or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Black bar burn in on plasmas?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Black bar burn in on plasmas? - Page 6  

post #151 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Pylot View Post

Evolution is a theory and not a fact?

Hopefully your are not in the scientific field. Maybe you should read about scientific theory vs fact vs law.
post #152 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by mailiang View Post

Based on what you've just described, you may experience IR, which I posted as being normal, not burn in. If IR is a problem for you, then you should be watching an LCD. Isn't it wonderful that we now have more then one technology to chose from when we buy a TV!


Ian

Absolutely.
post #153 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmike View Post

Oh no no, you dont get to just voice your opinion over mine and then say dont argue with me. I would like to voice my opinion to.

There are those off us who find especially since kuro is gone that the image in a normal viewing enviroment which is one that consists of daaytime viewing with windows and lamps at nights that LCD has better black level, better white color, bigger screens than plasma has, dont care of cost, dont care to view off angle, dont like tinted green glass (ie off color white), dont like abl or floating blacks or buzzing or IR or burn in (which DO exist and exist ALOT more than plasma defenders like to post. A simple read of any plasma thread shows all anyone needs to see). And we dont like flicker. We also prefer higher dot pitch (sharper image) or lcd. We also do not scaling staircasing effect on plasma sets.

You see I simply posted a statement of why I dont buy plasma anymore which directly related to the topic. One that is of my simple opinion. You turned this into a full blown argument.

So there we are. You reasons and subjective opinion on why you like plasma and my subjective opinion on why I like lcd. Now we have a fair 2 posts should a hapless technology victim runs by this thread.

And I thought Mike left AVS for a while to relax and not be so uptight. lol

But I do like my new ex500! Not sure its better than my pdps but its nice.
post #154 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmike View Post

If I have to think about how to treat my tv as far as what I watch and for how long then I ain't enjoying it.

If I want to watch 12 hrs of football ticker and all I want to. If a disaster like the trade center happens and I want to watch all day everyday for a long period of the same news channel I want to. If I want to game the same game for 12 hours straight, I want to. And I want to without a dam care in the world.


well mike, I own a plasma and watch what I want to, but in your case if your viewing habits are what's described above, I would suggest you get out more and enjoy life and not be locked to your TV.
post #155 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmike View Post

Oh no no, you dont get to just voice your opinion over mine and then say dont argue with me. I would like to voice my opinion to.....

Calm down chief. If you've read my posts over the years (not that I'm so vain to think they've made an impression ) it's no secret that I 1) prefer plasma in general and 2) fully acknowledge that different people have different perceptions and weighting criteria for choosing a TV.

There's no argument here. You prefer all those things you listed, more power to you. There's other threads where that stuff is discussed ad nauseum. However I felt it worth pointing out that your implication that you have to choose LCD in order to be able to do those things "without a damn care" is in fact a reflection of your own personal preferences and beliefs which many other people will disagree with.

jeff
post #156 of 229
Here is the data from one of the Samsung papers (there are many). The white square was 1% of the screen area and displayed at upwards of 1200cd/m2 for 1000 hours straight and then a full white screen was displayed and the luminance variation measured.

The results show various treatments of the MgO layer and how it affects the luminance variation in this test.

post #157 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

Since you refuse to accept clear facts and evidence, allow me to ask you what visual proof can I offer you that would convince you of plasma burn-in?

Poor Audi, you keep swinging and missing, even with the basics - apparently the significance of my question regarding the difference between IR and burn-in is still completely lost on you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HTguru3 View Post

I have never seen hog pilot post that a plasma is flawless. What indisputable proof do you have that he said that. Burn in can happen. Does it happen very often and under normal conditions? no. That's where you are in denial.

Now can we see a picture of your Kuro? ;-)

And then HTguru3 comes along and nails it on his first try. Don't let that frustrate you, Audi - if nothing else, your posts are good for a laugh or two!
post #158 of 229
Evolution is shockingly well backed up the fossil record. The elimination of burn in is shockingly well backed up by the lack of burned-in displays. It's like the idiots who look at the photos of Greenland and claim it's not getting warmer because there isn't some upper atmosphere air pocket that some bogus model suggests should be 0.5 degrees warmer than it is. Guess what? Greenland ice is still melting. (Note: The last comments have nothing to do with the cause of said melting, but the argument that the melting is not happening is idiotic. Kind of like the argument that evolution is not real.)
post #159 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Evolution is shockingly well backed up the fossil record. The elimination of burn in is shockingly well backed up by the lack of burned-in displays. It's like the idiots who look at the photos of Greenland and claim it's not getting warmer because there isn't some upper atmosphere air pocket that some bogus model suggests should be 0.5 degrees warmer than it is. Guess what? Greenland ice is still melting. (Note: The last comments have nothing to do with the cause of said melting, but the argument that the melting is not happening is idiotic. Kind of like the argument that evolution is not real.)

Its not that global warming doesnt exist. It does indeed. We live in a time at a thawing after an ice age that happens to be just perfect for us. The orverall majority of the life of this planet has been much warmer than it is now.

the issue is that liberals want the general US population to believe that humans are causing this. Most of all US citizens.

The problem is that overwhelming scientific evidence says that the emissions we add to the atmosphere that provide the warming are miniscule compared to the natural amounts that occur in nature. In other words Humans MAY, may be ever so slightly enhancing the warming of the planet and I mean by tenths of a percent.

The other issue with all of it is its an excuse to regulate and make money. Just as Mr gore and his 9 million dollar house. Meanwhile strangling the american economy due to the regulations. All the while other nations not adhering to such regulations do not suffer the same economic fate. Such as china. So business pack and leave for less regulation and less taxes and less wages. And the US alone suffers. And for what because we may or may not at all be assisting the natural evolution of the planet.

Back to plasma burn in
post #160 of 229
Mike this is exactly what gets my gander....... rogo never wrote "global warming" he simply wrote that people who say its not melting are out of their minds. Which you wrote essentially the same thing but made it appear rogo was wrong. Its an art form some have mastered.
post #161 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebernazz View Post

Mike this is exactly what gets my gander....... rogo never wrote "global warming" he simply wrote that people who say its not melting are out of their minds. Which you wrote essentially the same thing but made it appear rogo was wrong. Its an art form some have mastered.

Eber. I misread rogo. I guess I said the same thing but I explained it with more detail.
post #162 of 229
This is starting to get ugly...like the plasma vs lcd/led thread before.

The only thing I can say is that it seems most people misinterpret IR and Burn in just like how most people misinterpret evolution...If you took bio in college or majored in it you would understand what I mean by that.

Oh and Chrono, thats why I said MY personal experience I saw that guys thread in the PDP section and was very HAPPY I didn't have the same results
post #163 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Evolution is shockingly well backed up the fossil record. The elimination of burn in is shockingly well backed up by the lack of burned-in displays. It's like the idiots who look at the photos of Greenland and claim it's not getting warmer because there isn't some upper atmosphere air pocket that some bogus model suggests should be 0.5 degrees warmer than it is. Guess what? Greenland ice is still melting. (Note: The last comments have nothing to do with the cause of said melting, but the argument that the melting is not happening is idiotic. Kind of like the argument that evolution is not real.)

You mean like the pre-1990s T Rex walking upright and the famous Brontosaurus? Frankly high physics nowadays are more theory than facts. You will be amazed how many theoretical physics are based just on mathematical models without appreciable observation evidence. And how many biases are hidden under the guise of "science" when it's a theory. But at least the community has a robust peer review structure. To extrapolate evolution is akin to extrapolating to Big Bang just because the universe is expanding (which the strongest proponent Stephen Hawkings has denounced it decades back with his Brief History of Time). That's why I say I don't accept it in its ENTIRETY.

Here's the recent boo-boo on global warming. If you look at the picture it looks credible. But devil is always in the details. I'm not saying global warming does not exist. But environment changes is a complicated global ecosystem phenomenon, and balance can be destroyed by a myriad of not so obvious derivative factors. My point is science is not as obvious or convenient as many of us wants to believe, or choose to take the time AND effort to understand PROPERLY. People nowadays just want fast and quick answers that appeals heuristically, hence why there's a market for 1" thick TVs

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...-greenland-map
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-m...ional-ice-melt

In comparison BI/IR are much easier phenomenon

If you missed my post, here it is again. Keep an open mind and ask "why" instead of following conventions. Like I said, I'm a career pragmatist Fact that Sarah Palin and Auditor can't explain themselves except make absolute statements shows bias on their part, and unfortunately destroys credibility to the public in the pursuit of facts.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post21010041

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebernazz View Post

Hopefully your are not in the scientific field. Maybe you should read about scientific theory vs fact vs law.

FACT: Plasma can have burn-in (and strange thing is that "facts" can be axiomatic "scientifically", like the existence of luminiferous ether or constant speed of light)

LAW: If you abuse plasma by not using mixed content for extended period, it will have burn-in (cause and effect which can be CONSISTENTLY reproduced)

THEORY: Many plasma users complain of burn-in so burn-in must be prevalent (a Hypothesis that many of us is trying to say it is not true ie peer review... and statistically seems to confirm ie observation)
post #164 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

THEORY: Many plasma users complain of burn-in so burn-in must be prevalent (a Hypothesis that many of us is trying to say it is not true ie peer review... and statistically seems to confirm ie observation)


FACT: Many plasma users confuse burn-in with image retention.



Ian
post #165 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

If you abuse plasma by not using mixed content for extended period, it will have burn-in (cause and effect which can be CONSISTENTLY reproduced)

Why is it that burn-in must result from abuse? Why is the blame placed on the owner and not the technology?
post #166 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Why is it that burn-in must result from abuse? Why is the blame placed on the owner and not the technology?

I guess because nowadays burn in is difficult to get? So the user would have to keep watching something with static images a lot? People who purchase plasma TVs should know about burn in...everytime Im at bestbuy I always hear the sales guy explaining the burn in issues with plasmas to some couple.

I understand what you mean about how come were blaming the owners for burn in instead of the tech but to me usually the cause of "failure" for a piece of technology is usually the owners fault
post #167 of 229
Burn-In/IR is a defect of the technology! If watching ESPN alot and also alot of other sports is abusing a tv (ticker) then burn-in/IR is a defect! People should be able to watch what they want with no worries.
I , along with many friends and family WILL NEVER buy plasma again!
post #168 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Why is it that burn-in must result from abuse? Why is the blame placed on the owner and not the technology?

Perhaps because there is explicit wording in the owner's manual recommending against certain usage patterns? And that burn-in is specifically excluded from the warranty?

It would be like using conventional oil in a turbocharged car where the manufacturer specifies synthetic, and then getting upset when the turbocharger fails.

jeff
post #169 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmac31391 View Post

People should be able to watch what they want with no worries.

Beating a dead horse here but it bears repeating - many plasma owners do just that.

jeff
post #170 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Pylot; View Post

Evolution is a theory and not a fact?

Evolution Theory - its a theory not a fact.

You might call it factual within the scientific framework (which is made up from scratch).
post #171 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmac31391 View Post

Burn-In/IR is a defect of the technology! If watching ESPN alot and also alot of other sports is abusing a tv (ticker) then burn-in/IR is a defect! People should be able to watch what they want with no worries.
I , along with many friends and family WILL NEVER buy plasma again!

Sounds like a personal problem as I watch my plasma on a daily basis without any worries of what I'm watching and watch plenty of ESPN and sports. As for you and your friends? who care.
post #172 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Why is it that burn-in must result from abuse? Why is the blame placed on the owner and not the technology?

cause the technology has proven over time to perform suitably as a television. I personally don't care who you blame, but burn in is very rare.
post #173 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot; View Post

When only 8% of the posts in a thread DEDICATED to Burn-in/IR are actually discussing occurrences of burn-in OR IR, and you choose to accept that as proof that this is a major problem, that's just faulty logic, not a problem with plasma. Selectively picking data to fit your opinion and then claiming that you arrived at your opinion based off of the data is just asinine though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot; View Post

One would have to go out of their way to pick material that fits your insane scenario. Continuing to come up with unrealistic, extreme case scenarios isn't going to prove your point. Doing so just shows how desperate you are to prove a point in the face of overwhelming data to the contrary. "Well what if I use my plasma to display my favorite VanGogh print 12 hours a day for the whole summer and then I want to watch football in the fall? Are you saying I can do that?" Your replies are becoming more an exercise in absurdity than anything else.

I guess that means i cannot watch whatever i want, when ever i want or as specuvester puts it:'' If you abuse Plasma by not using mixed content for extended period, it will have burn-in.''
post #174 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

I guess that means i cannot watch whatever i want, when ever i want or as specuvester puts it:'' If you abuse Plasma by *not using mixed content for extended period, it will have burn-in.''



*Not true. Burn in is usually caused by running high contrast static images for extensive periods of time. Like I keep posting, many plasma owners confuse BI with IR which can be stubborn, but will fade with time. Most IR will not be noticeable when there is content, however if it does, watching mixed content or using an occasional screen wash will help prevent it.


Ian
post #175 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Evolution is shockingly well backed up the fossil record. The elimination of burn in is shockingly well backed up by the lack of burned-in displays. It's like the idiots who look at the photos of Greenland and claim it's not getting warmer because there isn't some upper atmosphere air pocket that some bogus model suggests should be 0.5 degrees warmer than it is. Guess what? Greenland ice is still melting. (Note: The last comments have nothing to do with the cause of said melting, but the argument that the melting is not happening is idiotic. Kind of like the argument that evolution is not real.)

Fossil don't prove the Theory of evolution, what a joke. I don't even want get started on Global Warming. I'm starting to see why Plasma burn-in, dithering, so-called dirty whites, etc. is a debate.
post #176 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by mailiang View Post

*Not true. Burn in is usually caused by running high contrast static images for extensive periods of time. Like I keep posting, many plasma owners confuse BI with IR which can be stubborn, but will fade with time. Most IR will not be noticeable when there is content, however if it does, watching mixed content or using an occasional screen wash will help prevent it.


Ian

More evidence: Samsung FAQ


"Yes, plasma TVs are subject to screen burn in.

If you have a plasma TV, we recommend that you limit your viewing of stationary graphics and images, such as the dark side-bars on nonexpanded standard format television programs, stock market reports, video game displays, station logos, web sites, and computer graphics and patterns to no more than 5% of the total television viewing per week.

Displaying stationary images that exceed the above guidelines can cause uneven aging of Plasma displays that leave subtle, but permanent burned-in ghost images in the Plasma picture. To avoid this, vary the programming and images you watch, watch mainly full screen moving images, and avoid stationary patterns or dark bars. On Plasma models that offer picture sizing features, use these controls to view different formats as a full screen pictures" [Samsung, 5/27/2011]
post #177 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

I guess that means i cannot watch whatever i want, when ever i want or as specuvester puts it:'' If you abuse Plasma by not using mixed content for extended period, it will have burn-in.''

Your argument continues to hinge upon absurd, unrealistic scenarios that fit your bogus claim that supposedly burn-in on plasma is a problem with which plasma users need concern themselves. So yes, if your idea of "watching whatever you want" is to display a static image of your favorite van Gogh in your living room, you are correct, you cannot do that. If someone were to only only use their TV for a single kind of material - all letterboxed, all pillarboxed, or all video games, and NOTHING else - then yes, you cannot do that either. Of course, no one actually does any of these things, but let's not let logic and common sense get in the way of pushing your agenda.

There is so much variation in material out there that one would have to go out of their way to try to stick to one kind of material for a very, very long time (per xrox's previous post, somewhere close to 5 months, 7 hours a day EVERY day) to even get close to causing burn-in on a plasma. So for the 99.999% of people who watch whatever they want - and this leads to a natural variation in aspects and screen usage - burn-in will never be even a remote concern.

I await your next hypothetical journey into the absurd.
post #178 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

Fossil don't prove the Theory of evolution, what a joke. I don't even want get started on Global Warming. I'm starting to see why Plasma burn-in, dithering, so-called dirty whites, etc. is a debate.

It must be exhausting and demoralizing to try so hard yet be so consistently wrong.
post #179 of 229
Quote:


Poor Audi, you keep swinging and missing, even with the basics - apparently the significance of my question regarding the difference between IR and burn-in is still completely lost on you.

Let's deal with burn-in, since that's the subject. I asked you to tell me what type of visual proof do you need to convince you that burn-in is possible.

If you tell me, I will seek to produce the evidence for you.
post #180 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogpilot View Post

it must be exhausting and demoralizing to try so hard yet be so consistently wrong.

ok.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Black bar burn in on plasmas?