Rtings started a long term burn-in test which includes OLEDs - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 43Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 160 Old 09-03-2017, 08:38 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 6,406
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1748 Post(s)
Liked: 1022
Rtings started a long term burn-in test which includes OLEDs

Just saw this video from a few days ago in which Rtings announced a year long burn-in test - OLED vs VA vs IPS - which will be updated regularly. I also include this 2016 article, in which reviewers actually tested how OLED recovers from static stuff, as well as the OLED burn-in poll thread which FAFRD started, in this post.

kohe321 and PeteNeat like this.

Last edited by 8mile13; 09-03-2017 at 09:07 AM.
8mile13 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 160 Old 09-03-2017, 11:53 AM
Senior Member
 
kohe321's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Norway
Posts: 423
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 293
Copying my post from the burn-in thread:

Really cool that someone is doing this test. Will be interesting to see the results as the weeks go by.

My only gripe with the test is that they aren't doing 3 different OLEDs, for example one 2016 model and two 2017 models, so we could see if there were any random discrepancies between them, or if the results were very similar. If I'm not mistaken, permanent IR hasn't ever really been a big worry with IPS or VA LCD panels, and the LCD technology has been used for so many years now that we know roughly what to expect.
kohe321 is offline  
post #3 of 160 Old 09-03-2017, 12:31 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by kohe321 View Post
Copying my post from the burn-in thread:

Really cool that someone is doing this test. Will be interesting to see the results as the weeks go by.

My only gripe with the test is that they aren't doing 3 different OLEDs, for example one 2016 model and two 2017 models, so we could see if there were any random discrepancies between them, or if the results were very similar. If I'm not mistaken, permanent IR hasn't ever really been a big worry with IPS or VA LCD panels, and the LCD technology has been used for so many years now that we know roughly what to expect.
There are no differences between different panels and/or different models. At most, there may be a difference between different model years, so having a B/C7 in addition to the B6 would have been useful.

The kind of test they are performing is pretty stressful, so the relative comparison to VA and IPS will be worthwhile.

They are running 20 hours / day 7 days / week or 140 hours per week at 175 cd/m2, which should correspond to something under 20mA/cm^2 (and OLED Light of about 60 initially). Here are my predictions based on the semi-consistent reports of burn-in we've had from several AVSers:

-burn-in of red will become apparent on the 100%/100% yellow bar (Top Left) somewhere between week 3 (420 hours) and week 5 (700 hours). Burn-in might be visible on a red field after week 2 (280 hours) but if so it will be very minor and invisible on actual content)

-burn-in of red in the 36%/100% 'Video Game' yellow bar (Bottom Left) will take just under 3x the number of weeks to become equally apparent. This will confirm that it is only cumulative hours of qualifying static content (fully-saturated bright yellow/orange/red) that matters and 'rests' or mixing of content type have no effect other than delaying how long it takes to accumulate a sufficient number of cumulative hours to develope visibe burn-in.

-both semi-tranparent logos are going to take much, much longer to burn-in and I won't be surprised to see the test conclude without any signs of burn-in on either semi-transparent logo.

My greatest dissapointment with the test is that they are using these stupid Rtings logos rather than a proper 8-color rainbow sufficiently large to make measurements from (with a meter).

If they had a White, Black, Red, Greed, Blue, Yellow, Magenta, Cyan pattern where each patch had at least a 1" x 1" rectangle sufficient to take a reading from, they could confirm the aging data on a color-by-color and subpixel-by-subpixel basis.

That data would show that 'red within yellow' ages the fastest, all-subpixels-within-black age the slowest (not at all), and 'white-within-white' ages somewhere in between those two extremes (probably about 1/3rd the rate if red-within-yellow, because of the 3x greater efficiency of the (unfiltered) white subpixel).

As it is, they are probably going to use the central area of the screen where random content is being displayed to recalibrate 100% white each week (which will change very little during the test, if at all) and aside from using their eyeballs to check for 'signs of burn-in' on a colored field, they will have no way to measure the % burn-in (reduced brightness) they are seeing...

Hopefully the results will be interesting enough that they decide to repeat the effort more comprehensively in 2018...

Rather than the % brightness versus time assiciated with different levels of current (mA/cm^2), their goal should be to generate curves of % brightness (absolute brightness since they have standardized on 170 cd/m2) versus cumulative time for the various subpixel-colors-within-display-colors (32 measurements total, many/most meaningless, meaning no degradation).

This would confirm that red-within-yellow ages the fastest, followed by red-within-red, and then green-within-yellow (and that blue ages the slowest overall, only white may be slower).

That might push LG to actually deliver static-logo-dimming technology that actually prevents burn-in, rather than just drags out the cunulative display hours needed to develop it .
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image.png
Views:	135
Size:	55.6 KB
ID:	2277472  

Last edited by fafrd; 09-03-2017 at 12:40 PM.
fafrd is online now  
 
post #4 of 160 Old 09-03-2017, 05:03 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 624
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 446 Post(s)
Liked: 183
Do we know for a fact that 175 nits translates to 60 OLED Light? Their site states that they are using calibrated settings for all 3 TVs. Checking their B6's settings page shows that OLED Light is set at 40.

You also have to take into account the test pattern, especially the different behaviors of the 4 logos, and any dimming features of the B6, especially ABSL and local dimming of static elements.

ABSL has been known to dim the entire screen even when the image isn't completely static (the TV thinks it's static due to little variations in a scene). Has their test loop been verified to not trigger ABSL? Maybe they should turn ABSL off for this test.

On our B6, the local dimming of static elements, when it happens, happens gradually over a few or several minutes. The logo in their test loop that is on for 10 minutes, off for 2 minutes, would be resetting (or restoring) the logo to full luminance after each 2 minute break, and then taking another few minutes or so to dim back down. The other logos that are on screen full time, should remain dimmed the entire time. Also, if my theory that the longer a static logo stays on screen, the more it gets dimmed (to a point), is true, that's also something to consider.

The 10 minutes on, 2 minutes off logo is closest to representing a network/station logo, but it is 50% opaque and not solid, and not representative of the logos that have been reported to cause burn in, which are solid network logos and overlays (CNN/MSNBC).

Still, their test is not representative of virtually any real-world consumer use scenarios, so it cannot prove or disprove that burn in is possible with normal use. That's really what most consumers would want to know. The test will likely show that burn in does occur, but good luck trying to make the link between these test results and normal use of the TV.
no1special is offline  
post #5 of 160 Old 09-03-2017, 05:41 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 242
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by kohe321 View Post
Copying my post from the burn-in thread:

Really cool that someone is doing this test. Will be interesting to see the results as the weeks go by.

My only gripe with the test is that they aren't doing 3 different OLEDs, for example one 2016 model and two 2017 models, so we could see if there were any random discrepancies between them, or if the results were very similar. If I'm not mistaken, permanent IR hasn't ever really been a big worry with IPS or VA LCD panels, and the LCD technology has been used for so many years now that we know roughly what to expect.

Would also have been informative to compare a Sony versus LG OLED as firmware may play a role.

Sony XBR55A1E
LG OLED55E6P
John1948 is offline  
post #6 of 160 Old 09-04-2017, 03:33 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Wizziwig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: SoCal, USA
Posts: 2,699
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1416 Post(s)
Liked: 998
If anything, the Sony would likely have burned in faster since it features fewer preventive measures as per hdtvtest's various A1E comparison videos. Sony does have a slightly more aggressive ABL but the 2016 models were even worse and still burned in.
Wizziwig is offline  
post #7 of 160 Old 09-04-2017, 05:06 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
6athome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 521 Post(s)
Liked: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by John1948 View Post
Would also have been informative to compare a Sony versus LG OLED as firmware may play a role.
Your post has made me think of the B6 versus the G,E and C6. The B6 has a different mother board then the G,E and C6, which is one of the reasons I bought the C6,the other was 3D.
Realtek on B6 and others LG. Realtek is cheaper!

Last edited by 6athome; 09-04-2017 at 05:09 AM.
6athome is offline  
post #8 of 160 Old 09-04-2017, 06:03 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 242
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post
If anything, the Sony would likely have burned in faster since it features fewer preventive measures as per hdtvtest's various A1E comparison videos. Sony does have a slightly more aggressive ABL but the 2016 models were even worse and still burned in.
Your last sentence supports the position that the real world results are not necessarily obvious, nor predictable. Sony may use different compensation cycles, etc that are better, or worse, than the LG's. That's why one runs the test....

Sony XBR55A1E
LG OLED55E6P
John1948 is offline  
post #9 of 160 Old 09-04-2017, 07:32 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 242
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by oled-is-my-poney View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by John1948 View Post
Your last sentence supports the position that the real world results are not necessarily obvious, nor predictable. Sony may use different compensation cycles, etc that are better, or worse, than the LG's. That's why one runs the test....
LG designed and patented their compensation technology and work crazy hard to make it work well.

It is a central element of the OLED technology.

Every manufacturer use the one LG created.
Based on your comments, I don't think you fully understand how the patent system works. Patents are an ability to exclude, not practice. Improvement patents are commonplace.

LG's OLED compensation technology is obviously badly flawed based upon the number of burn-in cases reported here and elsewhere. My prediction is that if the current IR/BI measures are the best LG can do, OLED in TV applications will quickly develop a bad reputation that will ultimately limit its growth.

You seem to have lots of opinions and precious little fact. That's why the tests need to be run.

Last edited by John1948; 09-04-2017 at 07:50 AM.
John1948 is offline  
post #10 of 160 Old 09-04-2017, 07:54 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Liked: 60
I think the compensation cycle only helps with temporary image retention, which isn't related to luminance loss due to wearout. As far as I know there hasn't been a single report of someone getting rid of burn-in with running compensation cycles.
fafrd and no1special like this.
jk82 is offline  
post #11 of 160 Old 09-04-2017, 10:11 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 242
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by jk82 View Post
I think the compensation cycle only helps with temporary image retention, which isn't related to luminance loss due to wearout. As far as I know there hasn't been a single report of someone getting rid of burn-in with running compensation cycles.
It is my impression, based upon LG's and Sony's publications, that the 2000 hour (manual) use compensation cycle is intended to do more than remove temporary IR while the 4 hour (automatic) use compensation cycle is indeed intended to either prevent, or remove, less persistent defects. After all, "temporary" IR doesn't seem like it should be present after 2000 hours.

I agree with you the 2000 hour (manual) compensation cycle seems to be almost useless based upon what has been reported here, as well as my own personal experience. It mystifies me how LG considers this to be an effective tool.

Sony XBR55A1E
LG OLED55E6P

Last edited by John1948; 09-04-2017 at 10:14 AM.
John1948 is offline  
post #12 of 160 Old 09-04-2017, 07:38 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 624
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 446 Post(s)
Liked: 183
Of note, I was checking grayscale fields the other night and found something interesting. With a 10% grayscale field, the MSNBC text, that is normally displayed as black text on a white background, was very evident and showed up as lighter gray text surrounded by darker gray on the grayscale field. It wasn't as obvious on 5% or 20% and unnoticeable on higher % grayscale fields. The dark spot burn in from the yellow and orange feathers of the NBC peacock logo was virtually invisible on grayscale, except for a bit of blue in the mid-upper grayscale fields, and you really have to look for it. I also found that a 100% Magenta field made the BI from red stand out the most, even better than a red field.

Rtings should probably be using a 10% grayscale field to check for IR/BI. It may not be visible on the 50% gray they plan on using.
no1special is offline  
post #13 of 160 Old 09-04-2017, 09:27 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1special View Post
Of note, I was checking grayscale fields the other night and found something interesting. With a 10% grayscale field, the MSNBC text, that is normally displayed as black text on a white background, was very evident and showed up as lighter gray text surrounded by darker gray on the grayscale field. It wasn't as obvious on 5% or 20% and unnoticeable on higher % grayscale fields. The dark spot burn in from the yellow and orange feathers of the NBC peacock logo was virtually invisible on grayscale, except for a bit of blue in the mid-upper grayscale fields, and you really have to look for it. I also found that a 100% Magenta field made the BI from red stand out the most, even better than a red field.

Rtings should probably be using a 10% grayscale field to check for IR/BI. It may not be visible on the 50% gray they plan on using.
So think about it - the black MSNBC text dies not age at all while the white backgroubd surrounding it does age.

Now when you put up a uniform grey field, the black MSNBC has aged the least, followed by the jon-surround portion of the screen that has been aged a small amount from random content, followed by the white surround that has aged the most (on the white subpixel field).

So MSNBC shows up as the lightest grey, surrounded by the most aged-in area which will be darker grey, followed by the rest of thevscreen which will be somewhere in between but probably much closer to the unaged MSNBC...

Can you post a pic so we can see what it looks like?

White should need about ~3x the static logo time to demonstrate the same % of differential aging - it would be good to see if that jibes with your observations.
fafrd is online now  
post #14 of 160 Old 09-04-2017, 10:04 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 624
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 446 Post(s)
Liked: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
So think about it - the black MSNBC text dies not age at all while the white backgroubd surrounding it does age.

Now when you put up a uniform grey field, the black MSNBC has aged the least, followed by the jon-surround portion of the screen that has been aged a small amount from random content, followed by the white surround that has aged the most (on the white subpixel field).

So MSNBC shows up as the lightest grey, surrounded by the most aged-in area which will be darker grey, followed by the rest of thevscreen which will be somewhere in between but probably much closer to the unaged MSNBC...

Can you post a pic so we can see what it looks like?

White should need about ~3x the static logo time to demonstrate the same % of differential aging - it would be good to see if that jibes with your observations.
That's what I figured. But only white BI shows up on the 10% gray field. More accurately, the BI from colors does not show up on 10% grayscale. I'll try to post a pic later.
no1special is offline  
post #15 of 160 Old 09-05-2017, 08:19 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1special View Post
That's what I figured. But only white BI shows up on the 10% gray field. More accurately, the BI from colors does not show up on 10% grayscale. I'll try to post a pic later.
Grey only uses the white subpixel (from 1% to ~50%).

Only from ~50% - 100% white does the maxed-out white subpixel need the red, green, and blue subpixels to all contribute to white light output...
fafrd is online now  
post #16 of 160 Old 09-05-2017, 09:44 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1special View Post
That's what I figured. But only white BI shows up on the 10% gray field. More accurately, the BI from colors does not show up on 10% grayscale. I'll try to post a pic later.
Have you watched that channel recently? If it only shows on gray fields it could be temporary IR and not burn-in.
jk82 is offline  
post #17 of 160 Old 09-05-2017, 09:51 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by jk82 View Post
Have you watched that channel recently? If it only shows on gray fields it could be temporary IR and not burn-in.
Apparent burn-in of any color could actually be temporary IR.

Burn-in of white subpixels will only be visible on grey and should take require about ~3x the number of cumulative hours to reach equal signifigance.
fafrd is online now  
post #18 of 160 Old 09-05-2017, 10:03 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
Apparent burn-in of any color could actually be temporary IR.

Burn-in of white subpixels will only be visible on grey and should take require about ~3x the number of cumulative hours to reach equal signifigance.
So why would BI from white subpixels only be visible on darker gray fields and not on brighter ones?

Getting temporary IR is quite easy and it looks exaclty like that. Visible on darker grey fields and vanishes on brighter ones. That's why I assumed it could be temporary and not BI.

Last edited by jk82; 09-05-2017 at 10:07 AM.
jk82 is offline  
post #19 of 160 Old 09-05-2017, 11:11 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by jk82 View Post
So why would BI from white subpixels only be visible on darker gray fields and not on brighter ones?

Getting temporary IR is quite easy and it looks exaclty like that. Visible on darker grey fields and vanishes on brighter ones. That's why I assumed it could be temporary and not BI.
Because the white subpixels max out at 50%. Red, Green, and Blue subpixels need to combine to get from 50% to 100% white.

I you burn the same pattern into white, red, green and blue fields it will show up all the way to 100% white...
fafrd is online now  
post #20 of 160 Old 09-07-2017, 02:48 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Wizziwig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: SoCal, USA
Posts: 2,699
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1416 Post(s)
Liked: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
Grey only uses the white subpixel (from 1% to ~50%).
You're forgetting about D65 calibration. White alone is not going to get you there.

The reason you're seeing BI or IR more on darker gray is because our eyes are more sensitive to small contrast changes at lower brightness intensity, especially post gamma. Same reason why you mostly see the vertical banding uniformity issues in darker gray. Banding is still there on 100% white but beyond our eyes ability to resolve.
Wizziwig is offline  
post #21 of 160 Old 09-07-2017, 03:20 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
6athome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 521 Post(s)
Liked: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
There are no differences between different panels and/or different models. At most, there may be a difference between different model years, so having a B/C7 in addition to the B6 would have been useful.
I guess you don't think the B6 having a different chipset, then any other LG OLED, will make a difference?
6athome is offline  
post #22 of 160 Old 09-07-2017, 10:07 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post
You're forgetting about D65 calibration. White alone is not going to get you there.
No, but if you do the math, the contribution from primaries to adjust white point is inconsequential (in terms of current through RGB subpixels).

Take a loop to your WOLED screen when playing 10% grey - very educational...

Quote:
The reason you're seeing BI or IR more on darker gray is because our eyes are more sensitive to small contrast changes at lower brightness intensity, especially post gamma. Same reason why you mostly see the vertical banding uniformity issues in darker gray. Banding is still there on 100% white but beyond our eyes ability to resolve.
I think this is correct and may be why burn-in on white/subpixels can start to be noticed before it's theoretical ~3X time advantage (due to ~3X increased efficiency meaning ~1/3 less current for equivalent luminance).
fafrd is online now  
post #23 of 160 Old 09-07-2017, 10:10 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6athome View Post
I guess you don't think the B6 having a different chipset, then any other LG OLED, will make a difference?
None.

There are still some holding out hope that this is related to a FW bug, in which case different chipsets may suffer from different bugs.

At this point, I'm convinced that pretty much all of these reports of burn-in are caused by differential aging...
fafrd is online now  
post #24 of 160 Old 09-07-2017, 06:38 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 624
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 446 Post(s)
Liked: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post
You're forgetting about D65 calibration. White alone is not going to get you there.

The reason you're seeing BI or IR more on darker gray is because our eyes are more sensitive to small contrast changes at lower brightness intensity, especially post gamma. Same reason why you mostly see the vertical banding uniformity issues in darker gray. Banding is still there on 100% white but beyond our eyes ability to resolve.
Yes, but I am not seeing the BI caused by yellow/orange/red on dark gray slides. Also, I'm pretty sure that the BI caused by black on white statics was much less visible on 5% gray than on 10% gray.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
None.

There are still some holding out hope that this is related to a FW bug, in which case different chipsets may suffer from different bugs.

At this point, I'm convinced that pretty much all of these reports of burn-in are caused by differential aging...
It's possible that a FW/SW bug or glitch caused some of the affected sets' local dimming of static logos feature to not work correctly or not consistently, so BI was not prevented on those sets.

LG OLED65B6P
no1special is offline  
post #25 of 160 Old 09-08-2017, 03:37 AM
Senior Member
 
kohe321's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Norway
Posts: 423
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
None.

There are still some holding out hope that this is related to a FW bug, in which case different chipsets may suffer from different bugs.

At this point, I'm convinced that pretty much all of these reports of burn-in are caused by differential aging...
If you're right, that pretty much means that OLED is fundamentally unfit for any use outside of fullscreen dynamic content over the long term. Which would be a massive blow for the technology. Buying a HDR TV set and turning the brightness down to pre-HDR levels in fear of permanent burn-in is just ridiculous.

Not to hijack this thread into a long discussion about other technologies than OLED, but how would Samsung's eventual quantum dot technology (the real deal where each pixel is individually controlled and emits light) fare in comparison with this type of age-related burn-in? Is this uneven aging of sub-pixels an inherent problem to this sort of emissive technology?
bigapp and John1948 like this.
kohe321 is offline  
post #26 of 160 Old 09-08-2017, 04:34 AM
Member
 
iwb100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I've been reading this and other BI threads on here for a while as an interested new OLED TV owner. I can't help but feel some are jumping to conclusions, that may well be correct, but certainly are far from certain at this stage.

There are many variables in play here...given that BI on OLED is down to differential pixel ageing...could it not be that variance in panel quality, manufacturing etc is at play here. Some sets that are ageing too quickly and seeing BI may simply be "faulty". In the same way that many sets have poor uniformity.

Other variables include watching habits...the assumption that it is purely cumulative viewing time is probably right, but we don't absolutely know if the duration offending logos or banners are on the screen for in "clusters" may make a difference. For example does the average viewing time make a difference...if your TV is on for 12 hours vs 3 hours on average...and the rotation of content during that time too.

What is clear to me is that there isn't a definitive pattern. Some people have reported burn in with low hours total on the set. Lower than you'd expect to see BI if you adopt the models people have proposed. Which suggests to me that there is some variance between TVs in the propensity to get BI or perhaps their overall screen lifetime.

Other variables include ambient room temperature for example..we don't know if this may make a difference. The numbers reporting BI are very small and what should always be factored in is that people come to these arenas to say there is a problem. Many without an issue don't.
iwb100 is offline  
post #27 of 160 Old 09-08-2017, 08:28 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by kohe321 View Post
If you're right, that pretty much means that OLED is fundamentally unfit for any use outside of fullscreen dynamic content over the long term. Which would be a massive blow for the technology. Buying a HDR TV set and turning the brightness down to pre-HDR levels in fear of permanent burn-in is just ridiculous.
No it doesn't.

Black pixels (letterbox bars) don't age at all.

Pixels displaying random content age very slowly (100,000 hours to half-brightness at 130 cd/m2, much slower with random content).

Pixels displaying bright fully-saturated static logos and banners age much faster (probably 10-15 times faster than pixels displaying random content).

Those users with OLED Light cranked up to 80 and seeing burn-in after ~300 cumulative hours of CNN or MSNBC could probably watch ~3000-5000 hours of letterbox content before they'd see similar levels of differential aging.

And those users with OLED Light under 40 and not seeing signs of burn-in until ~1000 hours of CNN or MSNBC could probably watch letterbox content for more than 10,000 hours without seeing signs of burn-in from the letterbox bars.

Look at the attached data - it is directly relevant to the letterbox case. The letterbox bars are at 0mA/cm^2 - they don't age (imaginary flat line at 100%).

The subpixels displaying random content are aging below the turguois curve (so over 10,000 hours before reaching 95%).

Subpixels displaying bright fully-saturated static logos are probably aging close to the purple 10mA/cm^2 curve when OLED Light is low and aging somewhere between the brown 20mA/cm^2 curve and the yellow 40mA/cm^2 curve when OLED Lightis cranked up to 100.

You may feel that 'only' 10,000 hours of letterbox content is 'fundamentally unfit' but many (including me) would not agree. I've had my 65C6P for 10 months now and out of the 800 hours I have on it, less that half has been letterbox content.

Letterbox content is not a problem.

Bright, fully-saturated, static logos and moving banners and logos appear to be.

Quote:
Not to hijack this thread into a long discussion about other technologies than OLED, but how would Samsung's eventual quantum dot technology (the real deal where each pixel is individually controlled and emits light) fare in comparison with this type of age-related burn-in? Is this uneven aging of sub-pixels an inherent problem to this sort of emissive technology?
Just about every emissive technology ever invented loses efficiency over time (and the same is true going the other way as well- check out the specifications of solar panels .
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image.png
Views:	43
Size:	55.6 KB
ID:	2279648  

Last edited by fafrd; 09-08-2017 at 08:33 AM.
fafrd is online now  
post #28 of 160 Old 09-08-2017, 08:39 AM
Senior Member
 
kohe321's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Norway
Posts: 423
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 293
@fafrd Right, thanks for clearing that up regarding the letterboxes. But it's still awful news for OLED if your assumption is correct. Gaming and watching sports, which are two major use factors for me, will be very stressing to the panel. For example, half of the football games I watch have static yellow borders around the timer and scoreboard. And HDR gaming seems to be the worst possible scenario...

Oh well, guess I'll just forget any worries and use my E6 "all out" and see how long it lasts. At least we have good consumer laws here in Norway which should give coverage should it fail prematurely.
no1special likes this.
kohe321 is offline  
post #29 of 160 Old 09-08-2017, 08:55 AM
Member
 
iwb100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by kohe321 View Post
@fafrd Right, thanks for clearing that up regarding the letterboxes. But it's still awful news for OLED if your assumption is correct. Gaming and watching sports, which are two major use factors for me, will be very stressing to the panel. For example, half of the football games I watch have static yellow borders around the timer and scoreboard. And HDR gaming seems to be the worst possible scenario...

Oh well, guess I'll just forget any worries and use my E6 "all out" and see how long it lasts. At least we have good consumer laws here in Norway which should give coverage should it fail prematurely.
Gaming is only an issue with fully saturated static yellow/red HUD elements. See picture of Destiny 2 elsewhere, it's HUD is probably not much an issue. Often games have an option to reduce HUD visibility or hide it or whatever.

There are very few, so far, reports of BI as a result of gaming. The majority of BI reports are from people who watch rolling news channels for long periods of time.
iwb100 is offline  
post #30 of 160 Old 09-08-2017, 09:10 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by iwb100 View Post
I've been reading this and other BI threads on here for a while as an interested new OLED TV owner. I can't help but feel some are jumping to conclusions, that may well be correct, but certainly are far from certain at this stage.

There are many variables in play here...given that BI on OLED is down to differential pixel ageing...could it not be that variance in panel quality, manufacturing etc is at play here.
No, almost certainly not.

Quote:
Some sets that are ageing too quickly and seeing BI may simply be "faulty". In the same way that many sets have poor uniformity.
We don't yet have a single example of apples-to-apples comparison of two WOLEDs with the same settings exposed to the same static content that resulted in different outcomes. One owner of two identical WOLEDs claims one developed burn-in and the other did not, but he 'thinks' he watches equal amounts of CNN on both and he had them both set to Energy Saving, so ambient light and viewing time controlled effective OLED Light.

If the rtings.com test does not show signs of burn-in after ~500 hours, we can revisit the question of defectivity or a compensation fw bug, but until then, the much more rational explanation consistent with every solid piece of evidence that has materialized thus far is that this issue has much more to do with panel settings and viewing habits than it does with manufacturing variation, defectivity, or fw bugs...

Quote:
Other variables include watching habits...the assumption that it is purely cumulative viewing time is probably right, but we don't absolutely know if the duration offending logos or banners are on the screen for in "clusters" may make a difference. For example does the average viewing time make a difference...if your TV is on for 12 hours vs 3 hours on average...and the rotation of content during that time too.

What is clear to me is that there isn't a definitive pattern. Some people have reported burn in with low hours total on the set. Lower than you'd expect to see BI if you adopt the models people have proposed. Which suggests to me that there is some variance between TVs in the propensity to get BI or perhaps their overall screen lifetime.
I'm the one who has started both polls in an attempt to get some data and who has proposed 'the model'. The most important data would be heavy CNN or MSNBC watchers who have OLED Light set above 80, have watched over 400 hours of CNN or MSNBC static logos and don't have signs of burn in. If you know of such a case, please let me know.

Whether manufacturing variability and/or environmental conditions may influence whether burn-in becomes evident after 200 or 300 hours is much less important than whether there are any cases where the problem does not ever materialize.

Quote:
Other variables include ambient room temperature for example..we don't know if this may make a difference. The numbers reporting BI are very small and what should always be factored in is that people come to these arenas to say there is a problem. Many without an issue don't.
Temperature is an interesting thought. I believe I read somewhere that rate of aging accelerates with increasing temperature (certainly the case with wine ).

Temperature can also be related to viewing time, since it is the panel temperature that matters, and the longer the TV is displaying a bright image, the warmer it will get.

So ambient temperature and/or consecutive viewing time may be a variable that influences whether someone watching CNN at OLED Light 80 starts to see signs of burn-in after 200 or 300 hours.

But I'd be very surprised to see temperature making the difference between those users that develope a problem and those that don't.

Anyone expecting to watch hundreds of hours of bright, fully-saturated static logos, banners, subtitles, or HUD elements is likely to develope signs of burn in (primary differentiator of those who don't see a problem).

Higher OLED Light will acclerate the process (next most important secondary differentiator of those who have already seen burn-in and those candidates who have not).

Ambient temperature and/or consecutive viewing time (heat) may be an additional tertiary factor that influences how quickly burn-in becomes evident.

I've seen enough data and evidence to be reasonably confident of these conclusions, but of course, the rtings.com data will far outweigh anything we members have been able to cobble together based on anecdotes and memories.

If their test first shows signs of burn-in on a red field from the yellow 'I' by week 4 or 5, I'll be doubly confident of my assessment/conclusion (possibly by week 2 or 3 if their office is hot). If no signs of burn-in materialize after 1000 hours / 8-weeks, it'll be time to reopen the question of a possible manufacturing defect or firmware bug...

Last edited by fafrd; 09-08-2017 at 09:13 AM.
fafrd is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off