NAD’s decision

The plot thickens. I have now had the

Koupit Lasix v Praze

, ahem, pleasure of reading the US Council of Better Business Bureau’s National Advertising Division’s finding in the case of Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics.

Much of its 22 pages deal with other advertising claims made by Samsung, some of them silly and which the company readily withdrew, and at least one which NAD held to be well-founded, and which Samsung is therefore entitled to continue to make.

But I am only interested in one claim, which a still substantial part of the report deals with: do passive 3D TVs only deliver half the vertical resolution?

NAD correctly noted that this matter was to a large extent a battle of the experts. But, to cut a long story short, NAD appears to have allowed itself to be persuaded by LG’s case that they do indeed deliver the full resolution. Incidentally, one of the experts on Samsung’s side (ie. that passive 3D is half resolution) was the famed Joe Kane. Indeed, Samsung lined up several studies that, as far as I could tell from the summary in NAD’s findings, seemed pretty solid.

At this point, I think that this is an incorrect finding. I am still working out some tech stuff relating to this, and what makes this case somewhat frustrating is that in the whole damned document, there was only one semi-clear statement of how passive 3D TVs work, and it flies in the face of all my previous understandings! I may write more on that later, but I’d want to quote it properly and I can’t find how to cut and paste from a PDF on my iPad (or perhaps the document has copying disabled).

Tomorrow I am going to LG’s 2012 product launch armed with some test material and I’ll try there to get some answers.

(PS. I’m writing this on an iPad in the back of a minibus taxi, on my way to Samsung’s product launch, so I ought to be getting both sides of the story.)