Had a B9 for 4 years got a C1 2 years and two C2s, one I use as a pc monitor . stuff that implemented now negates it massively if you had it in 24/7 on a logo then maybe but the average person won’t see it, the JL stuff was probably relevant a few years ago but like lots of domestic insurance it’s a gimmick now. I’m in avforums and have been a long time and it’s very rare on new sets. The picture etc far outweighs any issues I have with burn in, the price is tumbling on them and will only come down, if you were to get it in 5 years you could just buy a new better model.
LG's fixes will continue to reduce the problem, hopefully they can now improve their build to a fit for purpose standard. However only the passing of time time will tell how well they've done. Its the nature of the beast that makes this tech behave the way it does, its Organic and the diodes will deteriorate and dim at different levels dependent on usage tendered.
Other underling factors, such as OLED luminance levels, replacement of the carbon-hydrogen bonds in the organic element and a better understanding of how static logos banners have impacted the tech. Some TV stations are now dimming down logos to a third of their saturation, which should help. Why not just be rid of them altogether?
How do you know with any level of certainty that these new sets are immune to the anomaly? They are new sets and so it takes time for the problem to surface.
Re your last paragraph .. that is what I mentioned in my last post to Mr Thaksin. If he could buy a warranty from John Lewis for 5 years, then buy a set at his target price of 1k .. he would have achieved VFM at 50p a day. Price v longevity of a given product is equal to the value offered. The worry of burn out is then negated.
Its a shame isn't it, that LG will not supply warranty's for something that they say, is the fault of the end user.
They know screen burn out exists, and they know why this is. Its inherent in it's nature that its pixels will eventually fade when faced with static objects on screen or logos and banners. This is why they continue to spend a kings ransom trying to rectify, with their special "fixes"
The judge agreed, that the above mentioned logos banners are an integral part of a tv's picture, and that LG'S product if it was of satisfactory quality should have be able to handle this.
We all buy TV's to watch pictures that move around on the screen and it is not unreasonable to expect that this should continue for a reasonable period of time ( 5 or 10 years dependent on hours used) and at a reasonable uniformity and brightness. If it does not then the TV is either faulty or not fit for it's intended purpose and the manufacturer or retailer should cover this in the supplied warranty.
No sensible person can transcribe to the train of thought, that a manufacturer can say that because we watched logos on Good Morning Britain, Sky News or banners on Football for X number of hours a day, we have damaged the TV with our viewing habits. How dare we watch TV in this manner.
Anyway we shall see how these newer
better improved sets (which they probably are) perform after a few more years of usage. RTINGS.COM are still doing tests and all their previous findings are on their site.
I hope the tech can at last overcome it's Achilles heel, by building TV's with a reasonable life span. The OLED picture quality is a thing of beauty, so I am not anti OLED. Fact of the matter is that I couldn't justify a 3k outlay for 2 years of use. Lg/Curry's lost their case because their goods were not of merchantable quality, and not fit for purpose. I have other family members with 19 plate sets that are knackered with the Neflix logo and sky news banners.
