Why OLED for PC use?

[kramnelis]

1. Film has a ton of resolution, color, and visual detail. And glass for lenses has been very high quality, for decades. Its only recent that digital can match or surpass film. And even then, that's only technically. Because, film is still very nice to view.
To get a film onto a Blu-ray or a video stream, you have to make a digital scan of it. So....you have to take a picture of the film. Think about how difficult it can be to take a good picture of something.

A scan of a film can only be as good as the scanner hardware and how careful the team was, about how they used the scanner (The technique of the photographer is just as important as the quality of his camera). A lot of early digital scans have really "hot" highlights and added blooming to the picture, for one example of how things can go wrong.

Only a few can see the old raw film. It can have a resolution but the color and visual details are not as much as you thought. There are tons of noises. It's rather easy to shift blame to the scanner hardware as if they don't belong to the camera system. Like you said you have to take pictures from an old archive instead of directly grading raw footage from a digital camera. In the end, you get 8-bit color or even worse.

4K HDR movies were released since 2017. If the old camera system is that good there will be high-fidelity remastered movies that outperform modern 4K HDR.

2. Brightness isn't the only thing which makes HDR look good. Its right in the Acronym, 'Dynamic Range'.

OLED has 'infinite' black level. Which tends to give more dynamics to the picture. And it allows HDR at lower brightness, to still have a visual impact. Because, you still have a pretty wide dynamic range. Even though the peak brightness isn't as brilliant. What I mean is, HDR500 or whatever, will look incredible on an OLED, compared to HDR500 on an IPS or VA panel with zone lighting. And even though HDR can be very brilliant on a high nit FALD display-----the impeccable black level detail of an OLED can still lend a certain depth of detail to the overall image.
The thing is, that doesn't matter as much anymore. Because a lot of movies are being color graded so that they don't have a lot of range in the low tones and high tones. They grade them to be 'punchy', high contrast, and crush a lot of details together, and limite the color range. Which would lend itself to looking great on a high nit FALD display.

HDR needs both brightness and contrast. Human eyes can see a lot more color lit by high brightness. The higher the brightness the more color eyes can see. This is why the images locked inside the 400nits SDR range don't look realistic. The image can look nice because SDR can look nice regardless if it is realistic or not. But HDR looks better than SDR. A true HDR monitor can look like a window. HDR grading at a higher range won't even crash details. Instead, it will have more details and more color range.

 

[kramnelis]

I'll keep this brief because at this point we're going around in circles In short, I don't agree with you that OLED can't display HDR. No, it's not as impactful as on a FALD display, but it's still more impactful than SDR and well worth using in my opinion. (And I don't watch SDR at 80 nits...I watch it at 160 nits). Tone mapping makes the HDR "good enough" until there are panels that can do everything well, pixel level control AND brightness. Clearly your opinion differs, and that's fine, but I have been quite pleased by all of the content I have tried. Arguing SDR set to an unreasonable brightness (who watches SDR at 400-600 nits unless in an exceptionally bright room?) can top HDR doesn't make a lot of sense to me. That's just a recipe for headeaches/eyestrain.

True HDR is at least HDR1000 with 10bit. OLED cannot display HDR until it has sustained brightness. Even after that, it needs to be flicker-free. This two contradict each other. There is always a black insertion at the start of each frame, once it gets brighter it flickers even harder.

As far as accuracy goes OLED should keep accurate color, brightness, and contrast. OLED only has contrast, not enough color, and not enough brightness. A 512-zone FLAD LCD can use SDR to beat OLED HDR. It means the brightness on OLED is too low.

I care about sRGB accuracy because that's generally where I'm viewing photos, web content, and SDR games. I want to view things as they are intended (albeit with a touch extra brightness to 160 nits), not an oversaturated version of them or an automatic HDR implementation that might get subtle things wrong.

HDR accuracy for native HDR is important to me, sure, but tone mapping helps quite a bit with that, and the only monitors that can display HDR without some form of tone mapping have other issues I consider more undesirable for accuracy (such as blooming with local dimming on, which was a major downside for desktop work, as well as imperfect black levels with local dimming off and poorer viewing angles).

Higher range objectively isn't always better. A photograph or piece of artwork shown in the wrong range may look more colorful, but if they aren't the right colors, that doesn't matter.

sRGB 80nits doesn't look good even if it is accurate. Maybe it is enough for you but It looks lifeless. With a true HDR monitor, I can make sRGB look like HDR. It's a better image. You just don't realize a realistic image still needs a lot of range at high brightness.

And people think they need perfect black to see a lot of levels at a low range. Eyes don't see that many levels of black. Even in movies, there aren't many near black scenes.

You cannot see that many shades either when they are near black.

Download the picture below and open it with Window Photo in HDR mode.



Your eyes won't even see that many shades. The better black level you said only means pixel dimming.

 

[sgupta]

True HDR is at least HDR1000 with 10bit. OLED cannot display HDR until it has sustained brightness. Even after that, it needs to be flicker-free. This two contradict each other. There is always a black insertion at the start of each frame, once it gets brighter it flickers even harder.

As far as accuracy goes OLED should keep accurate color, brightness, and contrast. OLED only has contrast, not enough color, and not enough brightness. A 512-zone FLAD LCD can use SDR to beat OLED HDR. It means the brightness on OLED is too low.

Your arguments don't reflect real-world use. As far as FALD LCD using SDR to beat OLED HDR, you're talking about a completely inappropriate brightness level for SDR that people don't actually look at it in. And as for flicker, I have yet to notice any. Maybe that's because it's too dim to notice, maybe not, but either way, it's not an issue on my end in real-world use cases.

As far as your definition of "True HDR", you're basically making HDR what you want it to be. There are different standards of HDR for a reason (ie. HDR 400 and HDR600). No, it's not as impactful as HDR1000, HDR4000, or HDR10000. Nobody ever said it was. But tone mapping makes it serviceable enough on OLED to still be worthwhile to many people's eyes, mine included. At the end of the day, I care more about a good experience than numbers, and this panel is providing me with a good experience. It may not have the quite the wow factor of my TV when it comes to brightness, but it doesn't have to in order to still look good to my eyes. I'd also argue as far as colors, to me they appear just as vivid as what I saw on the IPS panels. That's completely subjective and my perception, but you keep saying there's a problem with color, and I think the colors look great. You're entirely entitled to your opinion, but repeating yourself time and time again doesn't invalidate that these panels can very much do HDR. Not the highest-standard of HDR out there, and not at the same impact/intensity of FALD panels, but still good enough for enjoyable use. Again, if I could have a panel without the downsides of FALD and with the upsides of OLED and great brightness too, I would, but that doesn't exist, so I had to pick my poison, and I'm *happier* with OLED than I was with the FALD IPS, for all content. That doesn't mean the IPS wouldn't have had more impactful HDR. It just means as a package, taking both pros and cons into consideration, the OLED performs more consistently for me and does everything well enough that I'm happy, versus FALD doing a few things (like brightness and HDR impact with less tone mapping) really well but leaving a lot to be desired in other areas (blooming artifacts, viewing angles, slightly less contrast). Depending on criteria, other people might find the opposite to be true *for them*, and that's all well and good. This is just my subjective experience. If I ONLY played HDR games, I might well prefer the FALD IPS, but I don't - I use this monitor for all kinds of things, and find it to be a better jack-of-all-trades.

sRGB 80nits doesn't look good even if it is accurate. Maybe it is enough for you but It looks lifeless. With a true HDR monitor, I can make sRGB look like HDR. It's a better image. You just don't realize a realistic image still needs a lot of range at high brightness.

You're the only person I've seen here talking about looking at sRGB at 80 nits. I've said multiple times I use a higher brightness, and I know of nobody who regularly has their brightness set that low. Most people use at least 100 nits, and a lot of users raise it a bit further than that, me included, to accommodate room lighting as well as general preference. I don't understand why you're either talking about 80 nits or 400 nits for SDR. Neither are particularly well-suited to most situations.

And people think they need perfect black to see a lot of levels at a low range. Eyes don't see that many levels of black. Even in movies, there aren't many near black scenes.

You cannot see that many shades either when they are near black.

Download the picture below and open it with Window Photo in HDR mode.

Your eyes won't even see that many shades. The better black level you said only means pixel dimming.

I'm not sure what your point here is. I don't think it opened correctly in Windows Photos, but it did open (after a plugin) in Irfanview. Under HDR, I see two shades of black...a dark gray rectangle in the middle, and then the larger completely black background. I'm assuming the blue image you show is all the shades that are actually there, but I also know nothing about how this image was generated, etc.

Again, though, you're speaking in technical terms without any regards for real-world use. The perfect black does make a dramatic difference in the picture. I can see it even compared to my (excellent) FALD TV on certain content, which does a better job than the FALD monitors I had. That's not to say, when local dimming is working well, that can't look very good and contrasty too. It has its limitations also, though. For example, compare a starfield on a FALD to an OLED and it's about as night and day as it gets, because even really good local dimming algorithms tend to have problems with small points of light like stars.

I can also tell you I had an IPS panel without local dimming before (granted an older one), and the contrast was one of its biggest weaknesses. Modern IPS panels, even with local dimming off, do much better, but the OLED still blows them away. With dimming on, FALD is certainly closer and very close in some scenes, but as I mentioned, issues with the local dimming and the blooming artifacts for desktop use are part of the reason I was unhappy with the FALD panels I tried.

 

[Meeho]

2. Brightness isn't the only thing which makes HDR look good. Its right in the Acronym, 'Dynamic Range'.

OLED has 'infinite' black level. Which tends to give more dynamics to the picture. And it allows HDR at lower brightness, to still have a visual impact. Because, you still have a pretty wide dynamic range. Even though the peak brightness isn't as brilliant.

Don't expect him to address LCD's inability to display actual high dynamic range images. It's all about high ABL, we should just ignore everything else.

 

[Okatis]

It can have a resolution but the color and visual details are not as much as you thought.

I literally posted Sony's own colorspace chart demonstrating film's wide gamut directly compared to high end digital video cameras. As for the comment about scanning film to subsequently create a color grade that still doesn't produce a limited colorspace, unless the process used wasn't adequate. There are modern filmmakers that continue to use film stock and digitally scan them for grading without such lossiness introduced from the process itself (Nolan, Christopher McQuarrie, etc). I have to suspect you're trolling certain users at this point.

As for an old film comparison let's then take Lawrence of Arabia's 4K restoration, a blockbuster film from 1962, and compare it to screencaps from two blockbuster films from the 2010s, Mission Impossible: Fallout and Blade Runner 2049.

Both comparing to digitally shot scenes (for MI the selection were only the scenes shot with the digital Imax camera). For BR 2049 I had to increase the brightness of the first two shots since they were too dark for the comparison otherwise.

There are tons of noises

Modern digital cameras handle low light better than film, typically. However most modern films are run through DNR (noise removal) passes anyway, regardless of medium. Various film stock also had differing grain qualities. All this is somewhat moving the goal posts though, when you were first arguing film was limited to a vastly more limited colorspace and dynamic range.

 

[kramnelis]

Your arguments don't reflect real-world use. As far as FALD LCD using SDR to beat OLED HDR, you're talking about a completely inappropriate brightness level for SDR that people don't actually look at it in. And as for flicker, I have yet to notice any. Maybe that's because it's too dim to notice, maybe not, but either way, it's not an issue on my end in real-world use cases.

As far as your definition of "True HDR", you're basically making HDR what you want it to be. There are different standards of HDR for a reason (ie. HDR 400 and HDR600). No, it's not as impactful as HDR1000, HDR4000, or HDR10000. Nobody ever said it was. But tone mapping makes it serviceable enough on OLED to still be worthwhile to many people's eyes, mine included. At the end of the day, I care more about a good experience than numbers, and this panel is providing me with a good experience. It may not have the quite the wow factor of my TV when it comes to brightness, but it doesn't have to in order to still look good to my eyes. I'd also argue as far as colors, to me they appear just as vivid as what I saw on the IPS panels. That's completely subjective and my perception, but you keep saying there's a problem with color, and I think the colors look great. You're entirely entitled to your opinion, but repeating yourself time and time again doesn't invalidate that these panels can very much do HDR. Not the highest-standard of HDR out there, and not at the same impact/intensity of FALD panels, but still good enough for enjoyable use. Again, if I could have a panel without the downsides of FALD and with the upsides of OLED and great brightness too, I would, but that doesn't exist, so I had to pick my poison, and I'm *happier* with OLED than I was with the FALD IPS, for all content. That doesn't mean the IPS wouldn't have had more impactful HDR. It just means as a package, taking both pros and cons into consideration, the OLED performs more consistently for me and does everything well enough that I'm happy, versus FALD doing a few things (like brightness and HDR impact with less tone mapping) really well but leaving a lot to be desired in other areas (blooming artifacts, viewing angles, slightly less contrast). Depending on criteria, other people might find the opposite to be true *for them*, and that's all well and good. This is just my subjective experience. If I ONLY played HDR games, I might well prefer the FALD IPS, but I don't - I use this monitor for all kinds of things, and find it to be a better jack-of-all-trades.

FALD LCD can make SDR with wide gamut at high brightness to look better. HDR is about higher range of color and contrast. You can do wide gamut SDR from monitor to see higher range the similar way. The monitor even gives various options to do it such as HDRi because the monitor is capable of better range instead of just sRGB 80nits.

I'm not saying wide gamut 400nits SDR can look the same as manually graded HDR 400 if the monitor shows the HDR 400 accurately. Tone mapping can go from HDR1000 to SDR sRGB 80nits. The further the tone mapping goes, the worse the image looks. When OLED doesn't accurately show HDR400 but only shows ABL or tonemapped HDR200 then a 400nits sustained SDR can look better than HDR200 as SDR 400 has a higher range.

I'm not sure what your point here is. I don't think it opened correctly in Windows Photos, but it did open (after a plugin) in Irfanview. Under HDR, I see two shades of black...a dark gray rectangle in the middle, and then the larger completely black background. I'm assuming the blue image you show is all the shades that are actually there, but I also know nothing about how this image was generated, etc.

Again, though, you're speaking in technical terms without any regards for real-world use. The perfect black does make a dramatic difference in the picture. I can see it even compared to my (excellent) FALD TV on certain content, which does a better job than the FALD monitors I had. That's not to say, when local dimming is working well, that can't look very good and contrasty too. But I can tell you I had an IPS panel without local dimming before (granted an older one), and the contrast was one of its biggest weaknesses. Modern IPS panels, even with local dimming off, do much better, but the OLED still blows them away. With dimming on, FALD is certainly closer and very close in some scenes, but as I mentioned, issues with the local dimming and the blooming artifacts for desktop use are part of the reason I was unhappy with the FALD panels I tried.

What you thought about perfect black level is actually pixel dimming. With OLED you can see better contrast at pixel level.

But even on OLED you cannot see many shades of black of this near-0nits image. The eyes can not see the difference between 0nits vs 0.002nits. This image just proves that. Instead eyes can see the difference at higher brightness such as 0.01nits vs 0.1nits. FALD LCD can display as low as 0.0019nits. It cannot do near pixel contrast because of limited zones but it can show black that's low enough. If I look closely enough I can see 8 shades from this images on FALD LCD. They all look like black.

 

[kramnelis]

Are you intentionally ignoring my posts btw? I posted Sony's own colorspace chart demonstrating film's wide gamut directly compared to high end digital video cameras.

I have to suspect you're just trolling at this point.

As for an old film comparison let's then take Lawrence of Arabia's 4K restoration, a blockbuster film from 1962, and compare it to digitally shot screencaps from two blockbuster films from the 2010s, Mission Impossible: Fallout and Blade Runner 2049.

For MI I selected only the scenes shot with the digital Imax camera. For BR 2049 I had to increase the brightness of the first two shots since they were too dark for the comparison otherwise.

Lawrence of Arabia has tons of noise. The color doesn't look good even compared to 4K HDR demos from Youtube.

Blade Runner is graded like SDR with a few dots of highlight. It is an artistic approach. I still remember I watched Blade Runner with both SDR and HDR on two monitors at the same time. They look identical.

 

[sgupta]

FALD LCD can make SDR with wide gamut at high brightness to look better. HDR is about higher range of color and contrast. You can do wide gamut SDR from monitor to see higher range the similar way. The monitor even gives various options to do it such as HDRi because the monitor is capable of better range instead of just sRGB 80nits.

SDR isn't meant for wide gamut, nor is it meant for high brightness. That's my whole point. Sure, you can view it that way for "pop" or your own personal enjoyment, but for those of us who value a decent degree of image accuracy, that's completely useless.

I'm not saying wide gamut 400nits SDR can look the same as manually graded HDR 400 if the monitor shows the HDR 400 accurately. Tone mapping can go from HDR1000 to SDR sRGB 80nits. The further the tone mapping goes, the worse the image looks. When OLED doesn't accurately show HDR400 but only shows ABL or tonemapped HDR200 then a 400nits sustained SDR can look better than HDR200 as SDR 400 has a higher range.

What I'm saying is this is all pretty meaningless when my HDR image looks pretty good. It compares decently well to my FALD TV. Not quite as good, but for the size/cost/capabilities of the display, still quite good. The tone mapping doesn't alter the general feel of the image in a meaningful way (I'm honestly surprised it didn't more, but it seemed quite good in everything I've tested so far), and it has quite a bit more impact than SDR at industry-standard settings (meaning sRGB color range and 100-160 nits of brightness).

What you thought about perfect black level is actually pixel dimming. With OLED you can see better contrast at pixel level.

But even on OLED you cannot see many shades of black of this near-0nits image. The eyes can not see the difference between 0nits vs 0.002nits. This image just proves that. Instead eyes can see the difference at higher brightness such as 0.01nits vs 0.1nits. FALD LCD can display as low as 0.0019nits. It cannot do near pixel contrast because of limited zones but it can show black that's low enough. If I look closely enough I can see 8 shades from this images on FALD LCD. They all look like black.

You say that, yet in real-world content, I can see a substantial difference. The blacks on the FALD display I tested were fine, but they simply did not compete with the blacks I see on the OLED in real-world content. The same applies to starfields not being nearly as bright or visually appealing on FALD. Both FALD and OLED are great technologies, but FALD is far from perfect (and so is OLED! I just like the tradeoffs better personally.)

 

[kramnelis]

SDR isn't meant for wide gamut, nor is it meant for high brightness. That's my whole point. Sure, you can view it that way for "pop" or your own personal enjoyment, but for those of us who value a decent degree of image accuracy, that's completely useless.

Accuracy on the lowest and most limited range doesn't mean you can see better. There are other colorspace and brightness for SDR. It's not just sRGB. And there is grading to make sRGB to look like HDR. There is also AutoHDR. They are all about higher range for better images.

What I'm saying is this is all pretty meaningless when my HDR image looks pretty good. It compares decently well to my FALD TV. Not quite as good, but for the size/cost/capabilities of the display, still quite good. The tone mapping doesn't alter the general feel of the image in a meaningful way, and it has quite a bit more impact than SDR at industry-standard settings (meaning sRGB color range and 100-160 nits of brightness).

It looks pretty good for you but it looks miserable for me. Also, you are comparing with the FLAD TV Z95 that has only 100 zones. It has a worse contrast compared to 1052 zones.

You say that, yet in real-world content, I can see a substantial difference. The blacks on the FALD display I tested were fine, but they simply did not compete with the blacks I see on the OLED in real-world content. The same applies to starfields not being nearly as bright or visually appealing on FALD. Both FALD and OLED are great technologies, but FALD is far from perfect (and so is OLED! I just like the tradeoffs better personally.)

The black of the Z95 is also lifted unlick current FALD monitors where the backlight can go as low as 0.0019nits.

 

[sgupta]

Accuracy on the lowest and most limited range doesn't mean you can see better. There are other colorspace and brightness for SDR. It's not just sRGB. And there is grading to make sRGB to look like HDR. There is also AutoHDR. They are all about higher range for better images.

Different does not equal better. It's entirely subjective. Objectively, sRGB as viewed as anything besides sRGB (when that is the only source available, of course) deviates from creative intent. I've already made my arguments ad nauseum, so we may as well agree to disagree on this point or we'll keep going in circles since we're never going to agree.

It looks pretty good for you but it looks miserable for me. Also, you are comparing with the FLAD TV Z95 that has only 100 zones. It has a worse contrast compared to 1052 zones.

I actually much preferred the local dimming on the Sony, despite fewer zones, over the ProArt FALD I tested. That said, I sit a lot closer to a monitor, and I do things that make blooming much more noticeable when working on the desktop, in Discord, on websites, etc. The TV doesn't get those use cases, so it's rare I see bad blooming. It does happen, but not terribly often.

The black of the Z95 is also lifted unlick current FALD monitors where the backlight can go as low as 0.0019nits.

Black on the Z9F is pretty darn good, but I believe you that current FALD monitors can go even lower. That said, again, real-world, the contrast is better on the OLED, especially without the blooming or dimming of small bright objects.

 

[kramnelis]

Modern digital cameras handle low light better than film, typically. However most modern films are run through DNR (noise removal) passes anyway, regardless of medium. Various film stock also had differing grain qualities. All this is somewhat moving the goal posts though, when you were first arguing film was limited to a vastly more limited colorspace and dynamic range.

Why go through all the trouble to reduce noises? A few moments ago a 70mm lens in a camera system seems all that matters compared to other components such as CCD or CMOS.

 

[kramnelis]

Different does not equal better. It's entirely subjective. Objectively, sRGB as viewed as anything besides sRGB (when that is the only source available, of course) deviates from creative intent. I've already made my arguments ad nauseum, so we may as well agree to disagree on this point or we'll keep going in circles since we're never going to agree.

A higher range can give a better look. It is what an image should has. This is why there is HDR in the first place. This is why monitors give you option to enhance sRGB similar to HDR.

 

[Okatis]

Why go through all the trouble to reduce noises? A few moments ago a 70mm lens in a camera system seems all that matters compared to other components such as CCD or CMOS.

I was saying both digital and film have DNR passes. Noise is inherent to capturing images. Phones for example all use auto DNR for their non-RAW photos and video, that's not indicated to the user, so many don't even realize digital isn't inherently 'noise free'.

All RAW shots from both digital still and video cameras have noise before being post-processed, it just depends on available light how much there is. Some digital cameras go to lengths to mitigate low light noise with such things as for example more than one native ISO, which means as the ISO is increased to let more light onto the sensor (ordinarily introducing a lot more noise) it instead shifts the dynamic range relative to the noise floor at a certain threshold (which gives more limited highlights range but more shadows range).

Either way it doesn't change that film has a wider gamut and dynamic range than you're giving credit for.

Edit: I'll add that a reason grain is often seen preserved in film-shot movies is because those restoring them understand its relevance for the original image, both stylistically and for preservation reasons. Noise for digital is so frequently removed at the production stage, on the other hand, as being an undesired artifact and from modern, average consumer tastes. While grain in film (which has a different physical quality than digital noise) has variously been used stylistically and there are audiences and filmmakers who understand that.

Ironically some releases artificially add digital noise as a last step to give a 'film-like' look, though most I've seen fail to accurately simulate true film grain. I've seen animations which were scanned from film, then had the grain removed, have such digital noise re-added for this purpose (eg: Studio Ghibli's Blu-Ray releases). Some scanned from film have all grain removed (eg: Terminator 2's 3D and Ultra HD releases), which is a pet peeve of various collectors and anyone who can see how much strong DNR can ruin image quality but I suppose would satisfy users who prefer to argue that digital is better since it "has no noise".

 

[sgupta]

A higher range can give a better look. It is what an image should has. This is why there is HDR in the first place. This is why monitors give you option to enhance sRGB similar to HDR.

Options are good, but "should" implies objectivity where you're clearly not being objective. Again, to me and a whole lot of people, accuracy is the gold standard; there is no better than that, regardless of amount of "pop" an image has or if it looks subjectively better to someone. I can take a lot of games and increase the contrast or put it into a wider gamut and make the colors pop more. It may even look better to me in some ways. But it's not intended to be viewed that way. A lot of people like a bit of extra contrast in their games. I don't, even though I can understand the temptation. I want to see it as close to the way it was made as I'm able to. Even on the best highest brightness monitor on the world, I wouldn't choose to use HDR enhancement modes and always would try to match the dynamic range to that of the source material. Most calibrators and people who work in the movie industry I've seen talk about this don't like to use artificial enhancement either - they prefer sticking to however it was mastered. It's okay that you like to make the image better to your subjective standard; you like what you like, but saying it's better like that for everyone just isn't true.

 

[kramnelis]

I was saying both digital and film have DNR passes. Noise is inherent to capturing images. Phones for example all use auto DNR for their non-RAW photos and video, that's not indicated to the user, so many don't even realize digital isn't inherently 'noise free'.

All RAW shots from both digital still and video cameras have noise before being post-processed, it just depends on available light how much there is. Some digital cameras go to lengths to mitigate low light noise with such things as for example more than one native ISO, which means as the ISO is increased to let more light onto the sensor (ordinarily introducing a lot more noise) it instead shifts the dynamic range relative to the noise floor at a certain threshold (which gives more limited highlights range but more shadows range).

Either way it doesn't change that film has a wider gamut and dynamic range than you're giving credit for.

That is just a high resolution without a lot of colors but tons of noise. It looks like 8bit or even less. Old films have captured fewer data than you thought or they would've looked at least the same level as the morden 4K HDR.

The color doesn't look as good. I've never seen a remastered HDR that looks comparable.

 

[kramnelis]

Options are good, but "should" implies objectivity where you're clearly not being objective. Again, to me and a whole lot of people, accuracy is the gold standard; there is no better than that, regardless of amount of "pop" an image has or if it looks subjectively better to someone. I can take a lot of games and increase the contrast or put it into a wider gamut and make the colors pop more. It may even look better to me in some ways. But it's not intended to be viewed that way. A lot of people like a bit of extra contrast in their games. I don't, even though I can understand the temptation. I want to see it as close to the way it was made as I'm able to. Even on the best highest brightness monitor on the world, I wouldn't choose to use HDR enhancement modes and always would try to match the dynamic range to that of the source material. Most calibrators and people who work in the movie industry I've seen talk about this don't like to use artificial enhancement either - they prefer sticking to however it was mastered. It's okay that you like to make the image better to your subjective standard; you like what you like, but saying it's better like that for everyone just isn't true.

It's objective that HDR>SDR. sRGB is not enough. When all the monitors are ready, the goal is to make images jump from the old SDR standard to HDR. You care about low-range sRGB accuracy so much but favor tone mapping at the same time. You are giving up more accuracy.

 

[sgupta]

It's objective that HDR>SDR. sRGB is not enough. When all the monitors are ready, the goal is to make images jump from the old SDR standard to HDR. You care about low-range sRGB accuracy so much but favor tone mapping at the same time. You are giving up more accuracy.

1.) HDR is better than SDR; on that we're completely agreed. But sRGB will never have the information in it to be real HDR, and that's objectively true as well. That's why I'll take the original source dynamic range until a native HDR version is available. Anything else is an algorithm guessing, sometimes poorly and with side effects I don't want.

2.) I don't *favor* tone mapping. I favor the nits to display HDR as intended. But for my uses with a jack-of-all-trades display that needs to be good at a lot of different things (and views a lot more sRGB content than HDR content), I do think an OLED display with tone mapping has the fewest compromises for my needs and subjective happiness than a FALD alternative. FALD can go brighter and tone map less for more accuracy - nobody is denying that, but black level, motion, small highlights like starfields, viewing angles, and desktop usage without blooming artifacts all suffer. Those are worse tradeoffs to me than tone mapping that still looks relatively close to what I see on a FALD display; it preserves enough to make me reasonably pleased. Someday when a monitor can do everything well and be ridiculously bright for HDR, I'm more than happy to invest in it. I'd prefer brighter HDR too, just not over the other tradeoffs I'd need to live with to go FALD.

 

[AwesomeOwl]

This is a very interesting discussion and I'll leave this link here.



The guy arguing above is factually correct but can't seems to grasp preference/subjectivity. Although OLED is incapable of doing HDR justice today, it still looks great to many peoples eyes vs LCD. OLED for HDR games specifically really only provides a SDR+ experience but many of us accept that for the deep blacks/contrast and pixel response.

It's a good and fairly nuanced video.
It's a shame you're using rhetoric like SDR+ because it plays perfectly into kramnelis' fairy tales. FALD displays can do brighter HDR than OLED of course, that is a demonstrable fact. If the HDR material is within the range of what a particular OLED panel can do, it will reproduce it almost to perfection. A low amount of dimming zones will hinder a faithful reproduction of practically any image.
kramnelis' thinks that his FALD monitor is perfect, a TRUE HDR DISPLAY, and the only thing that matters is that a display is bright so it can do HDR demo material like you see FALD displays in stores. It's kind of funny when there is bright HDR material (mastered for 4000 nits) which it obviously can't reproduce faithfully. Then it's the exact same argument that he uses against OLED, just with a slightly shifted range.
People are free to use their displays for whatever they want. They can put their TV in vivid mode. They can view sRGB material on un-clamped wide color gamut displays. They can view sRGB at 400 nits in a pitch black room. They can use Auto HDR. They can make their own HDR material. They can colorize, upscale and stretch the dynamic range of black and white movies to 10.000 nits HDR. But they really shouldn't go preaching about their ways as if it is the truth, and the only truth.

Except there isn't any old remastered movie that look as good as the modern 4K HDR. Camera is a system to process images. It's not just about how large a 70mm lens is. It's useless to have high resolution if the noises destroy data.

How nice of a film production with 70mm camera ends up with a 1080P release with tons of noises.

And color is lifted by brightness. 400nits Adobe RGB SDR can beat OLED ABL HDR. OLED just doesn't have enough brightness. You only see SDR on OLED.

I accept your concession. I was hoping I could push you just a little bit, but you clearly have no interest in a fact-based discussion as it breaks the illusion of your fairy tales.

Now I'm not really interested in any further discussion with you, as you're just regurgitating the same nonsense, but I'd just like to adress one last thing. Just a little while ago you said this:

If you've bought the remastered UHD version of the old movies such as 1975 Jaws, there is a section specifically explained how the old Rec709/sRGB footage is regraded to HDR1000 for better images more than what the director had seen before.

And now you say that film is useless 80 nits sRGB garbage full of noise. I just think that's funny.

 

[elvn]

Notably, in RTings' best HDR gaming (TV) display roundup currently two out of the top three are OLED. (Their top gaming monitor list's #1 position is also an OLED incidentally)

In that TV list, for HDR gaming the S95B OLED gets a 9.3 rating and the C2 OLED gets a 9.0 rating . . while the QN90B QLED LCD gets a respectable 8.7.

For PC monitor , though personally I'd use a separate non oled for static desktop/apps, they give a similar set of scores. The S95B OLED gets a 9.7, the C2 OLED gets a 9.5, and the QN90B QLED LCD gets a 8.9


https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/best/by-usage/video-gaming

. . . .

#1: Samsung S95B OLED

9.4
Movies
8.8
TV Shows
9.0
Sports
9.3
Video Games
9.0
HDR Movies
9.3
HDR Gaming
9.7
PC Monitor


. . . .

#2: Samsung QN90B QLED

8.7
Movies
8.6
TV Shows
8.6
Sports
8.7
Video Games
8.7
HDR Movies
8.7
HDR Gaming
8.9
PC Monitor



. . . .

#3: LG C2 OLED

9.2
Movies
8.6
TV Shows
8.9
Sports
9.3
Video Games
8.6
HDR Movies
9.0
HDR Gaming
9.5
PC Monitor



. .

Some excerpts from their monitor to monitor comparisons:

Range blooming out detail in darks and lifting blacks and colors, localized washing out or greying. Also, as has been said in this thread a few times, HDR content is made for dim to dark viewing conditions no matter what display it is. Bright rooms aren't the optimal setupl more like something you have to deal with and try to compensate for.

The LG C2 OLED and the Samsung QN90B QLED are both impressive TVs, and the best one depends on your viewing conditions. The LG is a better choice for a dim or dark room, as it has much better contrast and no blooming around bright objects in dark scenes. The Samsung TV, on the other hand, is a better choice for a bright room, as it gets significantly brighter.

.
Patchy blacks and color washing/lightening in areas all over the screen in dynamic scenes due to the backlights. Raised black areas to greys by nature of the ~ 7000 pixels at 4k to 15,000 pixels at 8k per large backlight cell. Plus any screens using matte type AG surface treatments will lift the blacks on the entire screen due to the nature of the layer treatment (whether LCD or OLED but FALD LCDs tend to have it where LG OLED gaming tvs don't). and they'll also affect how saturated the display looks and will compromise fine details a bit like text.

The Samsung QN90B QLED is very similar to its predecessor, the Samsung QN90A QLED. The QN90B has a wider viewing angle but worse black uniformity and more noticeable blooming in dark scenes. Small highlights in HDR content in dark scenes are significantly brighter on the QN90B, so they pop more.

.

Both types of screens have tradeoffs but that is what we have for now. That or OLED's lower peak range (though they are getting incrementally higher in sucessive gens and tech), lower sustained, + ABL happening though the ABL trigger not a big deal to me as most media and gaming is very dynamic with the camera angles, scene changing alot in real world cinematography and in games the viewport and virtual cinematography is changing around dynamically most of the time too (plus constant mouse looking, movement keying, and controller panning).

.
As I've said several times in the discussion - brighter HDR is the end goal years from now with HDR 4000 and HDR 10,000 (which will make even the 900 to 1600 at different %'s of the screen , that brightness of FALD tv's look like "SDR+" by comparison) . Hopefully those HDR 4000 and HDR 10,000 without having to resort to aggressive ABL all over again vs heat issues. But for now, we have FALD screens with backlights like ice trays or racks of cotton balls cottoning up the contrast and blacks and lifting or dimming the whole zone of 7k to 15k worth of pixel details. . and nearby, including colors .. 7k to 15k worth of pixels getting dimmed or brightended in a block + offsetting all of the surrounding cells, and losing fine points of detail so much they aren't even visible for the most part anymore (e.g. scintellations on dark fields, like stars on a dark space scene but there are other scenarios with bright edges or points of light on blackness). And due to the brightness/darkness map of the dynamic scenes it's not just the pixels in one cell affected. It's almost like a jumbo anti-aliasing thing where all of the surrounding cells are offset by dimming or brightening in an attempt to compensate, but it will never compensate enough. ~ 7000 to ~15,000 pixels per zone is terribly large, plus many of the surrounding cells affected where different levels of the image meet.

OLED vs. FALD issues/tradeoffs aside - Per pixel emissive is the best way to display an image. Full stop. Once we get microLED per pixel emissive HDR displays (and in enthusiast pricing ranges), no-one will ever use a edgelit+zone lit with 7k - 15k pixiels per zone again if they can afford not to, way more-so than how they'd never use a flashlighting edge lit screen if they could get a FALD one.


.

Here are two pictures of that 8k QN900B's backlights/FALD-zones, the 2nd one contrasted to see the zones better. That is what 1,344 zones looks like (for comparison , the pro art ucx is 1152 zones). They are large. Compare that to every pixel (4k = 8,294,400 pixels) being emitted individually and able to provide that per pixel sbs contrast, and per pixel sbs detail in colors.

 

[kramnelis]

I accept your concession. I was hoping I could push you just a little bit, but you clearly have no interest in a fact-based discussion as it breaks the illusion of your fairy tales.

Now I'm not really interested in any further discussion with you, as you're just regurgitating the same nonsense, but I'd just like to adress one last thing. Just a little while ago you said this:
And now you say that film is useless 80 nits sRGB garbage full of noise. I just think that's funny.

Funny you are the who is hallucinating all the time. You are downplaying the importance of brightness. Speaking like this only reveals how limited you can see. A dim OLED can be recked by even SDR from a 512-zone FALD LCD.

I only said remastered movies can look better than the original 8bit look. I never said they look better than the modern 4K HDR captured by DSLRs graded from 10bit raw or above.

Funny you think old movies from analog negatives/prints can have more color depth. It appears to be infinite but noises just destroy color. You put whatever scanner to even output 16bit it still looks 8bit or even less.

 

[SoCali]

It's a good and fairly nuanced video.
It's a shame you're using rhetoric like SDR+ because it plays perfectly into kramnelis' fairy tales. FALD displays can do brighter HDR than OLED of course, that is a demonstrable fact. If the HDR material is within the range of what a particular OLED panel can do, it will reproduce it almost to perfection. A low amount of dimming zones will hinder a faithful reproduction of practically any image.
kramnelis' thinks that his FALD monitor is perfect, a TRUE HDR DISPLAY, and the only thing that matters is that a display is bright so it can do HDR demo material like you see FALD displays in stores. It's kind of funny when there is bright HDR material (mastered for 4000 nits) which it obviously can't reproduce faithfully. Then it's the exact same argument that he uses against OLED, just with a slightly shifted range.
People are free to use their displays for whatever they want. They can put their TV in vivid mode. They can view sRGB material on un-clamped wide color gamut displays. They can view sRGB at 400 nits in a pitch black room. They can use Auto HDR. They can make their own HDR material. They can colorize, upscale and stretch the dynamic range of black and white movies to 10.000 nits HDR. But they really shouldn't go preaching about their ways as if it is the truth, and the only truth.

I accept your concession. I was hoping I could push you just a little bit, but you clearly have no interest in a fact-based discussion as it breaks the illusion of your fairy tales.

Now I'm not really interested in any further discussion with you, as you're just regurgitating the same nonsense, but I'd just like to adress one last thing. Just a little while ago you said this:

And now you say that film is useless 80 nits sRGB garbage full of noise. I just think that's funny.

I don't understand why you're moving goal posts here. Vincent's video clearly demonstrates that WOLED is incapable of displaying HDR mastered to a paltry 1000nits at its potential. Of course if content is only mastered to 400nits like he demo'd it will be reproduced to perfection, duh. Find me a game mastered to 400nits. OLED is SDR+ and I say this because side by side in Forza Horizen 5, my Corvette's orange paint looks no where near as spectacular as it does on a PG32UQX when the suns shining off of it. I can give 50 different examples in games where OLED falls flat on its face even in lower APL scenes due to its limited 10% window ceiling. It still looks great because its carried by contrast but does not at all do most content justice.

Here is a video posted on reddit that shows what only a 13% difference in color volume (as measured by Rtings) between two displays does (FYI the PG32UQX is capable of even higher color volume than the QN90B thanks to wider gamut + FALD not being gimped since there is no "game mode"):



That guys biggest arguement is that next to a display capable of much higher color volume, OLED looks like trash/SDR. I agree with him in that regard because its true.

 

[kramnelis]

1.) HDR is better than SDR; on that we're completely agreed. But sRGB will never have the information in it to be real HDR, and that's objectively true as well. That's why I'll take the original source dynamic range until a native HDR version is available. Anything else is an algorithm guessing, sometimes poorly and with side effects I don't want.

2.) I don't *favor* tone mapping. I favor the nits to display HDR as intended. But for my uses with a jack-of-all-trades display that needs to be good at a lot of different things (and views a lot more sRGB content than HDR content), I do think an OLED display with tone mapping has the fewest compromises for my needs and subjective happiness than a FALD alternative. FALD can go brighter and tone map less for more accuracy - nobody is denying that, but black level, motion, small highlights like starfields, viewing angles, and desktop usage without blooming artifacts all suffer. Those are worse tradeoffs to me than tone mapping that still looks relatively close to what I see on a FALD display; it preserves enough to make me reasonably pleased. Someday when a monitor can do everything well and be ridiculously bright for HDR, I'm more than happy to invest in it. I'd prefer brighter HDR too, just not over the other tradeoffs I'd need to live with to go FALD.

If you know how the grading process work you will realize sRGB 8bit footage can be graded to HDR 10bit. They can be real HDR. The first step of grading is to put the footage into a desired colorspace such as Rec.2020 10bit. The color can be stretched to 10 bits. Though it is not as details as the native 10bit it looks significantly better than the original sRGB because of the increased color and contrast. A lot of footage are graded from just 8 bits. With a true HDR monitor, you can do grading yourself to see better. Or you just use the monitor options to see better images at a higher range in a similar way.

FALD LCD has color, brightness, and moderate contrast. OLED only has contrast, moderate color, but miserable brightness. OLED has more tradeoffs.

 

[AwesomeOwl]

Funny you are the who is hallucinating all the time. You are downplaying the importance of brightness. Speaking like this only reveals how limited you can see. A dim OLED can be recked by even SDR from a 512-zone FALD LCD.

I only said remastered movies can look better than the original 8bit look. I never said they look better than the modern 4K HDR captured by DSLRs graded from 10bit raw or above.

Funny you think old movies from analog negatives/prints can have more color depth. It appears to be infinite but noises just destroy color. You put whatever scanner to even output 16bit it still looks 8bit or even less.

Lol. Give me one single actual source that backs up literally anything you have ever said.

I don't understand why you're moving goal posts here. Vincent's video clearly demonstrates that WOLED is incapable of displaying HDR mastered to a paltry 1000nits at its potential. Of course if content is only mastered to 400nits like he demo'd it will be reproduced to perfection, duh. Find me a game mastered to 400nits. OLED is SDR+ and I say this because side by side in Forza Horizen 5, my Corvette's orange paint looks no where near as spectacular as it does on a PG32UQX when the suns shining off of it. I can give 50 different examples in games where OLED falls flat on its face even in lower APL scenes due to its limited 10% window ceiling. It still looks great because its carried by contrast but does not at all do most content justice.

Here is a video posted on reddit that shows what only a 13% difference in color volume (as measured by Rtings) between two displays does (FYI the PG32UQX is capable of even higher color volume than the QN90B thanks to wider gamut + FALD not being gimped since there is no "game mode"):



That guys biggest arguement is that next to a display capable of much higher color volume, OLED looks like trash/SDR. I agree with him in that regard because its true.

And I don't understand why you would write a reply like that, and use dumb rhetoric like "SDR+", because you seem to be well aware of the limitations of both technologies.
Games are probably a lot brighter and more colorful in general than film, so fair if you think the tradeoffs are worth it.

 

[chameleoneel]

I don't understand why you're moving goal posts here. Vincent's video clearly demonstrates that WOLED is incapable of displaying HDR mastered to a paltry 1000nits at its potential. Of course if content is only mastered to 400nits like he demo'd it will be reproduced to perfection, duh. Find me a game mastered to 400nits. OLED is SDR+ and I say this because side by side in Forza Horizen 5, my Corvette's orange paint looks no where near as spectacular as it does on a PG32UQX when the suns shining off of it. I can give 50 different examples in games where OLED falls flat on its face even in lower APL scenes due to its limited 10% window ceiling. It still looks great because its carried by contrast but does not at all do most content justice.

Here is a video posted on reddit that shows what only a 13% difference in color volume (as measured by Rtings) between two displays does (FYI the PG32UQX is capable of even higher color volume than the QN90B thanks to wider gamut + FALD not being gimped since there is no "game mode"):



That guys biggest arguement is that next to a display capable of much higher color volume, OLED looks like trash/SDR. I agree with him in that regard because its true.

True HDR is at least HDR1000 with 10bit. OLED cannot display HDR until it has sustained brightness. Even after that, it needs to be flicker-free. This two contradict each other. There is always a black insertion at the start of each frame, once it gets brighter it flickers even harder.

As far as accuracy goes OLED should keep accurate color, brightness, and contrast. OLED only has contrast, not enough color, and not enough brightness. A 512-zone FLAD LCD can use SDR to beat OLED HDR. It means the brightness on OLED is too low.



sRGB 80nits doesn't look good even if it is accurate. Maybe it is enough for you but It looks lifeless. With a true HDR monitor, I can make sRGB look like HDR. It's a better image. You just don't realize a realistic image still needs a lot of range at high brightness.

And people think they need perfect black to see a lot of levels at a low range. Eyes don't see that many levels of black. Even in movies, there aren't many near black scenes.

You cannot see that many shades either when they are near black.

Download the picture below and open it with Window Photo in HDR mode.



Your eyes won't even see that many shades. The better black level you said only means pixel dimming.

View attachment 548897

I think you both may be stuck on supposed technical facts and are also missing points.

First off, we aren't saying that OLED is perfect, does HDR better than anything else, etc.

What we are saying is that HDR on OLED still looks good and can give improvements. Even if the brightness isn't ideal for HDR: OLED still has good dynamic range, due to its 'infinite' black level.
And then its been said that "oh, well, that doesn't matter because humans can't actually see that much shadow detail". But you are dismissing human experience, for some supposed technical data. Humans frequently percieve and 'feel' or 'sense' things which are technically beyond their capability.

I mean, if we were really so limited in shadow detail, then we wouldn't care about the 'infinite' black of OLED. In reality, when we watch an OLED, it is a revelatory visual experience, compared to IPS and many VA panels. And even the really great VA Panels can be a struggle, due to very poor viewing angles.

Additionally, just because a TV has a high color gamut doesn't mean its better. High gamut can often look over saturated and literally innacurate for color temperature and tone.
I actually don't really like HDR on a lot of TVs, because the colors end up wildly innacurate. And I hate that more than any other detail about looking at a TV. I would rather watch an accurate IPS, than an innacurate OLED, FALD, Plasma, etc.

 

[elvn]

Saying merely the word "contrast" is severely watering down the severity of the tech difference between large backlight cells containing 7k to 15k pixels in each cell at 4k and 8k compared to that of per pixel emissive (whether OLED or future microLED per pixel emissive).

A 4k resolution OLED has per pixel emissivity or lighting of every single one of it's 8,294,400 pixels. The "lighting resolution" of a 4k oled is 3840 x 2160
A 8k resolution OLED has per pixel emissivity or lighting of every single one of it's 33,177,600 pixels The "lighting resolution" of a 8k oled is 7680 x 4320

The "lighting resolution" of a ~ 1151 zone FALD display like the ucg/ucx that is 16:9 is about 45 x 25 ( which equals 1152 zones) .. and that's if they aren't counting the edge lights.

The "lighting resolution" of a ~ 1344 zone FALD display like the samung 8k, 16:9 is about 49 x 27.5 (which equals 1348 zones) .. and that's if they aren't counting the edge lights.

That is a tiny amount of large cells like a screen full of sideways ice trays, and there are gaps. It's actually worse than that "lighting resolution" on FALD because it's not just one cell lighting and dimming that single cell full of 7k to 15k pixels worth of what should be per pixel detail/detail in color, texture, etc via per pixel lighting levels, per pixel contrast side by side. Instead it works like a jumbo anti-aliasing / text sub-sampling array so all of the surrounding cells are biased - shaded down some or lightened up some between areas of difference and objects in a scene.

 

[kramnelis]

Lol. Give me one single actual source that backs up literally anything you have ever said.

These chemical reactions from silver halide from the negatives/prints are not able to be fully represented the colorspace even the scanners are 16bit. It looks like 8bit. Funny you cannot give an old remastered movie that looks as good as modern 4K HDR.

In the meanwhile, I can use SDR 8bit on FALD LCD to easily reck a dim 200nits OLED.

 

[kramnelis]

Even if the brightness isn't ideal for HDR: OLED still has good dynamic range, due to its 'infinite' black level.

Dynamic range has both contrast and colors. There is no color without brightness.

The black image I posted has infinite contrast too. You won't see the depth of black level from that picture. You won't see color either.

What you are seeing on OLED barely touches HDR. It looks the same as SDR with good contrast. Of course SDR can look good but OLED needs to be a lot brighter to display HDR. OLED cannot display the higher range where HDR shows more colors with more impact. Even it gets brighter it is still flickering to cause eye strain.

 

[AwesomeOwl]

Saying merely the word "contrast" is severely watering down the severity of the tech difference between large backlight cells containing 7k to 15k pixels in each cell at 4k and 8k compared to that of per pixel emissive (whether OLED or future microLED per pixel emissive).

A 4k resolution OLED has per pixel emissivity or lighting of every single one of it's 8,294,400 pixels. The "lighting resolution" of a 4k oled is 3840 x 2160
A 8k resolution OLED has per pixel emissivity or lighting of every single one of it's 33,177,600 pixels The "lighting resolution" of a 8k oled is 7680 x 4320

The "lighting resolution" of a ~ 1151 zone FALD display like the ucg/ucx that is 16:9 is about 45 x 25 ( which equals 1152 zones) .. and that's if they aren't counting the edge lights.

The "lighting resolution" of a ~ 1344 zone FALD display like the samung 8k, 16:9 is about 49 x 27.5 (which equals 1348 zones) .. and that's if they aren't counting the edge lights.

That is a tiny amount of large cells like a screen full of sideways ice trays, and there are gaps. It's actually worse than that "lighting resolution" on FALD because it's not just one cell lighting and dimming that single cell full of 7k to 15k pixels worth of what should be per pixel detail/detail in color, texture, etc via per pixel lighting levels, per pixel contrast side by side. Instead it works like a jumbo anti-aliasing / text sub-sampling array so all of the surrounding cells are biased - shaded down some or lightened up some between areas of difference and objects in a scene.

Very well put. Dual cell LCD solves the problem, but the technology is probably doomed for anything but pro monitors.

These chemical reactions from silver halide from the negatives/prints are not able to be fully represented the colorspace even the scanners are 16bit. It looks like 8bit. Funny you cannot give an old remastered movie that looks as good as modern 4K HDR.

In the meanwhile, I can use SDR 8bit on FALD LCD to easily reck a dim 200nits OLED.

LOL. And it's so funny that you still don't understand that your pictures are completely meaningless

 

[elvn]

LOL. And it's so funny that you still don't understand that your pictures are completely meaningless.

That picture is in essence just a simulation as we are all viewing it on our own screens so it's not that meaningful peak brightness wise even if relative to each other. I'm viewing it on my screens so what I see as the brighter middle one is within what my screen I'm viewing it on is capable of right now obviously. So the right "OLED" one on whatever screen I'm viewing it on could look like the middle one because it's the same screen viewing the brighter one after all. And if I downloaded that image in HDR, the main scene would probably look way too bright on the middle one (outside of highlights and direct light sources) as the middle scene looks almost little too bright relative to the content it's showing right now on my current screens.

Besides , maybe the "OLED image" on the right was closer to the lighting level at the waterway in real life at whatever time of day and climate in the first place and he instead chose to light it up like the subject is in a spotlight in an operating room. Idk b/c I don't know what the source material is and where that was filmed, time of day and season, weather, cloud cover, etc. Kram definitely has a zealotry for lifting the whole scene's mids to high intensity rather than moderately. Sometimes unnecessarily (or illogically) lifting mids intensity wise imo but it his screen so he can set it how he likes. Some people like torch modes too. Not saying that about very bright highs in highlights and light sources.

Until we get microLED per pixel emissive enthusiast consumer priced displays I'm firmly in the per pixel emissive tech we have for right now. RTings while not the be all end all, rates two out of their top 3 gaming TVs as QD OLED and OLED, with the #1 spot for both gaming TV and gaming monitor being held by an OLED winter 2023. They rate those top OLED's HDR gaming and PC use + 0.6 to + 0.8 points higher (into the 9's rather than high 8's) than their best in list QD LED LCD even though the QD LED LCD is brighter.
Essentially scores of 87 on the LCD vs 90 and 93 on the OLEDs for gaming , and 89 on the LCD vs 95 and 97 rating for PC use. The LCD does a little better at movies than the C2 OLED with the LCD at 87 and the C2 at 86 but it's very close. They still rate the brighter-than-the-C2 samsung QD OLED higher than the QD LCD with the QD-OLED at a score of 90 vs the LCD's 87.

A 4k resolution OLED has per pixel emissivity or lighting of every single one of it's 8,294,400 pixels. The "lighting resolution" of a 4k oled is 3840 x 2160
A 8k resolution OLED has per pixel emissivity or lighting of every single one of it's 33,177,600 pixels The "lighting resolution" of a 8k oled is 7680 x 4320

The "lighting resolution" of a ~ 1151 zone FALD display like the ucg/ucx that is 16:9 is about 45 x 25 ( which equals 1152 zones) .. and that's if they aren't counting the edge lights.

The "lighting resolution" of a ~ 1344 zone FALD display like the samung 8k, 16:9 is about 49 x 27.5 (which equals 1348 zones) .. and that's if they aren't counting the edge lights.

 

[chameleoneel]

These chemical reactions from silver halide from the negatives/prints are not able to be fully represented the colorspace even the scanners are 16bit. It looks like 8bit. Funny you cannot give an old remastered movie that looks as good as modern 4K HDR.

In the meanwhile, I can use SDR 8bit on FALD LCD to easily reck a dim 200nits OLED.
View attachment 549107

That's like using a reshade profile for a game. You may like it better. But, doesn't mean it's even close to accurate or looks like what was intended.

 

[chameleoneel]

And I have said it before in other threads: just because a screen can do a high brightness, doesn't mean it's good for viewing.

I have an 27 inch monitor which will do 500 nits. But About 300 nits is all I want from it (and only while gaming). More than that is too much.

 

[SoCali]

I own a C2 and Innocn 32M2V, nobody is stuck on technical facts when I compare them on a daily basis and my eyes support the arguments being made. I'm the least biased here and even mentioned in my post above that OLED contrast still makes it look great and helps it overcome its limited brightness to some degree. I jumped in this thread because there is serious OLED fanaticism here that has become obnoxious. At the same time though, that the PG32UQX spokesperson above is shilling the monitors capabilities while completely ignoring its short comings.

Blow me up all you want but on a C2 there really isn't that big a difference between SDR and HDR. You can squirm at the term SDR+ all you want but that is objectively what its producing and its no where near as transformative as SDR to HDR on these HDR1000/1400 LCD's.

All I'm saying is the stark difference when it comes to HDR in favor of the C2 between a PG32UQX in dark games/content due to FALD and its limitations in contrast is no where near the difference in favor of the PG32UQX in medium/high APL content thanks to the massive brightness and color volume difference.

I like my specular highlights to actually highlight and I like my blacks black and that's why I own both panel types.

 

[kramnelis]

LOL. And it's so funny that you still don't understand that your pictures are completely meaningless

Funny the picture is claimed to be useless. You have never seen better while I take pictures as proof of how much more crap OLED looks in comparison.

 

[MistaSparkul]

I mainly love my OLED for it's motion clarity, not so much for it's HDR performance. It was ok for a while when it came out but in 2023 it's really feeling a bit lackluster these days as HDR games get better and better at the implementation on PC. Also my CX is one of only two models, other being the C1, that is capable of 120Hz BFI so I've decided to just make it a permanent BFI only screen for 120 nits SDR gaming while I have my Acer X27 do the HDR gaming duty. It's mostly the easy to run side scrollers like Celeste that I would play with excellent motion clarity on a 120Hz BFI OLED. Don't think anyone is looking to play a game like that at 1000+ nits or anything lol. So yeah both technologies have their place in my setup but for completely different purposes. I say HDR goes to the LCD, at least when compared to my CX, perhaps an LG G3 with MLA or the Samsung S90C 2nd gen QD-OLED would fair much better for that HDR punch but those start at 55 inches and I'm just not gonna go back up to a 55.

 

[elvn]

It's not just dark scenes. It's any decent side by side difference in brightness levels in portions of a scene. There are plenty of scenes with dark areas and bright areas in them. You can't adjust pixels within a block of 7000 to 15000 pixels individually on a FALD. It's large cotton balls of lighting and you are affecting and toning the lighting of all of the other near large zones at the same time and their 7k to 15k pixels in a mass in addition.

FALD also often have matte type AG surface treaments and that alone will raise blacks to greys and can reduce how saturated colors look as well as affecting fine details a bit. While that isn't specifically a fald issue tech wise, in reality it's often part of the trade-offs vs if you can get a glossy oled model.

Saying merely the word "contrast" or saying merely "in dark scenes" is severely watering down the severity of the tech difference between large backlight cells containing 7k to 15k pixels in each cell at 4k and 8k compared to that of per pixel emissive (whether OLED or future microLED per pixel emissive).

A 4k resolution OLED has per pixel emissivity or lighting of every single one of it's 8,294,400 pixels. The "lighting resolution" of a 4k oled is 3840 x 2160
A 8k resolution OLED has per pixel emissivity or lighting of every single one of it's 33,177,600 pixels The "lighting resolution" of a 8k oled is 7680 x 4320

The "lighting resolution" of a ~ 1151 zone FALD display like the ucg/ucx that is 16:9 is about 45 x 25 ( which equals 1152 zones) .. and that's if they aren't counting the edge lights.
The "lighting resolution" of a ~ 1344 zone FALD display like the samung 8k, 16:9 is about 49 x 27.5 (which equals 1348 zones) .. and that's if they aren't counting the edge lights.

That is a tiny amount of large cells like a screen full of sideways ice trays, and there are gaps. It's actually worse than that "lighting resolution" on FALD because it's not just one cell lighting and dimming that single cell full of 7k to 15k pixels worth of what should be per pixel detail/detail in color, texture, etc via per pixel lighting levels, per pixel contrast side by side. Instead it works like a jumbo anti-aliasing / text sub-sampling array so all of the surrounding cells are biased - shaded down some or lightened up some between areas of difference and objects in a scene.

It's fine if you prefer the tradeoffs of extremely low lighting resolution FALD screens for their peak/sustained HDR brightness but they are severe tradeoffs as a display technology in effect and tradeoffs "with your eyes" that shouldn't be downplayed imo. I'm fully aware of the tradeoffs in OLED and am in no way saying OLED are perfect though, far from it. That said, per pixel emissive is the best way to display on a screen tech wise, all other considerations/tradeoffs aside, much more-so than even edge lit vs FALD. Per pixel emissive is definitely the way of the future with micro-LED once it advances and gets down to even enthusiast level pricing. No-one will use huge FALD zones anymore if they can afford not to at that point (nor OLEDs limitations). As it's been for decades now, there are monitor tech tradeoffs so pick your personal poison. There are a lot of people in threads and customer reviews who tried to go with FALDs after having an OLED and returned them similarly so it's really about what tradeoffs you can live with. And like I said, two out of the top 3 winter 2023 gaming TVs on RTings are OLEDs, and both their #1 gaming TV and their #1 gaming monitor on their lists are oled too so it's not an isolated opinion.

 

[kramnelis]

That's like using a reshade profile for a game. You may like it better. But, doesn't mean it's even close to accurate or looks like what was intended.

It makes a point that brightness is so low on OLED that SDR has a higher range than whatever OLED can display.

The monitor works a similar way as the manual grading. It puts images into a wider gamut with higher brightness to show HDR effect. It is not as good as manual grading but the algorithm improves over time so you can see better images.

With a true HDR monitor you can grade content to see better. You can make HDR so you don't need to see limited sRGB anymore.

 

[AwesomeOwl]

I own a C2 and Innocn 32M2V, nobody is stuck on technical facts when I compare them on a daily basis and my eyes support the arguments being made. I'm the least biased here and even mentioned in my post above that OLED contrast still makes it look great and helps it overcome its limited brightness to some degree. I jumped in this thread because there is serious OLED fanaticism here that has become obnoxious. At the same time though, that the PG32UQX spokesperson above is shilling the monitors capabilities while completely ignoring its short comings.

Blow me up all you want but on a C2 there really isn't that big a difference between SDR and HDR. You can squirm at the term SDR+ all you want but that is objectively what its producing and its no where near as transformative as SDR to HDR on these HDR1000/1400 LCD's.

All I'm saying is the stark difference when it comes to HDR in favor of the C2 between a PG32UQX in dark games/content due to FALD and its limitations in contrast is no where near the difference in favor of the PG32UQX in medium/high APL content thanks to the massive brightness and color volume difference.

I like my specular highlights to actually highlight and I like my blacks black and that's why I own both panel types.


View attachment 549117

Are you 100% sure you're the least biased person here? That guy is, after all, at least in posession of a FALD display and a QD OLED monitor...
But let's put it another way, would you agree that OLED is superior to FALD displays in basically everything that isn't medium/high APL HDR?

You can probably guess it but I personally wouldn't be happy if I only had a FALD display. I know that my comment about OLEDs being able to do certain HDR material well upset you very much. I'm sorry about that, as it was not my intention. However lots of movies were mastered on OLEDs, or an OLED panel was at least part of the process, so it's not that odd. Fact is that some OLEDs can do 1000 nits highlights now which obviously has nothing to do with SDR.
The price of the innocn certainly makes it more palatable as a secondary or tertiary gaming monitor.

Funny the picture is claimed to be useless. You have never seen better while I take pictures as proof of how much more crap OLED looks in comparison.

*a wild star field appears and completely destroys your holy grail*

It makes a point that brightness is so low on OLED that SDR has a higher range than whatever OLED can display.

The monitor works a similar way as the manual grading. It puts images into a wider gamut with higher brightness to show HDR effect. It is not as good as manual grading but the algorithm improves over time so you can see better images.

With a true HDR monitor you can grade content to see better. You can make HDR so you don't need to see limited sRGB anymore.

MORE BRIGHTER MORE BETTER, JUST AS THE CREATOR INTENDED IT

 

[kramnelis]

I own a C2 and Innocn 32M2V, nobody is stuck on technical facts when I compare them on a daily basis and my eyes support the arguments being made. I'm the least biased here and even mentioned in my post above that OLED contrast still makes it look great and helps it overcome its limited brightness to some degree. I jumped in this thread because there is serious OLED fanaticism here that has become obnoxious. At the same time though, that the PG32UQX spokesperson above is shilling the monitors capabilities while completely ignoring its short comings.

I have multiple monitors for different purposes. You just bought 32M2V for a HDR experience close to PG32UQX. The monitor has downsides but they can do HDR in a level no other monitor can do. This alone outweighs other aspects.

 

[AwesomeOwl]

I have multiple monitors for different purposes. You just bought 32M2V for a HDR experience close to PG32UQX. The monitor has downsides but they can do HDR in a level no other monitor can do. This alone outweighs other aspects.

A FALD display can't even do SDR (or HDR for that matter) properly without MAJOR ARTIFACTS. This alone outweighs other aspects.

 

[kramnelis]

*a wild star field appears and completely destroys your holy grail*

This guy doesn't even know how brighter stars can be.



OLED can be hit by ABL even on starfield. It cannot even display 1000+nits stars. It cannot display starfield like this.

Funny the more you talk. The more OLED get recked.