Plasma Burn In & Gaming

[Namrok]

I posted in the AV forum about this, but I don't think anyone actually goes there :P So sorry for this, but I'm buying a TV soon and I really want to know.

All the official literature I read about plasmas says not to play games with static HUDs or channels with logos or other stationary imagery for more than 5% of the time the TV is on. It especially urges you to avoid this for the first 100 hours or so.

Have any of you that own plasma actually had problems with this? I mean I assume there are plenty of gamers here, and hopefully a few with plasma, so I'm curious about your experiences with burn in or residual images.

[evilghost]

I own a 42" Phillips plasma, I've played Halo 1, Halo 2, and tons of other games as well for long times on end. The screen will periodically shift to avoid burn-in but after gaming on a black screen with no signal the HUD is still visible. Watching TV for about 30 minutes or leaving it on a grey screen fixes it.

[Namrok]

Do you have to watch TV or put up a grey screen to get rid of the residual image, or will it go away on its own?

[evilghost]

Goes away on it's own, naturally. I can't see it at all watching TV, I only see it when there is no image or an all black screen. I've never had permanent burn-in even with long gaming with a HUD.

[Libertysyclone]

Buy an LCD and dont worry about it.

I have a 42" sharp aquos, paid $1400 does full 1080p with a 6ms response time. I game a lot on it.

[Namrok]

I'm looking at a 50" for less than $2000.

A 1080 DLP or a 720 Plasma are my only options in that size and price.

[evilghost]

I prefer plasma over LCD due to response time and not being stuck at LCD native resolution.

[Lyme]

I've seen newer plasma tv that had burn in, the guy watched live football for eight hours strait.. He's got a nice little hud on the screen now.

As for the screen shifting thing.. well.. if your scoreboard/hud is always on the bottom 1/8th the screen, even shifting it doesn't move it much, it will still burn in.

[Revs]

There is a way to get rid of quite bad burn-it on plasmas. My mate (infusion2k7) used to sell em. He was telling me there was an ex-demo plasma in the shop that had pretty bad burn-in from a logo being displayed on the screen for ages but they got rid of it some how. I'll find out and post back.

Personally i'd avoid plasmas for gaming, just my opinion.

[vandalous]

I've got a 42" plasma that has some significant burn in from PC use. Activating the pixel shift and color inverse options helped a bit, as did running snow and gray screen for extended amounts of time but it didn't totally eliminate the images.

I suggest that you look at LCD for gaming if you're concerned about burn in. Note that LCD's can get a burn-in effect called image persistence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_persistence) but is temporary and usually easily fixed.

I just got a 52" LCD for USD$2200 so the prices are coming down. You may be able to find your 50" for 2 grand or so.

[Revs]

....they got rid of it some how. I'll find out and post back.

It's a free, erm, thingy. Apparently it can sort some stuck pixels out too.

http://www.jscreenfix.com/

JScreenFix repairs stuck pixels through rapid, repetitive operation and resonance. Most stuck pixels are repaired within 20 minutes.

I've got a stuck pixel on my screen. I'll give it a go and report back.

[Rakeesh]

I'm looking at a 50" for less than $2000.

A 1080 DLP or a 720 Plasma are my only options in that size and price.

DLP has major line of sight issues - not very pleasant if you ever watch it from anywhere but straight in front of it. Plasma uses too much energy, gets way too hot, and burn-in happens regardless of shifting or whatever.

Burn-in is the result of uneven aging. If you keep a certain image on the screen for a while, then some of those phosphors will age faster than others. You may not necessarily see a coherent image that gets burned in if you don't keep a constant image there (e.g. shift away now and then,) but one part of the screen will be at least slightly different in appearance from other parts of the screen.

Unlike phosphors, liquid crystal does not age with use. The crystal rods can "stay" in place if held there for a while, but this can be fixed by turning them on and off several times. That jscreen fix thing does this rapidly.

I prefer plasma over LCD due to response time and not being stuck at LCD native resolution.

Plasma has a "native resolution" per se, as like LCD and DLP, it is a fixed pixel display. Any setup, regardless of the display technology, can be better or worse at non-native resolutions depending on the scaling hardware. Except of course CRT.

[Dr.Nick]

Buy an LCD and dont worry about it.

I have a 42" sharp aquos, paid $1400 does full 1080p with a 6ms response time. I game a lot on it.

I got the same one not long ago and it truly is amazing for the money. Its my TV, PC monitor, and console player and its never had anything even close to burn-in even after 10+ hour WoW marathons lol. It's also phenomenal at displaying full screen 720p content.

To OP; something to check on the TV that I never thought about but is really important(imo at least) is the inputs are 1:1 capable.

[betterdan]

DLP is the best bang for the buck and the bull about it not being very pleasant to watch unless right in front of it is just that bull. It may lose a little brightness if viewed at a large angle but hardly unpleasant to watch.
Drawbacks are that they are bigger cabinets than a LCD but still not all that big. Some people may see the "rainbows" with older DLPs and some new ones but most cannot see them.
I've got a 1080P Mitsubishi 52 inch DLP and I love it. Sharpest damn picture I think I've seen and no we don't all sit right in front of it. :p

If you don't have much room then I would look into maybe an LCD but if it were me I'd stay away from plasmas.

[Namrok]

I ended up getting the Samsung 50" 720P Plasma. They didn't have any of the Samsung 50" 1080P LED Engine DLP's in stock, plus just like the other one I saw, the bottom of the screen was noticeably dimmer, which is something that would drive me nuts!

But the 50" really dominates my apartment. I think thats about all the TV this place can handle. Good times. Halo 3 looks amazing on it. As does Project Gotham Racing 4 and Gears of War. Spun up a dvd of Battlestar Galactica and it looked great. I also scoped out my Wii using Resident Evil 4 and it looked fantastic. Better than on my 32" 720P LCD in fact. But that might just be the afterglow of my purchase and I'll start noticing the jaggies again tomorrow.

[betterdan]

Congratulations. :)
Be careful with the games burning in, hopefully they have reduced the burn in potential. Anyone know if the newer plasmas are less susceptible to it?

[-=Gib-McFragger=-]

DLP has major line of sight issues - not very pleasant if you ever watch it from anywhere but straight in front of it. My Toshiba DLP has no issue with line of sight I can watch it from 45 degrees or so offcenter and it still looks fine. Any more than that and it begins to darken, but only barely.

Trust me, I was also worried about the viewing angle issues before I bought this DLP because I had seen the old rear projection TV's and they sucked. I was actually shocked that my DLP looks great from almost any angle, but it does. I would recommend a newer DLP to anyone. Best bang for the buck when it comes to screen size, by far. :)

[Rakeesh]

DLP is the best bang for the buck and the bull about it not being very pleasant to watch unless right in front of it is just that bull. It may lose a little brightness if viewed at a large angle but hardly unpleasant to watch.

Well, every time I go to any electronics store, the DLP setups are always too dark unless you are standing in front of it. At least, compared to plasma and LCD anyways. If you go any greater than about 30 degrees off center, then it starts to get hard to see things.

Contrast to that of LCD where if you go 80 degrees off center you can still see everything on even the worst setup. I can still see the image just fine on mine at roughly 87 degrees off center, I would be able to read the text on the screen too if it weren't for the fact that I just plain can't read text from that angle on any surface.

I haven't looked at plasma much but I imagine it is the same way in that regard.

Viewing angle isn't the entire thing either though, keep in mind DLP has worse contrast issues than LCD does, and not to mention not being as sharp, namely due to the way it has to individually cycle through the color chromats.

As for bang for your buck - my 1080p 47" LCD cost me $1,295. I can't find any comparable DLP setups for that price.

DLP can provide an advantage over LCD and plasma in some setups, namely where you can keep the room dark all the time. I wouldn't use it for gaming though.

[betterdan]

Well, every time I go to any electronics store, the DLP setups are always too dark unless you are standing in front of it. At least, compared to plasma and LCD anyways. If you go any greater than about 30 degrees off center, then it starts to get hard to see things.

Contrast to that of LCD where if you go 80 degrees off center you can still see everything on even the worst setup. I can still see the image just fine on mine at roughly 87 degrees off center, I would be able to read the text on the screen too if it weren't for the fact that I just plain can't read text from that angle on any surface.

I haven't looked at plasma much but I imagine it is the same way in that regard.

About everytime I go to an electronics store all the tvs look like crap. If you judge picture quality from store setups you are asking for trouble.

I know you don't have much experience with DLPs except for inside a store but trust me, we can see the tv just fine at an angle so I won't even get into that non issue. ;)
Viewing angle isn't the entire thing either though, keep in mind DLP has worse contrast issues than LCD does, and not to mention not being as sharp, namely due to the way it has to individually cycle through the color chromats.
Really? Can you please post any links to information you have that says all DLPs have "worse contrast issues" than LCD does and that they aren't as sharp as any LCDs?
I would imagine some cheap DLPs are worse just like some cheap LCDs are worse.I have to doubt though that DLPs in general have any significant contrast issues as compared to a LCD of the same quality. Same with sharpness.
Just for poops and laughs here's an article from Sound and Vision (yea it's from 2005 but hey it's what came up when i googled DLP vs LCD) where they compare a DLP set and an LCD set. Pretty interesting. http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/features/837
Here's also a CNET comparison on the different tvs (it says the article was from 3/18/2003 but updated 8/20/2007) where DLPs and LCDs were pretty comparable to each other. It does state that DLPs do introduce a bit more low-level video noise but then it also says that LCDs can have a screen-door effect. It also says that DLPs have better black levels and that is one thing I noticed on ours when we first hooked it up was the excellent black levels and shadow detail.
Both types have their pros and cons and I think both are pretty comparable with no real shining winner over the other from what I have seen and read. Then again if you have any info to the contrary please post it.

As for bang for your buck - my 1080p 47" LCD cost me $1,295. I can't find any comparable DLP setups for that price.
Our 1080P 52" DLP cost $1699. I did a quick look and I couldn't find any LCD that size for close to the price we paid. That's why I think it is the best bang for the buck. What brand is yours by the way? Ours like I said is a Mitsubishi which is by no means a cheap brand.

DLP can provide an advantage over LCD and plasma in some setups, namely where you can keep the room dark all the time. I wouldn't use it for gaming though.
:lol: So people can't really watch DLPs and have a good quality picture unless you keep the room dark all the time? Come on man where are you getting this info from? That's just ridiculous. I have never seen anywhere that someone has said that until you just did. Again we own one so trust me this is not true. Sure the tv won't look as good if you are getting a big sun glare on the screen but then I imagine that is not a DLP only problem.;)
As for you not wanting to use a DLP set for gaming why is that? There are no burn in issues, the picture quality should be every bit as great as a comparable quality LCD and the black levels should be just as comparable if not slightly better. Weird statement.

I think a person just has to weigh the pros and cons of each technology and see whats best for them. Some things may bother some people while others may not care at all.
I happen to think DLPs are a better way to go and you like LCD better, nothing wrong with that. I know sometimes it's hard wading through some of the misinformation that is put out. I just wanted to post some things that I have had experience with and seen articles about so that people can get a better idea about where DLP stands. I think a lot of people just pass over them because the LCDs are just "sexier" looking and thin which is fine if that's really what you are needing but if the physical size is not a big priority DLPs to me are a better alternative when you get a bigger comparable quality picture for usually less money.

Whew, I'm done :)

Edit: I just noticed that both of those links I posted were to comparisons of DLPs and LCD rear projection sets.

[Am_I_Evil]

As for bang for your buck - my 1080p 47" LCD cost me $1,295. I can't find any comparable DLP setups for that price.


here's a bigger 1080p DLP cheaper than what you paid:
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-HLT5076S-UltraSlim-1080p-HDTV/dp/B000N4Z39G/ref=sr_1_3/102-3476763-8760160?ie=UTF8&m=ASH1H6YCFH4EF&s=audio-video&qid=1193212258&sr=1-3

not getting in on the argument...just showing that there are large DLPs for around that same price...

[Rakeesh]

About everytime I go to an electronics store all the tvs look like crap. If you judge picture quality from store setups you are asking for trouble.

I know you don't have much experience with DLPs except for inside a store but trust me, we can see the tv just fine at an angle so I won't even get into that non issue. ;)

No it isn't the only experience, rather it is the way I get the best direct comparison. Believe me, I even wanted to get a DLP setup before I got LCD because at the time they were so much cheaper (at the time I bought mine they were roughly the same price, and I preferred LCD, hence...) I even bought one once and had it in my house, and I just wasn't impressed with it so I returned it.

Really? Can you please post any links to information you have that says all DLPs have "worse contrast issues" than LCD does and that they aren't as sharp as any LCDs?

I would imagine some cheap DLPs are worse just like some cheap LCDs are worse.I have to doubt though that DLPs in general have any significant contrast issues as compared to a LCD of the same quality. Same with sharpness.

Remember that DLP is another form of projection technology, you are invariably going to deal with refraction, with LCD otoh you are looking directly at the display source.

Just for poops and laughs here's an article from Sound and Vision (yea it's from 2005 but hey it's what came up when i googled DLP vs LCD) where they compare a DLP set and an LCD set. Pretty interesting. http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/features/837
Here's also a CNET comparison on the different tvs (it says the article was from 3/18/2003 but updated 8/20/2007) where DLPs and LCDs were pretty comparable to each other. It does state that DLPs do introduce a bit more low-level video noise but then it also says that LCDs can have a screen-door effect.

That depends on how close you sit to the screen and how large the pixels are. With pretty much any 1080p LCD you won't get that.

It also says that DLPs have better black levels and that is one thing I noticed on ours when we first hooked it up was the excellent black levels and shadow detail.

Yeah DLP will have better black levels, there is no doubt about that.

Our 1080P 52" DLP cost $1699. I did a quick look and I couldn't find any LCD that size for close to the price we paid. That's why I think it is the best bang for the buck. What brand is yours by the way? Ours like I said is a Mitsubishi which is by no means a cheap brand.

Mine is a Westinghouse. Cheap brand but well known to be a good brand.

:lol: So people can't really watch DLPs and have a good quality picture unless you keep the room dark all the time? Come on man where are you getting this info from?

A combination of personal experience and various review sources. But no, that isn't what I am saying either. I am saying that DLP picture quality is affected by ambient lighting more than LCD or Plasma.

here's a bigger 1080p DLP cheaper than what you paid:
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-HLT5076S-UltraSlim-1080p-HDTV/dp/B000N4Z39G/ref=sr_1_3/102-3476763-8760160?ie=UTF8&m=ASH1H6YCFH4EF&s=audio-video&qid=1193212258&sr=1-3

not getting in on the argument...just showing that there are large DLPs for around that same price...

One other thing I didn't bring up though, is every 1,000 to 2,000 hours you have to buy a new bulb for DLP units.

[Lyme]

Remember that DLP is another form of projection technology, you are invariably going to deal with refraction, with LCD otoh you are looking directly at the display source.

Not really, the lightsource is typically a halogen light that is routed through the Liquid Crystal Display and then to you. Plasma would be the only one where you are looking directly at the display source.


That depends on how close you sit to the screen and how large the pixels are. With pretty much any 1080p LCD you won't get that.


The pixel size on a 1:1 LCD and 1:1 DLP of the same size, is rougly the same size.


A combination of personal experience and various review sources. But no, that isn't what I am saying either. I am saying that DLP picture quality is affected by ambient lighting more than LCD or Plasma.


I don't find that to be as true as it once was. Rear projection tv's were horrible in daylight and still are. DLP sets are quite comparable to both LCD and Plasma. When I say DLP, I specifically mean the sets that have the Toshiba Digital Light Projection engine in them, and not the comparable ones by Sony or other manufacturers.


One other thing I didn't bring up though, is every 1,000 to 2,000 hours you have to buy a new bulb for DLP units.

It is rated at 8,000 hours and the LED ones are rated even longer. However that being said, while real world tests and statistical analysis can give you a general indicator of how long something likely should last, this indicatore does not infer how long something will actually last. As such my dlp set bought in 2004 is still on the same bulb and we use it significantly more than eight hours a day, every day.

[Am_I_Evil]

One other thing I didn't bring up though, is every 1,000 to 2,000 hours you have to buy a new bulb for DLP units.

where do you come up with these numbers? :eek2:

i bought mine in June 2006....use it for more than 8 hours most days probably except for work days...and even then it probably gets at least 5 and its probably more than 8 hours on my days off...

i know i've used well over 2,000 hours...the bulb is still completely fine....

and what's wrong with buying a lamp every few years for a a little over a $100 (i can get one for mine for $129.99) and then basically having a "new" TV after the replacement...

[Libertysyclone]

I got the same one not long ago and it truly is amazing for the money. Its my TV, PC monitor, and console player and its never had anything even close to burn-in even after 10+ hour WoW marathons lol. It's also phenomenal at displaying full screen 720p content.

To OP; something to check on the TV that I never thought about but is really important(imo at least) is the inputs are 1:1 capable.

VERY GOOD POINT!!! its also called bit to bit. this makes for the most crisp picture possible :)

[betterdan]

We pretty much have our DLP set on at least 6-8 hours a day. On the weekends it has been known to be on all day. I know we shouldn't do it but a lot of times it is on while no one is even watching it. I like leaving it on for background noise while I'm on the computer. Yea I know, dumb. ;)
Anyways we got the tv last Novemeber so I figure that's about 330 days ago. I'll be conservative and say for those 330 days it was on average turned on for 7 hours each day. That's 2310 hours. I know the bulb won't last a real long time doing what we keep doing but that's ok, we bought the tv to enjoy how we want. So far the tv has worked like a champ and the brightness hasn't diminished at all where we would have to go into the menu and increase it's setting.
Now keep in mind I didn't leave it at the torch setting like they are usually set at in stores to make them look brighter and supposedly better in those well lit stores. I have mine set on natural and the warm color temp which is significantly lower contrast and brightness than the brilliant and cool color setting. This is not only necessary for the best picture quality, it also helps prolong the bulb life a lot I would imagine.
I'll post on here when I have to replace the bulb, hopefully it's a long time from now but if not the warranty will cover it for the next 2 years so no more extra money out of my pocket. And like someone said, once the bulb is replaced (by myself) it's like a brand new tv right out of the box again. I prefer this method personally rather than having to deal with anything like dead pixels on an LCD which would be costlier than a bulb replacement when out of warranty I imagine and would not be able to be repaired by the average person at home.
Not saying that it's common to have dead pixels or anything but the potential is there.