# CNN HD Question



## smackman (Sep 19, 2006)

Most of CNN HD has bars on the side. I put my CRT RPTV on "stretchovision" to prevent image burn in. I noticed on "stretch" that part of my picture is missing such as the stock market ticker is partily missing. When I looked at CNN in SD and stretched the picture, I did not have this issue. Can HD be 4x3? I do not want image burni n but I also do not want part of the picture missing. What goes here? How long does it take for a CRT television to get burn in?


----------



## CoolGui (Feb 9, 2006)

smackman said:


> Most of CNN HD has bars on the side. I put my CRT RPTV on "stretchovision" to prevent image burn in. I noticed on "stretch" that part of my picture is missing such as the stock market ticker is partily missing. When I looked at CNN in SD and stretched the picture, I did not have this issue. Can HD be 4x3? I do not want image burni n but I also do not want part of the picture missing. What goes here? How long does it take for a CRT television to get burn in?


Well they *say* modern CRT and LCD screens shouldn't develop burn in, but you might want to do some research on your particular model before you take that one to the bank. 

I know plasma and projection screens have suffered from burn in, and still are capable of it, but many have gotten better. I have had a 50" plasma for about 2.5 years and I generally leave things in OAR as stretch-o-vision annoys me. The first year and half or so I have to admit I still watched mostly 4:3 programming with the bars. I have yet to notice any burn-in.


----------



## smackman (Sep 19, 2006)

My 55" Mitsubishi CRT is as modern as it gets. It was the last CRT big screen television Mitsubishi made in 2006 and burn in is a problem. Can HD programming be broadcast in 4x3? The CNN HD channel looks excellent compared to the SD counterpart even with the Side bars.


----------



## CoolGui (Feb 9, 2006)

Yes, HD can be 4:3 but it's uncommon. What you are seeing on CNN is a full HD signal (with the ticker and bars) but it's embedding the SD picture in the middle. CNN does actually play HD in full widescreen for certain programs. But if you have a bad burn-in problem, why don't you see burn in from the logos or other static screen fixtures that other channels have (score bar on sports for example)?


----------



## kal915 (May 7, 2008)

CoolGui said:


> why don't you see burn in from the logos or other static screen fixtures that other channels have (score bar on sports for example)?


I have noticed that


----------



## jimborst (Jun 13, 2006)

It looks like more of CNN has been updated to HD, Wolf Blitzer and the situation room is now in HD. Since he is in Washington (I think) those studios must have been updated. I just don't understand why the headquarters (Atlanta) is still doing the SD.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

If you own a CRT, then maybe you're about to upgrade to a widescreen TV ... if so, go LCD. No burn in issues.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

HDG said:


> If you own a CRT, then maybe you're about to upgrade to a widescreen TV ... if so, go LCD. No burn in issues.


No burn in, but you can get stuck pixels. I had a Dell Latitude D800 that had the minimize/maximize/Close buttons on the top right frozen up there, only visible when the screen was darker. Also, I had stuck pixels on my 42" Westinghouse that I had to run the javapixelfixer to unstick. It also unfroze the pixels lining the sides of my SD content that were barely visible during HD.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

RasputinAXP said:


> No burn in, but you can get stuck pixels. I had a Dell Latitude D800 that had the minimize/maximize/Close buttons on the top right frozen up there, only visible when the screen was darker. Also, I had stuck pixels on my 42" Westinghouse that I had to run the javapixelfixer to unstick. It also unfroze the pixels lining the sides of my SD content that were barely visible during HD.


I have three LCD screens in the house, one Toshiba, one Sony and one Sharp... all have perfect pixel presentations. But you are correct in confirming that there are bad apples in every bushel. I'm sure the same can be said for Plasma and CRT.


----------



## CoolGui (Feb 9, 2006)

HDG said:


> I have three LCD screens in the house, one Toshiba, one Sony and one Sharp... all have perfect pixel presentations. But you are correct in confirming that there are bad apples in every bushel. I'm sure the same can be said for Plasma and CRT.


I'm not an expert on the issue, but I'm fairly certain CRTs don't get dead pixels usually and I haven't heard of it happening with plasmas either.

When I bought my 50" plasma, they weren't really selling LCDs in that size, at least not readily available. If I were buying today, I would have to consider it over the plasma.

What I see as advantages to LCD:

1. Shouldn't suffer from burn-in, at least not as easily as plasma, however newer plasmas are better at resisting it.
2. LCD "half-life" should be about twice as long as plasma if I remember correctly.
3. LCDs are lighter, thinner, uses less power.

Disadvantages:
1. Still when I look at the screens in stores, the plasma screens seem to have a better color/brightness to them.
2. Larger LCDs are still not as available as larger plasmas, and often cost the same or more as plasma. Even now I'm not seeing anything as large as 60" LCDs, however I'm sure they'll be coming along soon.
3. LCD generally do not have as wide of a viewing angle as Plasmas. Meaning if you are going to watch it kind of from the side the image might not be as good on LCD. I know newer LCDs are much better at this, but I still think Plasmas are better. Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

CoolGui said:


> I'm not an expert on the issue, but I'm fairly certain CRTs don't get dead pixels usually and I haven't heard of it happening with plasmas either.


I wasn't refering to bad apples regarding pixels on CRTs or plasmas, CG. I was refering to bad apples in general. You know, dull CRTs or humming plasmas, that sort of thing.

I agree with the rest of your post.


----------



## bruin95 (Apr 23, 2006)

CoolGui said:


> I know plasma and projection screens have suffered from burn in, and still are capable of it, but many have gotten better.


Rear projection TV's don't suffer from burn-in.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

bruin95 said:


> Rear projection TV's don't suffer from burn-in.


I don't own one, but I've been told they are succeptible to a _form_ of burn in.


----------



## CoolGui (Feb 9, 2006)

bruin95 said:


> Rear projection TV's don't suffer from burn-in.


Good point, but not entirely true... I should have research and qualified it I guess. Front projection should be fine obviously... But rear-projection screens that use a CRT do seem to suffer from burn-in. I remember it was a big deal for video games on older projection TVs. So most modern HD rear projection TVs based on LCD/DLP are probably okay. Again, still not an expert though, that's just what I gather.


----------



## CoolGui (Feb 9, 2006)

HDG said:


> I wasn't refering to bad apples regarding pixels on CRTs or plasmas, CG. I was refering to bad apples in general. You know, dull CRTs or humming plasmas, that sort of thing.
> 
> I agree with the rest of your post.


Oh I agree that you might get a bad unit. I would *hope* most problems would be covered under warranty, but don't have experience with that. I have heard reports that most LCD manufacturers allow for a certain amount of dead pixels (like up to 5 for example). I don't like this at all. If the image isn't working 100%, even if it's 99.95% of the pixels, I think it should be replaced or fixed. These TVs cost to much to be putting up with dead pixels!


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

CRT rear or front projection:
Good - excellent blacks and purer colors - best picture of all technologies, tubes last 10,000 plus hours sometimes much longer, flexible pixel means smoother overall picture, old technologyis least expensive.
Bad - Subject to burn in if improperly set (too bright or too much contrast), must be periodically calibrated, picture dims over time, best viewed in low light (especially front projection), narrow viewing angle (especially rear projection).

Plasma:
Good - very good blacks and colors, wide viewing angle, brightest display.
Bad - use lots of electricity - lots of heat, subject to burn in, fixed pixels = screen-door effect for the eagle eyed, picture dims over time.

LCD:
Good - not ordinarily subject to burn in, good lifetime for image machine.
Bad - pixel latency, poor blacks, short lifetime for lamp light sources, stuck pixels, screen door effect, narrow viewing angle.

DLP:
Good - not ordinarily subject to burn in, good lifetime for image machine.
Bad - rainbow effect, stuck mirrors, fair blacks, short lifetime for lamp light source, narrow viewing angle.

I'm sure others can add more comments.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

HDG said:


> If you own a CRT, then maybe you're about to upgrade to a widescreen TV ... if so, go LCD. No burn in issues.


We have have the same set and size. I'll never buy a plasma. I've read too much bad things.


----------



## CoolGui (Feb 9, 2006)

Paul Secic said:


> We have have the same set and size. I'll never buy a plasma. I've read too much bad things.


What type of things?  I'm sure you can find good/bad things to read about all the technologies. I think what Jim5506 said illustrates that. I've had no problems with screen burn-in and if the image loses half it's brightness in 10 years, it's not a major loss I don't think.

That being said, I think it's an individual choice. When I make a move and buy a smaller HD set for the bedroom I'm fairly positive I'd choose an LCD for the power/weight advantages, plus I don't plan to get larger than 40" back there. And it's darker and I normally watch it at night... so having the best brightness probably won't matter as much.


----------



## bruin95 (Apr 23, 2006)

HDG said:


> I don't own one, but I've been told they are succeptible to a _form_ of burn in.


Not DLP's or LCOS. I've had a DLP for 4 years and still watch a ton of 4:3 programming. I leave it on for hours and hours a day, alot of the time not even paying attention to it. No burn-in, not even a trace. If I did this with a plasma, the TV would have been trashed long ago.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

Paul Secic said:


> We have have the same set and size. I'll never buy a plasma. I've read too much bad things.


Agree, Paul. I can't have a plasma where I live. At 8,400' ASL plasmas tend to hum. I'm told that one can buy a high altitude plasma rated for up to 10,000' ASL, but the premium is pretty hefty.

That's the reason we went with LCDs when we decided to go HD. Maybe we've been lucky that our units are pixel-problem-free, maybe not. The cost of LCDs has come down considerably since we bought our first one, too. I think that reflects their popularity and acceptance as a replacement for other display mediums.

We were lucky and stumbled onto LCDs to begin with, so I will always advise anyone making their first venture into HD to seriously consider LCDs over other displays.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I keep reading about these plasma problems. I've had mine since May 2003. It has had no problems and it still produces a pretty picture. Since it was pre-HDMI I'll have to replace it someday. But not soon, I hope.


----------



## jimborst (Jun 13, 2006)

My plasma is 2 years old now, and I am not the best at avoiding burn in. But I was very careful in the begining (I have read where it is the first 100-200 hours that a plasma is more inclined to burn), I streched all 4:3 shows (and that was a lot at the time).

I have a friend who wants an HDTV badly and he has the room for a projector TV, he was looking at a demo in WalMart, 50" for $500. As he said at that price it wouldn't have to last forever but at least he could get one now. He called me and asked about the burn in on a projector, as this one was showing badly. I hadn't heard about burn in on projectors but since it was so bad I told him he better avoid it.

I don't know what kind of projector it was but at least some can get bad burn in.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

HDG said:


> Agree, Paul. I can't have a plasma where I live. At 8,400' ASL plasmas tend to hum. I'm told that one can buy a high altitude plasma rated for up to 10,000' ASL, but the premium is pretty hefty.
> 
> That's the reason we went with LCDs when we decided to go HD. Maybe we've been lucky that our units are pixel-problem-free, maybe not. The cost of LCDs has come down considerably since we bought our first one, too. I think that reflects their popularity and acceptance as a replacement for other display mediums.
> 
> We were lucky and stumbled onto LCDs to begin with, so I will always advise anyone making their first venture into HD to seriously consider LCDs over other displays.


I looked on QVC.com where I bought my SHARP in December for $1.100.99. Today the same size SHARP Aquas set is going for $859.88. I'm buying a SHARP 32" LCD HD set with a DVD Player for my bedroom in December. Last year that set cost: $828.00, yesterday it was $650.66. Prices are dropping.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

Paul Secic said:


> I looked on QVC.com where I bought my SHARP in December for $1.100.99. Today the same size SHARP Aquas set is going for $859.88. I'm buying a SHARP 32" LCD HD set with a DVD Player for my bedroom in December. Last year that set cost: $828.00, yesterday it was $650.66. Prices are dropping.


I swear by the Sharp Aquos line. It's funny, I guess, but when I decide to upgrade to a larger Aquos screen, it'll cost less than I paid for my 37".


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Don't automatically be put off by talk about burn-in. It can happen, but it is not likely if you take a minimum amount of care. And you can easily eliminate it if you screw up.

Read this from Cnet: Plasma burn-in: Seven things you need to know.


----------

