![]() In panel 2, the subpixels of a specific HUD will be stuck for only 1/5th (20%) of your total on-screen time. In panel 1, the subpixels in the HUD area will be stuck showing the same color 100% of the time, while the remaining subpixels will be displaying varying content. After all, panel 1 only has to deal with the stress of running a single HUD for 2000 hours, while panel 2 has to deal with 5 different HUDs for 2000 hours each. ![]() You run each of them for 2000 hours, for a total of 10000 cumulative hours.Īt first sight, it might look like panel 2 is in for a much worse experience. In panel 2 you run 5 different games (each of them with their own unique HUD design and color pallets, as we see in real life) - you run one game for every day of the week. In panel 1 you run a game with a fixed HUD for 2000 hours. Let's suppose you start off with 2 identical OLED panels: The more varied the content, the less burn-in risk you have. The short answer is running always the same game will be more dangerous than running multiple games. I think what you're asking is if running a single game 4 hours a day is riskier than running a different game 4 hours a day, each with its own static HUD. Though not be too concerned as every pixel refresh cycle would be roughly equivalent to maybe a few extra hours of regular use every time its run, but in general its still better to vary the content you are consuming over time if you want to get the most out of your OLED panel's lifetime rather than burning it away with pixel refreshing just to prevent burn in. This is sort of what the "pixel refresher" does when activated, it simply wears down all the pixels evenly and readjusts the voltage so make burn in less noticeable, but at the cost of decreasing the total lifetime of the panel and having diminishing returns on reducing burn-in each time its run. This is because other pixels will have also worn down as well and when given same amount of increased voltage compensation for the wear over time, the difference between the most worn pixels and least worn pixels are much less noticeable. However, if you have a total of 4000 hours of varied usage on the screen where only 400 hours of those hours had you playing games with that static HUD, the screen will have more even total screen wear after 4000 hours thus making the effect of the HUD burn in much less noticeable or likely not noticeable at all (probably around 1/10 the amount of burn in than you would see with the 400 hour of static HUD only case). So to your example, if you accumulate 4 hours a day of wear on a static hud from a game for 3 months, you could start to see some burn-in after 400 hours of pixel wear applied to the screen where the bright HUD elements decayed faster than other parts of the screen within that time to become noticeable as burn in. Eventually some pixels will end up getting brighter or darker given the same voltage relative than other pixels from uneven pixel wear which is what you see as burn in. Over the lifetime of the panel, the TV counters the effect of pixel wear brightness decay by channeling more voltage to the screen over time. If you only play 1 game with a static hud, and no other games or content, the HUD will wear out the pixels faster than other pixels on the screen. That reputation wouldn’t exist if there wasn’t proven reliability.īurn in is the result of uneven pixel wear over time. The TLDR point is LG OLED has a solid and glowing reputation as one of the best TVs for gaming. I’ve had a Samsung LED need a panel replacement after a year, and I don’t think anyone would classify that as a issue towards Samsung LED TVs, but rather just my particular tv was faulty. However, if someone’s screen does burn quick, it may be that particular panel rather than OLED as a whole. That’s not to say burn in hasn’t happened or won’t happen. The C9 will be 3 years old this year, if there was a mass amount of issues we’d know and LGs reputation as a gaming OLED would plummet. If there was significant issues then their success would’ve flamed out on the 9series. ![]() The C1 is not LGs first OLED, and it’s not their first that’s “centered” around gaming. Which would be true, but it wouldn’t lead to the long term success, support and praise they’ve received. I’m sure some could say “yeah but they’re a big bad corporation, so they’d have no issue lying and selling crap”. They wouldn’t be able to have the support they have if their TVs were a liability in gaming. LG has placed themselves as the tv that’s best for gaming. ![]() Sony produces OLED tvs as well, in fact Sony is usually rated higher for viewing experience, but absolutely no one would recommend a Sony OLED over LG OLED if the sole purpose is gaming. LG has intentionally promoted and created their OLED TV to be a focal point of gaming. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |