Why OLED for PC use?

[kramnelis]

Thats as bad as saying without blackness you dont have better images.
Your argument only applies to HDR when more is needed, and even then is still brightness limited, muting your argument somewhat unless you have proof current max brightness levels are optimal?
Both extremes of blackness and brightness are needed for perfect HDR.
For SDR more brightness isnt needed.

FALD miniLED SDR is your OLED HDR.

 

[kramnelis]

It is. All color perceived by the human eye is light. No one is arguing it isn't.

Light output is kind of the entire reason a screen exists.

It's the peak output numbers that aren't incredibly relevant except for a few flashy bright effects here or there.

You can make the analogy to a car. Sure, movement is kind of what the car is all about, but apart from bragging rights it really doesn't matter if your car has a top speed of 150mph at 160mph. Even if you once in a while test it at that speed on a track, for your every day life with that car you are never going to drive it at that top speed. You are going to be driving to the store, or to and from work, etc.

Most monitors are going to spend 99% of their lives in SDR on the desktop with brightness set so they get a max light output of about 75-80 nits, and that is perfectly fine.

On the rare occasion you drive all fast and sporty, you probably won't even come close to your top speed. Same with a monitor. On the rare occasion you actually view anything with HDR content, you probably aren't going to notice even rather large differences in max light output, as long as you have plenty of dynamic range.

The max light output is really only used for parts of scenes that dazzle and blind you, and you don't have to get super bright to have the same effect, especially in a dark room, on a screen with dark blacks, so your eyes have adjusted.

This is why OLED screens continue to take the top ratings. Their output is the most pleasing, and they do this without unnecessary ridiculous top end light output.

If you go to Rtings.com and sort the top list by movie viewing (one of the use cases they test where HDR becomes the most relevant) you'll find the top list absolutely dominated by OLED screens. The first entry that is not OLED comes in at #22 and is a Hisense dual LCD panel.

OLED has all but completely taken over the top echelons of image quality, and for good reason. They look fantastic, better than anything else out there I have seen. And they do this, despite having a lesser top light output figure, which kind of disproves your theory that max light output is as important as you think it is.

You can of course use whatever the hell you want to use. That's only between you and your eyes, but don't come in here and try to tell the rest of us that OLED sucks because it doesn't ave blinding levels of max light output, when we all know what we have seen, like the results, and oh, by the way, the most respected testers of screen quality almost unilaterally agree.

It almost makes me think you are trolling. Why don't you create your own thread to discuss the virtues of blinding light from a screen and stop crapping on this one.

Rting didn't even have the budget to test some of the top-tier HDR miniLED monitors.

It's like just because you drive 80mph so a Prius is better. People in the market always like to drive a Ferrari so they can driver faster.

OLED is not even a Prius. OLED gets brighter then it burns. Now you can even buy 1000nits fullfield true HDR1000 miniLED monitors at half the price of the current OLED monitors.

 

[kramnelis]

I actually started this thread with large OLED TVs in mind because I want to make a new media room/home theater and maybe connect a PC to it for gaming.

Based on your response, large OLED TVs don’t suffer from being dim like OLED monitors do. The new LG G3 and Samsung QD-OLED TVs offer much increased brightness this year (as seen in the video I linked). If these are the OLEDs in question, would all this talk of OLEDs being too dim become irrelevant?

Larger TV is not a monitor if you sit several feet away from a 75 inch TV. At that size you can buy a microLED this year. Once you use it as monitor it can burn.

 

[kramnelis]

You aren't going to get sensible answers from him because to him anything that isn't capable of 1000 nits full field brightness is crap. Most of the time for HDR content you aren't going to see that sort of brightness, it would be only something like a big explosion on screen. For SDR content it would mostly matter that you can see the screen comfortably. If it's going to be a media/home theater room then you are most likely controlling for light anyway so brightness is not a problem.

Realistically you will be very happy with the G3 or equivalent Samsung QD-OLED panel performance for TV use. Similarly using a PC for gaming will work nicely. I'd recommend going to an electronics store and checking these out for yourself because you might find that even the C2/C3 with their more limited brightness will look great to you and the money saved over the latest and greatest will be a better compromise.

It's 2023 not 2017. Most minLED monitors fresh out this year will do 1000+nits fullfield easily. This is the accurate HDR1000 which makes OLED looks like crap in comparison. What's the point when minLED SDR is your OLED HDR?

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

It's 2023 not 2017. Most minLED monitors fresh out this year will do 1000+nits fullfield easily. This is the accurate HDR1000 which makes OLED looks like crap in comparison. What's the point when minLED SDR is your OLED HDR?

Peak brightness only has a very limited impact on image quality. Other things matter a lot more. Like good dark blacks and accurate colors - for instance

No one is arguing that brightness doesn't matter. It can enhance dynamic range, and better dynamic range generally looks better, all else being equal, but there is SO much more to image quality than just how bright a screen can get.

I've seen MicroLEd screens and OLED screens, and I'm pretty sure I'd land on OLED every time if I were shopping based in image quality.

My next home theater TV will likely be a 77" LG C3 if I get around to buying it this year.

 

[kramnelis]

Peak brightness only has a very limited impact on image quality. Other things matter a lot more. Like good dark blacks and accurate colors - for instance

No one is arguing that brightness doesn't matter. It can enhance dynamic range, and better dynamic range generally looks better, all else being equal, but there is SO much more to image quality than just how bright a screen can get.

I've seen MicroLEd screens and OLED screens, and I'm pretty sure I'd land on OLED every time if I were shopping based in image quality.

My next home theater TV will likely be a 77" LG C3 if I get around to buying it this year.

Brightness has way more impact on image quality. It's the top 1 factor of HDR. OLED doesn't even hold accurate color when it doesn't have accurate brightness to distribute 1024 shades of of 10bit. Self-emissive is nothing without brightness.

The dynamic range of FALD SDR is already the range of OLED HDR with the same level of deep black but tons more highlight. HDR can make images look like real life. Only the HDR on FALD can look like a window.

 

[sgupta]

Only higher range can have better images.

Factually incorrect, and you've said nothing to disprove that. I just can't take your debating seriously at this point.

Yes, if brightness is the only factor and you watch mostly HDR, FALD is best. OLED is still better for SDR and "pretty good" at most HDR (Also, literally all of the demo material and images you post in this and other threads looks fantastic on my OLED in HDR mode, even if tone mapped, btw.)

Your preferences are yours and you're welcome to them, but pretending that OLEDs can't have as good, and in some cases better, images than FALD is just simply wrong. (Just as it would be wrong to say FALD can't sometimes have better images depending on the type of content - they both have their strengths and weaknesses in different content, and that's not really disputable)

 

[kramnelis]

Factually incorrect, and you've said nothing to disprove that. I just can't take your debating seriously at this point.

Yes, if brightness is the only factor and you watch mostly HDR, FALD is best. OLED is still better for SDR and "pretty good" at most HDR (Also, literally all of the demo material and images you post in this and other threads looks fantastic on my OLED in HDR mode, even if tone mapped, btw.)

Your preferences are yours and you're welcome to them, but pretending that OLEDs can't have as good, and in some cases better, images than FALD is just simply wrong. (Just as it would be wrong to say FALD can't sometimes have better images depending on the type of content - they both have their strengths and weaknesses in different content, and that's not really disputable)

I just prove it with this. You want to see dim sRGB then go for it.

Emulated SDR sRGB 80nits


Emulated SDR BT1866 + sRGB + high brightness


Emulated SDR BT1866 + WideGamut + high brightness


The last two images are exactly what it looks like on FALD miniLED such as PG32UQX, PG27UQ, PG35VQ. You should've realized the SDR you see on these monitors is your OLED HDR.

Speaking of the dynamic range, the SDR BT1866 + WideGamut + high brightness is easily 3x more than mere sRGB with 500+nits peak brightness. It's not my business If you like very accurate dim sRGB. My eyes like to see better.

 

[sgupta]

I just prove it with this. You want to see dim sRGB then go for it.

You've proven nothing. You're just basically making up your own "standard" at this point, without any regard to accuracy or the original image spec. That's perfectly fine if its what you want to do...I could easily crank up color, brightness, and move things into a wide color space on my FALD TV. I'd never do that because I want things accurate and not too bright for my eyes, personally, but hey - you do you. My only contention is you're trying to say everyone should view things the way you view them, even though it's just your personal taste and preference; there's not even any objective reason for what you're suggesting. Again, more power to you, but yes, I *do* want to see sRGB as sRGB and I always will. Your images are different and may appeal to you more, but they're not objectively better. I have never seen a game producer, artist, industry professional, or actual calibrator recommend shifting sRGB or SDR into a non-native color space. (Also, your third link doesn't work).

 

[kramnelis]

You've proven nothing. You're just basically making up your own "standard" at this point, without any regard to accuracy or the original image spec. That's perfectly fine if its what you want to do...I could easily crank up color, brightness, and move things into a wide color space on my FALD TV. I'd never do that because I want things accurate and not too bright for my eyes, personally, but hey - you do you. My only contention is you're trying to say everyone should view things the way you view them, even though it's just your personal taste and preference; there's not even any objective reason for what you're suggesting. Again, more power to you, but yes, I *do* want to see sRGB as sRGB and I always will. Your images are different and may appeal to you more, but they're not objectively better. I have never seen a game producer, artist, industry professional, or actual calibrator recommend shifting sRGB or SDR into a non-native color space. (Also, your third link doesn't work).

The sRGB accuracy must look fantastic to you. My eyes want to see better to get as much range as possible while you can only see a 300nits sun.

 

[sgupta]

The sRGB accuracy must look fantastic to you.

It honestly does! And not having things oversaturated/overbright also lends towards better detail and less eyestrain. But to each their own.

 

[kramnelis]

It honestly does! And not having things oversaturated/overbright also lends towards better detail and less eyestrain. But to each their own.

However sRGB looks like trash compared to high range SDR. Your monitor cannot even display wide gamut SDR huh?

 

[sgupta]

However sRGB looks like trash compared to high range SDR. Your monitor cannot even display wide gamut SDR huh?

Again, this is objectively incorrect. sRGB looks...well...how it's supposed to look and how the developer intended it to look. You like to modify that according to your own personal subjective preference (purely opinion based), and that's fine, but I prefer sticking pretty closely to the creator's intent, as I've said many, many times. Feel free to reference ANY professional content creators, though, that recommend stretching sRGB into a different color space. Happy to wait.

Of course it can do wide gamut SDR. The Gamer modes do that out of the box. And yes, it adds "pop" to the image. It also oversaturates colors. That may be a plus to some; it's not one to me. If some people prefer it, fine, but I 100% think regular sRGB looks better and more realistic, not "like trash". "Like trash" is not an objective argument from you - it seems more an emotional one.

 

[kramnelis]

Again, this is objectively incorrect. sRGB looks...well...how it's supposed to look and how the developer intended it to look. You like to modify that according to your own personal subjective preference (purely opinion based), and that's fine, but I prefer sticking pretty closely to the creator's intent, as I've said many, many times. Feel free to reference ANY professional content creators, though, that recommend stretching sRGB into a different color space. Happy to wait.

Of course it can do wide gamut SDR. The Gamer modes do that out of the box. And yes, it adds "pop" to the image. It also oversaturates colors. That may be a plus to some; it's not one to me. If some people prefer it, fine, but I 100% think regular sRGB looks better and more realistic, not "like trash". "Like trash" is not an objective argument from you - it seems more an emotional one.

It always look like trash in comparison. You should've realized you cannot even see the FALD wide gamut SDR on your OLED.

 

[sgupta]

You should've realized you cannot even see the FALD SDR on your OLED.

Maybe it's the infinite blacks, excellent viewing angles, and lack of blooming throwing me off. =oP

(My response above is tongue-in-cheek as I certainly think FALD displays are great too, but at this point I can't help it when arguments are this ridiculous. Both techs have different strengths in different areas, but claiming FALD has better SDR than OLED is just plain silly.)

 

[kramnelis]

Maybe it's the infinite blacks, excellent viewing angles, and lack of blooming throwing me off. =oP

(My response above is tongue-in-cheek as I certainly think FALD displays are great too, but at this point I can't help it when arguments are this ridiculous. Both techs have different strengths in different areas, but claiming FALD has better SDR than OLED is just plain silly.)

sRGB looks like trash in comparison. There is no bloom but even deeper black with Bt1866 lol. You excuse is pulled from pure imagination. I like how you bring up eyestrain on an OLED that only does HDR300.

 

[sgupta]

sRGB looks like trash in comparison. There is no bloom but even deeper black with Bt1866 lol. You excuse is pulled from pure imagination. I like how you bring up eyestrain on an OLED that only does HDR300.

"Like trash" is an emotional response, not an objective argument. "Even deeper black" isn't possible on a FALD display without pixel level dimming - talk about making things up. BT.1886 is color space, that's probably an undesirable stretch of contrast, which could be done just as easily on OLED (though I'm not sure why you'd want to watch something in the wrong color space, but hey, you do you). You're not even making factual arguments while accusing others of imagining things. As far as eyestrain, if you display sRGB brighter than it needs to be, eyestrain can be more likely, regardless of technology. When I first got my FALD TV, its default settings were too bright and I got eyestrain (hence calibrating it down to the 160 nits that suits my room and preferences).

 

[kramnelis]

"Like trash" is an emotional response, not an objective argument. "Even deeper black" isn't possible on a FALD display without pixel level dimming - talk about making things up. BT.1886 is color space, that's probably an undesirable stretch of contrast, which could be done just as easily on OLED (though I'm not sure why you'd want to watch something in the wrong color space, but hey, you do you). You're not even making factual arguments while accusing others of imagining things. As far as eyestrain, if you display sRGB brighter than it needs to be, eyestrain can be more likely, regardless of technology. When I first got my FALD TV, its default settings were too bright and I got eyestrain (hence calibrating it down to the 160 nits that suits my room and preferences).

Trash is trash when sRGB lose 3X dynamic range. I like how you lie so much just to deny better images at high range. This is the exactly the reason why your OLED monitor fails miserably when you lie so much about how nice a dim image looks.

 

[sgupta]

Trash is trash when sRGB lose 3X dynamic range. I like how you lie so much just to deny better images at high range. This is the exactly the reason why your OLED monitor fails miserably when you lie so much about how nice a dim image looks.

Nothing I've said here is a lie, but you're welcome to prove otherwise with an objective, non-emotional argument. Hell, I'm not even claiming you are lying. I 100% believe you prefer what you're saying. I just don't agree that your "better images" are objectively any better - just different (and less accurate).

 

[kramnelis]

Nothing I've said here is a lie, but you're welcome to prove otherwise with an objective, non-emotional argument. Hell, I'm not even claiming you are lying. I 100% believe you prefer what you're saying. I just don't agree that your "better images" are objectively any better - just different (and less accurate).

I provide the truth Wide gamut SDR has 3x range than sRGB. It looks significantly better than sRGB. It's so funny you let your imagination run wild with lying about blooming, lifted black, eye strain, which don't happen at all to just defend a mere sRGB you OLED can only show.

 

[sgupta]

I provide the truth Wide gamut SDR has 3x range than sRGB. It looks significantly better than sRGB. It's so funny you let your imagination run wild with lying about blooming, lifted black, eye strain, which don't happen at all to just defend a mere sRGB you OLED can only show.

Shoving sRGB into a wider color space isn't "wide gamut SDR" - it's just putting sRGB into an unintended (and objectively incorrect) color space. People may like that effect personally, but it certainly doesn't meet any standards and deviates from sRGB in many important ways. I could care less if it has 3X the range - that's useless to me on any monitor type since it's the incorrect range. Though again, I'm open to any references by any industry professionals indicating this is how they prefer you view their content. You keep arguing what you're saying is the truth, yet you repeatedly fail to provide any evidence from any reputable sources backing that up.

As to accusing me of lying, I didn't lie about any of the things you cite.
- Blooming is a problem on FALD and blooming in SDR with local dimming on is the reason I returned the Asus ProArt FALD model I tried. Blooming also happens in HDR, as does crushing small bright details, though it's less of a problem in HDR games and movies than for desktop use. Still, blooming is one of the main reason I was unhappy with it for my uses (quality control being the other major issue). I could have lived with it if I turned local dimming off on the desktop, but that was a pain, and why would I if OLED was a better fit for what I wanted to do?
- I'm not sure what you're talking about as far as lifted blacks. Contrast on OLED is incredibly inky and beats out FALD.
- I'm not sure why you're accusing me of lying about eye strain either. Of course if any display type, including FALD, is too bright, you're going to get eye strain. How much is going to depend on the person. I have chronically dry eyes, so if I go to several hundred nits in a darker room, it's just about guaranteed to bother me, and there's literally no reason to for sRGB/SDR content. (And for HDR, it's generally brief enough it's not a problem).

 

[kramnelis]

Shoving sRGB into a wider color space isn't "wide gamut SDR" - it's just putting sRGB into an unintended (and objectively incorrect) color space. People may like that effect personally, but it certainly doesn't meet any standards and deviates from sRGB in many important ways. I could care less if it has 3X the range - that's useless to me on any monitor type since it's the incorrect range. Though again, I'm open to any references by any industry professionals indicating this is how they prefer you view their content. You keep arguing what you're saying is the truth, yet you repeatedly fail to provide any evidence from any reputable sources backing that up.

As to accusing me of lying, I didn't lie about any of the things you cite.
- Blooming is a problem on FALD and blooming in SDR with local dimming on is the reason I returned the Asus ProArt FALD model I tried. Blooming also happens in HDR, as does crushing small bright details, though it's less of a problem in HDR games and movies than for desktop use. Still, blooming is one of the main reason I was unhappy with it for my uses (quality control being the other major issue). I could have lived with it if I turned local dimming off on the desktop, but that was a pain, and why would I if OLED was a better fit for what I wanted to do?
- I'm not sure what you're talking about as far as lifted blacks. Contrast on OLED is incredibly inky and beats out FALD.
- I'm not sure why you're accusing me of lying about eye strain either. Of course if any display type, including FALD, is too bright, you're going to get eye strain. How much is going to depend on the person. I have chronically dry eyes, so if I go to several hundred nits in a darker room, it's just about guaranteed to bother me, and there's literally no reason to for sRGB/SDR content. (And for HDR, it's generally brief enough it's not a problem).

You keep lying

 

[sgupta]

You keep lying

You keep claiming this, and yet, you haven't cited a single one, or how it's a lie. (Spoiler: Nothing I said is a lie. Most of it's factual, and what isn't I've clearly stated is my opinion/preference.)

 

[kramnelis]

You keep claiming this, and yet, you haven't cited a single one, or how it's a lie. (Spoiler: Nothing I said is a lie. Most of it's factual, and what isn't I've clearly stated is my opinion/preference.)

A lie is a lie. You lie not just one. 3Xrange is a better image. There is deeper black, no visible blooming, no eyestrain on a DC minLED lol.

 

[sgupta]

A lie is a lie. You lie not just one. 3Xrange is a better image. There is deeper black, no visible blooming, no eyestrain on a DC minLED lol.

Okay, now you are actually lying, so I stand corrected when I said you weren't lying above. =oP Deeper blacks and no blooming on FALD miniLED is demonstrably and objectively false. I don't see how you can possibly not know better than this. As far as 3X range being better, again, if it's in the incorrect color space, showing incorrect colors, it doesn't matter if you value accuracy. That's not, and never will be, a better image to me. If you like it, that's your subjective opinion. Finally, eyestrain varies person to person, but too much brightness will eventually give it to most people, regardless of monitor type. It might be more prevalent or less on certain technologies, but it can happen on any of them.

 

[kramnelis]

Okay, now you are actually lying, so I stand corrected when I said you weren't lying above. =oP Deeper blacks and no blooming on miniLED is demonstrably and objectively false. I don't see how you can possibly not know better than this. As far as 3X range being better, again, if it's in the incorrect color space, showing incorrect colors, it doesn't matter if you value accuracy. That's not, and never will be, a better image to me. If you like it, that's your subjective opinion. Finally, eyestrain varies person to person, but too much brightness will eventually give it to most people, regardless of monitor type. It might be more prevalent or less on certain technologies, but it can happen on any of them.

There is no visible blooming in this scene lol. You are letting your imagination fly off the cliff. There is deeper black on the wide gamut SDR instead lol.
Are you even blind?

 

[sgupta]

There is no visible blooming in this scene lol. You are letting your imagination fly off the cliff. There is deeper black on the wide gamut SDR instead lol.
Are you even blind?

LOL. Visible blooming in one specific scene is not what I'm talking about. Of course certain scenes don't exhibit noticeable blooming. Desktop use in SDR with local dimming on had very noticeable and apparent blooming. Blooming around the mouse cursor, blooming in Discord, etc. This would show up on dark HDR scenes as well, though wasn't as problematic as desktop use. But blooming is very visible on FALD displays at times as long as local dimming is on. (And with it off, you're losing contrast, though I think I would have had to do that in desktop use).

You can't get a deeper black than pixel level control. What you seem to be talking about is expanding the dynamic range of an sRGB image, which could be just as easily done on OLED. Sure, you can crush the blacks if you want, but that's not "deeper black". In my case I've found faux HDR tended to lift blacks too much, at least with the game I was testing it with (and that was on the FALD). Simply displaying in a wider gamut just oversaturated colors...it didn't seem to do much with black levels, but whatever you're doing may be different. The point stands tho'...OLED has pixel level light control, therefore no blooming. It's literally as black as you can get, which FALD simply isn't capable of. And any tricks you can do to increase contrast/black level on a FALD you'd be able to do on OLED if you so desired (but in my case it would be artificial and I wouldn't want to).

Thankfully, I see quite fine, thanks.

 

[kramnelis]

LOL. Visible blooming in one specific scene is not what I'm talking about. Of course certain scenes don't exhibit noticeable blooming. Desktop use in SDR with local dimming on had very noticeable and apparent blooming. Blooming around the mouse cursor, blooming in Discord, etc. This would show up on dark HDR scenes as well, though wasn't as problematic as desktop use. But blooming is very visible on FALD displays at times as long as local dimming is on. (And with it off, you're losing contrast, though I think I would have had to do that in desktop use).

You can't get a deeper black than pixel level control. What you seem to be talking about is expanding the dynamic range of an sRGB image, which could be just as easily done on OLED. Sure, you can crush the blacks if you want, but that's not "deeper black". In my case I've found faux HDR tended to lift blacks too much, at least with the game I was testing it with (and that was on the FALD). Simply displaying in a wider gamut just oversaturated colors...it didn't seem to do much with black levels, but whatever you're doing may be different. The point stands tho'...OLED has pixel level light control, therefore no blooming. It's literally as black as you can get, which FALD simply isn't capable of. And any tricks you can do to increase contrast/black level on a FALD you'd be able to do on OLED if you so desired (but in my case it would be artificial and I wouldn't want to).

Thankfully, I see quite fine, thanks.

I'm not talking about blooming in geometry. I'm talking about the actual scene with no visible blooming but deeper blacker due to increased BT1866 contrast

I like dragging people running around circles when they lie so much to deny the simple truth lol.


How the fuck the OLED sRGB is a better image than FALD high range BT1866 wide gamut SDR lol

I have one more left to show tomorrow. You better keep defending a worse sRGB image lol.

 

[sgupta]

I'm not talking about blooming in geometry. I'm talking about the actual scene with no visible blooming but deeper blacker due to increased BT1866 contrast

I was talking about blooming in general. You were apparently talking about one specific picture, which doesn't prove much since obviously blooming is going to vary scenario to scenario. Also, all your "proof" is stuff you're custom tailoring and providing yourself - like I said, please provide any other reputable source suggesting using a wider gamut in BT1886 (not *66 btw) for SDR/sRGB content. You seem to keep ignoring this request. Is it possibly because it's just YOUR preference and not any type of standard for SDR content?

Also, I actively don't love BT1886 in SDR on my TV, even though it's an option - I don't even like 2.4 gamma; I prefer 2.2 gamma and calibrate to that, but that comes down to personal preference - I get why some people prefer the dimensionality of the contrastier look, but it's not for me as it crushes more detail out than I'd personally like. I prefer a little more visibility in darker scenes; that doesn't mean there's not still plenty of infinite contrast on an OLED in the dark though. The (sRGB) game I'm playing now is plenty contrasty, even with 2.2 gamma.

I like dragging people running around circles when they lie so much to deny the simple truth lol.

Still haven't lied once, nor am I running around in circles - this debate is easy. You can accuse me of lying all you want, but you haven't backed it up.

How the fuck the OLED sRGB is a better image than FALD high range BT1866 wide gamut SDR lol
I have one more left to show tomorrow. You better keep defending a worse sRGB image lol.

Because it's more natural with accurate colors, that's how. To a lot of us (NOT everyone, but a large number), that's the most crucial factor. I'll take sRGB every time over unnaturally wider gamut, personally, even if there's more "pop" in the latter, because I know I'm viewing it as intended with more accurate colors (and fewer washed out details because of oversaturation).

Also, it's really odd to me that you're using Horizon 5 to test with. While I don't have the game, it appears to support native HDR, so I'm not sure why you wouldn't just use that.

 

[Senn]

You excuse is pulled from pure imagination.

I like how you lie so much just to deny better images at high range. This is the exactly the reason why your OLED monitor fails miserably when you lie so much about how nice a dim image looks.

It's so funny you let your imagination run wild with lying about blooming

You keep lying

A lie is a lie. You lie not just one.

You are letting your imagination fly off the cliff.

Are you even blind?

I like dragging people running around circles when they lie so much to deny the simple truth lol.

I don't know where to start. You shouldn't even be able to post on this forum anymore at this point.

 

[kalston]

Yeah this is ridiculous. It's even counter-productive - you won't improve FLAD LCD sales by acting like that.

 

[Senn]

Yeah this is ridiculous. It's even counter-productive - you won't improve FLAD LCD sales by acting like that.

On the positive side, posts by others have shown me just how improved modern OLED displays are so at least I've learned something!

 

[elvn]

FALD is only 45x25 lighting resolution currently. It's always non-uniform across the fald zones in contrasted areas which is the light and shadow, detail provided by darks and blacks in most scenes and in practically everything in real life (geography, architectures, machinery, room dressing's details, hair and headwear, clothing design,faces and eyes, object details, showing emptiness of areas, areas vs backdrops, detail in textures, overall cast scene lighting, etc.). It's worse outside of static slides where the FoV movement in games and camera changes and camera panning in media are moving the content so that it's puddle jumping across the zones. So then it's not just non-uniform but it's also varying the luminance. In game mode on the top samsung qdLED FALD gaming tvs it's even worse still because it affects a wider jumbo gradient of a larger number of zone widths and the transitions are slower. It works ok for the stop gap solution it is, but even when you aren't seeing a big halo on blacks it's still lifting and dimming large brickwork tetris block shapes of 7000 pixels per light bucket at a time. The only way to see things uniformly on a FALD is to turn FALD off and then you are left with a low contrast IPS 1300:1 or a 3100:1 VA and their accompanying weak black depths.

Where oled is severely truncated by comparison, when not artificially perverting mastered material with your own torch mode filters - it can still display some decent HDR mids on ~ 35% of the screen surface, and small percent of highs (and on the meta lens next gen ones a bit higher than now even, +60% vs cx gen, +30% vs qd-oled gen reportedly), and it hits an ABL wall in some longer scenes where the whole screen is bright. . otherwise it's lighting is flaring per pixel times 8 million individual tiny pixels next to darks and down to oblivion blacks to a razor's edge contrast and detail wise so it is very pleasinging in HDR. FALD is always a sloppy spotted leopard with poor contrast anywhere darks and lights are within the 7000pixel zones, which is throughout typical scene content and with the contrasted areas and edges crossing through the zones way more often as the camera in dynamic media or game FoV movement is constantly dragging the scene across the zones puddle jumping them. Not only do small details have halos, but they actually flicker as they are moved across the zones as the luminance is varying.


The blooming levels themselves are exaggerated due to the nature of how the images below where captured but it is noticeably blooming there in person in the same areas. The bright areas show where the backlights are lifting the screen the most but it is non-uniform throughout outside of some islands of solid fields, and even the letterbox areas though solid fields are spilled into by the sloppy, large light bucket backlights as the dynamic scene field's content moves and changes

"elevated blacks and a distracting amount of fluctuating elevation"

=================================================


==================================================

"It actually exhibited more blooming or haloing than the apple pro display xdr"

. . .

[HDR] 2021 MacBook Pro mini-LED Comparison with Pro Display XDR and iPad Pro | Blooming Test​

 

[kasakka]

I'm not talking about blooming in geometry. I'm talking about the actual scene with no visible blooming but deeper blacker due to increased BT1866 contrast

I like dragging people running around circles when they lie so much to deny the simple truth lol.


How the fuck the OLED sRGB is a better image than FALD high range BT1866 wide gamut SDR lol
View attachment 556641

I have one more left to show tomorrow. You better keep defending a worse sRGB image lol.

Ok so I got a Macbook Pro 16" M2 Max today so I can finally join in on this game by having a good enough screen for this.

I downloaded the file and opened it in Affinity Photo 2 and yes, the right and bottom image do look better by quite a bit.

Can you explain what has been done to this image exactly to achieve the result, if the starting point is a regular SDR image assuming grabbed from a film?

I tried opening the image also on my Samsung G70A, which of course is a "barely 400 nits, shit tier HDR" LCD display. The image just looked like it was blown out, it looked terrible and only the SDR image was able to show any of the detail in the smoke for example. I get similar results on my Macbook Pro unless I run at the P3-1600, P3-500 nits or HDR video presets.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

FALD miniLED SDR is your OLED HDR.

Only in terms of max nits. But keep in mind HDR doesn't stand for max brightness. It stants for High Dynamic Range. Do you know what dynamic range even means?

It is the difference in range between the least light output and the most light output, in relative terms. In other words, how many times brighter is your max light output than your min light output. OLED does very well in this regard, because the min light output is so low. It doesn't need crazy high nits to get a great dynamic range.

FALD screens can also offer great dynamic range due to switching off the backlight locally where it is not needed, but the downside is that even in the best FALD screens the individual FALD zones are much larger than the individual pixels leading to blooming and all sorts of other visual defects. The Blooming from FALD is way way worse than having to deal with slightly less light output, especially in a dark room where slightly less light output has no impact at all, once your eyes adjust to the darker room.

If I had to choose between more but less accurate light (FALD) and less but more accurate light (OLED) I'd choose the latter almost every time. The only exception might be if the viewing area is in a very bright sunlit room or something like that. But my home theater space is a room without windows, so I don't have to worry about that.

Your obsession with max brightness at all costs is just kind of silly, and not congruent with what actually produces the best images. You might be able to find some corner cases where you can create a extreme case image that only looks good on a screen with extreme light output, but those are not going to be reflective of actual use.

For mine, and most uses OLED is still going to be superior because of this. Because the lighting is on a per pixel basis, and thus you'll never have bloom. The only exception is if you have to use the screen in a bright lit room where having extra light is of great importance.

The truth is dynamic range matters. Max light output doesn't. Your eyes adjust to the average light output rendering most extreme nits pointless, and once your eyes are adjusted to a dark scene, you'll be just as blinded by a surprise 150nit output as a surprise 1000nit output.

 

[elvn]

If you love bright with bloom, lifting, and fluctuating luminance go for it but I can't stand it.

Tradeoffs .. QN95B/QN90B QDLED FALD LCD. Gaming mode is much worse than HDR movie modes too.

Looking forward to some reviews on the meta lens tech OLEDs.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

FALD is only 45x25 lighting resolution currently. It's always non-uniform across the fald zones in contrasted areas which is the light and shadow, detail provided by darks and blacks in most scenes and in practically everything in real life (geography, architectures, machinery, room dressing's details, hair and headwear, clothing design,faces and eyes, object details, showing emptiness of areas, areas vs backdrops, detail in textures, overall cast scene lighting, etc.). It's worse outside of static slides where the FoV movement in games and camera changes and camera panning in media are moving the content so that it's puddle jumping across the zones. So then it's not just non-uniform but it's also varying the luminance. In game mode on the top samsung qdLED FALD gaming tvs it's even worse still because it affects a wider jumbo gradient of a larger number of zone widths and the transitions are slower. It works ok for the stop gap solution it is, but even when you aren't seeing a big halo on blacks it's still lifting and dimming large brickwork tetris block shapes of 7000 pixels per light bucket at a time. The only way to see things uniformly on a FALD is to turn FALD off and then you are left with a low contrast IPS 1300:1 or a 3100:1 VA and their accompanying weak black depths.

Where oled is severely truncated by comparison, when not artificially perverting mastered material with your own torch mode filters - it can still display some decent HDR mids on ~ 35% of the screen surface, and small percent of highs (and on the meta lens next gen ones a bit higher than now even, +60% vs cx gen, +30% vs qd-oled gen reportedly), and it hits an ABL wall in some longer scenes where the whole screen is bright. . otherwise it's lighting is flaring per pixel times 8 million individual tiny pixels next to darks and down to oblivion blacks to a razor's edge contrast and detail wise so it is very pleasinging in HDR. FALD is always a sloppy spotted leopard with poor contrast anywhere darks and lights are within the 7000pixel zones, which is throughout typical scene content and with the contrasted areas and edges crossing through the zones way more often as the camera in dynamic media or game FoV movement is constantly dragging the scene across the zones puddle jumping them. Not only do small details have halos, but they actually flicker as they are moved across the zones as the luminance is varying.


The blooming levels themselves are exaggerated due to the nature of how the images below where captured but it is noticeably blooming there in person in the same areas. The bright areas show where the backlights are lifting the screen the most but it is non-uniform throughout outside of some islands of solid fields, and even the letterbox areas though solid fields are spilled into by the sloppy, large light bucket backlights as the dynamic scene field's content moves and changes

View attachment 556676

View attachment 556677

View attachment 556681

"elevated blacks and a distracting amount of fluctuating elevation"
View attachment 556682

View attachment 556683


=================================================


==================================================

"It actually exhibited more blooming or haloing than the apple pro display xdr"
View attachment 556678




. . .

[HDR] 2021 MacBook Pro mini-LED Comparison with Pro Display XDR and iPad Pro | Blooming Test​

The funny part is I am viewing all of these test images in a browser window on my side screen, an old, definitely SDR 20" Dell 1600x1200 IPS screen from 2007 with an old school CCFL backlight so they all look the same

I don't even know what a .jxr file extension is, but I know there isn't anything installed on my linux box that can view it

My main screen is HDR capable (old school shitty DisplayHDR 600) but I keep it disabled most of the time, as I find HDR useless on the desktop. I only enable it for certain games, and then disable it as soon as I am done playing.

Even this old shitty PVA based DisplayHDR 600 screen has enough power to make viewing uncomfortably bright in games that support proper HDR though. I can't imagine needing or wanting more than that. I don't want to wear sunglasses in front of my screen.

The FALD implementation is pretty shitty though. Blooming is awful. If I enable it on the desktop I have a big bad bloom following my white mouse pointer around on the black background, and white windows are so bright they are uncomfortable, so I just disable HDR 99% of the time, and only turn it on when I am actually going to use it.

HDR can be great, but I want nothing to do with it for desktop use. It's great for movies, but I don't watch movies on my PC. Only use case I have for HDR at all on my PC is the occasional game, but good implementations are far from universal. Cyberpunk 2077 had a pretty good implementation, but Dying Light 2 - for instance - didn't use HDR at all, so I kept it disabled when I played that game.

Right now I am playing through my Steam backlog, and got to the campaign for Homefront: The Revolution from 2016. It also has no HDR support, so HDR is off.

Honestly, I often even forget to turn HDR on in windows even before launching titles that support it

HDR is just not a priority for me on my computer. I have seen it on a good home theater setup, and I really liked it, and will probably use it there once I get my home theater back up and running (it's been down since I moved in 2021) but I'd be lying if I considered HDR to be important for my PC use. 99.9% of what I do is great in sRGB turned down to about 80 nits max brightness (white windows).

 

[elvn]

Looking forward to meta lens + meta booster algorithm OLED display reviews.

The lenses in a Micro Lens Array are measured in micrometers. They’re so staggeringly small, LG Display can fit just over 5,000 of them over a single pixel or 42.4 billion on a 77-inch OLED panel."

4k OLED is 8 million individual pixels lighting side by side by side at a razor's edge with no spillover. On 8k it will be 33 million individual pixel light flares and darks.

FALD is less than 45x25 lighting resolution. Bright sloppy fingerpainting puddles.


https://tftcentral.co.uk/articles/a...technology-and-micro-lens-array-mla-explained

We would expect something in the region of 1500 nits to be a realistic expectation for peak brightness at D65 white point but further testing will be needed,

As an example from one of their new panels, LG.Display’s third-generation 77” 4K OLED TV panel based on META technology has a total of 42.4 billion micro lenses, approximately 5,117 micro lenses per pixel, which work to emit even the lost light due to internal reflections to produce the clearest and most detailed pictures. Keep in mind this number of MLA lenses will vary depending on panel size and pixel density.

The other technology that works alongside MLA is their new “META Booster”. META Booster is LG.Display’s exclusive new brightness-enhancing algorithm, improves both screen brightness and colour expression by analysing and adjusting the brightness of each scene in real time.
This innovative algorithm enhances HDR (High Dynamic Range), which represents brighter lights and deeper darks,

I'll stick with per pixel emissive display tech and the gains it will get going forward in the following year or so depending what is released. Seems like a clever tech boost.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

4k OLED is 8 million individual pixels lighting side by side by side at a razor's edge with no spillover. On 8k it will be 33 million individual pixel light flares and darks.

FALD is less than 45x25 lighting resolution. Bright sloppy fingerpainting puddles.

This.

This is what really matters.

All FALD does is bloom the shit out of everything.

I don't know why they even bother unless they can get the lighting zones down to at most maybe 4 pixels large.

 

[XoR_]

FALD high luminance is not the kind of high luminance I would sacrifice OLEDs infinite contrast ratio for!

Imho FALD should work better when already using lower brightness levels and in conjunction with ambient light where LCD without FALD would look ok. In this case FALD will make it look even more ok and blooming won't be easily noticeable.
Forcing these LCDs to very high brightness will obviously make blooming look ridiculous...

...but then again what is the advantage FALD LCDs have over OLED if not luminance they can provide? None... absolutely none

Good I have low brightness OLED monitor on which visible color of charcoal doesn't depend on if its placed on black background or near something bright like fire. Black is as black as slim black bezel surrounding the panel itself