# Screen saver burn-in?



## robo45h (Jul 8, 2003)

I'd really like to be able to configure the 622 to just "blank" the screen rather than displaying the bouncing dish logo. PC's have a "blank screen" after timeout / screen saver option; I'd like the 622 to have this as well.

Now, why do I want this, if it's not due to an external DVR issue? Simple -- the screen saver's purpose is to prevent "burn-in" of images on displays that can be effected -- such as plasma. Well, I have a plasma monitor, and I find that the screen saver SEEMS TO CAUSE burn-in! The ViP622's screen saver is a completely black screen with a bright white / red logo (white is ALL COLORS ON, and RED is a single primary ON). The colors don't alternate. But the real kicker is that the logo does NOT seem to appear in random locations on the screen. Instead, it seems to simply "bounce" along a varying path with various programmatic restrictions (it's never "partially on the screen" -- the logo is always fully visible). And it seems to hit the same spots over and over given time: CAUSING BURN IN!

Now, the thing moves so slowly, and in what would seem like a random-enough pattern that I never would have guessed this. Plus, I don't like the TV wasing electricity (plasmas are hogs), so I always turn it off. So I would not normally notice or care. However, my father is 90, and sometimes I or someone else will leave CNN or some program on for him. He can't figure out the complex remotes with his poor eyesight, so he just leaves it on until we come back and turn it off. (The remote issue is a whole DIFFERENT thread I'll be starting! And yes, I know of 3rd party remotes.)

It's on these occasions that I've walked up to the TV and seen very strong ghost images of the DISH logo burned in to the screen. Luckily, they seem to have been temporary.

I'm mainly posting this as a weak attempt to try to bring this to DISH's attention and request this as a feature / enhancement, but if anyone knows of a workaround, please post a response! Disabling the screen saver via the Preferences / Inactivty Standby seems the only option, and I'm not really fond of that idea either (could end up with worse burn-in if it gets left on a solid pattern off-air screen or something). 

I don't know enough about plasma technology to really know if WHITE is as bad as it is on CRTs, where "all guns on" meant you were firing electrons to all three phosphorous dots and thus using up their lifespan. But based on the fact that plasma monitors can get burn in, and have a known-to-be limited lifespan compared to LCDs, for example, I suspect by definition WHITE is very bad for a screen saver color. Yes, I know the default Windows XP screen saver bouncing WindowsXP logo uses a lot of white as well. But at least that can be replaced with a screen-blank (actually, a screen power-down on laptops, and some other systems, which is nicely energy efficient).

As for just how "random" the DISH screen saver path is, it's surprising how often programmers create something that's not quite as random as they thought it was. Randomness is tricky to do right. It starts with the initial random number seed generation problem (which computers are hard to cajole into doing well). Then, the minute you apply "rules" to your randomness (such as following a trajectory path, never splitting the logo partly off the screen, using fixed colors), you start loosing randomness by definition. And it gets worse if you miss something or have a bug in your code. You can quite easily end up with not-very-random-at-all.

Again, I haven't done a careful analysis of the logo locations, other than walking in and looking with horror at the multiple dish logo ghost images burned (temporarily) into my nice plasma!

So, DISH... can you fix this somehow? Either a "blank screen" option or perhaps a much more random algorithm? (Both would be nice; power-down of TV would be even better, but I doubt the current HD AV standards don't have the same capabilities as the computer video standards -- they're sophisticated enough that the computer can actually pull the serial number off the monitor).


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

There's a red button on the remote right below the receiver power button. If you program the remote with your television code, it just takes 1 button press to turn the television off.

Or, if that red button is too hard for him to see or to find, get him a Dish EZ Remote - http://www.skyvision.com/store/mi7526017.html Bigger buttons that are easier to see.

Bottom line, this is what Dish is moving to with all of the receivers, moving away from the black screen when the receiver is in standby mode. You are going to have to come up with a way to get your television turned off, if it's that big a problem to you.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

To me, even if it were a black screen, why would you want to waste the energy and perhaps even though black, use hours on a plasma screen that's only rated for so many hours anyway..


----------



## robo45h (Jul 8, 2003)

Mark Lamutt said:


> There's a red button on the remote right below the receiver power button. If you program the remote with your television code, it just takes 1 button press to turn the television off.
> 
> Or, if that red button is too hard for him to see or to find, get him a Dish EZ Remote - http://www.skyvision.com/store/mi7526017.html Bigger buttons that are easier to see.


I'm fully aware of that button, and it's been programmed since day 1. But it's a) too hard for him to see and b) just one level of complexity too much. ONE red button he could deal with. Seems silly and stupid, but get back to me when you're 90! And, yes, I'll be looking into optional remotes.



Mark Lamutt said:


> Bottom line, this is what Dish is moving to with all of the receivers, moving away from the black screen when the receiver is in standby mode. You are going to have to come up with a way to get your television turned off, if it's that big a problem to you.


Well, this is the point of my post. To give "Dish" a heads up: a screen saver is supposed to save the screen; not damage it. Theirs damages screens. And though I "may have" to get my television turned off, you have to admit it's stupid for a screen saver to destroy screens.


----------



## robo45h (Jul 8, 2003)

normang said:


> To me, even if it were a black screen, why would you want to waste the energy and perhaps even though black, use hours on a plasma screen that's only rated for so many hours anyway..


Um, if you re-read my post, you'll see that I don't like to waste the energy. I always turn it off personally. But I'm not 90 years old. As for the "hours rating" -- it's not clear to me what that's about. I suspect the rating is really about the life of the light-emitting parts of the screen that seem to degrade. Thus, if it's turned on but completely blacked out and not emitting any light, I suspect it's not really affecting the life of the unit much. The other parts, such as resisters and ICs probably have way high hours of operation ratings. It's the plasma tube -- specifically the light emitting capabilities -- that is the weak link in the chain of calculations for the plasma TV life. I suspect the MTBF of the circuitry and power supply is really, really high by comparison. Besides, much of the circuitry is probably the same as in a CRT or LCD or DLP TV.


----------



## Reggie3 (Feb 20, 2006)

robo45h said:


> Um, if you re-read my post, you'll see that I don't like to waste the energy. I always turn it off personally. But I'm not 90 years old. As for the "hours rating" -- it's not clear to me what that's about. I suspect the rating is really about the life of the light-emitting parts of the screen that seem to degrade. Thus, if it's turned on but completely blacked out and not emitting any light, I suspect it's not really affecting the life of the unit much. The other parts, such as resisters and ICs probably have way high hours of operation ratings. It's the plasma tube -- specifically the light emitting capabilities -- that is the weak link in the chain of calculations for the plasma TV life. I suspect the MTBF of the circuitry and power supply is really, really high by comparison. Besides, much of the circuitry is probably the same as in a CRT or LCD or DLP TV.


You should switch to D*HD TiVo - The unit defaults to a blank screen when we would rather it not.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

robo45h said:


> Um, if you re-read my post, you'll see that I don't like to waste the energy. I always turn it off personally. But I'm not 90 years old. As for the "hours rating" -- it's not clear to me what that's about. I suspect the rating is really about the life of the light-emitting parts of the screen that seem to degrade. Thus, if it's turned on but completely blacked out and not emitting any light, I suspect it's not really affecting the life of the unit much. The other parts, such as resisters and ICs probably have way high hours of operation ratings. It's the plasma tube -- specifically the light emitting capabilities -- that is the weak link in the chain of calculations for the plasma TV life. I suspect the MTBF of the circuitry and power supply is really, really high by comparison. Besides, much of the circuitry is probably the same as in a CRT or LCD or DLP TV.


I believe that even though you may not be generating light, you are degrading the plasma phospors, though perhaps minimally because it is black, they are still working and degrading the unit. I could be wrong... Perhap someone with a little more info could confirm one way or another.

However, while I can understand your situation, this is one of those rare situations that I suspect you maybe one of the few anywhere experiencing it. If it were widespread, I could see Dish considering an option to make a change, however I doubt that it is.

While it may not be possible, I don't need to see the button to turn something off, I just need to know where is. So perhaps with a little effort, you could get your father to press the button just below the other when he turns off the receiver, solving the problem.


----------



## Banin (Jul 31, 2006)

Most TVs have a "Sleep" function which you can set to a certain length of time after which the TV will turn itself off (the intended us being you set it while in bed and fall asleep watching TV, and the TV turns itself off so it isn't on all night). If you know approximately how long the TV is going to be used, just set the sleep function and the TV will turn itself off, which is better than any screen saver.


----------



## Presence (Mar 14, 2004)

You people are not helping. He is asking Dish to implement a feature, and all I am seeing are "workarounds."

I have complained before that Dish's receivers are not DPMI compliant, and only getting worse.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

Turn your brightness and contrast down and don't worry about burn in.

A properly set up display will not burn in, emphasis on properly.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

robo45h said:


> ...
> 
> Well, this is the point of my post. To give "Dish" a heads up: a screen saver is supposed to save the screen; not damage it. Theirs damages screens. ...


Oh nonsense.  You have offered nothing but supposition - the screensaver function is just fine. (And give your Dad some credit.)


----------



## gitarzan (Dec 31, 2005)

normang said:


> To me, even if it were a black screen, why would you want to waste the energy and perhaps even though black, use hours on a plasma screen that's only rated for so many hours anyway..


The 622 uses 53 watts 24 x7 on or off. In my opinion this is absurd. My refridgerator uses less energy.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

gitarzan said:


> The 622 uses 53 watts 24 x7 on or off. In my opinion this is absurd. My refridgerator uses less energy.


Not likely.  At 53 watts, your 622 uses just over 500kwh per year. Refrigerators range from 1500 to 2700 kwh per year. (Unless you're talking about one of those little dormroom specials)


----------



## gitarzan (Dec 31, 2005)

LtMunst said:


> Not likely.  At 53 watts, your 622 uses just over 500kwh per year. Refrigerators range from 1500 to 2700 kwh per year. (Unless you're talking about one of those little dormroom specials)


My 18 cubic foot Fridgidaire refridgerator manufactured in 2001 uses 125-150 watts when it is running. I like to keep the temperature turned down to keep drinks good and cold. But still my refridgerator is is not running most of the time. My watt meter shows it uses about 1.2 watt hours/day vs 1.3 watt hours/day for my 622. I don't have an energy star refridgerator but it is after year 2000 when all manufactures made refridgerators much more efficient. I know my watt meter is accurate because when I plug a lamp in with a 60 watt light bulb it measures 60 watts.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

gitarzan said:


> The 622 uses 53 watts 24 x7 on or off. In my opinion this is absurd. My refridgerator uses less energy.


Highly unlikely that a real kitchen size fridge uses less energy than the equivalent of a 53 watt light bulb.

While it would be nice if they actually designed a more serious power saver mode for these units, until they do, your option is to unplug it routinely, which isn't very convienent, and perhaps not as good for the unit as being on all the time.

I don't see why in standby it cannot spin down the hard drive if its not updating the guide or doing other scheduled maintanence, which might drop the power consumption by 1/3 give or take a few watts.

I suspect a plasma screen, even with no input, conumes more energy than a 622 does.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

A reason for the no spin down that comes into mind is that it might not want to take the spin up hit on powerup or when a timer is due to fire. Just a thought that popped into my head, but my guess is there are reasons for it.


----------



## gitarzan (Dec 31, 2005)

normang said:


> Highly unlikely that a real kitchen size fridge uses less energy than the equivalent of a 53 watt light bulb.


If you look at energystar.gov many there are many top mounted freezer refridgerators that use less energy than the equivelent 53 watt light bulb. Even some that are much larger than my 18 cubic ft kitchen size.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

Ron Barry said:


> A reason for the no spin down that comes into mind is that it might not want to take the spin up hit on powerup or when a timer is due to fire. Just a thought that popped into my head, but my guess is there are reasons for it.


Ron, I am sure there are reasons, it would be interesting to know what they were thinking when that designed it that way... Like your thought, being ready to capture the stream if a timer fires, how hard would it be to spin up the drive in advance of a timer firing? I recall on the 508 where I think the drive did spin down, that I saw messages on screen, saying waiting for drive to spin up... So I know they've done it before.

If it were for VOD, I like others wish that VOD was an option I could disable, so the menus for it hide, and the disk space this useless and expensive movie service costs would be recovered.. $4.99... why should it be more than a PPV anyway...


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

gitarzan said:


> If you look at energystar.gov many there are many top mounted freezer refridgerators that use less energy than the equivelent 53 watt light bulb. Even some that are much larger than my 18 cubic ft kitchen size.


Many of the specs on that site are from the maker, I doubt they actually took the time to test them themselves. The average fridge in most homes is 25 cubic ft, and would consume more energy per year than a 622. And while perhaps recent models are more efficient than those from even several years ago, millions of people probably dont' even have a really energy efficient model.. which makes the arguement, no matter how valid, sort of moot..


----------



## gitarzan (Dec 31, 2005)

normang said:


> Many of the specs on that site are from the maker, I doubt they actually took the time to test them themselves. The average fridge in most homes is 25 cubic ft, and would consume more energy per year than a 622. And while perhaps recent models are more efficient than those from even several years ago, millions of people probably dont' even have a really energy efficient model.. which makes the arguement, no matter how valid, sort of moot..


25-26 cubic ft are I thought the largest refridgerators normally available. My 18 cubic ft is the largest I could get for my kitchen space. Energy star certifications means the refrigerator uses 15% less energy than federal standards. Some of the 25 cubic ft energy star refrigerators use less energy than what a 53 watt light bulb would. Millions have been sold since 2000.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

gitarzan said:


> ... My watt meter shows it uses about 1.2 watt hours/day vs 1.3 watt hours/day for my 622. I don't have an energy star refridgerator but it is after year 2000 when all manufactures made refridgerators much more efficient. I know my watt meter is accurate because when I plug a lamp in with a 60 watt light bulb it measures 60 watts.


Well, you've slipped up on that 1.3 Watt-Hours/day. My fifteen year old 22.6 Cubic foot ice box uses 1600 Watt-hours/Day. (That is 1.6 Kw-H per Day.) I got this number by actual measurement over a 76 hour period using my _Kill A Watt_ device.

That is the equivilent usage of a *66.6 Watt bulb* burning continuously.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

normang said:


> Ron, I am sure there are reasons, it would be interesting to know what they were thinking when that designed it that way... Like your thought, being ready to capture the stream if a timer fires, how hard would it be to spin up the drive in advance of a timer firing? I recall on the 508 where I think the drive did spin down, that I saw messages on screen, saying waiting for drive to spin up... So I know they've done it before.
> 
> If it were for VOD, I like others wish that VOD was an option I could disable, so the menus for it hide, and the disk space this useless and expensive movie service costs would be recovered.. $4.99... why should it be more than a PPV anyway...


Good points. Yes I believe you are correct on the 508 spinning down if memory serves. However the 508 is a single tuner and a SD receiver so the bandwidth requirements are a lot different than the 622. Like I indicated this is just a guess and without knowing all the details of what a 622 does in standby and how quickly it needs data from the drive coming out of standby or to record a timer while in standby I can only make a reasonable guess at some reasons why the 622 does not spin down. It is also possible their is no technical reason, but given this is how the 921, 942 worked my guess is that there are technically reasons why the drive does not spin down.

As for VOD, Yes I would also like it as an option. I also think that content is slim and based on some descriptions I heard, the idea behind VOD is not just movies but more niche content that would not be covered by the PPV structure. I also thought about some of the implementation details of having it as an option and personally would be suprised to see an option to remove it provided.


----------



## gitarzan (Dec 31, 2005)

SaltiDawg said:


> Well, you've slipped up on that 1.3 Watt-Hours/day. My fifteen year old 22.6 Cubic foot ice box uses 1600 Watt-hours/Day. (That is 1.6 Kw-H per Day.) I got this number by actual measurement over a 76 hour period using my _Kill A Watt_ device.
> 
> That is the equivilent usage of a *66.6 Watt bulb* burning continuously.


I have the same Kill A Watt device. Mine came from Amazon for about $30. I have to admit my refridgerator comparison is kind of silly but still who would think that a dish receiver would use more electricity. On average refridgerators manufactured from 1991 to 2000 use 40% more electricity than today's models.

My alarm clock has timers that wake me up every morning. It uses 3 watts of energy. Surely the dish receiver can look at the next time it has to do a maintenance activity or record something and power down to 3 watts until that time.


----------



## gitarzan (Dec 31, 2005)

SaltiDawg said:


> Well, you've slipped up on that 1.3 Watt-Hours/day. My fifteen year old 22.6 Cubic foot ice box uses 1600 Watt-hours/Day. (That is 1.6 Kw-H per Day.) I got this number by actual measurement over a 76 hour period using my _Kill A Watt_ device.
> 
> That is the equivilent usage of a *66.6 Watt bulb* burning continuously.


You are correct. I should have said 1.2 kWh/day for the fridge and 1.3 kWh/day for the 622 instead of watt-hours/day.


----------



## gitarzan (Dec 31, 2005)

Ron Barry said:


> Good points. Yes I believe you are correct on the 508 spinning down if memory serves. However the 508 is a single tuner and a SD receiver so the bandwidth requirements are a lot different than the 622. Like I indicated this is just a guess and without knowing all the details of what a 622 does in standby and how quickly it needs data from the drive coming out of standby or to record a timer while in standby I can only make a reasonable guess at some reasons why the 622 does not spin down. It is also possible their is no technical reason, but given this is how the 921, 942 worked my guess is that there are technically reasons why the drive does not spin down.
> 
> As for VOD, Yes I would also like it as an option. I also think that content is slim and based on some descriptions I heard, the idea behind VOD is not just movies but more niche content that would not be covered by the PPV structure. I also thought about some of the implementation details of having it as an option and personally would be suprised to see an option to remove it provided.


I can't imagine any good technical reasons for the hard drive to not to sleep.

For VOD I think Dish must have it because the cable companies have it. I get flyers in the mail from my local cable company showing all of the features they have that are missing from satellite. VOD is one of them. But yes, would be nice for it to be an option.


----------



## richbogrow (Nov 13, 2006)

robo45h said:


> I'd really like to be able to configure the 622 to just "blank" the screen rather than displaying the bouncing dish logo. PC's have a "blank screen" after timeout / screen saver option; I'd like the 622 to have this as well.
> 
> Now, why do I want this, if it's not due to an external DVR issue? Simple -- the screen saver's purpose is to prevent "burn-in" of images on displays that can be effected -- such as plasma. Well, I have a plasma monitor, and I find that the screen saver SEEMS TO CAUSE burn-in! The ViP622's screen saver is a completely black screen with a bright white / red logo (white is ALL COLORS ON, and RED is a single primary ON). The colors don't alternate. But the real kicker is that the logo does NOT seem to appear in random locations on the screen. Instead, it seems to simply "bounce" along a varying path with various programmatic restrictions (it's never "partially on the screen" -- the logo is always fully visible). And it seems to hit the same spots over and over given time: CAUSING BURN IN!
> 
> ...


I have just had this happen to me. The Dish logo when in standby mode does not move randomly. It is a predetermined path of several locations causing burn in. I am running my signal pattern now on my tv, so hopefully I can get rid of the burn in (it is not that bad). Why can't the Dish logo be transparent instead of so bold? Also, the logo should be constantly moving hitting ALL areas of the screen, not just a few. Perhaps the logo should start at on corner of the screen and move around the outside edge, then move in a little etc.


----------



## AVITWeb (Jan 3, 2007)

I'm sorry...why in the world (with the exception of the gentleman who started this thread) would you WANT your screen saver to kick in?? Do you just walk away and leave everything on and never get back to it? Just turn it off....or better yet, buy an LCD.



richbogrow said:


> I have just had this happen to me. The Dish logo when in standby mode does not move randomly. It is a predetermined path of several locations causing burn in. I am running my signal pattern now on my tv, so hopefully I can get rid of the burn in (it is not that bad). Why can't the Dish logo be transparent instead of so bold? Also, the logo should be constantly moving hitting ALL areas of the screen, not just a few. Perhaps the logo should start at on corner of the screen and move around the outside edge, then move in a little etc.


----------



## richbogrow (Nov 13, 2006)

AVITWeb said:


> I'm sorry...why in the world (with the exception of the gentleman who started this thread) would you WANT your screen saver to kick in?? Do you just walk away and leave everything on and never get back to it? Just turn it off....or better yet, buy an LCD.


The receiver gets turned off, but the TV doesn't. I don't do this, but there are other people in my house.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

You can virtually prevent burn in by properly calibrating your display. The brightness and contrast should be in the vincinity of 50% instead of the 100% that the factory delivers it with.

I never turn my 622 off and NEVER leave the display on when not watching it. Educate all the other users, or they loose their TV priviledges.


----------



## AVITWeb (Jan 3, 2007)

Jim5506 said:


> You can virtually prevent burn in by properly calibrating your display. The brightness and contrast should be in the vincinity of 50% instead of the 100% that the factory delivers it with.
> 
> I never turn my 622 off and NEVER leave the display on when not watching it. Educate all the other users, or they loose their TV priviledges.


Yeah...I mean, why wouldn't you just turn the tv off?


----------



## Rovingbar (Jan 25, 2005)

richbogrow, I understand your situation. You have a legitimate problem, and Dish ought to address it (Like the power issue.) As someone mentioned, you can reduce the impact by turning down contrast. But ultimately you need to teach folks to turn off everything. Or at least turn off the TV instead of the DVR. It will turn itself off after a few hours anyway. If you have a programmable remote, you should try to program it to turn off both TV and DVR at the same time.

Good luck,
Jeff


----------

