 100 on printed versions of competitors) the foundation
> to build from? Or,
>
> Is the "tutorial" intellectual content the one to build from? (to which
> other magazines dedicate a small percentage of pages, because most coverage
> is for product reviews and adds).
>
> We know we are different now, but do we have an opportunity to be even
> better with our limited resources and build upon that difference?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Megugorac
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:34 PM
> To: 'HDTV Magazine'; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Sharp LC-65D90U with 1.3 - And a short question for readers
>
> A) They are free well researched and complete; maybe they should not be?
>
> Rodolfo, I as well as many on this list appreciate every bit of information
> we get from you.
>
> B) Maybe they should not be free? Magazines charge subscriptions to produce
> articles to readerships.
>
> I would be happy to pay yearly subscription fee because you have no bias
> with your answers unlike the commercial mags.
>
> C) Maybe they should only be 3 statements with a big photo to please the eye
> and be intellectually empty?
>
> Please NO
>
> D) Maybe we should not write articles and use a question/answer approach to
> help readers, an approach that would take me more effort for less
> depth/variety while producing repetitive responses to the similar questions?
>
> Please NO
>
> E) Would a pinpoint personal response more valuable than a fully analyzed
> subject anyone could use for research at anytime?
>
> That would not do the group well.
>
> F) While the answer might not be in the title of an article and might
> require a few minutes of reading, would it rather be better not to produce
> the content and wait until someone asks?
>
> Please no again!
>
> I for one am looking forward to the paid version of the 2007 CES report.
>
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Rodolfo La Maestra
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:51 AM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Sharp LC-65D90U with 1.3 - And a short question for readers
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> The short answer is NO.
>
> If you care to read:
>
> The Sharp was a 2005 product; it was first announced at CES 2005 (over 2
> years ago) to become TTM Nov 05, meaning the technology of everything on
> that set is about 2 years old.
>
> The HDMI 1.3 specs were approved mid 06, about six months ago. Chips for
> those specs started to appear several months later, toward the end of 06.
>
> Manufacturers are at the beginning of their effort implementing those chips
> in "some" future products, not retrofitting current products with HDMI
> chips.
>
> Simplay Labs as a new test facility was not necessarily created for just
> passing 1.3, but for general HDMI/HDCP compliance testing for more than one
> category in any kind of product, wires included, to benefit consumers
> regarding HDMI interoperability.
>
> Again, passing the test does not mean the product is automatically 1.3
> compliant or 1080p capable, or has Deep Color, or xvcolor, or lossless audio
> codecs capabilities, etc, it means it interoperate well with other HDMI
> suited products, it means that is better than no test, and better than no
> organization testing.
>
> Even after CES 2007 MOST manufacturers are still short in specifying
> correctly the version of HDMI they support and also the HDMI functionality
> features they implement of their equipment (like the above), so we are all
> in for another roller coaster ignorance sharing year (most probably years).
>
> And, as advance notice, please do not expect me to produce a flawless list
> of HDMI 1.3 products on the 2007 report, for 2 things:
>
> A) It is misleading if specifying only 1.3 and not the 1.3 related
> functionality implemented in the product, and
> B) After I started doing the list at CES, I found the hard way that it was
> an impossible task because most at CES could not be trusted, unless it was
> on a press release, besides, I already have all that information even before
> CES. Samsung was one of the companies that showed better effort on being
> specific across products.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Now I have a question myself, maybe my first question since the magazine
> started in 1998:
>
> What would it take for people to read the very own articles and reports
> produced by the magazine?
>
> (Please, this is not a disrespectful or an ironic question, it is a reality,
> and issued with the intention to redirect efforts)
>
> A) They are free well researched and complete; maybe they should not be?
> B) Maybe they should not be free? Magazines charge subscriptions to produce
> articles to readerships.
> C) Maybe they should only be 3 statements with a big photo to please the eye
> and be intellectually empty?
> D) Maybe we should not write articles and use a question/answer approach to
> help readers, an approach that would take me more effort for less
> depth/variety while producing repetitive responses to the similar questions?
> E) Would a pinpoint personal response more valuable than a fully analyzed
> subject anyone could use for research at anytime?
> F) While the answer might not be in the title of an article and might
> require a few minutes of reading, would it rather be better not to produce
> the content and wait until someone asks?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Mark Alford
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 7:28 AM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: Sharp LC-65D90U
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Richard,
>
> Check the news section of the forum. Someone had posted an article about a
> month ago that gave the website for 1.3 certification. At that time there
> were less than ten pieces of equipment that had been verified as 1.3
> capable. I don't remember there being any products from Sharp on the list.
>
> Mark
>
>
> On 1/28/07 10:55 PM, "Joe Hart" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> > Considering the age of the model (it debuted in fall 2005) I would be
> > surprised.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Joe Hart
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> > Richard Fisher
> > Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 5:35 PM
> > To: HDTV Magazine
> > Subject: Sharp LC-65D90U
> >
> > ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> > Can anybody confirm HDMI 1.3 on this display?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Richard Fisher
> > ISF and HAA certified
> > HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
> > Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
> >
> > To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> > day) send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
> >
> > To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> > day) send an email to:
> > [email protected]
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Rodolfo,

People asking you "what's the best TV to buy"(dang I really hate that
description, like calling a sound system a "stereo") is like asking "what's
the best car to buy".

Unfortunately, it seems the majority of people want to take the easy way
out and instead of doing much reading on their own, want the answer right
now so they don't have to think!

Man, I hope most of the folks on this list are more into the finer points of
display technology than that.

All I really want to say is that your knowledge (along with some other's
knowledge on this list) really makes it worth belonging to!!!!!


Otherwise I'd just go read "Stereo Review" (I do know that the name has
changed to "Sound & Vision")

Thanks again Rodolfo!


Larry







-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Rodolfo La Maestra
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 8:56 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: A short question for readers - follow up

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Larry, Scott,

Thanks for your comments and guidance.

Just to make sure that my question/comments were understood correctly,
although I made comparative reference of similar efforts from other
magazines, this IS NOT about money, it never was nor will be for me, is
about effort and time I dedicate, and where they should be dedicated more
effectively for the audience we have while I can do it.

I would like to consider adapting to the needs of the readership, I must not
write in vacuum and convince myself I am helping a public that does not
read, but I do not want to respond to the same question for years.

Just check any forum, including ours, same questions, over and over;
expecting the author to digest and re-digest the same produced (and
available) content to respond again in one line for a particular question.

Maybe we are not adapting to the audience's way to consume information, but
maybe we should not, and let the pin point repetitive question audience find
their way doing the reading that others do, and let this be the best
intellectual source, and concentrate in the production of
intellectual/analytical material for research and educational purposes,
judging by your two responses you prefer the second for its permanent value,
is that what the rest wants as well?

In other words, is the "question from the readers page" of this magazine
(usually two pages of 100 on printed versions of competitors) the foundation
to build from? Or,

Is the "tutorial" intellectual content the one to build from? (to which
other magazines dedicate a small percentage of pages, because most coverage
is for product reviews and adds).

We know we are different now, but do we have an opportunity to be even
better with our limited resources and build upon that difference?

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Megugorac
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:34 PM
To: 'HDTV Magazine'; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Sharp LC-65D90U with 1.3 - And a short question for readers

A) They are free well researched and complete; maybe they should not be?

Rodolfo, I as well as many on this list appreciate every bit of information
we get from you.

B) Maybe they should not be free? Magazines charge subscriptions to produce
articles to readerships.

I would be happy to pay yearly subscription fee because you have no bias
with your answers unlike the commercial mags.

C) Maybe they should only be 3 statements with a big photo to please the eye
and be intellectually empty?

Please NO

D) Maybe we should not write articles and use a question/answer approach to
help readers, an approach that would take me more effort for less
depth/variety while producing repetitive responses to the similar questions?

Please NO

E) Would a pinpoint personal response more valuable than a fully analyzed
subject anyone could use for research at anytime?

That would not do the group well.

F) While the answer might not be in the title of an article and might
require a few minutes of reading, would it rather be better not to produce
the content and wait until someone asks?

Please no again!

I for one am looking forward to the paid version of the 2007 CES report.


Larry



-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Rodolfo La Maestra
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:51 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Sharp LC-65D90U with 1.3 - And a short question for readers

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

The short answer is NO.

If you care to read:

The Sharp was a 2005 product; it was first announced at CES 2005 (over 2
years ago) to become TTM Nov 05, meaning the technology of everything on
that set is about 2 years old.

The HDMI 1.3 specs were approved mid 06, about six months ago. Chips for
those specs started to appear several months later, toward the end of 06.

Manufacturers are at the beginning of their effort implementing those chips
in "some" future products, not retrofitting current products with HDMI
chips.

Simplay Labs as a new test facility was not necessarily created for just
passing 1.3, but for general HDMI/HDCP compliance testing for more than one
category in any kind of product, wires included, to benefit consumers
regarding HDMI interoperability.

Again, passing the test does not mean the product is automatically 1.3
compliant or 1080p capable, or has Deep Color, or xvcolor, or lossless audio
codecs capabilities, etc, it means it interoperate well with other HDMI
suited products, it means that is better than no test, and better than no
organization testing.

Even after CES 2007 MOST manufacturers are still short in specifying
correctly the version of HDMI they support and also the HDMI functionality
features they implement of their equipment (like the above), so we are all
in for another roller coaster ignorance sharing year (most probably years).

And, as advance notice, please do not expect me to produce a flawless list
of HDMI 1.3 products on the 2007 report, for 2 things:

A) It is misleading if specifying only 1.3 and not the 1.3 related
functionality implemented in the product, and
B) After I started doing the list at CES, I found the hard way that it was
an impossible task because most at CES could not be trusted, unless it was
on a press release, besides, I already have all that information even before
CES. Samsung was one of the companies that showed better effort on being
specific across products.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Now I have a question myself, maybe my first question since the magazine
started in 1998:

What would it take for people to read the very own articles and reports
produced by the magazine?

(Please, this is not a disrespectful or an ironic question, it is a reality,
and issued with the intention to redirect efforts)

A) They are free well researched and complete; maybe they should not be?
B) Maybe they should not be free? Magazines charge subscriptions to produce
articles to readerships.
C) Maybe they should only be 3 statements with a big photo to please the eye
and be intellectually empty?
D) Maybe we should not write articles and use a question/answer approach to
help readers, an approach that would take me more effort for less
depth/variety while producing repetitive responses to the similar questions?
E) Would a pinpoint personal response more valuable than a fully analyzed
subject anyone could use for research at anytime?
F) While the answer might not be in the title of an article and might
require a few minutes of reading, would it rather be better not to produce
the content and wait until someone asks?

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra


-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Mark Alford
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 7:28 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Sharp LC-65D90U

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Richard,

Check the news section of the forum. Someone had posted an article about a
month ago that gave the website for 1.3 certification. At that time there
were less than ten pieces of equipment that had been verified as 1.3
capable. I don't remember there being any products from Sharp on the list.

Mark


On 1/28/07 10:55 PM, "Joe Hart" <[email protected]> wrote:

> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Considering the age of the model (it debuted in fall 2005) I would be
> surprised.
>
> Cheers,
> Joe Hart
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Richard Fisher
> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 5:35 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Sharp LC-65D90U
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Can anybody confirm HDMI 1.3 on this display?
>
> Thanks
>
> Richard Fisher
> ISF and HAA certified
> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> day) send an email to:
> [email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

1/31/2007 11:15am ct

I'd like to say a word on behalf of those of us who don't
have the skill to do all the research necessary to find out what
needs to be known about a purchase.

I've been a member of this list for a very long time and a
strong supporter of HD Magazine. In the "early years", I was
fascinated by the discussions which went on here and learned a
lot. I still try to keep up.

HOWEVER, unless I choose to become an expert and read every
press release and article in every magazine and attend everything
there is to attend, there is no way for someone who is even as
interested as I am to keep up with the developments. After all, it's
what we don't know enough to even ask about which is right over the
hill which often is most important issue in making a purchase decision.

And the vast number of people out there considering HD
purchases are in much worst shape because they just don't know who to
believe even when they do the research immediately available to them,
or.. perhaps even worse... they do trust the salesperson.

The problem is that when the government mandated the digital
transition for TV, they left it to the CEA and the manufacturers to
educate the public. Government took no role, no real standards and
marketing definitions. Now we're not talking here about buy a new
car. We're talking about understanding a whole new technology. I've
found most of the digital set manufacturers do everything they can to
spin what their product does and doesn't do and almost never mention
what the bewildered consumer's decision points really ought to be
based upon. The best retailer I know who does this is
Crutchfield. But try to get a straight story from an informed
salesperson at Sears!

Two anecdotes:

1. The very best HD private store in town has been telling
people that 480i plasmas are as good as HD (they know better, they
just don't think the public can tell the difference).

2. What the hell is EDTV?; I mean, trying to make a distinction
between 480i and 480p so you can palm off a non-HD set as HD-light is obscene.

So please don't blame the public. They will eventually
learn enough to figure it out. But right now, they still don't know
what to ask.

Best,
Robert

>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>Rodolfo,
>
>People asking you "what's the best TV to buy"(dang I really hate that
>description, like calling a sound system a "stereo") is like asking "what's
>the best car to buy".
>
>Unfortunately, it seems the majority of people want to take the easy way
>out and instead of doing much reading on their own, want the answer right
>now so they don't have to think!
>
>Man, I hope most of the folks on this list are more into the finer points of
>display technology than that.
>
>All I really want to say is that your knowledge (along with some other's
>knowledge on this list) really makes it worth belonging to!!!!!
>
>
>Otherwise I'd just go read "Stereo Review" (I do know that the name has
>changed to "Sound & Vision")
>
>Thanks again Rodolfo!
>
>
>Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>Rodolfo La Maestra
>Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 8:56 PM
>To: HDTV Magazine
>Subject: A short question for readers - follow up
>
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>Larry, Scott,
>
>Thanks for your comments and guidance.
>
>Just to make sure that my question/comments were understood correctly,
>although I made comparative reference of similar efforts from other
>magazines, this IS NOT about money, it never was nor will be for me, is
>about effort and time I dedicate, and where they should be dedicated more
>effectively for the audience we have while I can do it.
>
>I would like to consider adapting to the needs of the readership, I must not
>write in vacuum and convince myself I am helping a public that does not
>read, but I do not want to respond to the same question for years.
>
>Just check any forum, including ours, same questions, over and over;
>expecting the author to digest and re-digest the same produced (and
>available) content to respond again in one line for a particular question.
>
>Maybe we are not adapting to the audience's way to consume information, but
>maybe we should not, and let the pin point repetitive question audience find
>their way doing the reading that others do, and let this be the best
>intellectual source, and concentrate in the production of
>intellectual/analytical material for research and educational purposes,
>judging by your two responses you prefer the second for its permanent value,
>is that what the rest wants as well?
>
>In other words, is the "question from the readers page" of this magazine
>(usually two pages of 100 on printed versions of competitors) the foundation
>to build from? Or,
>
>Is the "tutorial" intellectual content the one to build from? (to which
>other magazines dedicate a small percentage of pages, because most coverage
>is for product reviews and adds).
>
>We know we are different now, but do we have an opportunity to be even
>better with our limited resources and build upon that difference?
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Rodolfo La Maestra
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Larry Megugorac
>Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:34 PM
>To: 'HDTV Magazine'; [email protected]
>Subject: RE: Sharp LC-65D90U with 1.3 - And a short question for readers
>
>A) They are free well researched and complete; maybe they should not be?
>
>Rodolfo, I as well as many on this list appreciate every bit of information
>we get from you.
>
>B) Maybe they should not be free? Magazines charge subscriptions to produce
>articles to readerships.
>
>I would be happy to pay yearly subscription fee because you have no bias
>with your answers unlike the commercial mags.
>
>C) Maybe they should only be 3 statements with a big photo to please the eye
>and be intellectually empty?
>
>Please NO
>
>D) Maybe we should not write articles and use a question/answer approach to
>help readers, an approach that would take me more effort for less
>depth/variety while producing repetitive responses to the similar questions?
>
>Please NO
>
>E) Would a pinpoint personal response more valuable than a fully analyzed
>subject anyone could use for research at anytime?
>
>That would not do the group well.
>
>F) While the answer might not be in the title of an article and might
>require a few minutes of reading, would it rather be better not to produce
>the content and wait until someone asks?
>
>Please no again!
>
>I for one am looking forward to the paid version of the 2007 CES report.
>
>
>Larry
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>Rodolfo La Maestra
>Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:51 AM
>To: HDTV Magazine
>Subject: Sharp LC-65D90U with 1.3 - And a short question for readers
>
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>The short answer is NO.
>
>If you care to read:
>
>The Sharp was a 2005 product; it was first announced at CES 2005 (over 2
>years ago) to become TTM Nov 05, meaning the technology of everything on
>that set is about 2 years old.
>
>The HDMI 1.3 specs were approved mid 06, about six months ago. Chips for
>those specs started to appear several months later, toward the end of 06.
>
>Manufacturers are at the beginning of their effort implementing those chips
>in "some" future products, not retrofitting current products with HDMI
>chips.
>
>Simplay Labs as a new test facility was not necessarily created for just
>passing 1.3, but for general HDMI/HDCP compliance testing for more than one
>category in any kind of product, wires included, to benefit consumers
>regarding HDMI interoperability.
>
>Again, passing the test does not mean the product is automatically 1.3
>compliant or 1080p capable, or has Deep Color, or xvcolor, or lossless audio
>codecs capabilities, etc, it means it interoperate well with other HDMI
>suited products, it means that is better than no test, and better than no
>organization testing.
>
>Even after CES 2007 MOST manufacturers are still short in specifying
>correctly the version of HDMI they support and also the HDMI functionality
>features they implement of their equipment (like the above), so we are all
>in for another roller coaster ignorance sharing year (most probably years).
>
>And, as advance notice, please do not expect me to produce a flawless list
>of HDMI 1.3 products on the 2007 report, for 2 things:
>
>A) It is misleading if specifying only 1.3 and not the 1.3 related
>functionality implemented in the product, and
>B) After I started doing the list at CES, I found the hard way that it was
>an impossible task because most at CES could not be trusted, unless it was
>on a press release, besides, I already have all that information even before
>CES. Samsung was one of the companies that showed better effort on being
>specific across products.
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Now I have a question myself, maybe my first question since the magazine
>started in 1998:
>
>What would it take for people to read the very own articles and reports
>produced by the magazine?
>
>(Please, this is not a disrespectful or an ironic question, it is a reality,
>and issued with the intention to redirect efforts)
>
>A) They are free well researched and complete; maybe they should not be?
>B) Maybe they should not be free? Magazines charge subscriptions to produce
>articles to readerships.
>C) Maybe they should only be 3 statements with a big photo to please the eye
>and be intellectually empty?
>D) Maybe we should not write articles and use a question/answer approach to
>help readers, an approach that would take me more effort for less
>depth/variety while producing repetitive responses to the similar questions?
>E) Would a pinpoint personal response more valuable than a fully analyzed
>subject anyone could use for research at anytime?
>F) While the answer might not be in the title of an article and might
>require a few minutes of reading, would it rather be better not to produce
>the content and wait until someone asks?
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Rodolfo La Maestra
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>Mark Alford
>Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 7:28 AM
>To: HDTV Magazine
>Subject: Re: Sharp LC-65D90U
>
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>Richard,
>
>Check the news section of the forum. Someone had posted an article about a
>month ago that gave the website for 1.3 certification. At that time there
>were less than ten pieces of equipment that had been verified as 1.3
>capable. I don't remember there being any products from Sharp on the list.
>
>Mark
>
>
>On 1/28/07 10:55 PM, "Joe Hart" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> > Considering the age of the model (it debuted in fall 2005) I would be
> > surprised.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Joe Hart
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> > Richard Fisher
> > Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 5:35 PM
> > To: HDTV Magazine
> > Subject: Sharp LC-65D90U
> >
> > ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> > Can anybody confirm HDMI 1.3 on this display?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Richard Fisher
> > ISF and HAA certified
> > HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
> > Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
> >
> > To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> > day) send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
> >
> > To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> > day) send an email to:
> > [email protected]
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
>day) send an email to:
>[email protected]
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
>day) send an email to:
>[email protected]
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
>day) send an email to:
>[email protected]
>
>
>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted
>that same day) send an email to:
>[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Excellent twist Robert.

I myself do not have the time to read timely everything out there, like the
Sim2 5000 projector Mark mentioned, it is impossible to cover all in detail.

That projector appears only in the international (not the US) part of the
Sim2 website, reason by which I missed it. Over the last couple of hours I
have been crossing info with Sim2 to make sure I cover all their products on
the 2007 report, but is not enough time in the day to read all of what the
HDTV industry has become.

But there is always a positive side on everything, this is actually a good
sign, with Dale I remember how many exchanges we had in the 98/99 time frame
thinking when the HDTV ship will go down and we were crossing our fingers
that it would not and pass those early stages, and finding ways to help the
public with information, barely nothing back then, one issue was the
chicken/egg situation of no content/no HDTV equipment.

Now we have lots of equipment, and a considerable amount of content.

But the confusion has taken an exponential turn to the worst because the
technology itself has made itself even more complex and varied (we only had
CRTs, now look at it), and we still around cranking up the efforts to help
the public with information consumers can trust, not twisted by a
manufacturer add on the next page, an issue you do not have to worry from
this side of the keyboard, the partnerships I have with companies are for
work on honest articles not for sales/promotions, reason by which I never
accept a penny or a courtesy, or equipment for reviews that could become a
hook.

But I agree that most people do not know what to read and keep asking
because is the only way to find some guidance.

I do not know what is the best formula Robert, I am just trying to use my
24hrs the best way I can for the cause, the material and audience has grown
to a point that is more efficient to provide educational guidance in
articles people can read anytime again and again, and less pinpoint
responses that get buried the following day with the effort of the response
(and nobody uses a search engine for those, but they do for
articles/tutorials).

Regarding EDTV, I agree, it was an invention of the CEA in 2000 "to help the
public". The true story is summarized in the glossary, read 810i as well:

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/glossary.php

Thanks for your honest view.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra


-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Robert Wade Brown
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:39 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: A short question for readers - follow up

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

1/31/2007 11:15am ct

I'd like to say a word on behalf of those of us who don't
have the skill to do all the research necessary to find out what
needs to be known about a purchase.

I've been a member of this list for a very long time and a
strong supporter of HD Magazine. In the "early years", I was
fascinated by the discussions which went on here and learned a
lot. I still try to keep up.

HOWEVER, unless I choose to become an expert and read every
press release and article in every magazine and attend everything
there is to attend, there is no way for someone who is even as
interested as I am to keep up with the developments. After all, it's
what we don't know enough to even ask about which is right over the
hill which often is most important issue in making a purchase decision.

And the vast number of people out there considering HD
purchases are in much worst shape because they just don't know who to
believe even when they do the research immediately available to them,
or.. perhaps even worse... they do trust the salesperson.

The problem is that when the government mandated the digital
transition for TV, they left it to the CEA and the manufacturers to
educate the public. Government took no role, no real standards and
marketing definitions. Now we're not talking here about buy a new
car. We're talking about understanding a whole new technology. I've
found most of the digital set manufacturers do everything they can to
spin what their product does and doesn't do and almost never mention
what the bewildered consumer's decision points really ought to be
based upon. The best retailer I know who does this is
Crutchfield. But try to get a straight story from an informed
salesperson at Sears!

Two anecdotes:

1. The very best HD private store in town has been telling
people that 480i plasmas are as good as HD (they know better, they
just don't think the public can tell the difference).

2. What the hell is EDTV?; I mean, trying to make a distinction
between 480i and 480p so you can palm off a non-HD set as HD-light is
obscene.

So please don't blame the public. They will eventually
learn enough to figure it out. But right now, they still don't know
what to ask.

Best,
Robert

>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>Rodolfo,
>
>People asking you "what's the best TV to buy"(dang I really hate that
>description, like calling a sound system a "stereo") is like asking "what's
>the best car to buy".
>
>Unfortunately, it seems the majority of people want to take the easy way
>out and instead of doing much reading on their own, want the answer right
>now so they don't have to think!
>
>Man, I hope most of the folks on this list are more into the finer points
of
>display technology than that.
>
>All I really want to say is that your knowledge (along with some other's
>knowledge on this list) really makes it worth belonging to!!!!!
>
>
>Otherwise I'd just go read "Stereo Review" (I do know that the name has
>changed to "Sound & Vision")
>
>Thanks again Rodolfo!
>
>
>Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>Rodolfo La Maestra
>Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 8:56 PM
>To: HDTV Magazine
>Subject: A short question for readers - follow up
>
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>Larry, Scott,
>
>Thanks for your comments and guidance.
>
>Just to make sure that my question/comments were understood correctly,
>although I made comparative reference of similar efforts from other
>magazines, this IS NOT about money, it never was nor will be for me, is
>about effort and time I dedicate, and where they should be dedicated more
>effectively for the audience we have while I can do it.
>
>I would like to consider adapting to the needs of the readership, I must
not
>write in vacuum and convince myself I am helping a public that does not
>read, but I do not want to respond to the same question for years.
>
>Just check any forum, including ours, same questions, over and over;
>expecting the author to digest and re-digest the same produced (and
>available) content to respond again in one line for a particular question.
>
>Maybe we are not adapting to the audience's way to consume information, but
>maybe we should not, and let the pin point repetitive question audience
find
>their way doing the reading that others do, and let this be the best
>intellectual source, and concentrate in the production of
>intellectual/analytical material for research and educational purposes,
>judging by your two responses you prefer the second for its permanent
value,
>is that what the rest wants as well?
>
>In other words, is the "question from the readers page" of this magazine
>(usually two pages of 100 on printed versions of competitors) the
foundation
>to build from? Or,
>
>Is the "tutorial" intellectual content the one to build from? (to which
>other magazines dedicate a small percentage of pages, because most coverage
>is for product reviews and adds).
>
>We know we are different now, but do we have an opportunity to be even
>better with our limited resources and build upon that difference?
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Rodolfo La Maestra
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Larry Megugorac
>Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:34 PM
>To: 'HDTV Magazine'; [email protected]
>Subject: RE: Sharp LC-65D90U with 1.3 - And a short question for readers
>
>A) They are free well researched and complete; maybe they should not be?
>
>Rodolfo, I as well as many on this list appreciate every bit of information
>we get from you.
>
>B) Maybe they should not be free? Magazines charge subscriptions to produce
>articles to readerships.
>
>I would be happy to pay yearly subscription fee because you have no bias
>with your answers unlike the commercial mags.
>
>C) Maybe they should only be 3 statements with a big photo to please the
eye
>and be intellectually empty?
>
>Please NO
>
>D) Maybe we should not write articles and use a question/answer approach to
>help readers, an approach that would take me more effort for less
>depth/variety while producing repetitive responses to the similar
questions?
>
>Please NO
>
>E) Would a pinpoint personal response more valuable than a fully analyzed
>subject anyone could use for research at anytime?
>
>That would not do the group well.
>
>F) While the answer might not be in the title of an article and might
>require a few minutes of reading, would it rather be better not to produce
>the content and wait until someone asks?
>
>Please no again!
>
>I for one am looking forward to the paid version of the 2007 CES report.
>
>
>Larry
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>Rodolfo La Maestra
>Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:51 AM
>To: HDTV Magazine
>Subject: Sharp LC-65D90U with 1.3 - And a short question for readers
>
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>The short answer is NO.
>
>If you care to read:
>
>The Sharp was a 2005 product; it was first announced at CES 2005 (over 2
>years ago) to become TTM Nov 05, meaning the technology of everything on
>that set is about 2 years old.
>
>The HDMI 1.3 specs were approved mid 06, about six months ago. Chips for
>those specs started to appear several months later, toward the end of 06.
>
>Manufacturers are at the beginning of their effort implementing those chips
>in "some" future products, not retrofitting current products with HDMI
>chips.
>
>Simplay Labs as a new test facility was not necessarily created for just
>passing 1.3, but for general HDMI/HDCP compliance testing for more than one
>category in any kind of product, wires included, to benefit consumers
>regarding HDMI interoperability.
>
>Again, passing the test does not mean the product is automatically 1.3
>compliant or 1080p capable, or has Deep Color, or xvcolor, or lossless
audio
>codecs capabilities, etc, it means it interoperate well with other HDMI
>suited products, it means that is better than no test, and better than no
>organization testing.
>
>Even after CES 2007 MOST manufacturers are still short in specifying
>correctly the version of HDMI they support and also the HDMI functionality
>features they implement of their equipment (like the above), so we are all
>in for another roller coaster ignorance sharing year (most probably years).
>
>And, as advance notice, please do not expect me to produce a flawless list
>of HDMI 1.3 products on the 2007 report, for 2 things:
>
>A) It is misleading if specifying only 1.3 and not the 1.3 related
>functionality implemented in the product, and
>B) After I started doing the list at CES, I found the hard way that it was
>an impossible task because most at CES could not be trusted, unless it was
>on a press release, besides, I already have all that information even
before
>CES. Samsung was one of the companies that showed better effort on being
>specific across products.
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Now I have a question myself, maybe my first question since the magazine
>started in 1998:
>
>What would it take for people to read the very own articles and reports
>produced by the magazine?
>
>(Please, this is not a disrespectful or an ironic question, it is a
reality,
>and issued with the intention to redirect efforts)
>
>A) They are free well researched and complete; maybe they should not be?
>B) Maybe they should not be free? Magazines charge subscriptions to produce
>articles to readerships.
>C) Maybe they should only be 3 statements with a big photo to please the
eye
>and be intellectually empty?
>D) Maybe we should not write articles and use a question/answer approach to
>help readers, an approach that would take me more effort for less
>depth/variety while producing repetitive responses to the similar
questions?
>E) Would a pinpoint personal response more valuable than a fully analyzed
>subject anyone could use for research at anytime?
>F) While the answer might not be in the title of an article and might
>require a few minutes of reading, would it rather be better not to produce
>the content and wait until someone asks?
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Rodolfo La Maestra
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>Mark Alford
>Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 7:28 AM
>To: HDTV Magazine
>Subject: Re: Sharp LC-65D90U
>
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>Richard,
>
>Check the news section of the forum. Someone had posted an article about a
>month ago that gave the website for 1.3 certification. At that time there
>were less than ten pieces of equipment that had been verified as 1.3
>capable. I don't remember there being any products from Sharp on the list.
>
>Mark
>
>
>On 1/28/07 10:55 PM, "Joe Hart" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> > Considering the age of the model (it debuted in fall 2005) I would be
> > surprised.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Joe Hart
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of
> > Richard Fisher
> > Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 5:35 PM
> > To: HDTV Magazine
> > Subject: Sharp LC-65D90U
> >
> > ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> > Can anybody confirm HDMI 1.3 on this display?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Richard Fisher
> > ISF and HAA certified
> > HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
> > Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
> >
> > To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same
> > day) send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
> >
> > To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same
> > day) send an email to:
> > [email protected]
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
>day) send an email to:
>[email protected]
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
>day) send an email to:
>[email protected]
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
>day) send an email to:
>[email protected]
>
>
>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted
>that same day) send an email to:
>[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

1/31/2007 12:46pm ct

Rodolfo,
I don't believe there is anyone who questions your
integrity, so don't worry about that, not that you are.

I think the government should mandate a real big Tag be
included on every TV set sold, saying

1. Whether the set is analog or digital.
2. Whether the set has no turner, a NTSC tuner, an ATSC tuner, or both.
3. A brief chart explaining the official pixel layout for 480i,
480p, 720p, 1080i & 1080p (of the 18) along with an explanation of
which is Standard, which is Enhanced and which is High Definition.
4. A placement on that chart of what the pixel layout the set provides.
5. The type of display and whether or not it is analog or
digital (CRT, LCD, etc).
6. The inputs and outputs of the set, their "level" of support,
and whether they are analog or digital.
7. A toll free number (and website) to the appropriate
government agency to file complaints regarding mis-labeling.
8. Some way to alert them to the fact that the set is 4:3 and
not 16:9 even though classified as HD.
9. Mention of what OTA signals the turner can receive. Same for
any other type of input.
10. A reminder of the fact DBS and Cable Companies must provide
their own HD tuners or cards if their HD signal is to be successfully
displayed and the same the OTA tuner.

Any other ideas?

Best,
Robert


At 12:19 PM 1/31/2007, you wrote:
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>Excellent twist Robert.
>
>I myself do not have the time to read timely everything out there, like the
>Sim2 5000 projector Mark mentioned, it is impossible to cover all in detail.
>
>That projector appears only in the international (not the US) part of the
>Sim2 website, reason by which I missed it. Over the last couple of hours I
>have been crossing info with Sim2 to make sure I cover all their products on
>the 2007 report, but is not enough time in the day to read all of what the
>HDTV industry has become.
>
>But there is always a positive side on everything, this is actually a good
>sign, with Dale I remember how many exchanges we had in the 98/99 time frame
>thinking when the HDTV ship will go down and we were crossing our fingers
>that it would not and pass those early stages, and finding ways to help the
>public with information, barely nothing back then, one issue was the
>chicken/egg situation of no content/no HDTV equipment.
>
>Now we have lots of equipment, and a considerable amount of content.
>
>But the confusion has taken an exponential turn to the worst because the
>technology itself has made itself even more complex and varied (we only had
>CRTs, now look at it), and we still around cranking up the efforts to help
>the public with information consumers can trust, not twisted by a
>manufacturer add on the next page, an issue you do not have to worry from
>this side of the keyboard, the partnerships I have with companies are for
>work on honest articles not for sales/promotions, reason by which I never
>accept a penny or a courtesy, or equipment for reviews that could become a
>hook.
>
>But I agree that most people do not know what to read and keep asking
>because is the only way to find some guidance.
>
>I do not know what is the best formula Robert, I am just trying to use my
>24hrs the best way I can for the cause, the material and audience has grown
>to a point that is more efficient to provide educational guidance in
>articles people can read anytime again and again, and less pinpoint
>responses that get buried the following day with the effort of the response
>(and nobody uses a search engine for those, but they do for
>articles/tutorials).
>
>Regarding EDTV, I agree, it was an invention of the CEA in 2000 "to help the
>public". The true story is summarized in the glossary, read 810i as well:
>
>http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/glossary.php
>
>Thanks for your honest view.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Rodolfo La Maestra
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>Robert Wade Brown
>Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:39 PM
>To: HDTV Magazine
>Subject: Re: A short question for readers - follow up
>
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>1/31/2007 11:15am ct
>
> I'd like to say a word on behalf of those of us who don't
>have the skill to do all the research necessary to find out what
>needs to be known about a purchase.
>
> I've been a member of this list for a very long time and a
>strong supporter of HD Magazine. In the "early years", I was
>fascinated by the discussions which went on here and learned a
>lot. I still try to keep up.
>
> HOWEVER, unless I choose to become an expert and read every
>press release and article in every magazine and attend everything
>there is to attend, there is no way for someone who is even as
>interested as I am to keep up with the developments. After all, it's
>what we don't know enough to even ask about which is right over the
>hill which often is most important issue in making a purchase decision.
>
> And the vast number of people out there considering HD
>purchases are in much worst shape because they just don't know who to
>believe even when they do the research immediately available to them,
>or.. perhaps even worse... they do trust the salesperson.
>
> The problem is that when the government mandated the digital
>transition for TV, they left it to the CEA and the manufacturers to
>educate the public. Government took no role, no real standards and
>marketing definitions. Now we're not talking here about buy a new
>car. We're talking about understanding a whole new technology. I've
>found most of the digital set manufacturers do everything they can to
>spin what their product does and doesn't do and almost never mention
>what the bewildered consumer's decision points really ought to be
>based upon. The best retailer I know who does this is
>Crutchfield. But try to get a straight story from an informed
>salesperson at Sears!
>
> Two anecdotes:
>
>1. The very best HD private store in town has been telling
>people that 480i plasmas are as good as HD (they know better, they
>just don't think the public can tell the difference).
>
>2. What the hell is EDTV?; I mean, trying to make a distinction
>between 480i and 480p so you can palm off a non-HD set as HD-light is
>obscene.
>
> So please don't blame the public. They will eventually
>learn enough to figure it out. But right now, they still don't know
>what to ask.
>
>Best,
>Robert
>
> >----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> >Rodolfo,
> >
> >People asking you "what's the best TV to buy"(dang I really hate that
> >description, like calling a sound system a "stereo") is like asking "what's
> >the best car to buy".
> >
> >Unfortunately, it seems the majority of people want to take the easy way
> >out and instead of doing much reading on their own, want the answer right
> >now so they don't have to think!
> >
> >Man, I hope most of the folks on this list are more into the finer points
>of
> >display technology than that.
> >
> >All I really want to say is that your knowledge (along with some other's
> >knowledge on this list) really makes it worth belonging to!!!!!
> >
> >
> >Otherwise I'd just go read "Stereo Review" (I do know that the name has
> >changed to "Sound & Vision")
> >
> >Thanks again Rodolfo!
> >
> >
> >Larry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> >Rodolfo La Maestra
> >Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 8:56 PM
> >To: HDTV Magazine
> >Subject: A short question for readers - follow up
> >
> >----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> >Larry, Scott,
> >
> >Thanks for your comments and guidance.
> >
> >Just to make sure that my question/comments were understood correctly,
> >although I made comparative reference of similar efforts from other
> >magazines, this IS NOT about money, it never was nor will be for me, is
> >about effort and time I dedicate, and where they should be dedicated more
> >effectively for the audience we have while I can do it.
> >
> >I would like to consider adapting to the needs of the readership, I must
>not
> >write in vacuum and convince myself I am helping a public that does not
> >read, but I do not want to respond to the same question for years.
> >
> >Just check any forum, including ours, same questions, over and over;
> >expecting the author to digest and re-digest the same produced (and
> >available) content to respond again in one line for a particular question.
> >
> >Maybe we are not adapting to the audience's way to consume information, but
> >maybe we should not, and let the pin point repetitive question audience
>find
> >their way doing the reading that others do, and let this be the best
> >intellectual source, and concentrate in the production of
> >intellectual/analytical material for research and educational purposes,
> >judging by your two responses you prefer the second for its permanent
>value,
> >is that what the rest wants as well?
> >
> >In other words, is the "question from the readers page" of this magazine
> >(usually two pages of 100 on printed versions of competitors) the
>foundation
> >to build from? Or,
> >
> >Is the "tutorial" intellectual content the one to build from? (to which
> >other magazines dedicate a small percentage of pages, because most coverage
> >is for product reviews and adds).
> >
> >We know we are different now, but do we have an opportunity to be even
> >better with our limited resources and build upon that difference?
> >
> >Best Regards,
> >
> >Rodolfo La Maestra
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Larry Megugorac
> >Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:34 PM
> >To: 'HDTV Magazine'; [email protected]
> >Subject: RE: Sharp LC-65D90U with 1.3 - And a short question for readers
> >
> >A) They are free well researched and complete; maybe they should not be?
> >
> >Rodolfo, I as well as many on this list appreciate every bit of information
> >we get from you.
> >
> >B) Maybe they should not be free? Magazines charge subscriptions to produce
> >articles to readerships.
> >
> >I would be happy to pay yearly subscription fee because you have no bias
> >with your answers unlike the commercial mags.
> >
> >C) Maybe they should only be 3 statements with a big photo to please the
>eye
> >and be intellectually empty?
> >
> >Please NO
> >
> >D) Maybe we should not write articles and use a question/answer approach to
> >help readers, an approach that would take me more effort for less
> >depth/variety while producing repetitive responses to the similar
>questions?
> >
> >Please NO
> >
> >E) Would a pinpoint personal response more valuable than a fully analyzed
> >subject anyone could use for research at anytime?
> >
> >That would not do the group well.
> >
> >F) While the answer might not be in the title of an article and might
> >require a few minutes of reading, would it rather be better not to produce
> >the content and wait until someone asks?
> >
> >Please no again!
> >
> >I for one am looking forward to the paid version of the 2007 CES report.
> >
> >
> >Larry
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> >Rodolfo La Maestra
> >Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:51 AM
> >To: HDTV Magazine
> >Subject: Sharp LC-65D90U with 1.3 - And a short question for readers
> >
> >----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> >The short answer is NO.
> >
> >If you care to read:
> >
> >The Sharp was a 2005 product; it was first announced at CES 2005 (over 2
> >years ago) to become TTM Nov 05, meaning the technology of everything on
> >that set is about 2 years old.
> >
> >The HDMI 1.3 specs were approved mid 06, about six months ago. Chips for
> >those specs started to appear several months later, toward the end of 06.
> >
> >Manufacturers are at the beginning of their effort implementing those chips
> >in "some" future products, not retrofitting current products with HDMI
> >chips.
> >
> >Simplay Labs as a new test facility was not necessarily created for just
> >passing 1.3, but for general HDMI/HDCP compliance testing for more than one
> >category in any kind of product, wires included, to benefit consumers
> >regarding HDMI interoperability.
> >
> >Again, passing the test does not mean the product is automatically 1.3
> >compliant or 1080p capable, or has Deep Color, or xvcolor, or lossless
>audio
> >codecs capabilities, etc, it means it interoperate well with other HDMI
> >suited products, it means that is better than no test, and better than no
> >organization testing.
> >
> >Even after CES 2007 MOST manufacturers are still short in specifying
> >correctly the version of HDMI they support and also the HDMI functionality
> >features they implement of their equipment (like the above), so we are all
> >in for another roller coaster ignorance sharing year (most probably years).
> >
> >And, as advance notice, please do not expect me to produce a flawless list
> >of HDMI 1.3 products on the 2007 report, for 2 things:
> >
> >A) It is misleading if specifying only 1.3 and not the 1.3 related
> >functionality implemented in the product, and
> >B) After I started doing the list at CES, I found the hard way that it was
> >an impossible task because most at CES could not be trusted, unless it was
> >on a press release, besides, I already have all that information even
>before
> >CES. Samsung was one of the companies that showed better effort on being
> >specific across products.
> >
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >Now I have a question myself, maybe my first question since the magazine
> >started in 1998:
> >
> >What would it take for people to read the very own articles and reports
> >produced by the magazine?
> >
> >(Please, this is not a disrespectful or an ironic question, it is a
>reality,
> >and issued with the intention to redirect efforts)
> >
> >A) They are free well researched and complete; maybe they should not be?
> >B) Maybe they should not be free? Magazines charge subscriptions to produce
> >articles to readerships.
> >C) Maybe they should only be 3 statements with a big photo to please the
>eye
> >and be intellectually empty?
> >D) Maybe we should not write articles and use a question/answer approach to
> >help readers, an approach that would take me more effort for less
> >depth/variety while producing repetitive responses to the similar
>questions?
> >E) Would a pinpoint personal response more valuable than a fully analyzed
> >subject anyone could use for research at anytime?
> >F) While the answer might not be in the title of an article and might
> >require a few minutes of reading, would it rather be better not to produce
> >the content and wait until someone asks?
> >
> >Best Regards,
> >
> >Rodolfo La Maestra
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> >Mark Alford
> >Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 7:28 AM
> >To: HDTV Magazine
> >Subject: Re: Sharp LC-65D90U
> >
> >----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> >Richard,
> >
> >Check the news section of the forum. Someone had posted an article about a
> >month ago that gave the website for 1.3 certification. At that time there
> >were less than ten pieces of equipment that had been verified as 1.3
> >capable. I don't remember there being any products from Sharp on the list.
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >
> >On 1/28/07 10:55 PM, "Joe Hart" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> > >
> > > Considering the age of the model (it debuted in fall 2005) I would be
> > > surprised.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Joe Hart
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
>Of
> > > Richard Fisher
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 5:35 PM
> > > To: HDTV Magazine
> > > Subject: Sharp LC-65D90U
> > >
> > > ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> > >
> > > Can anybody confirm HDMI 1.3 on this display?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Richard Fisher
> > > ISF and HAA certified
> > > HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
> > > Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
> > >
> > > To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>same
> > > day) send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
> > >
> > > To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>same
> > > day) send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
> >
> >To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> >day) send an email to:
> >[email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
> >
> >To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> >day) send an email to:
> >[email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
> >
> >To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> >day) send an email to:
> >[email protected]
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
> >
> >To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted
> >that same day) send an email to:
> >[email protected]
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
>day) send an email to:
>[email protected]
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted
>that same day) send an email to:
>[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Rodolfo,

I think that you do an incredible job, and I appreciate every bit of
information that you share with us here on the Tips List. Keep up the great
work.

Mark Alford


On 1/31/07 1:19 PM, "Rodolfo La Maestra" <[email protected]> wrote:

> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Excellent twist Robert.
>
> I myself do not have the time to read timely everything out there, like the
> Sim2 5000 projector Mark mentioned, it is impossible to cover all in detail.
>
> That projector appears only in the international (not the US) part of the
> Sim2 website, reason by which I missed it. Over the last couple of hours I
> have been crossing info with Sim2 to make sure I cover all their products on
> the 2007 report, but is not enough time in the day to read all of what the
> HDTV industry has become.
>
> But there is always a positive side on everything, this is actually a good
> sign, with Dale I remember how many exchanges we had in the 98/99 time frame
> thinking when the HDTV ship will go down and we were crossing our fingers
> that it would not and pass those early stages, and finding ways to help the
> public with information, barely nothing back then, one issue was the
> chicken/egg situation of no content/no HDTV equipment.
>
> Now we have lots of equipment, and a considerable amount of content.
>
> But the confusion has taken an exponential turn to the worst because the
> technology itself has made itself even more complex and varied (we only had
> CRTs, now look at it), and we still around cranking up the efforts to help
> the public with information consumers can trust, not twisted by a
> manufacturer add on the next page, an issue you do not have to worry from
> this side of the keyboard, the partnerships I have with companies are for
> work on honest articles not for sales/promotions, reason by which I never
> accept a penny or a courtesy, or equipment for reviews that could become a
> hook.
>
> But I agree that most people do not know what to read and keep asking
> because is the only way to find some guidance.
>
> I do not know what is the best formula Robert, I am just trying to use my
> 24hrs the best way I can for the cause, the material and audience has grown
> to a point that is more efficient to provide educational guidance in
> articles people can read anytime again and again, and less pinpoint
> responses that get buried the following day with the effort of the response
> (and nobody uses a search engine for those, but they do for
> articles/tutorials).
>
> Regarding EDTV, I agree, it was an invention of the CEA in 2000 "to help the
> public". The true story is summarized in the glossary, read 810i as well:
>
> http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/glossary.php
>
> Thanks for your honest view.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Robert Wade Brown
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:39 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: A short question for readers - follow up
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> 1/31/2007 11:15am ct
>
> I'd like to say a word on behalf of those of us who don't
> have the skill to do all the research necessary to find out what
> needs to be known about a purchase.
>
> I've been a member of this list for a very long time and a
> strong supporter of HD Magazine. In the "early years", I was
> fascinated by the discussions which went on here and learned a
> lot. I still try to keep up.
>
> HOWEVER, unless I choose to become an expert and read every
> press release and article in every magazine and attend everything
> there is to attend, there is no way for someone who is even as
> interested as I am to keep up with the developments. After all, it's
> what we don't know enough to even ask about which is right over the
> hill which often is most important issue in making a purchase decision.
>
> And the vast number of people out there considering HD
> purchases are in much worst shape because they just don't know who to
> believe even when they do the research immediately available to them,
> or.. perhaps even worse... they do trust the salesperson.
>
> The problem is that when the government mandated the digital
> transition for TV, they left it to the CEA and the manufacturers to
> educate the public. Government took no role, no real standards and
> marketing definitions. Now we're not talking here about buy a new
> car. We're talking about understanding a whole new technology. I've
> found most of the digital set manufacturers do everything they can to
> spin what their product does and doesn't do and almost never mention
> what the bewildered consumer's decision points really ought to be
> based upon. The best retailer I know who does this is
> Crutchfield. But try to get a straight story from an informed
> salesperson at Sears!
>
> Two anecdotes:
>
> 1. The very best HD private store in town has been telling
> people that 480i plasmas are as good as HD (they know better, they
> just don't think the public can tell the difference).
>
> 2. What the hell is EDTV?; I mean, trying to make a distinction
> between 480i and 480p so you can palm off a non-HD set as HD-light is
> obscene.
>
> So please don't blame the public. They will eventually
> learn enough to figure it out. But right now, they still don't know
> what to ask.
>
> Best,
> Robert
>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> Rodolfo,
>>
>> People asking you "what's the best TV to buy"(dang I really hate that
>> description, like calling a sound system a "stereo") is like asking "what's
>> the best car to buy".
>>
>> Unfortunately, it seems the majority of people want to take the easy way
>> out and instead of doing much reading on their own, want the answer right
>> now so they don't have to think!
>>
>> Man, I hope most of the folks on this list are more into the finer points
> of
>> display technology than that.
>>
>> All I really want to say is that your knowledge (along with some other's
>> knowledge on this list) really makes it worth belonging to!!!!!
>>
>>
>> Otherwise I'd just go read "Stereo Review" (I do know that the name has
>> changed to "Sound & Vision")
>>
>> Thanks again Rodolfo!
>>
>>
>> Larry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>> Rodolfo La Maestra
>> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 8:56 PM
>> To: HDTV Magazine
>> Subject: A short question for readers - follow up
>>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> Larry, Scott,
>>
>> Thanks for your comments and guidance.
>>
>> Just to make sure that my question/comments were understood correctly,
>> although I made comparative reference of similar efforts from other
>> magazines, this IS NOT about money, it never was nor will be for me, is
>> about effort and time I dedicate, and where they should be dedicated more
>> effectively for the audience we have while I can do it.
>>
>> I would like to consider adapting to the needs of the readership, I must
> not
>> write in vacuum and convince myself I am helping a public that does not
>> read, but I do not want to respond to the same question for years.
>>
>> Just check any forum, including ours, same questions, over and over;
>> expecting the author to digest and re-digest the same produced (and
>> available) content to respond again in one line for a particular question.
>>
>> Maybe we are not adapting to the audience's way to consume information, but
>> maybe we should not, and let the pin point repetitive question audience
> find
>> their way doing the reading that others do, and let this be the best
>> intellectual source, and concentrate in the production of
>> intellectual/analytical material for research and educational purposes,
>> judging by your two responses you prefer the second for its permanent
> value,
>> is that what the rest wants as well?
>>
>> In other words, is the "question from the readers page" of this magazine
>> (usually two pages of 100 on printed versions of competitors) the
> foundation
>> to build from? Or,
>>
>> Is the "tutorial" intellectual content the one to build from? (to which
>> other magazines dedicate a small percentage of pages, because most coverage
>> is for product reviews and adds).
>>
>> We know we are different now, but do we have an opportunity to be even
>> better with our limited resources and build upon that difference?
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Rodolfo La Maestra
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Larry Megugorac
>> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:34 PM
>> To: 'HDTV Magazine'; [email protected]
>> Subject: RE: Sharp LC-65D90U with 1.3 - And a short question for readers
>>
>> A) They are free well researched and complete; maybe they should not be?
>>
>> Rodolfo, I as well as many on this list appreciate every bit of information
>> we get from you.
>>
>> B) Maybe they should not be free? Magazines charge subscriptions to produce
>> articles to readerships.
>>
>> I would be happy to pay yearly subscription fee because you have no bias
>> with your answers unlike the commercial mags.
>>
>> C) Maybe they should only be 3 statements with a big photo to please the
> eye
>> and be intellectually empty?
>>
>> Please NO
>>
>> D) Maybe we should not write articles and use a question/answer approach to
>> help readers, an approach that would take me more effort for less
>> depth/variety while producing repetitive responses to the similar
> questions?
>>
>> Please NO
>>
>> E) Would a pinpoint personal response more valuable than a fully analyzed
>> subject anyone could use for research at anytime?
>>
>> That would not do the group well.
>>
>> F) While the answer might not be in the title of an article and might
>> require a few minutes of reading, would it rather be better not to produce
>> the content and wait until someone asks?
>>
>> Please no again!
>>
>> I for one am looking forward to the paid version of the 2007 CES report.
>>
>>
>> Larry
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>> Rodolfo La Maestra
>> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:51 AM
>> To: HDTV Magazine
>> Subject: Sharp LC-65D90U with 1.3 - And a short question for readers
>>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> The short answer is NO.
>>
>> If you care to read:
>>
>> The Sharp was a 2005 product; it was first announced at CES 2005 (over 2
>> years ago) to become TTM Nov 05, meaning the technology of everything on
>> that set is about 2 years old.
>>
>> The HDMI 1.3 specs were approved mid 06, about six months ago. Chips for
>> those specs started to appear several months later, toward the end of 06.
>>
>> Manufacturers are at the beginning of their effort implementing those chips
>> in "some" future products, not retrofitting current products with HDMI
>> chips.
>>
>> Simplay Labs as a new test facility was not necessarily created for just
>> passing 1.3, but for general HDMI/HDCP compliance testing for more than one
>> category in any kind of product, wires included, to benefit consumers
>> regarding HDMI interoperability.
>>
>> Again, passing the test does not mean the product is automatically 1.3
>> compliant or 1080p capable, or has Deep Color, or xvcolor, or lossless
> audio
>> codecs capabilities, etc, it means it interoperate well with other HDMI
>> suited products, it means that is better than no test, and better than no
>> organization testing.
>>
>> Even after CES 2007 MOST manufacturers are still short in specifying
>> correctly the version of HDMI they support and also the HDMI functionality
>> features they implement of their equipment (like the above), so we are all
>> in for another roller coaster ignorance sharing year (most probably years).
>>
>> And, as advance notice, please do not expect me to produce a flawless list
>> of HDMI 1.3 products on the 2007 report, for 2 things:
>>
>> A) It is misleading if specifying only 1.3 and not the 1.3 related
>> functionality implemented in the product, and
>> B) After I started doing the list at CES, I found the hard way that it was
>> an impossible task because most at CES could not be trusted, unless it was
>> on a press release, besides, I already have all that information even
> before
>> CES. Samsung was one of the companies that showed better effort on being
>> specific across products.
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Now I have a question myself, maybe my first question since the magazine
>> started in 1998:
>>
>> What would it take for people to read the very own articles and reports
>> produced by the magazine?
>>
>> (Please, this is not a disrespectful or an ironic question, it is a
> reality,
>> and issued with the intention to redirect efforts)
>>
>> A) They are free well researched and complete; maybe they should not be?
>> B) Maybe they should not be free? Magazines charge subscriptions to produce
>> articles to readerships.
>> C) Maybe they should only be 3 statements with a big photo to please the
> eye
>> and be intellectually empty?
>> D) Maybe we should not write articles and use a question/answer approach to
>> help readers, an approach that would take me more effort for less
>> depth/variety while producing repetitive responses to the similar
> questions?
>> E) Would a pinpoint personal response more valuable than a fully analyzed
>> subject anyone could use for research at anytime?
>> F) While the answer might not be in the title of an article and might
>> require a few minutes of reading, would it rather be better not to produce
>> the content and wait until someone asks?
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Rodolfo La Maestra
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>> Mark Alford
>> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 7:28 AM
>> To: HDTV Magazine
>> Subject: Re: Sharp LC-65D90U
>>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> Richard,
>>
>> Check the news section of the forum. Someone had posted an article about a
>> month ago that gave the website for 1.3 certification. At that time there
>> were less than ten pieces of equipment that had been verified as 1.3
>> capable. I don't remember there being any products from Sharp on the list.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> On 1/28/07 10:55 PM, "Joe Hart" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>> Considering the age of the model (it debuted in fall 2005) I would be
>>> surprised.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Joe Hart
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
> Of
>>> Richard Fisher
>>> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 5:35 PM
>>> To: HDTV Magazine
>>> Subject: Sharp LC-65D90U
>>>
>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>> Can anybody confirm HDMI 1.3 on this display?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Richard Fisher
>>> ISF and HAA certified
>>> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
>>> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>
>>> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
> same
>>> day) send an email to:
>>> [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>
>>> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
> same
>>> day) send an email to:
>>> [email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>
>> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
>> day) send an email to:
>> [email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>
>> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
>> day) send an email to:
>> [email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>
>> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
>> day) send an email to:
>> [email protected]
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>
>> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted
>> that same day) send an email to:
>> [email protected]
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> day) send an email to:
> [email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Robert,

Your suggestions, at least many of them, are incorporated in the latest Bill
pending before Congress on the subject. In that bill provision for retail
signage is made that mandates the illustration of at least some of those
things which you have listed below, though certainly not all. And, of
course, your list could be expanded almost indefinitely.

It was clear when HDTV Magazine was conceived that this confusion (which we
all now bemoan) was going to be enormous. It was, I might add, no less
confusing in the development phase even among the most highly trained
experts. The Tips list was thought of as being the on-going "school" to
provide the laymen and professionals alike with a foundational education in
the subject. I held to the uncharted hope that Tips educated would share
that knowledge with the zeal of evangelists to those "less fortunate" and
more "challenged". The goal then (and it has not changed) was to fuel the
market with enough education and enthusiasm that a motivated public would
pull the reluctant players through the marketing channels until critical
mass had been reached. And I do mean reluctant players for none--the
manufacturers, the program providers, the signal providers, the
retailers--had any real confidence that the "government manipulated"
experiment to digital TV would succeed. It had to be left up to the public
to make it happen and everyone had their own idea about how to do that. Most
early attempts by the equipment suppliers led to more confusion than not.
The program and signal providers offered at least some clarity in that a HD
signal was at least that. Mark Cuban insured that a quality line was drawn
(if not still vaguely) in the sand.

I am proud to say (and believe) that HDTV Magazine (you to a large extent)
have made and continue to make < contribution to the sense of consumer
enthusiasm, their appreciation for the significance of the HD mission (and
its higher purpose), and to the basic education of many millions of visitors
who have come to our site since it opened in November of 1998. For what it
is worth, and it should be said, that no one working with us officially or
unofficially has done what they do for money; no one has sold out or
mischaracterized something for personal gain.

For myself, I live under the benevolent tyranny of an epiphany which showed
to me unequivocally that HDTV was a leading unfolding force for good in the
world and that it is here to illustrate a better way of living though
enriched cultural exchange and understanding. That is the view which is my
underpinning and has kept me going for the last 24 years.

But the frustration we all share in not reaching more people with our
understandings is what needs now to be addressed now. Certainly, Rodolfo
(who is a symbol in this case for all who make contributions) has offered
his report that, if replied upon by all, would be a world leading guide. It
is overwhelming in its scope to prepare and, considering the billions of
people who need to know, it reaches precious few. I feel a deep frustration
about that fact every day and our only hope is that some viral market
phenomena will replace the slow plodding experienced in the past.


Bill Gates was quoted in a recent interview saying, "Part of the beauty of
the online world is it will let us find people we trust who want to
recommend things."

That is our hope...that we will be discovered and rediscovered as the place
where the world can find people they trust and whose recommendations in this
(and perhaps other) field are entirely trustworthy. That is leadership, and
that is the one and only power which can bring clarity to the confused. It
is my conviction that the confused will be grateful for the relief that
comes with clarity.


Thank you all for doing your part.

Dale Cripps



-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Robert Wade Brown
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 11:03 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: A short question for readers - follow up

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

1/31/2007 12:46pm ct

Rodolfo,
I don't believe there is anyone who questions your
integrity, so don't worry about that, not that you are.

I think the government should mandate a real big Tag be
included on every TV set sold, saying

1. Whether the set is analog or digital.
2. Whether the set has no turner, a NTSC tuner, an ATSC tuner, or both.
3. A brief chart explaining the official pixel layout for 480i,
480p, 720p, 1080i & 1080p (of the 18) along with an explanation of
which is Standard, which is Enhanced and which is High Definition.
4. A placement on that chart of what the pixel layout the set provides.
5. The type of display and whether or not it is analog or
digital (CRT, LCD, etc).
6. The inputs and outputs of the set, their "level" of support,
and whether they are analog or digital.
7. A toll free number (and website) to the appropriate
government agency to file complaints regarding mis-labeling.
8. Some way to alert them to the fact that the set is 4:3 and
not 16:9 even though classified as HD.
9. Mention of what OTA signals the turner can receive. Same for
any other type of input.
10. A reminder of the fact DBS and Cable Companies must provide
their own HD tuners or cards if their HD signal is to be successfully
displayed and the same the OTA tuner.

Any other ideas?

Best,
Robert


At 12:19 PM 1/31/2007, you wrote:
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>Excellent twist Robert.
>
>I myself do not have the time to read timely everything out there, like the
>Sim2 5000 projector Mark mentioned, it is impossible to cover all in
detail.
>
>That projector appears only in the international (not the US) part of the
>Sim2 website, reason by which I missed it. Over the last couple of hours I
>have been crossing info with Sim2 to make sure I cover all their products
on
>the 2007 report, but is not enough time in the day to read all of what the
>HDTV industry has become.
>
>But there is always a positive side on everything, this is actually a good
>sign, with Dale I remember how many exchanges we had in the 98/99 time
frame
>thinking when the HDTV ship will go down and we were crossing our fingers
>that it would not and pass those early stages, and finding ways to help the
>public with information, barely nothing back then, one issue was the
>chicken/egg situation of no content/no HDTV equipment.
>
>Now we have lots of equipment, and a considerable amount of content.
>
>But the confusion has taken an exponential turn to the worst because the
>technology itself has made itself even more complex and varied (we only had
>CRTs, now look at it), and we still around cranking up the efforts to help
>the public with information consumers can trust, not twisted by a
>manufacturer add on the next page, an issue you do not have to worry from
>this side of the keyboard, the partnerships I have with companies are for
>work on honest articles not for sales/promotions, reason by which I never
>accept a penny or a courtesy, or equipment for reviews that could become a
>hook.
>
>But I agree that most people do not know what to read and keep asking
>because is the only way to find some guidance.
>
>I do not know what is the best formula Robert, I am just trying to use my
>24hrs the best way I can for the cause, the material and audience has grown
>to a point that is more efficient to provide educational guidance in
>articles people can read anytime again and again, and less pinpoint
>responses that get buried the following day with the effort of the response
>(and nobody uses a search engine for those, but they do for
>articles/tutorials).
>
>Regarding EDTV, I agree, it was an invention of the CEA in 2000 "to help
the
>public". The true story is summarized in the glossary, read 810i as well:
>
>http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/glossary.php
>
>Thanks for your honest view.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Rodolfo La Maestra
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>Robert Wade Brown
>Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:39 PM
>To: HDTV Magazine
>Subject: Re: A short question for readers - follow up
>
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>1/31/2007 11:15am ct
>
> I'd like to say a word on behalf of those of us who don't
>have the skill to do all the research necessary to find out what
>needs to be known about a purchase.
>
> I've been a member of this list for a very long time and a
>strong supporter of HD Magazine. In the "early years", I was
>fascinated by the discussions which went on here and learned a
>lot. I still try to keep up.
>
> HOWEVER, unless I choose to become an expert and read every
>press release and article in every magazine and attend everything
>there is to attend, there is no way for someone who is even as
>interested as I am to keep up with the developments. After all, it's
>what we don't know enough to even ask about which is right over the
>hill which often is most important issue in making a purchase decision.
>
> And the vast number of people out there considering HD
>purchases are in much worst shape because they just don't know who to
>believe even when they do the research immediately available to them,
>or.. perhaps even worse... they do trust the salesperson.
>
> The problem is that when the government mandated the digital
>transition for TV, they left it to the CEA and the manufacturers to
>educate the public. Government took no role, no real standards and
>marketing definitions. Now we're not talking here about buy a new
>car. We're talking about understanding a whole new technology. I've
>found most of the digital set manufacturers do everything they can to
>spin what their product does and doesn't do and almost never mention
>what the bewildered consumer's decision points really ought to be
>based upon. The best retailer I know who does this is
>Crutchfield. But try to get a straight story from an informed
>salesperson at Sears!
>
> Two anecdotes:
>
>1. The very best HD private store in town has been telling
>people that 480i plasmas are as good as HD (they know better, they
>just don't think the public can tell the difference).
>
>2. What the hell is EDTV?; I mean, trying to make a distinction
>between 480i and 480p so you can palm off a non-HD set as HD-light is
>obscene.
>
> So please don't blame the public. They will eventually
>learn enough to figure it out. But right now, they still don't know
>what to ask.
>
>Best,
>Robert
>
> >----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> >Rodolfo,
> >
> >People asking you "what's the best TV to buy"(dang I really hate that
> >description, like calling a sound system a "stereo") is like asking
"what's
> >the best car to buy".
> >
> >Unfortunately, it seems the majority of people want to take the easy
way
> >out and instead of doing much reading on their own, want the answer right
> >now so they don't have to think!
> >
> >Man, I hope most of the folks on this list are more into the finer points
>of
> >display technology than that.
> >
> >All I really want to say is that your knowledge (along with some other's
> >knowledge on this list) really makes it worth belonging to!!!!!
> >
> >
> >Otherwise I'd just go read "Stereo Review" (I do know that the name has
> >changed to "Sound & Vision")
> >
> >Thanks again Rodolfo!
> >
> >
> >Larry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> >Rodolfo La Maestra
> >Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 8:56 PM
> >To: HDTV Magazine
> >Subject: A short question for readers - follow up
> >
> >----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> >Larry, Scott,
> >
> >Thanks for your comments and guidance.
> >
> >Just to make sure that my question/comments were understood correctly,
> >although I made comparative reference of similar efforts from other
> >magazines, this IS NOT about money, it never was nor will be for me, is
> >about effort and time I dedicate, and where they should be dedicated more
> >effectively for the audience we have while I can do it.
> >
> >I would like to consider adapting to the needs of the readership, I must
>not
> >write in vacuum and convince myself I am helping a public that does not
> >read, but I do not want to respond to the same question for years.
> >
> >Just check any forum, including ours, same questions, over and over;
> >expecting the author to digest and re-digest the same produced (and
> >available) content to respond again in one line for a particular
question.
> >
> >Maybe we are not adapting to the audience's way to consume information,
but
> >maybe we should not, and let the pin point repetitive question audience
>find
> >their way doing the reading that others do, and let this be the best
> >intellectual source, and concentrate in the production of
> >intellectual/analytical material for research and educational purposes,
> >judging by your two responses you prefer the second for its permanent
>value,
> >is that what the rest wants as well?
> >
> >In other words, is the "question from the readers page" of this magazine
> >(usually two pages of 100 on printed versions of competitors) the
>foundation
> >to build from? Or,
> >
> >Is the "tutorial" intellectual content the one to build from? (to which
> >other magazines dedicate a small percentage of pages, because most
coverage
> >is for product reviews and adds).
> >
> >We know we are different now, but do we have an opportunity to be even
> >better with our limited resources and build upon that difference?
> >
> >Best Regards,
> >
> >Rodolfo La Maestra
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Larry Megugorac
> >Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:34 PM
> >To: 'HDTV Magazine'; [email protected]
> >Subject: RE: Sharp LC-65D90U with 1.3 - And a short question for readers
> >
> >A) They are free well researched and complete; maybe they should not be?
> >
> >Rodolfo, I as well as many on this list appreciate every bit of
information
> >we get from you.
> >
> >B) Maybe they should not be free? Magazines charge subscriptions to
produce
> >articles to readerships.
> >
> >I would be happy to pay yearly subscription fee because you have no bias
> >with your answers unlike the commercial mags.
> >
> >C) Maybe they should only be 3 statements with a big photo to please the
>eye
> >and be intellectually empty?
> >
> >Please NO
> >
> >D) Maybe we should not write articles and use a question/answer approach
to
> >help readers, an approach that would take me more effort for less
> >depth/variety while producing repetitive responses to the similar
>questions?
> >
> >Please NO
> >
> >E) Would a pinpoint personal response more valuable than a fully analyzed
> >subject anyone could use for research at anytime?
> >
> >That would not do the group well.
> >
> >F) While the answer might not be in the title of an article and might
> >require a few minutes of reading, would it rather be better not to
produce
> >the content and wait until someone asks?
> >
> >Please no again!
> >
> >I for one am looking forward to the paid version of the 2007 CES report.
> >
> >
> >Larry
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> >Rodolfo La Maestra
> >Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:51 AM
> >To: HDTV Magazine
> >Subject: Sharp LC-65D90U with 1.3 - And a short question for readers
> >
> >----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> >The short answer is NO.
> >
> >If you care to read:
> >
> >The Sharp was a 2005 product; it was first announced at CES 2005 (over 2
> >years ago) to become TTM Nov 05, meaning the technology of everything on
> >that set is about 2 years old.
> >
> >The HDMI 1.3 specs were approved mid 06, about six months ago. Chips
for
> >those specs started to appear several months later, toward the end of 06.
> >
> >Manufacturers are at the beginning of their effort implementing those
chips
> >in "some" future products, not retrofitting current products with HDMI
> >chips.
> >
> >Simplay Labs as a new test facility was not necessarily created for just
> >passing 1.3, but for general HDMI/HDCP compliance testing for more than
one
> >category in any kind of product, wires included, to benefit consumers
> >regarding HDMI interoperability.
> >
> >Again, passing the test does not mean the product is automatically 1.3
> >compliant or 1080p capable, or has Deep Color, or xvcolor, or lossless
>audio
> >codecs capabilities, etc, it means it interoperate well with other HDMI
> >suited products, it means that is better than no test, and better than no
> >organization testing.
> >
> >Even after CES 2007 MOST manufacturers are still short in specifying
> >correctly the version of HDMI they support and also the HDMI
functionality
> >features they implement of their equipment (like the above), so we are
all
> >in for another roller coaster ignorance sharing year (most probably
years).
> >
> >And, as advance notice, please do not expect me to produce a flawless
list
> >of HDMI 1.3 products on the 2007 report, for 2 things:
> >
> >A) It is misleading if specifying only 1.3 and not the 1.3 related
> >functionality implemented in the product, and
> >B) After I started doing the list at CES, I found the hard way that it
was
> >an impossible task because most at CES could not be trusted, unless it
was
> >on a press release, besides, I already have all that information even
>before
> >CES. Samsung was one of the companies that showed better effort on being
> >specific across products.
> >
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >Now I have a question myself, maybe my first question since the magazine
> >started in 1998:
> >
> >What would it take for people to read the very own articles and reports
> >produced by the magazine?
> >
> >(Please, this is not a disrespectful or an ironic question, it is a
>reality,
> >and issued with the intention to redirect efforts)
> >
> >A) They are free well researched and complete; maybe they should not be?
> >B) Maybe they should not be free? Magazines charge subscriptions to
produce
> >articles to readerships.
> >C) Maybe they should only be 3 statements with a big photo to please the
>eye
> >and be intellectually empty?
> >D) Maybe we should not write articles and use a question/answer approach
to
> >help readers, an approach that would take me more effort for less
> >depth/variety while producing repetitive responses to the similar
>questions?
> >E) Would a pinpoint personal response more valuable than a fully analyzed
> >subject anyone could use for research at anytime?
> >F) While the answer might not be in the title of an article and might
> >require a few minutes of reading, would it rather be better not to
produce
> >the content and wait until someone asks?
> >
> >Best Regards,
> >
> >Rodolfo La Maestra
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> >Mark Alford
> >Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 7:28 AM
> >To: HDTV Magazine
> >Subject: Re: Sharp LC-65D90U
> >
> >----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> >Richard,
> >
> >Check the news section of the forum. Someone had posted an article about
a
> >month ago that gave the website for 1.3 certification. At that time
there
> >were less than ten pieces of equipment that had been verified as 1.3
> >capable. I don't remember there being any products from Sharp on the
list.
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >
> >On 1/28/07 10:55 PM, "Joe Hart" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> > >
> > > Considering the age of the model (it debuted in fall 2005) I would be
> > > surprised.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Joe Hart
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
>Of
> > > Richard Fisher
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 5:35 PM
> > > To: HDTV Magazine
> > > Subject: Sharp LC-65D90U
> > >
> > > ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> > >
> > > Can anybody confirm HDMI 1.3 on this display?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Richard Fisher
> > > ISF and HAA certified
> > > HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
> > > Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
> > >
> > > To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>same
> > > day) send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
> > >
> > > To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>same
> > > day) send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
> >
> >To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same
> >day) send an email to:
> >[email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
> >
> >To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same
> >day) send an email to:
> >[email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
> >
> >To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same
> >day) send an email to:
> >[email protected]
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
> >
> >To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted
> >that same day) send an email to:
> >[email protected]
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
>day) send an email to:
>[email protected]
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted
>that same day) send an email to:
>[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]