kramnelis
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2022
- Messages
- 890
You should read a book to imagine the graphics instead of using a monitor to see them. OLED get recked even more thanks to you.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Why OLED for PC use?
- Thread starter Quiz
- Start date
AwesomeOwl
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 88
You know, it doesn't really matter if you're trolling or not, because it's pretty sad either way.
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,831
Many reviews show how starfields and small light sources are greatly dimmed or completely lost on FALD displays so lets not get crazy here. Each zone is up to 7000 pixels each cell on a 4k screen and 15,000 pixels on a 8k one. They also tone the surrounding cells.
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.
There's no way a 45x25 grid of backlights is going to light points of light without washing out the screen's values. People used to complain about edge lighting flashlighting from the sides. FALD is more like cotton ball lighting, running a blob halo in large cells and the firmware "sub-sampling" the surround cells by toning their lighting up or down too.
So your starfield is either going to bloom bomb and light the depth of the areas of the screen outside of the small points of light (to greys, or grey-blues in some scenes on dark areas or on blacks, or lifting/washing out color depth), or it's going to tone down the points of light - in some scenes down to the point where some of the stars are very weakly seen or missing altogether. It depends on which way the firmware leans.
Things like the edge of a brightly lit spaceship or planet in the blackness of space or a space starfield will also either glow off of the ship affecting the rest of the zone's pixels that the edge of the ship is in and potentially even the next over large adjacent zones. That's the extreme example though. There can commonly be brighter room scenes where people's clothing and hair, hoods, curtains, tables, alcoves, stairwells, and other features, etc. create dark areas in the same scene too. Even parts of details in textured objects depending with cast light. FALD can't do per pixel. It's around 7000 pixels per block in a 45 x 25 grid.
It's just the tradeoffs. Neither FALD or OLED are perfect but lets not try to claim they don't have major tradeoffs either way.
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.
There's no way a 45x25 grid of backlights is going to light points of light without washing out the screen's values. People used to complain about edge lighting flashlighting from the sides. FALD is more like cotton ball lighting, running a blob halo in large cells and the firmware "sub-sampling" the surround cells by toning their lighting up or down too.
So your starfield is either going to bloom bomb and light the depth of the areas of the screen outside of the small points of light (to greys, or grey-blues in some scenes on dark areas or on blacks, or lifting/washing out color depth), or it's going to tone down the points of light - in some scenes down to the point where some of the stars are very weakly seen or missing altogether. It depends on which way the firmware leans.
Things like the edge of a brightly lit spaceship or planet in the blackness of space or a space starfield will also either glow off of the ship affecting the rest of the zone's pixels that the edge of the ship is in and potentially even the next over large adjacent zones. That's the extreme example though. There can commonly be brighter room scenes where people's clothing and hair, hoods, curtains, tables, alcoves, stairwells, and other features, etc. create dark areas in the same scene too. Even parts of details in textured objects depending with cast light. FALD can't do per pixel. It's around 7000 pixels per block in a 45 x 25 grid.
It's just the tradeoffs. Neither FALD or OLED are perfect but lets not try to claim they don't have major tradeoffs either way.
Last edited:
kramnelis
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2022
- Messages
- 890
Who is sad to tolerate ABL and flickers to just see SDR? You should've seen better.
kramnelis
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2022
- Messages
- 890
Is it though on the video I posted? I've already said the background is hardly near black. I can make a specific bloom test.
But it doesn't matter because OLED can only display a 200nits ABL star to show worse images. I won't trade a few blooms for a 200nits OLED experience.
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,831
The tradeoff is yours to make. OLED does do HDR highlights but sustained periods do kick in ABL. Most scenes are pretty dynamic though so it's not as obnoxious as you make it sound. I wouldn't chose one for a static desktop/app monitor though personally.
Pick your poison but both cups are poisoned.
Per pixel emissive will live on in microled though as it is the best way to display images, all other tradeoffs oled/FALD put aside.
Pick your poison but both cups are poisoned.
Per pixel emissive will live on in microled though as it is the best way to display images, all other tradeoffs oled/FALD put aside.
kramnelis
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2022
- Messages
- 890
OLED doesn't even need sustained periods for ABL. It will kick in immediately with more than 2% window on WOLED.
MicroLED sounds nice ever since early 1990s. Now you can already pay quarter of a million for a piece of sapphire. You need time and money to make the jump. HDR 1400 FALD LCD already looks a lot better than OLED. It is matter of time to get FALD LCD price down. In the end it is the manufacturer that can grind enough to survive the market can jump to MicroLED.
Last edited:
Of course the creator can grade it to HDR, and then there will be an HDR version for me to watch. That's not what I'm arguing here. I'm arguing that if sRGB SDR is the best version currently available, an algorithm can't provide more data than is present in the image. Sure, it can guess, try to expand range, etc., but the results will vary, and the ONLY thing it can do is deviate from the original source. It may look subjectively better to some people, but it's not objectively better; it's only objectively different. That's why I prefer watching the SDR version in those cases; I know I'm getting the content as intended.
I have no interest in grading things myself, or playing with settings for each game, movie, or image I want. I just want faithful reproduction of the source material as best as possible on my display. I already gave an example of a game where scenes did not look as good with Auto HDR on as in sRGB. That's with this OLED, and also with the FALD display I had briefly. It overbrightened menus, and it made certain scenes less contrasty because it lifted the light level of darker areas too much. It actually did a better job on the OLED with Auto HDR than it did on the FALD with Auto HDR in that specific case; couldn't tell you why. But SDR was better looking (both in my opinion, and the creative intent of the game since it didn't support native HDR).
I don't find the brightness of this display miserable to my eyes. If brightness is your only concern, yes, FALD is going to be the best in that department, hands down, and will have better colors for bright objects too because of that extra brightness. Nobody is denying that. Nobody. But let's flip it. A sparse starfield...or a dark trail with Christmas lights...etc. are all going to look much better on OLED than with local dimming that will either lift the contrast to display the bright lights or dim them down to preserve the inky blacks. It's a tradeoff.
Tradeoffs are subjective. I came from a 27" IPS and I tried: a fairly reasonably priced 32" edge-lit IPS, an expensive 32" FALD IPS, and those both went back for the 27" OLED. I was actually least pleased with the FALD display, even though it was the best on paper. For the price, it had a ton of compromises for me and my uses.
Meanwhile, I'm very pleased with the OLED for virtually all use cases and have been using it a few weeks now. I'm not in any way saying you're wrong for YOUR use cases and YOUR preferences. You think FALD is much better and you like to convert everything to HDR, and more power to you. My objection is you feeling everyone should feel that way or that they're somehow absolutely wrong, when it's a subjective matter of opinion between two imperfect technologies that both have respective strengths and weaknesses. For me, OLED is a much better fit, reproduces SDR more accurately (which is what I view most), and in general makes me much happier with the images it produced, and I'm having a great experience, including with HDR.
kramnelis
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2022
- Messages
- 890
sRGB looks dull and lifeless. It never looks realistic. It's one of the most limited colorspace. Eyes can see a lot more range. You can make sRGB look better by expanding the range even though it is different from the original. The original is just a compromised intend even it is accurate for mass distribution for 99% of the monitors that can only do sRGB. You see sRGB you see the same limited images from an average office monitor. sRGB already looks bad enough.
OLED brightness is miserable especially on that 27" OLED. It's probably fine for you because you see sRGB all the time. It won't be fine when there are needs for true HDR contents at a higher range. The goal is always reaching a higher range to display better images.
C'mon, now. We both know this isn't the type of starfield we're talking about not displaying well on FALD displays, though I haven't found a really great source video for that on YouTube; in real world usage, I've seen it dim down the stars distractingly a good bit on my Sony TV in SDR shows like The Orville though (which has Star Trek style starfields).
As to the video you posted, for what it's worth, this looked gorgeous on my OLED either way; brighter on my FALD TV certainly and without question, but still breathtaking on the OLED.
As far as what we're actually talking about re FALD weaknesses:
Try this fireworks one:
Or this shorter Christmas one:
Or this long one if you're really committed:
All of these suffer on my FALD TV vs. the OLED quite a bit (didn't watch all of the last one, but sections). Most often, there's quite a bit of blooming around bright objects on FALD, but sometimes when sparsely spaced, the highlights dim down so the backlight doesn't have to engage so they don't look nearly as vibrant as on the OLED. Either way, content like this objectively looks better on an OLED, just as high APL content objectively looks better on a FALD display. This is why we need technology to improve, period. Neither tech does things perfectly.
Last edited:
If you don't value accuracy, expanding sRGB is fine - that's a subjective preference. If you do value accuracy, like in my case, that's not acceptable, and the ONLY way to objectively view *accurate* sRGB content as intended is in sRGB range. That's not up for debate. The limitations of sRGB are besides the point since we're talking about vewing content as mastered/intended. You'll be hard-pressed to find any industry professionals that would disagree with this. I always choose native HDR when available and competently done, but if it's not, sRGB is my preferred option.
Nobody is disputing higher range is the goal. Of course it is. But right now, there is NO technology that can do everything well, so as others have said, you have to pick your poison.
kramnelis
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2022
- Messages
- 890
The FALD of yours only has 100 dimming zones. Both the current 512-zone VA and 1152-zone IPS has much fewer blooms in the starfield test which doesn't show HDR color. And the 3rd video has the least amount of blooms.
OLED doesn't even look all better in starfield when the stars get high enough just like the video I posted. It won't have HDR impacts. When the range gets higher OLED just won't be enough.
kramnelis
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2022
- Messages
- 890
The accuracy in the most limited colorspace doesn't mean a lot. It doesn't provide a higher range for better images.
If you value accuracy, you should value HDR1000 with accurate brightness, color and contrast.
I had a ton of blooming with one of those monitors on my dark mode calendar in SDR, so I know for a fact blooming is a problem, regardless of the zone count. Every number on my calendar in dark mode had a bloom around it. Same with many chats in Discord, etc.
The video you posted looked great on the OLED and had plenty of impact. No, it wouldn't compare to the brightest FALD displays, but I would take that tradeoff over the blooming I experienced in darker content on the FALD any day. Again, personal preference - it's great if you value brightness more, but you can't expect everyone to have the same preferences.
Again, not just me, but most industry professionals and calibrators disagree with you and care mostly about accuracy for sRGB content. Accuracy is king to them. For the home user, preference is all that matters. You prefer an expanded range with a less accurate image. I prefer accuracy, and I always will.
As far as valuing HDR1000 accuracy, of course I do, but the tradeoffs of a bright FALD display are for me too significant and not worth it. Again, that's down to personal preference. The majority of my time (probably 75%+) in front of my display is viewing sRGB/SDR content. That automatically weights it heavier, and on that type of content, the perfect blacks of OLED are a benefit and the blooming issues with FALD are super distracting to me. As for HDR, tone mapping HDR1000 to what my monitor can display works very well for bright content; not perfectly, but well enough to still have a good experience. Additionally, I can just as easily argue my OLED display shows low light content like the videos I posted more accurately than a FALD display, so it depends on which end of the spectrum we're talking. Neither technology has perfect accuracy for HDR yet. For me, things like blooming on a desktop monitor are simply more of an issue that dimmer tone-mapped HDR. When I can have full brightness and accuracy for HDR1000 AND perfect blacks on a display without blooming, viewing angle issues, etc., I'll gladly trade up to that.
kramnelis
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2022
- Messages
- 890
A little trade of blooms for a 200nits OLED is a bigger compromise on the overall image quality. You won't see HDR. The OLED you have is even dimmer than AW3423DW which is already disappointing compared to a 4 years old 512-zone HDR1000 VA. OLED never has that much impacts. The images look like a paper. FALD LCD can even use SDR to reck OLED HDR. It's disappointing. OLED never looks real.
They grade in a limited colorspace because they do it for commercial benefits for most displays. You will see the same images on sRGB with just an office monitor. It doesn't mean it is a better images because eyes can see a lot more range than just sRGB.
Now there is HDR available. They are going to grade HDR1000 as much as possible. With a true HDR monitors, you can see better images and a higher range than just sRGB. Higher range is always better.
Again, A little trade of blooms at the low range for a 200nits OLED is a bigger compromise. You will only see sRGB while what I see is always a range higher close to realism. Bascially on a 512-zone FALD LCD, the 400nits SDR is OLED HDR while the true HDR1000 is something OLED cannot display.
In your opinion. You're downplaying OLED's infinite contrast and ability to highlight small details brightly and also downplaying the downsides of FALD like blooming, poorer viewing angles, and poorer motion. All this "wrecking" you speak of just doesn't happen. On the high end, OLED has weaknesses. On the low end, FALD has weaknesess. Neither are perfect, but both have their place. As pointed out by others, OLED's are frequently in best display lists by virtually all review outlets as well. I'm honestly not an OLED fan boy - this is the first I've owned for many years, after being hesitant for a long while; I'm just very pleased with the progress in the technology since then. I find OLED has pop, dimension, and is very pleasing to look at in HDR. It certainly doesn't look like paper. On the flipside, I was very disappointed by the local dimming performance of the high-priced Asus FALD in the majority of my use cases. The brightness would have been nice, but the other downsides outweighed any upside of those for me personally. Different strokes for different folks. It's why both OLED's and FALD displays sell well.
You keep saying the same things, but sRGB is still the standard for the web, many games and TV shows, and most photo work. It's irrelevant that it's more limited; if that's what the material is mastered in, it can never look more accurate than it's native color space. HDR is the future, and I'm glad it's being adopted and we're getting more material in these expanded ranges, but it still has a lot of growing pains as far as different formats and standards, display technology discrepancies, calibration difficulties, etc. that need to be resolved before it's anywhere near as standard as sRGB.
At any rate, we're just going around in circles. I have no issue with people preferring content expanded into whatever range they want, but when you present subjective opinions about OLED not being able to do HDR or that sRGB content should always be expanded into a higher color space because it's "better", you're not dealing with objective truths anymore; you're simply voicing your subjective opinion, which is as valid as anyone's else. I simply respectfully disagree with you.
kramnelis
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2022
- Messages
- 890
OLED only has a 2% window of highlight. Even on a 2% window is only 800nits on that 27''. You should've realized how dim the monitor is. It's an SDR display without 10-bit color. It probably doesn't matter to you since you just see sRGB 80nits as good as an office monitor most of the time. But it's not enough when you want to see better images at a high range.
FALD LCD doesn't have pixel dimming but it has color and brightness. The blooming is there but in real content is not that distracting as the current FALD has methods to reduce bloom. Except that 32'' PA32UCG you had is a professional monitor made for grading HDR1400. It's accurate. It doesn't cheat on brightness. It also doesn't have a G-sync to speed up the backlight. These two factors made the bloom more noticeable. But It can accurately display the high range where HDR matters the most. Don't forget you buy it to make HDR. This is the fundamental difference other than just watching an inaccurate tone-mapping SDR. This is why it is a professional monitor unlike that 27'' OLED . You cannot make HDR on a dim OLED. People just start to see HDR. Future HDR content is going to be brighter. OLED cannot catch up.
The contents you see are sRGB or ABL HDR200. They are not better images compared to the graded HDR1000 images from FALD LCD.
I'm well aware of the limits of OLED as well as FALD technologies as discussed previously in depth...their strengths and drawbacks (including where both technologies have flaws in regards to HDR). Happy with the OLED as the monitor for me at this time, especially for its SDR capabilities, but also for its HDR capabilities, even if tone mapping is required. But whatever you want to believe, since you don't seem willing to be at all objective about it, misrepresent what others say (I've said repeatedly I don't view anything at 80 nits), and want people to consider your opinions facts, when they're still opinions. Neither one of us are going to change each other's minds at this point.
kramnelis
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2022
- Messages
- 890
Images lower than 400nits still belong to SDR 8bit. And you just view sRGB 160nits. The image you see is very limited. A monitor should let you see better range instead of sRGB. You should see much better content now with a more capable monitor.
It's ridiculous that you compare a 27'' OLED with a 32" HDR 1400 professional monitor. I assume you just use them for sRGB most of the time. They are not comparable.
The true HDR monitor can make videos from sRGB to HDR1000. You cannot do this on OLED.
It's obvious which one looks better with 10 times higher range.
I like the OLED much better than I liked the ProArt. I just was not happy with it despite trying my best to be, and it had technical issues on top of that. The color and brightness on the ProArt were great, but the other tradeoffs were not worth it for me. Yes, I use sRGB the majority of the time, as I'd stated, but I also enjoy HDR content (mainly games as I watch movies on my TV). What would be ridiculous would be keeping a display I'm not happy with. Spec-wise, nothing touches the ProArt, but real-world use matters and given all the issues I had, even if they had similar price points, I'd like the OLED more. The fact is, I couldn't find a better monitor for my needs in the size range I wanted (27-32") than this OLED at any price point.
I know nothing about the video you shared, how it was mastered, etc., so the comparison is fairly meaningless. Yes, it appears to look good in HDR (which works just fine and looks good on an OLED too by the way). But no, objectively speaking sRGB can't just "become" HDR1000 and retain its accuracy without manual conversion. Algorithms can guess, and it can look good, which may or may not be the case here - I don't know. But, for example, facial skin tones are quite different between the two; even if both can be pleasant to watch, only one is going to be the most accurate.
AwesomeOwl
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 88
FALD displays will never be truly accurate. Not in bright HDR. Not in dim HDR. Not in SDR.
As elvn has pointed out multiple times, an algorithm is deciding what you should or shouldn't see based on a very limited amount of dimming zones. It has nothing to do with what the creator saw.
No serious colorist will be using a garbage FALD display. They have either dual cell LCD (4 pixels per dimming zone), RGB OLED, or for extremely high budget production they use a Dolby Pulsar. Often they will use a large WOLED in conjuction with whatever small display they're using. Maybe youtube creators will use FALD, lol. Perhaps some game studios, who knows.
You may like the result, but it is not true HDR.
As elvn has pointed out multiple times, an algorithm is deciding what you should or shouldn't see based on a very limited amount of dimming zones. It has nothing to do with what the creator saw.
No serious colorist will be using a garbage FALD display. They have either dual cell LCD (4 pixels per dimming zone), RGB OLED, or for extremely high budget production they use a Dolby Pulsar. Often they will use a large WOLED in conjuction with whatever small display they're using. Maybe youtube creators will use FALD, lol. Perhaps some game studios, who knows.
You may like the result, but it is not true HDR.
Last edited:
kramnelis
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2022
- Messages
- 890
ProArt is a professional monitor designed to make HDR1400. You've never utilized its full capability to make HDR when you just buy it to see sRGB that looks the same on an office monitor. You just bought a product you don't know how to use it.
And you don't care about HDR accuracy or graphics that can show better images. Instead, you just care about sRGB accuracy at the low range that you think is good enough. You should've make sRGB into HDR with ProArt. sRGB is never good compared to HDR. Just like the video I posted, HDR1000 can look completely different on another level than whatever 200nits OLED can display. Too bad you cannot see it on your current display.
kramnelis
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2022
- Messages
- 890
You can scream all you want. You've never seen better. You just bang on a cheap OLED to see SDR while I can already make HDR. This is a big difference.
I know how crap ABL looks on a 200-nit OLED. Even the best images you can get on a consumer OLED such as PA32DC is only HDR400.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 16,213
Wrecked??
kramnelis
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2022
- Messages
- 890
OLED is wrecked in this starfield where there are enough stars to cause ABL. The max brightness of the star should be 1000nits instead of 300nits or even lower on OLED. The color won't be accurate either.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,623
You guys are going to go back and fourth saying the same things until the end of time. Neither display tech is perfect because there is simply no such thing as the perfect display tech. Move on
AwesomeOwl
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 88
Once again I accept your concession. You didn't refute anything I said in the post you quoted, because it can't be refuted in an objective way. It is the truth. FALD is not accurate HDR, so it is not TRUE HDR either. Dual cell LCD is very close to TRUE 1000 nits HDR, but that is reserved for actual professional TRUE HDR grading monitors, and not youtube creator playthings like the Asus monitor.
You are free to like and enjoy FALD displays, but you have never seen the TRUTH.
kramnelis
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2022
- Messages
- 890
I've always said a perfect monitor doesn't exist. People just start to see HDR. Most current images are nowhere near realistic or impactful as the range is way too limited. A better image is always an image that has higher range because eyes can see a lot more.
It's nice when there is an OLED can do true HDR 1000 without flickers. That thing doesn't exist. Instead the OLED only shows SDR with unsolvable flickers to cause eye strain even in low brightness. So you have to choose the current FALD LCD to get the actual HDR even with fewer dimming zones.
kramnelis
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2022
- Messages
- 890
You better realize the OLED is even worse as HDR needs both contrast and color. And the color is way more important to have HDR impacts. A 200nits OLED is just an SDR monitor. OLED only has contrast at low range. It doesn't even have accurate contrast at high range because of ABL.
Without brightness then there is no color. FALD LCD at least has accurate brightness and color, and moderate contrast to show a lot more range that belongs to HDR. It can show 3x - 5x more range than OLED.
The current FALD LCD can already make HDR while OLED can only display ABL or tonemapped SDR. In the end, it is the OLED cannot display HDR made by FALD LCD.
Last edited:
Xar
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2022
- Messages
- 288
-True 3D Display
-QDEL/EL-QD
-Samsung Display's True QNED
-BOE's True QLED
-QD-MicroLED
-MicroLED
-Blue PH-OLED
-QD-OLED
-WRGB-OLED with "MLA"
-JOLED's RGB-OLED
-WRGB-OLED
-Samsung Display's Laptop AMOLED
-Dual-Cell LCD/Dual-Layer LCD
-FALD QD-IPS MiniLED LCD (Acer-Asus-Aoc-Viewsonic-Etc's FALD "MiniLED" monitors and LG's "QNED" TVs)
-FALD QD-VA MiniLED LCD (Samsung Electronics' "QLED" TVs and its "Quantum-MiniLED" monitors)
Will take at least 20 more years to get the endgame tech.
-QDEL/EL-QD
-Samsung Display's True QNED
-BOE's True QLED
-QD-MicroLED
-MicroLED
-Blue PH-OLED
-QD-OLED
-WRGB-OLED with "MLA"
-JOLED's RGB-OLED
-WRGB-OLED
-Samsung Display's Laptop AMOLED
-Dual-Cell LCD/Dual-Layer LCD
-FALD QD-IPS MiniLED LCD (Acer-Asus-Aoc-Viewsonic-Etc's FALD "MiniLED" monitors and LG's "QNED" TVs)
-FALD QD-VA MiniLED LCD (Samsung Electronics' "QLED" TVs and its "Quantum-MiniLED" monitors)
Will take at least 20 more years to get the endgame tech.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,056
Aren't LG OLED TVs the only recommended TVs for Dolby Vision by Dolby themselves? View page 21 of the attachment. The reason it doesn't have the newer/latest LG OLED TVs is because this guide is from 2021. It also specifically states Sony and Panasonic TVs are not recommended.
Last edited:
kramnelis
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2022
- Messages
- 890
Dolby vision is a tone mapping method. Microsoft tablet has Dolby Vision too. It can go all the way down to SDR.
On Windows with a Dolby Vision software plugin you can see some mp4 demos mastered in Dolby Vision with a normal monitor.
But a Dolby Vision monitor doesn't need that software plug to display Dolby Vision. It doesn't need Dolby pre-mastered content either. It has the Dolby tone mapping built into the display to do dynamic processing out of any footages with Dolby algorithm.
Most TVs have the similar tone mapping processing/algorithm. It is just not sophisticated enough compared to the labeled Dolby. Dolby Vision also needs more processing power. These LG OLED TVs still need a Dolby mastered content to show Dolby Vision instead of processing a normal HDR footages.
Also, Dolby Vision can do reverse tone mapping in Bright mode.
AwesomeOwl
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 88
Yawn... I sleep...
A FALD display will NEVER EVER be truly accurate. It is literally impossible. FALD can only be accurate in large uniform areas. In real content - movies, games, pictures, literally anything - you will NEVER see the REAL image as it was intended by creators. How could you ever when you only have ~1000 dimming zones for 8 million pixels? It's impossible. Fald displays have terrible luminance accuracy in anything but test slides. That is indisputable.
FALD displays cannot display TRUE HDR™. FALD displays cannot display TRUE SDR™.
You are free to enjoy your monitor. It's bright, it's colorful, that's for sure, but it is not accurate in any sense of the word.
kramnelis
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2022
- Messages
- 890
Funny you care so much about accuracy. You use it as an excuse to just see ABL/tonemapped SDR which is even worse in accuracy.
OLED is a lot worse. OLED never has that much chance to get brightness. It's even more inaccurate in both contrast and color. You need tonemapping to see SDR. You see more altered images in a worse way. You choose an OLED then you see a worse image compared to FALD LCD. You don't have a chance to see higher range.
OLED cannot even display the HDR made from FALD lol.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 16,213
Lets be honest now... How often do you see 1000nits, or 500 on daily usage? Do we all just watch starfield demos? And I'd give up brightness for inky blacks. I prefered Plasma to LCD, and I prefer OLED to LCD. But if you prefer blinding brightness, or are in a stadium light lit room all day, then enjoy whatever it is you like ;P
kramnelis
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2022
- Messages
- 890
You should've seen better. I see HDR in both high APL and low APL all day that requires a much larger range other than locked in a low range where 200nits OLED can barley offer. OLED only has low range contrast. It is really not much special as low range belongs to SDR.
Anyone claims that bright HDR is made for a bright room doesn't understand graphics. You claiming HDR too bright just means your monitor is flickering. Any HDR is made for a dim room.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 16,213
OLED has low range contrast??
AwesomeOwl
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 88
Funny that you cannot dispute any of my points because what I speak is THE TRUTH, and nothing but THE TRUTH. You have to go into IMAGINATION LAND to gather material to try to save face.
Material mastered on a FALD display will only ever be accurate when viewed on an identical FALD display (including firmware, lol). If you know anyone serious that uses FALD displays for mastering material. please do let me know in the comments below (and subscribe and give me a thumbs up, cause that really helps me out), and please include a credible source. I'm always interested in learning new things.
An OLED panel can display REAL SDR very accurately at a pixel level. A FALD display cannot display REAL SDR even remotely accurately. That is a FACT because the dimming zones are just way too large.
An OLED panel can display HDR accurately at a pixel level AS LONG AS THE MATERIAL DOES NOT TRIGGER THE ABL OF THAT PARTICULAR DISPLAY OR HITS THE PEAK BRIGHTNESS LIMITATION: A FALD display can display literally no content accurately except for large test patterns.
You cannot dispute this as this is the OBJECTIVE TRUTH.
Once again, please do enjoy your display, be that FALD, OLED, or whatever, just the way you like to. I'm not here to tell anyone how they should live their lives, or what they should buy for that matter. I'm only interested in THE TRUTH.
Last edited: