Plasma screen resolution question

Scottnot · 12-02-2007, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobY

Based on your above logic in interpreting the ATSC dosuments, any display that can receive an HD signal and display it on the screen is an HD display, even if has a resolution of 200 x 100 pixels.

Why must you continually dress your "arguments" in absurdities. You know very well this is simply not true by any stretch of the imagination, as it would fail totally to satisfy either of the definitions put forth by the ATSC in A/53 and A/54A.

Quote:

Certainly the ATSC expects displays of different resolutions to scale HD signals for display. That doesn't make them HD displays.

I guess that is what the discussion is about; I would say if a product has been successfully marketed as an HD display and consumer response has been overwhelmingly positive, then the displays are indeed HD.

And, given the direction of manufacturer's at this time and consumer preference for 1080 displays, my guess it that it will soon be a moot point anyway.

Quote:

Of course my question is "loaded", because I think it is manifestly obvious for a display that calls itself HD to be able to properly display at least *some* HD signal, just as I expect an audio system that claims to be stereo to have two speakers and play two separate audio channels.

No, it is "loaded" because of the language in which it was phrased and constructed.

The stereo analogy is beyond a bit of a stretch. Sort of not even apples and oranges . . . . just a real stretch.

Quote:

I didn't say consumers were somehow "wrong"--presumably they bought a display that satisfied them. That doesn't mean it's an HD display.

Then why keep telling them that they are wrong. When they post about their HD TVs in this forum you are quite quick to advise them that their sets are not HD. Sure sounds like telling them that they are wrong to me.

Quote:

If your criteria of whether something is true or not is whether lawyers can make billions of dollars off it, that's pretty frightening.

I have never said anything like what you have just suggested. Nor have I in any manner equated "truth" with whether lawyeres can make $$$$ in the manner that you are suggesting . Of course, it does go without saying that consumer fraud laws are based on penalizing those who do not tell the truth to consumers. You have a bad habit of constructing misquotes which are disturbingly askew from reality.
The phrase was "if the issue . . . had any merit" in the first instance and "if the poor consumer has been so obviously duped" in the second instance instance; and certainly in both cases, I would expect to see legal teams in hordes.

pappylap · 12-02-2007, 09:20 PM

BobY · 12-02-2007, 09:47 PM

Scottnot-

How about if we both agree the other is being absurd and move on?

I still can't follow your logic or rationalizations at all. You bring things in that have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You are analyzing this on such a deep and picayune level, while my question is simple and straightforward:

Given the absence of any objective definition of an HD display, should a display be considered HD if it cannot display *any* HD signal as it was intended to be displayed by those who defined the HD standard?

My question stands and anyone left reading this can draw their own conclusion.

My example of a stereo is not only germane, it perfectly expresses the situation as far as I'm concerned. I buy a product expecting it to meet it's marketing claims.

If you successfully market an herbal supplement as a cure for the common cold, does that mean you can make marketing claims it's a cure for the common cold? You might want to talk to the FDA about that. Being able to successfully market something to consumers has nothing to do with whether your marketing claims are accurate.

Pappy-

S'truth.

I'm done.

Scottnot · 12-03-2007, 07:10 AM

Cheap shots aside, Boby, you have had the last word.

12-02-2007, 09:20 PM	#47
pappylap Poopmaster Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Way over Yonder Age: 4 Posts: 2,872	__________________ Bar Wench...Where's my Waffle! You can checkout anytime you like but you can never leave.." 50"Pioneer KURO 111FD Pro Elite Pioneer BD320 Blu-ray player Pioneer VSX-919AH A/V Receiver 32" & 37" Olevia LCDs Sony DHG HDD 500 gig DVR Samsung DTBH260 Digital Tuner One Roll of Charmin Quilted Plus in each Bathroom...

Similar Threads to Plasma screen resolution question
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Connecting DVI to HDTV	rbinck	Computers/HTPCs	199	08-30-2009 02:46 AM
Question about "Motion Blur" on LCD sets!	E55 KEV	Flat-Panel TVs	6	01-16-2005 01:34 PM
Problems with SA8000HD Box	jennymcc	Cable Providers	12	01-01-2005 10:14 AM

12-02-2007, 09:47 PM	#48
BobY What's all this, then?... Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,197	Scottnot- How about if we both agree the other is being absurd and move on? I still can't follow your logic or rationalizations at all. You bring things in that have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You are analyzing this on such a deep and picayune level, while my question is simple and straightforward: Given the absence of any objective definition of an HD display, should a display be considered HD if it cannot display any HD signal as it was intended to be displayed by those who defined the HD standard? My question stands and anyone left reading this can draw their own conclusion. My example of a stereo is not only germane, it perfectly expresses the situation as far as I'm concerned. I buy a product expecting it to meet it's marketing claims. If you successfully market an herbal supplement as a cure for the common cold, does that mean you can make marketing claims it's a cure for the common cold? You might want to talk to the FDA about that. Being able to successfully market something to consumers has nothing to do with whether your marketing claims are accurate. Pappy- S'truth. I'm done.

12-03-2007, 07:10 AM	#49
Scottnot Progress Not Perfection Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,020	Cheap shots aside, Boby, you have had the last word.