Help new tv

vyle

JamesK10 wrote: »

Also, is this a question of Samsung's misrepresentation of its own stuff again? Are they adding 2 x 520 and rounding up to 1080p for each lens in the glasses?

I remember when they passed off their ClearMotion 100 technology as being exactly the same as hardware 100Hz on 2D screens - and it's not. Thankfully I got to see one and compare it to the real 100Hz on my CRT monitors and TV - and then strike Samsung off the list.

Ugh motion algarythms on TVs are so complicated now..... like even samsung's 800hz tvs are really 200 with lots of trickery and that's nothing to do with the measurements plasmas give.

Of course, it doesn't really matter so long as the motion is good. You can't expect 100hz on a crt to mean the same thing as on an LCD because the technology works completely differently.

The thing OP hasn't explained is what test source he used though. If he used a 540 high test image, then of course it's not true 1080 but will be stretched to fit the screen, because that's how top/bottom works.

If he used, say, megamind 3d blu ray which should present two 1080p fields in sequence, and is using an hdmi 1.4 cable (not 1.3), it would be a better test.

neilmcl

vyle wrote: »

If he used, say, megamind 3d blu ray which should present two 1080p fields in sequence, and is using an hdmi 1.4 cable (not 1.3), it would be a better test.

Just to clear up this recurring misconception. There is no such things as HDMI a 1.4, 1.3 etc standard in cables. The standard applies to the device not the cable and companies advertising HDMI 1.4 cables are simply relying on marketing hype to sell their product!

A cable advertised as an HDMI 1.4 cable simply means that manufacturer has tested that particular cable with a 1.4 standard input/output device. What it doesn't mean is that a "lower" spec cable wouldn't be able to work equally as well.

Techhead_2

somethingcorporate wrote: »

That's a load of rubbish, if there is a fault it is up to the retailer to prove it is down to something that is not inherent (assuming you have owned it less than 6 months).

Provide them a letter before action (search the website for a template) and give them 7 days to fix it and then if they do not comply start a small claim for your money back. They are selling goods that do not conform to contract, this has nothing to do with Samsung.

The retailer is an absolute cowboy!

The important part of your post is the IF THERE IS A FAULT.

Its far from clear from what has been posted already that there is a fault. And if so, whether it originates in the display or source.

What the retailer is saying (although less bluntly ) is that they assert that the TV is working according to the spec and the OP has misunderstood. I don't know who is correct.

vyle

Ah turns out there is a difference between cables, but only as far as 1.3 cables won't support ARC and ethernet, but yes, 3d through 1.3 should work fine.

Esqui

Can depend. I've had a 1080p 3D film through a 1.3 cable, and it looked a bit off. Couldn't quite put my finger on it, but it looked like it couldn't transfer everything the Bluray player was throwing at it.

squeaky

Hi stu

I'm wondering if it might be a good idea to move this thread across to the techy board where you may get help in pinpointing exactly where and what your problem is and what remedies may be applied. Once done - if you still need advice on what consumer rights actions you may take you can ask for the thread to be moved back here.

Let me know please and I'll move the thread if you wish.

somethingcorporate

Techhead wrote: »

The important part of your post is the IF THERE IS A FAULT.

Its far from clear from what has been posted already that there is a fault. And if so, whether it originates in the display or source.

What the retailer is saying (although less bluntly ) is that they assert that the TV is working according to the spec and the OP has misunderstood. I don't know who is correct.

Thanks for highlighting a part of my post. I did put that line in "if there is a fault". I am only going from what the OP has posted and having been through a couple of the links and reading other peoples issues it does appear that the product is not conforming to the specs it is advertising.

The only person that can confirm if there is actually a fault would be an engineer seeing the OPs actual TV. Unfortunately this is a forum where sometimes we just have to go on what the posters tell us.

vyle

Esqui wrote: »

Can depend. I've had a 1080p 3D film through a 1.3 cable, and it looked a bit off. Couldn't quite put my finger on it, but it looked like it couldn't transfer everything the Bluray player was throwing at it.

When I went for 3d training at sony, panasonic and samsung, they all told me that 3d will work through 1.3 but at reduced resolution, but I've never seen any official confirmation as to whether this is or isn't the case.

neilmcl

vyle wrote: »

Ah turns out there is a difference between cables, but only as far as 1.3 cables won't support ARC and ethernet, but yes, 3d through 1.3 should work fine.

Again, the standard applies to the device, not the cable. I have bog-standard cables that were purchased years ago (way before 1.3 and 1.4), they work quite happily with 3D and ARC.

vyle

neilmcl wrote: »

Again, the standard applies to the device, not the cable. I have bog-standard cables that were purchased years ago (way before 1.3 and 1.4), they work quite happily with 3D and ARC.

So how come at work when I hook up two ARC devices with an old cable, arc doesn't work, yet it does with a newer cable :S

Genuine question...... I'd rather not have to keep writing off new cables when I could be using older ones.