From improvements in the efficiency of OLED materials to software developments and new testing techniques, OLED burn-in risk has been lowered. OLED monitors are generally a more sound investment than ever—at least for the right person.
The TL;DR is now pixels get tracked for how long they’ve been lit. Then the device can evenly burn out the other pixels so the usage is uniform. The trade off is you are going to lose max brightness in the name of screen uniformity.
The other point is a shifting of the TFT layer that people think is burn-in, but it’s actually image retention. But, it is solved by these TV maintenance cycles. Just hope that this compensation cycle actually runs since some panels just fail to run them.
Checkout this RTings video for a good overview of lots of different TV brands and how they perform.
PS: Burn-in is actually a misnomer from the CRT era. There’s nothing burning in; the pixels are burning (wearing) out.
I’m still using a monitor from 2010 on a daily basis. This consumerist throw away bullshit can go crawl back to the 20th century and die.
CCFL-lit LCDs are so inefficient compared to modern LED-lit LCDs that you’ve probably spent enough more on electricity by now to have bought a more efficient monitor.
I can’t speak to the environmental impact, though. Producing the new monitor emitted some amount of CO2, and powering each monitor takes some amount of CO2 per unit time. At some amount of use, the newer monitor will have lower lifetime CO2 generation than your old monitor.
Not OP but my electicity is <$0.10 / kWh because of where I live. It seems like it would take much more than 13 years to hit the break even point on upgrading the monitor just because of energy efficiency.
Even if the newer monitor has less of a lifetime environmental impact, throwing out the old still working one is still wasteful. It’s already made and working. Using it longer lessens your environmental impact. If you repair the old one when it eventually breaks, that’s still less of an impact than an extra ~20% electricity usage. Especially since electricity generation is getting greener all the time.
This is a good read.
On a side note: Anyone remember the story of the guy that went on vacation and his buddy watching the place left the gay porn on pause on the plasma screen as a joke?
I will not use oled monitors with desktop pc. With my usage, I would have burn in in 2 years if not sooner. Not counting that, I would still have that thought in my mind, that if I use it more, I will get burn in, and anytime I’m leaving the pc, even if only for a minute, I should turn it off. I like good contrast and blacks, so my next monitor will probably be good VA with local dimming.
I’m not going to change my habits for a monitor. Hiding the taskbar is annoying, as Windows randomly has the habit of not showing it.
Also there will be static elements on it for 16+ hours at least on the weekend. 8 to 13 under the week. Some buttons are bright some orange.
Brightness can’t be lowered much as I don’t have many options to mitigate the sun unless I fully cover the window (bright reflection neighbor houses at different daytimes + normal sun + mirrors on walls etc.)
What if I do a 48h gaming session? Can I throw it in the trash afterwards?
I only read the headline but isn’t part of it WOLED. Using dedicated white subpixels reduces the workload of the other pixels
According to the article, QD-OLED can also improve the image burn-in by using firmware and algorithm.
Counting the hour uses, leveling with most burnt pixels, reduce the luminosity, giving pixels extra luminosity to use when there is burnt in.
