Are LCD black levels really this bad? (w/screenshots)

[Menelmarar]

This is BS. Most Dells are in fact samsungs and have the same backlights. I tried 2 dells and they both had samsung panels. I checked out Samsungs at bestbuy and they have all the same problems.

Alot of their panels are also LG/Philips.

The 24" Dell that the OP is talking about is not Samsung. And you should be glad, Dell picked up a much better manufacturer for these. The Samsung 24" has horrible input lag issues and renders it nearly unusable for gaming.

 

[Volume]

Dell claims another victim? The worst backlight offenders appear to be dell and (to a lesser degree) viewsonic. Samsung has very good backlighting.

Mine is in fact a Viewsonic.

 

[Tutelary]

Mine is in fact a Viewsonic.

I should probably clarify bad backlight so people dont cry about it. Bad being very uneven, lit brightly in corners, etc. The very nature of backlighting means you obviously wont have an image thats 100% black, but will it look black against other colors in normal desktop modes? sure.

I think the people who complain most about lighting on lcds have the worst backlight bleeding. Evenly distributed backlighting simply provides a better experience, even without being able to match the subtle variances of crt.

how about some backlighting pics from the people participating in the thread?

 

[MentatYP]

Negative, dark problems only come up in dark games (Doom3) and movies.

I don't use my computer for movies so a non issue, have a great TV and entertainment setup in the living room for that.

I don't game all that much anymore, some raiding in wow a couple times a week is about all these days.

-The LCD doesn't fatique my eyes during long usage sessions (My biggest motivation for getting an LCD), long hours programming or working on schematics, or even gaming like a long evening raid as mentioned above.
-Geometry is perfect.
-It doesn't take up much room on my desk.
-Not much of an additional heater in the room.
-Text and images in windows are perfectly clear and look adequate for me.

Agreed. If you use your LCD for more than playing Doom or F.E.A.R., there's a lot to like about LCDs. You just have to accept the bad with the good, in that LCD black levels will never, NEVER, be as good as CRT black levels. After all, how could they be? LCD backlight bleeds through, even when displaying supposedly pitch black. Take 10 minutes to browse through any good projector forum (I suggest avsforum.com) and you'll see that even people who choose LCD over DLP will readily concede that black levels are LCDs' number one weakness. True some are better than others, but black level is still LCD's Achilles's heel.

LCD technology would have to radically change, at which point it wouldn't really be LCD anymore, to get truly excellent black levels. But for me personally the positives far outweigh the negatives. I can't imagine ever going back to a standard CRT.

 

[PKFGimpy]

What I don't understand is how it seems like the majority of gamers nowadays are gaming on LCD's (or at aleast a very large percentage) and yet only a small minority of them actually notice any problems and voice their concerns when playing dark games.

For instance, I just recently read a review of Prey and the reviewer played through the entire game on his 2405FPW. Not once during the review did he complain about the poor black levels... and I just don't see how a professional reviewer could play through a game like Prey without noting this obvious issue if he was gaming on the same display as me.

For me, it can really kill the experience.

 

[MentatYP]

Enjoyment is subjective, and not everybody is as discerning as you. The same is true in all sorts of areas like audio (people think Bose is the best, when in fact they are some of the worst speakers around in terms of sound quality and bang-for-the-buck), and video (lots of folks don't see what the big deal is with HDTV). I don't really trust non-videophiles to give subjective reviews of LCDs. Just stick to the objective measurements, please.

Also, ambient light levels can make a huge difference. If you play with low ambient light you'll notice the greyish black levels a lot more than if you are in a bright room.

 

[Tutelary]

What I don't understand is how it seems like the majority of gamers nowadays are gaming on LCD's (or at aleast a very large percentage) and yet only a small minority of them actually notice any problems and voice their concerns when playing dark games.

For instance, I just recently read a review of Prey and the reviewer played through the entire game on his 2405FPW. Not once during the review did he complain about the poor black levels... and I just don't see how a professional reviewer could play through a game like Prey without noting this obvious issue if he was gaming on the same display as me.

For me, it can really kill the experience.

theres so much ghosting/blur whatever you want to call it, that I wouldnt complain about black levels

 

[Tutelary]

I would call my own backlight very even
http://aycu08.webshots.com/image/847/1011231726177330459_rs.jpg
forgive the crosshair. I created a 1280x1024 image in photoshop, filled black, and went full screen. This is a Samsung 930B...you know, the one that has backlight bleeding according to several people in this thread

 

[Tigrou]

Mine isn't that great (SDM-HS95). The monitor and video drivers take quite a bit of tweaking to not look like shit.

there is several versions of SDM HS and some doesnt have a 1000:1 ratio.


More generally, are black levels of Dell 2xx7 as bad as the 2005 one?
Did having a glossy screen really help ?

 

[Volume]

I should probably clarify bad backlight so people dont cry about it. Bad being very uneven, lit brightly in corners, etc. The very nature of backlighting means you obviously wont have an image thats 100% black, but will it look black against other colors in normal desktop modes? sure.

I think the people who complain most about lighting on lcds have the worst backlight bleeding. Evenly distributed backlighting simply provides a better experience, even without being able to match the subtle variances of crt.

how about some backlighting pics from the people participating in the thread?

I can't provide pics, but the best way I can describe it is that near the bottom and top edges of my screen, when going through very dark places, the colors seem almost like an inverted grayscale.... not sure how much sense that makes to you, but it's the best way I can describe how bad this bleeding is.

Suffice to say, it ruins my game experience in some cases. I'm in no way bashing LCD's, though, as I think the benefits outweigh the negatives.

 

[Snowdog]

-The LCD doesn't fatique my eyes during long usage sessions (My biggest motivation for getting an LCD), long hours programming or working on schematics, or even gaming like a long evening raid as mentioned above.
-Geometry is perfect.
-It doesn't take up much room on my desk.
-Not much of an additional heater in the room.
-Text and images in windows are perfectly clear and look adequate for me.

A properly set up CRT is no more hard on the eyes than LCD for most people. Most people have no trouble with either, Some have problems with CRT, some with LCD.

LCD is harder on the eyes for me. There have been several other people have posted here with the issue as well.

I am a programmer by trade. I do very longer hours on CRT between programming at work and surfing/gaming at home.

My 19" CRT was dying so I tried 2 LCD's and eventually went with CRT. The dell 2405 just killed my eyes(I think this is one of the worse LCD displays for quality). The Dell 2007fp was better but not as good as the CRT I went with in the end.

Perfect geometry is something of a joke unless you are doing industrial CAD. You have a full set of controls to adjust CRT geometry that will get it so good that know could notice without a test pattern and measuring tools.

CRT is amazing if you get a good one. Grab a nice Trinitron 21" refurb while you can. These are the nicest displays I have ever used.

 

[kleox64]

Alot of their panels are also LG/Philips.

The 24" Dell that the OP is talking about is not Samsung. And you should be glad, Dell picked up a much better manufacturer for these. The Samsung 24" has horrible input lag issues and renders it nearly unusable for gaming.

which dell are you refering too, both the 2405 and 2407 all revisions use the samsung S-PVA panel. Note that LG wasnt producing a 24" LCD when the 2407 was released and the spec is different anyway.

 

[Menelmarar]

which dell are you refering too, both the 2405 and 2407 all revisions use the samsung S-PVA panel. Note that LG wasnt producing a 24" LCD when the 2407 was released and the spec is different anyway.

Sorry I was wrong, I assumed not since Samsung's 244T version has had lots of mouse lag problems where the Dells I've used have not and I haven't seen complaints on this with the Dell.

 

[Shottah_king]

If you would actually read through this and many other threads (on various forums) you'd realize this is a very common complaint with LCD technology.

Yes I know this is a common complaint of LCD technology but what I'm saying is not all LCDs have this problem. My Dell 1905fp had absolutely no backlight bleed through of any kind. To be honest, blacks were almost too black, and i can assure you that Prey/doom3/quake4 did not look like that Dell WS in the earlier pictures of this thread. This is why I said comparing 1 brand/model lcd to a CRT is pointless as 1 LCD does not and cannot represent all LCD monitors.

 

[kleox64]

the lag issue is due to the PVA technology and maybe better or worse depending on the panel, put it this way I considered my 2405 unbearable and the 2407 is alot worse.

 

[Alien]

I never had issues with blackness of my LCD, in fact the contrast is better IMO to my old CRT. I do tweak the video card drivers so maybe that's the difference.

 

[Snowdog]

I never had issues with blackness of my LCD, in fact the contrast is better IMO to my old CRT. I do tweak the video card drivers so maybe that's the difference.

Then I suggest you old CRT was dead. When I first got my LCD in the middle of the day and put it next to my old CRT, I thought that is a nice improvement.

Later watching movies in a dark room, it was "Yuck" black was grey.

The LCD had terrible blacks, which it masked by pumping up the brightness big time. I might have been able to live with any one of the LCD image quality shortcomings (like poor black), but there were about a half dozen things that stood out so I ditched the LCDs and went back to CRT.

Then I got my Refurb 21" trinitron and the blacks were amazing, including in a dark room. There is just no comparison. I keep wishing I could somehow get the CRT image quality in LCD packaging. Since I can't I live with the 70lb monster on my desk.

 

[mathesar]

Yes I know this is a common complaint of LCD technology but what I'm saying is not all LCDs have this problem. My Dell 1905fp had absolutely no backlight bleed through of any kind. To be honest, blacks were almost too black, and i can assure you that Prey/doom3/quake4 did not look like that Dell WS in the earlier pictures of this thread. This is why I said comparing 1 brand/model lcd to a CRT is pointless as 1 LCD does not and cannot represent all LCD monitors.

Black levels on an LCD with no backlight bleeding still leave much desired when compared to a properly configured CRT, Im talking shades of grey here (black crush) not the appearance of pitch black (which is still lacking when compared).

Check out my previous post and try the greyscale test, im willing to bet the black crush is worse than you think on your LCD.

 

[Staples]

Black levels are and probably always will be a weakness of LCDs however good LCDs are much better than cheap LCDs. I have a Samsung 204T. Most people would never buy it because it is a 16ms panel however the trade offs are well worth it. In order to get 8ms, most panels cut down on color capibilities, dark levels and viewing angles. The 204T does not make any of those compromises.

Stay away from so called gaming monitors. They may be faster as color transitions but they didn't get there because of better engineering.

 

[DusanV]

You just have to accept the bad with the good, in that LCD black levels will never, NEVER, be as good as CRT black levels. After all, how could they be? LCD backlight bleeds through, even when displaying supposedly pitch black.

Never? Try right now (the prices will come down). The deal is called LED backlight:

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1073553

CRTs are better on black levels right now than an average LCD. But better LCDs are so easy on eyes. Text is very sharp (I code too) and there is no flicker (I can easily see 72 Hz flicker, I had to run my CRT s @85 & @90). For me, that's more important than black levels. Also lower electricity consumption so it doesn't heat the room (my 19'' Trinitrons were at 230W each), smaller footprint. For me it's good riddance CRT!

 

[Snowdog]

Never? Try right now (the prices will come down). The deal is called LED backlight:

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1073553

CRTs are better on black levels right now than an average LCD. But better LCDs are so easy on eyes. Text is very sharp (I code too) and there is no flicker (I can easily see 72 Hz flicker, I had to run my CRT s @85 & @90). For me, that's more important than black levels. Also lower electricity consumption so it doesn't heat the room (my 19'' Trinitrons were at 230W each), smaller footprint. For me it's good riddance CRT!

What a load of disinformation. See my post above about easy on the eyes. Flicker? So run at 85Hz whats the problem? 19" 230 watts? My 21" trinitron is 130 watts.

 

[DusanV]

What a load of disinformation. See my post above about easy on the eyes. Flicker? So run at 85Hz whats the problem? 19" 230 watts? My 21" trinitron is 130 watts.

Sorry about the bad info on wattage:

http://www.ciao.co.uk/Productinformation/Sony_CPD_G400__5393266

I seemed to recall 230 W but it's actually 140 W. Dell's 2405 which you (and I) had is really bad on eyes in a dark room, I agree, but that's a bad example (new 2405s now sell for not a heck of a lot more than what you paid for a couple year old Sony and with a good reason). The Dell 3007 is in another league (and many other LCDs). But you're happy with the FW400 so we're all happy.

Edit: Your Sony model is FW900 not really sure how much you paid for it...

 

[MentatYP]

Never? Try right now (the prices will come down). The deal is called LED backlight:

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1073553

CRTs are better on black levels right now than an average LCD. But better LCDs are so easy on eyes. Text is very sharp (I code too) and there is no flicker (I can easily see 72 Hz flicker, I had to run my CRT s @85 & @90). For me, that's more important than black levels. Also lower electricity consumption so it doesn't heat the room (my 19'' Trinitrons were at 230W each), smaller footprint. For me it's good riddance CRT!

LOL! You're looking at specs on paper and believe that this LED backlight will make LCDs as good as CRTs in terms of black level? Man, at least wait for the thing to be available to the public and see if it's all that. I'm looking forward to it too, but until it's released it's just theory. Theoretically these screens will improve black level. But what will it break? Let's wait and see.

 

[GreenMonkey]

You're seeing black crush. This is what happens when a display does not have good enough black levels or a good enough contrast ratio.

I personally can't stand LCDs for this reason. The newer ones that push near 1000:1 aren't bad. My DLP projector is rated for 2000:1 but gets a little less than that in reality. And I only tolerate it for the 100" image that I get

For those insisting you have deep blacks, try putting up one of the black level test screens on your PC. Or play one of the home theater tuning DVDs like Avia or Digital Video Essentials. Remember that bright colors against dark colors make the dark colors look more black. I'm typing this on an LCD at work - Hardforum looks very black. But that's only because I'm not trying to watch a dark movie or play a dark game on it.

Try watching a dark show on it like the X-files, or LOTR. You lose a lot of the dynamic range with an LCD, making scenes in the dark very hard to see - they lose detail.

You can tune the monitor to help. This is the reason why projector screens typically have a black border.

Another 24" GDM-FW900 Sony CRT owner here (approx ~22.5" viewable). Why would I want to buy an inferior product for more money? Most of the LCD pros include things like space, weight, heat production, energy usage, etc - nothing I really give a damn about.

I'll bet a lot of people saying CRTs produce too much heat have a super-high heat producing video card, CPU, all overclocked making more heat

Stuf like text is a bit sharper on an LCD thanks to perfect geometry and no convergence, but that's the only pro in the PQ department.

I'd love if there were small Plasmas like LCDs, since plasmas have much better blacks and detail in dark scenes.

As they say here, it shouldn't really be called black level detail, but really Shadow detail, perhaps




Here's a great guide to help explain how this works in normal-people language. Maybe this will help the OP who is obviously not happy with LCD shadow detail. May I recommend a Sony GDM-FW900?

http://www.svconline.com/mag/avinstall_shades_gray/

Numbers are great for impressing people and can sustain a good argument for several hours. But peak contrast claims don't tell you everything about performance of a projector or monitor when it comes to rendering images with lifelike gray scales. They can only tell you how much brighter the white levels can be than the black levels. Caveat emptor.

BTW: mathesar, your side-by-side picture speaks for itself, I saw it on avsforum where I do my plasma/projector research

 

[d_roas]

Black levels on an LCD with no backlight bleeding still leave much desired when compared to a properly configured CRT, Im talking shades of grey here (black crush) not the appearance of pitch black (which is still lacking when compared).

Check out my previous post and try the greyscale test, im willing to bet the black crush is worse than you think on your LCD.

On my Samsung 740T (1500:1 PVA panel), I can just *barely* make out step 3, with 4 being the first clearly visible. On the HP L1755 that I own (1000:1 PVA), 4 is the first cleary visible, 3 can't be had (at least it couldn't during the 15 minutes I was willing to waste trying). Both tests done in a completely dark room. Aside from a little smearing, Doom 3 looks pretty damn good on these screens... not as nice as high-end CRT"s for sure... but not bad. Calibrating your screen helps a lot.

Maybe I'll set the Trinitron up and do some side-by-side comparisions over the weekend...

 

[Shocky]

Here's a great guide to help explain how this works in normal-people language. Maybe this will help the OP who is obviously not happy with LCD shadow detail. May I recommend a Sony GDM-FW900?

http://www.svconline.com/mag/avinstall_shades_gray/

First I can see is 3 on my 2407, wouldnt supprise me if allot or CRT's struggled with that. I always found especally triniton tube based monitors to be to dark, I remember playing Doom3 on my 22" iiyama, it so dark it was just unplayable, dark areas in movies also just appeared as black objects on the screen with no detail... So CRT's arent perfect either.

the lag issue is due to the PVA technology and maybe better or worse depending on the panel, put it this way I considered my 2405 unbearable and the 2407 is alot worse.

Strange, because the 2407 has lower responce time and decreased input lag. Must be you since the 2407 is a faster panel all round

 

[trek554]

On my Samsung 740T (1500:1 PVA panel), I can just *barely* make out step 3, with 4 being the first clearly visible. On the HP L1755 that I own (1000:1 PVA), 4 is the first cleary visible, 3 can't be had (at least it couldn't during the 15 minutes I was willing to waste trying). Both tests done in a completely dark room. Aside from a little smearing, Doom 3 looks pretty damn good on these screens... not as nice as high-end CRT"s for sure... but not bad. Calibrating your screen helps a lot.

Maybe I'll set the Trinitron up and do some side-by-side comparisions over the weekend...

please do.

 

[kleox64]

the 2407 has alot more input lag and played worse than my 2405 in DOOM3, FEAR, HL2, UNREAL 2/2003, if you think that the 6ms response time comes for free you are mistaken.
The response time is another issue alltogether and is much much higher than samsung quotes, ith2 2405 had an average of 20-23ms response time.

 

[Shocky]

the 2407 has alot more input lag and played worse than my 2405 in DOOM3, FEAR, HL2, UNREAL 2/2003, if you think that the 6ms response time comes for free you are mistaken.
The response time is another issue alltogether and is much much higher than samsung quotes, ith2 2405 had an average of 20-23ms response time.

I trust my own eyes and the these guy much more then I trust you.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/dell_2xx7wfp.htm

It appears from early reports that the 2407WFP does suffer from some input lag, but it is less than that on the 2405FPW. Again, I would like to reiterate that this lag is so minor that the majority of users would never notice it in real use and in gaming. Some hard core gamers and those looking for the lag will notice it perhaps, but it is not something most people need worry about.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/dell_2407wfp/inputlag_comparison.jpg
Above:

bandito: "Tested mine by splitting VGA signal between 2405FPW and 2407WFP. 2405 was lagging 40 to 50 ms to a ViewSonic LCD... while 20 to 30ms against 2407WFP. The lag of 2407WFP is therefore reduced to a minimal.. 10 to 20ms."

And another one one which does some responce time/lag tests,

http://www.behardware.com/articles/629-6/24-inches-the-dell-2407wfp-vs-the-samsung-244t.html

Also, a review of the Samsung 244T which uses the same panel as the 2407.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=2662

Despite the 244T sporting a 6ms response time, Samsung hasn’t degraded the image quality by using a 6-bit panel. Many of the low response time monitors available employ 6-bit panels to help achieve the faster switching, but the 244T uses an 8-bit panel, so it can produce the full 16.7 million True Colour gamut. Considering that a high resolution screen like this is ideal for image editing, the last thing you would want is a reduced bit depth, but the fact that Samsung has still achieved a very low response time means that the 244T is great for games and movies too. Of course the 6ms rating is a grey to grey measurement rather than off-on-off, but to be fair, pretty much every manufacturer quotes grey to grey times these days.

 

[Liver]

This is BS. Most Dells are in fact samsungs and have the same backlights. I tried 2 dells and they both had samsung panels. I checked out Samsungs at bestbuy and they have all the same problems.

when? when will people understand the panel is part of the monitor, and not the monitor itself?

the rest of the quality comes from the associated electronics and quality assurance / inspection. I seriously doubt your would compare a custom computer on par with a Dell box because they share the same CPU.

 

[Snowdog]

when? when will people understand the panel is part of the monitor, and not the monitor itself?

the rest of the quality comes from the associated electronics and quality assurance / inspection. I seriously doubt your would compare a custom computer on par with a Dell box because they share the same CPU.

When will people understand how equipment is manufactured and that most of it is put together by the same factories in China with different cases for different manufacturers. Panels and backlighting are packaged together as a set by the OEM along with final stage driver electronics. Very few manufactuers change backlighting at all. It appears that only NEC uses custom backlighting in some panels it gets from other manufactures.

When my dell 2405 turned out to be crap, I didn't know if they were all like this so I went to bestbuys and examined the Samsung 24" very carefully. It had the same specs and all the same issues mine had. Exactly as I had them.

There is no image quality difference between Samsungs and Dells that share the same panel, unless there is fault on differring input stages but that would not manifest as poor blacks, which are endemic to LCD technology that is essentially shining light through a curtain. That curtain always allows shine through and that muddies the dark end.

 

[Shocky]

When will people understand how equipment is manufactured and that most of it is put together by the same factories in China with different cases for different manufacturers. Panels and backlighting are packaged together as a set by the OEM along with final stage driver electronics. Very few manufactuers change backlighting at all. It appears that only NEC uses custom backlighting in some panels it gets from other manufactures.

When my dell 2405 turned out to be crap, I didn't know if they were all like this so I went to bestbuys and examined the Samsung 24" very carefully. It had the same specs and all the same issues mine had. Exactly as I had them.

There is no image quality difference between Samsungs and Dells that share the same panel, unless there is fault on differring input stages but that would not manifest as poor blacks, which are endemic to LCD technology that is essentially shining light through a curtain. That curtain always allows shine through and that muddies the dark end.

Your right but your also wrong, monitors with the exact same panel are not exactly the same. An example, The Dell 2407WFP and Samsung 244T share the same panel. One suffers with colour banding, one does not; one suffers with greater input lag, the other does not.

 

[Erkk]

Now that we are 10 years later, how this issue evolved?
Are TN monitors better now and by how much?

 

[nightanole]

Now that we are 10 years later, how this issue evolved?
Are TN monitors better now and by how much?

Well now we have 8bit tn panels that dither to 10bit, vs 2006 where we had 6 bit panels that dithered to 8 bit. And we have dynamic back lighting, but we do not have local dimming yet. But yea lcd is lcd, its only going to be 1500:1 contrast ration black to black, nothing will change that.

 

[elvn]

Black level depth can be different than black levels + detail in blacks. LCD tech includes VA panels which have higher contrast ratios. Comparing a TN or ips to a VA is a large difference.

I've been using my direct LED zone backlight Vizio M 4k VA tv lately (32 zones) and I love the contrast and black depth. I have a sony xbr960 crt (34" widescreen , hdmi input, 1080i/"720p") next to it in the corner as well to watch shows on while I am using the tv for desktop computer use or gaming.

The vizio dynamic contrast ratio using the zone backlight dynamically is listed as 20,000,000:1, turning that off it goes to 4780:1, still in the 5000 range (I like to leave dynamic on though). The eizo foriz fg 2421 gaming monitor (which I don't own) is listed at 5000:1. Some of these tv's have low input lag of 15ms as well. My vizio can even do 120hz native input at 1080p. What they don't have is modern gaming overdrive and variable hz tech like g-sync.

Currently I'm using an asus pg278q at my desk and it's hard to go back to it's black levels after using the TV. If I could have the smoothness of g-sync and the motion clarity and motion definition of high hz + high frame rate in a monitor with such black levels + detail-in-blacks it would be great.

There are some 27" 2560 x 1440 144hz and 35" 3440 x 1440 144hz - 200hz VA gaming monitors due out end of 2016 or early 2017 that I am interested in. They'll have modern gaming overdrive and should have some sort of variable hz tech. Hopefully there will be a g-sync model of each and not just a free-sync one.
Of course these upcoming VA monitors almost certainly will lack direct led backlights or dynamic contrast direct backlights. Until years from now when OLED becomes more of an expensive choice rather than what I consider cost prohibitive pricing (in both gaming monitors and very large ~70" tvs), these VA will probably be a good choice for me for the next several years, assuming their quality pans out in reviews.

Here is yet another update to the TftCentral articles, only concerning AUO:
LCD and TFT Monitor News

In short:
- 25'' & 27'' 1080p 240hz TN panels end of 2016
- 35'' 3440x1440 now 200hz VA end of 2016
- 31.5'' 1440p 144hz VA Q4 production (same as planned Samsung panel)
- 27'' 1440p 144hz VA in planning phase
- 27'' 4k 144hz AHVA (IPS) mass production in 2017
- 240hz 1440p planned in 2017

(Updated OP)

HDR displays with hardware capable of much wider range nit blacklevel and nit brightness conforming to the HDR standard should become more common too:
HDR TV: What is it and should you care?

a TV could have a peak brightness of 400 nits and a black level of 0.4 nits.
how can OLED, with its brightness issues, qualify for HDR compatibility which demands much higher brightness levels than standard TVs? Well, the UHD Alliance has got around the problem by introducing two standards:

STANDARD 1: More than 1,000 nits peak brightness and less than 0.05nits black level.

STANDARD 2: More than 540 nits brightness and less than 0.0005 nits black level. <EDIT: OLED>

While standard one demands higher brightness and tolerates a higher black level, standard two tolerates a lower brightness and demands a lower black level. This means manufacturers looking to make LED HDR TVs, which most are, will abide by standard one, while OLED TVs will be able to gain the Ultra HD Premium label by conforming to standard two.

And it doesn’t stop there. If you’re still with us, there’s more colour stuff to go over. An HDR TV must be able to produce a certain amount of what’s known as ‘P3’ colour. P3 colour refers to the range of the colour spectrum which is included. The best way to think about this is imagine an overall colour spectrum, and within that a set of defined spaces. The P3 colour space is a larger than the what standard TVs use, Rec. 709, which means it covers more colours.

P3 is a few percent more than adobe RGB.

 

[Armenius]

Now that we are 10 years later, how this issue evolved?
Are TN monitors better now and by how much?

Colors and contrast have gotten better, but backlights haven't really improved insofar as perceived black levels. I personally think that my old ASUS VH242H with a CCFL backlight had better perceived blacks compared to my PG278Q with a W-LED backlight, even though overall picture quality of the latter is magnitudes better. Contrast and black levels on my VG278HE with a standard LED backlight were garbage.