Why OLED for PC use?

[kramnelis]

I use my c2 at max brightness, I have less eye strain than on my last IPS monitor. I don't notice any flicker or anything. I believe I even mentioned this remark at this forum when I first bought it months ago.

Not sure why the things you are typing are so often the opposite for me. Again, preference perhaps?

You don't even have a lowly max 200nits APL on C2. You have 150nits average at most. And you sit further away on a TV compared to a monitor.

I like how LG shot its own foot on its flicker-free OLED.



In reality, every OLED flickers. Good luck with that when the brightness gets a little bit higher. But ironically OLED cannot get brighter anyway.

 

[Zahua]

It's more like you have these "trusted" reviewers as a backup of your imagination.

This is trolling and you seem genuinely upset that there are OLED displays that people, including professional reviewers, prefer more than your dated, incredibly bloomy, and incredibly slow PG32UQX.

These reviewers are and always will be better sources than you, and bashing them with ad hominems will prove nothing. Nothing you say will make my opinion incorrect or "imagined".

You're just trying to get the last post in, I saw you lose multiple times in multiple pages from multiple people through the entire thread. A punching bag of misinformation.

 

[kramnelis]

sRGB is the standard for *accuracy*. You keep saying you can see "better images" as if accuracy doesn't matter at all. To many of us, accuracy does matter, particularly in sRGB. Feel free to ask directors, colorists, etc. if they feel like an accurate picture is "pathetic".

Sure, people can convert things to HDR on a whim like you're apparently a fan of, or for SDR I could just turn things to Vivid or increase the brightness/color saturation. But that would all just be subjective "I guess that looks good to me", which is not something I care to do. I know people who casually watch things and prefer modes like Vivid because they give the picture extra pop. And you know what, that's fine - that's their preference and who am I to tell them any different? Same goes for you. But me personally? I'll take a calibrated image closer to creator intent, especially in SDR. In HDR, I'll get as close as I can with tone mapping. The SDR advantages of OLED matter to me more.

OLED is increasingly getting to higher ranges. As high as FALD, obviously not, but it's come quite a ways in the last few years. The HDR on these modern OLEDs, while not perfect and achieving the brightness of FALD, is quite impactful, and a lot of reviews tend to agree.

I like how you defend the lifeless sRGB as a way of accuracy while not caring about the better images OLED cannot display accurately. If I want to see sRGB for some reason then I get easy Delta E < 1 on FALD. It's that easy. But there is no point to see it because there are much better images at high range.

In the meanwhile, you can make HDR with FALD. You cannot make HDR with an OLED. So in the end it's the OLED has issues whether it is up to the task to display images made by FALD. OLED is already several levels behind.

In your opinion - it looks great to me and I find it generally very pleasant. You cannot say there are "better images at higher range with better accuracy" on FALD when in the same breath you're talking about custom-made content without taking accuracy into account at all. You may find the images *subjectively* better, and yes they're at higher range, but if they're converted SDR, they're inherently less accurate than the sRGB version. That's just how it works.

It's always about preference. There's a set of pros and cons with each and every technology, and each of us has to choose what matters to us.

You're arguing that OLED displays are "pathetic" and would cause eyestrain if they were brighter, which they're not, but they better not ever be, or our eyes will be in trouble because of invisible flicker (while meanwhile touting viewing SDR at 400 nits). That's essentially unprovable since according to your own words, OLEDs aren't bright enough. I'd get eyestrain on any display at 400 nits.

If you get eyestrain on OLEDs, it's understandable you aren't fond of them, but that's not the experience of everyone, and I'd say probably not the experience of most people. Uhhh...sure. *shrugs* All I know is, with real world use of the display, it's very comfortable on my eyes.

High range images are always better because that's closer to reality as eyes can see a lot more. A monitor with higher range is a better monitor.

I like how you pull out preference as an excuse. OLED is not an option to see HDR. That's not a preference.

And you can get eye strain at only 250nits when OLED is flickering. 250nits is a little brighter than 150nits but not that much compared to 400nits or higher. OLED has to fix flickers first.

 

[Zahua]

But ironically OLED cannot get brighter anyway.

Won't they get a bit brighter every gen (at least some models)?

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/01/lgs-2023-oled-tvs-claim-to-boost-brightness-by-up-to-70/

 

[kramnelis]

This is trolling and you seem genuinely upset that there are OLED displays that people, including professional reviewers, prefer more than your dated, incredibly bloomy, and incredibly slow PG32UQX.

These reviewers are and always will be better sources than you, and bashing them with ad hominems will prove nothing. Nothing you say will make my opinion incorrect or "imagined".

You're just trying to get the last post in, I saw you lose multiple times in multiple pages from multiple people through the entire thread. A punching bag of misinformation.

Funny you call me trolling. I post as a counter part of OLED regardless of your preference. OLED is not a HDR monitor in the first place or you can do HDR1000 already.

It's either ignorance or you like to lie to defend your OLED. You put PG32UQX next to the OLED then PG32UQX destroy. It's just that simple when a FALD with higher range in both contrast and color to have much better accuracy.

 

[kramnelis]

Won't they get a bit brighter every gen (at least some models)?

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/01/lgs-2023-oled-tvs-claim-to-boost-brightness-by-up-to-70/

You are blinded by the reviewers without knowing what "claim" means, without knowing 27" MLA OLED as dim as C2, without knowing FALD is already much brighter. All you have is your imagination.

 

[Zahua]

It's either ignorance or you like to lie to defend your OLED. You put PG32UQX next to the OLED then PG32UQX destroy.

I tried the PG32UQX, it was too slow and too bloomy. Didn't like the coating either. No amount of HDR Nits fixed this. I preferred OLED.

Why complain about my preference?

without knowing what "claim" means, without knowing 27" MLA OLED as dim as C2, without knowing FALD is already much brighter. All you have is your imagination.

I literally just asked a question (and I guess we'll find out once those new TVs release), I never said any of that. I didn't say FALD wasn't brighter. What imagination? Now you are using Straw Men after using Ad Hominems. Why?

Are you mad because profession reviewers preferred OLED in 2022? You won't change our preference man.


You're just trying to get the last post in, I saw you lose multiple times in multiple pages from multiple people through the entire thread. A punching bag.

 

[kramnelis]

I tried the PG32UQX, it was too slow and bloomy. I preferred the OLED.

I literally just asked a question, I never said any of that. I didn't say FALD wasn't brighter. What imagination?

Are you mad because profession reviewers preferred Oled in 2022?

Do you even have PG32UQX? It's more like you only have Samsung G7 from your comments. If you have PG32UQX you won't say the same thing comparing to a 200nits OLED.

I usually find problems these "professional" reviewers don't normally find. They put a piece of editorial and call it a day. They are not even comparable to a retailer like Snowman who just sells monitors without preference. And you use these reviewers as backup of your imagination to defend the OLED without seeing the monitor yourself.

I'm rather entertained that people like you won't accept the truth that OLED is worse.

 

[Zahua]

Do you even have PG32UQX? It's more like you only have Samsung G7 from your comments.

I tried the PG32UQX, Neo G7, and the Tempest. I told you this earlier.

I usually find problems these "professional" reviewers don't normally find.

I consider this fiction, no one cares and no one will take you seriously over RTINGS or HUB (among others) as citation. No amount of repeating this will alter this here or anywhere. This is a joke.

won't accept the truth that OLED is worse.

This isn't the truth though.

Worse in what? It's only the truth In certain aspects. Overall it is quite subjective, depending on preferences. I prefer certain things over highest HDR nits. For example: To me, relatively high levels of bloom and lag are FAR worse than having lower HDR nits. To me, the Asus coating was significantly worse than gloss.

Now perhaps you will stop getting mad at the OLED preference, whether they be posters here or professional reviewers. This is all childish at best.

 

[sgupta]

I like how you defend the lifeless sRGB as a way of accuracy while not caring about the better images OLED cannot display accurately. If I want to see sRGB for some reason then I get easy Delta E < 1 on FALD. It's that easy. But there is no point to see it because there are much better images at high range.

In the meanwhile, you can make HDR with FALD. You cannot make HDR with an OLED. So in the end it's the OLED has issues whether it is up to the task to display images made by FALD. OLED is already several levels behind.

"Lifeless" sRGB = accurate to the reference standard. It's fine if you don't care about accuracy, but a lot of people value it highest of all, including many professionals. Your argument that there are "much better images at high range" is nonsensical. Images YOU prefer, sure, but ones not as accurate.

Sure, you can calibrate a FALD display and get a decent SDR picture, but you'll either deal with blooming with local dimming on (which I found to be a major problem for what I do) or significantly poorer contrast than OLED with local dimming off. Those are the choices. For SDR/sRGB, OLED has several advantages that IMO FALD can't get close to.

Again, I don't WANT to make HDR. There'd be no point in me doing so. It'd be intentionally making something less accurate because I want pop. Like I said, I could just set it to Vivid mode too. Sure, you can make HDR the way you want it to look, but that has nothing to do with accuracy. I don't really care about the HDR you keep insisting I care about. Where I care about HDR, such as games, there are generally options to make it look good on whatever display type someone is using. The games I've tested HDR in look great because of that on OLED, and yes, there is a big difference between HDR versions and SDR versions. Trying to pretend there's no HDR is just incorrect.

High range images are always better because that's closer to reality as eyes can see a lot more. A monitor with higher range is a better monitor.

I like how you pull out preference as an excuse. OLED is not an option to see HDR. That's not a preference.

And you can get eye strain at only 250nits when OLED is flickering. 250nits is a little brighter than 150nits but not that much compared to 400nits or higher. OLED has to fix flickers first.

It's not closer to reality if it's inaccurate. It may be closer to *your perception* of reality, but those are two different things.

OLED is very much an option to see HDR. That's why you see every review outlet reviewing the HDR capabilities... This isn't even a debate point. You're just wrong. No, it can't get as bright as FALD, but it can tone-map where necessary, show bright highlights, and in general go quite a bit higher nits than SDR. It is absolutely, unquestionably HDR. It may not be the highest-nit HDR available, but just because it doesn't meet the definition that only you seem to use, doesn't mean it's not. And not even consumer FALD display can do the highest-nit HDR available. But most of this is academic, because the HDR content I do use on my PC generally can be set with a monitor's limits in mind for a good experience.

Again, I don't experience eyestrain on OLED, and I haven't seen many reports of people who do. Your argument is at best academic, as you keep citing some unmeetable conditions like a certain brightness that's not achievable yet that will cause it to be a problem - maybe; maybe not - who knows if they'll solve any of those issues by the time things get that bright. You even show an LG video showing that certain LED monitors flicker a lot more than OLED. I'm sure it depends a lot on testing method, camera variables, etc. I care about use in the real-world, and real-world, OLED is easy on my eyes. Other people's experience may and will vary.

 

[kramnelis]

I tried the PG32UQX, Neo G7, and the Tempest. I told you this earlier.



I consider this fiction, no one cares and no one will take you seriously over RTINGS or HUB (among others) as citation. No amount of repeating this will alter this here or anywhere. This is a joke.



This isn't the truth though.

Worse in what? It's only the truth In certain aspects. Overall it is quite subjective, depending on preferences. I prefer certain things over highest HDR nits. For example: To me, relatively high levels of bloom and lag are FAR worse than having lower HDR nits. To me, the Asus coating was significantly worse than gloss.

Now perhaps you will stop getting mad at the OLED preference, whether they be posters here or professional reviewers. This is all childish at best.

Then show me the picture of your PG32UQX. Just because you said like you "tried" it doesn't mean you really see it.

OLED is always worse in HDR. It doesn't show HDR. It shows SDR. You keep the imagination that OLED is better. I just do the counterpart job.

 

[Zahua]

Then show me the picture of your PG32UQX.

I returned all 3. I might still have pictures of the Samsung since it had a scratch, which I had to show Newegg before the RMA.

You keep the imagination that OLED is better. I just do the counterpart job.

All you're doing is the counterpart cope.

OLED is overall better to me, including PC Gaming. And many (if not most) professional reviewers. You can keep crying about our opinion.

 

[kramnelis]

I returned all 3. I might still have pictures of the Samsung since it had a scratch I had to show Newegg.

You're doing the counter part cope.

OLED is overall better for me. And many professional reviewers. You can keep crying about our opinion.

How believable that you return them conveniently so that you can imagine whatever you want.

Let me get this straight. You have never seen PG32UQX. You don't have a single proof.

And OLED is a lot worse in HDR.

 

[Zahua]

How believable that you return them conveniently so that you can imagine whatever you want.

Let me get this straight. You have never seen PG32UQX. You don't have a single proof.

For the PG32UQX I got it from Microcenter over a year ago. I didn't like it so I returned it. The Neo G7 was last August, I got it from NewEgg and can provide proof of that one.

I have bought and returned quite a few monitors until I settled on the OLED. At least 10. I can probably get you online receipts for around half, sadly not the Asus.

And OLED is a lot worse in HDR.

Depends, I hated the blooming and contrast in some areas, but yeah the HDR brightness was still pretty nice. The coating was trash.

The OLED is still the overall better display to me, including for PC Gaming. This also goes for many (if not most) professional reviewers.

 

[kramnelis]

For the PG32UQX I got it from Microcenter over a year ago. I didn't like it so I returned it. The Neo G7 was last August, I got it from NewEgg and can provide proof of that one.

I have bought and returned quite a few monitors until I settled on the OLED. At least 10.



Depends, I hated the blooming but yeah the HDR was still pretty nice. The OLED is still the overall better display to me, including for PC Gaming. This also goes for many (if not most) professional reviewers.

So you don't have PG32UQX. Don't pretend you have it. I know people lying on the first line they post.

And OLED still has worse HDR regardless.

 

[Zahua]

So you don't have PG32UQX.

Why would I keep a ~$3000 monitor I didn't like. This discussion is bizarre.

Why aren't you up in arms the 9 other monitors?

And OLED still has worse HDR regardless.

Depends, I hated the blooming and contrast in some areas, but yeah the HDR brightness was still pretty nice. The coating was trash.

The OLED is still the overall better display to me, including for PC Gaming. This also goes for many (if not most) professional reviewers.

 

[kramnelis]

Why would I keep a ~$3000 monitor I didn't like. This discussion frankly bizarre.

Why aren't you up in arms the 9 other monitors?

Depends, I hated the blooming and contrast in some areas, but yeah the HDR brightness was still pretty nice. The coating was trash.

The OLED is still the overall better display to me, including for PC Gaming. This also goes for many (if not most) professional reviewers.

You don't have PG32UQX in the first place. You have no proof you have it. Why do you even lie?

 

[Zahua]

Why do you even lie?

I didn't lie. I have tried over 10 displays in the last 2 years. The Asus was one of them, from Paterson NJ Microcenter. You crying will not alter this fact. I can only get you receipts for the latest ones I purchased online.

Better question is why did you lie and say you were better citation vs. Rtings and HUB? You're an ant compared to them. Going through this thread you seem to just get owned for 13 pages in a row.

 

[sgupta]

LOL. Here we go denying people have tried monitors and just not liked them, because of course people would be making up experiences in this thread since we have nothing better to do. =oP These arguments are just getting beyond silly.

I tried two as well - the ASUS ROG PG32UQR edge-lit and then the ASUS ProArt PA32UCG-K FALD, and both were relatively disappointing to me and were returned via Amazon without hassle. I did not try the QX since I tried the ProArt, but my impression is a lot of the issues like the poor local dimming performance in everyday tasks would have remained. I might have been slightly happier with the QX, but still unhappy. And if hadn't liked the OLED, it would have gone back too, but fortunately I do, and I agree with Zahua that for my subjective needs, it does prettymuch everything I spend the majority of my time doing much better than any FALD option right now. The weaknesses like lower-brightness-HDR don't really affect me much since the games I play can be tailored to the monitor's capability and look friggin' great.

Whether you think subjectively that OLED can do HDR is meaningless; it can and does quite well, as backed up by most reviews as well as user experiences. Sure, it has limitations, but so does FALD; they're just different limitations/compromises, and I'll take OLED's all day long over the ones I experienced with FALD. Again, I don't expect everyone to feel the same - if someone is primarily working in high brightness HDR, of course a FALD makes sense for THEM and they probably feel the compromises with OLED are too much; that's fine - that's why user preferences matter so much.

The fact that you're accusing people of lying about monitors they've tried/didn't like/returned just reeks of desperation. Why even go there?

 

[kramnelis]

I didn't lie.

Better question is why did you lie and say we should use you as better citation over Rtings and HUB? You're an ant compared to them.

Funny it's you lied. All your comments are only about G7 at most lol. You have no proof at all.

Just because you use OLED doesn't mean it is better. Again, you cannot prove that.

 

[Zahua]

Funny it's you lied. All your comments are only about G7 at most lol.

I signed up here specifically to discuss that monitor. I tried the other monitors long before that (except the Tempest and two AWQDOLEDs). You should know this by their release dates, especially the ASUS in 2021.

Again I can get you two NG7, one NG8, C2, QN43B, and two QDOLED receipts. Because those are all recent + completely online. The others were purchased in store and/or over a year ago.

Do you want pictures of those recent ones? If I'm lying about $8000 worth of monitors which I still have online receipts for, I surely can't be lying about the PG32UQX right?

Just because you use OLED doesn't mean it is better.

Precisely!

It's better in some aspects and worse in others. For some, including Rtings/HuB (and most others), the miniLEDs advantages don't tally high enough overall vs OLED. But if they are overall better for what YOU prefer, it doesn't matter and you shouldn't care what others think.

Use what YOU enjoy!

 

[kramnelis]

LOL. Here we go denying people have tried monitors and just not liked them, because of course people would be making up experiences in this thread since we have nothing better to do. =oP These arguments are just getting beyond silly.

I tried two as well - the ASUS ROG PG32UQR edge-lit and then the ASUS ProArt PA32UCG-K FALD, and both were relatively disappointing to me and were returned via Amazon without hassle. I did not try the QX since I tried the ProArt, but my impression is a lot of the issues like the poor local dimming performance in everyday tasks would have remained. I might have been slightly happier with the QX, but still unhappy. And if hadn't liked the OLED, it would have gone back too, but fortunately I do, and I agree with Zahua that for my subjective needs, it does prettymuch everything I spend the majority of my time doing much better than any FALD option right now. The weaknesses like lower-brightness-HDR don't really affect me much since the games I play can be tailored to the monitor's capability and look friggin' great.

Whether you think subjectively that OLED can do HDR is meaningless; it can and does quite well, as backed up by most reviews as well as user experiences. Sure, it has limitations, but so does FALD; they're just different limitations/compromises, and I'll take OLED's all day long over the ones I experienced with FALD. Again, I don't expect everyone to feel the same - if someone is primarily working in high brightness HDR, of course a FALD makes sense for THEM and they probably feel the compromises with OLED is too much; that's fine - that's why user preferences matter so much. T

The fact that you're accusing people of lying about monitors they've tried/didn't like/returned just reeks of desperation. Why even go there?

Don't forget I doubt you have PA32UCG as well. The manufacturer won't make HDR1400 monitors worse than a 200nits OLED. Do you even realize the absurdity? Or you just post as a part of OLED ads.

 

[kramnelis]

I signed up here specifically to discuss that monitor. I tried the other monitors long before that (except the Tempest and two AWQDOLEDs). You should know this by their release dates, especially the ASUS in 2021.

Again I can get you the NG7, C2, and QDOLED receipts. The others were purchased in store and over a year ago.

It's better in some aspects and worse in others. For some, including Rtings/HuB (and most others), the miniLEDs advantages don't tally high enough overall vs OLED. But if they are overall better for what YOU prefer, it doesn't matter and you shouldn't care what others think.

I've seen many on the Internet lied as much like you. Every single comment of you doesn't have a single hint that you have tried a FALD IPS. You tried G7. You don't even have a proof. You are exposed pretty well.

 

[Zahua]

[cope]

One thing I will tell you about the PG32UQX I owned for 3 weeks, it did have by far the most bloom out of any monitor I have ever seen lol. The trash coating didn't help either. Oh and did I mention it was kind of a blurry mess due to the lag? Oof.

So glad I didn't settle and waited for an OLED.

Gotta love how opinions and preferences work. Welcome to reality?

 

[sgupta]

Don't forget I doubt you have PA32UCG as well. The manufacturer won't make HDR1400 monitors worse than a 200nits OLED. Do you even realize the absurdity? Or you just post as a part of OLED ads.

Why would I be part of OLED ads? I haven't even owned an OLED for many years because of a bad first experience with burn-in on an early OLED LG TV (which I've recounted here). lol. Still have my concerns with longevity but decided it was time to give it another try, strictly because my experiences with IPS, including FALD, was relatively poor and I knew it wouldn't end up making me happy.

You can doubt all you like; I don't have to prove anything to you. I posted in multiple threads here before about it, the quality control problems it had, and why it went back. It's absolutely ludicrous that you're suggesting anyone having a bad experience with a monitor you happen to like must be lying/have never had it to begin with. All you're doing is completely invalidating your arguments because you want to hurl insults/accusations since debate of that actual topic isn't working out for you.

As far as "The manufacturer won't make HDR1400 monitors worse than a 200nits OLED", the quality control of the UCG seems to be atrocious; there are threads here on that topic. Maybe it was luck, but I've had no such issues with the OLED so far. I was aware of some of the issues with the UCG, but not the extent, and was hoping I'd luck out, but I did not (dead pixels, a stuck pixel, trouble coming back from sleep and slow responsiveness). And beyond the QC problems, local dimming performance in SDR was extremely unpleasant on the desktop and I was fairly unhappy with the viewing angles as even towards the corners of the screen I could see some color shift, etc. (which would have been the case with any IPS I think). Local dimming did work well in games, yeah the monitor was super bright and otherwise looked fairly nice, but that just wasn't nearly enough with the other issues that were far more distracting to me than having to tone map higher end HDR on an OLED (which still looks good despite the tone mapping).

The only absurdity here is you refusing to accept or even believe there are people that much prefer their experience with an OLED over a FALD display, of which there are many of us (and vice versa I'm sure).

 

[kramnelis]

One thing I will tell you about the PG32UQX I owned for 3 weeks, it did have by far the most bloom out of any monitor I have ever seen lol. The trash coating didn't help either. Oh and did I mention it was kind of a blurry mess due to the lag? Oof.

So glad I didn't settle and waited for an OLED.

So much for you to say you owned it without proof.

Another thing I can tell you is your AW3423DW looks like trash even compared to PG35VQ. And PG35VQ doesn't have enough color compared to PG27UQ or PG32UQX.

OLED doesn't even display HDR1000. Are you going to defend the OLED with your imagination and your lies?

 

[Zahua]

OLED doesn't even display HDR1000. Are you going to defend the OLED with your imagination and your lies?

I never said it does. This is a straw man.

I said I prefer the lack of bloom, blur, and matte over higher nits. As do many reviewers. This isn't difficult. You prefer the higher nits over those shortcomings which I find to be extreme, and THAT'S FINE.

 

[kramnelis]

Why would I be part of OLED ads? I haven't even owned an OLED for many years because of a bad first experience with burn-in on an early OLED LG TV (which I've recounted here). lol. Still have my concerns with longevity but decided it was time to give it another try, strictly because my experiences with IPS, including FALD, was relatively poor and I knew it wouldn't end up making me happy.

You can doubt all you like; I don't have to prove anything to you. I posted in multiple threads here before about it, the quality control problems it had, and why it went back. It's absolutely ludicrous that you're suggesting anyone having a bad experience with a monitor you happen to like must be lying/have never had it to begin with. All you're doing is completely invalidating your arguments because you want to hurl insults/accusations since debate of that actual topic isn't working out for you.

As far as "The manufacturer won't make HDR1400 monitors worse than a 200nits OLED", the quality control of the UCG seems to be atrocious; there are threads here on that topic. Maybe it was luck, but I've had no such issues with the OLED so far I was aware of some of the issues, but not the extent when I ordered the UCG, and was hoping I'd luck out, but I did not (dead pixels, a stuck pixel, trouble coming back from sleep and slow responsiveness). And beyond the QC problems, local dimming performance in SDR was extremely unpleasant on the desktop and I was fairly unhappy with the viewing angles as even towards the corners of the screen I could see some color shift, etc. (which would have been the case with any IPS I think). Local dimming did work well in games, yeah the monitor was super bright and otherwise looked fairly nice, but that just wasn't nearly enough with the other issues that were far more distracting to me than having to tone map higher end HDR on an OLED (which still looks good despite the tone mapping).

The only absurdity here is you refusing to accept or even believe there are people that much prefer their experience with an OLED over a FALD display, of which there are many of us (and vice versa I'm sure).

Funny you keeping use preference as an excuse to see worse images.

OLED doesn't do HDR as it cannot sustain brightness. It's not a preference. It's a fact OLED is not a HDR monitor. You can keep saying how nice it looks for you. It doesn't show HDR that can look better.

You can prefer whatever you like. But that preference of yours won't have better images.

 

[Sycraft]

I never said it does. This is a straw man.

I said I prefer the lack of bloom, blur, and matte over higher nits. As do many reviewers. This isn't difficult. You prefer the higher nits over those shortcomings which I find to be extreme, and THAT'S FINE.

Just FYI, you will never convince Mr. "200 Nits" of anything with logic. The guy is just one of those who will hate on anyone who doesn't share his worldview.

 

[kramnelis]

Just FYI, you will never convince Mr. "200 Nits" of anything with logic. The guy is just one of those who will hate on anyone who doesn't share his worldview.

Of course you won't convince me as you've seen much worse images all the time. You don't even understand a lot of specs of monitors. There is no logic to debate when 200nits OLED is already enough for you while FALD starts to take over the market.

 

[kramnelis]

I never said it does. This is a straw man.

I said I prefer the lack of bloom, blur, and matte over higher nits. As do many reviewers. This isn't difficult. You prefer the higher nits over those shortcomings which I find to be extreme, and THAT'S FINE.

Then you say goodbye to better images. You say goodbye to HDR.

Still, the funnies thing is that you talk like you don't have PG32UQX. You pretended you have it lol.

 

[sgupta]

Funny you keeping use preference as an excuse to see worse images.

OLED doesn't do HDR as it cannot sustain brightness. It's not a preference. It's a fact OLED is not a HDR monitor. You can keep saying how nice it looks for you. It doesn't show HDR that can look better.

You can prefer whatever you like. But that preference of yours won't have better images.

Your "better images" are not actually objectively better. They're your subjective preference to convert everything to high-nit HDR, and often with less accuracy to the original source material. Let's not pretend your preference is objectively better, because it's not. It may look better to you, and that's great; it wouldn't ever be my preference, though. It's not about not being *able* to see it that way; it about preferring to see it the way it was intended, and in many cases, that's as sRGB SDR.

OLED does do HDR, and any review of a modern HDR-capable OLED monitor will attest to that fact. Your particular definition of what your narrow custom version of HDR means to you is irrelevant.

In SDR, OLED gives the best contrast, and in HDR, despite some limitations, it can still look very good, albeit not as bright, while still avoiding pitfalls like blooming or poorer viewing angles. That's simply reality. Your refusal to acknowledge that doesn't change a thing.

 

[kramnelis]

Your "better images" are not actually objectively better. They're your subjective preference to convert everything to high-nit HDR, and often with less accuracy to the original source material. Let's not pretend your preference is objectively better, because it's not. It may look better to you, and that's great; it wouldn't ever be my preference, though. It's not about not being *able* to see it that way; it about preferring to see it the way it was intended, and in many cases, that's as sRGB SDR.

OLED does do HDR, and any review of a modern HDR-capable OLED monitor will attest to that fact. Your particular definition of what your narrow custom version of HDR means to you is irrelevant.

In SDR, OLED gives the best contrast, and in HDR, despite some limitations, it can still look very good, albeit not as bright, while still avoiding pitfalls like blooming or poorer viewing angles. That's simply reality. Your refusal to acknowledge that doesn't change a thing.

Better images are at higher range where the eyes can see a lot more. This is not a subjective matter. This is what all the monitors try to do to have a higher range. Funny how you think a better image belongs to the lower range fit inside sRGB for office monitors. It is not better at all. It's lifeless. These creators want HDR to have better images all the time.

OLED does a 100nits APL plus a few dots of highlights. That's not HDR. OLED is not accurate at all when image APL goes beyond 200nits. This is how limited OLED is.

Even FALD SDR can look like HDR400. OLED can only look fine in sRGB and that's all. FALD can look a lot better in HDR even with its shortcomings such as blooming because OLED shortcomings hammer the HDR even more when overall brightness falls off the chart.

 

[Bigmonitorguy]

HDR is much more impressive on my PG32UQX and XG321UG monitors than the LG OLED TVs that I have. I don't find the blooming to be a significant issue on these monitors when watching HDR videos or playing HDR games. On the desktop, I don't use local dimming. Also, the coating is perfectly good, and it's the right solution because monitors aren't typically used in a dark room, so reflections would be a serious problem without this coating. Having said all that, OLED certainly has its advantages as well. However, the subpixel structure is a killer issue for me when using OLED (other than the JOLED panels) as a computer monitor. The fringing on text irritates me too much.

 

[sgupta]

Better images are at higher range where the eyes can see a lot more. This is not a subjective matter. This is what all the monitors try to do to have a higher range. Funny how you think a better image belongs to the lower range fit inside sRGB for office monitors. It is not better at all. It's lifeless. These creators want HDR to have better images all the time.

OLED does a 100nits APL plus a few dots of highlights. That's not HDR. OLED is not accurate at all when image APL goes beyond 200nits. This is how limited OLED is.

Even FALD SDR can look like HDR400. OLED can only look fine in sRGB and that's all. FALD can look a lot better in HDR even with its shortcomings such as blooming because OLED shortcomings hammer the HDR even more when overall brightness falls off the chart.

Higher range alone does not mean better images. An image shot that way originally (as HDR), sure. But that is not the majority of content. sRGB can not look more accurate than sRGB. All expanding the range does is make it less accurate. You may like it subjectively, but that is your subjective preference, not an objective one, and no amount of claiming that it is objectively better will ever make that true.

OLED is a lot brighter than 100 nits in the current generation. Maxing out at 200 nits is just false. It certainly can't go to FALD levels, but trying to undercut the brightness current OLEDs are capable of isn't helpful either.

FALD SDR isn't supposed to look like HDR400. It's honestly a really strange argument. Most people, let alone professionals, wouldn't recommend viewing SDR that way. It's a little like arguing music is only good at ear-damaging volumes or that movies only look better wearing sunglasses because it increases contrast. You may prefer it that way, but that's not how it was intended.

 

[sgupta]

HDR is much more impressive on my PG32UQX and XG321UG monitors than the LG OLED TVs that I have. I don't find the blooming to be a significant issue on these monitors when watching HDR videos or playing HDR games. On the desktop, I don't use local dimming. Also, the coating is perfectly good, and it's the right solution because monitors aren't typically used in a dark room, so reflections would be a serious problem without this coating. Having said all that, OLED certainly has its advantages as well. However, the subpixel structure is a killer issue for me when using OLED (other than the JOLED panels) as a computer monitor. The fringing on text irritates me too much.

That's fair re HDR. I would never dispute if you mostly view HDR, it's more impressive on a FALD panel that can do higher brightness. I'm just saying that HDR on a modern OLED can still look good. I wasn't at all impressed with HDR on my first OLED TV (before tone mapping was much of a thing), but it's come a long ways since then. For TV and movies, I still really like FALD. For desktop use is where it was showing its limitations for me.

I think if I had kept a FALD monitor, I would have had to disable local dimming for desktop use as well. It would have worked but not been ideal. That was a major pain on the UCG, though I have read it's a bit easier on the QX, so that might have been an area where the QX would have been a better fit.

A lot of people do have issues with the text fringing on OLEDs. It is visible on my panel, but for whatever reason doesn't really bother me much personally - I barely notice it unless I'm looking for it. Seems like one of those things that's highly personal as to how much it bothers a person, though. If it did bother me more, I'm sure it could be a dealbreaker.

At any rate, it's awesome you're enjoying the QX so much for your usages It does look like a great monitor, especially if you do a lot in high-nit HDR.

 

[kramnelis]

Higher range alone does not mean better images. An image shot that way originally (as HDR), sure. But that is not the majority of content. sRGB can not look more accurate than sRGB. All expanding the range does is make it less accurate. You may like it subjectively, but that is your subjective preference, not an objective one, and no amount of claiming that it is objectively better will ever make that true.

OLED is a lot brighter than 100 nits in the current generation. Maxing out at 200 nits is just false. It certainly can't go to FALD levels, but trying to undercut the brightness current OLEDs are capable of isn't helpful either.

FALD SDR isn't supposed to look like HDR400. It's honestly a really strange argument. Most people, let alone professionals, wouldn't recommend viewing SDR that way. It's a little like arguing music is only good at ear-damaging volumes or that movies only look better wearing sunglasses because it increases contrast. You may prefer it that way, but that's not how it was intended.

It's not going to happen when you bet on all the content to fit inside the range of OLED under 200nits APL. OLED looks pathetic in HDR. You can see so little range in OLED.

The content itself can have very high range. You can even adjust HDR in games to have much higher range which OLED can never display properly. You can even grade movies yourself with FALD monitors. You cannot do that with OLED.

Funny FALD SDR can just look like HDR. That's why PA32UCG has HDR Preview mode to see SDR images as HDR so you don't have to pay another $1000 to buy an upstream box anymore. Funny it's you don't know how to use it. Don't forget all you can do on OLED is sRGB accuracy.

 

[sgupta]

It's not going to happen when you bet on all the content to fit inside the range of OLED under 200nits APL. OLED looks pathetic in HDR. You can see so little range in OLED.

The content itself can have very high range. You can even adjust HDR in games to have much higher range which OLED can never display properly. You can even grade movies yourself with FALD monitors. You cannot do that with OLED.

Funny FALD SDR can just look like HDR. That's why PA32UCG has HDR Preview mode to see SDR images as HDR so you don't have to pay another $1000 to buy an upstream box anymore. Funny it's you don't know how to use it. Don't forget all you can do on OLED is sRGB accuracy.

I and many reviewers disagree with you re OLED and HDR. It has its limitations, but its implementation is still good. And you're using outdated or purposefully incorrect nits figures to understate what modern OLEDs are actually capable of.

The adjustments are there so you get a great experience on different kind of monitors, OLED included, and it works well. I haven't found a scenario yet in the HDR gaming I've tested where I felt like the experience was poor due to a lack of brightness. It's good, even if some elements would be brighter (albeit with potential blooming) on a FALD monitor.

SDR is never supposed to look like HDR; that misses the whole point. Running SDR at HDR brightnesses maybe be your preference, but it's way outside of what reference is supposed to be. Again, I could care less about turning into SDR into HDR. It's nothing I'm interested in because I prefer to watch it as it was originally intended. I'm well aware what that model can do, but it's nothing I'd personally ever particularly want to use. Some people will find value in that, and that's great, but sRGB accuracy does matter the most to me.

 

[kramnelis]

I and many reviewers disagree with you re OLED and HDR. It has its limitations, but its implementation is still good. And you're using outdated or purposefully incorrect nits figures to understate what modern OLEDs are actually capable of.

The adjustments are there so you get a great experience on different kind of monitors, OLED included, and it works well. I haven't found a scenario yet in the HDR gaming I've tested where I felt like the experience was poor due to a lack of brightness. It's good, even if some elements would be brighter (albeit with potential blooming) on a FALD monitor.

SDR is never supposed to look like HDR; that misses the whole point. Running SDR at HDR brightnesses maybe be your preference, but it's way outside of what reference is supposed to be. Again, I could care less about turning into SDR into HDR. It's nothing I'm interested in because I prefer to watch it as it was originally intended. I'm well aware what that model can do, but it's nothing I'd personally ever particularly want to use. Some people will find value in that, and that's great, but sRGB accuracy does matter the most to me.

Why don't you just say the implementation is tone-mapped SDR that won't be anywhere accurate? It won't be anywhere better than the actual HDR. I know how much less OLED looks like compared to a more accurate HDR on FALD. OLED falls several levels off.

FALD monitors can turn SDR into HDR because it can do it. It has brightness. It doesn't matter if you like it or not when you put HDR color mapping and 1000nits in an SDR image. Then it becomes HDR. That's what PA32UCG does with HDR Preview mode. It even has a manual specifically mentioned: " preview non-HDR content performance with HDR10 and HLG mapping". I already said you don't know how to use a monitor properly. All your excuse is how accuracy matters on the limited sRGB.

 

[sgupta]

Why don't you just say the implementation is tone-mapped SDR that won't be anywhere accurate? It won't be anywhere better than the actual HDR. I know how much less OLED looks like compared to a more accurate HDR on FALD. OLED falls several levels off.

FALD monitors can turn SDR into HDR because it can do it. It has brightness. It doesn't matter if you like it or not when you put HDR color mapping and 1000nits in an SDR image. Then it becomes HDR. That's what PA32UCG does with HDR Preview mode. It even has a manual specifically mentioned: " preview non-HDR content performance with HDR10 and HLG mapping". I already said you don't know how to use a monitor properly. All your excuse is how accuracy matters on the limited sRGB.

I disagree. Tone mapping works well to fit things into the visible range for a still decently impactful experience. For most of the HDR you talk about, accuracy isn't really a consideration in the first place since you're not basing your grading on anything more than personal preference to begin with.

FALD monitors can turn SDR into guesswork HDR, or pseudo HDR, not manually graded HDR. The data isn't there to do anything beyond guess with an algorithm. Big difference, and something I'm not personally interested in. If you are, great, and I'm glad it's an option for people who prefer it, but I prefer keeping things closer to the source material. I've seen several examples of Auto HDR. Some of it looks good, and some of it doesn't look as good as the original sRGB (even on FALD). Accuracy doesn't come into play when you're talking converting sRGB to HDR. By its very nature, it can only be less accurate.