Comment by kuerbel
4 hours ago
I have an iirc 8 year old oled tv from LG. It has terrible burn in, especially red was hit hard. I wonder how true rgb might compare. The picture quality is probably worse, but if it holds up longer than oled it might be worth the trade off.
One anecdote for another - I have an LG CX which released in 2020. It's on basically 24/7 (rotating photos through a Chromecast when not actively in use), occasionally I'll turn it off at night. It does regular pixel cleaning on its own that sleeps the panel for a few minutes.
I've not seen any burn-in.
All of these burnout 'tests' I've seen (this one, and RTings as well) purposefully use static content and are basically abusing the panel in a way that is specifically advised against. I find them pretty useless for anything not an office TV on the wall running CNN 24/7, which I will never be doing myself.
I don't think anyone familiar with the tech will deny using these panels in such a way will cause burn-in, even the test here:
> ...static desktop content such as web browsers, document editors, and spreadsheets, along with creative apps like Photoshop and Premiere. We don't recommend using an OLED monitor like this. These displays are best suited to content consumption[...]
I think it's pretty avoidable on a TV, the real issue comes from what you need out of a desktop monitor. I have a Dell/Alienware (Samsung QD-OLED Panel) that's about a year old without any visible issues, but it's still early to tell in that case.
The tech has gotten better, but the problem still very much exists.
I thought LG uses color filters (or quantum dots) with the same OLED color for every sub pixel. Which would mean individual colors can't age differently. That would only be possible for RGB OLEDs. But even for RGB, you would assume red degrades the slowest, because it has the longest wavelength and therefore the least energy.