Samsung FALSE ADVERTISING

ripupthehwy

ripupthehwy

Well-known member
I just saw the new TV ad for Samsung ultra hd televisions. Twice they say in the ad that it's "four times the resolution of HD" Did I miss something? Is it 8K? I keep hearing people refer to 4k as "four times" the resolution of HD and its not. So we are leapfroging over 4k and heading right into 8k now I suppose...and lying about it.
 
Yes, it is.

Ultra HD TVs have a resolution slightly lower than 3840 x 2160. That's exactly four times higher than the full HD resolution of 1920 x 1080.
 
facepalm-1_zps4c58a6b3.jpg
 
If that were the case then HD would be four times the resolution of Standard Def 480 lines. This is marketing BS. Okay so you can almost fit four HD frames into a 4k image. But its not taking the 3840 x 2160 image and multiplying by four...not even by two !

So it would be accurate to say Ultra HD is NOT four times the SIZE of HD. Maybe you can get away with saying its four times the RESOLUTION, if you understand what that means. The average consumer does not.

If I take 1080 lines of resloution and quadriple that its 4320 lines of resolution. (7680 x 4320)
 
Last edited:
ripupthehwy said:
I just saw the new TV ad for Samsung ultra hd televisions. Twice they say in the ad that it's "four times the resolution of HD" Did I miss something? Is it 8K? I keep hearing people refer to 4k as "four times" the resolution of HD and its not. So we are leapfroging over 4k and heading right into 8k now I suppose...and lying about it.
Click to expand...

bunny-pancake.gif
 
ripupthehwy said:
I just saw the new TV ad for Samsung ultra hd televisions. Twice they say in the ad that it's "four times the resolution of HD"
Click to expand...

ripupthehwy said:
So it would be accurate to say Ultra HD is NOT four times the SIZE of HD. Maybe you can get away with saying its four times the RESOLUTION, if you understand what that means. The average consumer does not
Click to expand...

According to you they did.

And your math doesn't reflect how size (area) of a two dimensional shape actually works. You can't take it one axis at a time, it's not a line.
 
Another set of numbers as the OP mentioned SD originally also.

Here are SD pixel calculations.

PAL (720 x 575) is:

720 x 576 X5 = 2073600

1920 x 1080 = 2073600

So, in terms of pixel count, 1080 is 5 times larger than SD PAL.
 
Weee... this thread is damn funny :D But glad we had it spelled out, calculated and bent in neon. Now if I could just have stayed away from commenting this idle comment, the thread could have started dying down again. It's just funny :D
 
There are many ways to define and talk about "resolution". There is linear resolution and areal resolution, you can count pixels wide and pixels total and neither is right or wrong as long as you are consistent and understand that there are other ways of talking about it. It's just semantics and I wouldn't get too worked up about one person defining something one way or another. Samsung is justified in saying 2160p is four times the resolution of 1080p because it is four times as many pixels, that's why its called QuadHD after all, because it can fit exactly 4 1080p HD frames inside of it. If you want to define resolution by linear pixel width or height that is fine as long as you are specific, but know that you are only talking about one linear dimension of pixels, whereas the term "resolution" has many different meanings to different people depending on context. Just look at all the people that keep getting confused by "measured resolution" and "pixel resolution", there are several ways to count pixels and several ways to measure resolution.
 
Linear resolution is the only resolution that matters as far as our eyes are concerned. What OP is implying is that Samsung is claiming that 4x as many pixels = 4x as much detail, when it does not. Photographers have known about this for a long time, that you need a camera with four times as much resolution to create twice as much linear resolution, which is when you appreciably start to see more detail, instead of "well you can kinda see more detail in the tree branches over there".

But TV companies need statistics and technicalities to spin and sell more product, so who can blame them for (intentionally) not checking the facts?

This needs to be sticked or something... adding pixels together is dumb as an engineer adding together the load capacities of each piece of a structure to get it's total load capacity.
 
Kolor-Pikker said:
Photographers have known about this for a long time, that you need a camera with four times as much resolution to create twice as much linear resolution, which is when you appreciably start to see more detail, instead of "well you can kinda see more detail in the tree branches over there".
Click to expand...

That's just nonsense.

Photographers "have known"? I'm a photographer and I have no idea what your mumbling about. Four times as much resolution is FOUR TIMES as much resolution. End of story. 12mp is half of 24mp. 2mp is 1/4th of 8mp.

Talking about linear resolution like it's some kindoff magical real resolution is so odd. 1080p is 4 times better than PAL SD. And it shows, you can actually see 4 times more information. Just take a really sharp 100x100 image and scale it down to 50x50. Take a look at how much stuff is lost. A LOT. Four pixels become one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top