• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

Why don't Plasma manufacturers implement these ideas?

JJTye

Established Member
Why don't Plasma manufacturers implement these ideas to reduce screen burn even further?

We all know static TV logos can contribute to screen burn, so why don't the manufacturers include a function that enables you to mark out a logo or other still image (by drawing a box around it for example), then masking it by blurring it into the rest of the picture, or by overlaying a constantly moving pattern on it?

And for the 4:3 sidebars. Rather than just having solid grey sidebars, why can't they adapt to whats on the screen, so if you are displaying a blue sky and green field, the sidebars could adapt by turning blue/green, or if you was displaying a mostly dark/night scene then they would turn black. By constantly adapting to whats on the screen, that would keep the 4:3 areas moving and reduce screen burn even further.

And finally, couldn't each pixel have a counter that monitors how much its being used and an 'equalise' function be implemented so that the pixels that get used less (such as displaying letterbox bars) be brought up to the same usage rate as the other pixels, thereby keeping the screen even.

If the manufacturers could implement these ideas, it may even be enough to sway me from LCD.
 

Julie

Prominent Member
Why don't Plasma manufacturers implement these ideas to reduce screen burn even further?

Why don't you post your ideas to the manufacturers & let us know what they think?
 

RoyMacDonald

Established Member
Why don't Plasma manufacturers implement these ideas to reduce screen burn even further?

We all know static TV logos can contribute to screen burn, so why don't the manufacturers include a function that enables you to mark out a logo or other still image (by drawing a box around it for example), then masking it by blurring it into the rest of the picture, or by overlaying a constantly moving pattern on it?


If the manufacturers could implement these ideas, it may even be enough to sway me from LCD.

The software for Nebula PC digital tuners (DigiTV) has alwas had this feature. You can set up a box of any size anywhere on the screen. You can also choose how you want to blur the channels graphic as well.

Roy
 

JJTye

Established Member
Why don't you post your ideas to the manufacturers & let us know what they think?

I would do that but firstly I wanted to know the forum member's opinions, and secondly, I rarely get a half-decent reply from the manufacturers.
 

Rock27gr

Established Member
Some good ideas there!


The box one should e easy to do?

The dynamic letter-boxing sounds a lot like Ambilight from Philips; could be more tricky and even distracting during viewing though.

Pixel-counter sounds like an expensive nightmare, but I am no expert.
 

arad85

Established Member
Why don't Plasma manufacturers implement these ideas to reduce screen burn even further?

We all know static TV logos can contribute to screen burn, so why don't the manufacturers include a function that enables you to mark out a logo or other still image (by drawing a box around it for example), then masking it by blurring it into the rest of the picture, or by overlaying a constantly moving pattern on it?
Because to have this set for every channel (they all move), for each screen format (16:9, 4:3 etc...), and have it easy to set up via remote and be effective is probably impractical.

And for the 4:3 sidebars. Rather than just having solid grey sidebars, why can't they adapt to whats on the screen, so if you are displaying a blue sky and green field, the sidebars could adapt by turning blue/green, or if you was displaying a mostly dark/night scene then they would turn black. By constantly adapting to whats on the screen, that would keep the 4:3 areas moving and reduce screen burn even further.
Pioneer (at least) screens do do - they have an auto mode which changes the bar greyscale according to the picture content.

And finally, couldn't each pixel have a counter that monitors how much its being used and an 'equalise' function be implemented so that the pixels that get used less (such as displaying letterbox bars) be brought up to the same usage rate as the other pixels, thereby keeping the screen even.
A nightmare to implement. There are ~2M pixels on a display. Not only would you have to update each pixel for RGB, but you'd have to figure out a wear coefficient for how stimulated the pixels were (i.e. a 10% "lit" pixel equates to what in terms of wear?), compute some time function (screen burn is a non-linear function as it happens when you nuke a certain area for a period - several hours - but you could spread the same intensity over several days and have no burn or retention) and then have to save many megabytes of information every few seconds to some non-volatile storage... And then use that information in some way. Very complex, costly to implement and of dubious value.
 

Julie

Prominent Member
... firstly I wanted to know the forum member's opinions, and secondly, I rarely get a half-decent reply from the manufacturers.

Yes, some nice ideas there & I'm sure manufacturers do take in a lot of ideas from outside & implement them if feasible & useful. As others have pointed out they have to balance this with cost. No use in tripling the price of a TV that puts it out of the reach of most buyers for features that in most situations are not necessary.

Screen burn is hardly an issue these days with the latest plasmas, you do hear about it on rare occasions but the usual reasons are careless use or a faulty TV, in which case the TV is replaced under its guarantee. Using a TV as a TV (I know that sounds daft) is the best way to avoid any burn issues. By watching a variety of channels & formats the TV is subjected to a mixture of sources & on-screen logos which evens the screen ageing out to a great extent. Very well, if you mostly play games or use your TV as a PC monitor I would suggest an LCD panel is the way to go, the right tool for the job as they say.

Did you see the build up to the FA cup final on Saturday? They showed some old 4:3 footage with the side bars coloured in very much in the way you describe. I think they first enlarged the actual image to fill the screen, blurring & reducing the colour intensity then placing the 4:3 image on top of it. Very effective it was I thought, didn't distract me at all from watching & actually drew me in to the picture. I'm sure this would be easy for TV manufacturers to implement as an option you could have off or on.

Edit: Oh, just read Arad's post where it's metiones that Pioneer implement this, I never knew that!
 

Hillie

Established Member
Julie, I've got a brand new plasma, at 100 contrast, and it's mostly used for gaming. Admitted, I don't do 4 hour long sessions in one game, so that helps, but most of my games are pretty much OK with screen content. In my opinion there's a lot of scare and little fact. There's just the usual light retention that slips away after a few minutes.

Actually since plasma's are so great with movement resolution, it's a preferred screen when gaming, although LCD is nicely catching up there. ;)
 

Julie

Prominent Member
Julie, I've got a brand new plasma, at 100 contrast, and it's mostly used for gaming. Admitted, I don't do 4 hour long sessions in one game, so that helps, but most of my games are pretty much OK with screen content. In my opinion there's a lot of scare and little fact. There's just the usual light retention that slips away after a few minutes.

Actually since plasma's are so great with movement resolution, it's a preferred screen when gaming, although LCD is nicely catching up there. ;)

Thanks Hillie,

I agree with you 100%. I was just trying to address JJT in my own clumsy way who I think prefers LCD. As I don't do gaming, I missed the very valid point you raise of the great advantage Plasma has with their far superior response time which must be great for games.

Also, you're totally correct about the scare mongering that keeps all the myths about plasma displays well & truely alive, not helped by threads like these. That's why I usually respond to these whenever I can.

Julie
 

Hillie

Established Member
Thanks, but in the end I think it's mainly a personal thing. If people have a scare of plasma based on fact or myth, it doesn't matter, they'll sleep better with an LCD in their house. So be it. It's good to every now and then fight the scare that's running around, but it does form people's opinions. Sometimes to such an extent that no matter how valid your argumentation might be, it doesn't stand ground with them. Look for example at air travel. It's very safe, yet there are people that are genuinely scared because they fear it's unsafer. Come up with all the statistics, facts and figures you want, it's the scare that'll conquer. In that case, I just shrug and move on. Same with TVs. ;)
 

Cyclone

Established Member
Using a TV as a TV (I know that sounds daft) is the best way to avoid any burn issues. By watching a variety of channels & formats the TV is subjected to a mixture of sources & on-screen logos which evens the screen ageing out to a great extent.

Fully agree with you , I use my px80 as i used my CRT, not one bit of retention in the 3 weeks of having it. And I don't worry about what i'm watching.
 

golden void

Established Member
Most recommendations you read will say plasma is better for watching movies/sport (due to reponse times, richer blacks etc) and LCD for video games (due to....er....potential screen burn on plasmas??). I think it's a farce. Video games look far superior on plasmas. The only true reasons for chosing an LCD over a plasma is the weight (if you have weak walls) and the power consumption (if you need to save $3 a month or "go greener"). Otherwise, in my humble opinion, you would be MAD to buy an LCD for any reason.

And I admit I was 110% pro-LCD when I began my research into what set to buy, and in the end I went for a plasma!!

So, in short, I think the reason that manufacturers don't take on the type of suggestions in the original thread is that burn is not that big a deal these days.
 

JJTye

Established Member
Thanks to each and every one of you for your replies.

I have nothing against plasma whatsoever. I think its a wonderful technology suited to home cinema setups and I do agree they handle motion and blacks better than LCD.

The reason why I started this thread is because prior to owning my LCD, I used a Samsung 42" plasma screen and it is covered in screen burn. I tried the usual techniques to get rid of it, by displaying a pure white screen for several hours, displaying the moving ramp pattern, leaving it on static noise etc etc but none of these helped. My LCD in comparison has never showed any retention from static images. Even an email from Samsung said and I quote: "LCDs are rarely affected by screen burn"

Before you laugh, I was rather stupid to leave the plasma on Sky News for several hours on Dynamic mode, and subsequently the Sky News graphics are permanently burnt into the screen.

When I got my LCD, I put the plasma in my bedroom so it works fine as a second telly. Ive reduced the contrast for bedroom viewing and it works well enough and the screen burn is less visible. And from proper calibration as recommended by a member on here, the LCD picture is almost as good as the plasma.

Personally, I still stand by my LCD and I would possibly consider going back to plasma if they could make them as robust as CRT televisions. My ancient Samsung CRT never had a problem with burn-in.

I must admit I like the Pioneer plasmas very much but I just find them too expensive for my budget.

(PS Are there any members who are loyal to any particular company when buying equipment? Im very loyal to Samsung myself)
 

The latest video from AVForums

SVS Prime Wireless Pro Powered Speakers - Review Coming Soon
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom