"Dave R" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 20:59:44 GMT, "informer"
allegedly wrote:

Total usage less than 6
hours including the initial play with it when I first got it. Well 15
months later the picture on playback has 5 large green or grey bars
going through it which occupies around 50% of the picture.

Don't forget that any warranty is offered in *addition* to your statutory
rights, which entitles you to expect an item to work for a reasonable
period. I'm not sure of the wording, but it's in the Sale of Goods Act.

I had my camcorder repaired by Sony outside of the warranty period.

I read it some where and thought it was something like 7 years

"John Russell" wrote in message
...

"informer" wrote in message
...
I would have thought that the average camcorder in most households is the
least used piece of electronics they have. I bought a JVC camcorder in
November 2003 which has been used for just three events. This was
Christmas
2003 and 2004 plus my annual 2 weeks in the sun. Total usage less than 6
hours including the initial play with it when I first got it. Well 15
months later the picture on playback has 5 large green or grey bars going
through it which occupies around 50% of the picture. I emailed JVC last
week and explained the 6 hours usage and can I have a free repair. So
far
they haven't replied.

If it were a TV I would have passed 6 hours usage on the first day but
camcorders are rarely used by Joe Public so I think that companies like
JVC
should be a little more generous with their warranties.



Items have to be "fit for purpose" under the "Sale of Goods" act. No
warrenty can limit your rights under this act. It has been argued
successfully by consumer groups that electrical companies have to abide by
their own industry's "life time expectancy" figures. So if the companies
say a washing machine should last for 10 years, then it dosn't matter if
they say the "warranty" is for 3. Providing you can prove that the item
has only had normal, or less than normal usuage, the companie has to fix
it, or replace it, or offer a fair discount on a new model. You would have
to threaten to, or in deed go to, the small claims court. Citizens Advice
should be able to offer free advice on this.




And if I remember correctly, the onus is on the manufacturer/retailer to
prove "abnormal" use, not on you to prove "normal" use.

In message , John Russell
writes
Snipped...

And if I remember correctly, the onus is on the manufacturer/retailer
to prove "abnormal" use, not on you to prove "normal" use.

Is that why the SCCs are overwhelmed with claims for goods which have
failed outside the warranty period?

Not...

It's noteworthy that the Sale of Goods act provides recourse against the
retailer - not the manufacturer (unless you purchased directly from the
manufacturer).
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

"Tony Morgan" wrote in message
...
In message , John Russell
writes
Snipped...

And if I remember correctly, the onus is on the manufacturer/retailer to
prove "abnormal" use, not on you to prove "normal" use.

Is that why the SCCs are overwhelmed with claims for goods which have
failed outside the warranty period?

Not...

It's noteworthy that the Sale of Goods act provides recourse against the
retailer - not the manufacturer (unless you purchased directly from the
manufacturer).
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

There should be a course to teach people how to post an opposite view with
out being "aggressive" in tone!

In message , John Russell
writes

"Tony Morgan" wrote in message
...
In message , John Russell
writes
Snipped...

And if I remember correctly, the onus is on the manufacturer/retailer to
prove "abnormal" use, not on you to prove "normal" use.

Is that why the SCCs are overwhelmed with claims for goods which have
failed outside the warranty period?

Not...

It's noteworthy that the Sale of Goods act provides recourse against the
retailer - not the manufacturer (unless you purchased directly from the
manufacturer).
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

There should be a course to teach people how to post an opposite view with
out being "aggressive" in tone!

You call *that* aggressive?

Where do you live - in cloud cuckoo land.

Had I been aggressive, I would have posted "you're talking a load of
crap", but as you've no doubt noticed, I didn't.

You really do need to learn how to conduct a dialogue, John. If someone
disputes your views, you label them "aggressive". How sad...
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.rhylonline.com

"Tony Morgan" wrote in message
...
In message , John Russell
writes

"Tony Morgan" wrote in message
...
In message , John Russell
writes
Snipped...

And if I remember correctly, the onus is on the manufacturer/retailer to
prove "abnormal" use, not on you to prove "normal" use.

Is that why the SCCs are overwhelmed with claims for goods which have
failed outside the warranty period?

Not...

It's noteworthy that the Sale of Goods act provides recourse against the
retailer - not the manufacturer (unless you purchased directly from the
manufacturer).
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

There should be a course to teach people how to post an opposite view with
out being "aggressive" in tone!

You call *that* aggressive?

Where do you live - in cloud cuckoo land.

Had I been aggressive, I would have posted "you're talking a load of
crap", but as you've no doubt noticed, I didn't.

You really do need to learn how to conduct a dialogue, John. If someone
disputes your views, you label them "aggressive". How sad...
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.rhylonline.com

There is a difference between "abusive" and "aggresive"! You need to read up
on the word "assertive". That's where you accept that others have a
different opinion to you and have a right to have that opinion!

With you it's "I'm right!", and you dissapear from any thread where concrete
evidence is given to the opposite.

Let's face, you make such big thing about being an expert and into quality,
and recently you refuted that those into quality would connect their
camcorder using s-video. Post on any TV NG or forum that you thought
composite was adequate and you would be the one considered "sad".

In message , John Russell
writes
Snipped...

Let's face, you make such big thing about being an expert and into
quality, and recently you refuted that those into quality would connect
their camcorder using s-video. Post on any TV NG or forum that you
thought composite was adequate and you would be the one considered
"sad".

Since you go on about "concrete evidence", I'd remind you that S-video
will give a maximum line resolution of 460, while DV (in the context of
miniDV) will give you a line resolution of 520.

And the composite figure depends solely on the bandwidth of the video
circuits.

And (again) I'd remind you that this is not an "opinion" but a
measurable fact.

And further, I'd remind you that the context where this was being thrown
around was that of displaying video on a normal commercial TV, where the
video circuits don't lend themselves well to high quality display.

But I've no doubt that you'll label this post as being aggressive. I
don't understand why you don't just kill-file me if you object so
vociferously to my postings.

--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

"Tony Morgan" wrote in message
...
snip
Since you go on about "concrete evidence", I'd remind you that S-video
will give a maximum line resolution of 460, while DV (in the context of
miniDV) will give you a line resolution of 520.

And the composite figure depends solely on the bandwidth of the video
circuits.

Are you seriously suggesting that equipment that has a proper S-video input
won't have the required bandwidth?...


But I've no doubt that you'll label this post as being aggressive. I
don't understand why you don't just kill-file me if you object so
vociferously to my postings.


Because incorrect information needs challenging, regardless as to the style
of message or who it's from?..

I make mistakes, I was regarding Datawrite CD/DVD blanks but I haven't kill
filed those who put me right, you OTOH announce to the world that you are
kill filling someone (your famous "PLONK" statement) when ever someone dares
to 'put you right'.

Dave is 101 percent correct when he say that " With you it's "I'm right!",
and you disappear from any thread where concrete evidence is given to the
opposite. ", basically I suspect that you know you're wrong but your ego
just won't allow you to either gracefully walk away or horror of horrors
apologise.

On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 09:54:02 -0000, ":::Jerry::::" wrote:


"Tony Morgan" wrote in message
...
snip
Since you go on about "concrete evidence", I'd remind you that S-video
will give a maximum line resolution of 460, while DV (in the context of
miniDV) will give you a line resolution of 520.

And the composite figure depends solely on the bandwidth of the video
circuits.

Are you seriously suggesting that equipment that has a proper S-video input
won't have the required bandwidth?...

I suspect that it's the usual Morgan confusion equating SVHS to SVideo.

If this is the case, I wonder why my rather expensive JVC video monitor has
SVideo inputs and the HVR-Z1E etc camera has an SVideo output

AIHAUI, SVideo is analog which means that with the electronics at either end are
the only constraint on resolution.


Stuart

www.mckears.com
www.oldfart.tv - have your say about the state of UK Television

In message , Stuart McKears
writes
Snipped bit from super-colon(ic) ':::Jerry::::'.

I suspect that it's the usual Morgan confusion equating SVHS to SVideo.

And I suspect that it's you who are confusing me with the poster who
made the case for S-video by saying that SVHS machines always have a
S-video connnector.

Please do try to keep up, and please try not to emulate colon(ic) Jerry
in putting words in my mouth.

--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info