so i was curious, do black levels get worse as you use the plasma???

I mean, when my older plasma got uneven 4:3 wear, i noticed that on black stuff the less used 4:3 side bars had richer darker blacks than the center.

i mean, you'd think if your plasma is supposed to progressively lose brightness as it gets used that the blacks would maybe inherently look a little better, but based on the wear pattern of my older plasma, it looks like they get worse.

so i was curious, do black levels get worse as you use the plasma???

I mean, when my older plasma got uneven 4:3 wear, i noticed that on black stuff the less used 4:3 side bars had richer darker blacks than the center.

i mean, you'd think if your plasma is supposed to progressively lose brightness as it gets used that the blacks would maybe inherently look a little better, but based on the wear pattern of my older plasma, it looks like they get worse.If it does it is a good indication your panel may be prone to IR. True IR often causes an increase in black level. You may have seen many photos people post saying they have burn-in but on a black screen you see a bright ghost image. I won't go into the scientific explanation as nobody really cares :)

There is also an old Pioneer white paper floating around showing % increase in black level with use.

Edit : http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pio/pe/images/portal/cit_3424/273087528Pioneer%20DTV%20White%20Paper%20-%20FINAL.pdf

If it does it is a good indication your panel may be prone to IR. True IR often causes an increase in black level. You may have seen many photos people post saying they have burn-in but on a black screen you see a bright ghost image. I won't go into the scientific explanation as nobody really cares :)

There is also an old Pioneer white paper floating around showing % increase in black level with use.

Edit : http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pio/pe/images/portal/cit_3424/273087528Pioneer%20DTV%20White%20Paper%20-%20FINAL.pdf

i'm not sure i understand 75% of your explanation.

IR is also not necesarily the correct term to apply to unevern wear, as its's reversed.

in the case i cited the less used parts were black and the heavier used parts were less black, you kind of implied the other way around.

which brings me back to my originaly question, if black levels, as you say, increase as the tv goes on (which would indeed makes sense if the main negative effect is less brightness), why is it on a tv with uneven wear, the side bars will often look blacker for black material then the more worn center?

i'm not sure i understand 75% of your explanation.

IR is also not necesarily the correct term to apply to unevern wear, as its's reversed.

in the case i cited the less used parts were black and the heavier used parts were less black, you kind of implied the other way around.

which brings me back to my originaly question, if black levels, as you say, increase as the tv goes on (which would indeed makes sense if the main negative effect is less brightness), why is it on a tv with uneven wear, the side bars will often look blacker for black material then the more worn center?Because it is not uneven wear you are seeing. It is IR due to a small change in pixel efficiency (increase) in the used portion of the screen. It is not phosphor related.

So given enough time, would a 9th gen kuro go from .001 fl to .006 fl? If so, what will happen with the 10th gen's when they have a few thousand hours, will they develop a glow and lose their total blackness? :confused:

So given enough time, would a 9th gen kuro go from .001 fl to .006 fl? If so, what will happen with the 10th gen's when they have a few thousand hours, will they develop a glow and lose their total blackness? :confused:No, the percentage increase is very small and doesn't get worse after a certain point. More like .001 to .0011. And remember that the data in that link is 3 years old. The Kuro may not show this.

No, the percentage increase is very small and doesn't get worse after a certain point. More like .001 to .0011. And remember that the data in that link is 3 years old. The Kuro may not show this.

Thanks for the explanation , that makes me feel much better. :)

Because it is not uneven wear you are seeing. It is IR due to a small change in pixel efficiency (increase) in the used portion of the screen. It is not phosphor related.

yeah but technically that IR is permanent as the center of the screen is always being used.... i think it's more acurate to imply the reverse, that the sides being less used have a darker black as i dont see the center ever bounce back to that level.......

yeah but technically that IR is permanent as the center of the screen is always being used.... i think it's more acurate to imply the reverse, that the sides being less used have a darker black as i dont see the center ever bounce back to that level.......technically no......practically yes. The IR occurs because the side bars are darker (less used). To reverse the IR a full white screen would even out the pixel efficiency and the black level discrepency would normalize. This is one of the benefits of break-in as it normalizes the pixels electrical properties by evenly distributing materials.

technically no......practically yes. The IR occurs because the side bars are darker (less used). To reverse the IR a full white screen would even out the pixel efficiency and the black level discrepency would normalize. This is one of the benefits of break-in as it normalizes the pixels electrical properties by evenly distributing materials.

yes but this getting off point a little.

it appears that as the middle gets more worn (not ir, as it's there's no "i" to "r"), it appears as if the black levels decrease, whereas the less worn sides seem to have better deph and black level, which is of course most noticeable on a very dark screen.

yes but this getting off point a little.

it appears that as the middle gets more worn (not ir, as it's there's no "i" to "r"), it appears as if the black levels decrease, whereas the less worn sides seem to have better deph and black level, which is of course most noticeable on a very dark screen. I just don't agree with your use of the term "worn". Phosphor wear would result in a decrease in black level and white level. What you are seeing in an increase in black level. Not because the phosphor is "worn" but because the cells are broken in and working more efficiently.

I just don't agree with your use of the term "worn". Phosphor wear would result in a decrease in black level and white level. What you are seeing in an increase in black level. Not because the phosphor is "worn" but because the cells are broken in and working more efficiently.

ecxactly, which is why it doesnt make sense, by all rights it should be reversed, and the more used and broken in center should have better blacks, not the less used sides, but thats what it appears to be, hence me wondering if wearing in the pixels really does make black levels worse, and not better/unnafected as others say.

ecxactly, which is why it doesnt make sense, by all rights it should be reversed, and the more used and broken in center should have better blacks, not the less used sides, but thats what it appears to be, hence me wondering if wearing in the pixels really does make black levels worse, and not better/unnafected as others say.Well I provided a scientific explanation why. If you choose not to accept it then I can't help any further. I could be wrong but it is all that I can offer to you.

Cheers

Would going from .001 to .0011 mean that the Federation could unmask the cloaking device?

The side bars may not be receiving any video signal at all. the material in the center simply may not be a video signal of absolute black. What I am say8ng is that you may not be comparing "black to black."

Well I provided a scientific explanation why. If you choose not to accept it then I can't help any further. I could be wrong but it is all that I can offer to you.

Cheers

whether i accept it or not, that completely ignores/bypasses adressing my question. THE WHOLE POINT of me asking the question is due to that explanation, so it's more the starting off point.

whether i accept it or not, that completely ignores/bypasses adressing my question. THE WHOLE POINT of me asking the question is due to that explanation, so it's more the starting off point.Your question (in the first post) was addressed and answered IMO. And your question in the second post was addressed and answered. And it looks like you didn't accept it. So now what is the new question due to my explanation then? I'll try and answer that as well. At some point you just have to say that you don't believe me :)

Cheers

Your question (in the first post) was addressed and answered IMO. And your question in the second post was addressed and answered. And it looks like you didn't accept it. So now what is the new question due to my explanation then? I'll try and answer that as well. At some point you just have to say that you don't believe me :)

Cheers

again, no, it was not. Your explanation is the source of the confusion, it does not really adress the question.

Unless you're reffering to the IR explanation, which i dont beleive explains or corrects what i beleive i;m seeing.

again, no, it was not. Your explanation is the source of the confusion, it does not really adress the question.Huh? It was my answer to the question! Which you keep dismissing (which is fine).

... which i dont beleive explains or corrects what i beleive i;m seeing Exactly.....

When you find an answer you are happy with I would like to know what it is.

Cheers

Huh? It was my answer to the question! Which you keep dismissing (which is fine).

Exactly.....

When you find an answer you are happy with I would like to know what it is.

Cheers

you keep focusing on the wrong thing here, it doesnt matter about your explanation, it doesnt explain the problem, just why i feel it's a problem, because if it made sense and the explanation was not the opposite of what i'm seeing i wouldnt be asking about it.

you keep focusing on the wrong thing here, it doesnt matter about your explanation, it doesnt explain the problem, just why i feel it's a problem, because if it made sense and the explanation was not the opposite of what i'm seeing i wouldnt be asking about it.Anyone else confused here?? :)

OK, what is your question? In one clear sentence. I will try and answer.