Talk:Dead pixel

According to this, Samsung has no such zero-defects policy. Not sure where this apparently erroneous meme came from.

A google search reveals it's in fact apparently true but only in South Korea. Unfortunately, many of the earlier reports missed this [1] Nil Einne 06:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody have some statistics on how often Dead Pixel actually occur on a normal 17", 19", etc. monitor and what improvments the manufactures have made over the past to reduce them? Might be a worthy addition to the article. -- Grumbel 23:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--- I know first hand that phillips does not offer a zero dead pixel policy. For instance, in http://www.p4c.philips.com/files/2/230wp7ns_27/230wp7ns_27_dfu_aen.pdf they define the acceptable level for that monitor to be 3 or fewer bright dot defects, 5 or fewer black dot defects and 5 or fewer total defects. --Andrew.kintz 19:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to only mention a few kinds of pixel defects. They discuss pixels that appear red, green or blue, but isn't it possible, (in fact, more likely) that only one subpixel in a pixel will die and create a pixel with only the other two subpixels lit? For example, if the green subpixel died, it would leave a magenta colored pixel. In fact, there are quite a few different ways a pixel can be defective. Adopt the following notation: a particular subpixel will be assigned the character "0" if it is dead, "+" if it is normal, and "1" if it is stuck on. Now each pixel can be assigned a certain string representing its status. For example, if the red subpixel is stuck on, the green subpixel is normal and the blue subpixel is dead, then the pixel will be represented as "1+0". Now in order for a pixel to be problematic, it must have at least one problem pixel. So only one permutation must be omited: "+++". So the number of ways a pixel can be a problem is 3^3-1, or 26. Anyway, I think the language of "stuck" and "dead" needs to be clarified. If "stuck" and "dead" apply to the subpixels alone, then that makes sense to me. If not, then how do you describe a pixel of the form "0+1"? Is it dead or stuck? A pixel "011" would not change in color whatsoever since all entries are constant, so calling it stuck seems logical, but the article suggests that a stuck pixel is always red, green, or blue. The described pixel would appear cyan. Furthermore, it describes most "stuck" pixels as being stuck white. While there is one condition under which this could happen (111), it seems overwhelmingly unlikely that every subpixel in that particular pixel would all become stuck "on". Does anyone see my point?

ISO 13406-2

According my interpretation of ISO 13406-2 three different types of pixels are distiguished:

hot pixels, which are always on (111),
dead pixels, which are always off (000) and
stuck pixels, where one or more sub-pixels are always on or always off.

Dead and stuck pixels both have their own wikipedia article. I've made some modifications to both articles, but I'm still not very happy with them. There is a fair amount of similar (but not identical) information. I'm wondering whether it would be feasible to create one article discussing all three possible states. Perhaps calling it Defective pixel. ʍαμ$ʏ5043 09:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that’s a good suggestion; probably with redirects from hot, dead and stuck pixel to the main article for the phrases people search on. --Van helsing 11:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. How about this? ʍαμ$ʏ5043 15:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay to me, though I’m a bit unsure about the article name "Defective pixel". Googling for it doesn’t give much. It’s a good description of course, but apparently not the most commonly used term, which is probably the "dead pixel" one. Maybe you should put it there and redir the "stuck pixel" to it? Wouldn’t have a problem with "Defective pixel" either though. --Van helsing 16:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That bothers me too. Using "defective pixel" and having everything redirect there is my personal favorite right now. But I see your point that it is not a common term. Would that be a criteria for an article title, though? I think I'll need to sleep on this for a bit. ʍαμ$ʏ5043 17:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) I’m also slightly in favor of a new "defective pixel" article with redirects to it from the most common names. We’re describing two (actually three, including "hot") highly related phenomenons in one article. A descriptive "umbrella" name covering all seems more appropriate than using the name of only one because it’s the most common, that seems to comply with the gist of WP:NC(P). I also see that the DE&NL interwiki’s use alternatives to "dead", and there are no interwiki’s for "stuck".

On the other hand "dead pixel" will be the more likely search string people use (WP:NC(CN), but redirected anyway), and requires slightly less work (restoring the links to the proper pages). --Van helsing 08:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of work to be done is relatively low. The article is already prepared here. So I can easily move it and then replace the stuck and dead pixel articles by a redirect and Hey Presto! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mausy5043 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging was completed on 13 sep 2007
ʍαμ$ʏ5043 11:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]