Ban Misleading TV Specs

[vipergrm]

I'm not sure how often this topic comes up, but I think TVs in particular are one of the most misleading industries in existence today. Certain things should be banned entirely from their spec list unless they meet certain conditions. Today, HDR for me is the worst culprit. Example: I'm looking at a 32 inch JVC TV right now on the Currys website. It claims to support HDR10+ and HLG and it's only a 720p/50hz set! Also, the peak brightness is listed as 250 nits, which no doubt is probably ambitious.

Example Spec:

JVC LT-32C605 32" Smart HD Ready LED TV with Built-in DVD Player

Picture quality: 50 Hz; HDR: HDR10 / Hybrid Log-Gamma (HLG); Catch-up TV & streaming; Freeview HD with Freeview Play; HDMI 1.4 x 2

www.currys.co.uk

There is no way is the base spec of this TV anywhere near good enough to play back HDR effectively and it should be removed from the spec list entirely, or at least be changed to highlight that it only supports HDR playback. It also claims to have a native contrast ratio of 3000:1 which again, I very much doubt. It is most likely well less than half that.

The TV industry needs to be more regulated to stop these manufacturers making ridiculous claims. I realise this happens in other industries too, but TVs is one of the worsts. It seems we haven't progressed at all from the days of 1080p 'HD compatible' and 30,000,000:1 'Dynamic' contrast spec claims.

 

[EndlessWaves]

The TV industry has undoubtedly done a terrible job of communicating the difference between TVs in hardware that's only used for HDR mode.


But the HDR standards were written to scale down to the display hardware's capabilities. A TV like this can fully understand an HDR file and display it in-line with the standard.

Look at it from the other side. You've got a budget TV that you want to market to a buyer who doesn't care about cutting edge display technology, but does want to know all current formats are supported so they're not going to be unable to watch their favourite content if it switches to broadcasting in HDR exclusively in six or seven years time.

You also want to present this as a positive thing that your TV has and competitors might not, rather than portraying it as a watered down version of more expensive TVs that the buyer isn't interested in anyway.


It's a pretty tenuous position to try and reserve the HDR label for a higher end experience when there's no clear dividing line, or even any 'full' HDR products on the market that'll display the BT.2020 colour space and 0-10,000cd/m².

Better to come up with some other standard or measurements instead so that more capable TVs can properly express those capabilities.

 

[A1944]

I can't see too much about that model via Google, but what I can doesn't seem to mention the HDR feature except for Currys, so maybe it is only they who need to get their house in order if it is wrong.

Mind you, I can't imagine getting much in the way of advanced features at that price (£220-£250).

 

[Sloppy Bob]

The difference, which your average TV consumer doesn't know, is that virtually all modern TVs are HDR compatible, but only the higher-end TVs are actually HDR capable.
It's just, that unlike the early 4K models that weren't HDR-compatible, they don't have grey/green washed out colours when trying to display an HDR signal.

They still end up very poor when trying to display dark scenes with a backlight that's either too bright, making the scene look a foggy grey or the backlight too low so you end up with no detail and you can't actually see what's happening.

 

[Tight Git]

Whilst this thread has concentrated on HDR, I'd like to express my dislike for the way 3D is (was?) represented by the various TV manufacturers.

There was always a picture of something out in the room in front of the TV, but viewed from the side, making it look like a hologram on Star Trek.

This is obviously impossible, as the screen has to be behind the effect, but I wonder how many "non-technical" viewers were disappointed when their brand new 3D TV didn't deliver the effect shown in the adverts.

 

[mike7]

The rights and wrongs of HDR as a promotional factor when advertising are largely irrelevant as far as most consumers are concerned. I suspect a greater number of viewers will be limiting their viewing to Freeview channels, often not even straying into the mysterious realms of the HD versions, so even if they understood what HDR means and does it will be irrelevant. As for nits, I don't think so either. One advertiser offers 50hz as a "feature". Try buying a TV with less.

Just watch the sales pitch in your local Currys store and you will soon see what a lot of potential customers are after. It frequently, in my experience, comes down to how big a screen they can get for the money. Quality of presentation doesn't come into it. Especially at weekends when either Samsung or Sony reps, masquerading as impartial salesmen, will be pushing their goods based on highly coloured slow moving 4k images on their show reels. This always leads to disappointment when the punter gets home and watches his/her favourite SD channel. Its not going to be transferred into a technicolour wonderland. I heard only yesterday a couple being sold a mid range TV solely on the fact that you could "talk to it" via the Amazon app. Nothing else mattered. I'm afraid that's how it is. marketing departments get a buzz out of dressing things up with unexplained jargon. That is how it has always been and people lap it up.

 

[Sloppy Bob]

Many of your "average" consumers have Amazon Prime, Netflix, Disney etc and they're watching HDR content. They're just getting a poor image, either overblown or dull grey, which they don't understand, as their TV has 4K and HDR, it says it on the box.

 

[mike7]

Many of your "average" consumers have Amazon Prime, Netflix, Disney etc and they're watching HDR content. They're just getting a poor image, either overblown or dull grey, which they don't understand, as their TV has 4K and HDR, it says it on the box.

I quite agree, but they are usually more happy that they are getting more channels and less so that the "greys" don't look right. Its unlikely that they will have any idea what HDR means.

 

[Sloppy Bob]

They will notice on certain "channels" they can't actually see what's happening when it's dark though at times.

 

[Tight Git]

As has been highlighted on the forum many times, the average viewer neither knows nor cares about picture quality.

Even Mrs TG (with 50 years of "training") still happily watches BBC1 SD because she can't see the difference.

 

[millfield]

Mrs Millfield is exactly the same.