The Dead Pixel Check On Lcd

happyhero

Sorry for asking this question again, I did actually ask this on a earlier post but it was getting off the subject of my original post, so since I had no answer, I thought I would be more specific and make it the new post.

Can anybody tell me what actually happens if you pay for a dead pixel check, i.e. how do they test it properly, what do they do, but more importantly does it garantee you no dead pixels or no more than a certain percentage or what?

I suppose once you buy this monitor, if you are unlucky, even though you pay for this service, you may find one or two dead pixels appear after a month or so, which is just tough, or would this be unusual?

Any info appreciated.

intel

http://www.laptopshowcase.co.uk/downloads.php?id=1

Download Dead Pixel Buddy, save some cash :beer:

Toxteth_OGrady

@Inters

I think OP means before you actually buy the monitor.

The difference is monitors are usually sold to meet ISO-13406-2, which means you can receive one with 2 or 3 dead pixels and not be eligible for a replacement. A retailer's pixel check is a premium you pay to guarantee no dead pixels on receipt (i.e. exceeds the ISO-13406-2 standard).

@h_h

More info here.


:cool:

TOG

intel

Toxteth_OGrady wrote:

@Inters

I think OP means before you actually buy the monitor.

Ere I cant think of a reason before hand as it would surely come under normal
warranty rules with a new PC surely.. and how do you know they just might feed you bull.... But I do see now what the OP is getting at...

Trust Nobody... :beer:

Toxteth_OGrady

intel wrote:

it would surely come under normal
warranty rules

Fraid not. Under the Sale of Goods Act it passes the legal reasonableness test of fit for purpose if it meets the ISO.

Notwithstanding that, I'd be surprised if you can find an OEM that offers a warranty over and above your statutory rights that does not quote the ISO as an exclusion clause.

:cool:

TOG

intel

Toxteth_OGrady wrote:

Fraid not. Under the Sale of Goods Act it passes the legal reasonableness test of fit for purpose if it meets the ISO.

Notwithstanding that, I'd be surprised if you can find an OEM that offers a warranty over and above your statutory rights that does not quote the ISO as an exclusion clause.

:cool:

TOG

So another goliath get out clause.. How nice

Toxteth_OGrady

intel wrote:

So another goliath get out clause..

Not really. It's a consequence of the technology involved in the manufacturing process.

The ISO actually works in the purchaser's favour because it delineates precisely what is deemed acceptable. If you read it it is quite taughtly defined and, in imho, draws a good compromise between aesthetic and functional deficiencies

I would postulate that without the ISO you would be worse off.

Given the manufacturing limtations, one could insist on tightening the ISO to exclude any dead pixels. The consequence would be to triple the price of TFTs.

Hence if, as a consumer, you cannot live with the aesthetic distraction of a couple of dead pixels you pay a premium for a retailer pixel check.

:cool:

TOG

intel

Toxteth_OGrady wrote:

Not really. It's a consequence of the technology involved in the manufacturing process.

The ISO actually works in the purchaser's favour because it delineates precisely what is deemed acceptable. If you read it it quite taughtly defined and, in imho, draws a good compromise between aesthtic and functional deficiencies

I would postulate that without the ISO you would be worse off.

Given the manufacturing limtations, one could insist on tightening the ISO to exclude any dead pixels. The consequence would be to triple the price of TFTs.

Hence if, as a consumer, you cannot live with the aesthetic distraction of a couple of dead pixels you pay a premium for a retailer pixel check.

:cool:

TOG

But then again as a consumer we should be able to buy products that are not
faulty at the point of sale.. lets face it you wouldnt buy a car with the gear stick missing would you, if the technology is flawed dont sell it.

Toxteth_OGrady

Define 'faulty' - that's what the ISO does.

I think the growth of LCD/TFT in the marketplace suggests that the manufacturers have got it right.

if the technology is flawed dont sell it.

The reason they sell is because the demand is there. If the product were that flawed there would be no demand.

Your car analogy is flawed. A missing gear stick is not aesthetic.

:cool:

TOG

intel

Toxteth_OGrady wrote:

Define 'faulty' - that's what the ISO does.

I think the growth of LCD/TFT in the marketplace suggests that the manufacturers have got it right.

The reason they sell is because the demand is there. If the product were that flawed there would be no demand.

For you maybe but that would really p*ss me off as I dont like to be
taken for a mug ppl should stand up for perfect products, especially at
some of the higher end models.

Toxteth_OGrady wrote:

Your car analogy is flawed. A missing gear stick is not aesthetic.

Niether is a pixel, thats why there are programs like DPB otherwise
this thread wouldnt even exist.. personal choice if someone wants to be ripped off ofcourse, I for one dont.

:cool:

Toxteth_OGrady

intel wrote:

For you maybe

......and the rest of the mainstream consumer marketplace that is content to buy cheap TFTs that meet the ISO standard

intel wrote:

lbut that would really p*ss me off as I dont like to be
taken for a mug ppl should stand up for perfect products, especially at
some of the higher end models.

Then pay the premium. Nothing new in that. The market thrives on people who are willing to fork out extra for quality/high end products. It's the Lada vs Rolls Royce argument.

Equally you could pay £185 for a 2 metre mains cable made out of screened, oxygen free, gold plated cable. Or you could pay 99p in Woolies. Who's the mug there?

Notwithstanding any cost vs value consideration it is fair to say that the former will have undergone a much more rigorous (aka costly) manufacturing and quality assurance process.

intel wrote:

Niether is a pixel, thats why there are programs like DPB otherwise
this thread wouldnt even exist.. personal choice if someone wants to be ripped off ofcourse, I for one dont.

The august body of the International Standards Organisation would take issue with you on that one. I would however be interested in your thoughts on why a missing pixel is a functional deficiency? What effect does it have on your use of the monitor?

:cool:

TOG

:cool:[/QUOTE]