Defective pixel
broken pixel, generally on an LC-Display
A defective pixel or a dead pixel is a pixel on a liquid crystal display (LCD) that is not functioning properly. The ISO standard ISO 13406-2 distinguishes between three different types of defective pixels, while hardware companies tend to have further distinguishing types.
Similar defects can also occur in charge-coupled device (CCD) and CMOS image sensors in digital cameras. In these devices, defective pixels fail to sense light levels correctly, whereas defective pixels in LCDs fail to reproduce light levels correctly.
Types
Dark dot defect
A dark dot defect is usually caused by a transistor in the transparent electrode layer that is stuck "on" for TN panels or "off" for MVA, PVA, and IPS panels. In that state, the liquid crystal material does not do any rotation so that the light from the backlight does not pass through the RGB layer of the display.
Bright dot defect
A bright dot defect or hot pixel is a group of three sub-pixels (one pixel) all of whose transistors are "off" for TN panels or stuck "on" for MVA and PVA panels. This allows all light to pass through to the RGB layer, creating a bright pixel that is always on.
Another cause of bright dot may be the presence of impurities in the liquid crystal. On the one hand, impurities will affect the alignment of liquid crystal molecules, and on the other hand, they can reflect light to form bright spots.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Defective pixel” as broken pixel, generally on an LC-Display. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as broken pixel, generally on an LC-Display. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 15, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q549871. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Defective pixel”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Defective pixel primary sources, Defective pixel archive and Defective research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Defective pixel”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Defective pixel” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.