The first stage was: exposure of a plasma to a fixed image for one hour, then display of uniform grey to detect any burnt zones. We also filmed the panel to get an idea of how quickly any peristent marks disappear.


Conclusions after stage 1: 1 hour of exposure implies no real risk

The first stage was carried out, reported on and the results were good: in spite of our outlandish settings (contrast and brightness to a max), only slight marking remained visible to those hairsplitters among us, but even this then disappeared completely after half an hour.

Those who use their plasma normally, taking just a little care not to display a fixed image too long, will be able to view whatever they like on it without any particular risk.


Conclusions after stage 2: after exposure for a night, not such a positive report

Next we moved onto stage 2 of the test as described in our initial game rules, representative this time of “high risk” behaviour:

“Exposure of a plasma to a fixed image for one night, then display of uniform grey to detect any burnt zones. We also film the panel to get an idea of how quickly any peristent marks disappear.''


This kind of usage is representative of a gamer who spends days on end on WoW or their most recent games console, football fans who are stuck in front of the TV for 5 matches on the trot during the World Cup, the news hound who watches in 4/3 all day to follow the crucial breaking story (explosion of towers, death of a celebrity… to each their favourite theme), before returning to a more standard usage later.

“Slightly” extreme usage then, not completely crazed, but at our settings remember. A normal individual isn’t likely to watch their plasma with contrast and brightness at a max.

And indeed they shouldn’t!

The one night with my plasma subjected to burning test was launched on the night of the 16th July 2009. After exposure for 8 hours, the burn marks on the screen were visible indeed, but not any more so than the marks we noted afer exposure for one hour.

At 7pm on the next day, as the persistent marks had not yet disappeared, we replaced the video with a webcam, recording the trace at regular intervals.

At 7:12 pm, about 10 hours after the end of the test, the white block of the logo and the green ball (see below) were still visible on the lower part of the panel, as captured on camera.

Although this mark had completely disappeared after half an hour in the first stage of the test, one week later, on Friday 24th July, the trace was still apparent. At least partly. The zone recorded by the webcam, bottom left of the panel, gradually disappeared. However, the white block on top right and the letters forming the word NUMERIQUES remained visible.

• Is this definitive? We hope not! We are continuing to monitor the screen and will keep you informed as to its state after a long period of rest.

• Is this a problem? Not necessarily. If the background colour is a homogenous light colour, the markings do appear. You can read the persistent trace of ''LesNumériques'' at the bottom right of the image. However if you start watching a film, you can’t see this trace either in the black bands around the image, or on the inside the image itself, as it rarely displays a homogenous light background – required condition for visibility of the markings.

In view of this result, disappointing all the same, we’ve decided to revise our expectations somewhat. We’re abandoning our plans to burn the panel for a week for now, certainly until we know how long the markings resulting from 8 hours of exposure last. We’re also going to begin the whole process again with a modified image to avoid exagerating our impressions of burning, this time with more standard settings.

We now know that high risk use at outlandish settings does present a problem. Now, what’s going to happen with standard settings? Same player shoot again. We're going to let this plasma rest a bit, then we’ll start the tests again, running ''1 hour with a fixed image and standard settings''.


PS: I should say that when we used the provocative article title “Lets all burn a panel”, we were hoping to prove the opposite. We expected the test to “fail”, as with the first 1 hour stage that shows good resistance over a short period of exposure. Even over a longer period, in spite of evident recklessness, in spite of poor viewing conditions, we still thought we’d get a clean panel back pretty quickly. We certainly didn’t think the effects of burning would be as visible nor would last as long after exposure for just 8 hours. This is why we’re starting the process again with a more standard simulation that is representative of usual viewing practice but which, unfortunately, will be less reassuring than if we hadn’t had to revise our testing programme in view of these results in excessively harsh conditions.