• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Monitor Unburn Utility

or you could have downloaded and configured this
http://udpix.free.fr/

forcing a rapid color change can get the pixels in order on a TN panel on a IPS panel it does absolutely nothing
 
Well, my little app does not do a rapid color change. Maybe someone with an IPS monitor that has a problem will come along and test it.

Besides, do you trust a program from the internet or would you rather get one from yer' Ol' Uncle Kreij? :p
 
I never even knew LCDs could have burn in, I though that was only a CRT and Plasma problem. Learn something new every day!
 
Kreij said:
Well, my little app does not do a rapid color change. Maybe someone with an IPS monitor that has a problem will come along and test it.

Besides, do you trust a program from the internet or would you rather get one from yer' Ol' Uncle Kreij? :p
Click to expand...

you need to be able to flicker the pixels and or the entire panel (preferably at a rate equal or less to the G2G response time of the panel 2MS,5MS,8MS,16MS for maximum effect I suspect all this does is cause More burning to hide image thats already burnt
what I purpose is this write it so that it does the following
adjustable flicker timer from 2MS up to 16MS and perhaps a option to 'vary' the time at random so it makes the panel workharder
a color mode supporting RGB+1 Custom color
the best tool I have found for this is running winamp with milk-drop 2 it beats the hell out of the panel lmao

I have a panel thats got a dead pixel ill try it on
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Having an image displayed for 6 seconds will not cause any image retention, so this program is not "over burning" in any sense of the term. It just forces a full-on, full-off condition.
I can find no information that attributes "beating the hell out of the panel" with increased efficiency of image retention elimination.

If you can find me some data that shows flickering at the response time of the panel is a superior way to eliminate burn I will be happy to modify the program.

This will do nothing for dead pixels. It may make them more visible, but will not fix them, nor will anything else that I know of.
 
basicly whats happens is that the pixels become "stretched" out due to extended periods at a static voltage in and lose there ablity to return to a fully neutral(lower voltage) state in extreme cases the damage is permanent.
by that logic forcing them to operate at a fixed HIGH voltage(WHITE/colored and then off again)
is going todo very little good and I would expect cause more wear and tear on the already stressed panel(higher voltage = heat and stress) it could in theory kick the pixels back closer to there "relaxed"(normal voltage state) simplly because you are requesting it to cycle but to that end it should go away with normal use eitherway

but I would suspect rapidly changing voltages(color) would do more good(would take longer but be less stress on the panel in theroy)
also if you have a Option for LCD-overdrive(AMD) you can try fiddling wit this because this increases the voltage target for a given requested color
for more detail see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twisted_nematic_field_effect
 
Last edited:
You are correct, OneMoar. The question is, "what is the most efficient manner in which to bleed off the excess static charge?"

Apple recommended a pure white screen for the same period of time that the image took to burn in. I see this the same way you do. It's should not accomplish what is trying to be achieved.

I don't know if rapidly changing voltages on the panel is of any advantage from a "time to eliminate burn" standpoint. If that were the case one would think that it would be the de-facto method of doing this, but it's not, even among the panel manufacturers.

Thanks for the link, OneMoar, and maybe we can beat the crap out of this issue with some help from testers.
 
Kreij said:
You are correct, OneMoar. The question is, "what is the most efficient manner in which to bleed off the excess static charge?"

Apple recommended a pure white screen for the same period of time that the image took to burn in. I see this the same way you do. It's should not accomplish what is trying to be achieved.

I don't know if rapidly changing voltages on the panel is of any advantage from a "time to eliminate burn" standpoint. If that were the case one would think that it would be the de-facto method of doing this, but it's not, even among the panel manufacturers.

Thanks for the link, OneMoar, and maybe we can beat the crap out of this issue with some help from testers.
Click to expand...

I suspect that it would depend on the 'level' of the residual charge I just don't see how increasing the level of "ambient current" would have a positive effect unless you are raising the charge level to the point unless where it everything becomes nominal
 
Last edited:
Let take an extreme example.
You put up a complete black screen with TPU written in white in the middle and leave it for a couple of weeks (extreme case which could be permanent, but for arguments sake let's say it's not).

Would cycling colors below the static threshold of what burned in the white make any difference?
By the same thought, would not cycling at a white and black voltage range force pixels stuck at other color's static level to be forced out of their "comfort zone"?
 
I will carefully monitor (pun intended!) some more usage of this app on my 24". I do not see any difference to the rest of the screen area, so I don't think it's hurting my monitor. Of course it was a $400+ monitor, so it's high quality. Still have no dead pixels after years of use.
 
Kreij said:
Let take an extreme example.
You put up a complete black screen with TPU written in white in the middle and leave it for a couple of weeks (extreme case which could be permanent, but for arguments sake let's say it's not).

Would cycling colors below the static threshold of what burned in the white make any difference?
By the same thought, would not cycling at a white and black voltage range force pixels stuck at other color's static level to be forced out of their "comfort zone"?
Click to expand...

but its not a "voltage range the panel doesn't step from 0.1 0.2 0.03 0.4 ext ect when you request 'white' it goes directly to full voltage if the panel in question is OFF and you want to go to full white its gonna go from 0.000V to 1.0V directly(in about 5MS) there is not going be no 'stepping' of voltages
conversely if you request that that the panel change from red to green to black to yellow in quick succession its gonna run the panel though its full range of voltage as two weather or not that its effective at removing the static`cling on the matrix that requires testing
 
The program won't hurt the monitor. You can turn down the brightness to reduce the stress on the backlighting, but for the short periods it's running I don't see it as being an issue.
 
Kreij said:
The program won't hurt the monitor. You can turn down the brightness to reduce the stress on the backlighting, but for the short periods it's running I don't see it as being an issue.
Click to expand...

true enough I am more interested in what method would be more effective :D
does anyone wanna offer up some old panels for SCIENCE ?
 
I have 2, and I will do it! If it's that darn bad, then it's time I upgraded anyways!
 
Speaking of science, OneMoar, that 6870 could do some really nice crunching......
 
It would mean leaving the monitors with a static image for long periods of time. Can't be one's you use regularly or the normal use will defeat the test.
 
Cycling through the TFT primaries (incl. the primary mixes) rather than just white would also help us see if the monitor has individual pixel burn out or stuck pixels. ie. red, blue, green, magenta, cyan, yellow, white, black, cycle again. An alternative to your wonderful utility is to just get the PC to play a few DVDs fullscreen. Or the "matrix" screensaver. Probably that is the "coolest" way to do it ;)
 
johnspack said:
Speaking of science, OneMoar, that 6870 could do some really nice crunching......
Click to expand...

MY power bill is though the roof as it is if i could I would lol
 
Well, I will see if this clears my burnin issue on the 24 anyways... I'll try like a 1 hour session in the morning, and report back.
 
lemonadesoda said:
Cycling through the TFT primaries (incl. the primary mixes) rather than just white would also help us see if the monitor has individual pixel burn out or stuck pixels. ie. red, blue, green, magenta, cyan, yellow, white, black, cycle again. An alternative to your wonderful utility is to just get the PC to play a few DVDs fullscreen. Or the "matrix" screensaver. Probably that is the "coolest" way to do it ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, running something like the Matrix screensaver could possibly eliminate the problem.
Sadly, as always happens here on TPU, we have moved beyond what works and are now into "What works the fastest".
Anyone can make something work, we want MOAR POWAH !!
 
Thanks for this little program Kreij...

I have this old 27" Westinghouse LCD TV(LTV-27W1 circa 2005) that won't die on me...it's really been great, but the screen has some pretty bad burn in. I'm going to give it a shot.

Best,

LC
 
@LC : The burn-in could be permanent, but it doesn't hurt to try it.
Definitely let me know how it goes. :toast:
 
@johnspack, try running this one with dual monitors.

You can choose which monitor by running it from a command prompt and adding a "/<monitor#>" switch after it.
So something like ... MonitorUnburn_WF.exe /1
The monitors are zero-based, so if you have two of them they will be 0 and 1.
It only reads the first character after the "/", so if you type in /15 it will see it as /1, thus it will only work with up to 10 monitors (0-9). I don't see this as a big problem at this point. :D

It should throw an error and quit if you choose an invalid monitor number or if you give it a non-numeric switch like "/tpu". It is only looking for the last occurrence of the "/" in the command string args, so if you type "MonitorUnburn.exe /0 /1", it should use the /1.

Try starting it from both monitors to make sure it works either way.
See if you can break it. :)

If anyone else with dual (or more) monitors would like to test it I would appreciate it.
 

Attachments

You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top