While I was overseas recently, I bought a Samsung S24C350HL (24", 1920x1080) monitor for a local installation. This was not my preferred monitor but the local pricing on computer goods was outrageous and it seemed to be an OK consumer monitor. In no more than a week, I noticed burn-in. Usually the monitor displayed a 3x3 matrix of cameras and I did not notice the problem. However if I chose one of the cameras to take up the entire screen, I then noticed the 3x3 matrix burn-in. It wasn't horrendous but I immediately set the monitor to go to sleep after a while rather than just remain on all of the time. Hopefully this will help.
At a previous company, lots of QA testing was performed on video products. We had a whole range of monitors from consumer LED TV's, to the very nice Apple monitors to professional monitors for video work. I don't remember exactly which monitors suffered burn-in but most of the monitors exhibited this problem to varying degrees.
I remember when LCD technology arrived, it was commonly said that burn-in was a thing of the past. Technically that might be true but the image retention problem lives on and I believe is reasonably widespread.
In 2011, John stated "Purchase surveillance-rated displays" to avoid problems including burn-in. That article sparked my questions above about what specs or technologies to look for in a "surveillance monitor". John's article quoted consumer (possibly 1920x1080) monitors costing US$600 in 2011 whereas now it is easy to find such monitors under $200. I wonder how much the prices of "surveillance monitors" might have changed?
