LGE states that OLED TV's now have 100,000 hour lifetime - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 16Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 85 Old 06-08-2016, 01:30 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Foxbat121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: VA
Posts: 11,813
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 698 Post(s)
Liked: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vader1 View Post
I wonder how many people still have the original EA9800? Does it still work fine? It's abut 4 years old now. I remember many of those ones had a really big problem with dying pixels


I still have mine and still works as good as day one. You remembered wrong. There might be one or two very early owners (those who bought it in 2013) report such problem. Never heard any others have the similar problem. So, it is not as big a problem as you remembered.
kevinlg and NintendoManiac64 like this.
Foxbat121 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 85 Old 06-08-2016, 02:06 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,586
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4280 Post(s)
Liked: 3704
The pixel mortality problem actually continued into early 2014 (typically with late 2013 builds). That said, the failures usually occurred in the first 100 hours and would stabilize after that (continual or progressive failure was not a common problem).
video_analysis is offline  
post #33 of 85 Old 06-08-2016, 09:38 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
5x10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,507
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 913 Post(s)
Liked: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vader1 View Post
I wonder how many people still have the original EA9800? Does it still work fine? It's abut 4 years old now. I remember many of those ones had a really big problem with dying pixels
Still have my 9800, I have 5 stuck sub pixels(same as day one) , one will come back every so often but I stopped checking
Not much has changed on it, still an awesome tv, about 4K hours on it
5x10 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 85 Old 06-09-2016, 07:40 AM
Advanced Member
 
Blackvette94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 531
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 321 Post(s)
Liked: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post
I know everybody worries about burn-in but actual reports of it happening outside of floor models at Best Buy seem very very rare. There are plenty of owners who are gamers and even some that are using their TV's as monitors and yet reports of burn-in are few and far between.
I have 1200 hrs on my ec9300 I got last September and have used it for pc gaming only, it is my pc monitor.

No burn in.... at all. I too have seen Best Buy models with burn in but that was because of a 5 minute demo loop set on vivid mode that ran 13 hrs a day and they probably turned the tv off on the tv and not the controller, doing that will not let the tv go through a comp cycle.

I can completely recommend OLED for gaming, the only issue is they need to get the input lag down which they tried a little bit on the 2016 models.
Blackvette94 is offline  
post #35 of 85 Old 06-11-2016, 11:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NintendoManiac64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 2,009
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1026 Post(s)
Liked: 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackvette94 View Post
the only issue is they need to get the input lag down which they tried a little bit on the 2016 models.
Going from 50+ms to 34ms is only a "little bit"?
NintendoManiac64 is offline  
post #36 of 85 Old 06-13-2016, 12:14 AM
Senior Member
 
AV Hack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Greater Bay Area, CA USA
Posts: 425
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 146 Post(s)
Liked: 79
At Infocomm 2016 I spoke to an LG OLED engineer. He stated the new improved chemistry makes the commercial OLED possible. The warranty on the commercial OLED is 3 years with 16 hours of use per day.
Magnesus likes this.

Working on the next one...
AV Hack is offline  
post #37 of 85 Old 06-13-2016, 05:14 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Pixel mortality is not related to OLED at all - it happens on the TFT level (the matrix of transformers) which is the same in all current types of display. (Even Kindle e-paper readers use TFT.)
Magnesus is offline  
post #38 of 85 Old 06-13-2016, 05:42 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by NintendoManiac64 View Post
Going from 50+ms to 34ms is only a "little bit"?
At 60Hz, it improved by a single frame.
A good improvement, but not huge.
Add V-Sync to that, and you have a minimum of 66.67ms latency in any game - probably more.

A big improvement would be getting the display latency at or below 8.33ms on the display (1 frame at 120Hz) and having Adaptive-Sync support to eliminate V-Sync latency.
Then your total latency in-game should be 8.33ms.

Even if they didn't improve latency at all and just added Adaptive-Sync support, that would at least halve the total latency in a game.
Turrican4D likes this.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #39 of 85 Old 06-16-2016, 12:43 PM
Member
 
Resiroth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 180
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post
At 60Hz, it improved by a single frame.
A good improvement, but not huge.
Add V-Sync to that, and you have a minimum of 66.67ms latency in any game - probably more.

A big improvement would be getting the display latency at or below 8.33ms on the display (1 frame at 120Hz) and having Adaptive-Sync support to eliminate V-Sync latency.
Then your total latency in-game should be 8.33ms.

Even if they didn't improve latency at all and just added Adaptive-Sync support, that would at least halve the total latency in a game.
Consoles themselves have substantial latency when running games: http://www.displaylag.com/console-la...ame-input-lag/ ~70-100 ms beyond display lag.

So you're playing a typical console game you're playing destiny at ~100ms + display lag. That means that you should anticipate 135 ms vs 150ms for total lag.

I have noticed lag when it's up around 65-70ms, so there is a "threshold" level, but in the end my PC always feels more responsive and if you really love a high refresh rate no TV compares to a ~6ms response time (actual refersh, not fake manufacture numbers) monitor.

Basically I'm saying if you want to play consoles you're already doomed from the start for having low latency, and I'm also saying that it doesn't really matter that much because it's not 35 vs 50, it's 135 vs 150 (or 10%).

Also with regard to lifespan: This is a complete non-issue.

Even 10k hours would be enough. 5 hours a day (which is a TON) still gives you 5.5 years of use. You won't be using your OLED 5.5 years from now. In the last 8 months we've seen 65" OLEDs drop from 5000 to 2500.

In 5.5 years we'll have 70" QLEDs for 1500 or less I bet. Display tech is moving fast, anyone use a 5.5 year old iPhone?

Last edited by Resiroth; 06-16-2016 at 12:48 PM.
Resiroth is offline  
post #40 of 85 Old 06-16-2016, 01:04 PM
Senior Member
 
IanR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Regina, SK Canada
Posts: 243
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnesus View Post
Pixel mortality is not related to OLED at all - it happens on the TFT level (the matrix of transformers) which is the same in all current types of display. (Even Kindle e-paper readers use TFT.)
I think you mean "the matrix of transistors" not transformers. TFT=thin film transistors

Ian

My finished "Media Room"
IanR is offline  
post #41 of 85 Old 06-16-2016, 02:27 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MikeBiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Longmont, CO
Posts: 1,055
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post
At 60Hz, it improved by a single frame.
A good improvement, but not huge.
Add V-Sync to that, and you have a minimum of 66.67ms latency in any game - probably more.

A big improvement would be getting the display latency at or below 8.33ms on the display (1 frame at 120Hz) and having Adaptive-Sync support to eliminate V-Sync latency.
Then your total latency in-game should be 8.33ms.

Even if they didn't improve latency at all and just added Adaptive-Sync support, that would at least halve the total latency in a game.
The average reaction time for humans is 0.25 seconds to a visual stimulus. If you've been gaming for a while, it probably would be significantly higher due to fatigue.
MikeBiker is offline  
post #42 of 85 Old 06-16-2016, 02:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeBiker View Post
The average reaction time for humans is 0.25 seconds to a visual stimulus. If you've been gaming for a while, it probably would be significantly higher due to fatigue.
Display latency is the display's "reaction time", our reaction time is not a factor.
Microsoft have a really good demonstration that shows what 100ms, 50ms, 10ms, and 1ms latency looks like.


He's talking about touch latency here, but it's the exact same thing as display latency.
When I move my mouse and there's 50ms of display latency, that disconnect between my physical movement and the display updating is immediately obvious.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #43 of 85 Old 06-22-2016, 09:02 AM
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maybe ⅓ of the way from here to there.
Posts: 10,026
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2589 Post(s)
Liked: 2312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post
Display latency is the display's "reaction time", our reaction time is not a factor.
Microsoft have a really good demonstration that shows what 100ms, 50ms, 10ms, and 1ms latency looks like.



He's talking about touch latency here, but it's the exact same thing as display latency.
When I move my mouse and there's 50ms of display latency, that disconnect between my physical movement and the display updating is immediately obvious.
Yes. This confusion surfaces here from time to time. A person can have incredibly slow reaction time, but still benefit from having a display display at a [theoretically impossible] 0ms latency.

I always run short of examples when trying to explain this, but consider what happens with a very very bad (and short lived) gunslinger, who labors under a full second reaction time. In order to even walk or eat or do anything else in life, he still must have the neuro-optical mechanism respond to continuing visual stimulus with very short latency. But a sudden opening of a door in front of him might break his nose, and the first guy he duels kills him in the street.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #44 of 85 Old 08-15-2017, 09:37 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 4771
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post
LG Electronics held a press event at their OLED television assembly factory in South Korea this weekend. Some details on the Q&A process as well as this comment about lifetimes.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...33_206377.html



A while back I noted that the LGD had adopted a blue-yellow-blue OLED stack and I assume that we are seeing the impact on lifetimes.

EDIT....Fixed URL.
The attached article quotes an LG executive (Lee) claiming that WOLED panel lifetime has been 'extended to 100,000 hours'.

Do we have any idea how LG is characterizing 'lifetime'?

Time-to-half-brightness is well-defined and is based on sustained current/power/luminance output (attached).

But how is LG determining 'lifetime' of their WOLED TVs?

Is it based on a sustained field being ouput and if so, of what intensity? Rec.709-standard 100 cd/m2 or 120 cd/m2?

Is it based on some estimate of average output when displaying random Rec.709 content?

Is it based on time until output is reduced to 50% of new-levels or to some level even lower than that?

As the attached data indicates, there is oncreasing evidence that WOLED pixels age/decay faster from high sustained output levels (this appears to be the cause of the burn-in that heavy CNN/MSNBC watchers are reporting) and t's made me wonder how LG defines the 'lifetime' of their TVs - at worst-case peak output levels or at best-case Rec.709 random-content-based output levels?

If anyone has any understanding of how LG defines TV lifetime (or any better WOLED aging data), I'd appreciate any additional details that can be shared...
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image.png
Views:	36
Size:	55.6 KB
ID:	2268062  
fafrd is offline  
post #45 of 85 Old 08-15-2017, 10:01 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 4771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morille Tremblay View Post
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...2e53000000.pdf

Look at those oled degradation slide.

It's crazy how fast they degrade in the first hundreds of hours.
Thanks, but too old to be useful...
fafrd is offline  
post #46 of 85 Old 08-15-2017, 10:03 AM
 
rene2kx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: asia
Posts: 1,338
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 956 Post(s)
Liked: 373
we don't have any real word proofs of oled shelf life right now, but i think above research is flawed^, the first hundred of hours should have virtually no effect at all, you'd have to run an oled several thousand hours to make it lose half its brightness.
rene2kx is offline  
post #47 of 85 Old 08-15-2017, 10:14 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 4771
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post
The 100,000 hour figure is the time to half brightness (not pixels dying). The big question is what LGE is using as a baseline for that number. Is it the max full screen white brightness? Is it the preset brightness in one of the display modes? Is it 100 nits?
These are exactly the correct (and important) questions to be asking. Anyone have the answers?

Quote:
I'm also not clear how the TV responds to decreased brightness. There is a lot of headroom in terms of brightness for each pixel. Does the TV respond to the aging by driving each pixel harder to maintain the overall brightness?
Here, I believe we've recently gained some insight:

For threshold-shift-induced temporary IR, intenral compensation does probably allow pixel drive to be adjusted to mask the effects of threshold shift

But recent reports of permanent burn-in by heavy CNN/MSNBC viewers make it quite clear that there is no internal compensation for permanent differential-aging-based burn-in...

Quote:
Fundamentally though, 100,000 hours represents a huge increase over the 2013 models. We have yet to hear complaints from early owners about a lack of brightness but there werent many of them and we are only 3 years into real life testing. OTOH, a tripling of that number would mean 2016 owners would probably be safe for 9 years. That is probably as good as anybody can expect their picture quality to last.
For SDR and calibrated to Rec.709 levels of 100 or 120 cd/m2 peak, this is likely correct. For heavy HDR viewing or viewing SDR at peak brightness levels close to the maximum the WOLED TV is capable of (OLED Light >80), it's looking like it's probably not...
fafrd is offline  
post #48 of 85 Old 08-15-2017, 10:25 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 4771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morille Tremblay View Post
The degradation pattern is the same today.

Anyway, to answer your question, in every patent or scientific study, oled life is base on 50% luminosity drop.

My guess is LG use the same pattern.
That is certainly the assumption, but not necassarily true.

In the scientific community, time-to-half-brightness is a well-eatablished standard and it is based on a sustained excitation made evident as part of the graph (mA/cm2).

For lifetime of a TV, LG has a great deal of latitude based on assumptions they have not had to disclose.

Are they measuring based on actual random SDR content calibrated to 100 cd/m2 peak?

Are they modeling the average mA/cm2 expectd from random SDR content calibrated to 100 cd/m2 peak? (in which case it would be interesting to know that excitation level)

Are they measuring their TV lifetime based on the pixel standard time-to-half brightness or are they measuring based on the time the TV is capable of putting out at least 100 cd/m2?

OLED pixel lifetime based on sustained excitation level is a well-established standard within the scientific (and legal) community.

OLED TV lifetime appears to be the Wild West (at least in this era of HDR/brightness wars)...
fafrd is offline  
post #49 of 85 Old 08-15-2017, 10:38 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wxman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,280
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5361 Post(s)
Liked: 3770
I do recall an article from a few years ago when life span was 50,000 hours, where an exec said that vivid mode would reduce lifespan from 17 to 12 years at 8 hours a day.

LG 65E6P OLED - LG 65EF9500 OLED - OPPO 203 - OPPO 103D
wxman is offline  
post #50 of 85 Old 08-15-2017, 10:39 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 4771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morille Tremblay View Post
I found a book about oled life at lt50.

There was data for many manufacturer, some use 500nits, some 1000 and some 300. However for LG there was just 100000 without the nits value.

So they do use lt50.... We just don't know at what reference nits.
Great - so that's the big question then.

We've got clear signs of aging in the range of 5-10% after only 700-1000 hours Those are generally at high OLED Light levels of 80 or more so luminance levels close to the peak output the WOLED is capable of (~500 cd/m2) on 2016 WOLEDs)

So whatever excitation level LG is using, it must be far below that (I'm suspecting Rec.709 standard of 100 cd/m2 or at most calibrated home theater standard of 120cd/m2).

No way in h*ll these WOLEDs last anywhere close to 100,000 hours if you view on default settings in a bright room...
fafrd is offline  
post #51 of 85 Old 08-15-2017, 11:02 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 4771
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxman View Post
I do recall an article from a few years ago when life span was 50,000 hours, where an exec said that vivid mode would reduce lifespan from 17 to 12 years at 8 hours a day.
We need to get a DIY calibrator with peak luminance cranked up to 500 cd/m2 or more to characterize how much that peak luminance has dropped after 1000 hours...

The data I posted suggests that agong rate roughly doubles whenever luminance levels double.

So if lifetime has been measured at 100 cd/m2 peak, then lifetime at 400 cd/m2 peak should drop from 100,000 hours to 25,000 hours

And I still suspect that LG may be making some assumpton about what stimulus level corrssponds to the average for random SDR content...

The folks seeing signs of burn-in with OLED Light at 80 or higher after 700-1000 hours have got to be on the yellow or brown curve, meaning time to half-life of 8000-16,000 hours. And that would mean that the folks calibrated to 100-120cd/m2 (OLED Light 30-40) would be on the purple or aqua curve (which have a time-to-half life of ~100,000 hours).

WOLED can deliver 100,000 hours to half-brightness.

WOLED can hold thir own in the brightness wars.

But I suspect current-generation WOLED cannot do both at once...
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image.png
Views:	13
Size:	55.6 KB
ID:	2268108  
fafrd is offline  
post #52 of 85 Old 08-15-2017, 11:16 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wxman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,280
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5361 Post(s)
Liked: 3770
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
We need to get a DIY calibrator with peak luminance cranked up to 500 cd/m2 or more to characterize how much that peak luminance has dropped after 1000 hours...

The data I posted suggests that agong rate roughly doubles whenever luminance levels double.

So if lifetime has been measured at 100 cd/m2 peak, then lifetime at 400 cd/m2 peak should drop from 100,000 hours to 25,000 hours

And I still suspect that LG may be making some assumpton about what stimulus level corrssponds to the average for random SDR content...

The folks seeing signs of burn-in with OLED Light at 80 or higher after 700-1000 hours have got to be on the yellow or brown curve, meaning time to half-life of 8000-16,000 hours. And that would mean that the folks calibrated to 100-120cd/m2 (OLED Light 30-40) would be on the purple or aqua curve (which have a time-to-half life of ~100,000 hours).

WOLED can deliver 100,000 hours to half-brightness.

WOLED can hold thir own in the brightness wars.

But I suspect current-generation WOLED cannot do both at once...
For me, I'm not too worried. I put less than 2000 hours a year on my tv. So at that pace, even in vivid mode, I have over 10 years before I need to worry. I likely won't have the tv beyond 5 years. But for those who put a lot of hours on their tv's, or keep them longer, I can see where this could be an issue.

Even if people ran their tv in vivid mode, ABL kicks in above 130 nits, so only in very small part of the screen would ever hit 400 nits. So I would expect Vivid mode would be much longer than 25,000 hours.
smurraybhm likes this.

LG 65E6P OLED - LG 65EF9500 OLED - OPPO 203 - OPPO 103D

Last edited by wxman; 08-15-2017 at 11:21 AM.
wxman is offline  
post #53 of 85 Old 08-15-2017, 11:25 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 4771
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxman View Post
For me, I'm not too worried. I put less than 2000 hours a year on my tv. So at that pace, even in vivid mode, I have over 10 years before I need to worry. I likely won't have the tv beyond 5 years. But for those who put a lot of hours on their tv's, or keep them longer, I can see where this could be an issue.
You should be able to get 10,000 hours even in vivid mode, so 5 years at your viewing rate, probably yes; 10 years, probably not.

The real driver behind my inquiry is not overall WOLED TV lifetime, but attempting to get to the bottom of why some AVSers (10-15% of WOLED owners, apparently) are discovering signs of burn-in after only 700-1000 hours of use (and a combination of high OLED Light/luminance output and 20% or more of hours displaying static logo content appears to be the cause).
fafrd is offline  
post #54 of 85 Old 08-15-2017, 11:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wxman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,280
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5361 Post(s)
Liked: 3770
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
You should be able to get 10,000 hours even in vivid mode, so 5 years at your viewing rate, probably yes; 10 years, probably not.

The real driver behind my inquiry is not overall WOLED TV lifetime, but attempting to get to the bottom of why some AVSers (10-15% of WOLED owners, apparently) are discovering signs of burn-in after only 700-1000 hours of use (and a combination of high OLED Light/luminance output and 20% or more of hours displaying static logo content appears to be the cause).
ABL has a big impact. Without it, the lifespan in vivid mode would be like you said, about 5 years. My guess, since OLED has aggressive ABL and kicks in at 130 nits with normal viewing, the tv will last a lot longer. It's impossible to hit 400 nits full screen on OLED at least with the current generations. We can't jump to the conclusion that if at 500 nits the tv will have a life of 10 years. That's assuming the pixel is always at 500 nits, 8 hours a day for 10 years. When in fact, even in HDR mode, the vast majority of the time, the pixel is not even close to that bright. So in a hour's time, how often would that pixel hit 500 nits? 2 minutes? 5 minutes? 10 minutes? What is the actual average pixel brightness during that hour. 200 nits, 300 nits in HDR mode? As far as BI, I don't have an answer. Why can I run tv in bright room mode (100/85) and the bulk of my watching is baseball or football, with static logos and score logos, without any hint of BI?

LG 65E6P OLED - LG 65EF9500 OLED - OPPO 203 - OPPO 103D

Last edited by wxman; 08-15-2017 at 11:55 AM.
wxman is offline  
post #55 of 85 Old 08-15-2017, 11:42 AM
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maybe ⅓ of the way from here to there.
Posts: 10,026
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2589 Post(s)
Liked: 2312
Is LGD trying to connect the IR/BI potential to the longevity claims? That would be a mistake; I believe these to be related, but still distinct metrics.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #56 of 85 Old 08-15-2017, 11:51 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 4771
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxman View Post
ABL has a big impact. Without it, the lifespan in vivid mode would be like you said, about 5 years. My guess, since OLED has aggressive ABL and kicks in at 130 nits with normal viewing, the tv will last a lot longer. It's impossible to hit 400 nits full screen on OLED at least with the current generations.
Good point - I'd forgotten about ABL. And it may actually be the ABL threshold that LG uses to test lifetime (that would make sense).

Quote:
As far as BI, I don't have an answer. Why can I run tv in bright room mode (100/85) and the bulk of my watching is baseball or football, with static logos and score logos, without any hint of BI?
First, only static fully-saturated elements/logos that are bright yellow/orange/red are possible sources of burn-in. White logos in particular are nothing to worry about, nor are less-than-fully-saturated logos (both because of the highly-efficient white subpixel).

And second, you would have to have a specific qualifying logo displaying at a specific consistent location for at least 20% of total TV hours (400 hours or more per year, in your case) to be a concern.

So far, the few members who turn their WOLEDs on to CNN or MSNBC in the morning and leave them on that channel all day long are the only consistent examples of burn-in-from-TV-watching we've been able to nail down.

I suspect that between different sports, different channels, and commercials and other breaks/interviews/talking heads, if you do the analysis you'll conclude that you don't have any qualifying logo elements that are being displayed for more than 20% of your overall viewing time...
fafrd is offline  
post #57 of 85 Old 08-15-2017, 01:30 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 4771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morille Tremblay View Post
This article from LG in 2011 claim their WOLED have a 130K halftime at an initial of 1000 nits

https://www.researchgate.net/profile...plications.pdf
Appreciate the effort but aside from being very old, that article is about a dual-WOLED stack that has little to do with today's B-Y-B WOLED TVs...

It would be great if you can track down any data on the 2015 or 2016 WOLED TV panels .
fafrd is offline  
post #58 of 85 Old 08-15-2017, 02:06 PM
Advanced Member
 
ll Viper ll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 825
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 217 Post(s)
Liked: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by NintendoManiac64 View Post
Going from 50+ms to 34ms is only a "little bit"?
The 2014 and 2015 1080p Oleds had lower input lag (the 9300 out of the box and the 9100 after patches) than all 2016s except the B6 post-patch...29-33ms for the 1080p Oleds
ll Viper ll is offline  
post #59 of 85 Old 08-15-2017, 03:15 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 4771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morille Tremblay View Post
Found another paper from LG (2016). According to their researchers the upcoming top emitting oled should have a 60% longer lifetime.
Yeah, the move to top-emission should be the next big WOLED panel thing. Possibly next year, more likely in 2019..

We should know more next month when LG shows off their 2018 panels at CEDIA...

If you have a link to that paper, I'd appreciate a pointer.
fafrd is offline  
post #60 of 85 Old 08-15-2017, 04:19 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
6athome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,536
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 643 Post(s)
Liked: 175
My 65C6 was made in January 2017 which surprised me, I guess I can expect 100,000 hours?
6athome is offline  
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