AVS Special Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Mateo, California
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
First of all, this sounds like what we do with the WOW discs and the pixel flipper. Of course it's a good idea. The only problem with static is if it doesn't do all colors, but instead just black and white.
Secondly, we need to separate our terms a little more appropriately. I think people have defined burn-in as some sputtering of the actual elements in the phosphors (for now, I'll just call them plasma), and it's just "stuck" that way. This is something that doesn't happen on many PDP's anymore. That's why they often say burn-in is pretty nonexistent, and most lean toward IR as what's going on.
The third option that's not often considered is uneven wear, the one that we're using "burn-in" synonymously with. I think this has to be more heavily considered. Uneven wear can potentially be remedied; burn-in cannot. Whereas IR is about a "ghost trail" of what was previously on the screen, uneven wear is all about the aging of pixels and phosphors on your set.
Let's use humans as an example, a six year old versus a one year old. One is a child, the other an infant. Fast forward 70 years, and now they're both seniors (at 76 and 71 years old, respectively). They still may be five years apart like they always were, but their ages are much "closer" to each other than before, by association alone.
Or here's a better example (though it's probably not true). Let's say I asked you to drink a 16 fl. oz. bottle of urine. Of course, you wouldn't do it. Now, let's pretend I presented you with a fact that the average amount of water a human drinks in a year contains approximately 16 fl. oz. of urine content in it. Is that gross to hear? I guess... but we don't care, because we aren't aware of it. Or better yet, that content is so ridiculously minuscule over the course of a calendar year that it's simply irrelevant.
Same thing goes with the TV's. What you perceive as "burn-in" might be prevalent if you've watched 300 hours of baseball, but it's not the 300 hours that matters. It's the percentage of baseball that you've watched versus everything else you've watched. That's why we call it uneven wear. No pixels will ever all have perfect aging. This is true the second you turn on your television set and it runs through a setup program with you. Even if you're on it for five minutes, there are five minutes of pixels that were used differently everywhere. The reason this ends up being moot in the grand scheme of uneven wear is because your pixels have had relatively much more aging than those five minutes you were on that menu.
Same thing goes for letterbox content (watching 2.35:1 movies). Every time that you watch a two hour film, you have aged your phosphors where the image is displayed considerably more than the phosphors that are just firing black (though I guess those technically have aged more in black lol). If you watch 100 letterbox movies on your set over time, that's 200 hours of uneven wear. In your first 1000 hours, that's 20% of all of your viewing. There's a possible chance that will show up as your top and bottom being lighter than your middle. However, compare it to a panel that has run for 10,000 hours. That means it only accounts for 2% of all viewing, so the phosphors are all aged a bit more closely to each other, even though there is still a 200 hour disparity between these parts of the screen.