Samsung FALSE ADVERTISING

[Barry_Green]

If you want to hold to analog broadcast standards and talk about TV Lines Of Resolution, then of course the argument that it's twice the TV Lines of resolution. But -- is anyone seriously arguing that? Is it not obvious to everyone that we've moved past the days of CRTs and TV Lines and we're now firmly merged, the convergence of the TV and computer monitor and desktop LCD and laptop screen has all happened. And would anyone, anywhere, argue that a 3840x2160 display could not resolve four HD displays?

The original poster was complaining because Samsung was advertising that their 4K TV was (quoting the OP's words) "four times the resolution of HD". It unquestionably is. You could easily screen-capture four HD displays, stitch 'em together in Photoshop, and display them all simultaneously at full res on that Samsung TV, right?

So where's the big argument? About "TV Lines"? When did that even enter the discussion? Sure, in analog standard-def we referred to 525 and 625 line systems, and we referred to how many "TV Lines" of res you could get out of them (which was a goofy number anyway because it may not have even been talking about actual resolving power, but instead referencing how many lines PER PICTURE HEIGHT, which -- because TVs aren't and never were square, meant you had to cut down the resolvable lines based on the aspect ratio. And "525-line" video was rendered in a 720x480 matrix, and 625-line video was rendered in a 720x576 matrix -- notice anything wrong with this picture? Lots of lines weren't used in analog broadcast, so even though 480 pixels tall could hold the entirety of the visual image of an NTSC broadcast, it was still a 525-line system.

Which, all added together, is irrelevant to today's digital acquisition, digital broadcast, digital monitor world. Now we talk about pixel dimensions. 1080p is 1920x1080. 4K QuadHD is 3840x2160. 720p is 1280x720. We all know what this means, and we all know that it is clearly obvious that a QuadHD display is 4x the resolution as 1080p because you can literally fit one, two, three, four times as much information on one screen.

Why is there confusion on this?

 

[David Jimerson]

Not sure what you're point is there, no-one eluded to resolution in one way

Well, that isn't so.

 

[David Jimerson]

If you want to hold to analog broadcast standards and talk about TV Lines Of Resolution, then of course the argument that it's twice the TV Lines of resolution. But -- is anyone seriously arguing that? Is it not obvious to everyone that we've moved past the days of CRTs and TV Lines and we're now firmly merged, the convergence of the TV and computer monitor and desktop LCD and laptop screen has all happened. And would anyone, anywhere, argue that a 3840x2160 display could not resolve four HD displays?

The original poster was complaining because Samsung was advertising that their 4K TV was (quoting the OP's words) "four times the resolution of HD". It unquestionably is. You could easily screen-capture four HD displays, stitch 'em together in Photoshop, and display them all simultaneously at full res on that Samsung TV, right?

So where's the big argument? About "TV Lines"? When did that even enter the discussion? Sure, in analog standard-def we referred to 525 and 625 line systems, and we referred to how many "TV Lines" of res you could get out of them (which was a goofy number anyway because it may not have even been talking about actual resolving power, but instead referencing how many lines PER PICTURE HEIGHT, which -- because TVs aren't and never were square, meant you had to cut down the resolvable lines based on the aspect ratio. And "525-line" video was rendered in a 720x480 matrix, and 625-line video was rendered in a 720x576 matrix -- notice anything wrong with this picture? Lots of lines weren't used in analog broadcast, so even though 480 pixels tall could hold the entirety of the visual image of an NTSC broadcast, it was still a 525-line system.

Which, all added together, is irrelevant to today's digital acquisition, digital broadcast, digital monitor world. Now we talk about pixel dimensions. 1080p is 1920x1080. 4K QuadHD is 3840x2160. 720p is 1280x720. We all know what this means, and we all know that it is clearly obvious that a QuadHD display is 4x the resolution as 1080p because you can literally fit one, two, three, four times as much information on one screen.

Why is there confusion on this?

More importantly, why is there anger over it?

 

[HorseFilms]

I'm amazed that people continue to be so hung up on the numbers. Just shoot something, already.

 

[Paul F]

[edit] But you're still reading it.

.....Because it is fun to discuss.

If you want to hold to analog broadcast standards and talk about TV Lines Of Resolution, then of course the argument that it's twice the TV Lines of resolution. But -- is anyone seriously arguing that? Is it not obvious to everyone that we've moved past the days of CRTs and TV Lines and we're now firmly merged, the convergence of the TV and computer monitor and desktop LCD and laptop screen has all happened. And would anyone, anywhere, argue that a 3840x2160 display could not resolve four HD displays?

The original poster was complaining because Samsung was advertising that their 4K TV was (quoting the OP's words) "four times the resolution of HD". It unquestionably is. You could easily screen-capture four HD displays, stitch 'em together in Photoshop, and display them all simultaneously at full res on that Samsung TV, right?

I don't think anyone is arguing that a 4k monitor can display 4x the information that a 2k monitor can (when they have equal MTF - see below). The argument is that Samsung is misusing a term that some people believe misleads the public. So the definition of the word is what we are discussing. We are not arguing about pixel math, the argument is that resolve means something other than how you are using it.

So where's the big argument? About "TV Lines"? When did that even enter the discussion? Sure, in analog standard-def we referred to 525 and 625 line systems, and we referred to how many "TV Lines" of res you could get out of them (which was a goofy number anyway because it may not have even been talking about actual resolving power, but instead referencing how many lines PER PICTURE HEIGHT, which -- because TVs aren't and never were square, meant you had to cut down the resolvable lines based on the aspect ratio. And "525-line" video was rendered in a 720x480 matrix, and 625-line video was rendered in a 720x576 matrix -- notice anything wrong with this picture? Lots of lines weren't used in analog broadcast, so even though 480 pixels tall could hold the entirety of the visual image of an NTSC broadcast, it was still a 525-line system.

Let's forget about analog TV. It was a reference to how resolution is used as a term to define quality.

Which, all added together, is irrelevant to today's digital acquisition, digital broadcast, digital monitor world. Now we talk about pixel dimensions. 1080p is 1920x1080. 4K QuadHD is 3840x2160. 720p is 1280x720. We all know what this means, and we all know that it is clearly obvious that a QuadHD display is 4x the resolution as 1080p because you can literally fit one, two, three, four times as much information on one screen.

Why is there confusion on this?

It's not a matter of confusion but the definition of the word. It has two distinct uses. One is a technical specification (1920 x1080) and one is a quality measurement (lines resolved)

No one can disagree with the pixel math. But we can debate what a consumer would think Samsung is telling them with their statement. For computer uses, the term means 1024 x 768 or 1920 x 1080. This has been its use for a very long time. There is no dispute. But that is not a measurement of quality. It is a definition of how many pixels are being processed. If a manufacturer made a really bad 4k TV it could have less resolution than a 2k TV. It would be hard to do, but it is possible that a 2k TV could show more information than a 4k TV. It has to do with the other meaning of resolution, which is the modulation transfer function (MTF), which is a measurement of quality.

Let's take a camera and aim it at a chart that has lines of resolution on it. Camera A can clearly distinguish 400 lines, but no more. Camera B can distinguish 800 lines. Camera B can display 4x the information of camera A, but we consider its resolution to be twice as good, not four times as good. That is a measurement of quality.

The same holds true for a monitor. While two monitors may be 1080P x 1920, one may resolve fewer lines that the other. It's quality is less.

Back to Samsung - Their 4k TVs may be 4x better than their 2K TVs, but I doubt it. If they do, they make really poor 2K TVs. Does its 4k TV have 4x more pixels? Yes. Is the resolution 4x? It depends on which resolution Samsung is talking about. Of course, they are talking about pixels, not quality.

 

[David Jimerson]

I doubt very much the typical consumer knows much about "TV lines," and would more likely equate resolution with computer screen resolution. Especially considering that's how HDTVs have been billed since their introduction.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I doubt very much the typical consumer knows much about "TV lines," and would more likely equate resolution with computer screen resolution. Especially considering that's how HDTVs have been billed since their introduction.

There are many occasions were the marketing verbage, while 'true', gives a misleading impression. In disk drives there use to be a big to do about the maximum bit rate that data could be written to the disk... 100 Mbs... wow... then in the fine print, one read that the actual sustained bit rate was more like 20 Mbs. The marketing verbage was 'true' but the actual sustained rate set how fast the drive could perform 'useful' work.

Perhaps that's why I hate going to Fry's or Best Buy... because not only are most consumers unaware of these sorts of true but often 'useless' specs, so are the sales people...

For a 4k screen... ok... it can display 4 HD tiles... but I'm probably 2-3x the distance from the screen... so in the end... other than perhaps a video wall application, or sure as a computer display... now where's my CPU/Graphics card that can support 4 simultaneous HD feeds... I would have to ask the most important question...

Does the 4k do anything for me at all?

(And also knowing that almost all media that is available now, would have to be 'uprezed' for display on the full screen... just as SD has to be uprezed for full screen HD display... and then there's this idiotic 'stretch' to get 16:9 out of 4:3 material...)

It's not a point of 'anger'... just noting 'business as usual' from the marketing department.

 

[Barry_Green]

The argument is that Samsung is misusing a term that some people believe misleads the public.

And what term would that be?

I went to the Samsung site and looked at how they're presenting their S9 85-inch UHD 4K LED TV. They say (and I quote) "Definition 4K 85" TV provides the brightest, clearest images with four times the detail of Full HD". How is that misleading? It's stating exactly what it does.

So the definition of the word is what we are discussing.

Which word? "Resolution"? They didn't use that word. "Lines of resolution"? They didn't use those words. They said it has four times the detail of Full HD. And seeing as one monitor can display four FullHD screens, I'd say they're exactly right, and it's really not possible for anyone to be misled by what they're saying, is it?

the argument is that resolve means something other than how you are using it.

And I'd ask when the word "resolve" even came into the discussion? If the discussion is about Samsung's marketing practice, then I think the fact they never used the word "resolve" is pretty important here. Now, they did say it has "3840x2160 resolution" -- surely you're not going to take exception to that, are you? It's a digital panel. It has discrete pixels, it's not using phosphors and scanning CRT beams, it's a digital on/off display with 3840x2160 resolution. Surely there's no argument about that?

No one can disagree with the pixel math. But we can debate what a consumer would think Samsung is telling them with their statement.

How?

Where is there any room for confusion? Read the actual words Samsung used: "This Ultra High Definition 4K 85" TV provides the brightest, clearest images with four times the detail of Full HD". Where is there any room for confusion? Where did they misappropriate a word?

Look, either the set displays its stated res, or it doesn't. I know when I use my cheapo Dell computer monitor and I put up a 1920x1080 image on my 1920x1080 display in Photoshop, I can click on any pixel and see a dot appear. I can click off that pixel and see the dot disappear. I can make a black & white 2x2 grid, define that as a pattern, and fill the entire document with it -- and what I see on the screen is a 1920x1080 grid of black & white dots. I can put on 2 pairs of reading glasses and get right up to the screen and discern that there are individual dots in each and every pixel position. There's no blending to gray, as MTF would mean. It's a digital monitor and each pixel is resolved.

I would expect the same from Samsung, especially from their top of the line 35,000GBP 4K TV. Now, could Samsung have screwed it up and made it wrong so that it fails that test? I guess that's possible, and if that's the case, they must be pretty incompetent at making televisions. And I don't have one to test so I can't verify it. Test it if you want; get a computer with Photoshop and HDMI 4K output, make a 3840x2160 image, plug the computer's output into the TV, and count the pixels. If you get a muddy sea of gray, then you're right, the MTF is below rated resolution. But I suspect that's not what's going to happen, I suspect that their digital LCD system displays each and every pixel just like my 7-year-old Dell 24" computer monitor does.

Which, by the way, would exactly match their marketing claim that their 3840x2160 pixel display shows "four times the detail of FullHD". I seriously don't see the problem here.

 

[David Jimerson]

There are many occasions were the marketing verbage, while 'true', gives a misleading impression. In disk drives there use to be a big to do about the maximum bit rate that data could be written to the disk... 100 Mbs... wow... then in the fine print, one read that the actual sustained bit rate was more like 20 Mbs. The marketing verbage was 'true' but the actual sustained rate set how fast the drive could perform 'useful' work.

Perhaps that's why I hate going to Fry's or Best Buy... because not only are most consumers unaware of these sorts of true but often 'useless' specs, so are the sales people...

For a 4k screen... ok... it can display 4 HD tiles... but I'm probably 2-3x the distance from the screen... so in the end... other than perhaps a video wall application, or sure as a computer display... now where's my CPU/Graphics card that can support 4 simultaneous HD feeds... I would have to ask the most important question...

Does the 4k do anything for me at all?

(And also knowing that almost all media that is available now, would have to be 'uprezed' for display on the full screen... just as SD has to be uprezed for full screen HD display... and then there's this idiotic 'stretch' to get 16:9 out of 4:3 material...)

It's not a point of 'anger'... just noting 'business as usual' from the marketing department.

It may be that it doesn't do all that much for you, but it's not "false advertising" in any way.

 

[Paul F]

And what term would that be?

resolution

I went to the Samsung site and looked at how they're presenting their S9 85-inch UHD 4K LED TV. They say (and I quote) "Definition 4K 85" TV provides the brightest, clearest images with four times the detail of Full HD". How is that misleading? It's stating exactly what it does.

Which word? "Resolution"? They didn't use that word. "Lines of resolution"? They didn't use those words. They said it has four times the detail of Full HD. And seeing as one monitor can display four FullHD screens, I'd say they're exactly right, and it's really not possible for anyone to be misled by what they're saying, is it?

I am only discussing this from the point of the original post, which claims Samsung did use the word resolution in a TV ad.

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.

I seriously don't see the problem here.

Neither do I. But apparently, some do. It's a matter one's background and what one believes the term should mean. One could believe it is false advertising if the word resolution only meant lines of resolution to them. That's another reason why I brought up the analog TV thing. An old timer in the broadcast world might hold resolution to mean lines of resolution and nothing more. We are on a camera forum where we get hung up on these kinds of terms.

I have no issue with Samsung. The public wouldn't have an issue with Samsung. But I do appreciate why someone would.

 

[Barry_Green]

But Samsung didn't use the term resolution! So they're being tried and convicted for something they didn't even do.

 

[David Jimerson]

Sony says "four times the detail," too. Can't find a Samsung commercial in English.

http://www.ispot.tv/ad/7tHx/sony-4k-ultra-tv-featuring-garth-davis

Of course, I find the commercial objectionable for the load of horsecrap Garth Davis says. (Which is not false advertising.)

 

[plundstr]

Is it four times the resolution = yes, is the image quality four times better = no. In other words Id say Samsungs commercial is technically true, yet slightly misleading if youre expecting some magical revolution over HD. Thats not even taking into account that most material shown on these tvs will have been shot in 2k...