http://ilp.legalleadshost.com/1080p/urn/application/1CTTFIhp2gjPs/

They're trolling the Internet for plaintiffs to structure a class action around probably. The problem of course is that their case is totally bogus.

I understand they are trolling. Lawyers are trolls by nature. It was the bogus issue I wasn't sure of.

the issue is real and we have been talking about it for a couple of years on these boards:

I bought a Sharp LC45GX6U which was one of the first 1080p displays, and learned it does not accept 1080p (without bypassing the AVC box)

Sharp countered it could accept 1080p via the ATSC input which is no help at all :)

Bottom line is it is tough to prove how you are damaged

I understand they are trolling. Lawyers are trolls by nature. It was the bogus issue I wasn't sure of.

To be more specific about it, it seems that their targets are sets like Sony's first-gen 1080p SXRD sets; sets that could scale to 1080p, but did not accept 1080p signals.

My problem with the way their argument is structured, is they make the assertion that no image will display, but this is only the case if you "force" 1080p on these sets. Essentially it's early 1080p LCoS and DLP sets that were guilty. Many owners were indeed frutsrated by this, but I think the extent of the issues presented in this call-out is grossly overstated.

@mark: But that's not what they're saying in their case - that's just what they're relying on to build it around. They're asserting that these TVs don't communicate with 1080p-capable devices... and that's just simply not true. They don't accept a 1080p signal, but we all know that 1080p isn't the only output option for say, the PS3 (a highlighted 1080p device). But, if they differentiated and made this clear, they wouldn't be able to put up bold proclamations like: "you will get no image."

Ok so you have an older set and you have to feed it 1080i. Hardly the worst thing in the world.

Since the specs were very clear on any set that I studied, I do not see a case.

Customers and vendors are all caught in the technology change that's all.

I can see the same thing happening concerning 24P HDM players and 120Hz HDTV's:

1. Does a HDM player grab the "raw" 1080x24P signal and output it?

2. Does a 120Hz display take in the raw 24P signal and simply increase the frame rate?

Or is there something else happening?

I have the Sony KDS-50XBR1 SXRD HDTV. It is a 1080p display but only allows 1080i input. I've had no problems with the XA1 or XA2 HD-DVD players or the OPPO 970 player that I have. I read in some benchmark tests that this model of Sony uses all 1080 lines of resolution not just half (540). Also, I knew, from the info here on AVS Forum that the SXRD only allowed 1080i. But, at the time I bought it, I had read ads from Best Buy and Circuit City that they were 1080p HDTVs. And that is true, but the ads didn't tell the customer that it only allowed 1080i and I doubt if the sales people knew about the 1080i input. I even talked to a Sony customer service guy and he was confused by the fact it is a 1080p display but didn't take a 1080p signal. Anyway, to me this is no big deal. I just set the players to 1080i out and get a full 1080p displayed.

Part of the confusion is that there are two standards being measured here.

The HDTVs themselves (all types excluding the odd high-end CRT "HDTV"s) produce a progressive display; they show the entire frame image during each refresh cycle. Thus, all LCD, plasma, and LCoS/SXRD TVs with 1080 pixel height native resolution can be considered "1080p".

The signal types they can accept, on the other hand, may not be 1080p.

To add further confusion, there are a number of 720p units out there now that can accept a 1080p signal and downscale it to their native resolution 768 pixel height.

Confusing? A bit. Does it actually harm anyone? In theory, no since there are very few 1080p sources that can't also produce a functionally equivalent 1080i signal.

Ok so you have an older set and you have to feed it 1080i. Hardly the worst thing in the world.

Since the specs were very clear on any set that I studied, I do not see a case.

Customers and vendors are all caught in the technology change that's all.


Could it be that the person sprung for a set they thought was 1080p thinking it was future proof, only to get a 1080i set and now are very disappointed with the outcome? Felling that they were duped?

This line ". . .and it's affiliate partners." really gave me confidence. Christ sake, how hard is it to get a proofreader?

Could it be that the person sprung for a set they thought was 1080p thinking it was future proof, only to get a 1080i set and now are very disappointed with the outcome? Felling that they were duped?

I suppose.

Since I notice you are an HD DVD supporter, I might point out that HD DVD supporters have spent a good deal of time on this forum pointing out that 1080i is just fine for film based material etc. etc. [They are pretty much correct BTW.]

The HD-A1, XA1, and current A2 models all only output 1080i, and no one seems to complaining too much about them.

I understand they are trolling. Lawyers are trolls by nature. It was the bogus issue I wasn't sure of.

Exactly. What have lawyers ever done for America?

(except make sure cars weren't "unsafe at any speed," made sure women had access to safe medical resourses if they were to terminate their pregnancies, made sure little black kids and little white kids could go to school together, prevented school districts from firing teachers who wanted to teach evolution, etc.)

Say Lee, what does A "Technical Support Analyst" do, anyway?


:)

I personally dealt with a very similar situation and I'll tell you my outcome.

I had an issue with a $12K JVC PJ years ago. It was advertised as HDCP compliant DVI (I had the actual internet ad saying so). A year later, I came to find out that the DVI input was NOT HDCP compliant. So, as HDCP equipment was released, I was basically screwed. I couldn't test for HDCP compliance sooner as there was no HDCP sources to test with at the time. But, it was advertised to be compliant. So, I contacted the company and with the help of AVS (my dealer)was able to get a full refund for $12,000 a year after I purchased it. I was obviously very pleased but it took a lot of calling, emails, and time. Ulitmately, the company did the right thing at my insistance for resolution. So, there are means to get satisfaction if you can really prove you received a product not up to its adversting.

Exactly. What have lawyers ever done for America?

(except make sure cars weren't "unsafe at any speed," made sure women had access to safe medical resourses if they were to terminate their pregnancies, made sure little black kids and little white kids could go to school together, prevented school districts from firing teachers who wanted to teach evolution, etc.)

Say Lee, what does A "Technical Support Analyst" do, anyway?


:)
Drain the system with frivolous law suits.. :)
I'm split by the way.. It is false advertising..

I normally am not one to defend lawyers but I think this may have merit.

Many of the first 1080p sets bob the 1080i input essentially giving you 540 lines of resolution. The panel may be 1080p but there is no way to ever get 1080 lines of resolution. I remember seeing a review in I believe wide screen magazine on a Sony with that issue. It was a 1080p LCD but only had 1080i inputs. That in itself is not too bad. A 1080i source can be deinterlaced to 1080p with no (or minimal loss) or PQ. Sony (likely in a rush to get product to market) used a substandard scalar and it bobbed the input.

Now answer me this. If you bought a first gen 1080p set for likely $4K-$6K and due to a combination of 1080i input and poor deinterlacer you now have little better than DVD capability (540p) would you think this case has merit?

Now answer me this. If you bought a first gen 1080p set for likely $4K-$6K and due to a combination of 1080i input and poor deinterlacer you now have little better than DVD capability (540p) would you think this case has merit?

Depends on what you consider their case to be. Some of their claims are that you will get no image, and that 1080p outputting devices will not be able to communicate with these sets; both are false claims.

That's not to say that there's not a valid point of aggravation, but simply that the specific case being made plays a little fast and loose with the realities.

Depends on what you consider their case to be. Some of their claims are that you will get no image, and that 1080p outputting devices will not be able to communicate with these sets; both are false claims.

That's not to say that there's not a valid point of aggravation, but simply that the specific case being made plays a little fast and loose with the realities.


The case, in my opinion, will be that these companies used deceptive advertising to sell consumers products, and that they knew or should have known that their advertising was deceptive when they conducted it. My guess is that it's something in the nature of fraud.

If cases like this were not allowed to be brought, then companies would routinely use deceptive advertising to fool consumers into buying products. To the extent cases like this result in large judgements against those companies, less fraudulent advertisement will exist.

And your profession is what? Hmmm, anyone want to guess?

To be more specific about it, it seems that their targets are sets like Sony's first-gen 1080p SXRD sets; sets that could scale to 1080p, but did not accept 1080p signals.

My problem with the way their argument is structured, is they make the assertion that no image will display, but this is only the case if you "force" 1080p on these sets. Essentially it's early 1080p LCoS and DLP sets that were guilty. Many owners were indeed frutsrated by this, but I think the extent of the issues presented in this call-out is grossly overstated.

@mark: But that's not what they're saying in their case - that's just what they're relying on to build it around. They're asserting that these TVs don't communicate with 1080p-capable devices... and that's just simply not true. They don't accept a 1080p signal, but we all know that 1080p isn't the only output option for say, the PS3 (a highlighted 1080p device). But, if they differentiated and made this clear, they wouldn't be able to put up bold proclamations like: "you will get no image."


Problem is most/many people who were sold 1080p sets from the 1st generation were'nt told of the limitation. There have been numerous posters on this board who were sold and represented that their sets were 1080p when indeed the sets couldn't accept a 1080p signal. I came across comments in letters to the editors repeatedly on tech and home theatre magazines concerning this issue. So it's a valid potential suit. There is an issue here, however, whether the manufacturers or retailers are actually culpable or both.

And your profession is what? Hmmm, anyone want to guess?

Why don't you deal with the issue raised by the poster rather than insinuating in terms of his background.

Problem is most/many people who were sold 1080p sets from the 1st generation were'nt told of the limitation. There have been numerous posters on this board who were sold and represented that their sets were 1080p when indeed the sets couldn't accept a 1080p signal. I came across comments in letters to the editors repeatedly on tech and home theatre magazines concerning this issue. So it's a valid potential suit. There is an issue here, however, whether the manufacturers or retailers are actually culpable or both.

Well, what even constitutes a 1080p set I guess would be one question, because on a certain level, the sets are 1080p - they are capable of displaying a 1080 grid of pixels progressively. But on another level, they are essentially not, because important aspects of that functionality are beyond the consumer. I have no deep-rooted desire to see large companies take advantage of the little guy, definitely not, but at the same time the way *this* potential suit is worded is just too extreme; as misrepresentative as what it accuses the manufacturers of in the first place with its wording.

I understand they are trolling. Lawyers are trolls by nature. It was the bogus issue I wasn't sure of.

"Lawyers are trolls by nature"?

Speak for yourself, rodent.

Shakespeare was right