Quantcast

POLL: Has your OLED TV suffered burn in? (NOTE YOUR VOTE WILL BE PUBLIC)

Has your OLED TV suffered burn in?

  • I have a 2019 Panel with burn in.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    758

GadgetObsessed

Well-known Member
Reported Burn In Rates as of 2 April 2019
2018 OLEDs - 1.7% (out of 120 votes)
2017 OLEDs - 7.3% (out of 219 votes)
2016 OLEDs - 29.1% (out of 234 votes)
2015 OLEDs - 13.3% (out of 30 votes)


Moderator note * Please be aware that the results of this poll do not represent an even demographic. By reading these results one might assume that OLED burn in is a common issue, however its important to remember those who search, visit and vote here will commonly already experience an issue.

Whilst this comparison is nice, it does not take in to consideration everyone who has purchased an OLED TV, nor does it attract people to vote here who do not have OLED burn in compared to those that don't. Not to mention it also doesn't include figures corresponding to how many units have sold. Please take this into consideration when reading these results.


Response to moderators note above:
It is difficult to know whether the poll is biased in favour of burn-in or not. There is a general argument that more people complain on forums than do not because those with a complaint are more motivated to find a forum on which to complain. In this way any internet poll is biased one way or the other because the voters are self selecting.

However, many of the voters are regular users of the forum - so would have seen this poll irrespective of whether they had an issue or not. Are those without an issue much less likely to click on an AVForums poll that they have already seen? (The answer is nobody can be certain.)

I am not sure how the total number of people who own an OLED is relevant to the discussion.
For a given level of statistical confidence, the required sample size is not dependent upon the size of the total population. For example, if you want a reliable poll of voting intentions for a general election the sample size would be the same for Iceland (population 360,000) as it would be for the UK (population 67 million). A typical voting poll asks fewer than 2,000 people how they will vote. This is out of a voting population of around 47 million.

Ideally someone would randomly select a number of OLED owners (or select them based on TV usage, panel age, etc.) and visit them to check if their TV had burn in. Unfortunately, nobody is going to run such a survey so we are left without knowing the true rate of burn in.

Notes on the Results so Far....
2018 Panels
- one user reported faint burn in and that they use their 2018 OLED for very long hours and as a "PC monitor, for gaming, movies and TV - so lot's of static stuff on screen especially when using as a PC monitor or playing games for hours at a time"

2017 Panels - 16 users have reported burn in. One of these cases was apparently due to HDR gaming on a Philips OLED. This is an interesting case.

2016 Panels - More than 1 in 4 owners have reported burn-in! In this poll, the rate of burn in for 2016 OLEDs is much higher than than for 2017 OLEDs.

This could simply be due to burn in being directly related to hours used which is related to panel age. Based on the assumption that the vast majority of panels of a given model year were sold between April and April and that they sold at a roughly constant rate throughout that 12 month period then the average 2016 panel is 30 months old and the average 2017 panel is 18 months old. Perhaps the owners of 2017 panels with burn in are more likely to be those who use their panel for more hours per day.

Alternatively, the difference in burn in rates between 2016 and 2017 panels could be evidence that the 2017 OLEDs are more resistant to burn in. This is possible, as often burn in on 2016 panels seems to be related to the red sub-pixel. The 2017 panels have larger red-sub pixels than the 2016 panels. All other things being equal a larger sub pixel should last longer. This is simply because a smaller sub-pixel has to be brighter per unit of area to generate the same total amount of light. Additionally, we do not know if LG use different OLED emitter compounds in 2017 that could have longer lifespans. (There is ongoing R&D aimed at producing OLED componds that are both brighter and longer lasting.)

2015 Panels - lower reported burn in rates than 2016 OLED but with only 30 votes it is hard to draw any firm conclusions.




ORIGINAL OPENING POST

There is lots of discussion on this forum about screen burn on OLEDs. So I am curious to find out:
(1) The proportion of OLED screens affected by screen burn
(2) Whether the issue varies by panel type/year.
This will either end up being reassuring or worrying to potential OLED buyers.

Firstly, to clarify what I mean by burn in for this poll.

Burn in is where an area of the screen has been affected in such a way that it is noticeable during normal viewing and that effect has been caused by viewing of certain content.

This can include:
(a) Channel logos and bars/tickers
(b) Fading - this could be that certain areas of the screen are now paler or brighter than the rest of the screen. For example, if you watch a lot of movies in widescreen 2.35:1 with black bars at the top and bottom you may find that the area of these black bars ends up being brighter than the rest of the screen. (This is because the rest of the screen has "aged" more through displaying actual content. This is why plasmas used to have the options of making the black bars grey so they would age at a similar rate to the rest of the screen.)

For this poll I am explictly excluding issues of tinting and general uneveness in illumination. While these are issues with OLED they are different to the risk of permanent burn in.

I have also decided not to include OLEDs pre-2016 e.g. the LG EF950V. I think that the panels have moved on so much since then that it isn't really relevant to todays buyers.

At the bottom is my best guess of a list of the mapping of model to panel years. Please let me know if I have missed any or made any mistakes.

Note that you can select up to 3 responses. This is to cover people who may have bought OLEDs in each of the 3 years concerned.

2018
LG B8/C8/E8/W8
Sony AF8/AF9
Panasonic FZ952/FZ802
Philips 803

2017
LG B7/C7/E7/W7
Sony AF1
Panasonic EZ952/EZ1002
Philips 9002

2016
LG B6/C6/E6/G6/W6
Panasonic CZ952
 
Last edited:

spikecast

Well-known Member
LG C6, had it around 18 Months no burn in for me.
 

GadgetObsessed

Well-known Member
LG C6, had it around 18 Months no burn in for me.
Don't forget to cast your vote in the poll by picking one or more of the options.
 

Jim Di Griz

Distinguished Member
EZ952 from last year. Cast my vote. No burn in here. Treated it the same way I did my previous 3 plasmas - no trouble there either.
 

doug56hl

Distinguished Member
Yes, but it got better...

Blank+_09a62ff6b24f5d04cc654c6f7fee3506.jpg


E6 with your (b) fading option from 2.35:1 black bars accompanied by a dark line at the bar margins. This was visible in content so could count as burn-in but eventually, after running a lot of full screen HDR and a pixel refresh, went away from being noticeable in normal viewing and can just be seen in 5% slides.
So I've answered no in the poll.
 

Andrew1472

Distinguished Member
No problems with my C7 which just clocked up 6000 hours.
I am constantly aware of the danger though. Gets tiresome!

Edit, I have voted
 

Derek S-H

Distinguished Member
OP - is the intention of this Thread to identify whether this is a real issue/allay the concerns of prospective buyers?

I only ask as Andrew's response about, "being constantly aware of the danger", seems common enough but how did this concern come about?

Do people really leave their TV's on pause on a static screen for hours every single day? I thought channel logos/idents were now smaller and more transparent to alleviate this potential issue?

To me, burn in is most likely caused by:

1. A faulty panel
2. Viewer behaviour

I accept that there is the potential with this technology for that issue to arise, but OLED's have an automatic pixel refresh program (or ought to) that kicks in regularly and washes the screen.

It will be interesting to see the statistics in your poll however long this Thread runs for. So far, only one person has voted yes to burn in.
 

Andrew1472

Distinguished Member
OP - is the intention of this Thread to identify whether this is a real issue/allay the concerns of prospective buyers?

I only ask as Andrew's response about, "being constantly aware of the danger", seems common enough but how did this concern come about?

Do people really leave their TV's on pause on a static screen for hours every single day? I thought channel logos/idents were now smaller and more transparent to alleviate this potential issue?

To me, burn in is most likely caused by:

1. A faulty panel
2. Viewer behaviour

I accept that there is the potential with this technology for that issue to arise, but OLED's have an automatic pixel refresh program (or ought to) that kicks in regularly and washes the screen.

It will be interesting to see the statistics in your poll however long this Thread runs for.
Seeing as you picked up on my concern, I first became really aware as a result of Rtings burn in tests. Until then I assumed it was much like plasma where it would self repair to a degree given time and sensible viewing choices. I’m not sure that applies to OLED.
There is enough anecdotal evidence from users here that pixel refresh does nothing to repair burn. I have no idea if it delays it’s onset.

The main areas of concern for me are:-
News channel ticker bars, I zoom them off screen 99% of the time.
Football match score logos
Cricket match score and info banners, zoomed off screen for perhaps 25% of the time.
Movie letterbox bars

I do nothing much to mitigate the last three. I just have to wait and see if it will bite me eventually.
What I don’t know is if watching a variety of content evens out and cancels the effect of those three like plasma, or if the wear is built on every time I watch football or a movie.
Hence my constant awareness. I hope I’m being over cautious for no good reason, only time will tell. 6000 hours with no ill effects is encouraging.
It would be absolutely wonderful to watch whatever I want full screen without even thinking about it though.
That concludes this insight into the workings of my confused brain.:D
 

Derek S-H

Distinguished Member
The main areas of concern for me are:-
News channel ticker bars, I zoom them off screen 99% of the time.
Football match score logos
Cricket match score and info banners, zoomed off screen for perhaps 25% of the time.
Movie letterbox bars
Actually, I wouldn't call that confused at all, I'd say it was very systematic!

Ticker bars - aren't they constantly scrolling?
Footie score logos - on screen for what, 45/50 minutes at a time?
Cricket score and banners - not a problem on highlights shows.
Film letterbox bars - now this might be an issue for a four-hour epic without a toilet break (I don't think I can do this at my age!)

I'm a gamer and have been known to play all night on "Zelda" - still never had a problem, despite all the static game info on screen the whole time.

But I think you're right to be cautious as these are very expensive devices and I certainly don't earn enough to just go out and replace them whenever I feel like it.
 

fat jez

Well-known Member
You have to consider the accumulative effect. It's not a case of avoiding static content for an hour or a two at a time, but how often you display it.

Burn-in is (in my opinion) an inaccurate term. Better to describe it as wear out. Consider each pixel and sub-pixel to have a finite lifespan. The more they are illuminated, the more this lifespan is used up.
 

Andrew1472

Distinguished Member
Actually, I wouldn't call that confused at all, I'd say it was very systematic!

Ticker bars - aren't they constantly scrolling?
Footie score logos - on screen for what, 45/50 minutes at a time?
Cricket score and banners - not a problem on highlights shows.
Film letterbox bars - now this might be an issue for a four-hour epic without a toilet break (I don't think I can do this at my age!)

I'm a gamer and have been known to play all night on "Zelda" - still never had a problem, despite all the static game info on screen the whole time.

But I think you're right to be cautious as these are very expensive devices and I certainly don't earn enough to just go out and replace them whenever I feel like it.
Just picking up on football as an easy example.
The score is on screen for 90 minutes per game. Sky show 126 games a season. That’s 189 hours per season all with the score displayed in exactly the same place.
So is that 189 hours worth of wear or does watching other things in between each 90 minutes reset the clock?
I don’t expect an answer. I’m not sure anyone knows. I’m just explaining my confusion.
 

doug56hl

Distinguished Member
There is enough anecdotal evidence from users here that pixel refresh does nothing to repair burn. I have no idea if it delays it’s onset.
More the opposite. The rtings burn tests showed no sign of burn before a pixel refresh was run. They do them every two weeks so the first one was after 280 hours of use vs the 2000 hours default run timing.

I think running the one hour pixel refresh far too early in a panel's life is contributing to problems that some have. People are checking slides and expecting perfection when there are only a small number of hours on the TV. And then running the one hour long manual cycle far too soon and far too often in an attempt to 'cure' banding which would likely go away with more hours use and the short auto clean cycles. I've seen some folks with problems saying they have run the one hour refresh a couple of times with well less than 20 hours on the panel.

Whereas others are recommending it shouldn't be run until the panel is well bedded in and has run a lot of the short auto cycles. Sony specifically say not to be used more than once a year and that it can affect the usable life of the TV.
 

SyStemDeMoN

Well-known Member
LG c6 2yrs old no burn in despite my wifes best efforts.

Prolly jinxed it now
 

doug56hl

Distinguished Member
You have to consider the accumulative effect. It's not a case of avoiding static content for an hour or a two at a time, but how often you display it.

Burn-in is (in my opinion) an inaccurate term. Better to describe it as wear out. Consider each pixel and sub-pixel to have a finite lifespan. The more they are illuminated, the more this lifespan is used up.
Change that to 'the more they are illuminated with the exact same colour' and I'd mostly agree with you. Further refine that with 'the more they are illuminated with the exact same colour without the pixels showing any other colour' and I'd 100% agree with you. It's like inkjet ink cartridges, each pixel has only a finite amount of ink...
 

Andrew1472

Distinguished Member
More the opposite. The rtings burn tests showed no sign of burn before a pixel refresh was run. They do them every two weeks so the first one was after 280 hours of use vs the 2000 hours default run timing.

I think running the one hour pixel refresh far too early in a panel's life is contributing to problems that some have. People are checking slides and expecting perfection when there are only a small number of hours on the TV. And then running the one hour long manual cycle far too soon and far too often in an attempt to 'cure' banding which would likely go away with more hours use and the short auto clean cycles. I've seen some folks with problems saying they have run the one hour refresh a couple of times with well less than 20 hours on the panel.

Whereas others are recommending it shouldn't be run until the panel is well bedded in and has run a lot of the short auto cycles. Sony specifically say not to be used more than once a year and that it can affect the usable life of the TV.
You may well be right. I’ve never run one. I’ve always just left it to it’s own devices. It’s run god knows how many short cycles, and it’s 3rd full pixel refresh last night.
I’ve never had a single issue that didn’t go away with the next short cycle. I’ve never seen even a hint of image retention.
Pretty conclusive for a sample size of 1 I’d say.:rotfl:
 

GadgetObsessed

Well-known Member
OP - is the intention of this Thread to identify whether this is a real issue/allay the concerns of prospective buyers?

I only ask as Andrew's response about, "being constantly aware of the danger", seems common enough but how did this concern come about?

Do people really leave their TV's on pause on a static screen for hours every single day? I thought channel logos/idents were now smaller and more transparent to alleviate this potential issue?

To me, burn in is most likely caused by:

1. A faulty panel
2. Viewer behaviour

I accept that there is the potential with this technology for that issue to arise, but OLED's have an automatic pixel refresh program (or ought to) that kicks in regularly and washes the screen.

It will be interesting to see the statistics in your poll however long this Thread runs for. So far, only one person has voted yes to burn in.
My main aim with this poll was actually to reassure myself that 2018 OLEDs are pretty safe wrt burn in as I am considering buying one. :)

Reading these forums can really put people off OLED. There are enough reports for me to assume that screenburn is a real issue but I also assume that far more people don't get screen burn than do get it. However, very few people are likely to come on here and start a thread saying they have no screenburn issues - so looking at threads/posts may give a negatively biased view of how severe the issue is.

Bit of background about what I understand screen burn to be......

The sub pixels in OLEDs use colour emitters and these emitters fade over time. For example, Cyonara a company that makes TADF emitter materials for OLEDs, presented a blue transmitter earlier this year. It has a "lifetime of 20 hours LT97 at 700 nits". In other words if driven at 700 nits this blue emitter will lose 3% of its brightness after 20 hours. (I have no idea if this is a good or bad result compared to other blue emitters.)

If an OLED used this emitter and showed a plain blue square at 700 nits, after 20 hours the blue sub-pixels in that area would be 3% dimmer. (Note no current OLED can get anywhere near 700 nits when displaying just blue.) The same would apply if showing a magenta square (made by combining red and blue) or a cyan square (blue and green) - if in both cases the blue-sub pixels output was at 700 nits.

If after doing this you showed blue on the whole screen then there would be a patch where the blue sqare had been that was slightly (3%) dimmer. There is nothing that any screen refresh can do to recover this 3% brightness loss. What you can do to "remove" the screen burn effect is display the same blue on the rest of the screen for 20 hours so that the blue sub pixels on the whole screen were all dimmed/faded by 3% i.e. burn/age the whole screen evenly. If a whole screen is even it is very difficult to notice that it is slightly less bright.

It would not matter if the image is static or not. For example, suppose you watched normal video where for 10% of the time the blue sub-pixels were at 700 nits. Then after watching the 10 x 20 hours = 200 hours the blue sub-pixels would also be aged by 3% just as they would be by the static square example even though there may never have been a static image. Again, this would not be as noticeable as the effect would be on the whole screen ratehr than a specific area.

Originally, the issue for OLED was the blue sub-pixel fading. In 2017 LG made the blue sub-pixel larger. From the RTings test it looks like the main problem with the 2017 panels is the red sub-pixel. Have a look at the red frame photos in the RTings test here:

Real Life OLED Burn-In Test on 6 TVs

This may then explain why the 2018 LG panels have a much larger red sub-pixel.

A new panel type has been spotted recently that is like the 2018 panel but with a smaller blue sub-pixel. This could mean that LG have now used a better blue emitter.
 

fat jez

Well-known Member
Change that to 'the more they are illuminated with the exact same colour' and I'd mostly agree with you. Further refine that with 'the more they are illuminated with the exact same colour without the pixels showing any other colour' and I'd 100% agree with you. It's like inkjet ink cartridges, each pixel has only a finite amount of ink...
That's why I said sub-pixel - red, green, blue or white. Evidence seems to suggest some colours are worse than others. The inkjet cartridge analogy is a very good one.
 

fat jez

Well-known Member
If after doing this you showed blue on the whole screen then there would be a patch where the blue sqare had been that was slightly (3%) dimmer. There is nothing that any screen refresh can do to recover this 3% brightness loss. What you can do to "remove" the screen burn effect is display the same blue on the rest of the screen for 20 hours so that the blue sub pixels on the whole screen were all dimmed/faded by 3% i.e. burn/age the whole screen evenly. If a whole screen is even it is very difficult to notice that it is slightly less bright.
What I suspect the 2000 hour pixel refresher actually does is reduce the brightness of the surrounding sub-pixels to match the ones whose brightness has reduced by being used up. However, I have no proof of this.
 

Andrew1472

Distinguished Member
@GadgetObsessed
I applaud the research you have obviously done. You have a far more technical understanding than I do. In terms of living with an OLED you are over thinking things though.
It really is very simple assuming of course you get a good panel on the first place, something which applies to all TVs anyway.

Set the picture up to be as bright or as dim as you prefer. In my experience it has no bearing on screen burn and would spoil your enjoyment anyway.

Study various news channels to understand how they use logos and breaking news banners and the Rtings results to see the effects.

Zoom those areas off the screen wherever possible.

For channels where zooming isn’t effective, Sky Sports News has static images at the bottom and sides for example, boycott the channel.

When taking that advice adversely affects your enjoyment, ignore it. Movie letterbox bars and football scores have to be displayed for me. There is no alternative but to rely on the panels resilience to burn. Note that semi transparent logos seem to be completely safe.

And finally, remember to enjoy what is without doubt the best picture available to us today.

Those simple steps have got me through so far touch wood, and based on Rtings tests I’m 100% confident my decision to zoom news channels is the correct one.
I should also point out that although I said I’m constantly aware of the danger, I don’t sit here biting my finger nails worrying. I just try to be sensible when I spot something that looks like it could be trouble.

On the other hand, if you, or your family, insist on watching hours of full screen news channels, kids programmes with brightly coloured logos or similar, and if anyone is in the habit of pausing the programme for ages on a regular basis, you are very likely, if not guaranteed, to burn it sooner or later. The only answer in those cases is to buy an LCD.

Whatever you decide to do I wish you well.
 

GadgetObsessed

Well-known Member
@GadgetObsessed
Zoom those areas off the screen wherever possible.
Many users talk about doing this. I wonder, do many people also zoom to ensure that they do not have black bars top and bottom of letterbox movies as this presents the same differential aging issue if you watch lots of such movies. (Some plasmas had an option to make the black bars grey to ensure that this area of the screen aged at the same rate as the rest.).
 

Andrew1472

Distinguished Member
Many users talk about doing this. I wonder, do many people also zoom to ensure that they do not have black bars top and bottom of letterbox movies as this presents the same differential aging issue if you watch lots of such movies. (Some plasmas had an option to make the black bars grey to ensure that this area of the screen aged at the same rate as the rest.).
I don’t know, but it’s a step too far for me. It’s the prime example of spoiling the experience. If the tv can’t cope with many, many hours of letterbox bars it is not fit for purpose.
 
Did have an LG C6 65" which most certainly had burn in placed in the lower right hand corner and from using the inbuilt Youtube app. Now have a 65" E8 and needless to say, steer well clear of this app now :)
 

Sneak

Active Member
Many users talk about doing this. I wonder, do many people also zoom to ensure that they do not have black bars top and bottom of letterbox movies as this presents the same differential aging issue if you watch lots of such movies. (Some plasmas had an option to make the black bars grey to ensure that this area of the screen aged at the same rate as the rest.).
I for one do not do any zooming in and I have no burn on my E6, which I have had for 18 months or so.
 

dollag

Well-known Member
I have very slight burn in on my Philips from playing my PS4 in hdr (destiny) the static hub is now constant on the screen. It’s not really visible watching tv but can see it if you really look for it. On colour slides it’s more noticeable.

It’s the first time I have experienced this (my third oled) and have treated them all the same apart from the game being in hdr rather than sdr.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Trending threads

Latest News

AVForums Podcast: 17th February 2020
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Samsung faces lawsuit over quantum dot usage
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
BBC licence fee to be scrapped?
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Mini LED Active Matrix to boost market uptake
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Bristol Hi-Fi Show 2020 - What to expect
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom