Posted by baal80spam 11 hours ago
The burn-in pattern is a sort of inverse vignette, where the edges of the screen are brighter than the centre. Presumably, the middle of the screen sees more action in general.
OLED is unfortunately consumable but it is the highest fidelity consumer panel tech you can get atm. The MiniLEDs in Apple’s MacBooks are reasonable substitutions, albeit subject to blurring. I haven’t seen any other non-OLED compare.
Still, I probably would work on an IPS if I didn’t have limited desk space and needed my monitor to pull double duty for entertainment as well.
The first thing I do to test any LCD panel is fire up an episode of Star Trek: The Next generation. Invariably, one of two things happens as soon as we are presented with an exterior shot of the Enterprise
1. LCD backlight bleed makes space look dark grey/blue instead of black as originally intended.
2. The localized dimming kicks in, presenting truly black space, but rendering the stars (which are smaller than the smallest local dimming zones) super dim or nonexistent.
These latest generation RGB local dimming LCD panels being touted as OLED killers still fall under the 2nd scenario, they don't actually fix the problem at all. LCD is functionally a dead end when it comes to picture quality.
edit: I put up a very aggressive version of grey which used to expose full on black spots on the older OLED and I can only see a very faint line where there is a full white bar from one of the applications I use, actually I think that's just my vision since I can't see it anymore.
AFAIK, burn-in is inherent in the technology; there's only mitigations.
At least for OLED TVs, rtings.com has been running burn-in tests and has noted that supposed technological improvements on OLED longevity haven't really done much: https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/oled-burn-in-not-improved-as...
The brighter you run OLED, the more burn in you get.
The QD-OLED standard they tested in TFA is also supposed to be more burn in resistant, but they still saw burn in over time.
Most folks cannot prevent every source of light from shining behind them. In my apartment, even sunlight leaking around curtains and indirectly illuminating the Landlord Standard White walls was image-damagingly bright on the handful of glossy-screened monitors I tried.
If you have total control over the lighting situation in your room, then, yeah, glossy screens can work... but most folks want to be able to use their computers and televisions in a wide variety of lighting conditions. [0]
> ...something oily/grainy looking.
I guess you've only seen bad AR coatings. The difference in image quality between the glossy screens I tried and the matte screens I have and have been continuing to use for the past great many years wasn't all that large... and the bonkers reflectivity of the glossy screens nuked what little difference there was.
[0] Most folks also don't like so much looking at their ugly mugs during dark portions of a program... glossy screens are -while not as bad as a mirror- so incredibly reflective.
https://www.tomsguide.com/computing/macbooks/the-new-macbook...
So it was really only about 6 years in the last four decades that matte was not available. I always advocate for more matte options.
The magazine reviews made a big deal about the matte coatings of the day making the screen a little dimmer, so after years of being dinged on the reviews, Apple finally dropped them.
So it's been a while. 18 years with glossy screens.
and their butterfly keyboards
and the iPhone antenna issue
and Apple Maps (especially on launch)
and this fun artifact: https://www.theregister.com/on-prem/2006/08/24/hindenbook-re...
[0] This darkening corresponds to nothing I've had on screen... it looks like the sort of minor backlight or diffuser (or whatever it's called) failure you tend to see on middle-aged monitors.