You also forget the much lower lifespan of the blue OLED emitters which lead to color shift over time.
It's nice to see that some people haven't had issues with their OLED TVs but that doesn't deny the reality of those who have.
Nature review article about display technologies
- Thread starter Entropy
- Start date
It's nice to see that some people haven't had issues with their OLED TVs but that doesn't deny the reality of those who have.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Doesn't appear to be the case for LG tv's as they use "white" oleds with a color filter in front. Apparently brightness might reduce of time, but color shift shouldn't happen.
You're also over exaggerating. OLED TV's have been on the market for a couple of years now. If things such as burn in and color shift where problems affecting a percentually significant amount of users, wouldn't we heard a lot of complaints about that in mass media by now? After all OLED TV's are expensive and I doubt consumers happily shell out thousands of euros/dollars for a TV that suffers noticeable issues with IQ in a short time span.
Instead OLED TV sales are rising and everybody but Samsung is jumping on the OLED bandwagon. That pretty much tells you all you need to know.
Not saying OLED doesn't have issues, but if it only affects 0.something % of the users than does it really matter? As others have mentioned buying a LCD TV guarantees you'll have back light bleeding, screen uniformity issues and potentially poor viewing angles.
You're also over exaggerating. OLED TV's have been on the market for a couple of years now. If things such as burn in and color shift where problems affecting a percentually significant amount of users, wouldn't we heard a lot of complaints about that in mass media by now? After all OLED TV's are expensive and I doubt consumers happily shell out thousands of euros/dollars for a TV that suffers noticeable issues with IQ in a short time span.
Instead OLED TV sales are rising and everybody but Samsung is jumping on the OLED bandwagon. That pretty much tells you all you need to know.
Not saying OLED doesn't have issues, but if it only affects 0.something % of the users than does it really matter? As others have mentioned buying a LCD TV guarantees you'll have back light bleeding, screen uniformity issues and potentially poor viewing angles.
Of course it doesn't. Which is why real data is needed, to ascertain the real problem. Same as XB360 and PS3 failure rates, etc. Lots of internet chatter, but how widespread are the problems in reality?
Aaron Elfassy
Newcomer
There is documented behavior of image degradation over 5000 hours of use. I'll try to post it later today. Red degrades the most, followed by Blue, then Green. But the color shift is slight. And lg calibrates the display slightly too warm/red to counter this. I've had 3 panels myself and viewed all of the professional reviews. Most of the B series lg oleds have a slight Magenta hue in the Grayscale with the most accurate out of box settings. Over time the panel will actually degrade to a more neutral color temperature. This should take years. After that, time to adjust the greyscale. This is typical behavior for most consumer displays. Consumers are far more informed of product tech these days, but there's no need to be an alarmist about burn-in or color shifting when it comes to oleds
Yes, with LCDs you know what you get. With OLED it's still hit and miss.
Sadly, the narrative you are either unable to grasp or unwilling to acknowledge is that, given real world empirical evidence from in vitro testing, it's far more miss than hit. I'm failing to understand why you feel the need to keep replying to every single bit of data and counterpoint with the same response that it still happens. It's like repeating people die crossing the road against a sea of counter points of people who have crossed roads without dying, and knowing people who have crossed roads without dying, and if you're sensible, you can cross a road without dying, and the stats are that it's rare to cross a road and die...and then you repeat again, "yes, but you can die crossing a road."
We all acknowledge that burn-on can happen with OLED. If you've nothing more to add, can you please be quiet while the rest of us discuss the actual likelihood, risks, preventative measures, user experiences, etc. as well as comparing the pros and cons with other technologies, to form intelligent, informed decisions on what type of set to buy and where these techs are headed. Thanks.
We all acknowledge that burn-on can happen with OLED. If you've nothing more to add, can you please be quiet while the rest of us discuss the actual likelihood, risks, preventative measures, user experiences, etc. as well as comparing the pros and cons with other technologies, to form intelligent, informed decisions on what type of set to buy and where these techs are headed. Thanks.
Last edited:
Doubtful the white OLED is true wideband white , because the usual absorptive colorfilters won't go beyond Rec709/ sRGB coverage, dichroic can but that's not an option usually w. large surface area. So it's affected by colorshift just as much as RGB LED & the most pressing issue with emissive displays is not long term shift but
individual leds - switching on tends to require different voltage level PER PIXEL, it's the so called threshold voltage shift / "black level crap" , and with inorganic LEDs , only the blue have mostly stable wavelength near threshold voltage - 3 nm wavelength shift , both green and red have wild color shifts , on the order of 5-10+ nm, you can't calibrate for that reliably and have >10 million subpixels at the same time.
There are companies trying to make it big precisely because emissive displays have a dark side:
http://www.ignisinnovation.com/intellectual-property-patents/
http://www.ignisinnovation.com/intelligentpixel/
individual leds - switching on tends to require different voltage level PER PIXEL, it's the so called threshold voltage shift / "black level crap" , and with inorganic LEDs , only the blue have mostly stable wavelength near threshold voltage - 3 nm wavelength shift , both green and red have wild color shifts , on the order of 5-10+ nm, you can't calibrate for that reliably and have >10 million subpixels at the same time.
There are companies trying to make it big precisely because emissive displays have a dark side:
http://www.ignisinnovation.com/intellectual-property-patents/
http://www.ignisinnovation.com/intelligentpixel/
Finally
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Finally
Finally? People have been saying this for days, weeks, months, etc. here.
The only thing that's being discussed is how easy it is to perceive, what is the magnitude, and how does it compare to LCD displays which start off far worse?
In other words, what would it take and how long would it take to make an OLED have permanent worse screen uniformity than a LCD? And the answer, so far, is that it is extremely unlikely in the short term (say 3-5 years) for an OLED panel to degrade to the point where it is worse than an LCD except in some narrow pathologically bad cases. Outside of bad firmware design (the LG OLED panels with the firmware defect for example that Rtings tested), that is.
Regards,
SB
You may be joking in some fashion, but this remark annoys me considerably. Where everyone else discussing the problem has accepted it exists to some magnitude, you've stoically refused to acknowledge anything they've said in return. You haven't commented on the frequency of burn in in real use, the degree, or posted in any manner other than that of a shill/troll trying to discredit OLED - certainly you haven't posted anything like an intelligent discussion evaluating pros and cons.Finally
This tells me the technology isn't ready for mainstream desktop PC use yet.
Indeed. I'd have a Unity logo permanently burned into the top left!
Aaron Elfassy
Newcomer
At greater than 200 nits APL I would definitely be concerned about burn-in, if using the display as a monitor. Oled tech is definitely not as versatile as lcd. But what it does well, it does better than anything else. With prices dropping, mass adoption could be an issue. It's like owning a cast iron skillet. When properly maintained, the performance is nearly unparalleled, but it's not for everyone. My many years of owning plasma displays has prepared me
Yeah there's definitely those who are willing to be at the forefront of tech and deal with the caveats. I can't wait for my next monitor but I know it's probably still a year or two away. Likely I'll have a HDR 4k TV before a monitor and I know I'll be fine with OLED for that purpose.
That's a good point actually. Race-to-the-bottom competitive pricing could see less robust systems on the cheap end. I wonder if burn-in will be more predominant on cheaper OLED sets? Buying cheap could be false economy, but you'd never know until a year or three in.At greater than 200 nits APL I would definitely be concerned about burn-in, if using the display as a monitor. Oled tech is definitely not as versatile as lcd. But what it does well, it does better than anything else. With prices dropping, mass adoption could be an issue. It's like owning a cast iron skillet. When properly maintained, the performance is nearly unparalleled, but it's not for everyone. My many years of owning plasma displays has prepared me
How many LG OLEDs suffer from the same deffective firmware? Are all the burn in user reports judt from LG OLED owners? Don't be se quick to dismiss the problem.
On the issue of OLED burn in I'm the only one so far who has provided empirical evidence for my position, which is that OLED isn't perfect and still not mature enough to be better overall than LCD (although it's getting there). On the other hand, you keep dismissing the issue as a rare occurrence even though you yourself have admitted that you have no data to make such assessment.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
You keep talking about the evidence you provided but how about you provide some actual numbers about units with perceivable issues?
Yes we all know oled can burn in. Nobody is denying that even though you are conveniently ignoring that fact. But the fact that oled can burn in under certain circumstances is something completely different from it being a real issue for the average consumer if the conditions causing visable burn in simply do not occur for 99+% of the users.
Yes we all know oled can burn in. Nobody is denying that even though you are conveniently ignoring that fact. But the fact that oled can burn in under certain circumstances is something completely different from it being a real issue for the average consumer if the conditions causing visable burn in simply do not occur for 99+% of the users.
Prior to buying my Vita a few folks advised me to get the LCD model due to the terrible miura on the OLED model. I picked up an OLED model in a sale and yup the miura is very obvious on a black screen but is imperceptible to me in use. That's much older OLED tech (mine is a 3G model so v early production) but I haven't seen the blue shift described even on that thing.
Of course the human eye is possibly the least reliable method of colour assessment possible shy of asking your dog. If I see folks on the AVSforums or the HDTV test folks posting stories showing the kind of burn in or colour shifts we saw with early plasma sets I'm going to start worrying but white papers on absolute performance versus an ideal don't worry me too much. That said I agree bargain basement OLED sets are probably best avoided just as cheap plasma sets were
Of course the human eye is possibly the least reliable method of colour assessment possible shy of asking your dog. If I see folks on the AVSforums or the HDTV test folks posting stories showing the kind of burn in or colour shifts we saw with early plasma sets I'm going to start worrying but white papers on absolute performance versus an ideal don't worry me too much. That said I agree bargain basement OLED sets are probably best avoided just as cheap plasma sets were
Here's the criteria of the test:
LG confirmed that the effect is accumulative, not dependent on how long you leave the TV turned each session. This test simply gets burn in faster than regular usage. How much faster? Well:
At week two there was already some slight burn in. At four weeks it was much more noticeable. That amount of accumulated hours is not really so high as to claim it's outside of the range for 99+% of owners.
In that video you can see that the firmware fix did not actually eliminate the burn in caused by watching real TV content, that was just an unrelated factory defect. Also, LG confirms that the quality of their panels varies, so it's not just user habits what determines if you're more likely to get burn in.
Conclusion? If you luck out and get a good panel and if you vary the displayed content a lot then you'll probably be fine.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Again, you're either just trolling or incapable of getting the point.
https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/real-life-oled-burn-in-test
So they are showing the same type (not the same video) of content for 20 hours a day. They are up to week 24 so that is close to 3500 hours of screen on time?
The only obvious burn in is on the TV showing CNN at Max brightness, and even then it's only visible when showing a single color, not when you're actually watching content. At least that's what I understand from it.
As the amount of users watching CNN at full brightness (or watch only one type of content for that matter) will be extremely small, couldn't you conclude that based on the test data so far, the chance of perceivable burn in will actually be very small/non existent for anybody using their tv in a normal way?
https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/real-life-oled-burn-in-test
So they are showing the same type (not the same video) of content for 20 hours a day. They are up to week 24 so that is close to 3500 hours of screen on time?
The only obvious burn in is on the TV showing CNN at Max brightness, and even then it's only visible when showing a single color, not when you're actually watching content. At least that's what I understand from it.
As the amount of users watching CNN at full brightness (or watch only one type of content for that matter) will be extremely small, couldn't you conclude that based on the test data so far, the chance of perceivable burn in will actually be very small/non existent for anybody using their tv in a normal way?
Similar threads
