LG has had is knuckles rapped by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) following a complaint made about its 3D TVs by consumers arch-rival telly maker Samsung. The bigger of the two South Korean giants said LG was wrong to say the Cinema 3D TV, which uses passive 3D technology, could produce a "full HD 3D picture" or that …
Can't fault the ruling
LG were playing fast and loose and got called. At least the ASA were doing their job right.
Please read the ruling yourselves here: http://bit.ly/x01Cv5
The ASA did their job by ruling that LG can continue to use the terms "Full HD" and "HD 1080p" as long as we also clarify that we employ passive technology, which we are happy to do.
How is this playing "fast and loose"?
The problem is that "Full HD" doesn't actually mean 1080p when used as a promotional term. It's effectively meaningless. If it was 1080p, it would say "HD Ready 1080p". It's all rather misleadingly confusing - deliberately so, of course.
Up to Full HD
You can just feel it coming can't you :-(
will samsung have to remove their claims for 'decent 3d picture'. Can't stand those active screens, flicker like maad. So I definately take my cinema 3d , even with lower resolution..
Are any sources actually 1080p? The display from the sky box certainly isn't full resolution is it?
Any sources 1080p ?
Some media boxes (eg Western Digital Live TV Hub)
only one eye
agreed, and nothing to say that technically my eyes (plural) actual cumulatively see more pixels at any given split second using passive so to follow the pedantic path active 3d is exactly half Full HD in the traditional sense anyhow.
Perhaps sky will need to remove the HD 3d claim then? 3d Blu Ray content is the only full 1080p content available I believe
I understood that
Sky's HD service was 1080i.
Of course, what you see is dependent on the original quality of the material (up-scaled SD Simpsons will never look good). If you have Sky HD and at least a 1080i TV connected through HDMI, look at some of the HD documentary channels. Unfortunately, too many of these carry up-scaled material much of the time, but you will see some real HD. Some of the BBC sport coverage is also very good (I remember my first Wimbledon in HD, which really showed the difference).
As somebody else pointed out, BlueRay can be full 1080p, as can some of the games consoles.
My understanding is that 1080p and 1080i are both Full HD just that 1080p sends a whole 1080 lines in one chunk and 1080i sends 540 lines per chunk so needs two chunks to fill the same 1080 lines. Progressive "p" does 1080 lines sequentially, interlaced "i" does even lines then odd lines; same end result.
For 3D, you can either display 1080 lines of half width picture per eye, or 540 lines of full width picture per eye. Neither is, nor can provide, "Full HD" which is the basis of the ruling. To achieve Full HD they'd need to double the vertical or horizontal resolution on the display.
I think that 1080p is FullHD and 1080i is only HD ready. My first flat panel was labeled HD ready and could display 720p and 1080i, my current 1080 24p and is labeled FullHD.
For the active 3D you display a full picture for one eye, then display a full picture for the other. So you have the full 1920*1080 picture for both eyes. That's why the refresh rate is so high on those screens - it allows the picture to flick between the two fast enough so that you as a viewer don't notice (hahaha).
I think :)
"Full HD" was rendered meaningless long ago by the marketards. It can even mean 720i.
If a TV is1080p it will say "HD Ready 1080p" and will have 1080p all over the packaging, marketing materials and manual.
If a TV just says 1080 and "Full HD" it is NEVER 1080p
3D is broadcast at 720x1080i side by side (and basically all 'downloaded' 3D is too) so you're not actually losing anything... but yes it's not full HD in the traditional sense and they shouldn't have said that.
I agree can't stand active 3D - unless you're staring directly at the TV the whole room flickers as then 50hz shutter interacts badly with flourescent lighting that also flickers at 50hz. Having glasses that don't cost 150 quid a pop helps too.
Even then, what 3D? 3D movies are OK for a bit, but few are actually improved by it. TV programmes aren't broadcast in 3D (possibly sport, but I don't watch that). If I were to replace my TV it wouldn't be with another 3D one. Wasted some dosh there.
There are "full-SBS" downloads that are full HD, or so I've heard. At 3840x1080 pixels they require some grunty playing hardware though. Active shutter glasses are down to about 10 quid each on eBay.
count both eyes
If we go super anal then at any given split second your eyes (plural) see more pixels combined with passive as active will have one eye blacked out......
Sit where you please
"the ASA agreed with LG about the claim that punters can sit where they please"
Sounds like a compelling reason to buy one of these LG sets ... can the put a stop to the endless "tell him to move 'cos I can't see the TV" arguments between my sons with a simple answer of "no need, the ASA has ruled that you can sit(*) anywhere and see the TV so you don't have a problem"
(*) of course, this is liable to the reply of "but I'm not sitting, I'm lying on the sofa"
Hypocracy, thy name is Samsung
Interesting that Samsung is making complaints when all sets in their D6xxx line of 'Full HD 3D' TV's were incapable of even 720p 3D. I own one with the Full HD 3D logo still present on the box and set, though they have since removed them from new units. Maybe LG should complain.
They could get round this by including a view mode which uses the same flicker technique as active screens use:
1 picture for red filter, next for cyan.
It'll probably be unwatchable because of the flicker, but it would be full hd.
(Should I be patenting this idea? or is it too late now it's in the public domain? d'oh, i always do this.)
Hmmm, LG 3D Full HD certification?
Just read an article at
"LG Electronics has announced that its Cinema 3D TV (47LW570S-ZD) has been certified “Full HD in 3D-Mode” by VDE, one of the largest technical and scientific international associations in Europe. "
Think its down to personal preference, lower res with cheaper glasses and less eyestrain or full HD with the downsides that come with it. For me, I'll be going for a Cinema 3D TV when my plasma packs in.....
Not 3D - I dislike the term 3D, it's stereoscopic. If it was 3D I could move around and see different things, and you can't.
I love my LG
I have to say, I'm delighted with my 3D LG telly. We can all watch the telly sat wherever and it works fine. I can't perceive any drop in HD-ness between 3D and non-3D. Plus we have 10 pairs of specs and get new pairs off ebay for 99p. If only I had something to watch :(
RE: I love my LG
Seconded. I bought a LG 32LW45 just the other day as it was on offer. I don't see any drop in image quality with 3D content when 3D mode is on unless I move real close to the screen, in which then the scan lines becomes somewhat obvious. The fact that the glasses aren't flickery at all (and the fact that I can actually have this polarizing feature added to my prescription glasses the next time I get them made) are all advantages that active shutter glasses lack.
My only complaints are that the sets start up with a picture lag which gradually disappears, and that sometimes it fails to detect 3D mode properly (though I'm beginning to suspect this to be the fault of the HDMI cable- what happens when you buy cheapo from Carrefour I guess).
Samsung can go take their active 3D and shove it up their arse. I'm convinced of the advantages of passive 3D, even if resolution is halved and the picture is interlaced.
If you can't tell the difference between 1080 and 540, you might as well have kept your old CRT!