Why OLED for PC use?

[Comixbooks]

The vesa stand arrived just a hour ago pretty easy to setup I know the lower height will help. I suppose the Asus version will have a stand that will go lower but LG stands are hit or miss. The only problem with this stand if you want to adjust the height you gotta use a allen wrench but I don't plan on moving it no reason to the base in kinda ugly but what do you expect for 29.00.

 

[XoR_]

Got the Wali vesa stand in just a hour ago pretty easy to setup I know the lower height will help. I suppose the Asus version will have a stand that will go lower but LG stands are hit or miss.
The only problem with this stand if you want to adjust the height you gotta use a allen wrench but I don't plan on moving it no reason to the base in kinda ugly but what do you expect for 29.00.

Now imagine that if you had full white at 1000 nits it would look so oh so much be... righter

 

[Comixbooks]

I see why they didn't make this monitor 1000 nits that would be insane your eyes would burn I even had to tune it down some more from where I had it.
I'm only going to use this for gaming HDR is ok but I don't think I'll use it unless I really need to in Dark Games. I thought maybe this OLED technology would be easy on the eyes it looks good but I've only used it a week so far out of the Box my vision physically was blanking off and on out but after using it off and on during the week slowly gotten use to it. I do wear glasses I just got two pairs two months ago and breaking in those thing was one of the worse things I ever gone though after 3 weeks I adjusted to the glasses I got bigger lenses because I knew that was part of my problem.

If anything they should aim for good whites paper like whites at lower levels of brightness I found that contrast is actually important with this monitor too low is no good gotta be 50 or slightly higher.

 

[SoCali]

Having spent the weekend with both C2 and my friends PG32UQX, I decided to buy the Asus off him. Back when the monitor launched there was no AutoHDR and most games implementations sucked but now that HDR is a bit more mature on PC, I just can't go back to how washed out the C2 looks next to it in most games. Also this later production date monitors FALD behavior is much better than my launch version which I'm sure helps.

Will keep the C2 for the darkest of dark games and movies but 90% of my HDR gaming will done on the Asus. Its pixel response is pretty poor but I find it an okay trade off for how spectacular it makes HDR games look. Once there is a QD-OLED or brighter OLED in general option available in the 32-42" form factor that bridges the gap in brightness a bit I'll be all over it.

 

[MistaSparkul]

Having spent the weekend with both C2 and my friends PG32UQX, I decided to buy the Asus off him. Back when the monitor launched there was no AutoHDR and most games implementations sucked but now that HDR is a bit more mature on PC, I just can't go back to how washed out the C2 looks next to it in most games. Also this later production date monitors FALD behavior is much better than my launch version which I'm sure helps.

Will keep the C2 for the darkest of dark games and movies but 90% of my HDR gaming will done on the Asus. Its pixel response is pretty poor but I find it an okay trade off for how spectacular it makes HDR games look. Once there is a QD-OLED or brighter OLED in general option available in the 32-42" form factor that bridges the gap in brightness a bit I'll be all over it.

That's going to be a very long time, if ever. Seems like the smaller the pixels get on an OLED, the worst the brightness becomes. And once OLED gets brighter, so will Mini LED with more dimming zones so that gap will just continue to remain. By the time you get a 32 inch OLED that can do 1000 nits we would also probably have MiniLED option with way more dimming zones that can do over 2000 nits.

 

[elvn]

Having spent the weekend with both C2 and my friends PG32UQX, I decided to buy the Asus off him. Back when the monitor launched there was no AutoHDR and most games implementations sucked but now that HDR is a bit more mature on PC, I just can't go back to how washed out the C2 looks next to it in most games. Also this later production date monitors FALD behavior is much better than my launch version which I'm sure helps.

Will keep the C2 for the darkest of dark games and movies but 90% of my HDR gaming will done on the Asus. Its pixel response is pretty poor but I find it an okay trade off for how spectacular it makes HDR games look. Once there is a QD-OLED or brighter OLED in general option available in the 32-42" form factor that bridges the gap in brightness a bit I'll be all over it.

It's going to look worse if you are staring into a flashlight and back to it. Similary if you take a picture of both in the same frame the camera will pale one or blow out the other since it also captures things relatively (though not in exactly the same way as our eyes). You have to view them separately, preferably in dim to dark viewing conditions where HDR is designed for and looks best on both (dim to dark viewing also will help avoid the matte type AG coating sheen lifting the blacks and compromising fine details). Viewing separately, giving your eyes time to adjust to each. You have to take pictures of them separately also. Our eyes work relatively, and so do cameras. Glad you like it though. There are tradeoffs either way so pick the ones you prefer.

 

[kramnelis]

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.

You disagree whatever you like. It's the OLED cannot display HDR so it needs ton-mapped SDR to show a pathetic 300ntis sun. It cannot hold the accuracy to get better HDR. In the end it's doing way more "pseudo HDR300" because it is not a HDR monitor in the first place while FALD LCD can even turn SDR into HDR1000+. This is a big difference in terms of display capability.

All you can do is convincing yourself the images on OLED looks "good enough" and use your own preference as an excuse that OLED is not worse.

 

[kramnelis]

I see why they didn't make this monitor 1000 nits that would be insane your eyes would burn I even had to tune it down some more from where I had it.
I'm only going to use this for gaming HDR is ok but I don't think I'll use it unless I really need to in Dark Games. I thought maybe this OLED technology would be easy on the eyes it looks good but I've only used it a week so far out of the Box my vision physically was blanking off and on out but after using it off and on during the week slowly gotten use to it. I do wear glasses I just got two pairs two months ago and breaking in those thing was one of the worse things I ever gone though after 3 weeks I adjusted to the glasses I got bigger lenses because I knew that was part of my problem.

If anything they should aim for good whites paper like whites at lower levels of brightness I found that contrast is actually important with this monitor too low is no good gotta be 50 or slightly higher.

They didn't make 1000nits because they can't make it much brighter anyway.

Then the OLED flickering can give your eye strain even at such low brightness especially you wear glasses that will probably magnify the effects.

So you have to turn the brightness way down as if it is not dim enough to see even worse images. 160nits APL on this monitor is not that much. With DC dimming monitor you can see much higher APL without problems.

 

[kramnelis]

It's going to look worse if you are staring into a flashlight and back to it. Similary if you take a picture of both in the same frame the camera will pale one or blow out the other since it also captures things relatively (though not in exactly the same way as our eyes). You have to view them separately, preferably in dim to dark viewing conditions where HDR is designed for and looks best on both (dim to dark viewing also will help avoid the matte type AG coating sheen lifting the blacks and compromising fine details). Viewing separately, giving your eyes time to adjust to each. You have to take pictures of them separately also. Our eyes work relatively, and so do cameras. Glad you like it though. There are tradeoffs either way so pick the ones you prefer.

So a could player like elvn starts to hallucinate again.

HDR is always meant to be viewed in a dark environment. With all the imagination in your head a 300nits sun must looks the same as a 2000nits sun not even mentioning how much less color 300nits sun can have.

 

[sgupta]

You disagree whatever you like. It's the OLED cannot display HDR so it needs ton-mapped SDR to show a pathetic 300ntis sun. It cannot hold the accuracy to get better HDR. In the end it's doing way more "pseudo HDR300" because it is not a HDR monitor in the first place while FALD LCD can even turn SDR into HDR1000+. This is a big difference in terms of display capability.

All you can do is convincing yourself the images on OLED looks "good enough" and use your own preference as an excuse that OLED is not worse.

All I know is I'm much happier with OLED and the pros/cons balance than the FALD displays I tried. It is my opinion and subjective preference, yes, just as everything you're saying, what you prioritize, and the content you view is far and away from any standard/adherence to accuracy and is entirely your subjective preference as well. =) It's why choice is great! I can focus on what matters to me (accurate sRGB with "good enough" HDR to very much enjoy gaming on my HDR OLED monitor) and you can enjoy what matters to you (converting content to a version of algorithm-derived HDR that looks good to you at 1000 nits).

 

[kramnelis]

All I know is I'm much happier with OLED and the pros/cons balance than the FALD displays I tried. It is my opinion and subjective preference, yes, just as everything you're saying, what you prioritize, and the content you view is far and away from any standard/adherence to accuracy and is entirely your subjective preference as well. =) It's why choice is great! I can focus on what matters to me (accurate sRGB with "good enough" HDR to very much enjoy gaming on my HDR OLED monitor) and you can enjoy what matters to you (converting content to a version of algorithm-derived HDR that looks good to you at 1000 nits).

You can be however happy you want with SDR but you cannot deny the fact the OLED is not capable of HDR to have better images. All OLED have is a 300nits sun where the accuracy falls several level off the actual 1000+nits HDR it supposed to display.

 

[sgupta]

You can be however happy you want with SDR but you cannot deny the fact the OLED is not capable of HDR to have better images. All OLED have is a 300nits sun where the accuracy falls several level off the actual 1000+nits HDR it supposed to display.

OLED is capable of HDR. I'm never going to concede on that point. And this particular OLED can do up to 1000 nits for highlights (in the mode I use, ~650 is more common in real scenes as tested by HDTVTest). You're just making up numbers, and you're welcome to, but you're simply not correct here. It may not be as bright as FALD, but it is still very much HDR, and it is still a very marked difference from SDR. Your narrow, self-defined definition of HDR is not THE definition of HDR, and you're not the arbiter of what has HDR and what doesn't. Virtually all professional reviewers would agree.

 

[kramnelis]

OLED is capable of HDR. I'm never going to concede on that point. And this particular OLED can do up to 1000 nits for highlights (in the mode I use, ~650 is more common in real scenes as tested by HDTVTest). You're just making up numbers, and you're welcome to, but you're simply not correct here. It may not be as bright as FALD, but it is still very much HDR, and it is still a very marked difference from SDR. Your narrow, self-defined definition of HDR is not THE definition of HDR, and you're not the arbiter of what has HDR and what doesn't. Virtually all professional reviewers would agree.

OLED is only capable of tone-mapped SDR as bright as "HDR300". It has worse images compared to the intended HDR. Your unit particular doesn't even have a HDR400 certification. That's how dim that monitor is.

You get a 300nits sun instead of a 1000+nits sun. You get 8bit color instead of 10bit. The accuracy falls off the chart in the real senses where highlights can peak at 1,000its easily. You can never see what the creator intended in HDR.

You can convince yourself it looks good enough. In the end it looks like trash to me as I have AW3423DW which is a bit brighter than WOLED but still far from accurate HDR.

 

[sgupta]

OLED is only capable of tone-mapped SDR as bright as "HDR300". It has worse images compared to the intended HDR. Your unit particular doesn't even have a HDR400 certification. That's how dim that monitor is.

You get a 300nits sun instead of a 1000+nits sun. You get 8bit color instead of 10bit. The accuracy falls off the chart in the real senses where highlights can peak at 1,000its easily. You can never see what the creator intended in HDR.

You can convince yourself it looks good enough. In the end it looks like trash to me as I have AW3423DW which is a bit brighter than WOLED but still far from accurate HDR.

Whatever you wanna believe, man. It does look good, can go brighter than what you're saying, certification or not, is a 10-bit panel, and the reviews don't agree with what you're saying, but keep doing you. I enjoy the great sRGB I view most of the time and the impactful HDR when I want to game on it. When something is available that can do everything including high-nit HDR, I'll upgrade. But right now, there's no such thing, and OLED is the best choice for my needs to give me the best picture for what I do most.

 

[kramnelis]

Whatever you wanna believe, man. It does look good, can go brighter than what you're saying, certification or not, is a 10-bit panel, and the reviews don't agree with what you're saying, but keep doing you. I enjoy the great sRGB I view most of the time and the impactful HDR when I want to game on it. When something is available that can do everything including high-nit HDR, I'll upgrade. But right now, there's no such thing, and OLED is the best choice for my needs to give me the best picture for what I do most.

It looks good to you. It looks trash to me. It doesn't have HDR400 certification. You can claim a "HDR300" but in reality is more like HDR100 with several dots of highlight because the APL is only 160nits at most. This is how dim that monitor is.

You can pull out philosophy to say however happy you've made with your choice but you cannot deny it just doesn't show HDR. The image on that monitor is much worse compared to HDR.

 

[sgupta]

It looks good to you. It looks trash to me. It doesn't have HDR400 certification. You can claim a "HDR300" but in reality is more like HDR100 with several dots of highlight because the APL is only 160nits at most. This is how dim that monitor is.

You can pull out philosophy to say however happy you've made with your choice but you cannot deny it just doesn't show HDR. The image on that monitor is much worse compared to HDR.

LOL you keep going lower. Why not HDR1? Or HDR-Negative-Infiinty-Minus-5? You're being silly, and this contradicts tests done by professional reviewers who've found real-scene HDR brightness to be quite high.

It does just fine on HDR. HDR in games look plenty impactful and vibrant, and in-game adjustments to suit the monitor work well. It won't match a FALD, and nobody's arguing it will, but it's still plenty good and will keep me happy til there's something that can do the best of both worlds, which nothing can at the moment.

 

[kramnelis]

LOL you keep going lower. Why not HDR1? Or HDR-Negative-Infiinty-Minus-5? You're being silly, and this contradicts tests done by professional reviewers who've found real-scene HDR brightness to be quite high.

It does just fine on HDR. HDR in games look plenty impactful and vibrant, and in-game adjustments to suit the monitor work well. It won't match a FALD, and nobody's arguing it will, but it's still plenty good and will keep me happy til there's something that can do the best of both worlds, which nothing can at the moment.

It's you are being silly. You are denying the facts that OLED doesn't show HDR when it only has a tone-mapped SDR 300nits sun with 8bit color. It's that simple. I'm just doing the counterpart job. Your monitor doesn't even have a HDR400 certification.

Just because you turn on HDR mode doesn't mean it shows HDR images.

 

[sgupta]

It's you are being silly. You are denying the facts that OLED doesn't show HDR when it only has a tone-mapped SDR 300nits sun with 8bit color. It's that simple. I'm just doing the counterpart job. Your monitor doesn't even have a HDR400 certification.

Just because you turn on HDR mode doesn't mean it shows HDR images.

It's capable of close to 1000 nits (real-world more like 650) and 10-bit color. Reviews also back that up. You continually spouting nonsense doesn't change these facts, nor do you own this monitor (I have no experience with the Alienware, so I can't attest to that one either). Believe what you like, but it is an HDR monitor.

 

[kramnelis]

It's capable of close to 1000 nits (real-world more like 650) and 10-bit color. Reviews also back that up. You continually spouting nonsense doesn't change these facts, nor do you own this monitor (I have no experience with the Alienware, so I can't attest to that one either). Believe what you like, but it is an HDR monitor.

1000nits at 0% windows size. 10-bit color cramped into 160nits APL just the same as 8bit. The accuracy falls off the chart to have a 300nits sun instead of 1,000nits. What else this monitor has? A HDR100 certification instead of HDR400? Even if it is HDR400 it is still not true HDR1000.

I like how you defend a worse image as HDR.

 

[sgupta]

1000nits at 0% windows size. 10-bit color cramped into 160nits APL just the same as 8bit. The accuracy falls off the chart to have a 300nits sun instead of 1,000nits. What else this monitor has? A HDR100 certification instead of HDR400? Even if it is HDR400 it is still not true HDR1000.

I like how you defend a worse image as HDR.

Certification would be nice, but doesn't matter in real-world use where it performs well; I'm not sure why it's not certified or if it will or won't be at some point in the future. All the certifications in the world didn't make the issues I had with the FALD display that made me not want to keep it any better. No idea where you're getting 300 nits for a sun since it can demonstrably go brighter than that. It has phenomenal SDR and very nice HDR. Not sure where the debate is. Again, this has been all been tested, with numbers. You're not convincing anyone here.

 

[kramnelis]

Certification would be nice, but doesn't matter in real-world use where it performs well; I'm not sure why it's not certified or if it will or won't be at some point in the future. All the certifications in the world didn't make the issues I had with the FALD display that made me not want to keep it any better. No idea where you're getting 300 nits for a sun since it can demonstrably go brighter than that. It has phenomenal SDR and very nice HDR. Not sure where the debate is. Again, this has been all been tested, with numbers. You're not convincing anyone here.

Fuuny real world use doesn't have 1000nits but only a 300nits sun. Why do you keep denying it is not a HDR monitor? The accuracy falls off the chart. It is a dim monitor with 160nits APL. I give you a little more it's a 360ntis sun lol.

 

[sgupta]

Fuuny real world use doesn't have 1000nits but only a 300nits sun. Why do you keep denying it is not a HDR monitor? The accuracy falls off the chart. It is a dim monitor with 160nits APL. I give you a little more it's a 360ntis sun lol.

You don't "give" anything. Tests contradict you, and you're just pulling numbers out of thin air. It is unquestionably an HDR monitor, advertised and reviewed as such, and quite decent at it at that, whether you like it or not. Not sure why that upsets you so much, but it's really not my problem to solve. You aren't presenting a compelling argument, and it's not really worth the time to debate as you're just making things up at this point to suit your narrative instead of making any real or substantive arguments. FALD has its advantages and disadvantages, as does OLED. OLED overall does more better for *my uses* and does well enough in all areas that I'm happier than I would be with any FALD out there at this time. FALD suits your uses better since you value high-nit HDR more than anything else and don't care for OLED. It's down to personal preferences and that simple.

 

[kramnelis]

You don't "give" anything. Tests contradict you, and you're just pulling numbers out of thin air. It is unquestionably an HDR monitor, advertised and reviewed as such, and quite decent at it at that, whether you like it or not. Not sure why that upsets you so much, but it's really not my problem to solve. You aren't presenting a compelling argument, and it's not really worth the time to debate as you're just making things up at this point to suit your narrative instead of making any real or substantive arguments. FALD has its advantages and disadvantages, as does OLED. OLED overall does more better for *my uses* and does well enough in all areas that I'm happier than I would be with any FALD out there at this time. FALD suits your uses better since you value high-nit HDR more than anything else and don't care for OLED. It's down to personal preferences and that simple.

No. Tests contradict you instead.

It has 1000nits at 0% window size. It has a 360nits sun in a real scene instead of 1000nits. It might look good to you as you see sRGB all the time but I know how crap a 300nits sun looks like. It looks pathetically dim where the range shrinks 3 times while FALD SDR can easily have 600nits to beat the OLED "HDR300"

You can say how much you like the OLED but you cannot deny it is not a HDR monitor in the first place with just 160nits APL.

 

[sgupta]

No. Tests contradict you instead.

It has 1000nits at 0% window size. It has a 360nits sun in a real scene instead of 1000nits. It might look good to you as you see sRGB all the time but I know how crap a 300nits sun looks like. It looks pathetically dim where the range shrinks 3 times while FALD SDR can easily have 600nits to beat the OLED "HDR300"

You can say how much you like the OLED but you cannot deny it is not a HDR monitor in the first place with just 160nits APL.

Please feel free to provide a source.

Here's mine, indicating 650 nits for HDR in a 10% window (brighter in Vivid mode):
https://www.displayninja.com/lg-27gr95qe-review/

Vincent at HDTVTest got similar results to the above in his recent video review. (And yes, he mentions the downsides and clipping possibilities, but still recommends the monitor.)

Also, what the hell is a 0% window size? That doesn't even make sense. LG's specs don't use window size, but claim 1000 cd/m2 at 3% APL. Tests seem to get fairly close to that, if not quite achieve it.

I can absolutely deny it's not an HDR monitor, because, it is in fact, indisputably, an HDR monitor. Nothing you've argued even properly contradicts that fact.

As far as that image you shared, it's absolutely meaningless without any context.

 

[kramnelis]

Please feel free to provide a source.

Here's mine, indicating 650 nits for HDR in a 10% window (brighter in Vivid mode):
https://www.displayninja.com/lg-27gr95qe-review/

Vincent at HDTVTest got similar results to the above in his recent video review. (And yes, he mentions the downsides and clipping possibilities, but still recommends the monitor.)

Also, what the hell is a 0% window size? That doesn't even make sense. LG's specs don't use window size, but claim 1000 cd/m2 at 3% APL. Tests seem to get fairly close to that, if not quite achieve it.

I can absolutely deny it's not an HDR monitor, because, it is in fact, indisputably, an HDR monitor. Nothing you've argued even properly contradicts that fact.

As far as that image you shared, it's absolutely meaningless without any context.

Funny displayninja is even a source now. You can find my source pictures from Snowman.

Don't you have calibrator since you care so much about accuracy? You can do the test to get the real scene brightness instead of imagining it.

Again OLED is not a HDR monitor where the brightness can be even crashed by FALD SDR. You get a 360nits sun right in front your face. You don't even have a HDR400 certification. You have imagination instead.

Now you can bust out your philosophy to define how meaningless OLED HDR is when the most complains of this "HDR" monitor is how dim this monitor can be.

 

[sgupta]

Funny displayninja is even a source now. You can find my source pictures from Snowman.

Don't you have calibrator since you care so much about accuracy? You can do the test to get the real scene brightness instead of imagining it.

Again OLED is not a HDR monitor where the brightness can be even crashed by FALD SDR. You get a 360nits sun right in front your face. You don't even have a HDR400 certification. You have imagination instead.

Now you can bust out your philosophy to define how meaningless OLED HDR is when the most complains of this "HDR" monitor is how dim this monitor can be.

Displayninja just happened to be the first source I found with those types of tests. HDTVTest had similar results. RTINGS doesn't have a review yet but hopefully they will, and it'll show similar as well. Hell, even Snowman, the source you provided shows, ~650 nits in a 10% window before dimming down.

I borrowed an XRite to calibrate for SDR with LG's software. I don't particularly care about testing nits in HDR myself since I don't have the software to do it properly and HDR can't be calibrated anyways. I know it tone maps - that's fine by me as long as the image looks good. Generally all the games I currently play either use the Windows HDR Calibration or have their own in-game settings to make it look great on my monitor.

I did find the video source of that image you posted. Overall, he seems to like the monitor while acknowledging its pros and cons. He acknowledges the real-scene brightness in HDR is lower than what they had hoped for, but thought the 10-bit color was good. (Prettymuch the same as HDTVTest.). Again, I never claimed this can get as bright as a FALD display, only that the HDR is good for my needs. I already know FALD is weaker in the areas like sRGB I use the most after trying it, so it's not an option where I'd be happy. OLED is much better in those areas, and can still do nice HDR when I want to play HDR games. Sure, I'd love the best of both, but nothing available offers that, so I'll take the one with the fewest compromises, which *for me* is very clearly OLED. It's fine if your preferences are different.

Even Snowman doesn't say it doesn't have HDR, because that would be incorrect and frankly a weird thing to say. You're the only one trying to insist that.

 

[kramnelis]

Displayninja just happened to be the first source I found with those types of tests. HDTVTest had similar results. RTINGS doesn't have a review yet but hopefully they will, and it'll show similar as well. Hell, even Snowman, the source you provided shows, ~650 nits in a 10% window before dimming down.

I borrowed an XRite to calibrate for SDR with LG's software. I don't particularly care about testing nits in HDR myself since I don't have the software to do it properly and HDR can't be calibrated anyways. I know it tone maps - that's fine by me as long as the image looks good. Generally all the games I currently play either use the Windows HDR Calibration or have their own in-game settings to make it look great on my monitor.

I did find the video source of that image you posted. Overall, he seems to like the monitor while acknowledging its pros and cons. He acknowledges the real-scene brightness in HDR is lower than what they had hoped for, but thought the 10-bit color was good. (Prettymuch the same as HDTVTest.). Again, I never claimed this can get as bright as a FALD display, only that the HDR is good for my needs. I already know FALD is weaker in the areas like sRGB I use the most after trying it, so it's not an option where I'd be happy. OLED is much better in those areas, and can still do nice HDR when I want to play HDR games. Sure, I'd love the best of both, but nothing available offers that, so I'll take the one with the fewest compromises, which *for me* is very clearly OLED. It's fine if your preferences are different.

Even Snowman doesn't say it doesn't have HDR, because that would be incorrect and frankly a weird thing to say. You're the only one trying to insist that.

It's not a HDR monitor. It doesn't even have HDR400 certification. It has worse images. It is that dim.

You keep saying that 650nits at 10% window. In real world use, like how you always claimed a monitor should be used, you get a 360nits instead of 1000nits.

A 360nits sun just proves that. How is a 360nits sun considered HDR? It's just tone-mapped SDR while FLAD SDR gets 600nits sun at higher range to beat the crap out this "HDR300". I already have AW3423DW to prove how it get beat pretty well.

You can always bust out your philosophy like how happy you are with your choice, like how you don't care HDR. But you cannot deny the fact it has 360nits sun which is pathetically dim. You cannot deny the fact it doesn't even have HDR400. Funny you think your philosophy can bend the truth.

 

[sgupta]

It's not a HDR monitor. It doesn't even have HDR400 certification. It has worse images. It is that dim.

You keep saying that 650nits at 10% window. In real world use, like how you always claimed a monitor should be used, you get a 360nits instead of 1000nits.

A 360nits sun just proves that. How is a 360nits sun considered HDR? It's just tone-mapped SDR while FLAD SDR gets 600nits sun at higher range to beat the crap out this "HDR300". I already have AW3423DW to prove how it get beat pretty well.

You can always bust out your philosophy like how happy you are with your choice, like how you don't care HDR. But you cannot deny the fact it has 360nits sun which is pathetically dim. You cannot deny the fact it doesn't even have HDR400. Funny you think your philosophy can bend the truth.

SDR at 600 nits doesn't even make sense. That's not a thing most people view, and it's certainly not anywhere close to any reference standard.

HDR300 also doesn't make sense as it's not a thing. No idea if this monitor will ever have any sort of certification.

It's not tone-mapped SDR. It's tone-mapped HDR. Which is intended for HDR on monitors with a more limited range than the source. Yours will do it too on HDR4000 or HDR10000 content.

It's an HDR monitor and I enjoy HDR content on it. I'm fine with real-scenes dimming down as necessary as long as it fits what it can within range; HDR elements are still brighter than *reference* SDR, it's still 10-bit color (and Snowman attests to that), and you still get many advantages of HDR. Yeah, it's not as bright as would be optimal, but you can't have everything, and it still looks pleasant. Bright highlights can still get quite bright, a lot brighter than OLED was capable of in the past. You may not like the implementation of HDR, but it's HDR nonetheless. Nobody's saying it can match the brightness of FALD HDR monitors. Everybody acknowledges FALD has the clear advantage there. But OLED is still much better in several aspects, especially SDR, and it's better at the ones I use the most while still having very usable and enjoyable HDR for games. *shrugs* You keep acting like there's an alternative that does everything well, and that somehow that should be FALD for everyone even though I and others have discussed our dissatisfaction with FALD's shortcomings (of which, like OLED, there are also several...just in differing areas, and in areas that happen to be more important to me). There's no alternative that does everything perfectly. I hope that changes at some point.

 

[kramnelis]

SDR at 600 nits doesn't even make sense. That's not a thing most people view, and it's certainly not anywhere close to any reference standard.

HDR300 also doesn't make sense as it's not a thing. No idea if this monitor will ever have any sort of certification.

It's not tone-mapped SDR. It's tone-mapped HDR. Which is intended for HDR on monitors with a more limited range than the source. Yours will do it too on HDR4000 or HDR10000 content.

It's an HDR monitor and I enjoy HDR content on it. I'm fine with real-scenes dimming down as necessary as long as it fits what it can within range; HDR elements are still brighter than *reference* SDR, it's still 10-bit color (and Snowman attests to that), and you still get many advantages of HDR. Yeah, it's not as bright as would be optimal, but you can't have everything, and it still looks pleasant. Bright highlights can still get quite bright, a lot brighter than OLED was capable of in the past. You may not like the implementation of HDR, but it's HDR nonetheless. Nobody's saying it can match the brightness of FALD HDR monitors. Everybody acknowledges FALD has the clear advantage there. But OLED is still much better in several aspects, especially SDR, and it's better at the ones I use the most while still having very usable and enjoyable HDR for games. *shrugs* You keep acting like there's an alternative that does everything well, and that somehow that should be FALD for everyone even though I and others have discussed our dissatisfaction with FALD's shortcomings (of which, like OLED, there are also several...just in differing areas, and in areas that happen to be more important to me). There's no alternative that does everything perfectly. I hope that changes at some point.

Don't forget it's the OLED has a 360nits sun so that SDR images on FALD with a 600nits sun can beat the "HDR300".

How can your OLED with a 360nits sun claim to be HDR while FALD SDR has 600nits sun? It's the OLED has tone-mapped images worse than SDR. Tone-mapping can be whatever limited range you want.

Again, your OLED is not a HDR monitor. It's a dim SDR monitor without HDR400 certification but with 160nits APL and 300nits sun.

You philosophy of 300nits being quite bright might work for you. It looks like trash to me.

 

[sgupta]

Don't forget it's the OLED has a 360nits sun so that SDR images on FALD with a 600nits sun can beat the "HDR300".

Both SDR at 600 nits or HDR300 are nonsensical.

How can your OLED with a 360nits sun claim to be HDR while FALD SDR has 600nits sun? It's the OLED has tone-mapped images worse than SDR. Tone-mapping can be whatever limited range you want.

It's not me claiming it's HDR. The company, reviewers, etc. all call it...and test it...as an HDR monitor (which it is, given the expanded 10 bit color range and brightness up to ~1000 nits for highlights).

Again, your OLED is not a HDR monitor. It's a dim SDR monitor without HDR400 certification but with 160nits APL and 300nits sun.

Your claims have zero basis in fact. All professional material out there agrees with it being HDR, but feel free to find me any reviewer, literature, etc. that says it's not an HDR monitor. I'll wait.

You philosophy of 300nits being quite bright might work for you. It looks like trash to me.

And that's fine if you don't like it - nobody asked you to! Given that it's my best option available for everything I want to do, it looks great to me, especially in SDR, and I'm pleased with the HDR performance as well.

 

[kramnelis]

Both SDR at 600 nits or HDR300 are nonsensical.

It's the OLED get a 360nits sun and call it HDR. It's the OLED get beat by 600nits sun from FALD SDR. It's fine if you like that kind of pathetic "HDR" which is just SDR. It looks like trash to me. It's not HDR anyway as the sun is supposed to be 1,000nits.

It's not me claiming it's HDR. The company, reviewers, etc. all call it...and test it...as an HDR monitor (which it is, given the expanded 10 bit color range and brightness up to ~1000 nits for highlights).

Since when a monitor standard is so low that it has no certification? Any monitor can be labeled as HDR. Even the edge lit IPS can have HDR enabled. It doesn't matter if it has crap images. You OLED has 3 times less range and less accuracy.

Your claims have zero basis in fact. All professional material out there agrees with it being HDR, but feel free to find me any reviewer, literature, etc. that says it's not an HDR monitor. I'll wait.

You monitor has a max 160nits APL. It has a 360nits sun. It doesn't even have HDR400 certification. It looks like crap compared to the actual HDR content it supposed to show. Nobody is calling it HDR in any serious way. AW3423DW is not a true HDR monitor. The 27'' WOLED is even dimmer.

And that's fine if you don't like it - nobody asked you to! Given that it's my best option available for everything I want to do, it looks great to me, especially in SDR, and I'm pleased with the HDR performance as well.

It doesn't matter whether you like it or I like it. What matter is OLED images is so much worse that FALD high range SDR can even beat its low range "HDR". OLED brightness falls off the chart when FALD shows the actual HDR.

 

[sgupta]

It's the OLED get a 360nits sun and call it HDR. It's the OLED get beat by 600nits sun from FALD SDR. It's fine if you like that kind of pathetic "HDR" which is just SDR. It looks like trash to me. It's not HDR anyway as the sun is supposed to be 1,000nits.

Generally when people are throwing insults around like "pathetic" and "trash", there's something more personal going on. I have no idea why you're getting so worked up. I've never said anything to call FALD "trash". It's a great technology - it just so happens I had a poor experience with blooming in SDR that couldn't be rectified, along with other quality control issues, so it's not for me. That's all there is to it. HDR brightness doesn't mean much to me if SDR, where I view the majority of my content, has too many things that bother me. (I'm not getting personal or calling it trash because it's not - it's a blooming/viewing angle compromise of one technology, where I prefer the brightness compromise of another).

You keep going to 600 nit FALD SDR. That's not SDR. That's...well...it's not really anything. At 600 nits, SDR is just way too bright to be watchable. I honestly have no idea why you keep going to this argument, because it's nonsensical.

Since when a monitor standard is so low that it has no certification? Any monitor can be labeled as HDR. Even the edge lit IPS can have HDR enabled. It doesn't matter if it has crap images. You OLED has 3 times less range and less accuracy.

I'm not familiar with the certification process, so I have no idea why it doesn't have certification or if it might get it in the future. You changed the debate, though - we were never debating certification; we were debating (I'm not sure why) whether it's an HDR monitor, which it is (and reviewed as such by many outlets as well).

You monitor has a max 160nits APL. It has a 360nits sun. It doesn't even have HDR400 certification. It looks like crap compared to the actual HDR content it supposed to show. Nobody is calling it HDR in any serious way. AW3423DW is not a true HDR monitor. The 27'' WOLED is even dimmer.

Again, sources. Most of the reviewers, while they have their nitpicks and point out the limitations that noone here is denying, are pleased by several aspects of the HDR presentation. This is YOUR OPINION and only your opinion. It's understandable if you were to say the HDR is not bright enough for you to be personally happy with. That's personal opinion based on your preferences. Saying it's not an HDR monitor at all is something completely different and just factually incorrect.

It doesn't matter whether you like it or I like it. What matter is OLED images is so much worse that FALD high range SDR can even beat its low range "HDR". OLED brightness falls off the chart when FALD shows the actual HDR.

Honestly, that's kind of the only thing that matters. The images are not worse. Hell, SDR images are objectively more accurate, which to me means better. Brightness in HDR is not nearly as important to me as it is to you. It honestly never will be, at least until there's a technology that can "have it all."

 

[kramnelis]

Generally when people are throwing insults around like "pathetic" and "trash", there's something more personal going on. I have no idea why you're getting so worked up. I've never said anything to call FALD "trash". It's a great technology - it just so happens I had a poor experience with blooming in SDR that couldn't be rectified, along with other quality control issues, so it's not for me. That's all there is to it. HDR brightness doesn't mean much to me if SDR, where I view the majority of my content, has too many things that bother me. (I'm not getting personal or calling it trash because it's not - it's a blooming/viewing angle compromise of one technology, where I prefer the brightness compromise of another).

You keep going to 600 nit FALD SDR. That's not SDR. That's...well...it's not really anything. At 600 nits, SDR is just way too bright to be watchable. I honestly have no idea why you keep going to this argument, because it's nonsensical.

Funny you pull out your philosophy again. There is nothing personal or anything about preference. I'm just doing the counterpart job when you suddenly advertise a dim OLED while undermining a professional HDR1400 FALD monitor.

All your excuses are either you just care about the accuracy of sRGB or you think a 300nits sun is fine which has much worse accuracy. In reality, a 300nits sun is trash compared to the original 1000nits sun. It's that simple. If you really have a PA32UCG, which I doubt you don't even have, you will know immediately how SDR can become HDR.

I'm not familiar with the certification process, so I have no idea why it doesn't have certification or if it might get it in the future. You changed the debate, though - we were never debating certification; we were debating (I'm not sure why) whether it's an HDR monitor, which it is (and reviewed as such by many outlets as well).

Don't fool yourself. A dim monitor won't have HDR certification. It's not an HDR monitor in the first place where the color under 400nits looks just like 8bit. It won't even get HDR400 in the future as the APL is only 160nits.

Again, sources. Most of the reviewers, while they have their nitpicks and point out the limitations that noone here is denying, are pleased by several aspects of the HDR presentation. This is YOUR OPINION and only your opinion. It's understandable if you were to say the HDR is not bright enough for you to be personally happy with. That's personal opinion based on your preferences. Saying it's not an HDR monitor at all is something completely different and just factually incorrect.

There are many sources now. You just need to search yourself to find out. The monitor has a max 160nits APL and that's test images. A real scene APL will be even lower than 160nits. It has a 360nits sun. It doesn't even have HDR400 certification. It looks like crap compared to the actual HDR content it supposed to show because the brightness falls 3 times lower. These are not opinions.

Honestly, that's kind of the only thing that matters. The images are not worse. Hell, SDR images are objectively more accurate, which to me means better. Brightness in HDR is not nearly as important to me as it is to you. It honestly never will be, at least until there's a technology that can "have it all."

Funny how you think preference matter. This not about preference. This is about OLED being worse for PC use. I've always said there is no perfect monitor. But there is worse monitor and it's OLED being worse. OLED is not the future.

 

[sgupta]

Funny you pull out your philosophy again. There is nothing personal or anything about preference. I'm just doing the counterpart job when you suddenly advertise a dim OLED while undermining a professional HDR1400 FALD monitor.

All your excuses are either you just care about the accuracy of sRGB or you think a 300nits sun is fine which has much worse accuracy. In reality, a 300nits sun is trash compared to the original 1000nits sun. It's that simple. If you really have a PA32UCG, which I doubt you don't even have, you will know immediately how SDR can become HDR.

I'm not advertising anything. OLED is better for me given the choice of OLED vs. FALD. I'm not making that determination for anyone else. Just giving my opinion having used both.

Correct that I care about sRGB accuracy. I care less about HDR brightness, but find HDR on the OLED pleasant nonetheless. Some day when higher brightness and the benefits of OLED are available on a single monitor, I hope to have the best of both, but it's not an option.

I returned the PA32UCG, but I did have one, and I was unhappy with it for all the reasons I previously listed. This OLED better suits my uses by a fairly large margin.

Don't fool yourself. A dim monitor won't have HDR certification. It's not an HDR monitor in the first place where the color under 400nits looks just like 8bit. It won't even get HDR400 in the future as the APL is only 160nits.

There's a 32" OLED from LG (though not gaming oriented) that has True Black HDR 400 certification and doesn't get quite as bright as this one in highlights. Again, I have no idea about the certification process or why that one is certified and this one isn't, but neither do you - you're making assumptions.

At any rate, certification or not, it's still an HDR monitor. That's a fact. Also, the reviewer you got that sun image from says how good the 10bit color on the monitor is in that same video, so he disagrees with you.

There are many sources now. You just need to search yourself to find out. The monitor has a max 160nits APL and that's test images. A real scene APL will be even lower than 160nits. It has a 360nits sun. It doesn't even have HDR400 certification. It looks like crap compared to the actual HDR content it supposed to show because the brightness falls 3 times lower. These are not opinions.

Funny how you think preference matter. This not about preference. This is about OLED being worse for PC use. I've always said there is no perfect monitor. But there is worse monitor and it's OLED being worse. OLED is not the future.

OLED is not worse for PC use. Neither is FALD. It depends on the user's preferences and criteria. I've read up plenty on the monitor. You're cherry picking and misrepresenting things about it to try to suit your opinion. That's all well and good, but it's still an HDR monitor. *shrugs* We're not going to see eye to eye on this no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

 

[kasakka]

I'm not advertising anything. OLED is better for me given the choice of OLED vs. FALD. I'm not making that determination for anyone else. Just giving my opinion having used both.

Correct that I care about sRGB accuracy. I care less about HDR brightness, but find HDR on the OLED pleasant nonetheless. Some day when higher brightness and the benefits of OLED are available on a single monitor, I hope to have the best of both, but it's not an option.

I returned the PA32UCG, but I did have one, and I was unhappy with it for all the reasons I previously listed. This OLED better suits my uses by a fairly large margin.



There's a 32" OLED from LG (though not gaming oriented) that has True Black HDR 400 certification and doesn't get quite as bright as this one in highlights. Again, I have no idea about the certification process or why that one is certified and this one isn't, but neither do you - you're making assumptions.

At any rate, certification or not, it's still an HDR monitor. That's a fact. Also, the reviewer you got that sun image from says how good the 10bit color on the monitor is in that same video, so he disagrees with you.




OLED is not worse for PC use. Neither is FALD. It depends on the user's preferences and criteria. I've read up plenty on the monitor. You're cherry picking and misrepresenting things about it to try to suit your opinion. That's all well and good, but it's still an HDR monitor. *shrugs* We're not going to see eye to eye on this no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

Let me spare kramnelis the next 10 replies.

FOR i = 1 TO 10
PRINT "OLED can't do HDR. 160 nits APL. 360 nits sun."
NEXT i

 

[kramnelis]

I'm not advertising anything. OLED is better for me given the choice of OLED vs. FALD. I'm not making that determination for anyone else. Just giving my opinion having used both.

Correct that I care about sRGB accuracy. I care less about HDR brightness, but find HDR on the OLED pleasant nonetheless. Some day when higher brightness and the benefits of OLED are available on a single monitor, I hope to have the best of both, but it's not an option.

I returned the PA32UCG, but I did have one, and I was unhappy with it for all the reasons I previously listed. This OLED better suits my uses by a fairly large margin.

Yes, you are advertising OLED while undermining FALD. Whether it is intentional or not you are doing the exactly the same thing.

Don't forget you are using a dim 27GR95QE, which is dimmer than the already dim AW3423dW, to see sRGB 80nits in SDR or a 360nits sun at most in HDR mode. These images are rather pathetic. You are seeing tone-mapped SDR on OLED while the FALD can make HDR you won't even able to see.

There's a 32" OLED from LG (though not gaming oriented) that has True Black HDR 400 certification and doesn't get quite as bright as this one in highlights. Again, I have no idea about the certification process or why that one is certified and this one isn't, but neither do you - you're making assumptions.

At any rate, certification or not, it's still an HDR monitor. That's a fact. Also, the reviewer you got that sun image from says how good the 10bit color on the monitor is in that same video, so he disagrees with you.

At least that's a HDR400 not like 27GR95QE without certification. That monitor is brighter than 27GR95QE at larger window size. It's at least accurate for HDR400 unlike yours which is not even qualified. But HDR400 true black or not is not true HDR1000 anyway. You cannot use a HDR400 monitor to see true HDR1000 accurately. Your 27GR95QE is a dim SDR monitor where the major complains are all about low brightness. It's not a HDR monitor when FALD SDR can beat it easily. It's not a HDR monitor without the lowest HDR certification. It's that simple.

OLED is not worse for PC use. Neither is FALD. It depends on the user's preferences and criteria. I've read up plenty on the monitor. You're cherry picking and misrepresenting things about it to try to suit your opinion. That's all well and good, but it's still an HDR monitor. *shrugs* We're not going to see eye to eye on this no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

OLED is worse for PC use due to limited range. It's not fit for future content or even the current content. It has flickers. You cannot see much at 160nits APL. Your monitor is just that dim without HDR certification. These are not opinions.

 

[kramnelis]

-

These simple truths need to be repeated multiple times no matter you like it or not. OLED TV users like you have been seeing worse inaccurate HDR images all the time, which are just SDR.

 

[Senn]

These simple truths need to be repeated multiple times

But why? People here who have, enjoy and prefer OLED displays aren't going to start disliking them and go out and buy a FALD based on your incessant rambling. This entire thread makes no sense.

 

[MistaSparkul]

But why? People here who have, enjoy and prefer OLED displays aren't going to start disliking them and go out and buy a FALD based on your incessant rambling. This entire thread makes no sense.

It doesn't make sense but it's still funny to read every now and then lol. He's not going to change anyone's mind much like nobody is going to change his mind. "Truths" or whatever that he keeps going on about doesn't mean jack shit, people are going to use whatever they like, period. There are still people who even today rather use a CRT and nothing else despite CRT's being even dimmer than OLEDs and having zero HDR capability, and there is nothing wrong with that if that is what someone prefers to use.

 

[kramnelis]

But why? People here who have, enjoy and prefer OLED displays aren't going to start disliking them and go out and buy a FALD based on your incessant rambling. This entire thread makes no sense.

Preference doesn't matter when OLED offers so limited range to have overall worse inaccurate images compared to FALD.

MiniLED is grinding on price now so more people can see the actual HDR to realize OLED is not enough for HDR. The display market is a grinding business. OLED will be eventually crashed by miniLED. OLED is not as feasible as LCD. The brightness doesn't go up. The flickers are always there. It isn't even the fastest display.