Author Topic: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them  (Read 21886 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online themadhippy

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3264
  • Country: gb
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #50 on: February 03, 2022, 01:53:47 am »
Quote
I dare you to dive into tweaking a Kuro PDP, as it has about 20 different parameters adjustable from the service menu
only 20,if you want a real challenge the old barco  3 head crt projectors can give you hours of fun
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki, newbrain

Offline etiTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 1801
  • Country: gb
  • MOD: a.k.a Unlokia, glossywhite, iamwhoiam etc
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #51 on: February 03, 2022, 02:33:02 am »
[...]  if there are people on here that enjoy calibrating test equipment and so on, I dare you to dive into tweaking a Kuro PDP, as it has about 20 different parameters adjustable [...]

You haven't lived until you've tried adjusting the colour convergence on an old school tube colour TV!  :D

And don't forget waving a de-gaussing coil around in circles, as you slowly.... slowwwwwwly back away as if you're cautiously stepping away from a live bomb!  :-DD
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Online RJSV

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2757
  • Country: us
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #52 on: February 03, 2022, 04:37:12 am »
   YES, you are right ! But......

   I bought an early DVD Player, that is; a 'portable', plus it had the, required, OPTICAL PORT, (for surround audio).  Yeh, it 'ran too hot', went scruzntzy screen when hot, and not many movies, on DVD (1996).
The Matrix, was acting, virtually, like a DVD marketing tool; excercising every feature they could.
Yeh, too expensive, can't get shi7, BUT...
   I got a decent intro into DVD and 5.1 audio.  Yeh, my woofer bass, was a 1970's boom speaker, tweeters were $ 2 .79 crap from 79 cent store, but...

   Yeh, portable player screen was tiny, BUT: it was 1 : 2 format or whatever, just a tiny, tiny wide.
Haha, the audio player / 5.1bit stream decoder was huge, like a 1940's record player (19 inch chassis).
   Yeh, wires up the ying-yang, and very little 5.1 audio material...BUT...but that was OK,
   I GOT TO TRY 5.1 audio / DVD movies !
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Offline Circlotron

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3362
  • Country: au
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #53 on: February 03, 2022, 04:56:48 am »
For example, if you go and compare your basic run-of-the-mill 165cm model from brands such as TCL, Kogan or Hisense (at something like AUD$1000) to a more mainstream brand such as Sony, LG, or Samsung, you're going to notice quite a significant difference in quality.
Yep.
13 years ago got a HiSense and it quit just short of the 3 year warranty. Screen all green and fuzzy, no pic. Replaced free and the new one (gave it to friends) went for about 6 months and the right side of the screen went green. After the first one we went and got a Samsung and it's still going strong after 10 years.

Interesting thing, the first NonSense as I call it, ran Linux and someone did a bit of hacking on theirs and they said the X video subsystem was set for max resolution of 720p, not 1080p. The actual physical screen was 1920x1080 though.
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20357
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #54 on: February 03, 2022, 08:49:52 am »
What about BBC World service Radio? You should maybe ask international readers to comment on the world service, there are many in more 'troubled' parts of the world who rely on listening to the World Service to find out what's actually happening in their own countries. In the worst countries, governments make listening to it a punishable offence! I suspect that the BBC probably has more foreign correspondents than any other news network.
Authoritarian governments prohibit all outside media. North Koreans face death for listening to South Korean radio.

Quote
With regard to news in general. The BBC represents that ideal of a state broadcaster that is owned by the whole population, not the government (how many around the world would, and do, die for such principles). It is an organisation that can, and does, hold to account the government, of whatever flavour (and even utility companies for polution etc.), without the bias of proprietors or advertisers (show me a newspaper that doesn't have a proprietor bias either). In these days of government spin and twitter output over integrity, it is an institution that we should defend at all costs. Yes, we would all like the licence fee to be lower, but it is a small price to pay for independence. The only flaw in the system is that the government can 'punish' it for telling the truth as Benta mentioned previously.

We typically watch a couple of hours of news and current affairs in the evening, the news at 6pm for UK and main international, and then over to the BBC news channel for Open Source to get a bit more in depth on the international situation.

These days far to many get their 'news' from clips social media, complete with all the hidden agendas, misinformation, and conspiracy theories, an then have the nerve to proclaim themselves knowledgable about what is happening in the world. That's how you suddenly get the mobs turning out.

I don't mind bias, as long as I'm aware of it. I'll happily watch GB News and read the Guardian, but this difference is, I know they're biased.

The BBC are very selective about what parts of the government policy they criticize. I could give a list of examples, but it'd would be too political for this forum.

News coverage is horribly biased. They way they've dealt with COVID-19 and the government's response just proves this. They've failed to adequately challenge the government's policies: lockdown, school closures, mask mandates etc. Perhaps they were right and necessary, maybe the BBC agreed with them, or perhaps they were an over-reaction, with greater harms, than benefits, but that's not the point. It was their duty as a public broadcaster to question policies which placed the greatest restrictions on our freedoms, during peacetime.
That's not entirely true. While the BBC's actual news program coverage of COVID has been really bad, I've listened to several genuine analyses on Radio 4. Things where they have broken down government announcements, shown how deceptive they are, and basically called out the lying scumbags.
I haven't listened to Radio 4 for years. You're right, it's often more balanced than their other channels, but it has relatively low audience compared to the main news. That sort of thing should be on prime time TV.
 

Online AndyC_772

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4315
  • Country: gb
  • Professional design engineer
    • Cawte Engineering | Reliable Electronics
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #55 on: February 03, 2022, 10:12:24 am »
When did you get your OLED screen?

It's an LG CX, purchased October 2020. It's plenty bright enough, no issues there.

If there's one significant area for improvement, it would be to make it less glossy and reflective. I do see reflections of my wall lights in the screen, which are annoying, but I'm not sure I can really blame the TV for that.

Maybe my next TV will look like I'm staring at a black hole whenever it's turned off - some time around 2028 based on how long I usually keep a screen before upgrading.

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20357
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #56 on: February 03, 2022, 10:26:38 am »
When did you get your OLED screen?

It's an LG CX, purchased October 2020. It's plenty bright enough, no issues there.

If there's one significant area for improvement, it would be to make it less glossy and reflective. I do see reflections of my wall lights in the screen, which are annoying, but I'm not sure I can really blame the TV for that.

Maybe my next TV will look like I'm staring at a black hole whenever it's turned off - some time around 2028 based on how long I usually keep a screen before upgrading.
I wonder if there's some sort of material you could stick to the screen, to give it a matte finish.
 

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10034
  • Country: gb
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #57 on: February 03, 2022, 11:49:23 am »
Quote
It's an LG CX, purchased October 2020. It's plenty bright enough, no issues there.

If there's one significant area for improvement, it would be to make it less glossy and reflective. I do see reflections of my wall lights in the screen, which are annoying, but I'm not sure I can really blame the TV for that.

Maybe my next TV will look like I'm staring at a black hole whenever it's turned off - some time around 2028 based on how long I usually keep a screen before upgrading.
I wonder if there's some sort of material you could stick to the screen, to give it a matte finish.
There are certainly films you can apply. I don't know how hard it is to get them bubble free. The people I've seen apply them have no trouble, but they've done it frequently. These films won't overcome the reflectivity of the actual OLED panel, though. These panels just aren't as dark as an LCD panel when turned off in a lit room. I think LG are reluctant to add further filtering because it would also absorb some of the light from the OLEDs, and they are already doing a lot to maximise the light output from those.
 

Offline EHT

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 264
  • Country: gb
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #58 on: February 03, 2022, 07:45:38 pm »
We won't be able to agree on how to save the BBC or how crap everything is but maybe we could share info on which manufacturers are making well made TVs / Monitors from taking them apart!!?

I'm currently using a couple of HP 27" QHD monitors. The panel is made by LG, same one was used in the Mac screens. It's an enterprise model, but IMO not really upto the standard I was expecting. Various failures and only 2 modes (VGA, QHD), which ends up causing nasty problems with display drivers at times. One needed some LED chips replacing; very hard to find the right LEDs and hard to swap them. Also had PSU problem and some intermittent faults in the main board.

TV is a Samsung which does 1080p resolution, was good value, not a top end model. No problems after many years
 

Offline VK3DRB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2272
  • Country: au
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #59 on: February 03, 2022, 10:40:37 pm »
I like good visual quality, so I own a Panasonic 42" plasma TV from 2012...


And you don't mind high electricity bills, running a power guzzling TV like a plasma.
 

Online MK14

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4987
  • Country: gb
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #60 on: February 03, 2022, 11:41:09 pm »
As title says, I think an expensive TV is a VERY VERY poor  investment

My answer might be very, very difficult, for some to understand.
But it is actually the ('Buy cheap, buy/pay Twice!') cheap stuff, which (can be, but not always) is the poor investment, in the longer term.
For Example:
You save a huge amount of money, by buying a $0.49 screwdriver. It looks kind of good, until you use it, the screw head gets chewed to pieces and damages the item you were trying to open. The cheap screwdrivers shaft soon bends out of shape, and it needs to be tossed in the waste. You then buy a second one, for $9.99, a quality make. It works really well, never or almost never chews up the slot in screws, and lasts a lifetime.
My understanding is that many of the cheap TVs, are cheap because they have too few backlight LEDs, those LEDs are poorly/inadequately cooled, and fail prematurely. Somewhat pushing the owner to pay again and again for new TVs, every couple of years, or whatever the repeat period is.
tl;dr
It is cheaper to pay more, for something that will last a long time. Than to pay less, but it doesn't last very long at all, is somewhat useless, and you end up buying the higher priced item, as well, anyway.
So the more expensive one, is cheaper in the long term. If you buy a sensible long lasting TV. Even expensive ones, especially if poorly researched beforehand, can last for short periods of time.
EDITED: Big size reduction, too long.
EDIT2: As regards the TVs. I sometimes hear contradictory reports/stories/opinions on the internet. Many seem to be saying, if you buy the right/correct lower cost TVs. They can be good buys, even for the long term. So maybe the TV answer is not absolutely black and white (clear cut). As there are many claims, that some of the cheaper ones, are both reasonably good and reasonably long lasting.
So maybe the answer is (as already mentioned in this thread), do the research and get a good, long lasting one. Rather than ones that don't last very long.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2022, 12:10:32 am by MK14 »
 

Offline Circlotron

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3362
  • Country: au
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #61 on: February 04, 2022, 12:10:05 am »
My understanding is that many of the cheap TVs, are cheap because they have too few backlight LEDs, those LEDs are poorly/inadequately cooled, and fail prematurely. Somewhat pushing the owner to pay again and again for new TVs, every couple of years, or whatever the repeat period is.
Backlight LEDs are the new vacuum tubes.

That said, what was the economic life of a vacuum tube TV back in the day? Not how long it could be made to last but how long it was worth the average person getting it fixed every now and then. And the relative purchase cost compared to a normal TV nowadays? Mum and dad's first TV in 1957 seemed to last forever, a lifetime in fact. And when I was 12 it did.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2022, 05:30:27 am by Circlotron »
 

Online MK14

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4987
  • Country: gb
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #62 on: February 04, 2022, 12:22:09 am »
Backlight LEDs are the new vacuum tubes.

That said, what was the economic life of a vacuum tube TV back in the day? Not how long it could be made to last but how long it was worth the average person getting it fixed ever now and then. And the relative cost purchase compared to a normal TV nowadays? Mum and ydad's first TV in 1957 seemed to last forever, a lifetime in fact. And when I was 12 it did.

I agree with that, a good analogy.
Valve/vacuum tube TVs, tended to break every 3 months to 5 years (year of manufacture plus age/luck dependent). Later Transistor/IC TVs, could last 10, 15 or even 20+ years, with no servicing. Especially Japanese ones.

In the days of Valve/Tube TVs and early transistor/IC ones, people in the UK, tended to rent them. Because they were very expensive (relatively speaking, compared to today), potentially extremely unreliable. I'm convinced they could easily need repairing, a number of times each year.
There were certain eras, when TV rental was a big proportion of the population. Off-hand, I'm not sure of the exact years of when rentals were very common. Probably (maybe earlier), 1960s, 1970s and the early part of the 1980s I suppose.

As you say. If you own it, and it costs more to repair, than it was worth, the new TVs are better. It perhaps wasn't worth getting it repaired. Also, new TVs were better, at certain points in history, such as bigger black and white screens, faster switch on (warm up times), colour TV, more tunable stations, bigger screens, stereo sound. Remote control. As TVs became better and better, over the years.
 

Online tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7334
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #63 on: February 04, 2022, 10:03:14 am »
I like good visual quality, so I own a Panasonic 42" plasma TV from 2012...


And you don't mind high electricity bills, running a power guzzling TV like a plasma.

120W when running on a normal programme, about twice that of an LED-backlit panel.

The Kuro was 360W!  And it could peak up to 600W on the right scenes (>50% pixels white).

Still, at the current rates I'm paying the TV costs about 2 pence per hour to run.  Otherwise known as negligible.
 

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20357
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #64 on: February 04, 2022, 10:43:30 am »
CRTs often degrade slowly, rather than suddenly. A supermarket down the road from my parent's house has a CRT TV, used as a CCTV monitor. The shop opened in the mid 90s and I'm pretty sure has not changed the TV, since then. It's open on average of 12 hours per day, 7 days per week, except for say Easter, New Years and Christmas day. I don't remember exactly what year it opened, but I'll guess 1995, so the TV has been on at least 12 hours per day (it's probably also on a bit when the store is closed, whist the staff are there) for 26 years, minus three days a year, giving about 113k hours of run time. It still works, but the picture quality is poor. It's dimmed and distorted. Degaussing may partly restore it, but the electron guns and phosphor have deteriorated. One day it will just fail and they'll get a new one.
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Offline Ed.Kloonk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4000
  • Country: au
  • Cat video aficionado
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #65 on: February 04, 2022, 11:54:35 am »
CRTs often degrade slowly, rather than suddenly. A supermarket down the road from my parent's house has a CRT TV, used as a CCTV monitor. The shop opened in the mid 90s and I'm pretty sure has not changed the TV, since then. It's open on average of 12 hours per day, 7 days per week, except for say Easter, New Years and Christmas day. I don't remember exactly what year it opened, but I'll guess 1995, so the TV has been on at least 12 hours per day (it's probably also on a bit when the store is closed, whist the staff are there) for 26 years, minus three days a year, giving about 113k hours of run time. It still works, but the picture quality is poor. It's dimmed and distorted. Degaussing may partly restore it, but the electron guns and phosphor have deteriorated. One day it will just fail and they'll get a new one.

When the power goes out, the image remains on the screen?
iratus parum formica
 

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20357
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #66 on: February 04, 2022, 05:41:39 pm »
CRTs often degrade slowly, rather than suddenly. A supermarket down the road from my parent's house has a CRT TV, used as a CCTV monitor. The shop opened in the mid 90s and I'm pretty sure has not changed the TV, since then. It's open on average of 12 hours per day, 7 days per week, except for say Easter, New Years and Christmas day. I don't remember exactly what year it opened, but I'll guess 1995, so the TV has been on at least 12 hours per day (it's probably also on a bit when the store is closed, whist the staff are there) for 26 years, minus three days a year, giving about 113k hours of run time. It still works, but the picture quality is poor. It's dimmed and distorted. Degaussing may partly restore it, but the electron guns and phosphor have deteriorated. One day it will just fail and they'll get a new one.

When the power goes out, the image remains on the screen?
You mean burned into the phosphor, so the dead phosphor is visible when off? I don't know, because the TV is always on, when I'm in the shop. I've never seen it switched off.
 

Offline SeanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 16385
  • Country: za
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #67 on: February 04, 2022, 06:05:16 pm »
Plenty common with mono CRT displays, where you could read the fixed menu items power on or off. Also very common with early plasma displays, which would burn in logo places on the screen after a few months. Later ones came with a screen burn removal mode, which simply ran all pixels at full brightness in a slow moving band for a few hours. Brightness much higher than the display would normally allow, and limited to a small band so as to not overload the power supplies.
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #68 on: February 04, 2022, 06:47:31 pm »
"IPS" flat-panel displays can also suffer from burned-in images when the image does not change.
-hp- explicitly denies warranty for such displays used with unchanging images, such as surveillance monitors.
 

Online MK14

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4987
  • Country: gb
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #69 on: February 04, 2022, 07:11:03 pm »
"IPS" flat-panel displays can also suffer from burned-in images when the image does not change.
-hp- explicitly denies warranty for such displays used with unchanging images, such as surveillance monitors.

Are you really talking about IPS, or might you have meant OLED ?

I've yet to see any image retention or image burn on any IPS or LCD (IPS is a form of LCD screen, as well) monitor or TV.

I've seen it on CRTs though.

EDIT: Here is a source, where they tried on purpose to create image burns, on all 3 TV (monitor) types. It would seem their results indicate, success with creating the problem with OLED, but IPS and VA, didn't show any such issues. Over a very long period of time, such as two years.
https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/permanent-image-retention-burn-in-lcd-oled
« Last Edit: February 04, 2022, 07:45:31 pm by MK14 »
 

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20357
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #70 on: February 04, 2022, 07:55:44 pm »
"IPS" flat-panel displays can also suffer from burned-in images when the image does not change.
-hp- explicitly denies warranty for such displays used with unchanging images, such as surveillance monitors.
I've seen the same on 7 segment LED displays. There's a power supply where I work, with 24 burned in on the voltage display, which can be seen with the power off. It surprised me that the heat/light from the red LEDs was enough to bleach the filter, but I suppose it took tens of thousands of hours.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2022, 08:45:08 pm by Zero999 »
 

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13157
  • Country: ch
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #71 on: February 04, 2022, 08:33:16 pm »
"IPS" flat-panel displays can also suffer from burned-in images when the image does not change.
-hp- explicitly denies warranty for such displays used with unchanging images, such as surveillance monitors.

Are you really talking about IPS, or might you have meant OLED ?

I've yet to see any image retention or image burn on any IPS or LCD (IPS is a form of LCD screen, as well) monitor or TV.

I've seen it on CRTs though.

EDIT: Here is a source, where they tried on purpose to create image burns, on all 3 TV (monitor) types. It would seem their results indicate, success with creating the problem with OLED, but IPS and VA, didn't show any such issues. Over a very long period of time, such as two years.
https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/permanent-image-retention-burn-in-lcd-oled
It’s definitely a thing, I’ve seen it before on IPS computer displays, with the Windows task bar or Mac menu bar stuck. I’ve also seen it on ATMs and ticket machines. But it’s usually not permanent, exercising the display with video normally gets rid of it.
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9002
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #72 on: February 04, 2022, 09:30:37 pm »
This is a warranty disclaimer that I received from -hp- with my IPS monitor:

"Monitors
All Monitor models are not suitable for applications that exhibit static, stationary, or fixed images. Static images may cause image retention damage that may appear as stains or watermarks on the screen. This HP Limited Warranty does not cover monitors that are in use for applications that exhibit static, stationary, or fixed images for long periods or for 24-hours per day that result in image retention damage. To avoid image retention damage, turn off the monitor when it is not in use or use a power management setting, if supported by your system, to turn off the display when the system is idle."
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Online BrianHG

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8275
  • Country: ca
    • LinkedIn
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #73 on: February 04, 2022, 09:36:27 pm »
I spent approx 6K$ on this Mitsubishi AM3501R back in early 90s:


I thought it was a great investment.  It was the first 35inch progressive multiscan monitor which could natively go up to 38Khz even though I pushed it higher.

It was the only CRT with perfect corner-corner convergence.  Displayed 1280x960 72hz laced desktop with a legible fine font and it's color and black level regulation was near perfect.  Dead perfect smooth MPEG2 HD movies at the time.  (In the early 2000s once they became available...)

I used it up until 2015 and then gave it to a friend as a gift.  That's around 24 years of use.  How can you say an expensive TV is a poor investment, being that it was really super expensive for a 35inch display of the time.  This was the only screen at the time which save my ears from that stupid 15.7KHz coil whine noise and got rid of the flicker and every other screen was a flickery 15khz corner unfocused with terrible convergence mess which couldn't even be connected to a PC in progressive or higher speed interlaced RGB modes, let alone be usefully functional for 24 years.

And yes, the Chassis was made of real wood...
« Last Edit: February 04, 2022, 09:51:28 pm by BrianHG »
 
The following users thanked this post: SeanB, pardo-bsso, MK14

Online MK14

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4987
  • Country: gb
Re: An expensive TV is a poor investment, and people spend FAR too much on them
« Reply #74 on: February 04, 2022, 10:06:05 pm »
It’s definitely a thing, I’ve seen it before on IPS computer displays, with the Windows task bar or Mac menu bar stuck. I’ve also seen it on ATMs and ticket machines. But it’s usually not permanent, exercising the display with video normally gets rid of it.

This is a warranty disclaimer that I received from -hp- with my IPS monitor:

"Monitors
All Monitor models are not suitable for applications that exhibit static, stationary, or fixed images. Static images may cause image retention damage that may appear as stains or watermarks on the screen. This HP Limited Warranty does not cover monitors that are in use for applications that exhibit static, stationary, or fixed images for long periods or for 24-hours per day that result in image retention damage. To avoid image retention damage, turn off the monitor when it is not in use or use a power management setting, if supported by your system, to turn off the display when the system is idle."


I have heard there can be image retention issues, with IPS monitors. But it seems, that it has never applied to any IPS monitor/TV I have been involved with or seen, so far. Also, (as Tooki says), it is usually the much more minor, temporary image retention type. Which is NOT permanent, and is perhaps due to uneven heating effects or something.

What really worries me, is the PERMANENT screen burns, that can occur with OLED monitors/TVs, e.g. with fixed/stationary images, while watching OLED TVs. Especially if it has been set to a bright setting, and especially with older OLED TVs. The later and later generations of OLED TVs, have used techniques to try and at least reduce, the possibility and effects of permanent screen burn. But it is still suppose to be a problem with OLED screens.

tl;dr
I don't seem to ever encounter or significantly hear of screen burn or image retention issues on IPS screens. I have (rarely) seen reports about it, but not often enough to really believe it. As the internet is a very big place, and you can usually get people claiming all sorts of weird things, such as free energy devices, Elvis is still alive, etc.

Whereas, I've heard a lot about OLED screens, getting permanent screen burn and/or bad image retention problems.

I don't hugely react to the warning in the manual you quoted (thanks for that). Because, sometimes manuals warn about all sorts of things, just to defend themselves in court and other reasons, rather than necessarily actual problems.

But I do concede, I have heard rumors of IPS image retention, and I have also seen lots of things (as sometimes, I'm very interested in that subject area), which say that later/modern IPS screens, have somewhat badly cut-corners, to save money, rather than make a quality, long lasting product. By moving to Edge-Lit LED backlighting, with too few LEDs, running too hot, with too little cooling. Which are not expected to last a long time and/or be reliable.
Which perhaps (overheating in panel), maybe makes issues with the LCD (which probably don't like high temperatures), which could be image retention.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf