Does Huper Optik Ceramic Tint Interfere with BMW's Comfort Access

omasou · October 7, 2016

Hello,

Has anyone installed Huper Optik Ceramic tint on a BMW with Comfort Access?

I found a couple of older (<2012) post on forums where owners are complained that it interfered with the Comfort Access?

I also found one where the owner had Huper Optik Select Drei installed without any issues.

DynamicATL · October 7, 2016

Ceramic should not because there is zero metal in it...Drei could because it is metalized. We have installed the Ceramic in that instance with no issue, but not Drei.

omasou · October 7, 2016

UPDATE: I called Huper Optix today. Technical support said ceramic tint b/c of it's high rejection may interfer with AM and SAT. The CA is different technology but that they have heard of two problems with BMW but not all car manufactures, e.g. Mercedes and not sure of why there is a difference. In the end they recommend I avoid the ceramic.

Tintguy1980 · October 8, 2016

UPDATE: I called Huper Optix today. Technical support said ceramic tint b/c of it's high rejection may interfer with AM and SAT. The CA is different technology but that they have heard of two problems with BMW but not all car manufactures, e.g. Mercedes and not sure of why there is a difference. In the end they recommend I avoid the ceramic.

The darker shades such as 30 and 20 have enough residual metal to cause problems. Though ceramic s used in the making of window film are touted as having no metal, they in fact do. These ceramics are a derivative of metal having trace metal internal and an external nitride or oxide shell at the molecular level (encapsulating the metal it was born of and exampled by, 'Titanium' nitride). A couple others are ATO aka, Antimony 'Tin' Oxide or ITO, Iridium 'Tin' Oxide.

vquestfilms.com · October 14, 2016

UPDATE: I called Huper Optix today. Technical support said ceramic tint b/c of it's high rejection may interfer with AM and SAT. The CA is different technology but that they have heard of two problems with BMW but not all car manufactures, e.g. Mercedes and not sure of why there is a difference. In the end they recommend I avoid the ceramic.

The darker shades such as 30 and 20 have enough residual metal to cause problems. Though ceramic s used in the making of window film are touted as having no metal, they in fact do. These ceramics are a derivative of metal having trace metal internal and an external nitride or oxide shell at the molecular level (encapsulating the metal it was born of and exampled by, 'Titanium' nitride). A couple others are ATO aka, Antimony 'Tin' Oxide or ITO, Iridium 'Tin' Oxide.

:gasp Is that a fact? I have a few questions for you smartie...

Please present your data to support your post Smartie... I did not know that you were a chemist? Please post the information that classifies TiN as a "metal". And while you are at it, please share your data on how much residual metal is in Huper Optik C20 & C30? What is the threshold of metal per sq mm that affects the signal in cars? Can I please have that statistical data?

Do you have anything that supports your encapsulation claim? Here is a TiN molecule on the left:

I see the 1 atom Nitrogen to 1 atom Titanium structure here. Where is the excess Titanium?The Titanium atoms do not look "encapsulated." From what I have read and been told be Eastman employed chemists who make these ceramic films. The Nitrogen atoms have the stronger bond but they do not encapsulate the Titanium atoms. They are joined to form cubic structures.

All available references do not call TiN a derivative but rather they call it a nitride or a ceramic which is "inert" or unable to chemically change. I'm going to hoist the :bs flag on your post until you can produce some statistical data.

If Huper Optik has been advertising their product as metal free, then how come they have never been legally called to the table by all of the companies that eventually made their own ceramic look-alike products? Surely back in the day, CP Films would have took a legal swipe at them, I'm sure 3M could have earased them out of existence and others too... :dunno

As a former Eastman employee who was let go, I am surprised you support old theories so loyally. :twocents

Tintguy1980 · October 14, 2016

😁

vquestfilms.com · October 17, 2016

Rut ro raggy... :: err:: Smartie must have listened to the wrong science guy back then. Maybe he was let go too.

They have made many changes before, during and after. When the time came last year I believe there were a half dozen or more across the country given early exits. Some were long tenure types, 20+ and even a 40 year. My supervisor and my position were eliminated because they were redundant... something another dept could handle and I really did not want to work elsewhere or on the road.

The picture does show Ti as a part of the make up.

Edit: And, though I might be a wordy bastard, I do have times when I don't quite get the wording right... most especially when splainin' science stuff I learned from those R & T folks at CPFilms (aka Eastman).

Shortest thing to say would be more like what I do remember well from the science guys there, which is that ceramics used for window film, no matter their name, are or contain metal. It may explain why Huper C 30 knocked out AM reception on a Chrysler 300 sedan back around 2006-2009 when I was part of a team investigating film interference on auto electronics. C30 was never directly mentioned in the video shown at SEMA one year.

I don’t like calling you to the table Dave but in this case your conjecture is off the hook. How many times have you edited your post here? You have not provided any proof to support your false claims so it appears that in order to save face, you come up with another out of context premise. To what end Dave? What is your purpose? I was waiting for something factual to prove your points but your edits have shown something even more disturbing.

I can tell you that from working for Huper for over 10 years, I have had only 2 instances of ceramic totally interfering with rf to the point of having to remove it. Maybe there is some Llumar out there that has done the same but I'm not going to come on here and indicate that it is the case with just stories and false product composition premises. Am signal interference is not exclusive to Huper Ceramic films. That is a fact, right? You can actually create am interference with a piece of white photocopy paper not to mention many other types of window films. I’m sure your team has tried that little trick? So while part of me questions why someone would be so concerned about getting their am broadcasts in this day and age. The other part of me is a little disgusted that someone (who is retired for that matter) would go this far to try and discredit a product that in this particular respect is no different than a piece of paper or most window films for that matter. TPS, NAV, SAT, FM all work with Huper Ceramic films.

You have a tremendous amount of experience and that is respectable. I respect your cumulative experience. However when you go outside of your wheelhouse to push dated thinking from a bygone era against all known fact… then it takes from your good reputation and the reputation of this site. So if you have trouble explaining science stuff, then why not pass and move on to a thread that you are more knowledgeable in? In spite of that, you still try to change simple chemistry to prove your point and in doing so, you use your reputation for being "smart" on this site to spread false statements that may be mistakenly viewed by others as fact.

For example, first you claim that a non-metal product is actually a metal. After many edits you come to the conclusion that you still have to espouse an untruth that ceramics used for window film including TiN contain metal. So show me where it says that TiN is in fact a metal? You have produced no proof and yet you still go making the claim and then rewording it to what amounts to conjecture. I can show you numerous references from respected sources that state that this compound is no longer a metal. When you mix 1 part water and 1 part flour and bake it, you get simple bread. After it is baked, the water is no longer apparently present so do you call it a loaf of flour? Of course not, because it has changed into a different substance altogether. We are not trying to be a resource for sandwiches here but if we were, would we go so far as use conjecture to convince people otherwise? In the end does that make us a reliable resource?

Your loyalty to your former company is understandable, however when you present things out of context or spread untruth like this it comes at a cost to your reputation, the reputation of a good product and the reputation of this site. I’m not so sure that trying to make a wrong point right is really worth it. :twocents

jh812 · October 17, 2016

no ma'am · October 18, 2016

Wow... I read all that... I still don't like huper.

Tintguy1980 · October 18, 2016

You know ... as opposed to a bygone era, I don't care what people think of me. I am a simple man who listens to interesting information and stores it. Do I research in to the nth degree, oh he11 no? Telling it the way it was told, wrong or right, old news or new, brings out the opposing viewpoint to a degree that possibly everyone will learn something ... even at the risk of egg on one's face. The difference is I don't find a need to tear down the person, I tear down their idea much the same as what has been done here. Reputation ... who gives a flip about my reputation in regards to the film industry or an internet forum, because it has no meaning outside this place or the industry that, paraphrasing if you will, 'I'm retired from'.

The world is full of opposing view points and always will be ... no one was dissin film product or brand as a whole, simply pointing out that it too has flaws same as the next film product or even a piece of paper. It's okay that you had to come semi-publicly humiliate me for the innocent belief in something that made sense back when told. If editing a post in order to wipe some the egg away or to save face is a crime of humanity, shoot me now. At least I will not and do not revisit another person's post to see how many times they have edited what was said, so as to become concerned about some underlying disturbed behavior. Nor will I incessantly ensure a person is quoted (so as to not give opportunity to save face) each and every time a rebuff needs be penned.

Thanks for sharing thoughts, good information and the fact that anyone is capable of character assassination. Peace man.