A 3DTV that doesn't work when the sun is shining

subway

subway wrote: »

Is there anything in the manual that explains the conditions under which it works?

Reads thread...
Ok, so it's in the manual that it can flicker under certain circumstances and automatically turns off?
Im guessing that's whats happening to you?

It's fairly well documented online that is a limtiation of the tech, rather than a fault.

mathie

subway wrote: »

Reads thread...
Ok, so it's in the manual that it can flicker under certain circumstances and automatically turns off?
Im guessing that's whats happening to you?

It's fairly well documented online that is a limtiation of the tech, rather than a fault.

It mentioned ...

"You may notice a small amount of screen flickering xxwhen watching 3D images in poor light conditions (from a strobe light, etc.), or under a fluorescent lamp (50Hz ~ 60Hz) or 3 wavelength lamp. If so, dim the light or turn the lamp off.
3D mode is automatically disabled"

II'm getting non-stop flicker when its sunny outside.

It's well documented on the web as it's a problem.

There's a big thread on avforums about it and most people have had their tvs replaced or refunded.

Dublin_Gunner

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Your the authority on the technology (I'm assumign here seeing as you are able to dismiss other peoples posts out of hand that you can back it up?)

The glasses will work too if its just a quick one shot signal being sent every now and then. But it appears now that a solid IR signal will be interrupted by sunlight.

If your transmitting an IR signal, and another IR signal crosses it, its obviously going to cause issues.

Whats the difference between the IR signal from headphones and the one operating the 3d glasses?

So comparing the IR signal in a remote, which only transmitts for a second and generally has infrequent use is a better judge of the signal than omparing it with headphones that transmit a permenant feed when on? I'm not seeing your logic. Or does it not strecth beyond "I'm using the remote comparison because it suits my arguement?

The ppint about the headphones I was making was that you were implying people should test IR headphones before purchasing one of those TV's....

And yes, IR tech in general has been used for low bandwidth applications, and the very nature of a remote control is to send a short burst of probably only a byte or so of information to tell the remote operated device what to do. Very little chance of interference.

Blutooth is a MUCH more viable option for higher bandwidth, short distance transmission.

To even imply (as Samsung have) that you can only use the tele (with the 3D glasses) without either having windows in the room, or indeed closing the curtains is silly. In fact, it is recommended that you watch TV (or any other screen) in a well lit room (due to TV's / Monitors etc using back-lit technology's).

Samsung dropped the ball, probably as a cost saving measure on those TV's / glasses, and the OP should indeed have it replaced with the model that does not use IR for the glasses.

If we bring this back to basics, a consumer should expect that the device they purchase is fit for the purpose it was intended, and that it works as intended.

The technology behind it is of little interest to the lay-person, and that's the way it should be.

A consumer merely has the correct assumption that the device will work under normal conditions.

This does not. I would consider sunlight to be normal.

subway

When I googled it, the first link was to a samsung page from 2010 documenting it as a limitation.

I the avf thread from earlier than that?

Guy:Incognito

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

The ppint about the headphones I was making was that you were implying people should test IR headphones before purchasing one of those TV's....
.

No I wasnt, I was suggesting YOU try IR headphones instead of a remote to show the limitations of the tech and that "if a remote works, this should work" is not true.

I would hazard a guess that the tv using IR was cheaper than one using bluetooth?

subway

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

The ppint about the headphones I was making was that you were implying people should test IR headphones before purchasing one of those TV's....

And yes, IR tech in general has been used for low bandwidth applications, and the very nature of a remote control is to send a short burst of probably only a byte or so of information to tell the remote operated device what to do. Very little chance of interference.

Blutooth is a MUCH more viable option for higher bandwidth, short distance transmission.

To even imply (as Samsung have) that you can only use the tele (with the 3D glasses) without either having windows in the room, or indeed closing the curtains is silly. In fact, it is recommended that you watch TV (or any other screen) in a well lit room (due to TV's / Monitors etc using back-lit technology's).

Samsung dropped the ball, probably as a cost saving measure on those TV's / glasses, and the OP should indeed have it replaced with the model that does not use IR for the glasses.

If we bring this back to basics, a consumer should expect that the device they purchase is fit for the purpose it was intended, and that it works as intended.

The technology behind it is of little interest to the lay-person, and that's the way it should be.

A consumer merely has the correct assumption that the device will work under normal conditions.

This does not. I would consider sunlight to be normal.

Thats an interpetration of it. I would say in 2009 or whenever these tvs were made, this technology was seen as the most viable. If they are still using it now, it's either old stock or the cheap version.
That the cheap version is a bit **** is going to s difficult one to argue in the scc.

Dublin_Gunner

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

No I wasnt, I was suggesting YOU try IR headphones instead of a remote to show the limitations of the tech and that "if a remote works, this should work" is not true.

I would hazard a guess that the tv using IR was cheaper than one using bluetooth?

No, I was merely stating the IR does indeed work in sunlight. But its very application specific.

I wasn't suggesting that just because a remote works, the 3D glasses should work. Its quite obvious that it doesn't.

Blutooth is a relatively cheap, low power, wireless transmission technology. I can't imagine over 1000's of units that the difference in cost would be that great.

Somebody in Samsung obviously thought it was a good idea. Evidently it wasn't.

subway

I think arguing the merits of one tech over another is a little off topic , basicallly ir is well suited to the application, but has some strict limitations . All it sends is an off/on signal
Limitations which are in the public domain since 2010 at least.

The argument, to me, is not whether the device is faulty (its not) but whether or not the burden lies with the purchaser to do their research or the salesman to point out the limitations of the cheaper tech.

rolion

I have a 3D TV set .I can't properly waych 3D content due to the flickering image/light on the glasses if i have a strong backlight.I have to darken the room by turn off light or put curtains at the back of TV.If i don't do it,i have the light sorrounding the main image that drives you mad...
I can live with that no problem !

Re IR signals,take a normal video camera,set-it on recording mode,set the focus on TV and/or glasses and use the TV in 3D mode for a while until problems appears. Repeat until you are happy that problems are manifesting more or less. THEN,watch the movie and see,in b/w, the IR light coming from TV and/or glasses (if duplex/dual way) and try to associate moments when command signal / video signal is lost and you lose 3D access... After,you can produce a solid case to manufacturer,not the seller or shop!

Good luck...

mathie

subway wrote: »

I think arguing the merits of one tech over another is a little off topic , basicallly ir is well suited to the application, but has some strict limitations . All it sends is an off/on signal
Limitations which are in the public domain since 2010 at least.

The argument, to me, is not whether the device is faulty (its not) but whether or not the burden lies with the purchaser to do their research or the salesman to point out the limitations of the cheaper tech.

Yeah I'd agree that I should have been told by the salesman that it won't work if the sun is shining.

BTW it wasn't the cheaper technology at the time.
It was the only technology.
I bought it a few weeks before they announced they were to use Bluetooth instead of Infrared.

I'd also agree that the TV isn't faulty but I think that the technology isn't suited and the TV isn't fit for the purpose that it was sold.

subway

I know YOU do
Bring it back to the shop and see how you get on.
Theres not much more that can be added from my perspective

BrianD

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Sure, its a limitation with the tech, such a limitation that they removed it from future models, practically admitting to the fault.

Nonsense, technology moves all the time. Sure if that was the case everybody would be getting obsolete products replaced for free. Upgrading technology does not imply admission of a fault. It's progress.

Dublin_Gunner

BrianD wrote: »

Nonsense, technology moves all the time. Sure if that was the case everybody would be getting obsolete products replaced for free. Upgrading technology does not imply admission of a fault. It's progress.

It has nothing to do with being obsolete - it has to do with the TV not working.

Stop acting the fool. I hate all this 'devils advocate' crap we get on boards. People attempting to be clever with their responses in an attempt to make the OP look foolish, or them to look smarter.

That model TV is only 2 years old. I had a free blutooth headset with a mobile phone 5 years ago.

The fact the the main thing changed on that particular set was the transmission tech used used for the 3D glasses is quite the indication that it was something that NEEDED to be changed don't you think??

The TV doesn't work as intended or reasonably expected from a consumer point of view. Simple. Samsung have a duty and responsibility to replace it.

If anyone brought this to the small claims court, their case would win hands down.

A TV that doesn't do what it says if there's sunlight in the room. FFS. How can you people actually logically defend that???

subway

I think your getting very worked up and aggressive over this.

It says it doesn work in sunlight so it is doing what it says...
It's a limitation of the tech at that time. Same as any older tech not being as good as newer tech.

The op won't win a claim by saying it's faulty if the manufacturer defends itself.
They may win a claim that they were led to believe the tv would work in sunlight when it clearly doesnt

Dublin_Gunner

subway wrote: »

I think your getting very worked up and aggressive over this.

It says it doesn work in sunlight so it is doing what it says...
It's a limitation of the tech at that time. Same as any older tech not being as good as newer tech.

The op won't win a claim by saying it's faulty if the manufacturer defends itself.
They may win a claim that they were led to believe the tv would work in sunlight when it clearly doesnt

I'm not. Its the usual bull**** responses by people who think they are clever that's annoying.

The TV clearly doesn;t work as intended, under what would be considered normal operating conditions for a TV.

Are you saying other wireless tech didn't exist in 2009?? It was a bad decision by Samsung, they have received 1000's of complaints about it, and have replaced sets for people.

This has led them to alter the specs of the model to use a different wireless transmission tech.

Anyone who bought one could reasonably expect that the 3D glasses work work in any normal conditions - why wouldn't they?

I think we're all well aware its a limitation of the tech - which is why it shouldn't have been used in the first place.

People are getting way too caught up on the tech used - when this is purely a consumer issue.

Meesared

Del2005 wrote: »

If I buy a projector I expect I'd need to close my curtains to watch it, if I buy a TV I don't and I don't think that anyone else would.

The TV has a design flaw, which Samsung have admited by using different technology in later sets. A TV is bought to be watched in a room, there is no expectation that I'd need to close my curtains to watch TV or change channels, remotes work by IR! The problem the OP has is that because it's a design flaw there is very little chance of getting any satisfaction from the retailer or Samsung.

OP I think you are going to have to get to writing letters to the retailer saying the TV isn't fit for purpose, giving the Samsung response and then fact that they have changed the technology in latter sets. Give them a 10 days to rely and then try the SCC.

Small claims court is a waste of time. Long story short is the OP paid the price for being an early adopter as many do. Many TVs and Phones arent really legible when the sun is shining (I know my last phone was next to impossible to use when in sunshine) but that doesnt make it fit for purpose.

mathie

Meesared wrote: »

Small claims court is a waste of time. Long story short is the OP paid the price for being an early adopter as many do. Many TVs and Phones arent really legible when the sun is shining (I know my last phone was next to impossible to use when in sunshine) but that doesnt make it fit for purpose.

As I said before it's not that the sun is shining on the screen and making it hard to see.

The daylight causes the glasses to turn on and off repeatedly.

I fully understand that a TV will have a glare if the sun is shining on it.
I'm not arguing that.

subway

sorry for the multiqoute thing, i dont normally like it, but youve put a lot of points in the post.
i am not playing "devils advocate" here, if i though mathie genuinely had a faulty tv i would back him up (see my post history if you dont believe me). i honestly think he doesnt have a faulty tv, he just has one thats a bit **** fpr 3D;)

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

I'm not. Its the usual bull**** responses by people who think they are clever that's annoying.

clearly you are getting quite worked up

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

The TV clearly doesn;t work as intended, under what would be considered normal operating conditions for a TV.

normal operating condtions for a samsung 3dtv using IR technology or normal operating conditions for another TV.

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Are you saying other wireless tech didn't exist in 2009??

i have never said this or anything to this affect.

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

It was a bad decision by Samsung, they have received 1000's of complaints about it, and have replaced sets for people.
This has led them to alter the specs of the model to use a different wireless transmission tech.

thats your interpretation certainly. an alternative would be that IR was 1/10th of the price of going for bluetooth and in order to get a cost effective product to market samsumg chose a lower quality option which they tested enough for them to believe it would be suitable for the market and called out the sitatuions it wouldnt work

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Anyone who bought one could reasonably expect that the 3D glasses work work in any conditions - why wouldn't they?

not if they are given a list of situations it wont work

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

I think we're all well aware its a limitation of the tech - which is why it shouldn't have been used in the first place.

i disagree, there is always better and worse tech available, whats added to a product comes down to more than just whats the absolute best

mathie

subway wrote: »

not if they are given a list of situations it wont work

From the manual (which I only got when I bought it!)

You may notice a small amount of screen flickering xxwhen watching 3D images in poor light conditions (from a strobe light, etc.), or under a fluorescent lamp (50Hz ~ 60Hz) or 3 wavelength lamp. If so, dim the light or turn the lamp off.
3D mode is automatically disabled

Now I'm not talking about poor light conditions.
Surely sunlight would be the opposite of poor?

I was never given the list of situations where it wouldn't work before I bought.

ShooterSF

subway wrote: »

normal operating condtions for a samsung 3dtv using IR technology or normal operating conditions for another TV.

If you're going to do that we might as well discard "fit for purpose" all together. Imagine going into an electronics shop and purchasing a microwave (let's call it the ShooterSF MegaG Microwave). Upon returning home it doesn't work, you go back to the store to find out the problem is it needs to be sitting on a granite worktop to actually work and your worktop is wooden. Now unless the clerk went out of his way to warn you of this before purchase you would imo legally be correct in assuming it will work as intended as a microwave on any surface. That is the expectation consumers have of a microwave. Likewise consumers expect a TV to be usable during daylight, unless warned before hand. These expectations are what I assume the law is there to protect so that the consumer doesn't need to foresee all possible hidden limitations and clear them up before purchase.

TL;DR? I'd bet if the OP does end up in small claims it will come down to the judge's belief whether a consumer would be in their right to assume that a 3D TV should operate correctly in sunlight(ignoring the glare issue, which unlike this IS obvious) and I'd fancy his chances tbh.

subway

ShooterSF wrote: »

Now unless the clerk went out of his way to warn you of this before purchase you would imo legally be correct in assuming it will work as intended as a microwave on any surface. That is the expectation consumers have of a microwave. Likewise consumers expect a TV to be usable during daylight, unless warned before hand. .

this would be the point i have been making... you have picked up one line and somehow decided i am saying the opposite now

deadduck

If it's not listed in the manual as a possible issue, and Samsung won't acknowledge the issue, there's a good chance the sales person wouldn't have known about it, in which case I think the responsibility lies with Samsung.

I agree with the OP that their TV is not for purpose (at least the purpose we would all take for granted), but I don't think the shop will do anything for them, unless Samsung come clean about the issue.

ShooterSF

subway wrote: »

this would be the point i have been making... you have picked up one line and somehow decided i am saying the opposite now

Not at all, I was picking up on your comment re: what is the legal use of the phrase "fit for purpose". You appear to suggest that how it was made determines it's purpose (Infrared) whereas I believe it is decided by what it is fairly expected to do by a consumer and any other definition is pointless.

As far as I can see the OP wasn't warned of this issue beforehand and therefore it comes down to the following, Is it fair to say that consumers' expectations are that they can watch a TV during the day without blocking out sunlight? Yes. Is it fair to say that a consumer could not foresee a limitation of this by being told the product uses infrared in it's glasses? Again, yes imo as the glasses were rather new technology and most people don't have an intricate knowledge of IR. They will fairly assume they will work within the confines of how a television is used.

If the products usability deviates from what a consumer should fairly expect it to do and the consumer isn't warned about it, that in my opinion fits "not fit for purpose". I believe there is a difference between faulty and not fit for purpose legally. I definitely don't think this is a black and white issue (no tv jokes please).

---

Edit

@ deadduck

unfortunately for the retailer the consumer's contract is with them and they are the ones subject to consumer law. It is their responsibility to deal with Samsung afterwards and are not the OP's or SCC's concern.

subway

ShooterSF wrote: »

Not at all, I was picking up on your comment re: what is the legal use of the phrase "fit for purpose". You appear to suggest that how it was made determines it's purpose (Infrared) whereas I believe it is decided by what it is fairly expected to do by a consumer and any other definition is pointless.

As far as I can see the OP wasn't warned of this issue beforehand and therefore it comes down to the following, Is it fair to say that consumers' expectations are that they can watch a TV during the day without blocking out sunlight? Yes. Is it fair to say that a consumer could not foresee a limitation of this by being told the product uses infrared in it's glasses? Again, yes imo as the glasses were rather new technology and most people don't have an intricate knowledge of IR. They will fairly assume they will work within the confines of how a television is used.

If the products usability deviates from what a consumer should fairly expect it to do and the consumer isn't warned about it, that in my opinion fits "not fit for purpose". I believe there is a difference between faulty and not fit for purpose legally. I definitely don't think this is a black and white issue (no tv jokes please).

---

Edit

@ deadduck

unfortunately for the retailer the consumer's contract is with them and they are the ones subject to consumer law. It is their responsibility to deal with Samsung afterwards and are not the OP's or SCC's concern.

Ok, read what you like in my posts

ShooterSF

subway wrote: »

Ok, read what you like in my posts

Maybe I am misreading you. Do you think the OP should win a case in scc on the grounds of the TV not being fit for purpose? If you do we're in agreement. If not why not, assuming you aren't suggesting that the technology determines what fit for purpose means and I'm just being dense (it's been known to happen plenty of times )

Varik

If this problem is not limited at this severity to just one manufacturer then it is not a fault and is a known limitation with ir, and as long as the sales person did not wantonly try to mislead the op should not have a right to recourse.

What the propose and ability of a product that can be expected is what was advertised or that the consumer was informed about at purchase.

I was in did a day our trip ago and someonw came in complaining about there cinema glasses (passive) not working on their new tv, and while many people would know that some would just assume.

subway

ShooterSF wrote: »

Maybe I am misreading you. Do you think the OP should win a case in scc on the grounds of the TV not being fit for purpose? If you do we're in agreement. If not why not, assuming you aren't suggesting that the technology determines what fit for purpose means and I'm just being dense (it's been known to happen plenty of times )

That's it, if he wasn't informed of the problem then it's the shops fault for omitting to tell him. I have won a case for a tv with a similar situation.

I don't think he has a case for having a faulty tv, as ir tech is limited and the limitation is documented. However a registrar might see it differently. Prsonally I wouldn't pursue it that way but would bring it back to the shop and let them try and rectify it or improve first.

In terms of tech functioning as it should, I do think it sets the bar on fit for purpose.
If I sell you a 1tb hard drive you can't fit more than 1tb of data on it no matter what you do. If it needs to be plugged in etc, these are all limitations of the hardware. You can't come back and tell me the drive is faulty because you can't get alll your files on it.
However if I tell you will never run out of space you would have a case against me.
I think it's the same thing here. Ir is **** but the shop let Mathie believe it would work as good as the cinema

Varik

subway wrote: »

Ir is **** but the shop let Mathie believe it would work as good as the cinema

At what point did they do that.

Gumbi

aidan_walsh wrote: »

So you're suggesting he goes back to cause trouble for the shop based on something a different company suggested as a workaround for his problem? Get a grip.

What? He has a contract with the shop, not Samsung. The TV sold must be fit for purpose (:of merchantable quality), and it sounds to me like it's not. The law is the law.

subway

Well, it's only an assumption from his posts, but by not telling him it wouldn't he wasnt given the opportunity to turn down the model that had a limited function.

The shop is expected to inform the buyer of things like this and from the info on the samsung site its a known problem for over a year

Edit... Reply is to varik