MacBook Pro Retina display burn-in?

Wow dude, calm down. No one is telling you what you can or can't say here; you can say whatever you want. You complain about off topic posts but you are as far "off topic" as everyone else here. You should take some time to think about who the real dog that "can't let go of the bone" is here. You're dragging on a flame war by accusing people for trolling, but now, you seem more like a troll than any of us. I don't see how posting about your iPad IR experiences relates to MacBook Pro experiences because those are two different products completely. If this drags on, I really do hope someone censors you, before you manage to **** us all off more than Apple's defective Retina screens have.

In any case, before I'm accused for being off topic, I'm still currently awaiting my 2nd replacement from Apple. I have a Samsung (week 33) screen but unfortunately I have a bright spot on it as mentioned before in this thread. My screen has no IR issues like my first LG (week 31) one had, but again, if I notice any I'll be sure to let you all know. Really hope that they send me the perfect rMBP that they promised to deliver.

bjiibj wrote:

High-Death wrote:

The discussion was even over, some dogs can't let the rest of the bone go...

Oh what ridiculous hypocrisy.

I'll let it go though. This is the last time I'll respond to your ramblings, you can continue to cry about censorship and trolling all you want.

bjiibj,

I couldn't care less about what you describe as ramblings or anything, since my posts are just replies to people who have directed their posts to me. I have no idea what sort of mental instability drives you to believe that your judgemental analysis or opinion about others people posts or discussion is of ANY IMPORTANCE WHATSOEVER!!

But since you like English terminology, lets go check hypocrisy:

"The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behaviour does not conform"

So if nobody should care about AN OPINION, why do you care about mine so much that you have to come patronize me (without the usual cynic kindness that this english word evokes in its meaning.)?

And the end of your post is tragic if not comic, "YOU WILL LET IT GO"??? Whay didn't you?? Throlling? Direct your nonsense to me and you will have an answer, throlling is making believe your UNCALLED FOR POSTS have the hyper-valued weight to everybody else that your opinions have in your schizo bubble of reality distortion...

DJ Coffee wrote:

I don't see how posting about your iPad IR experiences relates to MacBook Pro experiences because those are two different products completely. If this drags on, I really do hope someone censors you, before you manage to **** us all off more than Apple's defective Retina screens have.

Tell this to the many other users who even talked about the FUTURE SAMSUNG OLED PHONES and others who have talked aboutthe retina display in the iPad and iPhone. My post may hold so much importance because it clearly testify saying that the iPad Retina also suffers from IR. But anyway,I have already told another user before why my comparison is important and how this is pertinent to the FIRST POSTER question, therefore the thread. If you don't like it, don't read it, nobody is forcing you to read anything.

If there even exists a brain inside that thick skull of yours you wouldn't need to bother to even think of saying something so utterly stupid. How am I supposed to "not like" what you posted without reading it first? I'm no psychic or time traveller. I wouldn't know if I like your post or not before reading it.

bjiibj called you a hypocrit because you yourself refuse to let go of the bone rather than us. So to insinuate that bjiibj is a dog who won't let go of a bone is hypocritical of you. I fail to see why any moderator of this forum even allows you to continue your nonsense in this thread.

I told you that your post is off topic because it is. This thread is about IR problems with the MacBook Pro with Retina Display. Just because somone else went off topic and you followed in that off topic route doesn't mean that you're not off topic.

Oh, just a suggestion, but you should follow your own advice (if you can even manage that), to not read this post if you dislike the contents of it. Y'know, cause no one is forcing you to.

High-Death

And a complete guide that explains the Decay time, ghosting, burn-in and Image persistance due to phosphors (you can read parts on the web)

Anything else?

Why are you trying to respond to everyone in a very confusing reply back to me? I was just addressing your mistatement about phosphors causing IR with ISP panels, and you bring up plasma displays as a example that phosohors can cause IR, not relevant dude.

I thought this thread was about the Macbook Pro Retina.

So why are we discussing Plasmas that get IR because they are phosphor based? LCD's don't have that problem so long as the quality of the panel is high enough. It's why LCD TV sets, computer monitors, etc can leave static images up without worry. The only way an LCD can become damaged with IR is by leaving a static image on it over time and the crystals themselves develop a memory. This has nothing to do with phoshpors. Just the crystals and the electric current that is going over them.

If you guys want to continue to argue, perhaps you could exchange emails and do it elsewhere?

Frustrations are high because we have or had apple products that are affected by this and Apple is the company that is making the situation difficult for us as consumers with how it's being handled. Let's focus on getting somewhere with apple, by getting the word out on other sites, and communicate if newere units recieved still exhibit the problem.

Otherwise the thread will die or be deleted and then for what?...

I only replied to you in my reply to you and nobody else, so I don't know what you mean by tryingo to reply to everybody.

And in my reply to you I stated clearly that the LED phosphors on the backlit displays can cause ghostings as well as other issues related to all Phosphor based displays (like plasma), and this was stated in the scientific text that I left the link. And I have also argued that the "persistence" described I the document you used is not the problem being described here, and this rests more than clear by reading the quote from the document in your own post.

I left many links, data and proof about the phosphors in the LED causing ghosting and other issues, even a SAMSUNG statement where the company informs that burin-in in the LEDswont be covered by its warranty since this is a common issue. You are simply trying to dismiss the facts, including scientific documentation about it, when you all I said was concerning plasmas. Clearly not true.

With regards to the theory that the phosphors used in the LED backlight display of the rMBP panels is what is causing the image retention, I think that part of the confusion is that some posters are referring to the LCD as just the "liquid crystal" part, i.e. the layer that has the crystals in it and the associated electronics, as separate from the backlight part, whereas you (High-Death) are referring to the entire assembly (including backlight) as the LCD. I don't know if either way is more correct than the other, but I would like to point out that this is probably some of the confusion.

The reason that this distinction is important is that most people believe that the image retention is being caused by some persistent electric field that is built up over time by bright images (i.e. parts of the LCD where the crystals are being held in orientation that lets the most backlight through) and that then prevents the crystals from properly conforming to the correct orientation until the electric field dissipates. It seems like what is happening is that the built-up electric field doesn't prevent the crystals from reorienting, but it does ever so slightly attenuate their re-orientation, which results in them shifting less than (or more than, not sure what direction it is) they are supposed to, which results in slightly different brightness from those pixels than from the surrounding pixels that weren't subject to the built up electric field. Over time the electric field dissipates and the crystals end up responding to voltages identically to other pixels which then smooths out and eliminates the image retention.

I may have gotten some of the terminology wrong or some of the concepts backwards, but I think that's a reasonable summary of the theory that I've heard most often proposed as the possible cause of this.

This theory is entirely dependent on the liquid crystals themselves; as far as I know, it doesn't care about the backlight at all (unless the material that the backlight is made of is somehow part of what is causing the electric field ot build up? But if so, I don't think I've heard that proposed yet), so whether or not phosphors are used to generate the backlight or not is not relevant to the theory.

This is in contrast to your theory, which I don't fully understand but which I think somehow depends upon the phosphors in the backlight themselves. I don't actually understand how they could possibly matter though as the backlight is not enabled or disabled, or brightened or darkened, per-pixel. So if the phosphors are always equally excited while the backight is on, what would cause them to somehow later on operate differently for the portions of the screen with image retention?

The fact that nobody else has yet proposed that the backlight has anything to do with the image retention (aside from you, High-Death, if I read what you wrote correctly), is likely the reason that others have said that the phosphors have nothing to do with the problem - because in the prevalent theory of what could cause image retention, the backlight in fact has nothing to do with it. But this does miss the point of your theory, which is in fact that somehow the phosphors do have something to do with it, although like I said earlier, I don't really understand what you are proposing well enough to understand exactly how the backlight phosphors are involved.

High-Death

I only replied to you in my reply to you and nobody else, so I don't know what you mean by tryingo to reply to everybody.

Because you deviated from discussing IR caused by LCD to the LED backlight which IMHO has nothing to do with the original post problem.

I first noticed this after my MBP [Retina] had gone to sleep, but: when returning to the login screen (since I have it set to require a password whenever the computer is idle long enough) I noticed what appeared to a very faint ghosting primarily noticeable on darker backgrounds.

Still think this is all about phosphor based back light?

This is a LCD IR issue only.

Yes DJ you are very special, you are the brain even though I couldnt read anything barely interesting from you till now, I'm sure you are very special, you ave one more demos some than everybody else. But just in case, I have to clarify to you thati meant don't read my further posts if you don't like what I posted. I know that robots are very sensitive when reading texts, even a slight misplaced comma can create a whole confusion in its interpretation.

And about the letting it go, what you want that I become an impolite person and not leave a proper reply to everyone that is personally addressing me? No way, I wouldn't do that. And it is more than obvious now that what you people don't want is someone showing that this "retention" problem is common and ordinary to all Apple (and other brands) displays, it is a characteristic of the LED-backlit LCDs, and I was not even the one who brought documents proving it first, it was DrAndy and then johns1. But you can keep in Denial, you may just be afraid this proof in this topic will damage your claims for returning your LG screens based on the IR defect.

Silly, if Apple is accepting returns it is because there is some sort of problem, no need to be afraid and try to bash people's post you find inconvenient truths. BTW, Didn't you get your Samsung already?

Johns1,

Quoting your own quote from the document you used to define the "persistence" in LCDs:

"Generally (Twisted Nematic- TN type) LCDs have a parallel electrical field, so all of the display area can be symmetrically controlled. By comparison, IPS LCDs have asymmetrical electrical fields in some small areas, the image persistence phenomenon will occur at the asymmetrical electric fields. The image will dissipate DURING POWE OFF OR BY AN IMAGE CHANGE in a short amount of time. This phenomenon is a natural characteristic of an IPS LCD."

Now, read what you have just posted and what has been described here and note that the retention is NOT BEING DISSIPATED BY POWER OFFS OR CHANGE IN IMAGES!

Is that clear that it doesn't further persistence from LCD that you quoted??

And btw, on my last post demos= chromosome...

Perhaps not enough information was provided, look at the 2nd paragraph of the original post

I first noticed this after my MBP [Retina] had gone to sleep, but: when returning to the login screen (since I have it set to require a password whenever the computer is idle long enough) I noticed what appeared to a very faint ghosting primarily noticeable on darker backgrounds.

After messing around with it a bit, there seems to be a fairly consistent in-display ghosting that occurs without much time at all; I was able to leave my screen on (a little above half-brightness) for about 10-15 minutes and the ghosted "burn" would be of the screen I left it on (which I deliberately reconfigured so that everything would be a new position).

Just because the screen goes to sleep doesn't immediately disappate the electrical field. I know you were trying to explain why this would be something else, but its not. 😉

bjiibj,

First, good reply!

Now, read about the two types of Led Backlit LCD displays here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED-backlit_LCD_display

The one your are sort of describing in your post is the FULL-ARRAY. But I think the case here is the Dynamic LEDs. I will only address your question. The reason the phosphors would be responsible is because they remain excited, delaying the deacy and still providing a dimmed light, these phosphors would dynamically (locally) keeping certain pixels still on and keeping them form refreshing.

johns1.

You will have to change the description of the problem completely if you don't accept that (as described everywhere including your own document) that a change in the image, maybe the backgroung image or something else, or a turn off, will refresh the pixels. Tell me what is electrically holding the pixels active after a turn off or a change in the picture? There is a video here where someone RESTARTSTHE COMPUTER, changes the background image a few times and the IR is still there...

It does not fit with this retention/persistance you describe. Now if you think this is the problem, why even bother complaining to Apple, since this is such an stablished and now problem among all LCDs? This persistance you describe is not a problem and will never be for most photographers, since a simple change in the image being displayed is enough to a fast refreshing of the pixels.

High-Death,

This is the last time I will reply to your nonsense.

Yes DJ you are very special, you are the brain even though I couldnt read anything barely interesting from you till now, I'm sure you are very special, you ave one more demos some than everybody else. But just in case, I have to clarify to you thati meant don't read my further posts if you don't like what I posted. I know that robots are very sensitive when reading texts, even a slight misplaced comma can create a whole confusion in its interpretation.

Your English barelymakes enough sense for comprehension so I'm not sure why you think it's appropriate to insult my English when I can properly convey what I am trying to say.

And about the letting it go, what you want that I become an impolite person and not leave a proper reply to everyone that is personally addressing me? No way, I wouldn't do that.

Please, you're already impolite as it is. None of us here need you to be any more impolite than you presently are. You were the one who made the statement about "dogs who can't let go," but at the same time, you are one of those dogs that you claimed bjiibj to be. Thus, you are a hypocrit as bjiibj have said.

And it is more than obvious now that what you people don't want is someone showing that this "retention" problem is common and ordinary to all Apple (and other brands) displays, it is a characteristic of the LED-backlit LCDs, and I was not even the one who brought documents proving it first, it was DrAndy and then johns1. But you can keep in Denial, you may just be afraid this proof in this topic will damage your claims for returning your LG screens based on the IR defect.

Regardless of what "we people" want or don't want, IR on other Apple products are for a different thread. Once again, this is a thread that was created for the MacBook Pro with Retina Display with IR issues; not Apple products with IR issues. Why would I be in denial? I already returned my LG-display rMBP and received a Samsung one in return that has no IR issues whatsoever, so your claim that IR is a characteristic of LED-backlit displays doens't even apply to the computer I'm using to reply to you right now.

Silly, if Apple is accepting returns it is because there is some sort of problem, no need to be afraid and try to bash people's post you find inconvenient truths. BTW, Didn't you get your Samsung already?

The only inconvenience I'm experiencing (other than deciphering your replies) is having to contact Apple so many times simply because of screen-related issues. The LG Retina Display flickered, had IR issues within minutes, and multiple muras. Apple agreed to replace it and sent me a new unit. This new Samsung Retina Display is flawless with the exception of a single mura. Apple once again, has agreed to replace this unit as well as sending me a brand new one. This fear you insist that I have is non-existent in regards to getting a refund or replacement from Apple based on IR defects.