We've suspected all along that it was marketing B.S.
Now we now that it is :-)

Mike

At least it was written by someone who knows what he's talking about, as opposed to some fanboy individual.

I sure do wish someone, some organization, would up with some industry standards that everyone could/would use from capture (cameras) all the way through to display (TV/monitors). But I guess that's asking too much.

The comments by BlazePC pretty much says it for me. In part:
"Translated: Educated and experienced engineer transforms to talking head pontificator, turns into defensive butt-hurt blogger (in the comments section following said "otherwise well written expose"). "

Yes, doctor, consummers are gullible. One doesn't need any university qualifications to reach such an obvious conclusion. The same diatribe could be written about any other piece of complex technology sold into the consummer market.

Bob.

I have been aware of these issues for years but always find the discussion fascinating. Many years ago when analog color television was still going through growing pains a friend discovered that the program originators could not maintain proper hue so that skin tones didn't look natural - either purple or green. The solution was to modify the TV sets so the demodulation angle was greater than the specified 90 degrees - perhaps 110 degrees or more. That way it didn't matter whether the incoming signal was somewhat off since the demodulator saw anything close as correct and the hue adjustment became far less fussy!

"First of all, “dynamic” was left off—it should say “infinite dynamic contrast ratio.” This is then technically correct because the LEDs turn off when an all-black image is present. This results in a division by zero, and produces the infinite result."

This particular bit of hype is not technically correct, but rather is typical of middle-school logic. The answer to "divide by zero" is NOT "infinite," but "undefined" the last time I checked. That's because we don't know whether the answer is zero, one, one million, or infinity. There being no definable quotient, so divide by zero fails the function test.

Of course it really wouldn't look particularly good if the Walmart marketers touted "Undefined Dynamic Contrast Ratio." But then they would be telling the truth . . .

.............The same diatribe could be written about any other piece of complex technology sold into the consummer market.

agreed, and it does not even have to be complex,,,, I remember seeing a ad for an electric can opener back in 99,,, " y2k compliant"

gotta love it...,, buyer beware,, or at least think about it a minute or two

If you remember my recent thread about short, fat people on a DVD then the final wash up wa an interesting insite into how consummers see things.

The client came around to pick up some more copies of the DVD with her fiance and I showed them how it looked on my 16:9 TV. She still wasn't convinced! Finally her fiance had the answer. Her TV at home or more to the point her TV and DVD player has always been setup wrong and she was so used to seeing tall skinny people that she just couldn't accept that she really was that, shall we say 'wide' :)

The good news is the wedding is still on although the choice of wedding dress may change.

Bob.

LOL Bob. I'm normal and everyone else is sort of strange! You gotta love it. I see 16x10 is also out there, the return of the "wide" people.

BTW Last week I read an article on the countries with the fattest people.
1.USA
2.Britain
3. South African
4. Australia.

Gee, I believed everything they said. One thing I have found with the Sony XBR,s is after about 3 to 4 years they need to be tweeked again as things age which did surprise me.
JJK

It reminds me of the class action lawsuit i was involuntarily included in where someone successfully sued the entire monitor industry over the diagonal size measurement issue. The result was that manufacturers had to include a "visible" measurement as well as a tube measurement. I was also entitled to claim something like $1.70 for each and every monitor we purchased between 1987 and 1992 as long as i turned over *all* the original purchase paperwork and submitted a processing fee of ... well i don't remember how much, but it was several orders of magnitude greater than the amount of money i could claim.

Hmmmmmmm. Am i the only one left who goes to the store and looks at the TVs to decide which one i like? If i like the picture i'll review the features to see if it satisfies what i want to do. Specs? They don't much figure into the equation.