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
    757

staffy 2

Well-known Member
Yes we all know it’s a tiny percentage.Its the way LG deal with it when it happens that we are upset with.They should cover it under warranty especially as it’s such a tiny percentage that get premature pixel wear.A £2000 tv shouldn’t go wrong after 2 years.All we want is a decent warranty with burn in covered for at least one new panel over 5 years
 

butchbr73

Standard Member
I do agree with that.. but as one reader says, it could be more about usage than years. I'd say if it happens in under 5,000 hrs, thats on you LG. I don't expect anything to last forever.

I remember reading somewhere when I bought that tv that said the life expectancy is somewhere between 30-40k hours in general, but not sure how they defined life expectancy. If I get 10 yrs from the one I have, I'll be happy and ready to upgrade.

On a side note, just hung a B9 in the bedroom a few weeks ago... couldn't be happier with it so far. I expect same viewing pattern with less annual hours and no gaming on this one either.. Hard to go back to LCD after having an Oled.
 

BAMozzy

Distinguished Member
I'm taking the burn in issue with a grain of salt, no disrespect to anyone that has experienced the issue and not trying to downplay the risk. Can anyone verify the below (found on a quick Google search):
******
LG Electronics sold 3,600 units in 2013 when it launched its first OLED TV model but its sales increased more than 20-fold to 76,400 units in 2014, followed by 313,900 units in 2015 and 666,400 units in 2016. Its annual sales topped one million units for the first time in 2017
******
As with my experience in anything when you search for problems... you'll always find someone with issues. For example, I drive a Ford F150 and when you scan forums... you'll find plenty of problems, enough to scare you... but its also the best selling vehicle in America and most folks drive them without anything significant happening. The people with "burn in" are obviously more vocal than the folks without burn in and actively searching and commenting across forums,etc. to find fixes or looking for help. I think in general, anyone without any problems tend not to say anything... but you'll hear a lot from the folks that do.

If LG did produce 666,400 Oled units in 2016, I have a hard time believing 36% of those, or roughly 233k units have had burn in issues (otherwise this thread would be tens of 1,000's of posts long looking for help)... I think the actual is a much smaller percentage in real life but only LG knows the real answer. As with most stuff, you'll never hear a peep from most people with a good experience - (other than aficionados of home theater equip and tv's or people that research quite a bit), they've got no reason to search for Oled burn in, interested in reading about the risks and answer polls... but you will hear from the minority with the problem.

I have a 2015 EG9100 that I bought in late 2015 with almost 9,000 hrs on it in our Kitchen sitting area (granted its not 4k/HDR), varied usage between sports (probably the most watched - football, baseball and basketball across many networks), news and regular network shows and cable, - little bit of Netflix/amazon streaming and used everyday for 4 years. No video game usage at all. Still looks great, not much uneven wear and very little noticeable color variation across any of the colors - just checked it this past week. If I didn't enjoy reading and learning about home theater equip and tv's, etc... I wouldn't be here commenting. Just my 2 cents...
What you also have to take into consideration is the number of people who haven't watched more than 2000hrs a year, rarely watch any HDR or any content with Static logos, watch at 200nitsor less and NEVER check the slides for any sign of wear.

According to RTING's tests, those that watch a general mix of content, a mix of TV shows, news, films etc like BBC1 or ITV content, are unlikely to see any issues - even in slides for 9000hrs or more. Even if there is some 'fading' due to wear, unless its caused by a sharply defined element (like a logo or box), it may not be obvious to spot in 'moving' content. If Red fades a bit, enough to show on a red or magenta slide, the lack of red - especially without any 'hard' edge - won't be too noticeable. If its not obvious, people won't check slides, won't think there is anything wrong.

Not everyone is as 'anal' over their TV and PQ and as such may have issues without realising it and therefore aren't going to be looking to find help or advice. There are others too that won't go looking for help/advice online but be trying to get their TV's fixed/replaced themselves by dealing with retailers, insurance and repair companies. There are people that may well have problems, looked online but not signed up to a forum to comment or participate.

As the issues are based on usage as well as brightness and content displayed, the amount of time between purchase and when people experience issues will vary dramatically. Someone who watches 2000 hrs a year isn't likely to experience issues as quick after purchase as someone who watches 4000 hrs a year unless they watch more hours of content with a static bright element and/or watches their TV at a much brighter setting. Some of those 2016 TV's were not bought until mid 2017 (or later) and have far fewer hours used than some 2017 TV's have. Arguably those on a forum like this would be more likely to be heavy consumers of content as enthusiasts.

Point is, of those nearly 700k TV's, many of them may have issues that are not 'bad enough' yet to have been noticed. Many of them may not have anywhere near enough usage to have noticeable wear. Many of them may not be used for watching content with 'high wear' elements and built up enough 'wear' to become noticeable. The RTINGs test show that general content at 200nits doesn't show noticeable wear in slides until after 9000hrs of use and even then may not be 'obvious' in general content to the viewer - especially as the fading is very gradual.

It doesn't matter if its not 33% globally or 10%, even 5% is too much for a TV under 5yrs old and for users that watch TV content the same as they always have. Using Netflix and browsing through their content, watching trailers etc shouldn't be an issue regardless but that Netflix Logo being on screen for short periods of time builds up wear and eventually becomes noticeable. Watching Sky Sports News on the weekend will cause issues eventually despite watching other content every day and putting the TV in standby after every use. Whether that affects you or not is immaterial because its affected someone. It doesn't mean the issue is 'overblown' or the risk is NOT bad. The risk varies from person to person to based on their viewing habits and preferences. If you watch a LOT of hours, prefer a 'brighter' setting and watch a lot of content like Netflix (browsing a LOT), Sky Sports News, Nick Jr etc, then the risk that an issue will occur within 5yrs is incredibly high compared to someone that watches less than 2000hrs a year (That's ~5.5hrs a day avg) at 150nits or less and doesn't watch a lot of content with any fixed elements - That TV may not experience any issues inside 5yrs. The Risk is VERY different between these two types of person.

You've reached nearly 9000hrs on a SDR TV in ~5yrs - that's not 'high usage' as some have 3.5-4k hrs a year, some even more. They have as much usage a year, as much wear in a year as you do in two years. By the time they get to 5yrs, their TV will be 18-20k hrs - something that would take 10yrs+ on your TV to reach. For you, an OLED may well be a 'low' risk purchase because of your viewing habits and usage but that doesn't mean the TV itself has a 'low risk'. It still has a HIGH risk with certain content which will cause much higher wear to some of the sub-pixels, its just that you don't 'choose' to watch that content so the risk for you is lowered.
 

butchbr73

Standard Member
your points are well taken. I do remember reading in my research leading up to the purchase of that tv.. the expected life span was 30-40k hours - I guess we'll see how far I get with it.
 

BAMozzy

Distinguished Member
your points are well taken. I do remember reading in my research leading up to the purchase of that tv.. the expected life span was 30-40k hours - I guess we'll see how far I get with it.
I have seen life span quoted of 30k hrs but what that means, I don't know. Are they talking about until the sub-pixel has faded to 50%? to 100%? I know its 'up to' so is that if the screen is no more than 100nits and viewing the most low risk content, most even colour usage?

The conditions needed to achieve a life span of 30000hrs (or more) may not be at all realistic in real world applications and we don't know how they came to that figure or what they classify as the 'end' of that life. For all you know, they could be saying that because a sub-pixel on a TV with 'general' use at no more than 100nits will still give off 'some' light - its not completely burnt out and therefore still operational? Although the sub-pixel cannot last anywhere near 30000hrs if used continuously for that duration at 100nits - its the fact that it will spend quite a portion of that time much dimmer and even portions of that time off completely. If a 100hrs of displaying a single colour bright logo (like Red and the Netflix or CNN logo) causes enough of a difference in wear compared to the rest of the screen, that can leave a 'darker' area on the red slide which will be more 'blue' on the magenta slide. Technically, the TV isn't 'dead' but that will be a noticeable 'issue'.

If you look at RTINGs tests, in particular compare the two CNN red/magenta slides, the red on the 200nit test hasn't yet faded to black or essentially burned out. Black, as in no light emitted, is essentially a 'dead' sub-pixel as it can no longer produce light as the 700nit example looks to have been reached in some places. Does LG consider that, the 'end point' which was reached well before 30k hours. If you look at the NBC test, there is certainly uniformity issues but whether you actually see these in viewing or just on slides, it doesn't mean the issues aren't there and only likely to become more noticeable over time but whether LG considers that as the 'end' of its life because there is 'issues' or not, we don't know. For all we know, LG could consider the life span to be when the 'shortest' life sub-pixel is no longer able to emit light and that could take up to 30000 hours with the right settings and content displayed. What ever they say, its 'up to' and that is under perfect conditions too but what we consider the 'end' of the life span, which could be as soon as you see some uneven wear on a slide because its affecting the colour balance and no longer 'accurate', could be a very different point in time.

The trouble with OLEDs is that they fade over time with usage. The rate they fade is also dependent on the brightness - a candle that burns twice as bright lasts half as long. Its not like they work perfectly, don't lose any brightness etc until they reach the end of their life and just 'die' - be 100% bright one second and then suddenly die and be black - they fade. I don't know how many hours at say 200nits, a Sub-Pixel will have faded to 90%, to 80% etc. How long it takes for a Red logo at 200nits to cause the red sub-pixels illuminating that logo to fade 'enough' to become noticeable on a red slide - the magenta would be easier to see the fading as its more blue where as a red slide is still all red. However, when it does fade enough to be seen, I bet many would consider that the point the TV panel is 'dead' because its no longer even. If all the colours faded evenly, maybe LG consider a TV to be still functioning and 'alive' even if ALL the sub-pixels are at 50% - the TV will be a lot dimmer than it was of course but would we consider it still alive or at the end of its life span?
 

BAMozzy

Distinguished Member
Do you own an Oled? just curious on your experience with them... I'm following what you are saying above...
I don't currently own an OLED because the risks for me are very high. I am very a high user - my TV is on 10hrs+ a day and I watch Sky Sports news, Netflix and other content with static elements. I use my TV a lot for HDR - both TV/Movies and gaming so my TV is on its brightest setting a lot. All of which would make me a very high risk of developing issues within what I consider an acceptable life span.

As I have said consistently, its about picking the right Technology for you and not necessarily the one that offers the best PQ - especially if that Picture Quality cannot be guaranteed to last the length of time I want/need/expect it to last. I would rather have a slightly worse PQ but consistent through its life and without any worry or having to make changes to my viewing habits to get it to last.

I wouldn't hesitate to buy an OLED if it was the right technology for me as they offer a better Picture than I currently have but unless they can address the wear and fading with use, or at least offer a warranty that covers that for up to 30k hrs (or more), I can't see the technology being the right technology for me. I may have to wait for MicroLED for Self emitting display technology - if they can make it 'cheap' and small enough for me. They don't 'fade' like organic diodes at least not until the final stages of their life and last longer too so should get the life expectancy I want.

All I am hoping to do with my comments is to let people know what is happening so they can then make an informed choice as to what TV is best for them. There is no doubt that OLEDs offer a higher PQ but whether that PQ will last is very dependent on the person and their viewing habits/preferences. Having the best PQ though doesn't make it the 'best' TV to buy for everyone and, if they have bought an OLED, knowing what causes the problems means that they can be pro-active to minimise the risks for them. Instead of browsing the Netflix App on their TV, they could browse on a phone or PC and add programmes to their list greatly reducing the duration the Netflix logo is displayed for example. Turning the brightness down a few notches too could help - watch at 100-150nits instead of 200-250nits for SDR could give you more hours of usage.
 

butchbr73

Standard Member
Thanks BAMozzy.. appreciate your honesty and helpfulness. Fact of the matter, all tv's are a risk these days, seems like quality has suffered a bit to keep the price down while cramming more "tech" into each unit. I have a neighbor that has/had a 2.5yr old 75" Samsung that after you watch for about 30 minutes, its developed a zone of vertical green lines. He just replaced 2 weeks ago with a Q70 bc of his familiarity with Samsung literally hoping it doesn't happen again - good tv for the price. I think they all have their separate issues and agree with you, each person needs to look at their use case and decide whether the risk vs the return is right for them.

Fact of the matter like you said, there is no other PQ on the market like an Oled (could be any brand Sony/Lg or Panasonic - which we dont have in the US), whether you are watching SDR or HDR - 720p, 1080p or 4k. Getting closer each passing year, but not quite there yet. Micro Led's may change that in the next 5 yrs - if they are somewhat affordable - its amazing how fast tech changes these days. For now, I'm willing to "roll the dice" with Oled based on my use case and experience I've personally had with Oled. Just hung a B9 in my bedroom (couldn't justify the extra $ for C9 in my case for a bedroom tv)... but could justify purchasing that over any Sony or Samsung LCD currently on the market after my own experience with Oled. I've also got a 4k Sony LCD that was decent when purchased 4 yrs ago, but doesn't hold a candle to the PQ on the 1080p Oled when watching virtually any content - one could almost argue even 4k HDR content on one and 1080p SDR on the other. Hard to go back once you get used to the Oled PQ in your own home... but I respect everyones opinion and fully understand the inherent risk. I would not buy an Oled to let my son play 2k and Madden each day for hours on end on it...

I do think the burn in issue for the typical person is exacerbated in forums and social media bc you typically only hear about the problems and rarely from the typical 'content' customer... and to your point earlier, maybe most people are like me and only watch 3-4 hrs a day of scattered programming in a main room at most, so the hours aren't there yet to develop significant problems. But this goes with any product from cars to windows or roofing for your house, search anything and you have to sort thru and understand the negative first before you get to the meat of the product. I'd fully expect someone who drives 35k miles a year to have more issues/maintenance with their car in year 2/3/4 from someone who drives 10k miles per year - doesn't matter the brand - although you may steer toward a more reliable brand like Lexus and not a Ferrari. I'm not at all trying to downplay the risk and I hope everyone researches and understands the risk vs their use case.

If my use case was similar to yours w/ the 10+ hrs a day of non-stop viewing... I may have thought a bit harder on the purchase and sacrificed the PQ for peace of mind re: burn in. Tech is changing so fast, if I can get close to 8-10yrs out of a tv these days... I'll be happy... I'm half-way there with my first one. I fully plan on the next tv to be paper thin against the wall and connected via bluetooth (or whatever is next) so no cords are present (thats including power) :)
 

Unopinionated

Active Member
Thanks BAMozzy.. appreciate your honesty and helpfulness. Fact of the matter, all tv's are a risk these days, seems like quality has suffered a bit to keep the price down while cramming more "tech" into each unit. I have a neighbor that has/had a 2.5yr old 75" Samsung that after you watch for about 30 minutes, its developed a zone of vertical green lines. He just replaced 2 weeks ago with a Q70 bc of his familiarity with Samsung literally hoping it doesn't happen again - good tv for the price. I think they all have their separate issues and agree with you, each person needs to look at their use case and decide whether the risk vs the return is right for them.

Fact of the matter like you said, there is no other PQ on the market like an Oled (could be any brand Sony/Lg or Panasonic - which we dont have in the US), whether you are watching SDR or HDR - 720p, 1080p or 4k. Getting closer each passing year, but not quite there yet. Micro Led's may change that in the next 5 yrs - if they are somewhat affordable - its amazing how fast tech changes these days. For now, I'm willing to "roll the dice" with Oled based on my use case and experience I've personally had with Oled. Just hung a B9 in my bedroom (couldn't justify the extra $ for C9 in my case for a bedroom tv)... but could justify purchasing that over any Sony or Samsung LCD currently on the market after my own experience with Oled. I've also got a 4k Sony LCD that was decent when purchased 4 yrs ago, but doesn't hold a candle to the PQ on the 1080p Oled when watching virtually any content - one could almost argue even 4k HDR content on one and 1080p SDR on the other. Hard to go back once you get used to the Oled PQ in your own home... but I respect everyones opinion and fully understand the inherent risk. I would not buy an Oled to let my son play 2k and Madden each day for hours on end on it...

I do think the burn in issue for the typical person is exacerbated in forums and social media bc you typically only hear about the problems and rarely from the typical 'content' customer... and to your point earlier, maybe most people are like me and only watch 3-4 hrs a day of scattered programming in a main room at most, so the hours aren't there yet to develop significant problems. But this goes with any product from cars to windows or roofing for your house, search anything and you have to sort thru and understand the negative first before you get to the meat of the product. I'd fully expect someone who drives 35k miles a year to have more issues/maintenance with their car in year 2/3/4 from someone who drives 10k miles per year - doesn't matter the brand - although you may steer toward a more reliable brand like Lexus and not a Ferrari. I'm not at all trying to downplay the risk and I hope everyone researches and understands the risk vs their use case.

If my use case was similar to yours w/ the 10+ hrs a day of non-stop viewing... I may have thought a bit harder on the purchase and sacrificed the PQ for peace of mind re: burn in. Tech is changing so fast, if I can get close to 8-10yrs out of a tv these days... I'll be happy... I'm half-way there with my first one. I fully plan on the next tv to be paper thin against the wall and connected via bluetooth (or whatever is next) so no cords are present (thats including power) :)
I agree with you butcherbr73. OLED Burn In is overblown when compared to problems with LED TVs.

A 5 year warranty for all TVs regardless of the problem (not just burn in) seems fair to me. We need to start pressing for a 5 year warranty for every TV manufactured whether it is an LED or an OLED. If the LED and OLED manufactures won’t give a 5 year warranty for their TVs we need to sue them. If a TV doesn’t last for 5 trouble free years then it is not fit for purpose.
The good thing about a warranty like this is that it would get rid of the poor quality TV manufacturers. We could bankrupt Vizio, Hisense, RCA, Westinghouse, and Element as they would have to repair or replace over 20 percent of their TVs. Even Sony, Samsung, and LG would have a hard time as their failure rate is around 10 percent in the first 5 years. It is time TV Manufacturers start paying attention.

But then there is another way to look at it. This is what Dodgexander says about warranties.
It is what it is whether you like or not, it has been this way since the Plasma era and LGs take on it now won't be any different to how it was with their Plasma TVs in the past...suck it up or let it go. Don't constantly make a fight in your head guys.

Live with the terms or move on and by an LCD, if you want to go on a crusade in the name of law, or take LG to court, by all means do so, but its discussion for somewhere else and not a thread to discuss warranty terms.
 
Last edited:

BAMozzy

Distinguished Member
Even Sony, Samsung, and LG would have a hard time as their failure rate is around 10 percent in the first 5 years. It is time TV Manufacturers start paying attention.
Most TV's can come with a 5yr warranty from the retailer - the problem though is that some issues are NOT covered by warranty and, as we have discussed, peoples usage is very different. My TV is on for probably 4000hrs a year so that's 20k in 5yrs but others may not reach 10k in that time. Being able to protect for ANY issue regardless of usage for 5yrs should be available but, as those with OLEDs are finding out, Burn in (as this is classed as) is not covered by many warranty policies and people have to fight hard to try and get any resolution.

If my TV fails, I have warranty to cover that - whether one or more backlight fails or some other fault develops, I am covered by warranty. Samsung give a 10yr warranty against burn in - but then these TV's don't get burn in or image retention at all. You can get warranty on any TV for 5yrs against failure but uneven wear and burn-in is [generally] not covered. If an OLED develops a 'fault' like banding, that will be repaired under warranty but wearing faster than you expected because you like to watch Netflix for example is natural wear and tear - not a fault or even seen as you abusing your TV, not following the guidelines.

It would be great if Manufacturers offered a 5yr manufacturers warranty as standard and covered everything, guaranteeing that the TV will be as good as new (as long as its not damaged by you) for that time or its fixed/replaced. That would certainly make them build better TV's BUT that would also see the cost jump up and make them even less competitive. It may actually make the cheap brands even more popular. You can't sue them whilst the law states that goods must have 1yr manufactures warranty so they are complying with the law but I can't see why anyone wouldn't take out extended warranties on an expensive TV - especially if they can't afford to repair/replace if anything goes wrong after the first year. If Samsung, Sony, LG etc offer 5yr Manufacturing warranty covering everything inc Burn-in, that cost would be added on and the gap between a 'decent' brand and cheap brand becomes even greater.
 

5to1

Well-known Member
your points are well taken. I do remember reading in my research leading up to the purchase of that tv.. the expected life span was 30-40k hours - I guess we'll see how far I get with it.
30-40k was the half life figure LG quoted for their OLED panels. That's broadly in line with Plasma sets and CCFL LCD sets.

Around 2017/2018 they made some changes and increased the quoted half life to 100k hours. Thats broadly in line with modern LED backlit LCD sets.

Half life is the industry standard used to determine the useable life of a display. In simple terms it means the number of years before the light source(s) are expected to decay to the point they can only deliver half of their original output.

The half life doesnt apply directly to the quoted peak output of the set. So for example if a set is quoted as having a peak output of 1k nits, that doesnt mean at half life it will only output 500 nits. All light sources degrade over time, even LED's. And this degradation is not consistent. So if the light sources peak output was 1k nits from day 1, then you would soon start to see variation over the panel. This is true even of LED sets.

Hence the half life figure is a metric used when engineering and designing the set. The peak output of the light source(s) will be over engineered to ensure variation over time can be compensated for. It's at the point the light source(s) reach their half life that it's no longer feasible to reliable compensate for this variation.

On emissive sets you'll start to see burn out, some pixels/areas being lighter then others. On backlit sets you'll start to see variation in output, often in the corners/edges as that's the most difficult place to diffuse the backlight to.

Half life figures are determined based on a specific operational envelope. And it's a statistical prediction within a certain level of confidence. So as an example 95% may follow the predicted half life curve, but some may be outside of this. And if the operational envelope changes, for example thermal, electrical, manufacturing tolerances, etc are different then those LED's/OLED cells may follow a different half life curve.
 

5to1

Well-known Member
I'm taking the burn in issue with a grain of salt, no disrespect to anyone that has experienced the issue and not trying to downplay the risk. Can anyone verify the below (found on a quick Google search):
******
LG Electronics sold 3,600 units in 2013 when it launched its first OLED TV model but its sales increased more than 20-fold to 76,400 units in 2014, followed by 313,900 units in 2015 and 666,400 units in 2016. Its annual sales topped one million units for the first time in 2017
******
As with my experience in anything when you search for problems... you'll always find someone with issues. For example, I drive a Ford F150 and when you scan forums... you'll find plenty of problems, enough to scare you... but its also the best selling vehicle in America and most folks drive them without anything significant happening. The people with "burn in" are obviously more vocal than the folks without burn in and actively searching and commenting across forums,etc. to find fixes or looking for help. I think in general, anyone without any problems tend not to say anything... but you'll hear a lot from the folks that do.

If LG did produce 666,400 Oled units in 2016, I have a hard time believing 36% of those, or roughly 233k units have had burn in issues (otherwise this thread would be tens of 1,000's of posts long looking for help)... I think the actual is a much smaller percentage in real life but only LG knows the real answer. As with most stuff, you'll never hear a peep from most people with a good experience - (other than aficionados of home theater equip and tv's or people that research quite a bit), they've got no reason to search for Oled burn in, interested in reading about the risks and answer polls... but you will hear from the minority with the problem.

I have a 2015 EG9100 that I bought in late 2015 with almost 9,000 hrs on it in our Kitchen sitting area (granted its not 4k/HDR), varied usage between sports (probably the most watched - football, baseball and basketball across many networks), news and regular network shows and cable, - little bit of Netflix/amazon streaming and used everyday for 4 years. No video game usage at all. Still looks great, not much uneven wear and very little noticeable color variation across any of the colors - just checked it this past week. If I didn't enjoy reading and learning about home theater equip and tv's, etc... I wouldn't be here commenting. Just my 2 cents...
Largely agree. And I dont buy the argument the average user is too stupid to notice. I don't actively use a full field solid frame to check my TV, but there are plenty that appear in my normal viewing where burn in would be very obvious to see. Splash screens, cut scenes, etc.

Additionally I struggle to believe every major manufacturer (bar Samsung) would be pumping out more and more sets if they are all coming back after 2-3 years. The class action law suits in the US alone would cripple them. Let alone the repetitional damage.
 

BAMozzy

Distinguished Member
Accidental Entry
I am sure you must have actually read my post then. Every TV can be bought with an extended warranty - although year 2 onwards is not covered by the manufacturer but the retailers preferred Warranty provider. With all my TV's, I have ensured that I have at least 5yrs warranty and with Richer Sounds, I have a 6yr Warranty on my main TV.

I am well aware that Samsung, like all the others, only offer a 1yr warranty as standard as that is required by law and covers manufacture faults and not general wear and tear or accidental damage - accidental damage is covered under House Contents insurance.

I was going to ask what 'facts' I made up but as you have retracted that, I will assume that you actually read my post and see that I refer to manufacture warranty further down as being only 1 year. As far as I am aware, you can purchase (if its not offered by the retailer) extended warranty that basically covers you faults developing after the first year and most will have a 5yr policy so every TV can come with at least a 5yr warranty - even if you have to pay extra for that. If you are spending £2k or more on a TV, why wouldn't add that extra peace of mind?

Anyway, that still doesn't help if Burn-in or Uneven wear is not covered in any warranty. If LG are confident their TV's have a life expectancy of 30k (or even 100k as @5to1 stated), then covering uneven wear in the first 5yrs really shouldn't be an issue. Its clear its not 'burn in' as the issue is only limited to a single colour, 2 at most. If it was burn in, that image would be visible on ALL slides because the image is 'burned in'. Its uneven wear because a part of the image, the logo or box for example, has worn the sub-pixels more than the others causing them to fade more. to reach 30k hours in 5yrs, your TV would need to be switched on for ~16.5hrs a day every day and to reach 100k at that rate would take ~16yrs and 8months. If they can last that long, then you shouldn't expect them to have faded after several thousand hours - let alone the fraction of that time actually spent watching news or Netflix.

Maybe we will see the effect of LG's claim of 100k life expectancy with their 2018+ TV's but their are 8 (don't know if these have been verified or not) people claiming their 2018 TV has 'burn-in' and another 41 who had burn-in on their 2017 TV's. If these do have a life expectancy of 100k as claimed, then 5% (5000hrs) should not cause sufficient fading even if all that 5000hrs was spent watching the news. I am not the owner of those TV's with issues so I don't know the settings or the actual accumulated hours it took for them to have burn in but I bet it wasn't more than 1000hrs - or just 1% of the expected life span. If the life expectancy is 30k, 1000hrs is still only 3.33%. If your TV is on for just over 8hrs a day, every day, it would take 10yrs to reach 30k.
 

5to1

Well-known Member
If LG are confident their TV's have a life expectancy of 30k (or even 100k as @5to1 stated), then covering uneven wear in the first 5yrs really shouldn't be an issue.
LG Display have publicly stated those half life figures. They are a listed company, therefore I'd be very very surprised if they are fabricated. Listed company's have to be very careful about public statements which may mislead investors (for good reason).

Competitors such as Samsung (with whom they have an intense rivalry) could analyse those claims and land them in a heap of trouble if they had no basis in fact.

then covering uneven wear in the first 5yrs really shouldn't be an issue.
As I stated the half life figure is based within a certain operational envelope. Any emissive display has the potential to burn in/out. So yes covering burn in/out without question does present an issue. It would likely change user behaviour.

For example I ask my wife to switch the TV off if she pauses the Sky box. Many people would not take such care if they knew LG would cover burn in/out without any questions. When a new model came out people could force burn in/out by displaying a static image for a long time. You essentially create Moral Hazard.

Nobody, covered burn in for Plasma's, yet I don't see you arguing that it was endemic. Even Samsung didn't cover it on their displays, including LCD displays until they stopped producing PDP's and failed in their attempt to make large form factor OLED panels commercially viable.

If you check laptop forums you'll find historic cases where LCD displays made by Samsung have suffered permanent image retention and the customer has been told to "sod off".

In summary your inference that the lack of blanket burn out cover suggests its a big issue fails to consider all the facts.

My own opinion is that its perfectly reasonable for LG to investigate instances of Burn in/out. If there's clear proof of abuse such a whole frame burnt in (indicating a static image was displayed for a long time), failure to allow the scrub cycles to complete, repeated claims, etc, etc, then they are within their rights to refuse repair. However, if its a DOG or some other small part of a frame like a ticker, then they should repair/replace the screen. Because they know full well DOG's/Tickers/etc are ubiquitous in broadcast content, therefore it's unreasonable to suggest its user abuse if those things burn in.

Interestingly, I believe they do cover this in the US where they are the retailer (i.e. if its not clear user abuse they will replace the panel). In the UK they aren't the retailer and I suspect outside the first year retailers take on the risk based on the B2B terms. This is often the case with big companies, who will self indemnify as they calculate its cheaper than taking the manufacturers extended warranty. I suspect this is where the pushback is coming from and the mixed experiences from user to user.
 

BAMozzy

Distinguished Member
@5to1 I was very particular to state that if LG are confident their TV's have a 100k hrs life span, then offering a 5yr warranty that covers uneven wear, which is 'different' to burn-in. You shouldn't expect the wear and subsequent fading after watching certain content for a couple of hours a week amongst all the other content viewed and ensuring that the scrub cycles etc are all used.

A few hundred hours of watching News for example over 2-3yrs out of the 1000's of hours the TV has been on shouldn't cause the amount of fading that is noticeable. 200hrs for example is 0.2% of the 100k life span - a 'negligible' difference. Obviously, that 200hrs those sub-pixels have been on much brighter and consistently on during that viewing is causing a LOT more wear than 200hrs of general use would so it could be more like the wear 1000hrs of general content would cause - its difficult to ascertain the wear as we don't know the rate at which they fade at different brightness settings and the rate they 'tend' to wear with regular content on average. Until you know those figures, you can't actually say that element is wearing out 5x faster than general use would but its clear that people are suffering from uneven wear with a lot less than 10000 hours of usage - less than 10% of the 'expected' life if they are expected to last 100k hours. Even the 'general' content RTINGs test had uneven wear in under 10000hours.

If you think you are at no/low risk of uneven wear that will affect the colour accuracy and PQ on your OLED in the time frame you intend/hop to keep it for, then go ahead and buy. Its clear though that viewing habits and preferences (like brightness setting) will change the 'risk' of issues occurring within the time frame you expect to keep your TV. If you prefer a brighter setting, want to watch a several hours of news a day (even if its not continuous but broken up into 30mins several times a day with other content in between) and watch 8hrs+ a day avg, you are are a 'high risk of uneven wear' viewer - especially if you also want to own that TV for 5yrs or more.

I bet if you asked everyone here who have had issues if they paused the TV, watched nothing but Good Morning Britain, Netflix, Sky Sports News or Nick Jr for the entire usage time, never allowed the screen scrub to run etc etc, I bet they all used their TV appropriately and never did anything that should cause 'burn-in' or even Image Retention - and haven't actually got burn-in either. I bet they all never expected their TV's to have uneven wear to the point that it has become noticeable in such a relatively short time - even if the life expectancy is 30k hours. If you want to watch the news several times a day or GMB whilst waking up and getting ready to go to work, that shouldn't cause the amount of wear on those sub-pixels to become so faded that its noticeable yet that is what is happening.

Just because the risk maybe low for someone, doesn't mean that risk is low for all. You may well be a 'low risk' user with the content you consume, preferred settings and duration you hope your TV will last before replacing but for others, that risk can be extremely high. All the people that voted have owned their OLEDs for 5yrs or less and over 20% have reported an issue. I bet none have come close to hitting 30k hours let alone 100k.

I never said Samsung were 'better' either - certainly not where customer service is concerned and I know many that aren't happy with them too.

Anyway, to get back to the point I made is that if LG are confident their TV's should last ~100k hours, I see no reason why they couldn't offer some warranty to cover 'uneven wear' and yet still not cover Burn-in as that does open up the door for 'abusing' that warranty. Even if they specified a time frame and/or hours of usage - much like tyres can have a warranty for 30000miles or 3years. LG could offer a 5yr or 10k hrs warranty - that's 2000hrs a year or ~5.5hrs a day. 10k is also only 10% of the life span so shouldn't exhibit noticeable uneven wear. If they did, everyone of these people would have been protected from using their TV as a TV, not abusing the technology by pausing or displaying a static image on screen for hours on end continuously until it 'burns in'
 

5to1

Well-known Member
@BAMozzy

I think you're just trying to make a contrived distinction in order to justify your original inference that the lack of blanket warranty cover indicates some sort of conspiracy.

How does one determine what's uneven wear as a result of watching a few hours a day. Or whats burn in as a result of pausing the TV? (You do understand that both are as a result of decay, they aren't different). Even if one could determine that conclusively, just the impression that we'll blanket cover burn in would probably change user behaviour.

If historically every manufacturer covered burn in/retention, then you're inference may have some credibility. But nobody covered burn in/out in their warranty. Not for PDP, not for LCD. Samsung changed tack once it became commercially expedient for them. So should we conclude that up until a couple of years ago every single display made had a serious problem with burn in? Of course not.

It's like reading 2+2 and deciding now it suddenly means 22. There may be some logic behind that in isolation, but not when you consider the history and conventions of mathematical notation.

I dont even think i'll bother with the inferences you're drawing from a self reporting online form :)
 
Last edited:

butchbr73

Standard Member
It appears industry standard is 1 yr warranty for parts and labor across Sony/Samsung/TCL/Vizio, etc. on all panel types... so LG's warranty is no different than its competition and not a conspiracy. If everyone else was 3 yrs and they were 1 yr, argument may hold more water. Extended warranties from third parties are readily available that if one were worried, they can easily be purchased for as little as $100 from some retailers.

Its hard to blame just LG in this, you could blame the industry in whole with crappy warranty periods. From a business standpoint, they are trying to keep price points low on new sets and keep cramming more tech... adding additional warranty adds cost and cuts margin. Shareholders don't like that, so in turn they'd raise the price accordingly and customers don't like that. Longer warranty periods aren't free, its a mathematical game with actuarial math and would ultimately add cost.
 

BAMozzy

Distinguished Member
@5to1 You obviously haven't read my posts but I have been very clear throughout this (and other threads) that there is a BIG difference between Burn In and Uneven Wear which is quite easy to tell apart. Burn In affects the screen and makes NO difference which slides you look at because the image is 'burned in'. Uneven wear affects each Slide differently because the wear is directly related to the individual sub-pixel.

If the problem is caused by the Netflix logo for example, then being Red, that affects any slide that uses the Red sub-pixel - ie Red, Yellow, Magenta and Grey slide - it doesn't affect the Blue, Green or Cyan slide all 3 of which would appear even without any indication of that logo visible. On the Magenta slide, the area of wear will be Blue because the colour balance is affected. On the yellow slide, it will be Green and on the grey slide, Cyan (because of the Blue and Green being stronger/brighter).

Therefore it should be relatively easy to see whether the issue is actually burn in or just uneven wear. Another indication is where you have an area of movement - like a newsreader who is sat in the middle of the screen - because they are moving, the area that fades is more vague, its not a 'defined' shape like a static logo/box would cause. The movement would blur the edges - as seen on the CNN tests as well as the NBC test. Its got to be quite difficult to get that result with a static image on-screen for a long enough time to 'burn-in'.

If the Blue and Green slides don't show the image, then that image is not burned in. Its the fact that the red from the logo has caused significantly higher wear to those sub-pixels - enough that they have faded noticeably more and are darker. Its not the logo that's burned in, its that the red sub pixels have worn unevenly and its an accumulation of use, with other content viewed as well as all the Screen Scrub, Pixel shifting etc turned on and used.

Its not a contrived distinction or something I have suddenly come up with to add weight to a discussion I have just add with regards to warranties. Its something I have said many times and could be used to determine whether it is 'burn in' or uneven wear - in conjunction with other information - like hours of usage and whether or not the Screen Scrub had been switched off or stopped from operating as it should.

All I said is that if LG are confident their Panels are expected to last 100k or more hours, covering uneven wear for up to 5yrs or 10k hrs is not unreasonable. It can be determined whether or not someone has abused their TV and caused burn-in compared to someone who used their TV appropriately but now have uneven wear. Do you think that watching half an hour a day of news is 'unreasonable', What abour watching a few hours of Sky Sports News a weekend? Using the in-built Netflix app to browse for content to watch? All of that has caused issues for people here and not one of them left the TV on that content for hours and hours on end. It was an accumulation of usage over a period of time whilst also watching other content and using the built-in Burn-in protection. It didn't protect them - but then its not burn in - its uneven wear. Something I was saying months and months ago!!!
 

Unopinionated

Active Member
@5to1 You obviously haven't read my posts but I have been very clear throughout this (and other threads) that there is a BIG difference between Burn In and Uneven Wear which is quite easy to tell apart. Burn In affects the screen and makes NO difference which slides you look at because the image is 'burned in'. Uneven wear affects each Slide differently because the wear is directly related to the individual sub-pixel.

If the problem is caused by the Netflix logo for example, then being Red, that affects any slide that uses the Red sub-pixel - ie Red, Yellow, Magenta and Grey slide - it doesn't affect the Blue, Green or Cyan slide all 3 of which would appear even without any indication of that logo visible. On the Magenta slide, the area of wear will be Blue because the colour balance is affected. On the yellow slide, it will be Green and on the grey slide, Cyan (because of the Blue and Green being stronger/brighter).

Therefore it should be relatively easy to see whether the issue is actually burn in or just uneven wear. Another indication is where you have an area of movement - like a newsreader who is sat in the middle of the screen - because they are moving, the area that fades is more vague, its not a 'defined' shape like a static logo/box would cause. The movement would blur the edges - as seen on the CNN tests as well as the NBC test. Its got to be quite difficult to get that result with a static image on-screen for a long enough time to 'burn-in'.

If the Blue and Green slides don't show the image, then that image is not burned in. Its the fact that the red from the logo has caused significantly higher wear to those sub-pixels - enough that they have faded noticeably more and are darker. Its not the logo that's burned in, its that the red sub pixels have worn unevenly and its an accumulation of use, with other content viewed as well as all the Screen Scrub, Pixel shifting etc turned on and used.

Its not a contrived distinction or something I have suddenly come up with to add weight to a discussion I have just add with regards to warranties. Its something I have said many times and could be used to determine whether it is 'burn in' or uneven wear - in conjunction with other information - like hours of usage and whether or not the Screen Scrub had been switched off or stopped from operating as it should.

All I said is that if LG are confident their Panels are expected to last 100k or more hours, covering uneven wear for up to 5yrs or 10k hrs is not unreasonable. It can be determined whether or not someone has abused their TV and caused burn-in compared to someone who used their TV appropriately but now have uneven wear. Do you think that watching half an hour a day of news is 'unreasonable', What abour watching a few hours of Sky Sports News a weekend? Using the in-built Netflix app to browse for content to watch? All of that has caused issues for people here and not one of them left the TV on that content for hours and hours on end. It was an accumulation of usage over a period of time whilst also watching other content and using the built-in Burn-in protection. It didn't protect them - but then its not burn in - its uneven wear. Something I was saying months and months ago!!!
BAMozzy pay attention to what Dodgexander says,

It is what it is whether you like or not, it has been this way since the Plasma era and LGs take on it now won't be any different to how it was with their Plasma TVs in the past...suck it up or let it go. Don't constantly make a fight in your head guys.
 
Last edited:

BAMozzy

Distinguished Member
Its hard to blame just LG in this, you could blame the industry in whole with crappy warranty periods.
I don't blame LG for the warranty situation at all. At most, I blame LG for lack of information and being open about the risk of uneven wear. I know the manufacturers are under pressure to provide a 'perfect' picture with perfect blacks and self emitting tech is the best for that. Add in the 4k resolution which obviously means much smaller pixel sizes (and therefore even smaller sub-pixels), HDR so having to go much brighter as well as conform to environmental energy consumptions and 'heat' dissipation, let alone compete with the pricing of their competition, its a tough ask.

If LG had been more informative, given more guidelines in the first place, then people would be able to make an informed decision as to whether or not the Tech was right for them and/or minimised the risks to maximise its life expectancy. If you are told that Burn in isn't much of a risk (which I do think is quite accurate as burn in is a low, if not miniscule risk with most people), and that you can watch a couple of hours of content with static elements a day without any risk of burn in, then you may think an OLED is fine as you only watch an hour of news a day - but 2yrs later end up with uneven wear, is that 'fair' on the consumer?

LG made a TV with the PQ people wanted but to get that PQ, life expectancy (at least initially) is/was reduced and other risks (like burn in and uneven wear) are higher - although no risk of bloom/bleed/haloing. If you are a 'low' risk user, the likelihood that OLED is the best tech for you and you get many years of trouble free, excellent PQ viewing is very high but that's not the case for everyone. Warranty or not, whether things like uneven wear or burn in are covered or not, it doesn't change the fact that using your OLED as a TV, watching what you want, when you want but also not 'abusing' it shouldn't cause issues in the 'relatively' low number of hours of usage these TV's had accumulated. You expect to be able to watch an hour or two of any content without it eventually accumulating enough wear to become noticeable inside a few years.

As argumentative and defensive of OLEDs as you are, surely you must agree that owners should be able to watch an hour or two of ANY content a day, with all the burn-in protection built in and active, and get at least 4-5yrs without issue. I could understand if they were racking up 6000hrs a year, maybe that would be expecting a bit too much from OLEDs to last 5yrs (30k hours) but a lot hadn't even reached 6000 hours yet....
 

butchbr73

Standard Member
As argumentative and defensive of OLEDs as you are, surely you must agree that owners should be able to watch an hour or two of ANY content a day, with all the burn-in protection built in and active, and get at least 4-5yrs without issue. I could understand if they were racking up 6000hrs a year, maybe that would be expecting a bit too much from OLEDs to last 5yrs (30k hours) but a lot hadn't even reached 6000 hours yet....
I'll end this discussion with you right here. Your first post made your point about image degradation over time (red being the most susceptible) that could happen and some folks have experienced. Cool - understood - check. Manufacturing issues and problems happens with all types of tv's in all age and price ranges. Why not hop on over to the LCD forums and help folks with their Samsungs and Sony's since you have first hand experience in that LCD platform... rather than regurgitating what you've read over the internet. I was communicating my own first-hand experience with a tv I own.
Have a nice day sir!
 
Last edited:

5to1

Well-known Member
@5to1 You obviously haven't read my posts but I have been very clear throughout this (and other threads) that there is a BIG difference between Burn In and Uneven Wear which is quite easy to tell apart. Burn In affects the screen and makes NO difference which slides you look at because the image is 'burned in'. Uneven wear affects each Slide differently because the wear is directly related to the individual sub-pixel.

If the problem is caused by the Netflix logo for example, then being Red, that affects any slide that uses the Red sub-pixel - ie Red, Yellow, Magenta and Grey slide - it doesn't affect the Blue, Green or Cyan slide all 3 of which would appear even without any indication of that logo visible. On the Magenta slide, the area of wear will be Blue because the colour balance is affected. On the yellow slide, it will be Green and on the grey slide, Cyan (because of the Blue and Green being stronger/brighter).

Therefore it should be relatively easy to see whether the issue is actually burn in or just uneven wear. Another indication is where you have an area of movement - like a newsreader who is sat in the middle of the screen - because they are moving, the area that fades is more vague, its not a 'defined' shape like a static logo/box would cause. The movement would blur the edges - as seen on the CNN tests as well as the NBC test. Its got to be quite difficult to get that result with a static image on-screen for a long enough time to 'burn-in'.

If the Blue and Green slides don't show the image, then that image is not burned in. Its the fact that the red from the logo has caused significantly higher wear to those sub-pixels - enough that they have faded noticeably more and are darker. Its not the logo that's burned in, its that the red sub pixels have worn unevenly and its an accumulation of use, with other content viewed as well as all the Screen Scrub, Pixel shifting etc turned on and used.

Its not a contrived distinction or something I have suddenly come up with to add weight to a discussion I have just add with regards to warranties. Its something I have said many times and could be used to determine whether it is 'burn in' or uneven wear - in conjunction with other information - like hours of usage and whether or not the Screen Scrub had been switched off or stopped from operating as it should.

All I said is that if LG are confident their Panels are expected to last 100k or more hours, covering uneven wear for up to 5yrs or 10k hrs is not unreasonable. It can be determined whether or not someone has abused their TV and caused burn-in compared to someone who used their TV appropriately but now have uneven wear. Do you think that watching half an hour a day of news is 'unreasonable', What abour watching a few hours of Sky Sports News a weekend? Using the in-built Netflix app to browse for content to watch? All of that has caused issues for people here and not one of them left the TV on that content for hours and hours on end. It was an accumulation of usage over a period of time whilst also watching other content and using the built-in Burn-in protection. It didn't protect them - but then its not burn in - its uneven wear. Something I was saying months and months ago!!!
LOL.

I think you're a bit confused here. Burn in is just a lay term used to describe various issues which result in what appears to be permanent image retention. The mechanism and underlying cause is different based on the technology of the display.

LCD's for example it is usually an issue with the way a cell is being driven. It can be due to drift/failure of a driving component or because an imbalance in the way the cell has been driven results in impurities being forced to one side. Whatever the cause it results in the cell being unable to return to its relaxed state, it either biases to being partially open or partially closed. Since LCD's are backlit, an open cell will effect all frames regardless of colour.

With OLED it's due to premature decay of the sub pixel. LG state the half life of their panels is ~100k hours. But that is within a certain operational window. Outside that window the decay curve will be different. Displaying a static image for a long time will put you outside of that window (thermal probably being a key metric). And different coloured sub pixels will have different windows within which they follow the expected decay curve. (Because the way different coloured OLED compounds are made, results in divergent properties).

Therefore, if you display a static image on an OLED panel for several hours you will not see all the sub pixels prematurely decay at the same rate. Even if that image is white. What you will see is "uneven wear" as you describe it, or premature decay of the compound to be more accurate. One cannot conclude because only certain coloured sub pixels have decayed that it is abnormal wear and not user abuse. Variable decay is in fact the mechanism by which "burn in" occurs on OLED panels.

Hence, referring back to my previous post, it's understandable they dont have a blanket policy. As I said, IMO, they should be looking at panels to see if there's obvious indications of abuse. If only a DOG has burned in, then it's unlikely the user has displayed a static frame to cause that, as other parts of that frame would likely have burned in as well. On the other hand if a large part of a frame has burned in (for example you can make out writing on a ticker and the presenter), then that probably indicates that frame has been displayed for some time.

I understand this is what they do in the US where they are the retailer (from another thread). But as I said, in the UK they aren't the retailer. And I suspect most major retailers self indemnify after year 1, therefore we're seeing different attitudes and outcomes.
 
Last edited:

staffy 2

Well-known Member
Well if a tv can’t cope with 6000 hours a year I’d say it’s pretty poor.My lcd made 14 years ago has done well over 50,000 hours.I gave it to a friend when I got my E7.Imagine my face when my E7 went wrong after 2 years while my 14 year old lcd looks as good as the day I got it and now in its 15th year at my friends.
LG should state the hours of useage then in big letters on the box and tell all retailers to make customers aware they won’t last if you watch them for more than 2000 hours a year.No wonder they don’t cover burn in/pixel wear.What happened to 100,000 hour life span.You imagine a busy family working shifts of say 4 people.That tv could be on from 7am until midnight with days and afternoons and night shift workers so that’s easy 6,000 hours a year.A tv should be able to last 5 years no matter the hours it’s used and anything less is unfit for purpose and a judge would back this up in the small claims court.
 

5to1

Well-known Member
As argumentative and defensive of OLEDs as you are
Right, I think i'm out aswell :/

You've made your purchasing choice and seem intent on labelling everyone else as idiots that deny the sky is falling. Perhaps it's you that is defensive and argumentative, because you can't countenance you made a mistake :facepalm: After all its you on the OLED forum, not us on the LCD forum

I guess every major manufacturer bar Samsung are idiots as well. Because if you're right, then they are merrily digging themselves into a massive hole and in fact digging faster with each passing year.

Enjoy your LCD.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Trending threads

Latest News

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
Samsung launches Q950TS 8K QLED in Europe
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
LCD panel prices increase after factory shutdowns
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom