"Meat Plow" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 May 2009 12:12:08 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

Just had one of those weekly e-ads from a local department store that we
use
sometimes, trumpeting the latest "Ultraslim LED TV" from Samsung.

Ha! I thought. I haven't heard anything about this. Is it OLED ? At sizes
up
to over 50", that didn't seem likely, so I followed the links to see what
it
was all about.

Seems that these sets still actually have an LCD display panel, but the
*backlighting* is LED ...

OK, so I can see that there are advantages size-wise - these things are
only 32mm thick - and also power consumption savings, as we all know that
flourescent tube backlighting is very inefficient, but is it right to
actually call these "LED TVs" ? Seems like a bit of a deliberately
misleading use of the terminology to me - or is it maybe just me being a
picky grumpy old sod ? d:~)

Arfa



Seeing most people don't know a liquid crystal from a light emitting
diode I'd say the ad is pretty low on the deception meter.

Perhaps, but I think that the current generation might just be rather more
savvy about this sort of thing than you give them credit for ...

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Meat Plow" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 May 2009 12:12:08 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

Just had one of those weekly e-ads from a local department store that we
use
sometimes, trumpeting the latest "Ultraslim LED TV" from Samsung.

Ha! I thought. I haven't heard anything about this. Is it OLED ? At sizes
up
to over 50", that didn't seem likely, so I followed the links to see what
it
was all about.

Seems that these sets still actually have an LCD display panel, but the
*backlighting* is LED ...

OK, so I can see that there are advantages size-wise - these things are
only 32mm thick - and also power consumption savings, as we all know that
flourescent tube backlighting is very inefficient, but is it right to
actually call these "LED TVs" ? Seems like a bit of a deliberately
misleading use of the terminology to me - or is it maybe just me being a
picky grumpy old sod ? d:~)

Arfa


Seeing most people don't know a liquid crystal from a light emitting
diode I'd say the ad is pretty low on the deception meter.

Perhaps, but I think that the current generation might just be rather more
savvy about this sort of thing than you give them credit for ...

You might be surprised. I had a client much younger than myself who was
confused about the difference between a flat screen CRT vs an LCD screen.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

"Meat Plow" wrote in message
...

I've seen the commercial and questioned myself as to how the hell
someone came up with a pure LED screen that could reproduce millions
of colors precisely. But then I thought of Sony's Organic Display and
thought maybe it was a take on that.

I guess now that I think of it and knowing of the Sony OLED, Sammy
calling it an LED TV does seem a bit more deceptive to me at least.

Any thoughts on the 24-inch Apple LED Cinema Display
it's a bit pricey and it might be good of displaying photos but I'm not sure
about
movies as it has a 14ms refresh rate.
Seems to have good reviews from users though.

But I believe that too is just backlit LED .

"Meat Plow" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 May 2009 17:12:38 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"Meat Plow" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 May 2009 12:12:08 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

Just had one of those weekly e-ads from a local department store that we
use
sometimes, trumpeting the latest "Ultraslim LED TV" from Samsung.

Ha! I thought. I haven't heard anything about this. Is it OLED ? At
sizes
up
to over 50", that didn't seem likely, so I followed the links to see
what
it
was all about.

Seems that these sets still actually have an LCD display panel, but the
*backlighting* is LED ...

OK, so I can see that there are advantages size-wise - these things
are
only 32mm thick - and also power consumption savings, as we all know
that
flourescent tube backlighting is very inefficient, but is it right to
actually call these "LED TVs" ? Seems like a bit of a deliberately
misleading use of the terminology to me - or is it maybe just me being a
picky grumpy old sod ? d:~)

Arfa



Seeing most people don't know a liquid crystal from a light emitting
diode I'd say the ad is pretty low on the deception meter.

Perhaps, but I think that the current generation might just be rather more
savvy about this sort of thing than you give them credit for ...

Arfa


Maybe across the pond they are but I see no evidence of that here

I've seen the commercial and questioned myself as to how the hell
someone came up with a pure LED screen that could reproduce millions
of colors precisely. But then I thought of Sony's Organic Display and
thought maybe it was a take on that.

I guess now that I think of it and knowing of the Sony OLED, Sammy
calling it an LED TV does seem a bit more deceptive to me at least.

Yes indeedy. I think there was maybe a degree of misunderstanding when I
suggested that people might be a bit more savvy about this terminology. I
don't for one minute think that Joe Average Punter, would have the slightest
understanding of the actual differences in the technology, but I think that
most would know that the TV sets that you buy now are either "LCD" or
"Plasma". I am pretty sure that most will also have heard of - and many will
have had experience of - LED lighting, not the least because all the kids
fit (what used to be illegal) blue LEDs in their car lights now, and all
have seen LED Christmas lights. So I think that they might well think that a
"LED TV" was actually something different from the current norm. Add to that
a bit of sharp salesman point-of-sale hype, and I think that the whole thing
is, as was my original point long, long ago, more than a little misleading.
Considering some of the cases that William S cited in a thread last year,
that had been successfully prosecuted as being misleading in the U.S., I am
surprised that someone has not picked up on it over there ...

Arfa

Considering some of the cases that William S cited in a
thread last year, that had been successfully prosecuted
as being misleading in the US, I am surprised that someone
has not picked up on it over there...

This is one of those cases in which the people most-likely to object to the
advertising are those aware of the ad's meaning, who therefore don't see it
as a misrepresentation.

Sets that generate the image directly using LEDs or OLEDs are not perceived
as having fundamental advantages *, so even if the display is incorrectly
called "LED", rather than "LED backlight", it is not seen as misleading.

Does that make any sense?

PS: Samsung's Website calls it an "LED TV" -- as distinct from "LCD TV" --
which is at least confusing.

PPS: I've seen it in Fry's, and was not particularly impressed.

* Other than being able to display a "true" black.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Considering some of the cases that William S cited in a
thread last year, that had been successfully prosecuted
as being misleading in the US, I am surprised that someone
has not picked up on it over there...

This is one of those cases in which the people most-likely to object to
the
advertising are those aware of the ad's meaning, who therefore don't see
it
as a misrepresentation.

Sets that generate the image directly using LEDs or OLEDs are not
perceived
as having fundamental advantages *, so even if the display is incorrectly
called "LED", rather than "LED backlight", it is not seen as misleading.

Does that make any sense?

I'm not sure that it does, to be honest. I'm aware of the ad's meaning, and
it was exactly that which made me see it as a misrepresentation.


PS: Samsung's Website calls it an "LED TV" -- as distinct from "LCD TV" --
which is at least confusing.

No. More than that. It is patently *not* an LED TV. It is an LCD TV. Nothing
more, nothing less. I don't find that confusing - it is at the very least
misleading.



PPS: I've seen it in Fry's, and was not particularly impressed.

I haven't seen one yet, but hope to this coming weekend ...

Arfa

I've seen it in Fry's, and was not particularly impressed.

I haven't seen one yet, but hope to this coming weekend ...

The Fry's set appeared to have been set up in Garish mode, which, of course,
does nothing to make it look good.

"Frame Interpolate" was on, which I do not like, in any set using it. It
makes film look like video, which is Really Weird when watching material you
know was sourced from film.

On Fri, 15 May 2009 02:15:08 +0100, Arfa Daily wrote:

This is one of those cases in which the people most-likely to object to
the
advertising are those aware of the ad's meaning, who therefore don't see
it
as a misrepresentation.

Sets that generate the image directly using LEDs or OLEDs are not
perceived
as having fundamental advantages *, so even if the display is incorrectly
called "LED", rather than "LED backlight", it is not seen as misleading.

Does that make any sense?

I'm not sure that it does, to be honest. I'm aware of the ad's meaning, and
it was exactly that which made me see it as a misrepresentation.


PS: Samsung's Website calls it an "LED TV" -- as distinct from "LCD TV" --
which is at least confusing.

No. More than that. It is patently *not* an LED TV. It is an LCD TV. Nothing
more, nothing less. I don't find that confusing - it is at the very least
misleading.

I saw the ad. on TV last night and, had I seen it /before/ this thread
would have picked up on it, but how many viewers would? Most of us here
know the current state of OLED screens (and I'm waiting 'til they go to
32"+ and are affordable) but joe public will believe even politicians (and
they aren't affordable).

On similar lines is the 'digital' radio that's advertised - has LCD info
but is still analogue reception. IMO that's misleading as well.
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

"PeterC" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 May 2009 02:15:08 +0100, Arfa Daily wrote:

This is one of those cases in which the people most-likely to object to
the
advertising are those aware of the ad's meaning, who therefore don't see
it
as a misrepresentation.

Sets that generate the image directly using LEDs or OLEDs are not
perceived
as having fundamental advantages *, so even if the display is
incorrectly
called "LED", rather than "LED backlight", it is not seen as misleading.

Does that make any sense?

I'm not sure that it does, to be honest. I'm aware of the ad's meaning,
and
it was exactly that which made me see it as a misrepresentation.


PS: Samsung's Website calls it an "LED TV" -- as distinct from "LCD
TV" --
which is at least confusing.

No. More than that. It is patently *not* an LED TV. It is an LCD TV.
Nothing
more, nothing less. I don't find that confusing - it is at the very least
misleading.

I saw the ad. on TV last night and, had I seen it /before/ this thread
would have picked up on it, but how many viewers would? Most of us here
know the current state of OLED screens (and I'm waiting 'til they go to
32"+ and are affordable) but joe public will believe even politicians (and
they aren't affordable).

On similar lines is the 'digital' radio that's advertised - has LCD info
but is still analogue reception. IMO that's misleading as well.
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

Most radios that are offered as "digital", are actually DAB types, although
they may well have an analogue receiver inside them as well, for when you
get fed up of listening to Daleks reading the news, or wondering why someone
in the orchestra, is blowing bubbles through a drinking straw, or even why
the whole orchestra keeps stopping momentarily at what you are sure are
inappropriate places ... :-)

As far as OLEDs go, I'm honestly not sure that they will ever get up to
'living room' size. A much better technology which is capable of being
manufactured to large sizes, and which can apparently rival the best CRTs
(as it is in effect a variant of CRT technology, without all the bulk) has
existed for some time now. But it is unfortunately buried in litigation over
ownership or some such, so doesn't look likely to come storming into our
shops anytime soon. Which is a shame, because from what I have read of it,
it would knock all of the current technologies completely into yesterday. If
you want to look into this technology, it's called "SED" or similar slight
variations. I think that the actual name is a little longer than 3 words,
but "Surface Emission Display" is enough to find it on the 'net.

Arfa

In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
Most radios that are offered as "digital", are actually DAB types,
although they may well have an analogue receiver inside them as well,
for when you get fed up of listening to Daleks reading the news, or
wondering why someone in the orchestra, is blowing bubbles through a
drinking straw, or even why the whole orchestra keeps stopping
momentarily at what you are sure are inappropriate places ... :-)

I have a DAB radio in the car - with the correct aerial - and round London
it performs rather better than FM. So it's not all bad. But any radio
system won't work properly with an inadequate signal. And DAB was
originally designed with mobile reception in mind - although very very few
have DAB car radios.

--
*How do you tell when you run out of invisible ink? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

PS: Samsung's Website calls it an "LED TV" -- as distinct from "LCD
TV" --
which is at least confusing.

No. More than that. It is patently *not* an LED TV. It is an LCD TV.
Nothing more, nothing less. I don't find that confusing - it is at the
very least misleading.



PPS: I've seen it in Fry's, and was not particularly impressed.

I haven't seen one yet, but hope to this coming weekend ...

The PC I am using has an LED backlight display..
it is much brighter for the same power usage as my older screen.
I can't really say what the quality is like as it has a touch screen and
that makes it look a bit grainy.