Talk:Screen burn-in

message: If I have a link for a company that sells a product that can fix this, should I post it?
--Machtzu 13:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can it be fixed?  I mean in a CRT, unless you open the tube, remove the bad phosphor and replace it with new, then somehow reseal the tube and put it under vacuum again, I don't think so. 137.246.200.49 22:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: If I have a link

message: We need a cool picture for this. 63.226.28.130 17:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We need a cool picture

message: The article describes the process of traditional phosphor CRT burn-in, but also mentions plasma displays at one point.  Are any other types of display (eg TFT/LCD) susceptible to burning, or are they immune?  If they also suffer burn-in, is the mechanism of failure different in any way? --131.111.8.103 19:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  In a CRT: Reduced, maybe.  Eliminated, no.  You are still shooting electrons at the phosphor unless the area is black, where the electronics in the unit will shut off the beam.  As for an LCD I think the phrase burn-in is a misnomer - you are not shooting electrons at the screen, you are just merely modifying the opacity of that particular pixel.  I think the problem would still occur because it is a property of the liquid crystal to stay in that state if there long enough.  Here, check out this java app from Colorado U. Physics dept.:   137.246.200.49 22:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Above, I do not have a reference except my own memories and those of colleagues I have met during 20 years of computing and IT work.  I am currently searching the web for others' experiences and old manufacturers manuals so I can link them here.  I have added quite a bit of explanation to the Prevention section, as well as adding a section on History.  In the history of this problem, as I wrote in the article, in times long past there were procedures from different display manufacturers to prevent phosphor burn-in.  Often the times that the procedures were to be performed varied from mfr' to mfr'.  This tells me that where one mfr' would say the procedure would take 72 hrs., and another took only 48 hrs., the latter clearly had a better formulation of phosphor chemicals or some other abatement scheme.  If you check the wiki page on phosphor I believe there are several formulations of phosphor listed at the bottom of the article.  Which of these was used in what exactly I do not know; the mfr' rarely, if ever, stated it in the manuals.  As to the physics of the problem, I am not sure that it was even studied to any extent.  Sounds like a good Master's thesis for someone... 137.246.200.49 22:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The article describes the process

message: "Indeed if the on-screen picture included a very bright object on a black background, when the camera panned a smearing effect could be discerned."
I'm not sure how much of this was caused by the TV set, as this smearing is noticeable with any video recording made with most types of tube-based video cameras (i.e. most video from before the '90s). I think there should be some discussion of tube cameras in this article as well, as I assume burn-in is an issue with them too. --Zilog Jones 12:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My recollection ( of the detail - learned 40 years ago and now a bit flakey ) is that the fairly short term ( but noticeable ) retention by a videcon of plumbicon camera tube was due to the successive number of scans ( and therefore a finite time ) required to deliver enough beam current to cancel out the electric charge that was initially acquired because of the exposure to a bright object. 188.74.124.1 (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

text: There is some cited discussion of this at . It doesn't explain the mechanism that causes the effect. ~Kvng (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burn-in on tube cameras 

message: I got a question, so I have a 20 inch Regular TV in my room. If I play my Xbox 360 on it. If I leave a graphic on it for a long time, will it burn -in to my TV Screen? --Luke Vandelanotte (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Burn-in on Regular TV

message: "In many cases the use of a screensaver is impractical."
Why is the use of a screensaver impractical? The next sentence even says that the methods for reducing screen burn-in are not perfect. Using a screensaver is free to the user so why would it be impractical to use one?  Cpyder 17:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Monitors used for advertising or product display, for example, can't serve their function if they have a screensaver active (unless they utilise some kind of sensor mechanism to toggle off the screensaver whenever a customer is near) but are still suspectible for burn-in. 88.112.62.154 (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Cpyder. I think there was a period of about 6 or so years during the 2000's where, for most purposes screensavers were considered no longer necessary due to technology changes. However technology changes have, once again, required that more and more OSs and gamesystems actively build screen-savers because TVs are suffering from burn issues more than ever. The entire section on prevention needs to be re-written.. - Ravi 98.232.223.246 (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

text: My Philips 243V has severe "burn-in" after using a chart application on it all day for a few months. It is a IPS panel so those who want to argue can say it's "not" a burn-in but if you put a solid blue image on it then you see white lines and spots all over it. I find the suggestion that you can "prevent" this by using a screensaver idiotic. If you are in front of a computer monitor watching charts then you're not going to think "hey, I should put on a screensaver and not look at the markets because idiots think this is why you bought the monitor". A computer monitor is meant to be used as such. Perhaps those who sell Plasma TVs and get calls from customers who used it as a monitor can claim "it's a TV, not a computer screen" but a computer screen IS a computer screen and you're supposed to be able to use it as such and not have to put on a screensaver regularly - this basically means you can't used it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:DC2E:1:3182:A400:9624:3DA2 (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Prevention

message: Are LED televisions affected by burn-in?
--82.42.188.10 (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affect LED TV's? 

message: I don't want to make any edits as I've had admins (or some kinda authority) accuse me of going against guidelines(which I may have been as I still haven't read them) but I thought I should re-mention the fact that an advertisement seems to be used as a reference.
 "AMOLED Burn-in Fixer". Brendon Sled, Google Play Store. Retrieved 15 March 2016.
This doesn't seem to provide the proof, that the reference, would imply it was providing. I'm not saying there is no proof that burn in can be ameliorated but the reference isn't one that supports the idea.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.134.11.76 (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again Advertising 

message: "This is because the phosphor compounds which emit light to produce images lose their luminance with use"
I've seen burned in images on unplugged CRT monitors (that have been unplugged for days). So if the image is present because some of the phosphor compounds lost their luminescence then how is the image apparent when there is no light being emitted from any of the phosphor compounds? I think this is something that should be cleared up in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.113.121.45 (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a chemist by I presume they lose luminance and become discolored as they wear out from use. ~Kvng (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phosphor compounds lose their luminance? 

message: Screen burn-in#Historical notes has been tagged as unsourced since 2015. Maybe it is time to try and resolve this. As I see it, the section contains two unsourced assertions:
#The Indian-head test pattern was the most prevalent burned in image on early TVs
#Manufacturers didn't recommend leaving their products on overnight
Assertion 1 passes the sniff test but is this just an WP:OR deduction or something that was discussed in sources back in the day?
Relating to assertion 2, there is an HTML comment pointing to an archive of manuals where we presumably may find support for the manufacturer recommendations. However per current wording in the article, we're looking for a citation that proves a negative: absence of a recommendation to leave your TV on overnight. ~Kvng (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical notes