Lobby Rtings for G1 burn-in test

SheaRTINGS said:

Hey everyone!

First of all I wanted to thank you guys for reaching out to us. We love hearing directly from consumers and to learn what they're interested in!

As for the burn-in test, we're going to take this into consideration as we've already been discussing another test internally. The issue for us is that the test takes lots of time and resources which is important to consider because we're a small team with limited resources. If we're going to do another burn-in test, we want it to be more comprehensive and to expand the scope beyond what we did with our first test.

If you have any input for us though on this, please let me know and I will make sure the appropriate team sees it!

Click to expand...

Thanks for the response, Shea.

And I think batting around ideas for how any additional effort Rtings puts into another burn-in test can deliver maximum bang for the buck (impact for the effort) is a great use of this thread, so here goes:

Minimum Effort: Because your 2017 Burn-in test already clearly identified the most severe Torture Test for causing Burn-in (Max CNN), just repeating that one test on a single G1 sample would give a quantitative indication of the improvements LG has made since the C7 (red Subpixel size increase, logo dimming, burn-in compensation, new 3S4C WOLED stack, etc…).

And because you know what you are looking for (no first signs of burn-in after ~10 weeks) you can be much more relaxed about how often you check (every 2 weeks if not monthly).

The only real question for this ‘Minimum Effort’ test in my mind is whether you are better served using Max CNN (which may now be brighter with OLED Light = 100 on a G1 than it was on a C7) or using the CNN test (calibrated to 200 cd/m2). The CNN test will take ~twice as long (over ~20 weeks to first signs of burn-in instead of ~10 weeks) but 200 cd/m2 allows an apples-to-apples comparison to the 2017 CNN test and is also a more realistic real-world peak brightness level. If using the CNN test @ 200 cd/m2, I believe you could easily afford to check only every 4 weeks and could probably even wait 12 of even 16 weeks for the first checkpoint (so only 5-10 screen checks over 5-10 months to complete the test).

Medium Effort: Since you have the set-up to test multiple TVs, rather than testing additional content types, would suggest testing other OLED screens with the same CNN Test (calibrated for the same peak brightness level). The Sony A90J would probably be at the top of everyone’s list. Adding a C1 and/or A80J would be bonus points but honestly, I think there would be more interest in how the printed RGB-OLED 32EP950 holds up. That monitor is expensive enough that I would only suggest it if LG expresses interest in the test and donates a sample.

Maximum Effort: If you wanted to test a second G1 with a second test sequence (again, only if LG expresses interest and donates a G1 for the additional test), I think 8mile13’s suggestion to add an HDR test on a second G1 is an excellent one. For any HDR test, however, it’s going to be important not to repeat any content (which means thousands of hours of HDR content teed-up for display)…

At any rate, those are my thoughts about how to make a 2021 Burn-In Test more minimal effort and maximum impact. If you only repeat the [email protected]/m2 test on a single G1, I’m guessing is <10% the effort you made in 2017 and will result in >90% the interest/impact of a more elaborate/complicated/costly test…

alluringreality said:

I'm going to read the following statements from LG USA as potentially meaning burn-in may not specifically be intended for coverage by the warranty. The bold portions are their statements that have my focus, and the bold font is not part of the original link below. Since the same statement was given to two media sources specifically asking about burn-in coverage, I'll presume this could indicate a lack of intended coverage.

"Limited panel warranty applies to panel failure on LG G1 OLED TVs due to a defect in materials or workmanship under normal and proper use during the warranty period."

"As with any self-emitting display, OLED TVs may experience temporary image retention under certain conditions, but permanent image retention, or burn-in, is rare under normal viewing conditions. Image retention is not a product defect."

LG USA to offer 5-year 'limited panel warranty' on G1 OLED TVs - update

But will it cover burn-in?

www.flatpanelshd.com

Redirect Notice

Click to expand...

We’ll first, the purpose of this thread is to try to build support to convince Rtings to perform a repeat of the 2017 burn-in test on the G1 OLEDs (or at least the most severe of those 2017 burn-in tests, meaning CNN). So the point of this thread is not to debate the intent of LG’s 5-year warranty on the G1.

That being said, LG’s position is that burn-in is impossible on WOLED through ‘normal and proper use.’

And second, the Rtings CNN burn-in test is great because no one can argue it’s not ‘normal and proper use’ and so the only question is how many hours of CNN per year can at all be considered representative.

CNN logo / ticker burn-in started at ~30 weeks or 4200 cumulative hours on the 2017 test (@ 200 cdm2), which would translate to 840 hours / year or 2.3 hours per day each and every day for 5 years. Between various improvements LG has made since then (including the new 3S4C stack), I’m expecting that result to improve to 6000-7000 hours meaning 3.3 to 3.8 hours per day for 5 years…

LG’s logo dimming feature can help reduce the impact of logo’s but cannot help with the talking-heads (newscasters) correlated-content burning-in the ‘ghost’ in the center of the screen:



This image of the ghost was after 102 weeks or 14,420 hours cumulative @ 200 cd/m2, but first signs of the ghost’s head started appearing at week 36 or 5000 hours (2.8 hours/day for 5 years).

If the ghost’s head doesn’t first appear until 6000 or 7000 hours on a G1 (as I estimate), that indicates 20-40% of substantive improvements LG has delivered since 2017 (which was already a significant improvement over 2016).

I don’t want to enter into a debate as to whether LG’s new 5-year warranty covers an owner who watches 8 hours of CNN per day or not. If and when any of the 3 people on the planet who might trigger that burn-in from their specific ‘normal and proper use’ approach LG with a warranty claim, it’ll be LG’s call whether they are covered or not…

And gaming is also a bit dicey. Even if you want to loop hours of HDR gameplay as a torture test, how many cumulative hours of the same individual game can be considered normal / typical?

Maybe Rtings sets an upper limit of 1000 hours per specific game and can then just cycle through a series of 5-10 games selected from the top 10 games list…

And as far as HDR content, I suppose the same approach could be taken. With a preloaded sequence of 1000 hours of HDR content, Rtings could loop every 1000 hours / 7 weeks and that should limit the number of identical highlight repeats to fewer than 10 over a 52-week test…

alluringreality said:

Below is a portion of a statement that was also likely reviewed by LG's legal representatives. It's simply debatable if the Rtings procedure meets the intent for LG's position, since my understanding is that CNN would be viewed for 5 hours at a time 4 times per day.

Click to expand...

I’m not sure what ‘intent for LG’s position’ you are referring to.

The goal of a repeat of the 2017 Rtings burn in test on a G1 is not for Rtings to check if LG covers a warranty claim if burn-in develops within 5 years (or 2 years).

The goal is to get an updated estimate for how many hours of correlated content you can view on a G1 WOLED before needing to worry about burn-in.

My personal opinion is that if the intent of a test is mainly to compare one TV with another, then simply repeat the original CNN test on the newer display with similar parameters. Of course a test could be designed with other objectives.

Click to expand...

That’s the more minimum goal I’ve suggested (and sounds like we are on the same page): repeat CNN @ 200 cd/m2 on G1 WOLED.

Of course a test could be designed with other objectives.

Click to expand...

In general, the more complicated the test & test set-up, the less likely it is to happen, But with that being said, would appreciate your thoughts on what other ‘objectives’ could make sense.

As already stated, my thoughts are that testing a Sony A90J and possibly also a printed RGB-OLED 32EO950 monitor (if donated by LG for the test) would be the easiest way to expand the test (parallel testing of 2-3 TVs/monitors with the parallel test setup Rtings already has.

And beyond that, finding a viable solution for adding a test for HDR content (streaming Netflix/Amazon HDR) would be a fantastic expansion of the test objectives (assuming Rtings can find a practical way to achieve that without adding too much cost / complexity.

HDR Gaming might be an easier test than HDR content and would be of high-interest but only to a sub-community, so that could be a fall-back test in case HDR content proves too complicated or a final extension in case Rtings has the appetite / budget (though I’d guess LG would be interested to donate an additional G1 for a gaming burn-in test).

"burn-in in televisions is a result of static images or on-screen elements displaying on the screen uninterrupted for many hours or days at a time"

OLED TV Reliability: Burn-In & Lifespan – Get The Facts | LG USA

Get the facts about OLED burn-in and OLED reliability. Find the information you need about the latest LG OLED TVs.

www.lg.com

Click to expand...

In my opinion, the benefit of Apples-to-Apples comparison versus the 2017 results outweighs any benefit to be had from modifying the test Rtings set-up / uninterrupted hours of display in a way that makes it more acceptable to LG as ‘normal and proper use.’

The point of this is not to give potential owners confidence regarding how LG will honor possible warranty claims. The goal is to give potential owners an updated idea of what levels of use/abuse it takes to cause burn-in on LG’s latest WOLED generation.

By definition, the Rtings burn-in test must be an accelerated lifetime test (a torture-test in terms of continuous hours per day). But everyday owners understand how to translate number of days of CNN @ 20 hours per day into the number of days of CNN that they can view without concern of burn-in based on their own specific viewing habits…[/quote]