The only tests that matter are viewing the TV and if, while watching TV programmes, you can notice burn in. Viewing solid colours isn't the right quantitive assessment. They should show what these TVs look like displaying normal TV, to see how visible the artefacts are. But of course ,that would interrupted their scientific method. They could at least display a few photos as well as flat colours in their assessment.
Burn in was present already at week 2 of the test, so only a couple hundred hours, not 3000. Also, it was the dimmer TV displaying CNN which got the worst burn in
The fix was unrelated to user burn in.Not many, a small percentage of the original batch was affected and the problem has since been addressed.
For sure, people that regularly grade their panels using a colorimeter to asses color accuracy and uniformity are going to notice.
For just about anyone else, outside of looking at a screen showing a solid color the panel is unlikely to show any perceivable permanent burn-in outside of worst case pathological cases.
And even in pathological cases (like the Rtings burn-in testing that is ongoing), it's unnoticeable unless viewing a solid color for many of those pathological worst case scenarios.
Additionally, even when viewing a solid color displaying the burn-in, the panel uniformity is often still better than a brand new LCD panel.
If anything, the Rtings content that you've shown reinforces the notion that your average consumer (TV viewer or console game player) isn't going to perceive any noticeable degradation in the panel.
Granted, 3500 hours equates to 437.5 days at 8 hours a day or 875 days at 4 hours a day of showing the exact same content. Perhaps the burn-in accelerates over time, but if it's linear then it's safe to assume that under anything but the worst case, a modern LG OLED display should still have superior color uniformity when compared to an LCD after 3-5 years. Those that only watch CNN and nothing but CNN, might have cause for concern, however.
This isn't dismissing the effects of burn-in (I'm not going to get one to use as a PC display no matter how much I want to at this moment). This is putting it into the context of what most people are likely to see under either general TV/movie viewing or general console gameplay (most console gamers likely don't spend 3000+ hours playing the same game and even then the burn-in doesn't significantly impact the perceived quality of non-single color images).
The one major area of concern for a console gamer is going to be the main console UI if it's mostly a single color (no background image selected so burn-in would be more noticable). But how many console gamers haven't customized their UI with a background image that they like?
The situation with OLEDs can certainly still be improved, but it's certainly not doom and gloom.
Regards,
SB
What percentage?
How would I know?
The empirical evidence I posted comes from the RTINGS test.
Oh, so you're arguing against something you imagine I'm saying instead of the things I'm actually saying. That explains it all. The reality is that neither you nor I know the extent of the issue. The difference between us being that I actually acknowledge that fact.
At least for the cases of panel unifomity and contrast levels, you can use bias lighting to strongly mitigate the issues. It's recommended to reduce eye strain as well.
Of course they are. But to gain understanding of the problem, one needs to quantify these data. Otherwise you just have proof burn-in happens and not likelihood of burn-in happening or impact when it happens.
Users on AVSForums are as likely to post about their new TV suffering burn-in as gamers are to post on gaming forums. You can see comments on the Rtings tests where users have burn-in. We all know plasma had issues because people talked about it, and we all know plasma largely managed to get over those issues by-and-large because people on forums such as these continue to rave about the picture quality of their beloved plasma displays.
Why do you keep saying that when it's been repeated that everyone acknowledges burn-in happens on OLEDs? Not one person has said it doesn't happen. The closest anyone got to saying it doesn't happen was one person calling it 'not a real problem' to mean 'not a problem that is going to impact users.' Not one person has denied that OLEDs can suffer localised pixel degradation. Stop trying to make that argument because it's already made. Again, we're trying to discuss what degree of impact this technological limitation has and whether it's outweighed by gains in other areas.
1) Internet posts are useful to detect a problem and document it on a case by case basis but they can't be used for a statistical analysis since we have no idea how representative the sample is.
