Is HDR worth it?

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
25,326
HDR is worth it, but on a monitor like that you cannot get good HDR.
Agreed. I would not get a LCD monitor without FALD if you want HDR. Edge lighting, while better than the fake frame dimming the link in the OP does, does not give the same kind of experience a proper FALD or OLED will give.
 
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
2,241
So I'm looking at New Egg and there is a 24.5" monitor on there. It's a TN panel with 280hz refresh only 1080P but it has HDR which I never experience before. Just wondering if it's worth it or if it's a dying trend today because of the few games that support it?

https://www.newegg.com/black-asus-tuf-gaming-vg258qm-24-5/p/N82E16824281113?Description=hdr monitor&cm_re=hdr_monitor-_-24-281-113-_-Product&quicklink=true
Just assume you are not going to get good HDR unless you are ready to spend 1k+ on a monitor/TV.
 

vegeta535

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
6,323
I agree with others here. That monitor will not do HDR any justice. If anything it will sour you on the experience because that monitor has piss poor specs for HDR. You really need a high end qled FALD (Full array local dimming) or oled to really experience HDR. The HDR standard is such a mess and needs to be cleaned up. HDR400 is basically just a checked box for marketing.
 
Last edited:

mtrupi

Gawd
Joined
Mar 26, 2007
Messages
765
I bought an HDR400 monitor a while back. It took some tweaking to get it to look just okay for HDR. The out of the box results were not good for HDR at all. Mine has great SDR colors so I just use it in that mode all the time.
If the 280hz refresh rate is important it might be worth for you. I don't know if there is one with that high refresh for less money.
Here's a review of the this one, https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/asus/tuf-gaming-vg258qm
They rate it highly for gaming.
 

Cali3350

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2002
Messages
4,699
HDR is a complete marketing gimmick unless its a OLED panel, or has a FALD (Full Array Local Dimming) backlighting solution. Pay absolutely no attention to any monitor listed under HDR1000 (note many HDR1000 monitors are bad too, but that's where they cross over from bad to ok).

As to the base question - HDR done right looks fantastic. The wider color depth and better contrast it affords really can make scenes look quite a bit different than standard SDR.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
58,040
Agreed. My Acer Predator CG437K is hit and miss with HDR. It depends on the game and what settings they offer for adjusting the image with HDR. It's a fine display and an expensive one. It's still no where near OLED quality when it comes to HDR.
 
Last edited:

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
25,326
HDR is a complete marketing gimmick unless its a OLED panel, or has a FALD (Full Array Local Dimming) backlighting solution. Pay absolutely no attention to any monitor listed under HDR1000 (note many HDR1000 monitors are bad too, but that's where they cross over from bad to ok).

As to the base question - HDR done right looks fantastic. The wider color depth and better contrast it affords really can make scenes look quite a bit different than standard SDR.
You can't really go by the DisplayHDR 1000 spec anymore, either, since local dimming isn't required in the latest version. I think I've already seen DisplayHDR 1000 certified monitors on the roadmap that eschew local dimming features altogether.
 

madpistol

Gawd
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
521
Agreed with all above. For HDR, OLED is by far the biggest winner (per pixel black to full brightness), but a good FALD monitor or TV is an excellent option too.

If the display is not FALD, don’t bother. It won’t do well with HDR content.
 

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
2,411
When monitors advertise "HDR" it just means they can display an image from an HDR signal. It doesn't mean they do it well.

That monitor advertising HDR is like a hybrid Prius advertising it can run on 110 octane racing fuel.

It can make a big difference with the right hardware though.
 

shadow2761

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 11, 2016
Messages
260
Like people have mentioned, HDR only looks good on screens that have the panel to display it well.

For example, I have had previously XG438Q monitor with HDR600, and also a LG 38GL950G with HDR400 rating.

And I can tell you that either of those monitors did not make much of a difference with HDR enabled, maybe the XG438Q had a slightly better image with HDR600, but only slightly to the point I wouldn't even think it's better at all.

But, I also have a LG Oled CX 48", and let me tell you that HDR on this is, no word of a lie "breathtaking". Most likely because of its individually lit Oled pixel with infinite contrast, they difference is just huge! I am unsure what a FALD or even a HDR1000 panel would looks like with HDR because I have never seen it, but all these monitor panels that claim to have HDR400, HDR600 is really just garbage in regards to HDR.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,237
Like people have mentioned, HDR only looks good on screens that have the panel to display it well.

For example, I have had previously XG438Q monitor with HDR600, and also a LG 38GL950G with HDR400 rating.

And I can tell you that either of those monitors did not make much of a difference with HDR enabled, maybe the XG438Q had a slightly better image with HDR600, but only slightly to the point I wouldn't even think it's better at all.

But, I also have a LG Oled CX 48", and let me tell you that HDR on this is, no word of a lie "breathtaking". Most likely because of its individually lit Oled pixel with infinite contrast, they difference is just huge! I am unsure what a FALD or even a HDR1000 panel would looks like with HDR because I have never seen it, but all these monitor panels that claim to have HDR400, HDR600 is really just garbage in regards to HDR.
FALD will basically fall somewhere in between. The new mini-LED backlights should do well but the older FALD will have some more halos but generally do a decent job.

Different games will handle HDR differently too. For example my Samsung CRG9, which is capable of 1000 nits brightness in HDR mode but has a completely miserable local dimming system, looked better in HDR in games like Gears 5 and Doom Eternal but worse in say Red Dead Redemption 2. Hitman 2 was better/worse on a scene by scene basis.

The LG CX 48" just does great in everything.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
25,326
FALD will basically fall somewhere in between. The new mini-LED backlights should do well but the older FALD will have some more halos but generally do a decent job.

Different games will handle HDR differently too. For example my Samsung CRG9, which is capable of 1000 nits brightness in HDR mode but has a completely miserable local dimming system, looked better in HDR in games like Gears 5 and Doom Eternal but worse in say Red Dead Redemption 2. Hitman 2 was better/worse on a scene by scene basis.

The LG CX 48" just does great in everything.
The new Samsung QN90A has a mini-LED FALD and the haloing is worse than last year's model based on the reviews. I don't know if the more dense FALD in something like the PG32UQX is going to be any better.
 

madpistol

Gawd
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
521
Like people have mentioned, HDR only looks good on screens that have the panel to display it well.

For example, I have had previously XG438Q monitor with HDR600, and also a LG 38GL950G with HDR400 rating.

And I can tell you that either of those monitors did not make much of a difference with HDR enabled, maybe the XG438Q had a slightly better image with HDR600, but only slightly to the point I wouldn't even think it's better at all.

But, I also have a LG Oled CX 48", and let me tell you that HDR on this is, no word of a lie "breathtaking". Most likely because of its individually lit Oled pixel with infinite contrast, they difference is just huge! I am unsure what a FALD or even a HDR1000 panel would looks like with HDR because I have never seen it, but all these monitor panels that claim to have HDR400, HDR600 is really just garbage in regards to HDR.
The LG CX 48" just does great in everything.
CX 55" owner here, and if you like HDR, especially in gaming, this display is second to none. I was originally playing Doom Eternal, and after the first few hours, I realized that HDR was not enabled... so I enabled it...

My eyeballs are still glowing from the glorious HDR burning that I got.... my god is it beautiful. Good HDR games on the LG CX is something that has to be seen to be believed. It's, as you said, breathtaking.

Nevermind the fact that that HDR is accompanied by 4k, 120hz, GSYNC, 10-bit, and RGB... all at the same time. It's kind of disgusting how good this display is.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
7,054
Sadly, HDR is mostly marketing BS. I mean, on a good system it looks nice, but like 90% of the monitors that claim HDR (usually HDR400) are crap.

On one monitor I have, an Aorus 1080p, enabling HDR makes the colors faded out, crushed and wrong. It's like they didn't even test it because it's unusable. But with HDR off the monitor is still okay.

My LG I use on my main machine looks alright with HDR. I mean, at least it is usable, but honestly I think it might be placebo because I can toggle on/off and I'm not sure there is a difference. It does look good either way, though.

Finally, I used to have a Samsung 4K TV. That at least did work on PS4 I think there was a difference. For some reason I never got great results with Windows, but PS4 seems to work. This was a few years ago.
 

shadow2761

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 11, 2016
Messages
260
Sadly, HDR is mostly marketing BS. I mean, on a good system it looks nice, but like 90% of the monitors that claim HDR (usually HDR400) are crap.

HDR is not BS if the panel technology displays it well, like many have mentioned here. It all boils down to the type of panel, how it is lit, dimming zones, etc.

Just like the other CX owners here have said, go and see what HDR gaming looks like on a CX, you will be totally blown away.
 

madpistol

Gawd
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
521
Just like the other CX owners here have said, go and see what HDR gaming looks like on a CX, you will be totally blown away.
The best part about the CX is it comes in 48, 55, 65, and 77 inch sizes, so as long as you're good with a large display, you can pick anything ranging from big to OMG IT'S HUGE, and you will get exactly the same processing, feature set, and panel quality.

I do wish that LG would create a smaller OLED monitor that has the same great features as the CX (or C1 for the new model), but sadly, that doesn't seem to be happening just yet.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
7,054
HDR is not BS if the panel technology displays it well, like many have mentioned here. It all boils down to the type of panel, how it is lit, dimming zones, etc.

Just like the other CX owners here have said, go and see what HDR gaming looks like on a CX, you will be totally blown away.
Yeah, I know. I demoed some TVs in Best Buy and HDR was amazing. I'm just saying that the HDR400 monitors that are flooding the market are junk.
 

shadow2761

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 11, 2016
Messages
260
Yeah, I know. I demoed some TVs in Best Buy and HDR was amazing. I'm just saying that the HDR400 monitors that are flooding the market are junk.
Yup, not just HDR400, HDR600 aswell, I know from experience because I owned several for months but keep cycling them out to try other monitors.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
25,326
Sadly, HDR is mostly marketing BS. I mean, on a good system it looks nice, but like 90% of the monitors that claim HDR (usually HDR400) are crap.

On one monitor I have, an Aorus 1080p, enabling HDR makes the colors faded out, crushed and wrong. It's like they didn't even test it because it's unusable. But with HDR off the monitor is still okay.

My LG I use on my main machine looks alright with HDR. I mean, at least it is usable, but honestly I think it might be placebo because I can toggle on/off and I'm not sure there is a difference. It does look good either way, though.

Finally, I used to have a Samsung 4K TV. That at least did work on PS4 I think there was a difference. For some reason I never got great results with Windows, but PS4 seems to work. This was a few years ago.
Which Samsung TV did you have? The older ones that had a FALD only had something like 40-60 dimming zones. Spread that out over the surface area of a 40"+ TV and those zones are going to be huge. Most Samsung models from back then still used "full frame dimming," though, like my KU6300 did.

But this is generally what I refer to about most people believing HDR is either a negative or doesn't make any difference because of all the displays that offer a poor implementation. And that is compounded by the fact that displays that offer good HDR are still generally expensive, especially in the FALD monitor arena.
 

madpistol

Gawd
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
521
Which Samsung TV did you have? The older ones that had a FALD only had something like 40-60 dimming zones. Spread that out over the surface area of a 40"+ TV and those zones are going to be huge. Most Samsung models from back then still used "full frame dimming," though, like my KU6300 did.

But this is generally what I refer to about most people believing HDR is either a negative or doesn't make any difference because of all the displays that offer a poor implementation. And that is compounded by the fact that displays that offer good HDR are still generally expensive, especially in the FALD monitor arena.
I have a Samsung 65" Q90R (2019 model) which has 480 dimming zones, and while it definitely helps, the Q90R falls flat on HDR in certain situations, specifically high contrast scenarios (small bright spots in a dark room). Usually the issue is that it darkens those areas, leading to a "gamma fade" effect, where your eye is telling you an object should be brighter than it actually is. This is most noticeable in streaming content, such as Marvel movies on Disney+. 2 movies where it is very noticeable would be "Thor: The Dark World" and "Iron Man". Now, with that being said, neither movie was mastered in HDR when they were first released as HDR displays did not exist at that time. However, my LG CX OLED (which I use as my PC monitor) has no such issues when watching these movies from the Disney+ app, also in HDR; the movies are bright, colorful, and punchy on the LG CX, and seeing as the CX is OLED, those bright spots in dark scenes punch extremely hard and look absolutely gorgeous.

It's all about the technology, and for HDR, OLED is always a good choice.



EDIT: Let's be clear. I LOVE my Samsung Q90R. It is big, bright, and beautiful, and in 90% of content scenarios, the TV is a masterpiece. I have played games like Final Fantasy 7: Remake with HDR on this TV, and it is an absolute treat. It also does an absolutely amazing job at upscaling to 4K when playing console games on my Switch and PS4.
 
Last edited:

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
7,054
The TV I had was a Q7F. It did not have local dimming zones, but it could get very bright.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
25,326
I have a Samsung 65" Q90R (2019 model) which has 480 dimming zones, and while it definitely helps, the Q90R falls flat on HDR in certain situations, specifically high contrast scenarios (small bright spots in a dark room). Usually the issue is that it darkens those areas, leading to a "gamma fade" effect, where your eye is telling you an object should be brighter than it actually is. This is most noticeable in streaming content, such as Marvel movies on Disney+. 2 movies where it is very noticeable would be "Thor: The Dark World" and "Iron Man". Now, with that being said, neither movie was mastered in HDR when they were first released as HDR displays did not exist at that time. However, my LG CX OLED (which I use as my PC monitor) has no such issues when watching these movies from the Disney+ app, also in HDR; the movies are bright, colorful, and punchy on the LG CX, and seeing as the CX is OLED, those bright spots in dark scenes punch extremely hard and look absolutely gorgeous.

It's all about the technology, and for HDR, OLED is always a good choice.



EDIT: Let's be clear. I LOVE my Samsung Q90R. It is big, bright, and beautiful, and in 90% of content scenarios, the TV is a masterpiece. I have played games like Final Fantasy 7: Remake with HDR on this TV, and it is an absolute treat. It also does an absolutely amazing job at upscaling to 4K when playing console games on my Switch and PS4.
480 is decent, but the size of the TV is going to exacerbate the haloing effect. Each zone is covering 3.76 in² of the display and 17,280 pixels, so there is going to be a lot of bleed into other details that is going to be noticeable. My PG27UQ covers even more pixels per zone, but I don't think it's bad even with a dark game like Resident Evil 7. There is still a lot of apparent contrast between a pitch black corner and a point or tube light.

Which brings up another issue I think people are neglecting with HDR (not saying it's an issue with you, just in general): How many people calibrate the brightness in game when they were playing SDR? Have these people changed their habits to calibrate HDR? Every game needs to be calibrated for HDR individually, and that can make all the difference in the world. Almost every game I play with HDR needs their default settings tweaked a lot, in my experience. It seems that by default they are being set for HDR400. This is another issue that can poison a person's experience with HDR.
 

madpistol

Gawd
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
521
480 is decent, but the size of the TV is going to exacerbate the haloing effect. Each zone is covering 3.76 in² of the display and 17,280 pixels, so there is going to be a lot of bleed into other details that is going to be noticeable. My PG27UQ covers even more pixels per zone, but I don't think it's bad even with a dark game like Resident Evil 7. There is still a lot of apparent contrast between a pitch black corner and a point or tube light.

Which brings up another issue I think people are neglecting with HDR (not saying it's an issue with you, just in general): How many people calibrate the brightness in game when they were playing SDR? Have these people changed their habits to calibrate HDR? Every game needs to be calibrated for HDR individually, and that can make all the difference in the world. Almost every game I play with HDR needs their default settings tweaked a lot, in my experience. It seems that by default they are being set for HDR400. This is another issue that can poison a person's experience with HDR.
Calibration is just as important as the HDR mastering in content. An SDR picture is easy to calibrate. Brightness and Contrast scale linearly with backlight intensity. HDR is far more difficult to calibrate as the difference between dark and bright is quite extreme (the Q90R can do 1500+ Nits in HDR), and if the content is not mastered correctly, the gamma will wash out in high contrast areas. This is one of the pit-falls of a FALD LCD set; the display processor has to approximate brightness for a group of pixels, and it has to do it very quickly. This is why in a lot of FALD displays you will get a trailing light effect, where it make take 2-3 frames for a bright spot to reach the correct brightness, especially coming from a dark part of the screen. Most TV's with "Game Mode" relax this processing and approximate for a larger area, so that the display can create an image far more quickly than standard "Movie Mode".

With OLED, specifically the LG CX, lighting is calculated on a per pixel basis, which is fast and easy (apply voltage to the pixel). This is another reason why the CX is such a great gaming display.
 
Top