flat panel 1080P - final statement to the Jury

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

Richard,

In general terms, if the consumer does not purchase the product thru a
dealer, the consumer is guilty of not doing the correct research to confirm
that such valuable feature is in fact available in the product.

If a dealer was involved, the dealer is also guilty of not advising the
consumer when the consumer is interested clearly on this feature, reason by
which the consumer is paying for a mark up on the product, to use the
dealer's experience and reduce the possibility of errors in selecting the
product. The consumer is also guilty for not selecting the right dealer
when pursuing such expertise in an unusual feature (in a product released
4Q05, not common).

Consumers and dealers know that anything you buy today (TVs or not) would
not have, nor is expected to have, negative claims of what a product does
not do (other than "do not put in a microwave" or "do not immerse this
electric equipment in water"), especially when the rest of the market
concentrates in the positive features to gain the competitive edge they need
to survive commercially. I bring back my comment of the Isuzu not
specifying in the window sticker that their $5000 car cannot do 200 Mph or
3.5 sec for 0-60 like the Ferrari across the street.

I am not pro manufactures and you know it, since day one I have been
offering my free fulltime efforts to help consumers and advice them right,
but I do not agree to blame LG 100% for not specifying if 1080x1920 is "i"
or "p" or "both" in a world and time when there was not 1080p content
available (other than scaler conversions), while the dealer (the expert) and
the consumer assume the best.

To what my old brain can remember, absolutely no TV having 1080p inputs,
growing market but still an exclusive breed, looses the opportunity to put
"ACCEPTS 1080P" on their spec sheet. It is very easy to assume that not
having such spec means it does not accept 1080p. It is very easy to assume
that not being clear could be also indicating non-acceptance, but inviting a
research opportunity (and a dealer to earn their commission).

I would certainly send a strong letter to LG to make them aware that some
omissions, intentionally or not, cannot be welcomed when the omission could
be interpreted as an abuse of a current situation of some consumers hoping
for 1080p inputs.

Interesting enough, I have been addressing this 1080p subject for over the
past 3 years with articles, and advice, and research, and market analysis,
and reports, and product reviews, most for free in a full time basis, and
what I got most of the time is an explicit or implicit feedback a dreamer
usually receives.

Now everyone wakes up and realize 1080p is important, that 24fps is
important, that HiDef DVD could look even greater if the signal is kept in
the progressive 1080p domain by just changing the frame rate to avoid visual
flicker, etc, and while finding the feature important, ignore all the effort
and available material, and still buy with the eyes closed. Sorry for this
consumer, LG has part of the blame but not enough to accept a return of the
product for not confirming well what the consumer wants as an important
feature. This is not the case of consumer that found out 2 years after
buying the unit that such feature could start being of interest and would
have liked the TV to be ready for that.

Additionally, a consumer looking for such feature is not a Joe-six pack
type, and should know better on checking hi-end features.

I could grant that this might be a 80/20 case. LG is guilty for 20, the
dealer/consumer is guilty for 80. LG might have a competitive edge/market
pressure/non-intentional omission reason, the dealer/consumer should have
known better if this feature was so important.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

If the

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Richard Fisher
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:20 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: flat panel 1080P - final statement to the Jury

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

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defense has provided you with
lengthy testimony from well known journalists and commentators
concerning all the myriad technical details that surround this case, the
peppered history of the marketing of HDTV over the last 8 years and how
educated the average consumer must be to make informed choices. While I
and some of you found this to be very interesting and educational
information two of the jurors did doze off during their presentation.
(Many jury members smile) The defense will more than likely continue on
this trek after I am done.

We have not offered much testimony because this case is far too simple.
The only reason we are here today is because the sales chain, from
retailer to distributor to the manufacturer has refused to accept a
return of this $10,000 display. Their response to our client since day
one has been that he was provided all materials on the product and could
have chosen another if it did not have the features he desired. As you
make your deliberations put yourself in the shoes of Mr. Samoso, what is
considered reasonable and ordinary? How much self education and
information is required for the average person such as yourself to
determine which 1080P display will accept 1080P? Like Mr. Samoso you
purchase a current Bluray player for the 1080P capability yet when you
connect that to your LG 1080P display the player will not allow you to
select 1080P, only 1080I. We have submitted into evidence the LG website
and all materials related to this display, designed and marketed for the
2006-2007 model year. If you think LG provided enough information for
you to determine that this display will not accept 1080P from either of
the new Bluray or HD DVD 1080P products then you must find the defendant
not guilty and Mr Samoso must take full responsibility for this purchase.

If on the other hand you find that not enough information was provided
to make a reasonable and ordinary determination of 1080P capability for
this product then you must find the defendant guilty. Please recall the
testimony of the defendants witnesses and their tale of a confused
industry well known for not providing full disclosure of the operational
capabilities of their products for the last 8 years. A guilty verdict
will send a strong message to all manufacturers selling products in this
country that it is time for this confusion to end by knowing what their
product does or not do and clearly state so in their advertising,
marketing and specification materials. Failure to do so makes them
responsible for the consequences, not you the consumer, nor Mr. Samoso!

Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Robert Wade Brown wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>
> 11/11/2006 9:33pm ct
>
> Rodolfo,
> I don't disagree with you... however, most people don't read
> lists like this in order to buy something in their nearby Best Buy (or
> whatever) nor should they have to do that kind of research. The label
> should be not only truthful, but comprehensive.. providing the
> information in plain language that any buyer OUGHT to want to know.
> The important thing to remember about labels is, when
> considering the average customer, that they are also for the purpose of
> raising questions the customer's mind. If a customer sees a lot of
> specifications he/she doesn't understand, he should ask what they mean
> or go look it up. It is the unaware customer who is actually dumb
> enough to believe the label ("HD Ready", which meant it's not HD
> already) who should be protected from unscrupulous manufacturers and
> sellers who want the customer not to be aware of something or other.
>
> Robert
>
> At 01:57 PM 11/11/2006, you wrote:
>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> Robert,
>>
>>
>> I would say you have a good point with the missing "i" or "p" on the
>> spec of
>> the LG panel, it is not enough to say 1920x1080 only, but such omission
>> becomes an obvious target for further investigation by an inquisitive
>> consumer.
>>
>> Obviously, manufacturers use omissions to let the assumption create a
>> competitive edge "to those people that read what is not written and
>> imagine
>> the best".
>>
>> I know that is not fair, but someone looking for that feature could do
>> the
>> correct research before signing that check.
>>
>> The game of omissions is something that could be controlled from the
>> consumer if investing the proper time and effort to confirm, but the
>> game of
>> intentionally providing wrong information is worst and that is
>> something we
>> should criticize.
>>
>> One such case is Samsung's top executive (ironically recently promoted,
>> perhaps for the "spectacular" introduction of their Blu-ray player)
>> saying
>> that their 1080p RPTVs did not accept 1080p because HDMI could not
>> handle it
>> and they were waiting for 1.3 to come out, in other words "our TVs are
>> perfect, blame HDMI". I confronted the executive at the Display Search
>> podium, and the response he had was "he was told".
>>
>> That is more damaging (industry and consumer) than omitting a spec,
>> people
>> that do not know the background could leave away blaming HDMI, which
>> could
>> also be construed as "no TV would have that capability them until HDMI
>> version 1.3 is out, so why looking for another set".
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Rodolfo La Maestra
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> When
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
>> Robert Wade Brown
>> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 2:20 PM
>> To: HDTV Magazine
>> Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> 11/11/2006 1:19pm ct
>>
>> Yes, there are choices but those choices should be labeled
>> clearly.
>> R
>>
>> At 04:59 PM 11/10/2006, you wrote:
>> >----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>> >
>> >Skip,
>> >
>> >What I am trying to say is that while the market could create display
>> >devices that are more capable than the resolution of the existing
>> content
>> >out there (finally), one cannot mandate that those display devices
>> accept
>> >higher resolutions that the content producers are making available.
>> >
>> >Not long time ago we faced a situation of CRTs not able to display
>> >1920x1080, the image was better than the display devices, now is the
>> >reverse, one is pushing the other at cycles, and consumers get all the
>> >benefit (while our wallets keep paying for the turns they take of
>> course).
>> >
>> >As you said 1080p quality is not relevant enough to many people
>> (display or
>> >acceptance), but it does to me for a 135" screen, and many out there are
>> >very demanding with their HT, spending a fortune for a bit more contrast
>> >ratio on their projectors.
>> >
>> >The good part is that the HD market is big enough now to make everyone
>> happy
>> >with many choices, it has come a long way since 1998, it was very
>> uncertain
>> >on the first couple of years.
>> >
>> >Best Regards,
>> >
>> >Rodolfo La Maestra
>> >
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]]On
>> Behalf Of
>> >Skip Acuff
>> >Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 5:01 PM
>> >To: HDTV Magazine
>> >Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>> >
>> >----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>> >
>> >Rodolfo, Richard and Hugh,
>> >
>> > >From a consumer law standpoint, the questions would be: What is the
>> >purpose of advertising the device using the designation "1080p"? Does
>> >this designation create a false expectation of the capacity or functions
>> >of the device? It seems from Rodolfo's analysis (entertaining and
>> >learned as always) that the 1080p designation has little relevance to
>> >the quality of the picture most folks will see on their brand new
>> >"1080p" TV. Is this correct?
>> >
>> >Skip
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
>> >Of Rodolfo La Maestra
>> >Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 2:45 PM
>> >To: HDTV Magazine
>> >Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>> >
>> >----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>> >
>> >Richard,
>> >
>> >Good point, to make some reflection.
>> >
>> >I can see a difference that can justify the situation.
>> >
>> >480p, 720p, and 1080i are part of a standard that can be transmitted
>> >"AND"
>> >displayed as they are.
>> >
>> >1080p is part of the same standard but the 24fps and 30fps CANNOT be
>> >displayed without objectionable flicker (too slow).
>> >
>> >So accepting 1080p on those two frame rates, that were not used for
>> >consumer
>> >content (until now with Hi Def DVD), is a feature that could be
>> >considered
>> >unusual in 4Q05, perhaps not now that we have a way to display at that
>> >level
>> >of P resolution.
>> >
>> >In other words, the difference is that any of the 3 formats you
>> >mentioned
>> >are able to be displayed as is, not 1080p (the standard), even if
>> >transmitted.
>> >
>> >I would consider that enough reasoning to offer such feature "as a
>> >manufacturer choice" to be more competitive but not as a mandate,
>> >because
>> >the frame rate of the display (60) vs. the established standard (24,30)
>> >is
>> >different.
>> >
>> >Because it has to be some transformation (video processing) to obtain a
>> >viewable image, as it would from 480p/720p/1080i if the native rate of
>> >the
>> >display is 1080p.
>> >
>> >Looking at the other side of it, one could held accountable the millions
>> >of
>> >STBs out there that are not outputting a 1080p signal, when they have to
>> >been able to decode any of the 18 formats, including 1080p 24 or 30, if
>> >anyone would care to broadcast such thing, but logic indicates that we
>> >should not for practical purposes.
>> >
>> >And considering 60fps; accepting 1080p 60fps is out of the expected
>> >range of
>> >formats, so it becomes part of battle field for "my TV is better that
>> >yours".
>> >
>> >What I consider odd is not that some early models of 1080p TVs do not
>> >accept
>> >1080p (any frame rate), but that a HiDef player that reads 1080p film
>> >content from a disc (and you have one of those) is designed not to
>> >output
>> >such rate, even in a year when 1080p displays are the Holy Grail in the
>> >street. Are you going to take legal action with them as well? They
>> >should
>> >be first.
>> >
>> > Best Regards,
>> >
>> >Rodolfo La Maestra
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]]On
>> Behalf Of
>> >Richard Fisher
>> >Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 1:55 PM
>> >To: HDTV Magazine
>> >Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>> >
>> >----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>> >
>> >Thanks Rodolfo!
>> >
>> > > I see not ground for any litigation for false advertising, if you do
>> >you
>> > > would need to extend that litigation to most of the 1080p set
>> >manufacturers,
>> > > they never said "our TVs accept 1080p", people might assume by
>> >reading
>> > > between the lines (and most people do not even know what 1080p
>> >acceptance
>> > > means), I understand how disappointing could be but I would think
>> one
>> >would
>> > > have a hard time in suing anyone by assuming what is not written
>> >
>> >My arguement would be...
>> >
>> >IF I buy a 480P display it will accept a 480P input, 720P display
>> >accepts a 720P input and 1080I display accepts 1080I input. It has been
>> >that way since day one, no? Is that not what is considered ordinary and
>> >reasonable based upon standard practice for the last 8 years? Does that
>> >not meet the legal definition of ordinary and reasonable?
>> >
>> >If a 1080P display does NOT accept a 1080P input then it only stands to
>> >reason that it is upon the manufacturer to clearly state such in their
>> >promotional, advertising and specification materials. LG did not.
>> >
>> >And as you point out that pretty much means just about every
>> >manufacturer would be liable, as they should be!!!
>> >
>> >Am I doing good Skip?
>> >
>> >Richard Fisher
>> >HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
>> >Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>> >
>> >Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
>> > > ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>> > >
>> > > Richard,
>> > >
>> > > The answer to your question about 1080p acceptance being limited is:
>> > >
>> > > Yes. But less limited than last year.
>> > >
>> > > And I anticipate that HD DVD and Blu-ray coming soon with 1080p
>> >outputs
>> >will
>> > > put more pressure on sets with such input.
>> > >
>> > > Toshiba for example is suffering that pressure on their newer HD DVD
>> >model
>> > > coming soon which will output 1080p while the RPTVs introduced at CES
>> >did
>> > > not yet accept 1080p. On my meeting with them they were very strong
>> >at
>> >CES
>> > > 2006 on saying that they see no point for that input to be on their
>> >TVs.
>> > >
>> > > They will have to if they want to remain competitive.
>> > >
>> > > Samsung has renewed their 1080p RPTV wobulated lines to now accept
>> >1080p
>> > > this year.
>> > >
>> > > JVC had the position of Toshiba at CES 2006, I told them it was a
>> >mistake,
>> > > they said nothing is out there with 1080p not even HDMI can pass
>> 1080p
>> >(and
>> > > they are wrong on both counts). The bottom line was that later in
>> the
>> >year
>> > > they decided to rearrange their announced DILA 1080p RPTV sets and
>> >release
>> > > them to have 1080p inputs, fortunately they listened, but Toshiba did
>> >not,
>> > > it was probably too late for them to revise their lines during 2006
>> >before
>> > > releasing them.
>> > >
>> > > 1080p input acceptance is gradually coming, like the massive wave of
>> >HDMI
>> > > did.
>> > >
>> > > Regarding your LG question:
>> > >
>> > > The LG you mentioned does not specify the input 1920x1080 60 Hz as P
>> >on
>> >any
>> > > place (website, brochure, manual). The interlace or progressive
>> > > specification of the input is left unsaid, and the manual says that
>> >such
>> > > acceptance depends on the card (or something like that), but does not
>> >even
>> > > indicate if the comment is toward I or p.
>> > >
>> > > The bottom line is that this model was introduced 4Q05 and with 1080p
>> > > "display" resolution, which it does, it was never advertised that it
>> >ACCEPTS
>> > > 1080p.
>> > >
>> > > I see not ground for any litigation for false advertising, if you do
>> >you
>> > > would need to extend that litigation to most of the 1080p set
>> >manufacturers,
>> > > they never said "our TVs accept 1080p", people might assume by
>> reading
>> > > between the lines (and most people do not even know what 1080p
>> >acceptance
>> > > means), I understand how disappointing could be but I would think one
>> >would
>> > > have a hard time in suing anyone by assuming what is not written.
>> > >
>> > > By the way, this set does not have HDMI as you said, it has DVI-D
>> with
>> >HDCP,
>> > > so you would have to find an alternative connection for the audio to
>> >the
>> >TV.
>> > >
>> > > Best Regards,
>> > >
>> > > Rodolfo La Maestra
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]]On
>> Behalf
>> >Of
>> > > Richard Fisher
>> > > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 9:52 AM
>> > > To: HDTV Magazine
>> > > Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>> > >
>> > > ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for the 2 models so far.
>> > >
>> > > Is 1080P input still highly limited?
>> > >
>> > > Richard Fisher
>> > > HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
>> > > Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>> > >
>> > > Kevin Miller wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>> > >>
>> > >>Hi All,
>> > >>
>> > >>I couldn't resist chiming in here. The PRO-FHD1 is an awesome
>> panel. I
>> > >
>> > > just
>> > >
>> > >>calibrated another one yesterday. The Color Management System allows
>> >you
>> > >
>> > > to
>> > >
>> > >>fix the primary and secondary colors, and the grayscale accuracy is
>> > >>excellent. However, as I demonstrated to my client the 3:3 pull-down
>> >or
>> > >
>> > > 72hz
>> > >
>> > >>feature doesn't work well at all. If you look at the opening sequence
>> >of
>> > >>"Star Trek: Insurrection" and engage it the Jutter is reduced or
>> > >
>> > > eliminated,
>> > >
>> > >>but vertical objects like the buildings shake intensely. So the
>> >artifacts
>> > >>that it introduces are far worse than the Jutter it eliminates. This
>> >has
>> > >>been the case with all the Pioneer Elites that have this feature
>> since
>> >it
>> > >>was introduced a couple of years ago.
>> > >>
>> > >>Best Regards,
>> > >>
>> > >>Kevin Miller
>> > >>ISFTV
>> > >>Phone: 718-274-0236
>> > >>Email: [email protected]
>> > >>Web Site: www.ISFTV.COM
>> > >>Founding Imaging Science Foundation Member since 1994
>> > >>Industry Consultant ~ ISF Instructor
>> > >>Contributing Editor to CNET.COM, & AVRev.com
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>-----Original Message-----
>> > >>From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]] On
>> Behalf
>> >Of
>> > >>Rodolfo La Maestra
>> > >>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 12:38 AM
>> > >>To: HDTV Magazine
>> > >>Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>> > >>
>> > >>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>> > >>
>> > >>Richard,
>> > >>
>> > >>You would also appreciate that the plasma Jeff mentioned below from
>> > >
>> > > Pioneer
>> > >
>> > >>Elite accepts 1080p but also as 24fps, and displays the image as
>> 72fps
>> > >
>> > > doing
>> > >
>> > >>3:3 pulldown, a feature that almost no one else (except some front
>> > >>projectors) dear to claim.
>> > >>
>> > >>This feature is perfect for HD DVD/Blu-ray players that might
>> >eventually
>> > >
>> > > be
>> > >
>> > >>capable to output 1080p at 24fps (not just 60fps) without any kind of
>> > >>processing directly from the disc (for film content of course), as
>> the
>> > >>Pioneer Elite player was planned to eventually do.
>> > >>
>> > >>If you care for 1080p panels larger than 50" the Panny 65" inches
>> just
>> > >
>> > > came
>> > >
>> > >>out for about $8K MSRP could fit the 1080p shoes as well. Although
>> >this
>> > >>panel does not have the ISF functionality of the Elite.
>> > >>
>> > >>Best Regards,
>> > >>
>> > >>Rodolfo La Maestra
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>-----Original Message-----
>> > >>From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]]On
>> Behalf
>> >Of
>> > >>Jeff Odell
>> > >>Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 8:55 PM
>> > >>To: HDTV Magazine
>> > >>Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>> > >>
>> > >>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>> > >>
>> > >>Pioneer has a 50" plasma that fits your requirements. The MSRP was
>> > >>$10000 but seems to have recently dropped to $7995. The model number
>> > >>is PRO-FHD1. You will appreciate that this TV has an ISF CCC
>> > >>calibration mode.
>> > >>
>> > >>This is a beautiful TV. I am currently lusting over it while saving
>> > >>my pennies. Soon...my precious. :')
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pna/v ... ,2076_3100
>> >6973
>> > >
>> > >>1_290043890,00.html?compName=PNA_V3_ProductDetailsComponent
>> > >>
>> > >>Watch for line wrap in that URL.
>> > >>
>> > >>Jeff
>> > >>
>> > >>On 11/9/06, Richard Fisher <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>> > >>>
>> > >>>Tipsters,
>> > >>>
>> > >>>Are there any 1080P flat panel displays in the 50" size range on the
>> > >>>market that accept a 1080P HDMI input?
>> > >>>
>> > >>>Thanks
>> > >>>
>> > >>>Richard Fisher
>> > >>>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 p

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

> Consumers and dealers know that anything you buy today (TVs or not) would
> not have, nor is expected to have, negative claims of what a product does
> not do

Stating what your product will or not accept is not a negative claim
unless the manufacturer chooses to word it that way. Leaving the
impression that a product would accept 1080P by it's simplistic 1080P
nature, it is a 1080P display, it is a new and current 2006-2007 model
along with the lack of any other information stating otherwise is also a
choice made by the manufacturer.

LG chose the latter and could have easily covered themselves by simply
stating the scan rates it will accept, as just one example, leaving it
to the consumer to bring that into context.

Accepts the following HDTV signals
480I
480P
720P
1080I

The fact that 1080P does not appear would have been all that is required
for the manufacturer and consumer. This example of full disclosure is
clearly not negative, would more than likely be seen as another
dismissive blurb along with the rest of specifications fro most
consumers yet ultimately does provide enough information to determine if
this 1080P display will accept 1080P from my Sony Bluray if that is my goal.

I certainly would not expect LG nor any manufacturer to forwarn
potential buyers nor boldy proclaim a lack of capability with a negative
statement such as "does not accept 1080P". I don't believe that could be
legally enforced nor do I personally find that ethical in a market where
it is reasonable and ordinary for 1080P display consumers to be
perfectly satisfied with this limitation. Yet that also should not
remove their legal responsibility to fully disclose to the consumer in
some form and fashion that it does not accept 1080P especially in the
2006-2007 model season as Bluray and HD DVD come to market with 1080P
capable players.


Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Richard,
>
> In general terms, if the consumer does not purchase the product thru a
> dealer, the consumer is guilty of not doing the correct research to confirm
> that such valuable feature is in fact available in the product.
>
> If a dealer was involved, the dealer is also guilty of not advising the
> consumer when the consumer is interested clearly on this feature, reason by
> which the consumer is paying for a mark up on the product, to use the
> dealer's experience and reduce the possibility of errors in selecting the
> product. The consumer is also guilty for not selecting the right dealer
> when pursuing such expertise in an unusual feature (in a product released
> 4Q05, not common).
>
> Consumers and dealers know that anything you buy today (TVs or not) would
> not have, nor is expected to have, negative claims of what a product does
> not do (other than "do not put in a microwave" or "do not immerse this
> electric equipment in water"), especially when the rest of the market
> concentrates in the positive features to gain the competitive edge they need
> to survive commercially. I bring back my comment of the Isuzu not
> specifying in the window sticker that their $5000 car cannot do 200 Mph or
> 3.5 sec for 0-60 like the Ferrari across the street.
>
> I am not pro manufactures and you know it, since day one I have been
> offering my free fulltime efforts to help consumers and advice them right,
> but I do not agree to blame LG 100% for not specifying if 1080x1920 is "i"
> or "p" or "both" in a world and time when there was not 1080p content
> available (other than scaler conversions), while the dealer (the expert) and
> the consumer assume the best.
>
> To what my old brain can remember, absolutely no TV having 1080p inputs,
> growing market but still an exclusive breed, looses the opportunity to put
> "ACCEPTS 1080P" on their spec sheet. It is very easy to assume that not
> having such spec means it does not accept 1080p. It is very easy to assume
> that not being clear could be also indicating non-acceptance, but inviting a
> research opportunity (and a dealer to earn their commission).
>
> I would certainly send a strong letter to LG to make them aware that some
> omissions, intentionally or not, cannot be welcomed when the omission could
> be interpreted as an abuse of a current situation of some consumers hoping
> for 1080p inputs.
>
> Interesting enough, I have been addressing this 1080p subject for over the
> past 3 years with articles, and advice, and research, and market analysis,
> and reports, and product reviews, most for free in a full time basis, and
> what I got most of the time is an explicit or implicit feedback a dreamer
> usually receives.
>
> Now everyone wakes up and realize 1080p is important, that 24fps is
> important, that HiDef DVD could look even greater if the signal is kept in
> the progressive 1080p domain by just changing the frame rate to avoid visual
> flicker, etc, and while finding the feature important, ignore all the effort
> and available material, and still buy with the eyes closed. Sorry for this
> consumer, LG has part of the blame but not enough to accept a return of the
> product for not confirming well what the consumer wants as an important
> feature. This is not the case of consumer that found out 2 years after
> buying the unit that such feature could start being of interest and would
> have liked the TV to be ready for that.
>
> Additionally, a consumer looking for such feature is not a Joe-six pack
> type, and should know better on checking hi-end features.
>
> I could grant that this might be a 80/20 case. LG is guilty for 20, the
> dealer/consumer is guilty for 80. LG might have a competitive edge/market
> pressure/non-intentional omission reason, the dealer/consumer should have
> known better if this feature was so important.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
> If the
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Richard Fisher
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:20 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: flat panel 1080P - final statement to the Jury
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defense has provided you with
> lengthy testimony from well known journalists and commentators
> concerning all the myriad technical details that surround this case, the
> peppered history of the marketing of HDTV over the last 8 years and how
> educated the average consumer must be to make informed choices. While I
> and some of you found this to be very interesting and educational
> information two of the jurors did doze off during their presentation.
> (Many jury members smile) The defense will more than likely continue on
> this trek after I am done.
>
> We have not offered much testimony because this case is far too simple.
> The only reason we are here today is because the sales chain, from
> retailer to distributor to the manufacturer has refused to accept a
> return of this $10,000 display. Their response to our client since day
> one has been that he was provided all materials on the product and could
> have chosen another if it did not have the features he desired. As you
> make your deliberations put yourself in the shoes of Mr. Samoso, what is
> considered reasonable and ordinary? How much self education and
> information is required for the average person such as yourself to
> determine which 1080P display will accept 1080P? Like Mr. Samoso you
> purchase a current Bluray player for the 1080P capability yet when you
> connect that to your LG 1080P display the player will not allow you to
> select 1080P, only 1080I. We have submitted into evidence the LG website
> and all materials related to this display, designed and marketed for the
> 2006-2007 model year. If you think LG provided enough information for
> you to determine that this display will not accept 1080P from either of
> the new Bluray or HD DVD 1080P products then you must find the defendant
> not guilty and Mr Samoso must take full responsibility for this purchase.
>
> If on the other hand you find that not enough information was provided
> to make a reasonable and ordinary determination of 1080P capability for
> this product then you must find the defendant guilty. Please recall the
> testimony of the defendants witnesses and their tale of a confused
> industry well known for not providing full disclosure of the operational
> capabilities of their products for the last 8 years. A guilty verdict
> will send a strong message to all manufacturers selling products in this
> country that it is time for this confusion to end by knowing what their
> product does or not do and clearly state so in their advertising,
> marketing and specification materials. Failure to do so makes them
> responsible for the consequences, not you the consumer, nor Mr. Samoso!
>
> Richard Fisher
> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>
> Robert Wade Brown wrote:
>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>
>>11/11/2006 9:33pm ct
>>
>>Rodolfo,
>> I don't disagree with you... however, most people don't read
>>lists like this in order to buy something in their nearby Best Buy (or
>>whatever) nor should they have to do that kind of research. The label
>>should be not only truthful, but comprehensive.. providing the
>>information in plain language that any buyer OUGHT to want to know.
>> The important thing to remember about labels is, when
>>considering the average customer, that they are also for the purpose of
>>raising questions the customer's mind. If a customer sees a lot of
>>specifications he/she doesn't understand, he should ask what they mean
>>or go look it up. It is the unaware customer who is actually dumb
>>enough to believe the label ("HD Ready", which meant it's not HD
>>already) who should be protected from unscrupulous manufacturers and
>>sellers who want the customer not to be aware of something or other.
>>
>>Robert
>>
>>At 01:57 PM 11/11/2006, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>Robert,
>>>
>>>
>>>I would say you have a good point with the missing "i" or "p" on the
>>>spec of
>>>the LG panel, it is not enough to say 1920x1080 only, but such omission
>>>becomes an obvious target for further investigation by an inquisitive
>>>consumer.
>>>
>>>Obviously, manufacturers use omissions to let the assumption create a
>>>competitive edge "to those people that read what is not written and
>>>imagine
>>>the best".
>>>
>>>I know that is not fair, but someone looking for that feature could do
>>>the
>>>correct research before signing that check.
>>>
>>>The game of omissions is something that could be controlled from the
>>>consumer if investing the proper time and effort to confirm, but the
>>>game of
>>>intentionally providing wrong information is worst and that is
>>>something we
>>>should criticize.
>>>
>>>One such case is Samsung's top executive (ironically recently promoted,
>>>perhaps for the "spectacular" introduction of their Blu-ray player)
>>>saying
>>>that their 1080p RPTVs did not accept 1080p because HDMI could not
>>>handle it
>>>and they were waiting for 1.3 to come out, in other words "our TVs are
>>>perfect, blame HDMI". I confronted the executive at the Display Search
>>>podium, and the response he had was "he was told".
>>>
>>>That is more damaging (industry and consumer) than omitting a spec,
>>>people
>>>that do not know the background could leave away blaming HDMI, which
>>>could
>>>also be construed as "no TV would have that capability them until HDMI
>>>version 1.3 is out, so why looking for another set".
>>>
>>>Best Regards,
>>>
>>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>When
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
>>>Robert Wade Brown
>>>Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 2:20 PM
>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>11/11/2006 1:19pm ct
>>>
>>> Yes, there are choices but those choices should be labeled
>>>clearly.
>>>R
>>>
>>>At 04:59 PM 11/10/2006, you wrote:
>>>
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>Skip,
>>>>
>>>>What I am trying to say is that while the market could create display
>>>>devices that are more capable than the resolution of the existing
>>>
>>>content
>>>
>>>>out there (finally), one cannot mandate that those display devices
>>>
>>>accept
>>>
>>>>higher resolutions that the content producers are making available.
>>>>
>>>>Not long time ago we faced a situation of CRTs not able to display
>>>>1920x1080, the image was better than the display devices, now is the
>>>>reverse, one is pushing the other at cycles, and consumers get all the
>>>>benefit (while our wallets keep paying for the turns they take of
>>>
>>>course).
>>>
>>>>As you said 1080p quality is not relevant enough to many people
>>>
>>>(display or
>>>
>>>>acceptance), but it does to me for a 135" screen, and many out there are
>>>>very demanding with their HT, spending a fortune for a bit more contrast
>>>>ratio on their projectors.
>>>>
>>>>The good part is that the HD market is big enough now to make everyone
>>>
>>>happy
>>>
>>>>with many choices, it has come a long way since 1998, it was very
>>>
>>>uncertain
>>>
>>>>on the first couple of years.
>>>>
>>>>Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]]On
>>>
>>>Behalf Of
>>>
>>>>Skip Acuff
>>>>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 5:01 PM
>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>>
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>Rodolfo, Richard and Hugh,
>>>>
>>>>>From a consumer law standpoint, the questions would be: What is the
>>>>purpose of advertising the device using the designation "1080p"? Does
>>>>this designation create a false expectation of the capacity or functions
>>>>of the device? It seems from Rodolfo's analysis (entertaining and
>>>>learned as always) that the 1080p designation has little relevance to
>>>>the quality of the picture most folks will see on their brand new
>>>>"1080p" TV. Is this correct?
>>>>
>>>>Skip
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
>>>>Of Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 2:45 PM
>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>>
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>Richard,
>>>>
>>>>Good point, to make some reflection.
>>>>
>>>>I can see a difference that can justify the situation.
>>>>
>>>>480p, 720p, and 1080i are part of a standard that can be transmitted
>>>>"AND"
>>>>displayed as they are.
>>>>
>>>>1080p is part of the same standard but the 24fps and 30fps CANNOT be
>>>>displayed without objectionable flicker (too slow).
>>>>
>>>>So accepting 1080p on those two frame rates, that were not used for
>>>>consumer
>>>>content (until now with Hi Def DVD), is a feature that could be
>>>>considered
>>>>unusual in 4Q05, perhaps not now that we have a way to display at that
>>>>level
>>>>of P resolution.
>>>>
>>>>In other words, the difference is that any of the 3 formats you
>>>>mentioned
>>>>are able to be displayed as is, not 1080p (the standard), even if
>>>>transmitted.
>>>>
>>>>I would consider that enough reasoning to offer such feature "as a
>>>>manufacturer choice" to be more competitive but not as a mandate,
>>>>because
>>>>the frame rate of the display (60) vs. the established standard (24,30)
>>>>is
>>>>different.
>>>>
>>>>Because it has to be some transformation (video processing) to obtain a
>>>>viewable image, as it would from 480p/720p/1080i if the native rate of
>>>>the
>>>>display is 1080p.
>>>>
>>>>Looking at the other side of it, one could held accountable the millions
>>>>of
>>>>STBs out there that are not outputting a 1080p signal, when they have to
>>>>been able to decode any of the 18 formats, including 1080p 24 or 30, if
>>>>anyone would care to broadcast such thing, but logic indicates that we
>>>>should not for practical purposes.
>>>>
>>>>And considering 60fps; accepting 1080p 60fps is out of the expected
>>>>range of
>>>>formats, so it becomes part of battle field for "my TV is better that
>>>>yours".
>>>>
>>>>What I consider odd is not that some early models of 1080p TVs do not
>>>>accept
>>>>1080p (any frame rate), but that a HiDef player that reads 1080p film
>>>>content from a disc (and you have one of those) is designed not to
>>>>output
>>>>such rate, even in a year when 1080p displays are the Holy Grail in the
>>>>street. Are you going to take legal action with them as well? They
>>>>should
>>>>be first.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]]On
>>>
>>>Behalf Of
>>>
>>>>Richard Fisher
>>>>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 1:55 PM
>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>>
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>Thanks Rodolfo!
>>>>
>>>> > I see not ground for any litigation for false advertising, if you do
>>>>you
>>>> > would need to extend that litigation to most of the 1080p set
>>>>manufacturers,
>>>> > they never said "our TVs accept 1080p", people might assume by
>>>>reading
>>>> > between the lines (and most people do not even know what 1080p
>>>>acceptance
>>>> > means), I understand how disappointing could be but I would think
>>>
>>>one
>>>
>>>>would
>>>> > have a hard time in suing anyone by assuming what is not written
>>>>
>>>>My arguement would be...
>>>>
>>>>IF I buy a 480P display it will accept a 480P input, 720P display
>>>>accepts a 720P input and 1080I display accepts 1080I input. It has been
>>>>that way since day one, no? Is that not what is considered ordinary and
>>>>reasonable based upon standard practice for the last 8 years? Does that
>>>>not meet the legal definition of ordinary and reasonable?
>>>>
>>>>If a 1080P display does NOT accept a 1080P input then it only stands to
>>>>reason that it is upon the manufacturer to clearly state such in their
>>>>promotional, advertising and specification materials. LG did not.
>>>>
>>>>And as you point out that pretty much means just about every
>>>>manufacturer would be liable, as they should be!!!
>>>>
>>>>Am I doing good Skip?
>>>>
>>>>Richard Fisher
>>>>HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
>>>>Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>>>>
>>>>Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>Richard,
>>>>>
>>>>>The answer to your question about 1080p acceptance being limited is:
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes. But less limited than last year.
>>>>>
>>>>>And I anticipate that HD DVD and Blu-ray coming soon with 1080p
>>>>
>>>>outputs
>>>>will
>>>>
>>>>>put more pressure on sets with such input.
>>>>>
>>>>>Toshiba for example is suffering that pressure on their newer HD DVD
>>>>
>>>>model
>>>>
>>>>>coming soon which will output 1080p while the RPTVs introduced at CES
>>>>
>>>>did
>>>>
>>>>>not yet accept 1080p. On my meeting with them they were very strong
>>>>
>>>>at
>>>>CES
>>>>
>>>>>2006 on saying that they see no point for that input to be on their
>>>>
>>>>TVs.
>>>>
>>>>>They will have to if they want to remain competitive.
>>>>>
>>>>>Samsung has renewed their 1080p RPTV wobulated lines to now accept
>>>>
>>>>1080p
>>>>
>>>>>this year.
>>>>>
>>>>>JVC had the position of Toshiba at CES 2006, I told them it was a
>>>>
>>>>mistake,
>>>>
>>>>>they said nothing is out there with 1080p not even HDMI can pass
>>>
>>>1080p
>>>
>>>>(and
>>>>
>>>>>they are wrong on both counts). The bottom line was that later in
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>>year
>>>>
>>>>>they decided to rearrange their announced DILA 1080p RPTV sets and
>>>>
>>>>release
>>>>
>>>>>them to have 1080p inputs, fortunately they listened, but Toshiba did
>>>>
>>>>not,
>>>>
>>>>>it was probably too late for them to revise their lines during 2006
>>>>
>>>>before
>>>>
>>>>>releasing them.
>>>>>
>>>>>1080p input acceptance is gradually coming, like the massive wave of
>>>>
>>>>HDMI
>>>>
>>>>>did.
>>>>>
>>>>>Regarding your LG question:
>>>>>
>>>>>The LG you mentioned does not specify the input 1920x1080 60 Hz as P
>>>>
>>>>on
>>>>any
>>>>
>>>>>place (website, brochure, manual). The interlace or progressive
>>>>>specification of the input is left unsaid, and the manual says that
>>>>
>>>>such
>>>>
>>>>>acceptance depends on the card (or something like that), but does not
>>>>
>>>>even
>>>>
>>>>>indicate if the comment is toward I or p.
>>>>>
>>>>>The bottom line is that this model was introduced 4Q05 and with 1080p
>>>>>"display" resolution, which it does, it was never advertised that it
>>>>
>>>>ACCEPTS
>>>>
>>>>>1080p.
>>>>>
>>>>>I see not ground for any litigation for false advertising, if you do
>>>>
>>>>you
>>>>
>>>>>would need to extend that litigation to most of the 1080p set
>>>>
>>>>manufacturers,
>>>>
>>>>>they never said "our TVs accept 1080p", people might assume by
>>>
>>>reading
>>>
>>>>>between the lines (and most people do not even know what 1080p
>>>>
>>>>acceptance
>>>>
>>>>>means), I understand how disappointing could be but I would think one
>>>>
>>>>would
>>>>
>>>>>have a hard time in suing anyone by assuming what is not written.
>>>>>
>>>>>By the way, this set does not have HDMI as you said, it has DVI-D
>>>
>>>with
>>>
>>>>HDCP,
>>>>
>>>>>so you would have to find an alternative connection for the audio to
>>>>
>>>>the
>>>>TV.
>>>>
>>>>>Best Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]]On
>>>
>>>Behalf
>>>
>>>>Of
>>>>
>>>>>Richard Fisher
>>>>>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 9:52 AM
>>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>>>
>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for the 2 models so far.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is 1080P input still highly limited?
>>>>>
>>>>>Richard Fisher
>>>>>HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
>>>>>Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>>>>>
>>>>>Kevin Miller wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I couldn't resist chiming in here. The PRO-FHD1 is an awesome
>>>
>>>panel. I
>>>
>>>>>just
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>calibrated another one yesterday. The Color Management System allows
>>>>
>>>>you
>>>>
>>>>>to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>fix the primary and secondary colors, and the grayscale accuracy is
>>>>>>excellent. However, as I demonstrated to my client the 3:3 pull-down
>>>>
>>>>or
>>>>
>>>>>72hz
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>feature doesn't work well at all. If you look at the opening sequence
>>>>
>>>>of
>>>>
>>>>>>"Star Trek: Insurrection" and engage it the Jutter is reduced or
>>>>>
>>>>>eliminated,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>but vertical objects like the buildings shake intensely. So the
>>>>
>>>>artifacts
>>>>
>>>>>>that it introduces are far worse than the Jutter it eliminates. This
>>>>
>>>>has
>>>>
>>>>>>been the case with all the Pioneer Elites that have this feature
>>>
>>>since
>>>
>>>>it
>>

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

Wow, I am hesitant to join the fray...but for what it is worth, I don't
think anyone mentioned the new Sony 52" Bravia XBR. It has either two or
three 1080P inputs...my only question about it is what version of HDMI they
are using. As much as the lack of 1080P inputs was discussed on this very
list, I am surprised that any of us would have made the mistake of buying a
set not knowing exactly what the inputs were.

Mark Alford


On 11/12/06 4:45 PM, "Richard Fisher" <[email protected]> wrote:

> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>> Consumers and dealers know that anything you buy today (TVs or not) would
>> not have, nor is expected to have, negative claims of what a product does
>> not do
>
> Stating what your product will or not accept is not a negative claim
> unless the manufacturer chooses to word it that way. Leaving the
> impression that a product would accept 1080P by it's simplistic 1080P
> nature, it is a 1080P display, it is a new and current 2006-2007 model
> along with the lack of any other information stating otherwise is also a
> choice made by the manufacturer.
>
> LG chose the latter and could have easily covered themselves by simply
> stating the scan rates it will accept, as just one example, leaving it
> to the consumer to bring that into context.
>
> Accepts the following HDTV signals
> 480I
> 480P
> 720P
> 1080I
>
> The fact that 1080P does not appear would have been all that is required
> for the manufacturer and consumer. This example of full disclosure is
> clearly not negative, would more than likely be seen as another
> dismissive blurb along with the rest of specifications fro most
> consumers yet ultimately does provide enough information to determine if
> this 1080P display will accept 1080P from my Sony Bluray if that is my goal.
>
> I certainly would not expect LG nor any manufacturer to forwarn
> potential buyers nor boldy proclaim a lack of capability with a negative
> statement such as "does not accept 1080P". I don't believe that could be
> legally enforced nor do I personally find that ethical in a market where
> it is reasonable and ordinary for 1080P display consumers to be
> perfectly satisfied with this limitation. Yet that also should not
> remove their legal responsibility to fully disclose to the consumer in
> some form and fashion that it does not accept 1080P especially in the
> 2006-2007 model season as Bluray and HD DVD come to market with 1080P
> capable players.
>
>
> Richard Fisher
> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> Richard,
>>
>> In general terms, if the consumer does not purchase the product thru a
>> dealer, the consumer is guilty of not doing the correct research to confirm
>> that such valuable feature is in fact available in the product.
>>
>> If a dealer was involved, the dealer is also guilty of not advising the
>> consumer when the consumer is interested clearly on this feature, reason by
>> which the consumer is paying for a mark up on the product, to use the
>> dealer's experience and reduce the possibility of errors in selecting the
>> product. The consumer is also guilty for not selecting the right dealer
>> when pursuing such expertise in an unusual feature (in a product released
>> 4Q05, not common).
>>
>> Consumers and dealers know that anything you buy today (TVs or not) would
>> not have, nor is expected to have, negative claims of what a product does
>> not do (other than "do not put in a microwave" or "do not immerse this
>> electric equipment in water"), especially when the rest of the market
>> concentrates in the positive features to gain the competitive edge they need
>> to survive commercially. I bring back my comment of the Isuzu not
>> specifying in the window sticker that their $5000 car cannot do 200 Mph or
>> 3.5 sec for 0-60 like the Ferrari across the street.
>>
>> I am not pro manufactures and you know it, since day one I have been
>> offering my free fulltime efforts to help consumers and advice them right,
>> but I do not agree to blame LG 100% for not specifying if 1080x1920 is "i"
>> or "p" or "both" in a world and time when there was not 1080p content
>> available (other than scaler conversions), while the dealer (the expert) and
>> the consumer assume the best.
>>
>> To what my old brain can remember, absolutely no TV having 1080p inputs,
>> growing market but still an exclusive breed, looses the opportunity to put
>> "ACCEPTS 1080P" on their spec sheet. It is very easy to assume that not
>> having such spec means it does not accept 1080p. It is very easy to assume
>> that not being clear could be also indicating non-acceptance, but inviting a
>> research opportunity (and a dealer to earn their commission).
>>
>> I would certainly send a strong letter to LG to make them aware that some
>> omissions, intentionally or not, cannot be welcomed when the omission could
>> be interpreted as an abuse of a current situation of some consumers hoping
>> for 1080p inputs.
>>
>> Interesting enough, I have been addressing this 1080p subject for over the
>> past 3 years with articles, and advice, and research, and market analysis,
>> and reports, and product reviews, most for free in a full time basis, and
>> what I got most of the time is an explicit or implicit feedback a dreamer
>> usually receives.
>>
>> Now everyone wakes up and realize 1080p is important, that 24fps is
>> important, that HiDef DVD could look even greater if the signal is kept in
>> the progressive 1080p domain by just changing the frame rate to avoid visual
>> flicker, etc, and while finding the feature important, ignore all the effort
>> and available material, and still buy with the eyes closed. Sorry for this
>> consumer, LG has part of the blame but not enough to accept a return of the
>> product for not confirming well what the consumer wants as an important
>> feature. This is not the case of consumer that found out 2 years after
>> buying the unit that such feature could start being of interest and would
>> have liked the TV to be ready for that.
>>
>> Additionally, a consumer looking for such feature is not a Joe-six pack
>> type, and should know better on checking hi-end features.
>>
>> I could grant that this might be a 80/20 case. LG is guilty for 20, the
>> dealer/consumer is guilty for 80. LG might have a competitive edge/market
>> pressure/non-intentional omission reason, the dealer/consumer should have
>> known better if this feature was so important.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Rodolfo La Maestra
>>
>> If the
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>> Richard Fisher
>> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:20 PM
>> To: HDTV Magazine
>> Subject: flat panel 1080P - final statement to the Jury
>>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defense has provided you with
>> lengthy testimony from well known journalists and commentators
>> concerning all the myriad technical details that surround this case, the
>> peppered history of the marketing of HDTV over the last 8 years and how
>> educated the average consumer must be to make informed choices. While I
>> and some of you found this to be very interesting and educational
>> information two of the jurors did doze off during their presentation.
>> (Many jury members smile) The defense will more than likely continue on
>> this trek after I am done.
>>
>> We have not offered much testimony because this case is far too simple.
>> The only reason we are here today is because the sales chain, from
>> retailer to distributor to the manufacturer has refused to accept a
>> return of this $10,000 display. Their response to our client since day
>> one has been that he was provided all materials on the product and could
>> have chosen another if it did not have the features he desired. As you
>> make your deliberations put yourself in the shoes of Mr. Samoso, what is
>> considered reasonable and ordinary? How much self education and
>> information is required for the average person such as yourself to
>> determine which 1080P display will accept 1080P? Like Mr. Samoso you
>> purchase a current Bluray player for the 1080P capability yet when you
>> connect that to your LG 1080P display the player will not allow you to
>> select 1080P, only 1080I. We have submitted into evidence the LG website
>> and all materials related to this display, designed and marketed for the
>> 2006-2007 model year. If you think LG provided enough information for
>> you to determine that this display will not accept 1080P from either of
>> the new Bluray or HD DVD 1080P products then you must find the defendant
>> not guilty and Mr Samoso must take full responsibility for this purchase.
>>
>> If on the other hand you find that not enough information was provided
>> to make a reasonable and ordinary determination of 1080P capability for
>> this product then you must find the defendant guilty. Please recall the
>> testimony of the defendants witnesses and their tale of a confused
>> industry well known for not providing full disclosure of the operational
>> capabilities of their products for the last 8 years. A guilty verdict
>> will send a strong message to all manufacturers selling products in this
>> country that it is time for this confusion to end by knowing what their
>> product does or not do and clearly state so in their advertising,
>> marketing and specification materials. Failure to do so makes them
>> responsible for the consequences, not you the consumer, nor Mr. Samoso!
>>
>> Richard Fisher
>> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
>> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>>
>> Robert Wade Brown wrote:
>>
>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>
>>> 11/11/2006 9:33pm ct
>>>
>>> Rodolfo,
>>> I don't disagree with you... however, most people don't read
>>> lists like this in order to buy something in their nearby Best Buy (or
>>> whatever) nor should they have to do that kind of research. The label
>>> should be not only truthful, but comprehensive.. providing the
>>> information in plain language that any buyer OUGHT to want to know.
>>> The important thing to remember about labels is, when
>>> considering the average customer, that they are also for the purpose of
>>> raising questions the customer's mind. If a customer sees a lot of
>>> specifications he/she doesn't understand, he should ask what they mean
>>> or go look it up. It is the unaware customer who is actually dumb
>>> enough to believe the label ("HD Ready", which meant it's not HD
>>> already) who should be protected from unscrupulous manufacturers and
>>> sellers who want the customer not to be aware of something or other.
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>> At 01:57 PM 11/11/2006, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>> Robert,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would say you have a good point with the missing "i" or "p" on the
>>>> spec of
>>>> the LG panel, it is not enough to say 1920x1080 only, but such omission
>>>> becomes an obvious target for further investigation by an inquisitive
>>>> consumer.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, manufacturers use omissions to let the assumption create a
>>>> competitive edge "to those people that read what is not written and
>>>> imagine
>>>> the best".
>>>>
>>>> I know that is not fair, but someone looking for that feature could do
>>>> the
>>>> correct research before signing that check.
>>>>
>>>> The game of omissions is something that could be controlled from the
>>>> consumer if investing the proper time and effort to confirm, but the
>>>> game of
>>>> intentionally providing wrong information is worst and that is
>>>> something we
>>>> should criticize.
>>>>
>>>> One such case is Samsung's top executive (ironically recently promoted,
>>>> perhaps for the "spectacular" introduction of their Blu-ray player)
>>>> saying
>>>> that their 1080p RPTVs did not accept 1080p because HDMI could not
>>>> handle it
>>>> and they were waiting for 1.3 to come out, in other words "our TVs are
>>>> perfect, blame HDMI". I confronted the executive at the Display Search
>>>> podium, and the response he had was "he was told".
>>>>
>>>> That is more damaging (industry and consumer) than omitting a spec,
>>>> people
>>>> that do not know the background could leave away blaming HDMI, which
>>>> could
>>>> also be construed as "no TV would have that capability them until HDMI
>>>> version 1.3 is out, so why looking for another set".
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
>>>> Robert Wade Brown
>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 2:20 PM
>>>> To: HDTV Magazine
>>>> Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>>
>>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>> 11/11/2006 1:19pm ct
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there are choices but those choices should be labeled
>>>> clearly.
>>>> R
>>>>
>>>> At 04:59 PM 11/10/2006, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>> Skip,
>>>>>
>>>>> What I am trying to say is that while the market could create display
>>>>> devices that are more capable than the resolution of the existing
>>>>
>>>> content
>>>>
>>>>> out there (finally), one cannot mandate that those display devices
>>>>
>>>> accept
>>>>
>>>>> higher resolutions that the content producers are making available.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not long time ago we faced a situation of CRTs not able to display
>>>>> 1920x1080, the image was better than the display devices, now is the
>>>>> reverse, one is pushing the other at cycles, and consumers get all the
>>>>> benefit (while our wallets keep paying for the turns they take of
>>>>
>>>> course).
>>>>
>>>>> As you said 1080p quality is not relevant enough to many people
>>>>
>>>> (display or
>>>>
>>>>> acceptance), but it does to me for a 135" screen, and many out there are
>>>>> very demanding with their HT, spending a fortune for a bit more contrast
>>>>> ratio on their projectors.
>>>>>
>>>>> The good part is that the HD market is big enough now to make everyone
>>>>
>>>> happy
>>>>
>>>>> with many choices, it has come a long way since 1998, it was very
>>>>
>>>> uncertain
>>>>
>>>>> on the first couple of years.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]]On
>>>>
>>>> Behalf Of
>>>>
>>>>> Skip Acuff
>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 5:01 PM
>>>>> To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>> Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>> Rodolfo, Richard and Hugh,
>>>>>
>>>>>> From a consumer law standpoint, the questions would be: What is the
>>>>> purpose of advertising the device using the designation "1080p"? Does
>>>>> this designation create a false expectation of the capacity or functions
>>>>> of the device? It seems from Rodolfo's analysis (entertaining and
>>>>> learned as always) that the 1080p designation has little relevance to
>>>>> the quality of the picture most folks will see on their brand new
>>>>> "1080p" TV. Is this correct?
>>>>>
>>>>> Skip
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
>>>>> Of Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 2:45 PM
>>>>> To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>> Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>> Richard,
>>>>>
>>>>> Good point, to make some reflection.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can see a difference that can justify the situation.
>>>>>
>>>>> 480p, 720p, and 1080i are part of a standard that can be transmitted
>>>>> "AND"
>>>>> displayed as they are.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1080p is part of the same standard but the 24fps and 30fps CANNOT be
>>>>> displayed without objectionable flicker (too slow).
>>>>>
>>>>> So accepting 1080p on those two frame rates, that were not used for
>>>>> consumer
>>>>> content (until now with Hi Def DVD), is a feature that could be
>>>>> considered
>>>>> unusual in 4Q05, perhaps not now that we have a way to display at that
>>>>> level
>>>>> of P resolution.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, the difference is that any of the 3 formats you
>>>>> mentioned
>>>>> are able to be displayed as is, not 1080p (the standard), even if
>>>>> transmitted.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would consider that enough reasoning to offer such feature "as a
>>>>> manufacturer choice" to be more competitive but not as a mandate,
>>>>> because
>>>>> the frame rate of the display (60) vs. the established standard (24,30)
>>>>> is
>>>>> different.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because it has to be some transformation (video processing) to obtain a
>>>>> viewable image, as it would from 480p/720p/1080i if the native rate of
>>>>> the
>>>>> display is 1080p.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at the other side of it, one could held accountable the millions
>>>>> of
>>>>> STBs out there that are not outputting a 1080p signal, when they have to
>>>>> been able to decode any of the 18 formats, including 1080p 24 or 30, if
>>>>> anyone would care to broadcast such thing, but logic indicates that we
>>>>> should not for practical purposes.
>>>>>
>>>>> And considering 60fps; accepting 1080p 60fps is out of the expected
>>>>> range of
>>>>> formats, so it becomes part of battle field for "my TV is better that
>>>>> yours".
>>>>>
>>>>> What I consider odd is not that some early models of 1080p TVs do not
>>>>> accept
>>>>> 1080p (any frame rate), but that a HiDef player that reads 1080p film
>>>>> content from a disc (and you have one of those) is designed not to
>>>>> output
>>>>> such rate, even in a year when 1080p displays are the Holy Grail in the
>>>>> street. Are you going to take legal action with them as well? They
>>>>> should
>>>>> be first.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]]On
>>>>
>>>> Behalf Of
>>>>
>>>>> Richard Fisher
>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 1:55 PM
>>>>> To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>> Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Rodolfo!
>>>>>
>>>>>> I see not ground for any litigation for false advertising, if you do
>>>>> you
>>>>>> would need to extend that litigation to most of the 1080p set
>>>>> manufacturers,
>>>>>> they never said "our TVs accept 1080p", people might assume by
>>>>> reading
>>>>>> between the lines (and most people do not even know what 1080p
>>>>> acceptance
>>>>>> means), I understand how disappointing could be but I would think
>>>>
>>>> one
>>>>
>>>>> would
>>>>>> have a hard time in suing anyone by assuming what is not written
>>>>>
>>>>> My arguement would be...
>>>>>
>>>>> IF I buy a 480P display it will accept a 480P input, 720P display
>>>>> accepts a 720P input and 1080I display accepts 1080I input. It has been
>>>>> that way since day one, no? Is that not what is considered ordinary and
>>>>> reasonable based upon standard practice for the last 8 years? Does that
>>>>> not meet the legal definition of ordinary and reasonable?
>>>>>
>>>>> If a 1080P display does NOT accept a 1080P input then it only stands to
>>>>> reason that it is upon the manufacturer to clearly state such in their
>>>>> promotional, advertising and specification materials. LG did not.
>>>>>
>>>>> And as you point out that pretty much means just about every
>>>>> manufacturer would be liable, as they should be!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I doing good Skip?
>>>>>
>>>>> Richard Fisher
>>>>> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
>>>>> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>>>>>
>>>>> Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The answer to your question about 1080p acceptance being limited is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. But less limited than last year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I anticipate that HD DVD and Blu-ray coming soon with 1080p
>>>>>
>>>>> outputs
>>>>> will
>>>>>
>>>>>> put more pressure on sets with such input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Toshiba for example is suffering that pressure on their newer HD DVD
>>>>>
>>>>> model
>>>>>
>>>>>> coming soon which will output 1080p while the RPTVs introduced at CES
>>>>>
>>>>> did
>>>>>
>>>>>> not yet accept 1080p. On my meeting with them they were very strong
>>>>>
>>>>> at
>>>>> CES
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2006 on saying that they see no point for that input to be on their
>>>>>
>>>>> TVs.
>>>>>
>>>>>> They will have to if they want to remain competitive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Samsung has renewed their 1080p RPTV wobulated lines to now accept
>>>>>
>>>>> 1080p
>>>>>
>>>>>> this year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JVC had the position of Toshiba at CES 2006, I told them it was a
>>>>>
>>>>> mistake,
>>>>>
>>>>>> they said nothing is out there with 1080p not even HDMI can pass
>>>>
>>>> 1080p
>>>>
>>>>> (and
>>>>>
>>>>>> they are wrong on both counts). The bottom line was that later in
>>>>
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>> year
>>>>>
>>>>>> they decided to rearrange their announced DILA 1080p RPTV sets and
>>>>>
>>>>> release
>>>>>
>>>>>> them to have 1080p inputs, fortunately they listened, but Toshiba did
>>>>>
>>>>> not,
>>>>>
>>>>>> it was probably too late for them to revise their lines during 2006
>>>>>
>>>>> before
>>>>>
>>>>>> releasing them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1080p input acceptance is gradually coming, like the massive wave of
>>>>>
>>>>> HDMI
>>>>>
>>>>>> did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding your LG question:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The LG you mentioned does not specify the input 1920x1080 60 Hz as P
>>>>>
>>>>> on
>>>>> any
>>>>>
>>>>>> place (website, brochure, manual). The interlace or progressive
>>>>>> specification of the input is left unsaid, and the manual says that
>>>>>
>>>>> such
>>>>>
>>>>>> acceptance depends on the card (or something like that), but does not
>>>>>
>>>>> even
>>>>>
>>>>>> indicate if the comment is toward I or p.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bottom line is that this model was introduced 4Q05 and with 1080p
>>>>>> "display" resolution, which it does, it was never advertised that it
>>>>>
>>>>> ACCEPTS
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1080p.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see not ground for any litigation for false advertising, if you do
>>>>>
>>>>> you
>>>>>
>>>>>> would need to extend that litigation to most of the 1080p set
>>>>>
>>>>> manufacturers,
>>>>>
>>>>>> they never said "our TVs accept 1080p", people might assume by
>>>>
>>>> reading
>>>>
>>>>>> between the lines (and most people do not even know what 1080p
>>>>>
>>>>> acceptance
>>>>>
>>>>>> means), I understand how disappointing could be but I would think one
>>>>>
>>>>> would
>>>>>
>>>>>> have a hard time in suing anyone by assuming what is not written.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By the

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

When I was shopping for a tv for my mom a few weeks ago I looked extensively and bought her a Samsung 50" plasma, but the best tv by far that I saw was the 46" Sony LCD Bravia, the picture was absolutely amazing, of course they fed it with a 1080p loop but the fact is that I have never seen a greater high def picture in my life and I've had a Sony hi-def 36" xbr since 2000 before you could even catch a high-def signal except for CBS. The price differential was too great for the tv for my mom, but I really loved it. Mom only wanted a 27" replacement for the piece of crap tv she's been watching for 12 years. Couldn't let her go that way.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Alford <[email protected]>
>Sent: Nov 12, 2006 5:55 PM
>To: HDTV Magazine <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P - final statement to the Jury
>
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>Wow, I am hesitant to join the fray...but for what it is worth, I don't
>think anyone mentioned the new Sony 52" Bravia XBR. It has either two or
>three 1080P inputs...my only question about it is what version of HDMI they
>are using. As much as the lack of 1080P inputs was discussed on this very
>list, I am surprised that any of us would have made the mistake of buying a
>set not knowing exactly what the inputs were.
>
>Mark Alford
>
>
>On 11/12/06 4:45 PM, "Richard Fisher" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>> Consumers and dealers know that anything you buy today (TVs or not) would
>>> not have, nor is expected to have, negative claims of what a product does
>>> not do
>>
>> Stating what your product will or not accept is not a negative claim
>> unless the manufacturer chooses to word it that way. Leaving the
>> impression that a product would accept 1080P by it's simplistic 1080P
>> nature, it is a 1080P display, it is a new and current 2006-2007 model
>> along with the lack of any other information stating otherwise is also a
>> choice made by the manufacturer.
>>
>> LG chose the latter and could have easily covered themselves by simply
>> stating the scan rates it will accept, as just one example, leaving it
>> to the consumer to bring that into context.
>>
>> Accepts the following HDTV signals
>> 480I
>> 480P
>> 720P
>> 1080I
>>
>> The fact that 1080P does not appear would have been all that is required
>> for the manufacturer and consumer. This example of full disclosure is
>> clearly not negative, would more than likely be seen as another
>> dismissive blurb along with the rest of specifications fro most
>> consumers yet ultimately does provide enough information to determine if
>> this 1080P display will accept 1080P from my Sony Bluray if that is my goal.
>>
>> I certainly would not expect LG nor any manufacturer to forwarn
>> potential buyers nor boldy proclaim a lack of capability with a negative
>> statement such as "does not accept 1080P". I don't believe that could be
>> legally enforced nor do I personally find that ethical in a market where
>> it is reasonable and ordinary for 1080P display consumers to be
>> perfectly satisfied with this limitation. Yet that also should not
>> remove their legal responsibility to fully disclose to the consumer in
>> some form and fashion that it does not accept 1080P especially in the
>> 2006-2007 model season as Bluray and HD DVD come to market with 1080P
>> capable players.
>>
>>
>> Richard Fisher
>> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
>> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>>
>> Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>> Richard,
>>>
>>> In general terms, if the consumer does not purchase the product thru a
>>> dealer, the consumer is guilty of not doing the correct research to confirm
>>> that such valuable feature is in fact available in the product.
>>>
>>> If a dealer was involved, the dealer is also guilty of not advising the
>>> consumer when the consumer is interested clearly on this feature, reason by
>>> which the consumer is paying for a mark up on the product, to use the
>>> dealer's experience and reduce the possibility of errors in selecting the
>>> product. The consumer is also guilty for not selecting the right dealer
>>> when pursuing such expertise in an unusual feature (in a product released
>>> 4Q05, not common).
>>>
>>> Consumers and dealers know that anything you buy today (TVs or not) would
>>> not have, nor is expected to have, negative claims of what a product does
>>> not do (other than "do not put in a microwave" or "do not immerse this
>>> electric equipment in water"), especially when the rest of the market
>>> concentrates in the positive features to gain the competitive edge they need
>>> to survive commercially. I bring back my comment of the Isuzu not
>>> specifying in the window sticker that their $5000 car cannot do 200 Mph or
>>> 3.5 sec for 0-60 like the Ferrari across the street.
>>>
>>> I am not pro manufactures and you know it, since day one I have been
>>> offering my free fulltime efforts to help consumers and advice them right,
>>> but I do not agree to blame LG 100% for not specifying if 1080x1920 is "i"
>>> or "p" or "both" in a world and time when there was not 1080p content
>>> available (other than scaler conversions), while the dealer (the expert) and
>>> the consumer assume the best.
>>>
>>> To what my old brain can remember, absolutely no TV having 1080p inputs,
>>> growing market but still an exclusive breed, looses the opportunity to put
>>> "ACCEPTS 1080P" on their spec sheet. It is very easy to assume that not
>>> having such spec means it does not accept 1080p. It is very easy to assume
>>> that not being clear could be also indicating non-acceptance, but inviting a
>>> research opportunity (and a dealer to earn their commission).
>>>
>>> I would certainly send a strong letter to LG to make them aware that some
>>> omissions, intentionally or not, cannot be welcomed when the omission could
>>> be interpreted as an abuse of a current situation of some consumers hoping
>>> for 1080p inputs.
>>>
>>> Interesting enough, I have been addressing this 1080p subject for over the
>>> past 3 years with articles, and advice, and research, and market analysis,
>>> and reports, and product reviews, most for free in a full time basis, and
>>> what I got most of the time is an explicit or implicit feedback a dreamer
>>> usually receives.
>>>
>>> Now everyone wakes up and realize 1080p is important, that 24fps is
>>> important, that HiDef DVD could look even greater if the signal is kept in
>>> the progressive 1080p domain by just changing the frame rate to avoid visual
>>> flicker, etc, and while finding the feature important, ignore all the effort
>>> and available material, and still buy with the eyes closed. Sorry for this
>>> consumer, LG has part of the blame but not enough to accept a return of the
>>> product for not confirming well what the consumer wants as an important
>>> feature. This is not the case of consumer that found out 2 years after
>>> buying the unit that such feature could start being of interest and would
>>> have liked the TV to be ready for that.
>>>
>>> Additionally, a consumer looking for such feature is not a Joe-six pack
>>> type, and should know better on checking hi-end features.
>>>
>>> I could grant that this might be a 80/20 case. LG is guilty for 20, the
>>> dealer/consumer is guilty for 80. LG might have a competitive edge/market
>>> pressure/non-intentional omission reason, the dealer/consumer should have
>>> known better if this feature was so important.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>
>>> If the
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>>> Richard Fisher
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:20 PM
>>> To: HDTV Magazine
>>> Subject: flat panel 1080P - final statement to the Jury
>>>
>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>> Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defense has provided you with
>>> lengthy testimony from well known journalists and commentators
>>> concerning all the myriad technical details that surround this case, the
>>> peppered history of the marketing of HDTV over the last 8 years and how
>>> educated the average consumer must be to make informed choices. While I
>>> and some of you found this to be very interesting and educational
>>> information two of the jurors did doze off during their presentation.
>>> (Many jury members smile) The defense will more than likely continue on
>>> this trek after I am done.
>>>
>>> We have not offered much testimony because this case is far too simple.
>>> The only reason we are here today is because the sales chain, from
>>> retailer to distributor to the manufacturer has refused to accept a
>>> return of this $10,000 display. Their response to our client since day
>>> one has been that he was provided all materials on the product and could
>>> have chosen another if it did not have the features he desired. As you
>>> make your deliberations put yourself in the shoes of Mr. Samoso, what is
>>> considered reasonable and ordinary? How much self education and
>>> information is required for the average person such as yourself to
>>> determine which 1080P display will accept 1080P? Like Mr. Samoso you
>>> purchase a current Bluray player for the 1080P capability yet when you
>>> connect that to your LG 1080P display the player will not allow you to
>>> select 1080P, only 1080I. We have submitted into evidence the LG website
>>> and all materials related to this display, designed and marketed for the
>>> 2006-2007 model year. If you think LG provided enough information for
>>> you to determine that this display will not accept 1080P from either of
>>> the new Bluray or HD DVD 1080P products then you must find the defendant
>>> not guilty and Mr Samoso must take full responsibility for this purchase.
>>>
>>> If on the other hand you find that not enough information was provided
>>> to make a reasonable and ordinary determination of 1080P capability for
>>> this product then you must find the defendant guilty. Please recall the
>>> testimony of the defendants witnesses and their tale of a confused
>>> industry well known for not providing full disclosure of the operational
>>> capabilities of their products for the last 8 years. A guilty verdict
>>> will send a strong message to all manufacturers selling products in this
>>> country that it is time for this confusion to end by knowing what their
>>> product does or not do and clearly state so in their advertising,
>>> marketing and specification materials. Failure to do so makes them
>>> responsible for the consequences, not you the consumer, nor Mr. Samoso!
>>>
>>> Richard Fisher
>>> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
>>> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>>>
>>> Robert Wade Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 11/11/2006 9:33pm ct
>>>>
>>>> Rodolfo,
>>>> I don't disagree with you... however, most people don't read
>>>> lists like this in order to buy something in their nearby Best Buy (or
>>>> whatever) nor should they have to do that kind of research. The label
>>>> should be not only truthful, but comprehensive.. providing the
>>>> information in plain language that any buyer OUGHT to want to know.
>>>> The important thing to remember about labels is, when
>>>> considering the average customer, that they are also for the purpose of
>>>> raising questions the customer's mind. If a customer sees a lot of
>>>> specifications he/she doesn't understand, he should ask what they mean
>>>> or go look it up. It is the unaware customer who is actually dumb
>>>> enough to believe the label ("HD Ready", which meant it's not HD
>>>> already) who should be protected from unscrupulous manufacturers and
>>>> sellers who want the customer not to be aware of something or other.
>>>>
>>>> Robert
>>>>
>>>> At 01:57 PM 11/11/2006, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>> Robert,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would say you have a good point with the missing "i" or "p" on the
>>>>> spec of
>>>>> the LG panel, it is not enough to say 1920x1080 only, but such omission
>>>>> becomes an obvious target for further investigation by an inquisitive
>>>>> consumer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously, manufacturers use omissions to let the assumption create a
>>>>> competitive edge "to those people that read what is not written and
>>>>> imagine
>>>>> the best".
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that is not fair, but someone looking for that feature could do
>>>>> the
>>>>> correct research before signing that check.
>>>>>
>>>>> The game of omissions is something that could be controlled from the
>>>>> consumer if investing the proper time and effort to confirm, but the
>>>>> game of
>>>>> intentionally providing wrong information is worst and that is
>>>>> something we
>>>>> should criticize.
>>>>>
>>>>> One such case is Samsung's top executive (ironically recently promoted,
>>>>> perhaps for the "spectacular" introduction of their Blu-ray player)
>>>>> saying
>>>>> that their 1080p RPTVs did not accept 1080p because HDMI could not
>>>>> handle it
>>>>> and they were waiting for 1.3 to come out, in other words "our TVs are
>>>>> perfect, blame HDMI". I confronted the executive at the Display Search
>>>>> podium, and the response he had was "he was told".
>>>>>
>>>>> That is more damaging (industry and consumer) than omitting a spec,
>>>>> people
>>>>> that do not know the background could leave away blaming HDMI, which
>>>>> could
>>>>> also be construed as "no TV would have that capability them until HDMI
>>>>> version 1.3 is out, so why looking for another set".
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
>>>>> Robert Wade Brown
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 2:20 PM
>>>>> To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>> Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>> 11/11/2006 1:19pm ct
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, there are choices but those choices should be labeled
>>>>> clearly.
>>>>> R
>>>>>
>>>>> At 04:59 PM 11/10/2006, you wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Skip,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I am trying to say is that while the market could create display
>>>>>> devices that are more capable than the resolution of the existing
>>>>>
>>>>> content
>>>>>
>>>>>> out there (finally), one cannot mandate that those display devices
>>>>>
>>>>> accept
>>>>>
>>>>>> higher resolutions that the content producers are making available.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not long time ago we faced a situation of CRTs not able to display
>>>>>> 1920x1080, the image was better than the display devices, now is the
>>>>>> reverse, one is pushing the other at cycles, and consumers get all the
>>>>>> benefit (while our wallets keep paying for the turns they take of
>>>>>
>>>>> course).
>>>>>
>>>>>> As you said 1080p quality is not relevant enough to many people
>>>>>
>>>>> (display or
>>>>>
>>>>>> acceptance), but it does to me for a 135" screen, and many out there are
>>>>>> very demanding with their HT, spending a fortune for a bit more contrast
>>>>>> ratio on their projectors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The good part is that the HD market is big enough now to make everyone
>>>>>
>>>>> happy
>>>>>
>>>>>> with many choices, it has come a long way since 1998, it was very
>>>>>
>>>>> uncertain
>>>>>
>>>>>> on the first couple of years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]]On
>>>>>
>>>>> Behalf Of
>>>>>
>>>>>> Skip Acuff
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 5:01 PM
>>>>>> To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>> Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rodolfo, Richard and Hugh,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From a consumer law standpoint, the questions would be: What is the
>>>>>> purpose of advertising the device using the designation "1080p"? Does
>>>>>> this designation create a false expectation of the capacity or functions
>>>>>> of the device? It seems from Rodolfo's analysis (entertaining and
>>>>>> learned as always) that the 1080p designation has little relevance to
>>>>>> the quality of the picture most folks will see on their brand new
>>>>>> "1080p" TV. Is this correct?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Skip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
>>>>>> Of Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 2:45 PM
>>>>>> To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>> Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good point, to make some reflection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can see a difference that can justify the situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 480p, 720p, and 1080i are part of a standard that can be transmitted
>>>>>> "AND"
>>>>>> displayed as they are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1080p is part of the same standard but the 24fps and 30fps CANNOT be
>>>>>> displayed without objectionable flicker (too slow).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So accepting 1080p on those two frame rates, that were not used for
>>>>>> consumer
>>>>>> content (until now with Hi Def DVD), is a feature that could be
>>>>>> considered
>>>>>> unusual in 4Q05, perhaps not now that we have a way to display at that
>>>>>> level
>>>>>> of P resolution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, the difference is that any of the 3 formats you
>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>> are able to be displayed as is, not 1080p (the standard), even if
>>>>>> transmitted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would consider that enough reasoning to offer such feature "as a
>>>>>> manufacturer choice" to be more competitive but not as a mandate,
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> the frame rate of the display (60) vs. the established standard (24,30)
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because it has to be some transformation (video processing) to obtain a
>>>>>> viewable image, as it would from 480p/720p/1080i if the native rate of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> display is 1080p.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking at the other side of it, one could held accountable the millions
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> STBs out there that are not outputting a 1080p signal, when they have to
>>>>>> been able to decode any of the 18 formats, including 1080p 24 or 30, if
>>>>>> anyone would care to broadcast such thing, but logic indicates that we
>>>>>> should not for practical purposes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And considering 60fps; accepting 1080p 60fps is out of the expected
>>>>>> range of
>>>>>> formats, so it becomes part of battle field for "my TV is better that
>>>>>> yours".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I consider odd is not that some early models of 1080p TVs do not
>>>>>> accept
>>>>>> 1080p (any frame rate), but that a HiDef player that reads 1080p film
>>>>>> content from a disc (and you have one of those) is designed not to
>>>>>> output
>>>>>> such rate, even in a year when 1080p displays are the Holy Grail in the
>>>>>> street. Are you going to take legal action with them as well? They
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> be first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]]On
>>>>>
>>>>> Behalf Of
>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard Fisher
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 1:55 PM
>>>>>> To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>> Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks Rodolfo!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see not ground for any litigation for false advertising, if you do
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> would need to extend that litigation to most of the 1080p set
>>>>>> manufacturers,
>>>>>>> they never said "our TVs accept 1080p", people might assume by
>>>>>> reading
>>>>>>> between the lines (and most people do not even know what 1080p
>>>>>> acceptance
>>>>>>> means), I understand how disappointing could be but I would think
>>>>>
>>>>> one
>>>>>
>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> have a hard time in suing anyone by assuming what is not written
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My arguement would be...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IF I buy a 480P display it will accept a 480P input, 720P display
>>>>>> accepts a 720P input and 1080I display accepts 1080I input. It has been
>>>>>> that way since day one, no? Is that not what is considered ordinary and
>>>>>> reasonable based upon standard practice for the last 8 years? Does that
>>>>>> not meet the legal definition of ordinary and reasonable?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If a 1080P display does NOT accept a 1080P input then it only stands to
>>>>>> reason that it is upon the manufacturer to clearly state such in their
>>>>>> promotional, advertising and specification materials. LG did not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And as you point out that pretty much means just about every
>>>>>> manufacturer would be liable, as they should be!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am I doing good Skip?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard Fisher
>>>>>> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
>>>>>> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Richard,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The answer to your question about 1080p acceptance being limited is:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes. But less limited than last year.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I anticipate that HD DVD and Blu-ray coming soon with 1080p
>>>>>>
>>>>>> outputs
>>>>>> will
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> put more pressure on sets with such input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Toshiba for example is suffering that pressure on their newer HD DVD
>>>>>>
>>>>>> model
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> coming soon which will output 1080p while the RPTVs introduced at CES
>>>>>>
>>>>>> did
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> not yet accept 1080p. On my meeting with them they were very strong
>>>>>>
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> CES
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2006 on saying that they see no point for that input to be on their
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TVs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They will have to if they want to remain competitive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Samsung has renewed their 1080p RPTV wobulated lines to now accept
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1080p
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> this year.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JVC had the position of Toshiba at CES 2006, I told them it was a
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mistake,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> they said nothing is out there with 1080p not even HDMI can pass
>>>>>
>>>>> 1080p
>>>>>
>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> they are wrong on both counts). The bottom line was that later in
>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>> year

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

Richard,

I do not agree. No first generation 1080p TV made any statement on their
spec sheet that they did not accept 1080p, and they mostly did not accept
it. The generation of this LG was announced 4Q05, is not a new 2006/7 model
as you said, they might still on sale but they were introduced last year.

During 2005/6 it was a transition toward 1080p by everyone, the first wave
of product lines did not accept 1080p, the second did, LG could have been
more specific as well as the others on their first generation, but it was
only until mid 2006 that a blu-ray player was on sale offering a practical
purpose to such 1080p input (to the common consumer, not videophiles with
scalers). Anyone buying a 1080p during that period that expected 1080p
inputs was probably knowing enough to anticipate the future market and
should have done the correct research.

Such person would also have enough in-depth knowledge on the technology to
been able to identify points of weakness on specs, and look deeper,
otherwise let the dealer do it, and they should take responsibility, not
just LG.

Were you the dealer?

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra



-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Richard Fisher
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:46 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P - final statement to the Jury

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

> Consumers and dealers know that anything you buy today (TVs or not) would
> not have, nor is expected to have, negative claims of what a product does
> not do

Stating what your product will or not accept is not a negative claim
unless the manufacturer chooses to word it that way. Leaving the
impression that a product would accept 1080P by it's simplistic 1080P
nature, it is a 1080P display, it is a new and current 2006-2007 model
along with the lack of any other information stating otherwise is also a
choice made by the manufacturer.

LG chose the latter and could have easily covered themselves by simply
stating the scan rates it will accept, as just one example, leaving it
to the consumer to bring that into context.

Accepts the following HDTV signals
480I
480P
720P
1080I

The fact that 1080P does not appear would have been all that is required
for the manufacturer and consumer. This example of full disclosure is
clearly not negative, would more than likely be seen as another
dismissive blurb along with the rest of specifications fro most
consumers yet ultimately does provide enough information to determine if
this 1080P display will accept 1080P from my Sony Bluray if that is my goal.

I certainly would not expect LG nor any manufacturer to forwarn
potential buyers nor boldy proclaim a lack of capability with a negative
statement such as "does not accept 1080P". I don't believe that could be
legally enforced nor do I personally find that ethical in a market where
it is reasonable and ordinary for 1080P display consumers to be
perfectly satisfied with this limitation. Yet that also should not
remove their legal responsibility to fully disclose to the consumer in
some form and fashion that it does not accept 1080P especially in the
2006-2007 model season as Bluray and HD DVD come to market with 1080P
capable players.


Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Richard,
>
> In general terms, if the consumer does not purchase the product thru a
> dealer, the consumer is guilty of not doing the correct research to
confirm
> that such valuable feature is in fact available in the product.
>
> If a dealer was involved, the dealer is also guilty of not advising the
> consumer when the consumer is interested clearly on this feature, reason
by
> which the consumer is paying for a mark up on the product, to use the
> dealer's experience and reduce the possibility of errors in selecting the
> product. The consumer is also guilty for not selecting the right dealer
> when pursuing such expertise in an unusual feature (in a product released
> 4Q05, not common).
>
> Consumers and dealers know that anything you buy today (TVs or not) would
> not have, nor is expected to have, negative claims of what a product does
> not do (other than "do not put in a microwave" or "do not immerse this
> electric equipment in water"), especially when the rest of the market
> concentrates in the positive features to gain the competitive edge they
need
> to survive commercially. I bring back my comment of the Isuzu not
> specifying in the window sticker that their $5000 car cannot do 200 Mph or
> 3.5 sec for 0-60 like the Ferrari across the street.
>
> I am not pro manufactures and you know it, since day one I have been
> offering my free fulltime efforts to help consumers and advice them right,
> but I do not agree to blame LG 100% for not specifying if 1080x1920 is "i"
> or "p" or "both" in a world and time when there was not 1080p content
> available (other than scaler conversions), while the dealer (the expert)
and
> the consumer assume the best.
>
> To what my old brain can remember, absolutely no TV having 1080p inputs,
> growing market but still an exclusive breed, looses the opportunity to put
> "ACCEPTS 1080P" on their spec sheet. It is very easy to assume that not
> having such spec means it does not accept 1080p. It is very easy to
assume
> that not being clear could be also indicating non-acceptance, but inviting
a
> research opportunity (and a dealer to earn their commission).
>
> I would certainly send a strong letter to LG to make them aware that some
> omissions, intentionally or not, cannot be welcomed when the omission
could
> be interpreted as an abuse of a current situation of some consumers hoping
> for 1080p inputs.
>
> Interesting enough, I have been addressing this 1080p subject for over the
> past 3 years with articles, and advice, and research, and market analysis,
> and reports, and product reviews, most for free in a full time basis, and
> what I got most of the time is an explicit or implicit feedback a dreamer
> usually receives.
>
> Now everyone wakes up and realize 1080p is important, that 24fps is
> important, that HiDef DVD could look even greater if the signal is kept in
> the progressive 1080p domain by just changing the frame rate to avoid
visual
> flicker, etc, and while finding the feature important, ignore all the
effort
> and available material, and still buy with the eyes closed. Sorry for
this
> consumer, LG has part of the blame but not enough to accept a return of
the
> product for not confirming well what the consumer wants as an important
> feature. This is not the case of consumer that found out 2 years after
> buying the unit that such feature could start being of interest and would
> have liked the TV to be ready for that.
>
> Additionally, a consumer looking for such feature is not a Joe-six pack
> type, and should know better on checking hi-end features.
>
> I could grant that this might be a 80/20 case. LG is guilty for 20, the
> dealer/consumer is guilty for 80. LG might have a competitive edge/market
> pressure/non-intentional omission reason, the dealer/consumer should have
> known better if this feature was so important.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
> If the
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Richard Fisher
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:20 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: flat panel 1080P - final statement to the Jury
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defense has provided you with
> lengthy testimony from well known journalists and commentators
> concerning all the myriad technical details that surround this case, the
> peppered history of the marketing of HDTV over the last 8 years and how
> educated the average consumer must be to make informed choices. While I
> and some of you found this to be very interesting and educational
> information two of the jurors did doze off during their presentation.
> (Many jury members smile) The defense will more than likely continue on
> this trek after I am done.
>
> We have not offered much testimony because this case is far too simple.
> The only reason we are here today is because the sales chain, from
> retailer to distributor to the manufacturer has refused to accept a
> return of this $10,000 display. Their response to our client since day
> one has been that he was provided all materials on the product and could
> have chosen another if it did not have the features he desired. As you
> make your deliberations put yourself in the shoes of Mr. Samoso, what is
> considered reasonable and ordinary? How much self education and
> information is required for the average person such as yourself to
> determine which 1080P display will accept 1080P? Like Mr. Samoso you
> purchase a current Bluray player for the 1080P capability yet when you
> connect that to your LG 1080P display the player will not allow you to
> select 1080P, only 1080I. We have submitted into evidence the LG website
> and all materials related to this display, designed and marketed for the
> 2006-2007 model year. If you think LG provided enough information for
> you to determine that this display will not accept 1080P from either of
> the new Bluray or HD DVD 1080P products then you must find the defendant
> not guilty and Mr Samoso must take full responsibility for this purchase.
>
> If on the other hand you find that not enough information was provided
> to make a reasonable and ordinary determination of 1080P capability for
> this product then you must find the defendant guilty. Please recall the
> testimony of the defendants witnesses and their tale of a confused
> industry well known for not providing full disclosure of the operational
> capabilities of their products for the last 8 years. A guilty verdict
> will send a strong message to all manufacturers selling products in this
> country that it is time for this confusion to end by knowing what their
> product does or not do and clearly state so in their advertising,
> marketing and specification materials. Failure to do so makes them
> responsible for the consequences, not you the consumer, nor Mr. Samoso!
>
> Richard Fisher
> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>
> Robert Wade Brown wrote:
>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>
>>11/11/2006 9:33pm ct
>>
>>Rodolfo,
>> I don't disagree with you... however, most people don't read
>>lists like this in order to buy something in their nearby Best Buy (or
>>whatever) nor should they have to do that kind of research. The label
>>should be not only truthful, but comprehensive.. providing the
>>information in plain language that any buyer OUGHT to want to know.
>> The important thing to remember about labels is, when
>>considering the average customer, that they are also for the purpose of
>>raising questions the customer's mind. If a customer sees a lot of
>>specifications he/she doesn't understand, he should ask what they mean
>>or go look it up. It is the unaware customer who is actually dumb
>>enough to believe the label ("HD Ready", which meant it's not HD
>>already) who should be protected from unscrupulous manufacturers and
>>sellers who want the customer not to be aware of something or other.
>>
>>Robert
>>
>>At 01:57 PM 11/11/2006, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>Robert,
>>>
>>>
>>>I would say you have a good point with the missing "i" or "p" on the
>>>spec of
>>>the LG panel, it is not enough to say 1920x1080 only, but such omission
>>>becomes an obvious target for further investigation by an inquisitive
>>>consumer.
>>>
>>>Obviously, manufacturers use omissions to let the assumption create a
>>>competitive edge "to those people that read what is not written and
>>>imagine
>>>the best".
>>>
>>>I know that is not fair, but someone looking for that feature could do
>>>the
>>>correct research before signing that check.
>>>
>>>The game of omissions is something that could be controlled from the
>>>consumer if investing the proper time and effort to confirm, but the
>>>game of
>>>intentionally providing wrong information is worst and that is
>>>something we
>>>should criticize.
>>>
>>>One such case is Samsung's top executive (ironically recently promoted,
>>>perhaps for the "spectacular" introduction of their Blu-ray player)
>>>saying
>>>that their 1080p RPTVs did not accept 1080p because HDMI could not
>>>handle it
>>>and they were waiting for 1.3 to come out, in other words "our TVs are
>>>perfect, blame HDMI". I confronted the executive at the Display Search
>>>podium, and the response he had was "he was told".
>>>
>>>That is more damaging (industry and consumer) than omitting a spec,
>>>people
>>>that do not know the background could leave away blaming HDMI, which
>>>could
>>>also be construed as "no TV would have that capability them until HDMI
>>>version 1.3 is out, so why looking for another set".
>>>
>>>Best Regards,
>>>
>>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>When
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
>>>Robert Wade Brown
>>>Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 2:20 PM
>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>11/11/2006 1:19pm ct
>>>
>>> Yes, there are choices but those choices should be labeled
>>>clearly.
>>>R
>>>
>>>At 04:59 PM 11/10/2006, you wrote:
>>>
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>Skip,
>>>>
>>>>What I am trying to say is that while the market could create display
>>>>devices that are more capable than the resolution of the existing
>>>
>>>content
>>>
>>>>out there (finally), one cannot mandate that those display devices
>>>
>>>accept
>>>
>>>>higher resolutions that the content producers are making available.
>>>>
>>>>Not long time ago we faced a situation of CRTs not able to display
>>>>1920x1080, the image was better than the display devices, now is the
>>>>reverse, one is pushing the other at cycles, and consumers get all the
>>>>benefit (while our wallets keep paying for the turns they take of
>>>
>>>course).
>>>
>>>>As you said 1080p quality is not relevant enough to many people
>>>
>>>(display or
>>>
>>>>acceptance), but it does to me for a 135" screen, and many out there are
>>>>very demanding with their HT, spending a fortune for a bit more contrast
>>>>ratio on their projectors.
>>>>
>>>>The good part is that the HD market is big enough now to make everyone
>>>
>>>happy
>>>
>>>>with many choices, it has come a long way since 1998, it was very
>>>
>>>uncertain
>>>
>>>>on the first couple of years.
>>>>
>>>>Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]]On
>>>
>>>Behalf Of
>>>
>>>>Skip Acuff
>>>>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 5:01 PM
>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>>
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>Rodolfo, Richard and Hugh,
>>>>
>>>>>From a consumer law standpoint, the questions would be: What is the
>>>>purpose of advertising the device using the designation "1080p"? Does
>>>>this designation create a false expectation of the capacity or functions
>>>>of the device? It seems from Rodolfo's analysis (entertaining and
>>>>learned as always) that the 1080p designation has little relevance to
>>>>the quality of the picture most folks will see on their brand new
>>>>"1080p" TV. Is this correct?
>>>>
>>>>Skip
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
>>>>Of Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 2:45 PM
>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>>
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>Richard,
>>>>
>>>>Good point, to make some reflection.
>>>>
>>>>I can see a difference that can justify the situation.
>>>>
>>>>480p, 720p, and 1080i are part of a standard that can be transmitted
>>>>"AND"
>>>>displayed as they are.
>>>>
>>>>1080p is part of the same standard but the 24fps and 30fps CANNOT be
>>>>displayed without objectionable flicker (too slow).
>>>>
>>>>So accepting 1080p on those two frame rates, that were not used for
>>>>consumer
>>>>content (until now with Hi Def DVD), is a feature that could be
>>>>considered
>>>>unusual in 4Q05, perhaps not now that we have a way to display at that
>>>>level
>>>>of P resolution.
>>>>
>>>>In other words, the difference is that any of the 3 formats you
>>>>mentioned
>>>>are able to be displayed as is, not 1080p (the standard), even if
>>>>transmitted.
>>>>
>>>>I would consider that enough reasoning to offer such feature "as a
>>>>manufacturer choice" to be more competitive but not as a mandate,
>>>>because
>>>>the frame rate of the display (60) vs. the established standard (24,30)
>>>>is
>>>>different.
>>>>
>>>>Because it has to be some transformation (video processing) to obtain a
>>>>viewable image, as it would from 480p/720p/1080i if the native rate of
>>>>the
>>>>display is 1080p.
>>>>
>>>>Looking at the other side of it, one could held accountable the millions
>>>>of
>>>>STBs out there that are not outputting a 1080p signal, when they have to
>>>>been able to decode any of the 18 formats, including 1080p 24 or 30, if
>>>>anyone would care to broadcast such thing, but logic indicates that we
>>>>should not for practical purposes.
>>>>
>>>>And considering 60fps; accepting 1080p 60fps is out of the expected
>>>>range of
>>>>formats, so it becomes part of battle field for "my TV is better that
>>>>yours".
>>>>
>>>>What I consider odd is not that some early models of 1080p TVs do not
>>>>accept
>>>>1080p (any frame rate), but that a HiDef player that reads 1080p film
>>>>content from a disc (and you have one of those) is designed not to
>>>>output
>>>>such rate, even in a year when 1080p displays are the Holy Grail in the
>>>>street. Are you going to take legal action with them as well? They
>>>>should
>>>>be first.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]]On
>>>
>>>Behalf Of
>>>
>>>>Richard Fisher
>>>>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 1:55 PM
>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>>
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>Thanks Rodolfo!
>>>>
>>>> > I see not ground for any litigation for false advertising, if you do
>>>>you
>>>> > would need to extend that litigation to most of the 1080p set
>>>>manufacturers,
>>>> > they never said "our TVs accept 1080p", people might assume by
>>>>reading
>>>> > between the lines (and most people do not even know what 1080p
>>>>acceptance
>>>> > means), I understand how disappointing could be but I would think
>>>
>>>one
>>>
>>>>would
>>>> > have a hard time in suing anyone by assuming what is not written
>>>>
>>>>My arguement would be...
>>>>
>>>>IF I buy a 480P display it will accept a 480P input, 720P display
>>>>accepts a 720P input and 1080I display accepts 1080I input. It has been
>>>>that way since day one, no? Is that not what is considered ordinary and
>>>>reasonable based upon standard practice for the last 8 years? Does that
>>>>not meet the legal definition of ordinary and reasonable?
>>>>
>>>>If a 1080P display does NOT accept a 1080P input then it only stands to
>>>>reason that it is upon the manufacturer to clearly state such in their
>>>>promotional, advertising and specification materials. LG did not.
>>>>
>>>>And as you point out that pretty much means just about every
>>>>manufacturer would be liable, as they should be!!!
>>>>
>>>>Am I doing good Skip?
>>>>
>>>>Richard Fisher
>>>>HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
>>>>Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>>>>
>>>>Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>Richard,
>>>>>
>>>>>The answer to your question about 1080p acceptance being limited is:
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes. But less limited than last year.
>>>>>
>>>>>And I anticipate that HD DVD and Blu-ray coming soon with 1080p
>>>>
>>>>outputs
>>>>will
>>>>
>>>>>put more pressure on sets with such input.
>>>>>
>>>>>Toshiba for example is suffering that pressure on their newer HD DVD
>>>>
>>>>model
>>>>
>>>>>coming soon which will output 1080p while the RPTVs introduced at CES
>>>>
>>>>did
>>>>
>>>>>not yet accept 1080p. On my meeting with them they were very strong
>>>>
>>>>at
>>>>CES
>>>>
>>>>>2006 on saying that they see no point for that input to be on their
>>>>
>>>>TVs.
>>>>
>>>>>They will have to if they want to remain competitive.
>>>>>
>>>>>Samsung has renewed their 1080p RPTV wobulated lines to now accept
>>>>
>>>>1080p
>>>>
>>>>>this year.
>>>>>
>>>>>JVC had the position of Toshiba at CES 2006, I told them it was a
>>>>
>>>>mistake,
>>>>
>>>>>they said nothing is out there with 1080p not even HDMI can pass
>>>
>>>1080p
>>>
>>>>(and
>>>>
>>>>>they are wrong on both counts). The bottom line was that later in
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>>year
>>>>
>>>>>they decided to rearrange their announced DILA 1080p RPTV sets and
>>>>
>>>>release
>>>>
>>>>>them to have 1080p inputs, fortunately they listened, but Toshiba did
>>>>
>>>>not,
>>>>
>>>>>it was probably too late for them to revise their lines during 2006
>>>>
>>>>before
>>>>
>>>>>releasing them.
>>>>>
>>>>>1080p input acceptance is gradually coming, like the massive wave of
>>>>
>>>>HDMI
>>>>
>>>>>did.
>>>>>
>>>>>Regarding your LG question:
>>>>>
>>>>>The LG you mentioned does not specify the input 1920x1080 60 Hz as P
>>>>
>>>>on
>>>>any
>>>>
>>>>>place (website, brochure, manual). The interlace or progressive
>>>>>specification of the input is left unsaid, and the manual says that
>>>>
>>>>such
>>>>
>>>>>acceptance depends on the card (or something like that), but does not
>>>>
>>>>even
>>>>
>>>>>indicate if the comment is toward I or p.
>>>>>
>>>>>The bottom line is that this model was introduced 4Q05 and with 1080p
>>>>>"display" resolution, which it does, it was never advertised that it
>>>>
>>>>ACCEPTS
>>>>
>>>>>1080p.
>>>>>
>>>>>I see not ground for any litigation for false advertising, if you do
>>>>
>>>>you
>>>>
>>>>>would need to extend that litigation to most of the 1080p set
>>>>
>>>>manufacturers,
>>>>
>>>>>they never said "our TVs accept 1080p", people might assume by
>>>
>>>reading
>>>
>>>>>between the lines (and most people do not even know what 1080p
>>>>
>>>>acceptance
>>>>
>>>>>means), I understand how disappointing could be but I would think one
>>>>
>>>>would
>>>>
>>>>>have a hard time in suing anyone by assuming what is not written.
>>>>>
>>>>>By the way, this set does not have HDMI as you said, it has DVI-D
>>>
>>>with
>>>
>>>>HDCP,
>>>>
>>>>>so you would have to find an alternative connection for the audio to
>>>>
>>>>the
>>>>TV.
>>>>
>>>>>Best Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]]On
>>>
>>>Behalf
>>>
>>>>Of
>>>>
>>>>>Richard Fisher
>>>>>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 9:52 AM
>>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>>>
>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for the 2 models so far.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is 1080P input still highly limited?
>>>>>
>>>>>Richard Fisher
>>>>>HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
>>>>>Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>>>>>
>>>>>Kevin Miller wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I couldn't resist chiming in here. The PRO-FHD1 is an awesome
>>>
>>>panel. I
>>>

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

At 05:55 PM 11/12/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>Wow, I am hesitant to join the fray...but for what it is worth, I don't
>think anyone mentioned the new Sony 52" Bravia XBR. It has either two or
>three 1080P inputs...my only question about it is what version of HDMI they
>are using. As much as the lack of 1080P inputs was discussed on this very
>list, I am surprised that any of us would have made the mistake of buying a
>set not knowing exactly what the inputs were.

Mark,

The version of HDMI that the set is using should have absolutely no
bearing on the picture. All flavors of HDMI support 1080p and the
only video aspects of HDMI 1.3 that address the picture (color depth,
bandwidth, etc.) are way beyond the capabilities of any available
set. The current version upgrades to HDMI are 98% about audio and
that other 2% has to do with video parameters that won't be
mainstream for another decade or so. Most people don't look for
their display to provide their audio anyway - especially not any of
the codecs that 1.3, etc. support.

Just a point of clarification not a criticism.


-- RAF


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 -----

Absolutely true. The only reason I mentioned it was to cut down the
possibility of questions regarding it.


Mark


On 11/13/06 6:09 AM, "Dr Robert A Fowkes" <[email protected]> wrote:

> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> At 05:55 PM 11/12/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>> Wow, I am hesitant to join the fray...but for what it is worth, I don't
>> think anyone mentioned the new Sony 52" Bravia XBR. It has either two or
>> three 1080P inputs...my only question about it is what version of HDMI they
>> are using. As much as the lack of 1080P inputs was discussed on this very
>> list, I am surprised that any of us would have made the mistake of buying a
>> set not knowing exactly what the inputs were.
>
> Mark,
>
> The version of HDMI that the set is using should have absolutely no
> bearing on the picture. All flavors of HDMI support 1080p and the
> only video aspects of HDMI 1.3 that address the picture (color depth,
> bandwidth, etc.) are way beyond the capabilities of any available
> set. The current version upgrades to HDMI are 98% about audio and
> that other 2% has to do with video parameters that won't be
> mainstream for another decade or so. Most people don't look for
> their display to provide their audio anyway - especially not any of
> the codecs that 1.3, etc. support.
>
> Just a point of clarification not a criticism.
>
>
> -- RAF
>
>
> 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 -----

> it. The generation of this LG was announced 4Q05, is not a new
2006/7 model
> as you said, they might still on sale but they were introduced last year.

The dealer was told the product had been available for only the last 2
months... I personally don't know what the case is meaning whether it
was delayed or the dealer was lied to... at this time I take that at
face value in stating my case and making my point.

You have done a great job of explaining the rotten history of full
diclosure. You have done an even better job of showing just how complex
the world of HDTV is. In all you have been the best witness the
prosecution could have asked for regardless of how much it sounds like
you are witness for the defense.

I have no doubt that if such a case were brought to trial and the
defendant lost that we would see one huge change in the industry to
protect themselves from this liability and that change would be full
operational disclosure of a product. What a concept!

But this case would NEVER get that far! HA! It is clear that the system
is setup to make the retailer liable for such technical infractions and
some retailers will take the product back and take that experience
choosing to inform their customers while others will hide behind the
manufacturer specs sticking it to their customers when ever possible to
get rid of the offending product and hope they don't figure it out in
time to return it.

> Were you the dealer?

Nope. I would have never made such an error in judgement over 1080P. How
could I being a member of this group?

And that is my point! What is considered reasonable and ordinary self
education to buy a product and what liability does the manufacturer and
it's agents have in not providing full disclosure? I don't think it is
reasonable and ordinary to expect a consumer to go digging around trying
to confirm operational information about a product yet if you desired a
1080P input on the first generation that is exactly the cards you were
dealt due purely to a lack of operational disclosure and that problem
has been carried into yet another model season just like so many others
over the last 8 years. Yet consider the fact that all products on the
shelf today were born 2-3 years ago and the natural question then
becomes what is the big deal in updating your materials, especially
internet materials to reflect todays market? It costs time and money?

Retailers and independent dealers provide many benefits to consumers but
I don't think protecting them from the lack of a manufacturers
simplistic operational disclosure should be one of them!

I have stated my case exactly as it is. Neither the dealer nor the
customer had this insider knowledge about the 1080P debacle and both
took LG materials at face value expecting a 1080P input. The main point
is that insider knowledge would not be necessary if manufacturers would
provide some clue in operational limitations rather than being allowed
to mislead potential customers. That does not require negative marketing
of their product as already proven by example.

The only reason I have spent so much time on this is because I am truly
sick and tired of this special insiders knowledge crap about simplistic
operational features that should be of no mystery. The 1080P debacle was
what took me over the edge proving that nothing, absolutely nothing is
going to change and ultimately in the end the majority does not want it
to change lest they lose the opportunities that come with ignorant
consumers buying outdated or incompatible product. Ignorant consumers
cover that cost of doing business!

While ignorance is no defense a 1-2 year degree in HDTV, a TIPS List
membership and continual reading of the HDTV Magazine website should not
be a requirement! Note that in my final to the jury I did not claim
anyone to be ignorant, in fact it was the opposite, the customer clearly
knew what he wanted and LG did nothing to inform him or the dealer
otherwise for this product.

This customer would have been fine even if the display took a 1080P
input, chopped it up into 1080I and then scaled it back to 1080P (heaven
forbid) because the expectation had nothing to do with real world
performance and everything to do with setting his Bluray player for
1080P for his 1080P display or setting his PC for 1080P and seeing an
image on that 1080P display. This is a case of simple connection and
consumer expectation based on the legal definition of ordinary and
reasonable!

If he is unhappy with the performance of this slice and dice 1080P
display then your main point finally comes into play; should have worked
with a retailer or dealer that knows performance!

Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Richard,
>
> I do not agree. No first generation 1080p TV made any statement on their
> spec sheet that they did not accept 1080p, and they mostly did not accept
> it. The generation of this LG was announced 4Q05, is not a new 2006/7 model
> as you said, they might still on sale but they were introduced last year.
>
> During 2005/6 it was a transition toward 1080p by everyone, the first wave
> of product lines did not accept 1080p, the second did, LG could have been
> more specific as well as the others on their first generation, but it was
> only until mid 2006 that a blu-ray player was on sale offering a practical
> purpose to such 1080p input (to the common consumer, not videophiles with
> scalers). Anyone buying a 1080p during that period that expected 1080p
> inputs was probably knowing enough to anticipate the future market and
> should have done the correct research.
>
> Such person would also have enough in-depth knowledge on the technology to
> been able to identify points of weakness on specs, and look deeper,
> otherwise let the dealer do it, and they should take responsibility, not
> just LG.
>
> Were you the dealer?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Richard Fisher
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:46 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P - final statement to the Jury
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> > Consumers and dealers know that anything you buy today (TVs or not) would
> > not have, nor is expected to have, negative claims of what a product does
> > not do
>
> Stating what your product will or not accept is not a negative claim
> unless the manufacturer chooses to word it that way. Leaving the
> impression that a product would accept 1080P by it's simplistic 1080P
> nature, it is a 1080P display, it is a new and current 2006-2007 model
> along with the lack of any other information stating otherwise is also a
> choice made by the manufacturer.
>
> LG chose the latter and could have easily covered themselves by simply
> stating the scan rates it will accept, as just one example, leaving it
> to the consumer to bring that into context.
>
> Accepts the following HDTV signals
> 480I
> 480P
> 720P
> 1080I
>
> The fact that 1080P does not appear would have been all that is required
> for the manufacturer and consumer. This example of full disclosure is
> clearly not negative, would more than likely be seen as another
> dismissive blurb along with the rest of specifications fro most
> consumers yet ultimately does provide enough information to determine if
> this 1080P display will accept 1080P from my Sony Bluray if that is my goal.
>
> I certainly would not expect LG nor any manufacturer to forwarn
> potential buyers nor boldy proclaim a lack of capability with a negative
> statement such as "does not accept 1080P". I don't believe that could be
> legally enforced nor do I personally find that ethical in a market where
> it is reasonable and ordinary for 1080P display consumers to be
> perfectly satisfied with this limitation. Yet that also should not
> remove their legal responsibility to fully disclose to the consumer in
> some form and fashion that it does not accept 1080P especially in the
> 2006-2007 model season as Bluray and HD DVD come to market with 1080P
> capable players.
>
>
> Richard Fisher
> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>Richard,
>>
>>In general terms, if the consumer does not purchase the product thru a
>>dealer, the consumer is guilty of not doing the correct research to
>
> confirm
>
>>that such valuable feature is in fact available in the product.
>>
>>If a dealer was involved, the dealer is also guilty of not advising the
>>consumer when the consumer is interested clearly on this feature, reason
>
> by
>
>>which the consumer is paying for a mark up on the product, to use the
>>dealer's experience and reduce the possibility of errors in selecting the
>>product. The consumer is also guilty for not selecting the right dealer
>>when pursuing such expertise in an unusual feature (in a product released
>>4Q05, not common).
>>
>>Consumers and dealers know that anything you buy today (TVs or not) would
>>not have, nor is expected to have, negative claims of what a product does
>>not do (other than "do not put in a microwave" or "do not immerse this
>>electric equipment in water"), especially when the rest of the market
>>concentrates in the positive features to gain the competitive edge they
>
> need
>
>>to survive commercially. I bring back my comment of the Isuzu not
>>specifying in the window sticker that their $5000 car cannot do 200 Mph or
>>3.5 sec for 0-60 like the Ferrari across the street.
>>
>>I am not pro manufactures and you know it, since day one I have been
>>offering my free fulltime efforts to help consumers and advice them right,
>>but I do not agree to blame LG 100% for not specifying if 1080x1920 is "i"
>>or "p" or "both" in a world and time when there was not 1080p content
>>available (other than scaler conversions), while the dealer (the expert)
>
> and
>
>>the consumer assume the best.
>>
>>To what my old brain can remember, absolutely no TV having 1080p inputs,
>>growing market but still an exclusive breed, looses the opportunity to put
>>"ACCEPTS 1080P" on their spec sheet. It is very easy to assume that not
>>having such spec means it does not accept 1080p. It is very easy to
>
> assume
>
>>that not being clear could be also indicating non-acceptance, but inviting
>
> a
>
>>research opportunity (and a dealer to earn their commission).
>>
>>I would certainly send a strong letter to LG to make them aware that some
>>omissions, intentionally or not, cannot be welcomed when the omission
>
> could
>
>>be interpreted as an abuse of a current situation of some consumers hoping
>>for 1080p inputs.
>>
>>Interesting enough, I have been addressing this 1080p subject for over the
>>past 3 years with articles, and advice, and research, and market analysis,
>>and reports, and product reviews, most for free in a full time basis, and
>>what I got most of the time is an explicit or implicit feedback a dreamer
>>usually receives.
>>
>>Now everyone wakes up and realize 1080p is important, that 24fps is
>>important, that HiDef DVD could look even greater if the signal is kept in
>>the progressive 1080p domain by just changing the frame rate to avoid
>
> visual
>
>>flicker, etc, and while finding the feature important, ignore all the
>
> effort
>
>>and available material, and still buy with the eyes closed. Sorry for
>
> this
>
>>consumer, LG has part of the blame but not enough to accept a return of
>
> the
>
>>product for not confirming well what the consumer wants as an important
>>feature. This is not the case of consumer that found out 2 years after
>>buying the unit that such feature could start being of interest and would
>>have liked the TV to be ready for that.
>>
>>Additionally, a consumer looking for such feature is not a Joe-six pack
>>type, and should know better on checking hi-end features.
>>
>>I could grant that this might be a 80/20 case. LG is guilty for 20, the
>>dealer/consumer is guilty for 80. LG might have a competitive edge/market
>>pressure/non-intentional omission reason, the dealer/consumer should have
>>known better if this feature was so important.
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>
>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>
>>If the
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>>Richard Fisher
>>Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:20 PM
>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>Subject: flat panel 1080P - final statement to the Jury
>>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defense has provided you with
>>lengthy testimony from well known journalists and commentators
>>concerning all the myriad technical details that surround this case, the
>>peppered history of the marketing of HDTV over the last 8 years and how
>>educated the average consumer must be to make informed choices. While I
>>and some of you found this to be very interesting and educational
>>information two of the jurors did doze off during their presentation.
>>(Many jury members smile) The defense will more than likely continue on
>>this trek after I am done.
>>
>>We have not offered much testimony because this case is far too simple.
>>The only reason we are here today is because the sales chain, from
>>retailer to distributor to the manufacturer has refused to accept a
>>return of this $10,000 display. Their response to our client since day
>>one has been that he was provided all materials on the product and could
>>have chosen another if it did not have the features he desired. As you
>>make your deliberations put yourself in the shoes of Mr. Samoso, what is
>>considered reasonable and ordinary? How much self education and
>>information is required for the average person such as yourself to
>>determine which 1080P display will accept 1080P? Like Mr. Samoso you
>>purchase a current Bluray player for the 1080P capability yet when you
>>connect that to your LG 1080P display the player will not allow you to
>>select 1080P, only 1080I. We have submitted into evidence the LG website
>>and all materials related to this display, designed and marketed for the
>>2006-2007 model year. If you think LG provided enough information for
>>you to determine that this display will not accept 1080P from either of
>>the new Bluray or HD DVD 1080P products then you must find the defendant
>>not guilty and Mr Samoso must take full responsibility for this purchase.
>>
>>If on the other hand you find that not enough information was provided
>>to make a reasonable and ordinary determination of 1080P capability for
>>this product then you must find the defendant guilty. Please recall the
>>testimony of the defendants witnesses and their tale of a confused
>>industry well known for not providing full disclosure of the operational
>>capabilities of their products for the last 8 years. A guilty verdict
>>will send a strong message to all manufacturers selling products in this
>>country that it is time for this confusion to end by knowing what their
>>product does or not do and clearly state so in their advertising,
>>marketing and specification materials. Failure to do so makes them
>>responsible for the consequences, not you the consumer, nor Mr. Samoso!
>>
>>Richard Fisher
>>HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
>>Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>>
>>Robert Wade Brown wrote:
>>
>>
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>
>>>11/11/2006 9:33pm ct
>>>
>>>Rodolfo,
>>> I don't disagree with you... however, most people don't read
>>>lists like this in order to buy something in their nearby Best Buy (or
>>>whatever) nor should they have to do that kind of research. The label
>>>should be not only truthful, but comprehensive.. providing the
>>>information in plain language that any buyer OUGHT to want to know.
>>> The important thing to remember about labels is, when
>>>considering the average customer, that they are also for the purpose of
>>>raising questions the customer's mind. If a customer sees a lot of
>>>specifications he/she doesn't understand, he should ask what they mean
>>>or go look it up. It is the unaware customer who is actually dumb
>>>enough to believe the label ("HD Ready", which meant it's not HD
>>>already) who should be protected from unscrupulous manufacturers and
>>>sellers who want the customer not to be aware of something or other.
>>>
>>>Robert
>>>
>>>At 01:57 PM 11/11/2006, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>Robert,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I would say you have a good point with the missing "i" or "p" on the
>>>>spec of
>>>>the LG panel, it is not enough to say 1920x1080 only, but such omission
>>>>becomes an obvious target for further investigation by an inquisitive
>>>>consumer.
>>>>
>>>>Obviously, manufacturers use omissions to let the assumption create a
>>>>competitive edge "to those people that read what is not written and
>>>>imagine
>>>>the best".
>>>>
>>>>I know that is not fair, but someone looking for that feature could do
>>>>the
>>>>correct research before signing that check.
>>>>
>>>>The game of omissions is something that could be controlled from the
>>>>consumer if investing the proper time and effort to confirm, but the
>>>>game of
>>>>intentionally providing wrong information is worst and that is
>>>>something we
>>>>should criticize.
>>>>
>>>>One such case is Samsung's top executive (ironically recently promoted,
>>>>perhaps for the "spectacular" introduction of their Blu-ray player)
>>>>saying
>>>>that their 1080p RPTVs did not accept 1080p because HDMI could not
>>>>handle it
>>>>and they were waiting for 1.3 to come out, in other words "our TVs are
>>>>perfect, blame HDMI". I confronted the executive at the Display Search
>>>>podium, and the response he had was "he was told".
>>>>
>>>>That is more damaging (industry and consumer) than omitting a spec,
>>>>people
>>>>that do not know the background could leave away blaming HDMI, which
>>>>could
>>>>also be construed as "no TV would have that capability them until HDMI
>>>>version 1.3 is out, so why looking for another set".
>>>>
>>>>Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>When
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
>>>>Robert Wade Brown
>>>>Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 2:20 PM
>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>>
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>11/11/2006 1:19pm ct
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there are choices but those choices should be labeled
>>>>clearly.
>>>>R
>>>>
>>>>At 04:59 PM 11/10/2006, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>Skip,
>>>>>
>>>>>What I am trying to say is that while the market could create display
>>>>>devices that are more capable than the resolution of the existing
>>>>
>>>>content
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>out there (finally), one cannot mandate that those display devices
>>>>
>>>>accept
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>higher resolutions that the content producers are making available.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not long time ago we faced a situation of CRTs not able to display
>>>>>1920x1080, the image was better than the display devices, now is the
>>>>>reverse, one is pushing the other at cycles, and consumers get all the
>>>>>benefit (while our wallets keep paying for the turns they take of
>>>>
>>>>course).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>As you said 1080p quality is not relevant enough to many people
>>>>
>>>>(display or
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>acceptance), but it does to me for a 135" screen, and many out there are
>>>>>very demanding with their HT, spending a fortune for a bit more contrast
>>>>>ratio on their projectors.
>>>>>
>>>>>The good part is that the HD market is big enough now to make everyone
>>>>
>>>>happy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>with many choices, it has come a long way since 1998, it was very
>>>>
>>>>uncertain
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>on the first couple of years.
>>>>>
>>>>>Best Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]]On
>>>>
>>>>Behalf Of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Skip Acuff
>>>>>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 5:01 PM
>>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>>>
>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>Rodolfo, Richard and Hugh,
>>>>>
>>>>>>From a consumer law standpoint, the questions would be: What is the
>>>>>purpose of advertising the device using the designation "1080p"? Does
>>>>>this designation create a false expectation of the capacity or functions
>>>>>of the device? It seems from Rodolfo's analysis (entertaining and
>>>>>learned as always) that the 1080p designation has little relevance to
>>>>>the quality of the picture most folks will see on their brand new
>>>>>"1080p" TV. Is this correct?
>>>>>
>>>>>Skip
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
>>>>>Of Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 2:45 PM
>>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>>>
>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>Richard,
>>>>>
>>>>>Good point, to make some reflection.
>>>>>
>>>>>I can see a difference that can justify the situation.
>>>>>
>>>>>480p, 720p, and 1080i are part of a standard that can be transmitted
>>>>>"AND"
>>>>>displayed as they are.
>>>>>
>>>>>1080p is part of the same standard but the 24fps and 30fps CANNOT be
>>>>>displayed without objectionable flicker (too slow).
>>>>>
>>>>>So accepting 1080p on those two frame rates, that were not used for
>>>>>consumer
>>>>>content (until now with Hi Def DVD), is a feature that could be
>>>>>considered
>>>>>unusual in 4Q05, perhaps not now that we have a way to display at that
>>>>>level
>>>>>of P resolution.
>>>>>
>>>>>In other words, the difference is that any of the 3 formats you
>>>>>mentioned
>>>>>are able to be displayed as is, not 1080p (the standard), even if
>>>>>transmitted.
>>>>>
>>>>>I would consider that enough reasoning to offer such feature "as a
>>>>>manufacturer choice" to be more competitive but not as a mandate,
>>>>>because
>>>>>the frame rate of the display (60) vs. the established standard (24,30)
>>>>>is
>>>>>different.
>>>>>
>>>>>Because it has to be some transformation (video processing) to obtain a
>>>>>viewable image, as it would from 480p/720p/1080i if the native rate of
>>>>>the
>>>>>display is 1080p.
>>>>>
>>>>>Looking at the other side of it, one could held accountable the millions
>>>>>of
>>>>>STBs out there that are not outputting a 1080p signal, when they have to
>>>>>been able to decode any of the 18 formats, including 1080p 24 or 30, if
>>>>>anyone would care to broadcast such thing, but logic indicates that we
>>>>>should not for practical purposes.
>>>>>
>>>>>And considering 60fps; accepting 1080p 60fps is out of the expected
>>>>>range of
>>>>>formats, so it becomes part of battle field for "my TV is better that
>>>>>yours".
>>>>>
>>>>>What I consider odd is not that some early models of 1080p TVs do not
>>>>>accept
>>>>>1080p (any frame rate), but that a HiDef player that reads 1080p film
>>>>>content from a disc (and you have one of those) is designed not to
>>>>>output
>>>>>such rate, even in a year when 1080p displays are the Holy Grail in the
>>>>>street. Are you going to take legal action with them as well? They
>>>>>should
>>>>>be first.
>>>>>
>>>>>Best Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]]On
>>>>
>>>>Behalf Of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Richard Fisher
>>>>>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 1:55 PM
>>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>>>
>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks Rodolfo!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I see not ground for any litigation for false advertising, if you do
>>>>>
>>>>>you
>>>>>
>>>>>>would need to extend that litigation to most of the 1080p set
>>>>>
>>>>>manufacturers,
>>>>>
>>>>>>they never said "our TVs accept 1080p", people might assume by
>>>>>
>>>>>reading
>>>>>
>>>>>>between the lines (and most people do not even know what 1080p
>>>>>
>>>>>acceptance
>>>>>
>>>>>>means), I understand how disappointing could be but I would think
>>>>
>>>>one
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>would
>>>>>
>>>>>>have a hard time in suing anyone by assuming what is not written
>>>>>
>>>>>My arguement would be...
>>>>>
>>>>>IF I buy a 480P display it will accept a 480P input, 720P display
>>>>>accepts a 720P input

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

Greats points Richard. Now we are talking reality.

This person could not blame anyone if he was the one reviewing features and
selecting the product, is his fault not to get informed properly and run the
risk, LG helped, but he should have not trusted incomplete specs and should
have kept looking for confirmations.

HDTV is getting much more complex than in 1998 and although I agree with you
that a regular consumer should not have to be put into so much research to
understand, reading mags, tips list, forums, etc, a dealer making a profit
on this complex business MUST do that to do the job right for their clients.

I would fire anyone of my sales people that would not invest personal time
on getting updated with this technology, like I did with 40 years of
computer industry, I subscribed to 74 technical publications, went to
training, etc, to keep myself on the top on my 65 employees on every area
they worked on, I could not afford not knowing about any subject at high
level meetings, and run for my staff, or for cover. I am glad I retired
from it though.

A manager must do the same, a sales person receiving a client looking for
products with special features should have passed the ball to his/her
manager if not capable to advise correctly. If neither were sufficiently
knowledgeable, it would be a sign for the consumer to find another dealer,
that is not difficult to do.

That dealer should not have let that customer take 100% of the drive on that
selection regardless of how obtuse some people could be bragging about their
knowledge, the dealer should have done some parallel research to let the
consumer be on the safe side, and reduce later complications, like this one,
because no matter what happens as long as the transaction is made thru the
dealer they are both in the same mess.

One thing that is important here is that even if the LG would have accepted
1080p it was to be at 60Hz, this LCD does not seem to display at 72, or 120
(I could not verify this). In such case a 24fps Blu-ray would have been
converted anyway to the 60 by the player to been able to do a hand-shake
with the set. Which means that the player would have done 24fps to 60i (2:3
pulldown) to 60p (deinterlace), typical of most DVD players, regular or
Hidef.

In other words 1080p 60 hand shakes are not as clean as 24-72 1080p, it does
give the option to do the 60i to p on either the player or the tv though
(like the legacy 480i and p players), but that is probably the main feature
he would have gained with that LG if with 1080p inputs, more options to
de-interlace job, now with HDMI both options would have occurred in the
digital domain with no D/A and A/D conversions, no matter were is done, not
like component analog connections of the mass of 480i/p players out there.

This exchange has been very constructive Richard.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra


----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Richard Fisher
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:41 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P - final statement to the Jury

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

> it. The generation of this LG was announced 4Q05, is not a new
2006/7 model
> as you said, they might still on sale but they were introduced last year.

The dealer was told the product had been available for only the last 2
months... I personally don't know what the case is meaning whether it
was delayed or the dealer was lied to... at this time I take that at
face value in stating my case and making my point.

You have done a great job of explaining the rotten history of full
diclosure. You have done an even better job of showing just how complex
the world of HDTV is. In all you have been the best witness the
prosecution could have asked for regardless of how much it sounds like
you are witness for the defense.

I have no doubt that if such a case were brought to trial and the
defendant lost that we would see one huge change in the industry to
protect themselves from this liability and that change would be full
operational disclosure of a product. What a concept!

But this case would NEVER get that far! HA! It is clear that the system
is setup to make the retailer liable for such technical infractions and
some retailers will take the product back and take that experience
choosing to inform their customers while others will hide behind the
manufacturer specs sticking it to their customers when ever possible to
get rid of the offending product and hope they don't figure it out in
time to return it.

> Were you the dealer?

Nope. I would have never made such an error in judgement over 1080P. How
could I being a member of this group?

And that is my point! What is considered reasonable and ordinary self
education to buy a product and what liability does the manufacturer and
it's agents have in not providing full disclosure? I don't think it is
reasonable and ordinary to expect a consumer to go digging around trying
to confirm operational information about a product yet if you desired a
1080P input on the first generation that is exactly the cards you were
dealt due purely to a lack of operational disclosure and that problem
has been carried into yet another model season just like so many others
over the last 8 years. Yet consider the fact that all products on the
shelf today were born 2-3 years ago and the natural question then
becomes what is the big deal in updating your materials, especially
internet materials to reflect todays market? It costs time and money?

Retailers and independent dealers provide many benefits to consumers but
I don't think protecting them from the lack of a manufacturers
simplistic operational disclosure should be one of them!

I have stated my case exactly as it is. Neither the dealer nor the
customer had this insider knowledge about the 1080P debacle and both
took LG materials at face value expecting a 1080P input. The main point
is that insider knowledge would not be necessary if manufacturers would
provide some clue in operational limitations rather than being allowed
to mislead potential customers. That does not require negative marketing
of their product as already proven by example.

The only reason I have spent so much time on this is because I am truly
sick and tired of this special insiders knowledge crap about simplistic
operational features that should be of no mystery. The 1080P debacle was
what took me over the edge proving that nothing, absolutely nothing is
going to change and ultimately in the end the majority does not want it
to change lest they lose the opportunities that come with ignorant
consumers buying outdated or incompatible product. Ignorant consumers
cover that cost of doing business!

While ignorance is no defense a 1-2 year degree in HDTV, a TIPS List
membership and continual reading of the HDTV Magazine website should not
be a requirement! Note that in my final to the jury I did not claim
anyone to be ignorant, in fact it was the opposite, the customer clearly
knew what he wanted and LG did nothing to inform him or the dealer
otherwise for this product.

This customer would have been fine even if the display took a 1080P
input, chopped it up into 1080I and then scaled it back to 1080P (heaven
forbid) because the expectation had nothing to do with real world
performance and everything to do with setting his Bluray player for
1080P for his 1080P display or setting his PC for 1080P and seeing an
image on that 1080P display. This is a case of simple connection and
consumer expectation based on the legal definition of ordinary and
reasonable!

If he is unhappy with the performance of this slice and dice 1080P
display then your main point finally comes into play; should have worked
with a retailer or dealer that knows performance!

Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Richard,
>
> I do not agree. No first generation 1080p TV made any statement on their
> spec sheet that they did not accept 1080p, and they mostly did not accept
> it. The generation of this LG was announced 4Q05, is not a new 2006/7
model
> as you said, they might still on sale but they were introduced last year.
>
> During 2005/6 it was a transition toward 1080p by everyone, the first wave
> of product lines did not accept 1080p, the second did, LG could have been
> more specific as well as the others on their first generation, but it was
> only until mid 2006 that a blu-ray player was on sale offering a practical
> purpose to such 1080p input (to the common consumer, not videophiles with
> scalers). Anyone buying a 1080p during that period that expected 1080p
> inputs was probably knowing enough to anticipate the future market and
> should have done the correct research.
>
> Such person would also have enough in-depth knowledge on the technology to
> been able to identify points of weakness on specs, and look deeper,
> otherwise let the dealer do it, and they should take responsibility, not
> just LG.
>
> Were you the dealer?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Richard Fisher
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:46 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P - final statement to the Jury
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> > Consumers and dealers know that anything you buy today (TVs or not)
would
> > not have, nor is expected to have, negative claims of what a product
does
> > not do
>
> Stating what your product will or not accept is not a negative claim
> unless the manufacturer chooses to word it that way. Leaving the
> impression that a product would accept 1080P by it's simplistic 1080P
> nature, it is a 1080P display, it is a new and current 2006-2007 model
> along with the lack of any other information stating otherwise is also a
> choice made by the manufacturer.
>
> LG chose the latter and could have easily covered themselves by simply
> stating the scan rates it will accept, as just one example, leaving it
> to the consumer to bring that into context.
>
> Accepts the following HDTV signals
> 480I
> 480P
> 720P
> 1080I
>
> The fact that 1080P does not appear would have been all that is required
> for the manufacturer and consumer. This example of full disclosure is
> clearly not negative, would more than likely be seen as another
> dismissive blurb along with the rest of specifications fro most
> consumers yet ultimately does provide enough information to determine if
> this 1080P display will accept 1080P from my Sony Bluray if that is my
goal.
>
> I certainly would not expect LG nor any manufacturer to forwarn
> potential buyers nor boldy proclaim a lack of capability with a negative
> statement such as "does not accept 1080P". I don't believe that could be
> legally enforced nor do I personally find that ethical in a market where
> it is reasonable and ordinary for 1080P display consumers to be
> perfectly satisfied with this limitation. Yet that also should not
> remove their legal responsibility to fully disclose to the consumer in
> some form and fashion that it does not accept 1080P especially in the
> 2006-2007 model season as Bluray and HD DVD come to market with 1080P
> capable players.
>
>
> Richard Fisher
> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>Richard,
>>
>>In general terms, if the consumer does not purchase the product thru a
>>dealer, the consumer is guilty of not doing the correct research to
>
> confirm
>
>>that such valuable feature is in fact available in the product.
>>
>>If a dealer was involved, the dealer is also guilty of not advising the
>>consumer when the consumer is interested clearly on this feature, reason
>
> by
>
>>which the consumer is paying for a mark up on the product, to use the
>>dealer's experience and reduce the possibility of errors in selecting the
>>product. The consumer is also guilty for not selecting the right dealer
>>when pursuing such expertise in an unusual feature (in a product released
>>4Q05, not common).
>>
>>Consumers and dealers know that anything you buy today (TVs or not) would
>>not have, nor is expected to have, negative claims of what a product does
>>not do (other than "do not put in a microwave" or "do not immerse this
>>electric equipment in water"), especially when the rest of the market
>>concentrates in the positive features to gain the competitive edge they
>
> need
>
>>to survive commercially. I bring back my comment of the Isuzu not
>>specifying in the window sticker that their $5000 car cannot do 200 Mph or
>>3.5 sec for 0-60 like the Ferrari across the street.
>>
>>I am not pro manufactures and you know it, since day one I have been
>>offering my free fulltime efforts to help consumers and advice them right,
>>but I do not agree to blame LG 100% for not specifying if 1080x1920 is "i"
>>or "p" or "both" in a world and time when there was not 1080p content
>>available (other than scaler conversions), while the dealer (the expert)
>
> and
>
>>the consumer assume the best.
>>
>>To what my old brain can remember, absolutely no TV having 1080p inputs,
>>growing market but still an exclusive breed, looses the opportunity to put
>>"ACCEPTS 1080P" on their spec sheet. It is very easy to assume that not
>>having such spec means it does not accept 1080p. It is very easy to
>
> assume
>
>>that not being clear could be also indicating non-acceptance, but inviting
>
> a
>
>>research opportunity (and a dealer to earn their commission).
>>
>>I would certainly send a strong letter to LG to make them aware that some
>>omissions, intentionally or not, cannot be welcomed when the omission
>
> could
>
>>be interpreted as an abuse of a current situation of some consumers hoping
>>for 1080p inputs.
>>
>>Interesting enough, I have been addressing this 1080p subject for over the
>>past 3 years with articles, and advice, and research, and market analysis,
>>and reports, and product reviews, most for free in a full time basis, and
>>what I got most of the time is an explicit or implicit feedback a dreamer
>>usually receives.
>>
>>Now everyone wakes up and realize 1080p is important, that 24fps is
>>important, that HiDef DVD could look even greater if the signal is kept in
>>the progressive 1080p domain by just changing the frame rate to avoid
>
> visual
>
>>flicker, etc, and while finding the feature important, ignore all the
>
> effort
>
>>and available material, and still buy with the eyes closed. Sorry for
>
> this
>
>>consumer, LG has part of the blame but not enough to accept a return of
>
> the
>
>>product for not confirming well what the consumer wants as an important
>>feature. This is not the case of consumer that found out 2 years after
>>buying the unit that such feature could start being of interest and would
>>have liked the TV to be ready for that.
>>
>>Additionally, a consumer looking for such feature is not a Joe-six pack
>>type, and should know better on checking hi-end features.
>>
>>I could grant that this might be a 80/20 case. LG is guilty for 20, the
>>dealer/consumer is guilty for 80. LG might have a competitive edge/market
>>pressure/non-intentional omission reason, the dealer/consumer should have
>>known better if this feature was so important.
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>
>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>
>>If the
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>>Richard Fisher
>>Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:20 PM
>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>Subject: flat panel 1080P - final statement to the Jury
>>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defense has provided you with
>>lengthy testimony from well known journalists and commentators
>>concerning all the myriad technical details that surround this case, the
>>peppered history of the marketing of HDTV over the last 8 years and how
>>educated the average consumer must be to make informed choices. While I
>>and some of you found this to be very interesting and educational
>>information two of the jurors did doze off during their presentation.
>>(Many jury members smile) The defense will more than likely continue on
>>this trek after I am done.
>>
>>We have not offered much testimony because this case is far too simple.
>>The only reason we are here today is because the sales chain, from
>>retailer to distributor to the manufacturer has refused to accept a
>>return of this $10,000 display. Their response to our client since day
>>one has been that he was provided all materials on the product and could
>>have chosen another if it did not have the features he desired. As you
>>make your deliberations put yourself in the shoes of Mr. Samoso, what is
>>considered reasonable and ordinary? How much self education and
>>information is required for the average person such as yourself to
>>determine which 1080P display will accept 1080P? Like Mr. Samoso you
>>purchase a current Bluray player for the 1080P capability yet when you
>>connect that to your LG 1080P display the player will not allow you to
>>select 1080P, only 1080I. We have submitted into evidence the LG website
>>and all materials related to this display, designed and marketed for the
>>2006-2007 model year. If you think LG provided enough information for
>>you to determine that this display will not accept 1080P from either of
>>the new Bluray or HD DVD 1080P products then you must find the defendant
>>not guilty and Mr Samoso must take full responsibility for this purchase.
>>
>>If on the other hand you find that not enough information was provided
>>to make a reasonable and ordinary determination of 1080P capability for
>>this product then you must find the defendant guilty. Please recall the
>>testimony of the defendants witnesses and their tale of a confused
>>industry well known for not providing full disclosure of the operational
>>capabilities of their products for the last 8 years. A guilty verdict
>>will send a strong message to all manufacturers selling products in this
>>country that it is time for this confusion to end by knowing what their
>>product does or not do and clearly state so in their advertising,
>>marketing and specification materials. Failure to do so makes them
>>responsible for the consequences, not you the consumer, nor Mr. Samoso!
>>
>>Richard Fisher
>>HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
>>Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>>
>>Robert Wade Brown wrote:
>>
>>
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>
>>>11/11/2006 9:33pm ct
>>>
>>>Rodolfo,
>>> I don't disagree with you... however, most people don't read
>>>lists like this in order to buy something in their nearby Best Buy (or
>>>whatever) nor should they have to do that kind of research. The label
>>>should be not only truthful, but comprehensive.. providing the
>>>information in plain language that any buyer OUGHT to want to know.
>>> The important thing to remember about labels is, when
>>>considering the average customer, that they are also for the purpose of
>>>raising questions the customer's mind. If a customer sees a lot of
>>>specifications he/she doesn't understand, he should ask what they mean
>>>or go look it up. It is the unaware customer who is actually dumb
>>>enough to believe the label ("HD Ready", which meant it's not HD
>>>already) who should be protected from unscrupulous manufacturers and
>>>sellers who want the customer not to be aware of something or other.
>>>
>>>Robert
>>>
>>>At 01:57 PM 11/11/2006, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>Robert,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I would say you have a good point with the missing "i" or "p" on the
>>>>spec of
>>>>the LG panel, it is not enough to say 1920x1080 only, but such omission
>>>>becomes an obvious target for further investigation by an inquisitive
>>>>consumer.
>>>>
>>>>Obviously, manufacturers use omissions to let the assumption create a
>>>>competitive edge "to those people that read what is not written and
>>>>imagine
>>>>the best".
>>>>
>>>>I know that is not fair, but someone looking for that feature could do
>>>>the
>>>>correct research before signing that check.
>>>>
>>>>The game of omissions is something that could be controlled from the
>>>>consumer if investing the proper time and effort to confirm, but the
>>>>game of
>>>>intentionally providing wrong information is worst and that is
>>>>something we
>>>>should criticize.
>>>>
>>>>One such case is Samsung's top executive (ironically recently promoted,
>>>>perhaps for the "spectacular" introduction of their Blu-ray player)
>>>>saying
>>>>that their 1080p RPTVs did not accept 1080p because HDMI could not
>>>>handle it
>>>>and they were waiting for 1.3 to come out, in other words "our TVs are
>>>>perfect, blame HDMI". I confronted the executive at the Display Search
>>>>podium, and the response he had was "he was told".
>>>>
>>>>That is more damaging (industry and consumer) than omitting a spec,
>>>>people
>>>>that do not know the background could leave away blaming HDMI, which
>>>>could
>>>>also be construed as "no TV would have that capability them until HDMI
>>>>version 1.3 is out, so why looking for another set".
>>>>
>>>>Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>When
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf
Of
>>>>Robert Wade Brown
>>>>Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 2:20 PM
>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>>
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>11/11/2006 1:19pm ct
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there are choices but those choices should be labeled
>>>>clearly.
>>>>R
>>>>
>>>>At 04:59 PM 11/10/2006, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>Skip,
>>>>>
>>>>>What I am trying to say is that while the market could create display
>>>>>devices that are more capable than the resolution of the existing
>>>>
>>>>content
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>out there (finally), one cannot mandate that those display devices
>>>>
>>>>accept
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>higher resolutions that the content producers are making available.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not long time ago we faced a situation of CRTs not able to display
>>>>>1920x1080, the image was better than the display devices, now is the
>>>>>reverse, one is pushing the other at cycles, and consumers get all the
>>>>>benefit (while our wallets keep paying for the turns they take of
>>>>
>>>>course).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>As you said 1080p quality is not relevant enough to many people
>>>>
>>>>(display or
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>acceptance), but it does to me for a 135" screen, and many out there
are
>>>>>very demanding with their HT, spending a fortune for a bit more
contrast
>>>>>ratio on their projectors.
>>>>>
>>>>>The good part is that the HD market is big enough now to make everyone
>>>>
>>>>happy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>with many choices, it has come a long way since 1998, it was very
>>>>
>>>>uncertain
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>on the first couple of years.
>>>>>
>>>>>Best Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]]On
>>>>
>>>>Behalf Of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Skip Acuff
>>>>>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 5:01 PM
>>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>>>
>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>Rodolfo, Richard and Hugh,
>>>>>
>>>>>>From a consumer law standpoint, the questions would be: What is the
>>>>>purpose of advertising the device using the designation "1080p"? Does
>>>>>this designation create a false expectation of the capacity or
functions
>>>>>of the device? It seems from Rodolfo's analysis (entertaining and
>>>>>learned as always) that the 1080p designation has little relevance to
>>>>>the quality of the picture most folks will see on their brand new
>>>>>"1080p" TV. Is this correct?
>>>>>
>>>>>Skip
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
>>>>>Of Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 2:45 PM
>>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>>>
>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>Richard,
>>>>>
>>>>>Good point, to make some reflection.
>>>>>
>>>>>I can see a difference that can justify the situation.
>>>>>
>>>>>480p, 720p, and 1080i are part of a standard that can be transmitted
>>>>>"AND"
>>>>>displayed as they are.
>>>>>
>>>>>1080p is part of the same standard but the 24fps and 30fps CANNOT be
>>>>>displayed without objectionable flicker (too slow).
>>>>>
>>>>>So accepting 1080p on those two frame rates, that were not used for
>>>>>consumer
>>>>>content (until now with Hi Def DVD), is a feature that could be
>>>>>considered
>>>>>unusual in 4Q05, perhaps not now that we have a way to display at that
>>>>>level
>>>>>of P resolution.
>>>>>
>>>>>In other words, the difference is that any of the 3 formats you
>>>>>mentioned
>>>>>are able to be displayed as is, not 1080p (the standard), even if
>>>>>transmitted.
>>>>>
>>>>>I would consider that enough reasoning to offer such feature "as a
>>>>>manufacturer choice" to be more competitive but not as a mandate,
>>>>>because
>>>>>the frame rate of the display (60) vs. the established standard (24,30)
>>>>>is
>>>>>different.
>>>>>
>>>>>Because it has to be some transformation (video processing) to obtain a
>>>>>viewable image, as it would from 480p/720p/1080i if the native rate of
>>>>>the
>>>>>display is 1080p.
>>>>>
>>>>>Looking at the other side of it, one could held accountable the
millions
>>>

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

> This person could not blame anyone if he was the one reviewing
features and
> selecting the product,

Then you have missed my point altogether...

I have little doubt that a jury of our consuming peers would find the
defendant guilty of negligence in stating the simplistic operational
features of thier display and that they must accept a return of the product.

And what is LG going to say in their defense? Gee, ignorant
consumer/dealer, you should have known we did not provide enough info to
determine whether or not our display accepts 1080P?

Like I said, this would never make it to court and the product would
have been returned lest a legal precedent be set for the future. The
dealer could end up being black balled by the distributor due to the event.

Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Greats points Richard. Now we are talking reality.
>
> This person could not blame anyone if he was the one reviewing features and
> selecting the product, is his fault not to get informed properly and run the
> risk, LG helped, but he should have not trusted incomplete specs and should
> have kept looking for confirmations.
>
> HDTV is getting much more complex than in 1998 and although I agree with you
> that a regular consumer should not have to be put into so much research to
> understand, reading mags, tips list, forums, etc, a dealer making a profit
> on this complex business MUST do that to do the job right for their clients.
>
> I would fire anyone of my sales people that would not invest personal time
> on getting updated with this technology, like I did with 40 years of
> computer industry, I subscribed to 74 technical publications, went to
> training, etc, to keep myself on the top on my 65 employees on every area
> they worked on, I could not afford not knowing about any subject at high
> level meetings, and run for my staff, or for cover. I am glad I retired
> from it though.
>
> A manager must do the same, a sales person receiving a client looking for
> products with special features should have passed the ball to his/her
> manager if not capable to advise correctly. If neither were sufficiently
> knowledgeable, it would be a sign for the consumer to find another dealer,
> that is not difficult to do.
>
> That dealer should not have let that customer take 100% of the drive on that
> selection regardless of how obtuse some people could be bragging about their
> knowledge, the dealer should have done some parallel research to let the
> consumer be on the safe side, and reduce later complications, like this one,
> because no matter what happens as long as the transaction is made thru the
> dealer they are both in the same mess.
>
> One thing that is important here is that even if the LG would have accepted
> 1080p it was to be at 60Hz, this LCD does not seem to display at 72, or 120
> (I could not verify this). In such case a 24fps Blu-ray would have been
> converted anyway to the 60 by the player to been able to do a hand-shake
> with the set. Which means that the player would have done 24fps to 60i (2:3
> pulldown) to 60p (deinterlace), typical of most DVD players, regular or
> Hidef.
>
> In other words 1080p 60 hand shakes are not as clean as 24-72 1080p, it does
> give the option to do the 60i to p on either the player or the tv though
> (like the legacy 480i and p players), but that is probably the main feature
> he would have gained with that LG if with 1080p inputs, more options to
> de-interlace job, now with HDMI both options would have occurred in the
> digital domain with no D/A and A/D conversions, no matter were is done, not
> like component analog connections of the mass of 480i/p players out there.
>
> This exchange has been very constructive Richard.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
>
> ----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Richard Fisher
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:41 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P - final statement to the Jury
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> > it. The generation of this LG was announced 4Q05, is not a new
> 2006/7 model
> > as you said, they might still on sale but they were introduced last year.
>
> The dealer was told the product had been available for only the last 2
> months... I personally don't know what the case is meaning whether it
> was delayed or the dealer was lied to... at this time I take that at
> face value in stating my case and making my point.
>
> You have done a great job of explaining the rotten history of full
> diclosure. You have done an even better job of showing just how complex
> the world of HDTV is. In all you have been the best witness the
> prosecution could have asked for regardless of how much it sounds like
> you are witness for the defense.
>
> I have no doubt that if such a case were brought to trial and the
> defendant lost that we would see one huge change in the industry to
> protect themselves from this liability and that change would be full
> operational disclosure of a product. What a concept!
>
> But this case would NEVER get that far! HA! It is clear that the system
> is setup to make the retailer liable for such technical infractions and
> some retailers will take the product back and take that experience
> choosing to inform their customers while others will hide behind the
> manufacturer specs sticking it to their customers when ever possible to
> get rid of the offending product and hope they don't figure it out in
> time to return it.
>
> > Were you the dealer?
>
> Nope. I would have never made such an error in judgement over 1080P. How
> could I being a member of this group?
>
> And that is my point! What is considered reasonable and ordinary self
> education to buy a product and what liability does the manufacturer and
> it's agents have in not providing full disclosure? I don't think it is
> reasonable and ordinary to expect a consumer to go digging around trying
> to confirm operational information about a product yet if you desired a
> 1080P input on the first generation that is exactly the cards you were
> dealt due purely to a lack of operational disclosure and that problem
> has been carried into yet another model season just like so many others
> over the last 8 years. Yet consider the fact that all products on the
> shelf today were born 2-3 years ago and the natural question then
> becomes what is the big deal in updating your materials, especially
> internet materials to reflect todays market? It costs time and money?
>
> Retailers and independent dealers provide many benefits to consumers but
> I don't think protecting them from the lack of a manufacturers
> simplistic operational disclosure should be one of them!
>
> I have stated my case exactly as it is. Neither the dealer nor the
> customer had this insider knowledge about the 1080P debacle and both
> took LG materials at face value expecting a 1080P input. The main point
> is that insider knowledge would not be necessary if manufacturers would
> provide some clue in operational limitations rather than being allowed
> to mislead potential customers. That does not require negative marketing
> of their product as already proven by example.
>
> The only reason I have spent so much time on this is because I am truly
> sick and tired of this special insiders knowledge crap about simplistic
> operational features that should be of no mystery. The 1080P debacle was
> what took me over the edge proving that nothing, absolutely nothing is
> going to change and ultimately in the end the majority does not want it
> to change lest they lose the opportunities that come with ignorant
> consumers buying outdated or incompatible product. Ignorant consumers
> cover that cost of doing business!
>
> While ignorance is no defense a 1-2 year degree in HDTV, a TIPS List
> membership and continual reading of the HDTV Magazine website should not
> be a requirement! Note that in my final to the jury I did not claim
> anyone to be ignorant, in fact it was the opposite, the customer clearly
> knew what he wanted and LG did nothing to inform him or the dealer
> otherwise for this product.
>
> This customer would have been fine even if the display took a 1080P
> input, chopped it up into 1080I and then scaled it back to 1080P (heaven
> forbid) because the expectation had nothing to do with real world
> performance and everything to do with setting his Bluray player for
> 1080P for his 1080P display or setting his PC for 1080P and seeing an
> image on that 1080P display. This is a case of simple connection and
> consumer expectation based on the legal definition of ordinary and
> reasonable!
>
> If he is unhappy with the performance of this slice and dice 1080P
> display then your main point finally comes into play; should have worked
> with a retailer or dealer that knows performance!
>
> Richard Fisher
> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>Richard,
>>
>>I do not agree. No first generation 1080p TV made any statement on their
>>spec sheet that they did not accept 1080p, and they mostly did not accept
>>it. The generation of this LG was announced 4Q05, is not a new 2006/7
>
> model
>
>>as you said, they might still on sale but they were introduced last year.
>>
>>During 2005/6 it was a transition toward 1080p by everyone, the first wave
>>of product lines did not accept 1080p, the second did, LG could have been
>>more specific as well as the others on their first generation, but it was
>>only until mid 2006 that a blu-ray player was on sale offering a practical
>>purpose to such 1080p input (to the common consumer, not videophiles with
>>scalers). Anyone buying a 1080p during that period that expected 1080p
>>inputs was probably knowing enough to anticipate the future market and
>>should have done the correct research.
>>
>>Such person would also have enough in-depth knowledge on the technology to
>>been able to identify points of weakness on specs, and look deeper,
>>otherwise let the dealer do it, and they should take responsibility, not
>>just LG.
>>
>>Were you the dealer?
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>
>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>>Richard Fisher
>>Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:46 PM
>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P - final statement to the Jury
>>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> > Consumers and dealers know that anything you buy today (TVs or not)
>
> would
>
>> > not have, nor is expected to have, negative claims of what a product
>
> does
>
>> > not do
>>
>>Stating what your product will or not accept is not a negative claim
>>unless the manufacturer chooses to word it that way. Leaving the
>>impression that a product would accept 1080P by it's simplistic 1080P
>>nature, it is a 1080P display, it is a new and current 2006-2007 model
>>along with the lack of any other information stating otherwise is also a
>>choice made by the manufacturer.
>>
>>LG chose the latter and could have easily covered themselves by simply
>>stating the scan rates it will accept, as just one example, leaving it
>>to the consumer to bring that into context.
>>
>>Accepts the following HDTV signals
>>480I
>>480P
>>720P
>>1080I
>>
>>The fact that 1080P does not appear would have been all that is required
>>for the manufacturer and consumer. This example of full disclosure is
>>clearly not negative, would more than likely be seen as another
>>dismissive blurb along with the rest of specifications fro most
>>consumers yet ultimately does provide enough information to determine if
>>this 1080P display will accept 1080P from my Sony Bluray if that is my
>
> goal.
>
>>I certainly would not expect LG nor any manufacturer to forwarn
>>potential buyers nor boldy proclaim a lack of capability with a negative
>>statement such as "does not accept 1080P". I don't believe that could be
>>legally enforced nor do I personally find that ethical in a market where
>>it is reasonable and ordinary for 1080P display consumers to be
>>perfectly satisfied with this limitation. Yet that also should not
>>remove their legal responsibility to fully disclose to the consumer in
>>some form and fashion that it does not accept 1080P especially in the
>>2006-2007 model season as Bluray and HD DVD come to market with 1080P
>>capable players.
>>
>>
>>Richard Fisher
>>HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
>>Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>>
>>Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
>>
>>
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>Richard,
>>>
>>>In general terms, if the consumer does not purchase the product thru a
>>>dealer, the consumer is guilty of not doing the correct research to
>>
>>confirm
>>
>>
>>>that such valuable feature is in fact available in the product.
>>>
>>>If a dealer was involved, the dealer is also guilty of not advising the
>>>consumer when the consumer is interested clearly on this feature, reason
>>
>>by
>>
>>
>>>which the consumer is paying for a mark up on the product, to use the
>>>dealer's experience and reduce the possibility of errors in selecting the
>>>product. The consumer is also guilty for not selecting the right dealer
>>>when pursuing such expertise in an unusual feature (in a product released
>>>4Q05, not common).
>>>
>>>Consumers and dealers know that anything you buy today (TVs or not) would
>>>not have, nor is expected to have, negative claims of what a product does
>>>not do (other than "do not put in a microwave" or "do not immerse this
>>>electric equipment in water"), especially when the rest of the market
>>>concentrates in the positive features to gain the competitive edge they
>>
>>need
>>
>>
>>>to survive commercially. I bring back my comment of the Isuzu not
>>>specifying in the window sticker that their $5000 car cannot do 200 Mph or
>>>3.5 sec for 0-60 like the Ferrari across the street.
>>>
>>>I am not pro manufactures and you know it, since day one I have been
>>>offering my free fulltime efforts to help consumers and advice them right,
>>>but I do not agree to blame LG 100% for not specifying if 1080x1920 is "i"
>>>or "p" or "both" in a world and time when there was not 1080p content
>>>available (other than scaler conversions), while the dealer (the expert)
>>
>>and
>>
>>
>>>the consumer assume the best.
>>>
>>>To what my old brain can remember, absolutely no TV having 1080p inputs,
>>>growing market but still an exclusive breed, looses the opportunity to put
>>>"ACCEPTS 1080P" on their spec sheet. It is very easy to assume that not
>>>having such spec means it does not accept 1080p. It is very easy to
>>
>>assume
>>
>>
>>>that not being clear could be also indicating non-acceptance, but inviting
>>
>>a
>>
>>
>>>research opportunity (and a dealer to earn their commission).
>>>
>>>I would certainly send a strong letter to LG to make them aware that some
>>>omissions, intentionally or not, cannot be welcomed when the omission
>>
>>could
>>
>>
>>>be interpreted as an abuse of a current situation of some consumers hoping
>>>for 1080p inputs.
>>>
>>>Interesting enough, I have been addressing this 1080p subject for over the
>>>past 3 years with articles, and advice, and research, and market analysis,
>>>and reports, and product reviews, most for free in a full time basis, and
>>>what I got most of the time is an explicit or implicit feedback a dreamer
>>>usually receives.
>>>
>>>Now everyone wakes up and realize 1080p is important, that 24fps is
>>>important, that HiDef DVD could look even greater if the signal is kept in
>>>the progressive 1080p domain by just changing the frame rate to avoid
>>
>>visual
>>
>>
>>>flicker, etc, and while finding the feature important, ignore all the
>>
>>effort
>>
>>
>>>and available material, and still buy with the eyes closed. Sorry for
>>
>>this
>>
>>
>>>consumer, LG has part of the blame but not enough to accept a return of
>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>product for not confirming well what the consumer wants as an important
>>>feature. This is not the case of consumer that found out 2 years after
>>>buying the unit that such feature could start being of interest and would
>>>have liked the TV to be ready for that.
>>>
>>>Additionally, a consumer looking for such feature is not a Joe-six pack
>>>type, and should know better on checking hi-end features.
>>>
>>>I could grant that this might be a 80/20 case. LG is guilty for 20, the
>>>dealer/consumer is guilty for 80. LG might have a competitive edge/market
>>>pressure/non-intentional omission reason, the dealer/consumer should have
>>>known better if this feature was so important.
>>>
>>>Best Regards,
>>>
>>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>
>>>If the
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>>>Richard Fisher
>>>Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:20 PM
>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>Subject: flat panel 1080P - final statement to the Jury
>>>
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defense has provided you with
>>>lengthy testimony from well known journalists and commentators
>>>concerning all the myriad technical details that surround this case, the
>>>peppered history of the marketing of HDTV over the last 8 years and how
>>>educated the average consumer must be to make informed choices. While I
>>>and some of you found this to be very interesting and educational
>>>information two of the jurors did doze off during their presentation.
>>>(Many jury members smile) The defense will more than likely continue on
>>>this trek after I am done.
>>>
>>>We have not offered much testimony because this case is far too simple.
>>>The only reason we are here today is because the sales chain, from
>>>retailer to distributor to the manufacturer has refused to accept a
>>>return of this $10,000 display. Their response to our client since day
>>>one has been that he was provided all materials on the product and could
>>>have chosen another if it did not have the features he desired. As you
>>>make your deliberations put yourself in the shoes of Mr. Samoso, what is
>>>considered reasonable and ordinary? How much self education and
>>>information is required for the average person such as yourself to
>>>determine which 1080P display will accept 1080P? Like Mr. Samoso you
>>>purchase a current Bluray player for the 1080P capability yet when you
>>>connect that to your LG 1080P display the player will not allow you to
>>>select 1080P, only 1080I. We have submitted into evidence the LG website
>>>and all materials related to this display, designed and marketed for the
>>>2006-2007 model year. If you think LG provided enough information for
>>>you to determine that this display will not accept 1080P from either of
>>>the new Bluray or HD DVD 1080P products then you must find the defendant
>>>not guilty and Mr Samoso must take full responsibility for this purchase.
>>>
>>>If on the other hand you find that not enough information was provided
>>>to make a reasonable and ordinary determination of 1080P capability for
>>>this product then you must find the defendant guilty. Please recall the
>>>testimony of the defendants witnesses and their tale of a confused
>>>industry well known for not providing full disclosure of the operational
>>>capabilities of their products for the last 8 years. A guilty verdict
>>>will send a strong message to all manufacturers selling products in this
>>>country that it is time for this confusion to end by knowing what their
>>>product does or not do and clearly state so in their advertising,
>>>marketing and specification materials. Failure to do so makes them
>>>responsible for the consequences, not you the consumer, nor Mr. Samoso!
>>>
>>>Richard Fisher
>>>HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
>>>Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>>>
>>>Robert Wade Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>11/11/2006 9:33pm ct
>>>>
>>>>Rodolfo,
>>>> I don't disagree with you... however, most people don't read
>>>>lists like this in order to buy something in their nearby Best Buy (or
>>>>whatever) nor should they have to do that kind of research. The label
>>>>should be not only truthful, but comprehensive.. providing the
>>>>information in plain language that any buyer OUGHT to want to know.
>>>> The important thing to remember about labels is, when
>>>>considering the average customer, that they are also for the purpose of
>>>>raising questions the customer's mind. If a customer sees a lot of
>>>>specifications he/she doesn't understand, he should ask what they mean
>>>>or go look it up. It is the unaware customer who is actually dumb
>>>>enough to believe the label ("HD Ready", which meant it's not HD
>>>>already) who should be protected from unscrupulous manufacturers and
>>>>sellers who want the customer not to be aware of something or other.
>>>>
>>>>Robert
>>>>
>>>>At 01:57 PM 11/11/2006, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>Robert,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I would say you have a good point with the missing "i" or "p" on the
>>>>>spec of
>>>>>the LG panel, it is not enough to say 1920x1080 only, but such omission
>>>>>becomes an obvious target for further investigation by an inquisitive
>>>>>consumer.
>>>>>
>>>>>Obviously, manufacturers use omissions to let the assumption create a
>>>>>competitive edge "to those people that read what is not written and
>>>>>imagine
>>>>>the best".
>>>>>
>>>>>I know that is not fair, but someone looking for that feature could do
>>>>>the
>>>>>correct research before signing that check.
>>>>>
>>>>>The game of omissions is something that could be controlled from the
>>>>>consumer if investing the proper time and effort to confirm, but the
>>>>>game of
>>>>>intentionally providing wrong information is worst and that is
>>>>>something we
>>>>>should criticize.
>>>>>
>>>>>One such case is Samsung's top executive (ironically recently promoted,
>>>>>perhaps for the "spectacular" introduction of their Blu-ray player)
>>>>>saying
>>>>>that their 1080p RPTVs did not accept 1080p because HDMI could not
>>>>>handle it
>>>>>and they were waiting for 1.3 to come out, in other words "our TVs are
>>>>>perfect, blame HDMI". I confronted the executive at the Display Search
>>>>>podium, and the response he had was "he was told".
>>>>>
>>>>>That is more damaging (industry and consumer) than omitting a spec,
>>>>>people
>>>>>that do not know the background could leave away blaming HDMI, which
>>>>>could
>>>>>also be construed as "no TV would have that capability them until HDMI
>>>>>version 1.3 is out, so why looking for another set".
>>>>>
>>>>>Best Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>When
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: HDTV Magazine [ mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf
>
> Of
>
>>>>>Robert Wade Brown
>>>>>Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 2:20 PM
>>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P
>>>>>
>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>11/11/2006 1:19pm ct
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, there are choices but those choices should be labeled
>>>>>clearly.
>>>>>R
>>>>>
>>>>>At 04:59 PM 11/10/2006, you wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Skip,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What I am trying to say is that while the market could create display
>>>>>>devices that are more capable than the resolution of the existing
>>>>>
>>>>>content
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>out there (finally), one cannot mandate that those display devices
>>>>>
>>>>>accept
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>higher resolutions that the content producers are making available.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not long time ago we faced a situation of CRTs not able to display
>>>>>>1920x1080, the image was better than the display devices, now is the
>>>>>>reverse, one is pushing the other at cycles, and consumers get all the
>>>>>>benefit (while our wallets keep paying for the turns they take of
>>>>>
>>>>>course).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>As you said 1080p quality is not relevant enough to many people
>>>>>
>>>>>(display or
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>acceptance), but it does to me for a 135" screen, and many out there
>
> are
>
>>>>>>very demanding with their HT, spending a fortune for a bit more
>
> contrast
>
>>>>>>ratio on their projectors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The good part is that the HD market is big enough now to make everyone
>>>>>
>>>>>happy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>with many choices, it has come a long way since 1998, it was very
>>>>>
>>>>>uncertain
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>on the first couple of years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Best Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>&

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

And touching again on reasonable and ordinary...

The dealer did not understand how a 1080P display does not accept a
1080P signal since it is a 1080P display - said so all over the box, the
display and the LG website. I had to explain all of that because that is
exactly the same question the customer had and the dealer did not know
the answer.

How could it not be reasonable and ordinary to have that expectation
when it has been reasonable and ordinary...

IF I buy a 480P display it will accept a 480P input, 720P display
accepts a 720P input and 1080I display accepts 1080I input.

I fully understand your points and it seems what you are saying is, that
is how the industry is and this is what folks need to do to prevent
problems even though the problems are created by the marketing
departments of the manufacturers by choice.

It seems we only disagree on who is liable...

Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Richard Fisher wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> > This person could not blame anyone if he was the one reviewing
> features and
> > selecting the product,
>
> Then you have missed my point altogether...
>
> I have little doubt that a jury of our consuming peers would find the
> defendant guilty of negligence in stating the simplistic operational
> features of thier display and that they must accept a return of the
> product.
>
> And what is LG going to say in their defense? Gee, ignorant
> consumer/dealer, you should have known we did not provide enough info to
> determine whether or not our display accepts 1080P?
>
> Like I said, this would never make it to court and the product would
> have been returned lest a legal precedent be set for the future. The
> dealer could end up being black balled by the distributor due to the event.
>
> Richard Fisher
> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> Greats points Richard. Now we are talking reality.
>>
>> This person could not blame anyone if he was the one reviewing
>> features and
>> selecting the product, is his fault not to get informed properly and
>> run the
>> risk, LG helped, but he should have not trusted incomplete specs and
>> should
>> have kept looking for confirmations.
>>
>> HDTV is getting much more complex than in 1998 and although I agree
>> with you
>> that a regular consumer should not have to be put into so much
>> research to
>> understand, reading mags, tips list, forums, etc, a dealer making a
>> profit
>> on this complex business MUST do that to do the job right for their
>> clients.
>>
>> I would fire anyone of my sales people that would not invest personal
>> time
>> on getting updated with this technology, like I did with 40 years of
>> computer industry, I subscribed to 74 technical publications, went to
>> training, etc, to keep myself on the top on my 65 employees on every area
>> they worked on, I could not afford not knowing about any subject at high
>> level meetings, and run for my staff, or for cover. I am glad I retired
>> from it though.
>>
>> A manager must do the same, a sales person receiving a client looking for
>> products with special features should have passed the ball to his/her
>> manager if not capable to advise correctly. If neither were sufficiently
>> knowledgeable, it would be a sign for the consumer to find another
>> dealer,
>> that is not difficult to do.
>>
>> That dealer should not have let that customer take 100% of the drive
>> on that
>> selection regardless of how obtuse some people could be bragging about
>> their
>> knowledge, the dealer should have done some parallel research to let the
>> consumer be on the safe side, and reduce later complications, like
>> this one,
>> because no matter what happens as long as the transaction is made thru
>> the
>> dealer they are both in the same mess.
>>
>> One thing that is important here is that even if the LG would have
>> accepted
>> 1080p it was to be at 60Hz, this LCD does not seem to display at 72,
>> or 120
>> (I could not verify this). In such case a 24fps Blu-ray would have been
>> converted anyway to the 60 by the player to been able to do a hand-shake
>> with the set. Which means that the player would have done 24fps to
>> 60i (2:3
>> pulldown) to 60p (deinterlace), typical of most DVD players, regular or
>> Hidef.
>>
>> In other words 1080p 60 hand shakes are not as clean as 24-72 1080p,
>> it does
>> give the option to do the 60i to p on either the player or the tv though
>> (like the legacy 480i and p players), but that is probably the main
>> feature
>> he would have gained with that LG if with 1080p inputs, more options to
>> de-interlace job, now with HDMI both options would have occurred in the
>> digital domain with no D/A and A/D conversions, no matter were is
>> done, not
>> like component analog connections of the mass of 480i/p players out
>> there.
>>
>> This exchange has been very constructive Richard.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Rodolfo La Maestra
>>
>>
>> ----Original Message-----
>> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>> Richard Fisher
>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:41 PM
>> To: HDTV Magazine
>> Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P - final statement to the Jury
>>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> > it. The generation of this LG was announced 4Q05, is not a new
>> 2006/7 model
>> > as you said, they might still on sale but they were introduced last
>> year.
>>
>> The dealer was told the product had been available for only the last 2
>> months... I personally don't know what the case is meaning whether it
>> was delayed or the dealer was lied to... at this time I take that at
>> face value in stating my case and making my point.
>>
>> You have done a great job of explaining the rotten history of full
>> diclosure. You have done an even better job of showing just how complex
>> the world of HDTV is. In all you have been the best witness the
>> prosecution could have asked for regardless of how much it sounds like
>> you are witness for the defense.
>>
>> I have no doubt that if such a case were brought to trial and the
>> defendant lost that we would see one huge change in the industry to
>> protect themselves from this liability and that change would be full
>> operational disclosure of a product. What a concept!
>>
>> But this case would NEVER get that far! HA! It is clear that the system
>> is setup to make the retailer liable for such technical infractions and
>> some retailers will take the product back and take that experience
>> choosing to inform their customers while others will hide behind the
>> manufacturer specs sticking it to their customers when ever possible to
>> get rid of the offending product and hope they don't figure it out in
>> time to return it.
>>
>> > Were you the dealer?
>>
>> Nope. I would have never made such an error in judgement over 1080P. How
>> could I being a member of this group?
>>
>> And that is my point! What is considered reasonable and ordinary self
>> education to buy a product and what liability does the manufacturer and
>> it's agents have in not providing full disclosure? I don't think it is
>> reasonable and ordinary to expect a consumer to go digging around trying
>> to confirm operational information about a product yet if you desired a
>> 1080P input on the first generation that is exactly the cards you were
>> dealt due purely to a lack of operational disclosure and that problem
>> has been carried into yet another model season just like so many others
>> over the last 8 years. Yet consider the fact that all products on the
>> shelf today were born 2-3 years ago and the natural question then
>> becomes what is the big deal in updating your materials, especially
>> internet materials to reflect todays market? It costs time and money?
>>
>> Retailers and independent dealers provide many benefits to consumers but
>> I don't think protecting them from the lack of a manufacturers
>> simplistic operational disclosure should be one of them!
>>
>> I have stated my case exactly as it is. Neither the dealer nor the
>> customer had this insider knowledge about the 1080P debacle and both
>> took LG materials at face value expecting a 1080P input. The main point
>> is that insider knowledge would not be necessary if manufacturers would
>> provide some clue in operational limitations rather than being allowed
>> to mislead potential customers. That does not require negative marketing
>> of their product as already proven by example.
>>
>> The only reason I have spent so much time on this is because I am truly
>> sick and tired of this special insiders knowledge crap about simplistic
>> operational features that should be of no mystery. The 1080P debacle was
>> what took me over the edge proving that nothing, absolutely nothing is
>> going to change and ultimately in the end the majority does not want it
>> to change lest they lose the opportunities that come with ignorant
>> consumers buying outdated or incompatible product. Ignorant consumers
>> cover that cost of doing business!
>>
>> While ignorance is no defense a 1-2 year degree in HDTV, a TIPS List
>> membership and continual reading of the HDTV Magazine website should not
>> be a requirement! Note that in my final to the jury I did not claim
>> anyone to be ignorant, in fact it was the opposite, the customer clearly
>> knew what he wanted and LG did nothing to inform him or the dealer
>> otherwise for this product.
>>
>> This customer would have been fine even if the display took a 1080P
>> input, chopped it up into 1080I and then scaled it back to 1080P (heaven
>> forbid) because the expectation had nothing to do with real world
>> performance and everything to do with setting his Bluray player for
>> 1080P for his 1080P display or setting his PC for 1080P and seeing an
>> image on that 1080P display. This is a case of simple connection and
>> consumer expectation based on the legal definition of ordinary and
>> reasonable!
>>
>> If he is unhappy with the performance of this slice and dice 1080P
>> display then your main point finally comes into play; should have worked
>> with a retailer or dealer that knows performance!
>>
>> Richard Fisher
>> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
>> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>>
>> Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
>>
>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>> Richard,
>>>
>>> I do not agree. No first generation 1080p TV made any statement on
>>> their
>>> spec sheet that they did not accept 1080p, and they mostly did not
>>> accept
>>> it. The generation of this LG was announced 4Q05, is not a new 2006/7
>>
>>
>> model
>>
>>> as you said, they might still on sale but they were introduced last
>>> year.
>>>
>>> During 2005/6 it was a transition toward 1080p by everyone, the first
>>> wave
>>> of product lines did not accept 1080p, the second did, LG could have
>>> been
>>> more specific as well as the others on their first generation, but it
>>> was
>>> only until mid 2006 that a blu-ray player was on sale offering a
>>> practical
>>> purpose to such 1080p input (to the common consumer, not videophiles
>>> with
>>> scalers). Anyone buying a 1080p during that period that expected 1080p
>>> inputs was probably knowing enough to anticipate the future market and
>>> should have done the correct research.
>>>
>>> Such person would also have enough in-depth knowledge on the
>>> technology to
>>> been able to identify points of weakness on specs, and look deeper,
>>> otherwise let the dealer do it, and they should take responsibility, not
>>> just LG.
>>>
>>> Were you the dealer?
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>>> Richard Fisher
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:46 PM
>>> To: HDTV Magazine
>>> Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P - final statement to the Jury
>>>
>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>> > Consumers and dealers know that anything you buy today (TVs or not)
>>
>>
>> would
>>
>>> > not have, nor is expected to have, negative claims of what a product
>>
>>
>> does
>>
>>> > not do
>>>
>>> Stating what your product will or not accept is not a negative claim
>>> unless the manufacturer chooses to word it that way. Leaving the
>>> impression that a product would accept 1080P by it's simplistic 1080P
>>> nature, it is a 1080P display, it is a new and current 2006-2007 model
>>> along with the lack of any other information stating otherwise is also a
>>> choice made by the manufacturer.
>>>
>>> LG chose the latter and could have easily covered themselves by simply
>>> stating the scan rates it will accept, as just one example, leaving it
>>> to the consumer to bring that into context.
>>>
>>> Accepts the following HDTV signals
>>> 480I
>>> 480P
>>> 720P
>>> 1080I
>>>
>>> The fact that 1080P does not appear would have been all that is required
>>> for the manufacturer and consumer. This example of full disclosure is
>>> clearly not negative, would more than likely be seen as another
>>> dismissive blurb along with the rest of specifications fro most
>>> consumers yet ultimately does provide enough information to determine if
>>> this 1080P display will accept 1080P from my Sony Bluray if that is my
>>
>>
>> goal.
>>
>>> I certainly would not expect LG nor any manufacturer to forwarn
>>> potential buyers nor boldy proclaim a lack of capability with a negative
>>> statement such as "does not accept 1080P". I don't believe that could be
>>> legally enforced nor do I personally find that ethical in a market where
>>> it is reasonable and ordinary for 1080P display consumers to be
>>> perfectly satisfied with this limitation. Yet that also should not
>>> remove their legal responsibility to fully disclose to the consumer in
>>> some form and fashion that it does not accept 1080P especially in the
>>> 2006-2007 model season as Bluray and HD DVD come to market with 1080P
>>> capable players.
>>>
>>>
>>> Richard Fisher
>>> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
>>> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>>>
>>> Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>> Richard,
>>>>
>>>> In general terms, if the consumer does not purchase the product thru a
>>>> dealer, the consumer is guilty of not doing the correct research to
>>>
>>>
>>> confirm
>>>
>>>
>>>> that such valuable feature is in fact available in the product.
>>>>
>>>> If a dealer was involved, the dealer is also guilty of not advising the
>>>> consumer when the consumer is interested clearly on this feature,
>>>> reason
>>>
>>>
>>> by
>>>
>>>
>>>> which the consumer is paying for a mark up on the product, to use the
>>>> dealer's experience and reduce the possibility of errors in
>>>> selecting the
>>>> product. The consumer is also guilty for not selecting the right
>>>> dealer
>>>> when pursuing such expertise in an unusual feature (in a product
>>>> released
>>>> 4Q05, not common).
>>>>
>>>> Consumers and dealers know that anything you buy today (TVs or not)
>>>> would
>>>> not have, nor is expected to have, negative claims of what a product
>>>> does
>>>> not do (other than "do not put in a microwave" or "do not immerse this
>>>> electric equipment in water"), especially when the rest of the market
>>>> concentrates in the positive features to gain the competitive edge they
>>>
>>>
>>> need
>>>
>>>
>>>> to survive commercially. I bring back my comment of the Isuzu not
>>>> specifying in the window sticker that their $5000 car cannot do 200
>>>> Mph or
>>>> 3.5 sec for 0-60 like the Ferrari across the street.
>>>>
>>>> I am not pro manufactures and you know it, since day one I have been
>>>> offering my free fulltime efforts to help consumers and advice them
>>>> right,
>>>> but I do not agree to blame LG 100% for not specifying if 1080x1920
>>>> is "i"
>>>> or "p" or "both" in a world and time when there was not 1080p content
>>>> available (other than scaler conversions), while the dealer (the
>>>> expert)
>>>
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>>
>>>> the consumer assume the best.
>>>>
>>>> To what my old brain can remember, absolutely no TV having 1080p
>>>> inputs,
>>>> growing market but still an exclusive breed, looses the opportunity
>>>> to put
>>>> "ACCEPTS 1080P" on their spec sheet. It is very easy to assume that
>>>> not
>>>> having such spec means it does not accept 1080p. It is very easy to
>>>
>>>
>>> assume
>>>
>>>
>>>> that not being clear could be also indicating non-acceptance, but
>>>> inviting
>>>
>>>
>>> a
>>>
>>>
>>>> research opportunity (and a dealer to earn their commission).
>>>>
>>>> I would certainly send a strong letter to LG to make them aware that
>>>> some
>>>> omissions, intentionally or not, cannot be welcomed when the omission
>>>
>>>
>>> could
>>>
>>>
>>>> be interpreted as an abuse of a current situation of some consumers
>>>> hoping
>>>> for 1080p inputs.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting enough, I have been addressing this 1080p subject for
>>>> over the
>>>> past 3 years with articles, and advice, and research, and market
>>>> analysis,
>>>> and reports, and product reviews, most for free in a full time
>>>> basis, and
>>>> what I got most of the time is an explicit or implicit feedback a
>>>> dreamer
>>>> usually receives.
>>>>
>>>> Now everyone wakes up and realize 1080p is important, that 24fps is
>>>> important, that HiDef DVD could look even greater if the signal is
>>>> kept in
>>>> the progressive 1080p domain by just changing the frame rate to avoid
>>>
>>>
>>> visual
>>>
>>>
>>>> flicker, etc, and while finding the feature important, ignore all the
>>>
>>>
>>> effort
>>>
>>>
>>>> and available material, and still buy with the eyes closed. Sorry for
>>>
>>>
>>> this
>>>
>>>
>>>> consumer, LG has part of the blame but not enough to accept a return of
>>>
>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> product for not confirming well what the consumer wants as an important
>>>> feature. This is not the case of consumer that found out 2 years after
>>>> buying the unit that such feature could start being of interest and
>>>> would
>>>> have liked the TV to be ready for that.
>>>>
>>>> Additionally, a consumer looking for such feature is not a Joe-six pack
>>>> type, and should know better on checking hi-end features.
>>>>
>>>> I could grant that this might be a 80/20 case. LG is guilty for 20,
>>>> the
>>>> dealer/consumer is guilty for 80. LG might have a competitive
>>>> edge/market
>>>> pressure/non-intentional omission reason, the dealer/consumer should
>>>> have
>>>> known better if this feature was so important.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>
>>>> If the
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: HDTV Magazine On
>>>> Behalf Of
>>>> Richard Fisher
>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:20 PM
>>>> To: HDTV Magazine
>>>> Subject: flat panel 1080P - final statement to the Jury
>>>>
>>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>> Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defense has provided you with
>>>> lengthy testimony from well known journalists and commentators
>>>> concerning all the myriad technical details that surround this case,
>>>> the
>>>> peppered history of the marketing of HDTV over the last 8 years and how
>>>> educated the average consumer must be to make informed choices. While I
>>>> and some of you found this to be very interesting and educational
>>>> information two of the jurors did doze off during their presentation.
>>>> (Many jury members smile) The defense will more than likely continue on
>>>> this trek after I am done.
>>>>
>>>> We have not offered much testimony because this case is far too simple.
>>>> The only reason we are here today is because the sales chain, from
>>>> retailer to distributor to the manufacturer has refused to accept a
>>>> return of this $10,000 display. Their response to our client since day
>>>> one has been that he was provided all materials on the product and
>>>> could
>>>> have chosen another if it did not have the features he desired. As you
>>>> make your deliberations put yourself in the shoes of Mr. Samoso,
>>>> what is
>>>> considered reasonable and ordinary? How much self education and
>>>> information is required for the average person such as yourself to
>>>> determine which 1080P display will accept 1080P? Like Mr. Samoso you
>>>> purchase a current Bluray player for the 1080P capability yet when you
>>>> connect that to your LG 1080P display the player will not allow you to
>>>> select 1080P, only 1080I. We have submitted into evidence the LG
>>>> website
>>>> and all materials related to this display, designed and marketed for
>>>> the
>>>> 2006-2007 model year. If you think LG provided enough information for
>>>> you to determine that this display will not accept 1080P from either of
>>>> the new Bluray or HD DVD 1080P products then you must find the
>>>> defendant
>>>> not guilty and Mr Samoso must take full responsibility for this
>>>> purchase.
>>>>
>>>> If on the other hand you find that not enough information was provided
>>>> to make a reasonable and ordinary determination of 1080P capability for
>>>> this product then you must find the defendant guilty. Please recall the
>>>> testimony of the defendants witnesses and their tale of a confused
>>>> industry well known for not providing full disclosure of the
>>>> operational
>>>> capabilities of their products for the last 8 years. A guilty verdict
>>>> will send a strong message to all manufacturers selling products in
>>>> this
>>>> country that it is time for this confusion to end by knowing what their
>>>> product does or not do and clearly state so in their advertising,
>>>> marketing and specification materials. Failure to do so makes them
>>>> responsible for the consequences, not you the consumer, nor Mr. Samoso!
>>>>
>>>> Richard Fisher
>>>> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
>>>> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>>>>
>>>> Robert Wade Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 11/11/2006 9:33pm ct
>>>>>
>>>>> Rodolfo,
>>>>> I don't disagree with you... however, most people don't read
>>>>> lists like this in order to buy something in their nearby Best Buy (or
>>>>> whatever) nor should they have to do that kind of research. The label
>>>>> should be not only truthful, but comprehensive.. providing the
>>>>> information in plain language that any buyer OUGHT to want to know.
>>>>> The important thing to remember about labels is, when
>>>>> considering the average customer, that they are also for the
>>>>> purpose of
>>>>> raising questions the customer's mind. If a customer sees a lot of
>>>>> specifications he/she doesn't understand, he should ask what they
>>>>> mean
>>>>> or go look it up. It is the unaware customer who is actually dumb
>>>>> enough to believe the label ("HD Ready", which meant it's not HD
>>>>> already) who should be protected from unscrupulous manufacturers and
>>>>> sellers who want the customer not to be aware of something or other.
>>>>>
>>>>> Robert
>>>>>
>>>>> At 01:57 PM 11/11/2006, you wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Robert,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would say you have a good point with the missing "i" or "p" on the
>>>>>> spec of
>>>>>> the LG panel, it is not enough to say 1920x1080 only, but such
>>>>>> omission
>>>>>> becomes an obvious target for further investigation by an inquisitive
>>>>>> consumer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously, manufacturers use omissions to let the assumption create a
>>>>>> competitive edge "to those people that read what is not written and
>>>>>> imagine
>>>>>> the best".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know that is not fair, but someone looking for that feature
>>>>>> could do
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> correct research before signing that check.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The game of omissions is something that could be controlled from the
>>>>>> consumer if investing the proper time and effort to confirm, but the
>>>>>> game of
>>

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

Richard,

No I did not miss the point, but you do not concede that a dealer knows
manufacturers better than customers do, and dealers should know better that
missing information is part of been competitive in manufacturing (and even
on retail), and the dealer should have acted to obtain such information
before placing the order, not the consumer, the dealer is paid to do that,
if they did not than is their problem, that showed they just want, as many
dealers do, to get that check and place an order as a fast as they type, no
job, no added value.

Many dealers use their privilege to get dealer prices for doing nothing,
nothing, and in some cases it is worst, the added value they provide is
wrong, is not updated, not informed, they just want that set out the floor,
while many other dealers invest in training and gathering current knowledge
and transfer that to the consumer in a productive manner.

I know you are a dealer, but this dealer is at fault on most of the 80 of
the 80/20 that could be attributed as culpability (20 for LG, 80 for
dealer/consumer).

I know we do not agree on this one, but this dealer is playing na

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

> passing the ball 100% to LG, they should have accepted the unit back from
> the consumer for not doing their job, and resell it as a floor model, the
> cost of doing bad business, the cost of incompetent inertia.

That is what I recommended and what has happened. If it had not I
believe we would have had to part ways because I don't associate with
dealers who stick it to customers. That does not change my feelings in
this matter one iota and does not change the fact that all of this could
have been easily prevented by the manufacturer.

but...

> and dealers should know better that
> missing information is part of been competitive in manufacturing (and
even
> on retail)

That is EXACTLY my point!!!

How is missing information of benefit to anybody except the manufacturer
and the sales chain trying to pull a fast one on ignorant consumers or
dealers?!?!

We disagree over who is liable and from your responses may even disagree
if anything should even change... or, you are doing one hell of a job of
playing devils advocate...

If HD has the ability to change the world with it's transparent imaging
of the world, a Dale Cripps concept, then it won't succeed unless
society is also willing to show transparency in how we live and do
business with each other.

Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Richard,
>
> No I did not miss the point, but you do not concede that a dealer knows
> manufacturers better than customers do, and dealers should know better that
> missing information is part of been competitive in manufacturing (and even
> on retail), and the dealer should have acted to obtain such information
> before placing the order, not the consumer, the dealer is paid to do that,
> if they did not than is their problem, that showed they just want, as many
> dealers do, to get that check and place an order as a fast as they type, no
> job, no added value.
>
> Many dealers use their privilege to get dealer prices for doing nothing,
> nothing, and in some cases it is worst, the added value they provide is
> wrong, is not updated, not informed, they just want that set out the floor,
> while many other dealers invest in training and gathering current knowledge
> and transfer that to the consumer in a productive manner.
>
> I know you are a dealer, but this dealer is at fault on most of the 80 of
> the 80/20 that could be attributed as culpability (20 for LG, 80 for
> dealer/consumer).
>
> I know we do not agree on this one, but this dealer is playing na

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

What a chain of events...

The dealer contacted LG and they were adamant about it accepting 1080P
and that this is how they had run this display and many more at CEDIA.

The customer updated the firmware on his Samsung Bluray and...

1080P works!

Thank God!

My only question is if a display has only a DVI connector does that not
make 1080P compatability suspicious?

Richard Fisher
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]

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

Richard,

DVI inputs for 1080p, because it was introduced for HD about 5 years ago,
might be a reason to investigate, the DVI chip could be old inventory (but I
doubt it on this 1080p set) and limited in resolutions by the chip designer.
The DVI spec was and still is able to support 1080p, as HDMI is since day
one. I would be concern with a long cable though.

The 1080p problem could also be created by chip design, choice of a limited
chip by the TV manufacturer (limited to 480p DVD capability for example),
internal bandwidth of the TV stages after the chip entry point of the TV
(usually the actual reason why some companies incorrectly blame HDMI as
non-1080p before 1.3, it easy to say that than "we did not think 1080p was
necessary"), etc.

Interestingly enough after all that fuzz on our exchanges, what is happening
is that the LG spec was not wrong, because it covers "i" and "p" by not
saying either, but could have been a feature to show if it actually handles
1080p, why not brag about in the spec? Hmmm.

I am still skeptical about how LG fed the panel for their shows, signal
source, settings on the signal source (one can still set a blu-ray player as
1080i output even when capable of 1080p output), connection, etc.

Did this customer have a way for the software of the TV to show that is
actually receiving 1080p?

Not that you want to make this guy more unhappy than he was already, but it
deserves factual verification, not just trusting a response from LG, adamant
or not.

I learned to trust less those companies that are adamant. They usually do
that to cut you out and provide less detail that would confirm they are
intentionally misleading you.

I experienced that attitude with large companies like Samsung and JVC to
mention just two, and I demonstrated to both that they were wrong, but I was
not able to demonstrate that they did that intentionally (and it was
obvious).


Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Richard Fisher
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 4:17 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P - final statement to the Jury

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

What a chain of events...

The dealer contacted LG and they were adamant about it accepting 1080P
and that this is how they had run this display and many more at CEDIA.

The customer updated the firmware on his Samsung Bluray and...

1080P works!

Thank God!

My only question is if a display has only a DVI connector does that not
make 1080P compatability suspicious?

Richard Fisher
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]

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

> saying either, but could have been a feature to show if it actually
handles
> 1080p, why not brag about in the spec? Hmmm.

Sure seems like a lost marketing opportunity doesn't it.

Well it could be of the slice and dice variety - 1080P to 1080I back to
1080P... The good news is the PC is finally hooked up set for 1080P as
well and everyone thinks it looks great so if it is slicing and dicing
it must be doing a decent job of it.

> I am still skeptical about how LG fed the panel for their shows,

The claim was at CEDIA they were running a 1080P distribution system and
ALL of their panels were fed from that.

We also ran into problems with HDMI swtching from the receiver and by
the time it was all over with we had more HDMI inputs then it supported
anyway so he now has an HDMI switcher as well which was good news for
his very lengthy PC HDMI cable.

Thanks for the DVI/1080P gotchya's and confirming what I suspected.

Another question... LG claimed we needed a special HDMI to DVI
adapter... The install techs said the DVI had more pins than the
standard DVI-D... think there is any truth to that?

Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Richard,
>
> DVI inputs for 1080p, because it was introduced for HD about 5 years ago,
> might be a reason to investigate, the DVI chip could be old inventory (but I
> doubt it on this 1080p set) and limited in resolutions by the chip designer.
> The DVI spec was and still is able to support 1080p, as HDMI is since day
> one. I would be concern with a long cable though.
>
> The 1080p problem could also be created by chip design, choice of a limited
> chip by the TV manufacturer (limited to 480p DVD capability for example),
> internal bandwidth of the TV stages after the chip entry point of the TV
> (usually the actual reason why some companies incorrectly blame HDMI as
> non-1080p before 1.3, it easy to say that than "we did not think 1080p was
> necessary"), etc.
>
> Interestingly enough after all that fuzz on our exchanges, what is happening
> is that the LG spec was not wrong, because it covers "i" and "p" by not
> saying either, but could have been a feature to show if it actually handles
> 1080p, why not brag about in the spec? Hmmm.
>
> I am still skeptical about how LG fed the panel for their shows, signal
> source, settings on the signal source (one can still set a blu-ray player as
> 1080i output even when capable of 1080p output), connection, etc.
>
> Did this customer have a way for the software of the TV to show that is
> actually receiving 1080p?
>
> Not that you want to make this guy more unhappy than he was already, but it
> deserves factual verification, not just trusting a response from LG, adamant
> or not.
>
> I learned to trust less those companies that are adamant. They usually do
> that to cut you out and provide less detail that would confirm they are
> intentionally misleading you.
>
> I experienced that attitude with large companies like Samsung and JVC to
> mention just two, and I demonstrated to both that they were wrong, but I was
> not able to demonstrate that they did that intentionally (and it was
> obvious).
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Richard Fisher
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 4:17 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P - final statement to the Jury
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> What a chain of events...
>
> The dealer contacted LG and they were adamant about it accepting 1080P
> and that this is how they had run this display and many more at CEDIA.
>
> The customer updated the firmware on his Samsung Bluray and...
>
> 1080P works!
>
> Thank God!
>
> My only question is if a display has only a DVI connector does that not
> make 1080P compatability suspicious?
>
> Richard Fisher
> 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]

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

> Another question... LG claimed we needed a special HDMI to DVI
> adapter... The install techs said the DVI had more pins than the
> standard DVI-D... think there is any truth to that?

It wasn't an adapter

It was an HDMI to DVI cable from Ultralink I beleive...

The length of this run though was a mere 6 feet

And as our TIPS spectators view this exchange...

Like Rodolfo and so many others have said, get with a pro if you don't
have a grip on this stuff... and it really helps us bunches if you know
everything you want to do before you ask us to do it.



Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Richard Fisher wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> > saying either, but could have been a feature to show if it actually
> handles
> > 1080p, why not brag about in the spec? Hmmm.
>
> Sure seems like a lost marketing opportunity doesn't it.
>
> Well it could be of the slice and dice variety - 1080P to 1080I back to
> 1080P... The good news is the PC is finally hooked up set for 1080P as
> well and everyone thinks it looks great so if it is slicing and dicing
> it must be doing a decent job of it.
>
> > I am still skeptical about how LG fed the panel for their shows,
>
> The claim was at CEDIA they were running a 1080P distribution system and
> ALL of their panels were fed from that.
>
> We also ran into problems with HDMI swtching from the receiver and by
> the time it was all over with we had more HDMI inputs then it supported
> anyway so he now has an HDMI switcher as well which was good news for
> his very lengthy PC HDMI cable.
>
> Thanks for the DVI/1080P gotchya's and confirming what I suspected.
>
> Another question... LG claimed we needed a special HDMI to DVI
> adapter... The install techs said the DVI had more pins than the
> standard DVI-D... think there is any truth to that?
>
> Richard Fisher
> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> Richard,
>>
>> DVI inputs for 1080p, because it was introduced for HD about 5 years ago,
>> might be a reason to investigate, the DVI chip could be old inventory
>> (but I
>> doubt it on this 1080p set) and limited in resolutions by the chip
>> designer.
>> The DVI spec was and still is able to support 1080p, as HDMI is since day
>> one. I would be concern with a long cable though.
>>
>> The 1080p problem could also be created by chip design, choice of a
>> limited
>> chip by the TV manufacturer (limited to 480p DVD capability for example),
>> internal bandwidth of the TV stages after the chip entry point of the TV
>> (usually the actual reason why some companies incorrectly blame HDMI as
>> non-1080p before 1.3, it easy to say that than "we did not think 1080p
>> was
>> necessary"), etc.
>>
>> Interestingly enough after all that fuzz on our exchanges, what is
>> happening
>> is that the LG spec was not wrong, because it covers "i" and "p" by not
>> saying either, but could have been a feature to show if it actually
>> handles
>> 1080p, why not brag about in the spec? Hmmm.
>>
>> I am still skeptical about how LG fed the panel for their shows, signal
>> source, settings on the signal source (one can still set a blu-ray
>> player as
>> 1080i output even when capable of 1080p output), connection, etc.
>>
>> Did this customer have a way for the software of the TV to show that is
>> actually receiving 1080p?
>>
>> Not that you want to make this guy more unhappy than he was already,
>> but it
>> deserves factual verification, not just trusting a response from LG,
>> adamant
>> or not.
>>
>> I learned to trust less those companies that are adamant. They
>> usually do
>> that to cut you out and provide less detail that would confirm they are
>> intentionally misleading you.
>>
>> I experienced that attitude with large companies like Samsung and JVC to
>> mention just two, and I demonstrated to both that they were wrong, but
>> I was
>> not able to demonstrate that they did that intentionally (and it was
>> obvious).
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Rodolfo La Maestra
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>> Richard Fisher
>> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 4:17 PM
>> To: HDTV Magazine
>> Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P - final statement to the Jury
>>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> What a chain of events...
>>
>> The dealer contacted LG and they were adamant about it accepting 1080P
>> and that this is how they had run this display and many more at CEDIA.
>>
>> The customer updated the firmware on his Samsung Bluray and...
>>
>> 1080P works!
>>
>> Thank God!
>>
>> My only question is if a display has only a DVI connector does that not
>> make 1080P compatability suspicious?
>>
>> Richard Fisher
>> 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]

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

Richard, my 24" dell LCD is running 1920x1200 on a DVI single link cable
from a laptop right now. I think these high resolutions seem really hard
to accomplish because they are new in the home theater realm, but they
are commonplace in the computer world.

Richard Fisher wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> > saying either, but could have been a feature to show if it actually
> handles
> > 1080p, why not brag about in the spec? Hmmm.
>
> Sure seems like a lost marketing opportunity doesn't it.
>
> Well it could be of the slice and dice variety - 1080P to 1080I back
> to 1080P... The good news is the PC is finally hooked up set for 1080P
> as well and everyone thinks it looks great so if it is slicing and
> dicing it must be doing a decent job of it.
>
> > I am still skeptical about how LG fed the panel for their shows,
>
> The claim was at CEDIA they were running a 1080P distribution system
> and ALL of their panels were fed from that.
>
> We also ran into problems with HDMI swtching from the receiver and by
> the time it was all over with we had more HDMI inputs then it
> supported anyway so he now has an HDMI switcher as well which was good
> news for his very lengthy PC HDMI cable.
>
> Thanks for the DVI/1080P gotchya's and confirming what I suspected.
>
> Another question... LG claimed we needed a special HDMI to DVI
> adapter... The install techs said the DVI had more pins than the
> standard DVI-D... think there is any truth to that?
>
> Richard Fisher
> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> Richard,
>>
>> DVI inputs for 1080p, because it was introduced for HD about 5 years
>> ago,
>> might be a reason to investigate, the DVI chip could be old inventory
>> (but I
>> doubt it on this 1080p set) and limited in resolutions by the chip
>> designer.
>> The DVI spec was and still is able to support 1080p, as HDMI is since
>> day
>> one. I would be concern with a long cable though.
>>
>> The 1080p problem could also be created by chip design, choice of a
>> limited
>> chip by the TV manufacturer (limited to 480p DVD capability for
>> example),
>> internal bandwidth of the TV stages after the chip entry point of the TV
>> (usually the actual reason why some companies incorrectly blame HDMI as
>> non-1080p before 1.3, it easy to say that than "we did not think
>> 1080p was
>> necessary"), etc.
>>
>> Interestingly enough after all that fuzz on our exchanges, what is
>> happening
>> is that the LG spec was not wrong, because it covers "i" and "p" by not
>> saying either, but could have been a feature to show if it actually
>> handles
>> 1080p, why not brag about in the spec? Hmmm.
>>
>> I am still skeptical about how LG fed the panel for their shows, signal
>> source, settings on the signal source (one can still set a blu-ray
>> player as
>> 1080i output even when capable of 1080p output), connection, etc.
>>
>> Did this customer have a way for the software of the TV to show that is
>> actually receiving 1080p?
>>
>> Not that you want to make this guy more unhappy than he was already,
>> but it
>> deserves factual verification, not just trusting a response from LG,
>> adamant
>> or not.
>>
>> I learned to trust less those companies that are adamant. They
>> usually do
>> that to cut you out and provide less detail that would confirm they are
>> intentionally misleading you.
>>
>> I experienced that attitude with large companies like Samsung and JVC to
>> mention just two, and I demonstrated to both that they were wrong,
>> but I was
>> not able to demonstrate that they did that intentionally (and it was
>> obvious).
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Rodolfo La Maestra
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>> Richard Fisher
>> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 4:17 PM
>> To: HDTV Magazine
>> Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P - final statement to the Jury
>>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> What a chain of events...
>>
>> The dealer contacted LG and they were adamant about it accepting 1080P
>> and that this is how they had run this display and many more at CEDIA.
>>
>> The customer updated the firmware on his Samsung Bluray and...
>>
>> 1080P works!
>>
>> Thank God!
>>
>> My only question is if a display has only a DVI connector does that not
>> make 1080P compatability suspicious?
>>
>> Richard Fisher
>> 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]

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

Richard,

The are some pictures on the "digital connectivity" article, they show the
difference of DVI-I and DVI-D, but the difference is about the cross-blades
and four extra pins for the analog part of the DVD-I (integrated), not the
digital pins, they still 29 in both cases.

Here is an excerpt of that article:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are three types of DVI connectors:

DVI-I (integrated), carries a single or dual-link digital signal, with an
additional analog signal for legacy devices. The 29-pin DVI connector uses
24 pins for the digital data stream (12 for each link) and 5 pins (1
plus -shaped blade and 4 pins) to carry analog video and ground.


DVI-I

DVI-D (digital) carries digital-only video data to a display. It is
designed for 12 or 24 pin connections, and single/dual link operation
(notice the lack of 4 pins, 2 above/2 below the flat blade).


DVI-D

DVI-A (analog) is available for legacy analog applications to carry analog
signals to a CRT monitor or an analog HDTV (claims to be better than VGA).
The three rows of eight pins have three pins missing in the first row, five
missing in the second row and four missing in the third row, and that the
"flat blade" contact seen to the left has two contacts above and below it.
There is no single or dual link in analog cables.


DVI-A

Regarding connecting plugs to receptacles:

A DVI-D plug can be connected to either DVI-D or DVI-I receptacles,
A DVI-A plug can be connected to either DVI-I/A or VGA (w/adapter)
receptacles,
A DVI-A receptacle would accept DVI-I but not DVI-D.
A DVI-I plug can be connected to either DVI-I or DVI-A receptacles (the 'A'
ignores 'I's digital pins)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that the LG showed a spec of DVI-D, meaning no cross-blades/4
analog pins, just the 24 digital pins (3 rows of with the wider
horizontal blade on the side.

Having a player with HDMI out means that an HDMI to DVI-D adaptor to connect
to the TV would do the job, but I do not see what is special about it as LG
says, other than splitting out the audio part, because DVI-D does not handle
audio.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra




-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Richard Fisher
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 7:10 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P - final statement to the Jury

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

> saying either, but could have been a feature to show if it actually
handles
> 1080p, why not brag about in the spec? Hmmm.

Sure seems like a lost marketing opportunity doesn't it.

Well it could be of the slice and dice variety - 1080P to 1080I back to
1080P... The good news is the PC is finally hooked up set for 1080P as
well and everyone thinks it looks great so if it is slicing and dicing
it must be doing a decent job of it.

> I am still skeptical about how LG fed the panel for their shows,

The claim was at CEDIA they were running a 1080P distribution system and
ALL of their panels were fed from that.

We also ran into problems with HDMI swtching from the receiver and by
the time it was all over with we had more HDMI inputs then it supported
anyway so he now has an HDMI switcher as well which was good news for
his very lengthy PC HDMI cable.

Thanks for the DVI/1080P gotchya's and confirming what I suspected.

Another question... LG claimed we needed a special HDMI to DVI
adapter... The install techs said the DVI had more pins than the
standard DVI-D... think there is any truth to that?

Richard Fisher
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Rodolfo La Maestra wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Richard,
>
> DVI inputs for 1080p, because it was introduced for HD about 5 years ago,
> might be a reason to investigate, the DVI chip could be old inventory (but
I
> doubt it on this 1080p set) and limited in resolutions by the chip
designer.
> The DVI spec was and still is able to support 1080p, as HDMI is since day
> one. I would be concern with a long cable though.
>
> The 1080p problem could also be created by chip design, choice of a
limited
> chip by the TV manufacturer (limited to 480p DVD capability for example),
> internal bandwidth of the TV stages after the chip entry point of the TV
> (usually the actual reason why some companies incorrectly blame HDMI as
> non-1080p before 1.3, it easy to say that than "we did not think 1080p was
> necessary"), etc.
>
> Interestingly enough after all that fuzz on our exchanges, what is
happening
> is that the LG spec was not wrong, because it covers "i" and "p" by not
> saying either, but could have been a feature to show if it actually
handles
> 1080p, why not brag about in the spec? Hmmm.
>
> I am still skeptical about how LG fed the panel for their shows, signal
> source, settings on the signal source (one can still set a blu-ray player
as
> 1080i output even when capable of 1080p output), connection, etc.
>
> Did this customer have a way for the software of the TV to show that is
> actually receiving 1080p?
>
> Not that you want to make this guy more unhappy than he was already, but
it
> deserves factual verification, not just trusting a response from LG,
adamant
> or not.
>
> I learned to trust less those companies that are adamant. They usually do
> that to cut you out and provide less detail that would confirm they are
> intentionally misleading you.
>
> I experienced that attitude with large companies like Samsung and JVC to
> mention just two, and I demonstrated to both that they were wrong, but I
was
> not able to demonstrate that they did that intentionally (and it was
> obvious).
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Richard Fisher
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 4:17 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: flat panel 1080P - final statement to the Jury
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> What a chain of events...
>
> The dealer contacted LG and they were adamant about it accepting 1080P
> and that this is how they had run this display and many more at CEDIA.
>
> The customer updated the firmware on his Samsung Bluray and...
>
> 1080P works!
>
> Thank God!
>
> My only question is if a display has only a DVI connector does that not
> make 1080P compatability suspicious?
>
> Richard Fisher
> 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]