MacBook Pro Retina display burn-in?

bjiibj wrote:

Do you have any objective evidence that the yellowish screen was abnormally yellow? It's hard to tell if the yellow complaint is about personal preference or a real problem with the displays. I don't know how we'll ever know unless someone with the equipment to do a real evaluation of the screen can do so.

I had a few MBP before and right now I have 17" MBP. When I compare it's screen with LG screen I see a strong yellow color. After calibration nothing changed, it's only getting colder, but white point is still not true white. I don't need any equipment to notice it.

I dont know what to do, my old MBP is so slow but in the same time rMBP is too faulty.

n0vniel wrote:

bjiibj wrote:

Do you have any objective evidence that the yellowish screen was abnormally yellow? It's hard to tell if the yellow complaint is about personal preference or a real problem with the displays. I don't know how we'll ever know unless someone with the equipment to do a real evaluation of the screen can do so.

I had a few MBP before and right now I have 17" MBP. When I compare it's screen with LG screen I see a strong yellow color. After calibration nothing changed, it's only getting colder, but white point is still not true white. I don't need any equipment to notice it.

I dont know what to do, my old MBP is so slow but in the same time rMBP is too faulty.

n0vniel,

I only have my pc laptop and my dad's desktop pc with a samsung screen to compare the colour of my LG retina display to, not other macs, but I agree, the colour is just not right. I have tried calibrating it, and yes I can make it cooler, but the white point is definately not right. This is the main reason I have decided to return it. I only have very very slight IR when tested (I would probably never notice it under normal conditions), but the colour issue is enough in itself since I like to do photo editing (albeit non-professionally) in photoshop. I recently started printing a few photos - I need to be able to trust my on screen colours!

I really didn't know what to do at first - I could return it only to end up with an even worse LG screen if I re-order! But I know that if I keep this and a month or so down the line everyone is getting lovely samsung screens, I am going to be really ******! But having used this MBPr for a few days now, it is going to be so hard to go back to my pc, which is incredibly slow and clunky with only a 13" screen. But I really feel that it will be worth it in the end. Those for whom the 14 day return period has sadly already passed, have to make the best out of the situation and keep waiting and hoping for a good replacement screen or other resolution. But I really believe that if you still have the chance to return and you have ANY doubts at all - about faint IR or yellowness, then just return it now while you can and wait for some solutions to start appearing - which at some point they will have to!

Btw, aren't Apple supposedly releasing a 13" MBP retina in the Autumn? They HAVE to get this sorted before that, or it will be a complete disaster. I'm hoping we will start to hear more from them soon. Thanks to Picnaut for his earlier update on the situation. This is perhaps encouraging!

Bjiibj,

You seem to be talking about the LCD pixels who are activated by electrodes only. The array is not pixel by pixel, it is a line, a cluster. The two electrodes are the ones present in a pixel by pixel basis. Now, these "cells" (how you seem to be calling them so I am using it as well so you know about what part of your text I am referring to) are not auto-illuminated. You seem to be confused about LED backlit LCDs and standard LCDs. There is no image without the LED backlit "light". And the polarization of the pixels occurs when a potential difference is applied, and only then. Even when polarized, they cannot generate any image without the backlit LEDs, the blue LED lighted by the yellow phosphor.

Now, bringing the plasma just for comparison, the same way the scientific paper I liked compared, sometimes when you turn off the plasma you can still see a faint ghost image left on the screen for a while. Do you know what causes this even when the TV is off? the excited phosphors...

Now the most interesting thing is that even though there is a huge amount of people here claiming the LG monitors have a Yellow tint and a shift of the white point (a common problem caused by an unbalanced Yellow phosphor/Blue Led), something directly related to the backlit LEDs, you just seem to force yourself to look over it and ignore the probable relationship between the IR and clear indication of a possible problem with the Yellow Phosphor/Blue Led.

Dpweiland,

I can also see IR on the Galaxy Tab, iPads 2 and 3 and other desktop LED-LCD monitors I have here. I am curious to test the Samsung rMBP display against a dark gray background and restarts like has been done here with the LG one.

High-Death wrote:

Bjiibj,

You seem to be talking about the LCD pixels who are activated by electrodes only. The array is not pixel by pixel, it is a line, a cluster. The two electrodes are the ones present in a pixel by pixel basis. Now, these "cells" (how you seem to be calling them so I am using it as well so you know about what part of your text I am referring to) are not auto-illuminated. You seem to be confused about LED backlit LCDs and standard LCDs. There is no image without the LED backlit "light". And the polarization of the pixels occurs when a potential difference is applied, and only then. Even when polarized, they cannot generate any image without the backlit LEDs, the blue LED lighted by the yellow phosphor.

Yes, I am fully aware that the light emitted by an LCD panel begins at the backlight. I have never suggested that the LCD cells themselves emit light. What I am saying is that the crystals themselves twist in the presence of an electric voltage and it is this twisting which is being affected by a lingering charge. The result is that the crystal doesn't twist as far as it should, or perhaps too far, not sure which, when it is experiencing the image retention problem. Because of this, too little (or too much) light is being permitted through by the cell, resulting in that pixel emitting light that is brighter or darker than it is supposed to be. This is image retention.

I am quite confident that if you could remove the backlight of the panel and replace it with a flashlight, you'd still see image retention, because it's not an artifact of the light source, it's an artifact of the crystals not orienting correctly due to a residual electric charge or some other per-cell cause.

High-Death wrote:

Now, bringing the plasma just for comparison, the same way the scientific paper I liked compared, sometimes when you turn off the plasma you can still see a faint ghost image left on the screen for a while. Do you know what causes this even when the TV is off? the excited phosphors...

Yes, but plasma displays illuminate their phosphors on a per-pixel basis, which is why there can be a difference in the degree to which different phosphors are excited depending on the image that is presented, which itself leads to burn-in when some phosphors are excited much longer than others.

Every phosphor in an rMBP backlight is excited to the same degree as all of the others, barring the rMBP using that "local dimming" technique you referenced, but a) I haven't seen any evidence that the rMBP actually uses that technique, and b) would produce differences in phosphor excitation on large swathes of the screen, not on individual pixel-sized regions.

I took my computer to apple today and try sent it out to one of their repair centers to get te screen replaced. The genius seemed to know about the problem and agreed that he would replace the lg screen with a Samsung one. He said it should be all done in 5-7 days. I'll report back then.

Really? Could you ask the same guy how he would be able to order a Samsung display? It shouldn't be possible, as all of the screens look identical stocked up in a warehouse in China.

I got my 3rd replacement (4th rMBP) today and another LG, but I checked it all possible manner but seems No IR. But whites has a hint of yellowish look in to it, but we have to carefully look at it. I had enough of this replacements now, So did u have any problems in your display if so what is it? Just a hint of yellowish is look is enough for a ask a display swap to a samsung one.

I still think there is some confusion, you are only describing the polarization of the sub-pixels/pixels. They are twisted and remain in this polarized form for an unknown reason letting the light pass. That is obviously required for the light to pass and an image be generated. But you are assuming that PWM and the shades gradations all the depends on the twisted design os the pixels, for each voltage a certain twist and a certain amount of light would pass. And in this case the LEDs would have just two configurations, ON and OFF. Do I read you right?

The problem with this design is that the twists are too slow, I believe they usually take at least 2ms to return to the normal state of total blocking of light and the phosphor will take no more than 1ms to be lit and go off. It is also more efficient to modulate the intensity of the phosphor luminosity for temporal dithering then the twists of the pixels. And this brings me to an apparent contradiction in the twists-for-shades theory, since the pixels will have to change their configuration a few times in just one second to generate a proper shading how come a "state memory" would develop leaving the pixel persistently stuck in the same position?

Now the way I am considering the LEDs are the the ones submitted to modulation and changes in luminosity while the twists are either on or off only. So the retention would be cause by the phosphors and not by the twist configuration, which have to be many and always return to a balanced state among the WHOLE GROUP of pixels affected by the image and in a darker position to leave just a shadow a faint persistent image.

In any of these two cases, the array described in johns1's post is completely irrelevant.

Well that's what he said at first but after I told him he could just check with terminal with an installed display, he went to speak to his supervisor and told me they would get me a Samsung display, so I'm guessing they will just keep replacing the displays until they get a Samsung one.

bjiibj wrote:

shayster98 wrote:

Thanks Apples_8212! I guess even if it has no ghosting there's still a potential for it to develop, and the fact that the native white-point of the LG screen is also wrong deters me. (Although the LG floor sample in the Apple Store's color seemed fine to me, but there was no Samsung to compare it with. Furthermore, it even had IR.) Do you guys know how to get an advanced replacement and what really is it?

No offense intended, but I think this comment very succinctly represents the kind of illogical thinking that has been pervading some of the discussion here. To say that the LG looked fine to you but you can't conclude it really was good unless you had a Samsung to compare with means that you are assuming that the Samsung has a more correct color representation and that whatever difference you would have perceived between the LG and Samsung would have been chalked up to the LG being wrong when the Samsung was right. But what if it's the Samsung that is wrong? Without objective measurement by equipment made for the purpose of testing color accuracy, we can't really say which is better or worse. Maybe the Samsung has better color accuracy, or maybe not; I don't think anyone has presented any really compelling evidence either way. But people really do seem to be quickly jumping to conclusions about other ways in which the Samsung is better than the LG, even without any objective evidence. It seems that people are just looking for ways to dislike the LG just for further justification of the panel being inferior so that they have better reason to get Apple to replace them. Which I think is not really necessary because the image retention problem is all that we really need to feel confident that the displays have a problem and need to be replaced. And if you are an LG owner that doesn't have image retention or another real problem like dead pixels or white spots, I don't think you should feel like the display needs to be replaced just because it isn't a Samsung.

Bjiibj, I do get what you're saying. I did think it was a waste too to keep returning shiny new laptops. However, some who received rMBPs with LG displays did not have any image persistence issues at first, but developed the problem, interestingly, after the 14-day return policy expired. I really don't need that kind of issue as I'm starting school soon; I have little time to return and re-order a new one which doesn't seem to have the problem, but then starts to develop it three weeks into school. I have to take and edit many photographs and design layouts, and accuracy is pretty important. And, while it is entirely possible we're all completely wrong and the LG is the one that has a more precise native color calibration, the Samsung screen seems to be the preference of most. The whites look brighter and more neutral, and less warm. I'm not "looking for a way to dislike the LG just for further justification to get Apple to replace them", as you said. I just need what I paid for, and have no time to keep transferring data and reinstalling software from computer to computer. By the way (just to everyone in general), I've ordered a BTO rMBP; Apple says it should come on the 28th even with express shipping. I'll keep you guys posted on what manufacturer it is and if it has any noticeable issues. 🙂

High-Death

In any of these two cases, the array described in johns1's post is completely irrelevant.

Still trying to get back at someone else with a different opinion or logic then your own with a little jab at the end. Such persistence, but lacking relevency.

Just to add my experience. After reading all of these posts, I became concerned since my rMBP is now about 1 week old and I have an LG screen. I do notice some mild image retention. I called my local store and asked them about the issue with the image retention. They had not heard of it and suggested coming to the store to see if the floor models had this problem since they had been there and used for over a month. We tested 4 of the rMBP that were on display and all of them were LG screens. We tested them by leaving up the google screen and other websites. The sales people and I were shocked that you were able to see the imprint of google and the other websites on the background and on other programs when opened. You could clearly see the retained images on any background including the space background. We came back to the computer almost 20-30 minutes later and they still had the retained image although it had faded. They searched through their stock to see if they could find some kind of code to find a Samsung screen, but they were concerned that all of their computers had the LG screens. They said I could bring the computer back for a full refund since I am within the 14 days or they could send it back to Apple to be repaired. Personally after paying this much for a computer, I am going to bring it back and wait for the issue to be fixed before even considering buying another rMBP. My biggest concern is the problem is only going to get worse.

There is nothing to get back at, it is a simple and direct conclusion.

Worriedperson

We tested 4 of the rMBP that were on display and all of them were LG screens. We tested them by leaving up the google screen and other websites. The sales people and I were shocked that you were able to see the imprint of google and the other websites on the background and on other programs when opened. You could clearly see the retained images on any background including the space background. We came back to the computer almost 20-30 minutes later and they still had the retained image although it had faded.

All the apple stores I visit have a active screensaver that acts as a demo that runs after so many minutes of non-user activity. If you were to start using the MBPr you would never notice IR, which explains why none of the staff would ever notice ISP panel image retention.

When you tested the four laptops with their staff were you changing the background to the solid dark grey background as mentioned earlier? Or was this using the checkerboard pattern?

High-Death wrote:

I still think there is some confusion, you are only describing the polarization of the sub-pixels/pixels. They are twisted and remain in this polarized form for an unknown reason letting the light pass. That is obviously required for the light to pass and an image be generated. But you are assuming that PWM and the shades gradations all the depends on the twisted design os the pixels, for each voltage a certain twist and a certain amount of light would pass. And in this case the LEDs would have just two configurations, ON and OFF. Do I read you right?

The problem with this design is that the twists are too slow, I believe they usually take at least 2ms to return to the normal state of total blocking of light and the phosphor will take no more than 1ms to be lit and go off. It is also more efficient to modulate the intensity of the phosphor luminosity for temporal dithering then the twists of the pixels. And this brings me to an apparent contradiction in the twists-for-shades theory, since the pixels will have to change their configuration a few times in just one second to generate a proper shading how come a "state memory" would develop leaving the pixel persistently stuck in the same position?

In the first paragraph you correctly summarized: the amount of twist is a function of voltage, so you can achieve different degrees of brightness of a pixel using different voltages applied to the crystals.

In the second paragraph you deviate from this explanation and assume that you have to change the crystal configurations "a few times in just one second to generate a proper shading". I don't know where this came from. All that the display has to do is to supply the appropriate voltage for the desired twist of the crystals to produce the required transmissivity of light, and then the crystal's orientation remains fixed and doesn't change until a new color is to be displayed.

One thing I have glossed over here is that what actually happens is that a certain percentage of the crystals will twist fully at a certain voltage, resulting in an overall transmissivity that is dependent on the voltage. An individual crystal either twists fully or not at all, and the opacity is a function of what percentage of crystals twist at a given voltage (even this is probably a simplification as I can't believe that every single crystal always twists 100% one way or the other, and there is never any stuck in an intermediate state, but in any case the effect is the same: the opacity is a function of the voltage, which produces a steady state orientation of the crystals).

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia's article on "Twisted Nematic Field Effect":

"The amount of opacity can be controlled by varying the voltage. At voltages near the threshold, only some of the crystals will re-align, and the display will be partially transparent. As the voltage is increased, more of the crystals will re-align until it becomes completely "switched". A voltage of about 1 V is required to make the crystal align itself with the field, and no current passes through the crystal itself. Thus the electrical power required for that action is very low."

High-Death wrote:

Now the way I am considering the LEDs are the the ones submitted to modulation and changes in luminosity while the twists are either on or off only.

To reiterate, the twists for any given crystal are either on or off only; but of course each cell (subpixel) is made up of millions (billions?) of crystals and the overall opacity is a function of how many have twisted one way vs the other. There is no need for temporal modulation to produce an effective opacity. The static orientation of the crystals is enough. And it's a divergence of the static orientation from what it is supposed to be, due to lingering voltages or some other effect that is causing the image retention.