Why OLED for PC use?

[kramnelis]

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: 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.

Funny the truth is OLED cannot reach the range FALD LCD does. You have 0 chance when I provide facts. All you have is imagination while shilling on a 200nits OLED which can get wrecked by FALD SDR.

Jacob Schwarz uses FALD to master HDR1000.







Your OLED is only able to display 200nits SDR with an extremely limited range. It can only be accurate in that limited range but looks dull and lifeless just like sRGB. It looks nothing impactful.

OLED cannot display high APL HDR. Both the color and contrast will shrink. FALD can be more accurate than OLED in the higher range of HDR where it matters the most.

If you really care about accuracy and graphics you should at least get an OLED like PA32DC with an actual HDR400. And that monitor is only capable of HDR400. It isn't enough for HDR1000. I like how you yell without understanding anything.

 

[kramnelis]

OLED has low range contrast??

Of course OLED has a low range contrast. OLED cannot show the contrast of 1000nits sun vs 0.1nits shadow. It can show the contrast of 300nits sun vs 0.1nits shadow.

 

[sgupta]

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.

I'm well-aware how to use it. I bought it for the pre-calibration accuracy, high nits, and on paper, it's one of the best HDR monitors out there; maybe a bit overkill just for desktop use/gaming, but it seemed to fit the bill and I was able to get it cheaper than it was originally listed and not that much more than the QX. I have no interest in *making* content, only viewing it, but a high-end monitor needs to be good at that too. Besides the disappointing blooming performance in the content I look at most percentage-wise (sRGB SDR) and minor issues I hadn't expected with viewing angle in the corners of the large screen, it had a myriad of other problems (3 dead pixels, 1 stuck pixel, what appeared to be either an eyelash or plastic shaving behind the screen that I eventually got to disappear via gentle tapping [but noticed the dead pixels along the way], ridiculously long returns from sleep...and sometimes the reluctance to return at all without a great deal of messing around). I say all this to say that on paper, it looked like the monitor of my dreams that fit the best for me and had some stellar reviews, but as far as real-world use, it wasn't even a good experience, let alone a great one. I'm having a much better experience with this monitor, which happens to be OLED, and I'm well-aware of the limitations, of which it too has several, but the ones it has don't bother me as much. For SDR content, it looks much better without having to have blooming artifacts, and for HDR, it certainly looks good enough for my needs with the games I've tested with (and even with the videos you showcased; the tone-mapping works surprisingly well; that starfield demo looked lovely, whether you believe that or not, even if not as bright as it could get on a higher brightness display).

Maybe in hindsight I would have been happier with the ROG QX and should have tried that instead of the ProArt, but again, for the price point, I think I would have had most of the same issues with things like blooming and viewing angle, though hopefully a less issue-prone panel. I'm actually looking forward to seeing what the new model coming after the QX this year will have to offer. (Again, I'm not anti-FALD. It just didn't work out for me. I love that there are a few different techs to choose from with their respective pros and cons). And I'm sure miniLED/microLED will continue to get better, with fewer issues as time goes, but I guess I had expected it to be further along than it is, especially with blooming and all the zones. I just did not expect large blooming areas around bright objects in SDR.

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.

I do care about sRGB accuracy the most, correct, since that's what I view the most in my day-to-day. And, objectively, sRGB can't be *accurately* made into HDR regardless of the quality of the monitor since the information HDR requires is not there, except via guessing/an algorithm, and I've gone over why I don't generally like the outcome of that and have actively disliked the look of Auto HDR in certain real-world content I've tried (including, albeit briefly, on the ProArt while I had it). Even with the video you posted, not knowing how it was mastered, there are significant differences between the sRGB and HDR version with things like skin tones. Though both versions look good, the HDR one obviously with a lot more pop, one is bound to be more accurate than the other; not knowing the original source, it's hard to say which.

As others said, we're just not going to see eye to eye on these things and are going in circles. Different strokes for different folks. Nobody is maligning you for preferring FALD for the reasons you do - it's obvious you mostly are interested in watching HDR1000 and above, and for that, FALD is best choice right now. All I'm saying is for my uses and as a jack-of-all-trades type monitor, the OLED preserves the most quality/accuracy for the content I watch most, and for the minority content like HDR in games, it does a great enough job with the tone mapping I'm happy enough until such time as a display exists that can do it all well. This really shouldn't be controversial. It's an opinion a lot of people share.

 

[elvn]

TFT central review excerpts from the referenced ProArt OLED:

https://tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/lg_ultrafine_32ep950_oled

"For the top-end HDR experience in the LCD monitor market today you’d be looking currently at some of the niche and very expensive top-end models with a Full array Local Dimming (FALD) backlight. Those that have a “direct backlight” behind the panel split in to many more dimming zones. We’ve reviewed models like the Asus ROG Swift PG27UQ and PG35VQ in the past with 384-zone and 512-zone local dimming backlights for instance. These meet the upper tier HDR 1000 standard as well, so can reach even higher peak brightness of 1000 cd/m2, along with wide gamut colour space and 10-bit colour depth. These FALD options, and some newer “mini LED” options like the forthcoming Asus ROG Swift PG32UQX for instance (HDR 1400 with 1152 zones) with even more (and smaller) dimming zones represent the best available HDR options for desktop LCD monitors today. The problem is these models are very expensive and top-end, and even with many hundred or even over a thousand zones, it can still leave you with some issues for HDR content. Blooming and halos are still a problem when smaller highlights are needing to be brightened, and while the more zones the better, it will never be as optimal as per-pixel dimming like on OLED. They can however reach much higher peak brightness than OLED panels so can look punchy if the backlight is decent enough.


The dimming capabilities of the OLED panel here on the 32EP950 easily surpass all desktop monitors when it comes to HDR, and the true black and infinite contrast make it ideal for improving the dynamic range. This particular LG 32EP950 also has the necessary wide gamut with 99.5% DCI-P3 coverage, and 10-bit colour depth support so it offers the boosted colours and appearance associated with HDR content too. While it doesn’t offer the peak brightness capability that an LCD display could reach, at (a measured) 581 cd/m2 it’s still pretty decent and not far off many OLED TV’s too. A lot of people tend to prefer the per-pixel dimming, true blacks and infinite contrast ratio that OLED offers as opposed to aiming for higher peak brightness and living with the limitations of LCD local dimming methods for HDR viewing."

. . .

"

The problems with accuracy of even the best Multi-zone LCD backlights​

We wanted to touch on a direct comparison here between an OLED panel and a top-end LCD ‘dynamic backlight’ display featuring many hundreds of zones. For instance when comparing OLED to even the most recent Mini LED backlights with more than 1000 zones, there are considerations when it comes to professional content creation and the true accuracy of the image. With the ability to control the brightness of each pixel individually on an OLED panel, and to dim them/turn them off to black if needed, not only do you get the exceptional contrast but you also get the benefit that each pixel is unaffected by the pixels around it. The same cannot be said for a FALD backlights, Mini LED backlights or indeed any LCD backlight which is controlled with dynamic zones. The output from each pixel on the OLED panel can be accurate and predictable, but not on LCD’s with dimming zones. We will explain why.


4K OLED panel = 8,294,400 individually controlled and dimmed pixels
4K Mini LED backlight panel at best today with 1152 dimming zones = 7,200 pixels within each zone



The algorithm for any local dimming LCD backlight is constantly making a choice about how bright to drive a zone, but each zone is still limited to the panels native contrast ratio at best. If you have a zone with some dark content and some light content in it (like some stars on a black night sky), how does the backlight know whether to dim or darken the zone? Ideally if it could control each pixel individually (like an OLED can) it would brighten the stars while at the same time dim the black sky. This deliberately extreme image example needs a really high contrast ratio, but the reality of HDR content is that it will often exceed the panel native contrast within a zone. Unfortunately on an LCD panel the backlight has to make a choice for that zone, and the content within the zone will be limited by the native panel contrast. On an IPS panel, which is commonly used at the moment for the best FALD and Mini LED backlights in the monitor market, that would be around 1000:1. As a result if there’s any content within an individual dimming zone that requires a higher contrast than the panel, that means some of that zone by its nature will be inaccurate. If the backlight chooses to make the bright areas accurate, it comes at the cost of the dark areas and visa versa.

Even the best modern Mini LED backlights have challenges with real image accuracy


Manufacturers also often desire to make images “pop” more for HDR viewing, driving overall luminance of a brighter region up if they can to do so. Add to this conundrum the fact that to minimise blooming and reduce halos, LCD display manufacturers tend to be cautious with how the luminance of a given zone is controlled relative to adjacent zones. There is a need to blend the light output between zones to try and “smooth” the appearance of these zones in their operation, which again can lead to inaccuracies across the screen. The best dynamic backlight systems will modulate the LCD panel and its backlight in concert, knowing how much to open the LCD shutter when combined with the backlight to achieve a colour or shade. However, lower quality dynamic backlight systems will not do this due to the costs and complexity in doing so, resulting in the two behaving independently from one another. The LCD is effectively driven as though the backlight is not dynamic, and then the backlight simply analyses the incoming signal and applies a gain based on that to each region, smoothing between the regions. The vast majority of dynamic backlight LCD’s use a de-coupled approach. So with all these factors considered the practical result of this is that nothing reproduced on screen is predictable, or an accurate representation of the signal unfortunately. None of this is a problem for OLED panels where the image can be controlled at the individual pixel level.


We are not saying that Mini LED or other LCD backlight types cannot produce really good HDR images and look great for the viewer. They absolutely can, and for HDR gaming and multimedia playback they can look really good. Very often the colour gamut and brightness levels these display are capable of exceeds those with pixel level control like OLED. They can produce very high peak brightness, vivid colours and sometimes the local dimming even works very well without major halos or blooming. However, they cannot be considered “accurate”, and for users who need to create HDR content, or need accurate representation of colours, contrast and the overall image then these type of direct backlights are not sufficient. Don’t be fooled either by measurements of a screens setup or accuracy using a calibration tool. This is only capturing a static colour block in a fixed location of the image, where the dimming zone doesn’t have to worry about any of these issues above with contrast, dimming level, halos etc. This is not representative though of real content or dynamic, moving images.

Above: the Apple XDR and Asus ProArt PA32UCG – very pleasing HDR images, but still limited by local dimming accuracy issues


A larger number of zones improves the situation slightly, but you still cannot get away from the limitation that each zone, even if it were as small as a few pixels, is a compromise, and therefore all pixels are compromised in accuracy. Of course today we are nowhere near each zone being only a few pixels even for desktop monitors, with high end best-in-class options like the Apple XDR display and forthcoming Asus ProArt PA32UCG for instance only have 576 or 1152 zones respectively. As we said, these screens are absolutely capable of producing excellent HDR images and look great for HDR content playback, but what they cannot really be is a reference monitor or offer the same level of accuracy that an OLED monitor could. The only exception to this is the dual stack LCD based systems which use one LCD to control luminance, and another for colour, like the reference grade Sony BVM-HX310 (got a spare $30k to spend?) and the similar EIZO product based on the same Panasonic panel which is now out of production.

"There are obvious benefits from the OLED panel again with per pixel dimming, no blooming, amazing contrast etc. This is really well-suited to HDR. The HDR picture modes are again well set up here and offer good flexibility for HDR content creation and work. We were pleasantly surprised by the decent peak brightness and certainly the APL handling and capability. It can’t get as bright as modern LCD monitors with direct backlights like Mini LED so you lack a bit of the brightness “punch” you get from those, but it makes up for it in its OLED capabilities"

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.


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.

 

[kramnelis]

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.

I like how you cut pieces of a few words from a review to drive the narrative that FALD LCD cannot be more accurate than OLED. I still remember this elvn guy didn't even fully understand contrast. There is a bigger trade off at HDR.

You cannot even use whatever OLED you get to grade HDR1000 or HDR1400. It's obvious which one is more accurate.

I'm well-aware how to use it. I bought it for the pre-calibration accuracy, high nits, and on paper, it's one of the best HDR monitors out there; maybe a bit overkill just for desktop use/gaming, but it seemed to fit the bill and I was able to get it cheaper than it was originally listed and not that much more than the QX. I have no interest in *making* content, only viewing it, but a high-end monitor needs to be good at that too. Besides the disappointing blooming performance in the content I look at most percentage-wise (sRGB SDR) and minor issues I hadn't expected with viewing angle in the corners of the large screen, it had a myriad of other problems (3 dead pixels, 1 stuck pixel, what appeared to be either an eyelash or plastic shaving behind the screen that I eventually got to disappear via gentle tapping [but noticed the dead pixels along the way], ridiculously long returns from sleep...and sometimes the reluctance to return at all without a great deal of messing around). I say all this to say that on paper, it looked like the monitor of my dreams that fit the best for me and had some stellar reviews, but as far as real-world use, it wasn't even a good experience, let alone a great one. I'm having a much better experience with this monitor, which happens to be OLED, and I'm well-aware of the limitations, of which it too has several, but the ones it has don't bother me as much. For SDR content, it looks much better without having to have blooming artifacts, and for HDR, it certainly looks good enough for my needs with the games I've tested with (and even with the videos you showcased; the tone-mapping works surprisingly well; that starfield demo looked lovely, whether you believe that or not, even if not as bright as it could get on a higher brightness display).

Maybe in hindsight I would have been happier with the ROG QX and should have tried that instead of the ProArt, but again, for the price point, I think I would have had most of the same issues with things like blooming and viewing angle, though hopefully a less issue-prone panel. I'm actually looking forward to seeing what the new model coming after the QX this year will have to offer. (Again, I'm not anti-FALD. It just didn't work out for me. I love that there are a few different techs to choose from with their respective pros and cons). And I'm sure miniLED/microLED will continue to get better, with fewer issues as time goes, but I guess I had expected it to be further along than it is, especially with blooming and all the zones. I just did not expect large blooming areas around bright objects in SDR.



I do care about sRGB accuracy the most, correct, since that's what I view the most in my day-to-day. And, objectively, sRGB can't be *accurately* made into HDR regardless of the quality of the monitor since the information HDR requires is not there, except via guessing/an algorithm, and I've gone over why I don't generally like the outcome of that and have actively disliked the look of Auto HDR in certain real-world content I've tried (including, albeit briefly, on the ProArt while I had it). Even with the video you posted, not knowing how it was mastered, there are significant differences between the sRGB and HDR version with things like skin tones. Though both versions look good, the HDR one obviously with a lot more pop, one is bound to be more accurate than the other; not knowing the original source, it's hard to say which.

As others said, we're just not going to see eye to eye on these things and are going in circles. Different strokes for different folks. Nobody is maligning you for preferring FALD for the reasons you do - it's obvious you mostly are interested in watching HDR1000 and above, and for that, FALD is best choice right now. All I'm saying is for my uses and as a jack-of-all-trades type monitor, the OLED preserves the most quality/accuracy for the content I watch most, and for the minority content like HDR in games, it does a great enough job with the tone mapping I'm happy enough until such time as a display exists that can do it all well. This really shouldn't be controversial. It's an opinion a lot of people share.

You simply don't know how to use a monitor.

Just like you said you buy a professional HDR monitor to view sRGB like an office monitor. PA32UCG can have 10 times brightness than that 27" OLED. They are not even comparable. It can do accurate brightness no other monitor can do. That's why professionals need it. You won't get any better ProArt HDR1400 4K 120Hz any time soon, like for at least 3 years. Some of the best HDR videos from Youtube are just made by PA32UCX or PA32UCG. You should check the comments where people say how good it looks on OLED without realizing their maker is a FALD LCD.

Why do you even buy a PA32UCG without doing any HDR work? It's made for HDR grading. A real-world use is HDR grading on that monitor with accurate brightness, accurate color, moderate contrast. You should use the monitor to grade footages to HDR1000 to make much better images.

Of course a 1152-zone professional monitor still has blooming but HDR is the most accurate at that price range. You choose an OLED you will never see a more accurate HDR. Instead you just fool yourself saying the ABL/tonemapped SDR is enough. It's never enough as eyes can see a lot more.

 

[sgupta]

You simply don't know how to use a monitor.

I know, right? It's completely beyond me! Laid mine flat, put some eggs and sausages on the matte finish, and kept it like that for 3 hours and they're STILL not cooked. I'm using torch mode, too! Can't imagine what I'm doing wrong. The manual doesn't even mention cooking times! =oP

Just like you said you buy a professional HDR monitor to view sRGB like an office monitor. PA32UCG can have 10 times brightness than that 27" OLED. They are not even comparable. It can do accurate brightness no other monitor can do. That's why professionals need it. You won't get any better ProArt HDR1400 4K 120Hz any time soon, like for at least 3 years. Some of the best HDR videos from Youtube are just made by PA32UCX or PA32UCG. You should check the comments where people say how good it looks on OLED without realizing their maker is a FALD LCD.

10x brightness alone is rather meaningless when it does a poorer job in the areas I use it the most and the majority of the content I view doesn't need that level of brightness. With a better panel than I got in the lottery, there's no doubt the PA32UCG is a fantastic monitor. But for my uses, it had too many drawbacks/downsides, especially for its premium price. Subjective experience matters, and despite the impressive technicals of the ProArt, OLED is better suited in the areas that matter most to me at a fraction of the price, and I truthfully have a better day-to-day experience with it.

A monitor doesn't "make" HDR videos, so I'm assuming you mean the person making them used that monitor to grade them. That's great! The people saying content generated that way looks great on OLED, mean that it looks great to them on OLED. That's tone mapping doing its job most likely. Not perfect, and not without compromises, but good enough to still enjoy the content, very similar to the videos you shared. And in turn, I'm sure the videos of, say, the fireworks I shared looked good enough on your FALD, even if there was more blooming than you'd see on OLED. The point me and others are trying to make is, neither technology displays HDR perfectly and without compromise somewhere, whether its the low end or the high end. The right monitor for each individual depends on where a user wants most of those compromises to be, and it's going to be different for different people with different tastes. For me, I'd rather compromise the higher brightness end of things because most of what I do is more reliant on the lower brightness end of things, and thanks to tone-mapping, the compromise on the high end seems less distracting to me than those I experienced on the low end with FALD tech.

Why do you even buy a PA32UCG without doing any HDR work? It's made for HDR grading. A real-world use is HDR grading on that monitor with accurate brightness, accurate color, moderate contrast. You should use the monitor to grade footages to HDR1000 to make much better images.

Of course a 1152-zone professional monitor still has blooming but HDR is the most accurate at that price range. You choose an OLED you will never see a more accurate HDR. Instead you just fool yourself saying the ABL/tonemapped SDR is enough. It's never enough as eyes can see a lot more.

Oh, I wanted HDR, and the HDR 1400 certification was certainly a selling point, along with being pre-calibrated tighter than the ROG line of monitors, the large amount of local dimming zones, high refresh rate, etc. Like I said, on paper, I thought it'd be the perfect monitor, but in the end it just ended up not being the right fit for me (along with the quality control issues, which certainly didn't help). I don't have the expertise, source files, time, or frankly interest in grading my own HDR. I simply wanted a great display to consume content, not to make it. And most of the HDR content I DO consume on the computer are games, which more often than not have adjustments for HDR and generally assume not everybody has HDR1000 anyways. I don't typically watch movies on the computer. So I'm not fooling myself. I know tone-mapping is a compromise and this will never get as bright as FALD; I accept that. But for excellent no-blooming SDR, perfect viewing angles, great motion, perfect black levels, and decent tone-mapped HDR, it's enough for now. It won't be for some people if they watch a lot of content graded at that higher end, and that's fine; they'd be better off with FALD, no question. As OLED or other technologies improve, I may want to upgrade when a higher brightness option with all these advantages is available, but there's simply no such thing right now. (And, with the money I saved over the ProArt, I'll have more budget if something like that does come down the line in a few years).

The main sticking point for me is, you keep trying to tell me I'd for sure be happier with a technology I already tried and wasn't as happy with. That's just subjective experience for you.

 

[AwesomeOwl]

You have 0 chance when I provide facts.

So when will you provide these facts?
I have provided a plethora of SUBSTANTIATED FACTS. You have disputed none of them. You haven't even tried, because you know you can't argue with the facts. All you have said and can say is "OLED more bad" because I'm telling THE TRUTH.

All you have is imagination while shilling on a 200nits OLED which can get wrecked by FALD SDR.

Yawn. You are the one blatantly and incessantly shilling FALD displays. You have not disputed any of the facts I have presented about neither OLED nor FALD, because I am telling THE TRUTH which obviously doesn't fit your narrative. You have literally only one actual argument that you are repeating ad nauseam (along with a bunch of nonsense from IMAGINATION LAND like in this quote) and that is that FALD is brighter. FALD is brighter than OLED, that is a fact. No one is disputing that.

Jacob Schwarz uses FALD to master HDR1000.

Literally who? Seems like his biggest gig was advertising a FALD display, which just proves my point. There is no reason that any professional colorist would use an Asus FALD monitor if they could afford to use an actual professional reference display like the Sony dual cell LCD.

 

[AwesomeOwl]

Funny I still remember this elvn guy didn't even fully understand contrast.

I like how you cut pieces of a few words from a review to drive the narrative that FALD LCD cannot be more accurate than OLED.

Can you even use whatever OLED you get to grade HDR1000 or HDR1400? It's obvious which one is more accurate.

Funny how you can literally not dispute anything in the "few" cherry-picked 1542 words he quoted from a respected review outlet.
Let me quote from their PG32UQX review:

"One thing we should note though is that while the PG32UQX is undoubtedly a better option for HDR gaming, it is not suitable for any kind of professional HDR content creation or anything that relies on high levels of accuracy. We explained this in detail in our LG 32EP950 review here, but the accuracy of content is always a problem with any kind of dynamic local dimming backlight like this. Sure, the PG32UQX can produce a very pleasing HDR experience for its intended usage and content consumption, but what it is not, is a reference HDR display or suitable for content creation. Obviously that is not the target market for this screen but it’s important to understand the limitations with true image accuracy when using any local dimming backlight."
Source: https://tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_rog_swift_pg32uqx

But yeah, they're probably OLED shills as well, right? You can't dispute their facts and it doesn't fit your narrative. Plus it's right there in the name of the site too...

 

[Xar]

The problems with OLEDs are just Brightness, Burn-in, Text Clarity, and Color Fringing. Everything else is perfect.

 

[Captain Newmackwa]

The problems with OLEDs are just Brightness, Burn-in, Text Clarity, and Color Fringing. Everything else is perfect.

This is exactly the reason why I only use my OLED for gaming and videos. For regular desktop usage, I stick with my trusty IPS.

 

[sgupta]

The problems with OLEDs are just Brightness, Burn-in, Text Clarity, and Color Fringing. Everything else is perfect.

This is exactly the reason why I only use my OLED for gaming and videos. For regular desktop usage, I stick with my trusty IPS.

Agreed on all of these.
For me, brightness is enough in a light-controlled environment (which I fortunately have), especially for SDR, but in my opinion with tone-mapping, also for HDR.

As far as Burn-In, we'll see. My very first OLED TV many years ago (an early LG model) developed Burn-In from Zelda: Breath of the Wild (heart bar in the upper left) as well as bugs from network TV's in the lower right, despite varying content a lot (maybe around a year in as far as ownership...could have been less), which is one of the reasons I went with a Sony FALD for my television the next time. I'm taking all the reasonable steps I can with my new OLED monitor (auto-hide taskbar, background switches daily, no desktop icons unless I'm working with them, fullscreen in the web when I think of it, monitor sleep after 5 minutes, and all the cleaning features on). That said, I'm not going to limit brightness or usage or not do the things I really want to do with it. So we'll see what happens. It seems people still disagree how much it is a problem nowadays; I see plenty of posts where people say with regular use, it shouldn't happen for years, and others saying it'll happen after a few months; I'm actually looking forward to finding out firsthand how much of a problem it is anymore.

Text Clarity I just don't have a problem with. For whatever reason, I don't find it any harder to work with text than on my old IPS (or the newer ones I tried for that matter). Dunno why - I see several people reporting unhappyness with text clarify, but if anything, I find this monitor easier on my eyes than the past one when working. Color fringing is sort of the same story. I see it if I look for it, or in a few specific cases can notice it when I'm not, but for whatever reason, I'm not sensitive to it. Obviously I'd prefer it didn't have any fringing, but as it's not something I notice frequently that bothers me, I consider it a worthwhile tradeoff for the things the monitor does super well. I know it drives some people crazy tho'.

 

[kramnelis]

So when will you provide these facts?
I have provided a plethora of SUBSTANTIATED FACTS. You have disputed none of them. You haven't even tried, because you know you can't argue with the facts. All you have said and can say is "OLED more bad" because I'm telling THE TRUTH.

Yawn. You are the one blatantly and incessantly shilling FALD displays. You have not disputed any of the facts I have presented about neither OLED nor FALD, because I am telling THE TRUTH which obviously doesn't fit your narrative. You have literally only one actual argument that you are repeating ad nauseam (along with a bunch of nonsense from IMAGINATION LAND like in this quote) and that is that FALD is brighter. FALD is brighter than OLED, that is a fact. No one is disputing that.

Literally who? Seems like his biggest gig was advertising a FALD display, which just proves my point. There is no reason that any professional colorist would use an Asus FALD monitor if they could afford to use an actual professional reference display like the Sony dual cell LCD.

Really funny people don't even know the professionals like Jacob Schwarz who makes some of the best HDR videos. You better check the his Youtube channel.

Back then I have already exposed Elvin doesn't understand contrast. He doesn't know how to read waveform while denying a higher contrast image right in front of his face.

Facts: OLED is a lot more inaccurate than FALD LCD on higher range. OLED is only accurate on a very limited range with a 200nits APL.

The inaccuracy of FALD is the pixels under limited dimming zones. The inaccuracy of OLED is all the pixels hit by ABL. Once the ABL kicks in, all the pixels loses brightness to cause a less accurate HDR presentation than FALD. You don't get the brightness, you don't get the accuracy either.

That's the most you can get on a consumer level OLED. You talk like you don't have dual cell LCD either. You talk like you just have a 200nit OLED that won't do anything in HDR. You won't see people using AW3423DW to grade HDR1000. They simply cannot do that in a more accurate way with FALD.

 

[kramnelis]

Funny how you can literally not dispute anything in the "few" cherry-picked 1542 words he quoted from a respected review outlet.
Let me quote from their PG32UQX review:

"One thing we should note though is that while the PG32UQX is undoubtedly a better option for HDR gaming, it is not suitable for any kind of professional HDR content creation or anything that relies on high levels of accuracy. We explained this in detail in our LG 32EP950 review here, but the accuracy of content is always a problem with any kind of dynamic local dimming backlight like this. Sure, the PG32UQX can produce a very pleasing HDR experience for its intended usage and content consumption, but what it is not, is a reference HDR display or suitable for content creation. Obviously that is not the target market for this screen but it’s important to understand the limitations with true image accuracy when using any local dimming backlight."
Source: https://tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_rog_swift_pg32uqx

But yeah, they're probably OLED shills as well, right? You can't dispute their facts and it doesn't fit your narrative. Plus it's right there in the name of the site too...

Funny PG32UQX is a gaming monitor. It has optimization to reduce blooming. PA32UCG is the one who do the accuracy even it has 1800nits single pixel highlight to create a larger bloom. These reviewers don't make HDR themselves. When they need to make HDR1000 they will still use PA32UCG at that price range. They won't use an OLED to do HDR1000 as there is none at that entry-level price. Or they just go dual-cell LCD if they are that serious.

 

[kramnelis]

The problems with OLEDs are just Brightness, Burn-in, Text Clarity, and Color Fringing. Everything else is perfect.

Brightness has far more impacts on HDR as it has up to 10,000nits. And HDR has better images. OLED is on the end of its wit on brightness. It is a SDR monitor compared to FALD HDR.

 

[kramnelis]

I know, right? It's completely beyond me! Laid mine flat, put some eggs and sausages on the matte finish, and kept it like that for 3 hours and they're STILL not cooked. I'm using torch mode, too! Can't imagine what I'm doing wrong. The manual doesn't even mention cooking times! =oP

10x brightness alone is rather meaningless when it does a poorer job in the areas I use it the most and the majority of the content I view doesn't need that level of brightness. With a better panel than I got in the lottery, there's no doubt the PA32UCG is a fantastic monitor. But for my uses, it had too many drawbacks/downsides, especially for its premium price. Subjective experience matters, and despite the impressive technicals of the ProArt, OLED is better suited in the areas that matter most to me at a fraction of the price, and I truthfully have a better day-to-day experience with it.

A perfect monitor doesn't exist. What you can get is a monitor that is made for each specific purpose. And some purpose is more important such as delivering better images at higher range as eyes can see a lot more.

The way you compare both at sRGB don't do anything about how FALD can display much better images than OLED outside limited range. People will think OLED is better at HDR but it is in fact the content such as sRGB doesn't show the potentials of FALD.

 

[AwesomeOwl]

Really funny people don't even know the professionals like Jacob Schwarz who makes some of the best HDR videos. You better check the his Youtube channel.

Really funny that I said this earlier in the thread:

Maybe youtube creators will use FALD, lol.

Actual professional colorists don't.

Facts: OLED is a lot more inaccurate than FALD LCD on higher range.

Neither is accurate enough for serious work in bright material. FALD never being accurate enough for serious work in any range.

The inaccuracy of FALD is the pixels under limited dimming zones.

Yes, and that would be all pixels on the display. FALD can only be truly accurate on large uniform test slides.

The inaccuracy of OLED is all the pixels hit by ABL. Once the ABL kicks in, all the pixels loses brightness to cause a less accurate HDR presentation than FALD. You don't get the brightness, you don't get the accuracy either.

At least the OLED can be accurate with certain material. You never get real accuracy with any image on a FALD display, except on test slides. Why are you so happy with settling on 1000 nits anyway? Because it fits your narrative. Your display can't even be used to grade SDR.

You won't see people using AW3423DW to grade HDR1000. They simply cannot do that in a more accurate way with FALD.

I shouldn't be seeing anyone attempt to grade anything on a FALD display either, but the world is full of idiots, so here we are...

Funny PG32UQX is a gaming monitor.

And?

It has optimization to reduce blooming.

Yeah?

PA32UCG is the one who do the accuracy even it has 1800nits single pixel highlight to create a larger bloom.

Doesn't change the point of the quote. FALD is not suitable for content creation. Accurate is not something they can do.

These reviewers don't make HDR themselves.

Lol? How is it relevant?

When they need to make HDR1000 they will still use PA32UCG at that price range. They won't use an OLED to do HDR1000 as there is none at that entry-level price.

Funny you bring price into it now, because I've seen you downplay it in other threads when it comes to the Asus monitor and it's $3000 price tag vs other FALD monitors and OLED. You want the best monitor right? So price should be no issue.

Or they just go dual-cell LCD if they are that serious.

Exactly. The only reason to use a FALD display is if you're not doing serious work, and thus can't afford to invest in proper equipment or hire people who have proper equipment. You're right, FALD displays are perfect for youtube content creators...

 

[kramnelis]

Really funny that I said this earlier in the thread:

Actual professional colorists don't.

Neither is accurate enough for serious work in bright material. FALD never being accurate enough for serious work in any range.

Yes, and that would be all pixels on the display. FALD can only be truly accurate on large uniform test slides.

At least the OLED can be accurate with certain material. You never get real accuracy with any image on a FALD display, except on test slides. Why are you so happy with settling on 1000 nits anyway? Because it fits your narrative. Your display can't even be used to grade SDR.

I shouldn't be seeing anyone attempt to grade anything on a FALD display either, but the world is full of idiots, so here we are...


Doesn't change the point of the quote. FALD is not suitable for content creation. Accurate is not something they can do.


Funny you bring price into it now, because I've seen you downplay it in other threads when it comes to the Asus monitor and it's $3000 price tag vs other FALD monitors and OLED. You want the best monitor right? So price should be no issue.

Exactly. The only reason to use a FALD display is if you're not doing serious work, and thus can't afford to invest in proper equipment or hire people who have proper equipment. You're right, FALD displays are perfect for youtube content creators...

So Jacob Schwarz is an idiot now because he uses FALD like PA32UCX and PA32UCG? I tell you there are a lot professionals.









Prove me wrong if you can do more serious work than the one who made some of the best HDR videos by using FALD . You don't talk like you have dual-layer LCD. You don't talk like you can use your OLED to grade HDR 1000. Go buy the dual-layer LCD as it is always an available option other than a 200nits OLED.

Of course FALD LCD is not as accurate compared to a $50,000 dual-layer LCD. But it is far more accurate than a 200nits OLED with 5X more range to deliver better and realistic images.

Funny FALD is already commercialized for content creation such as HDR1,000. It's the OLED still cannot be.

You should realize you are downplaying OLED accuracy by saying FALD is not accurate while OLED is even worse than FALD on the actual HDR.

 

[AwesomeOwl]

So Jacob Schwarz is an idiot now because he uses FALD like PA32UCX and PA32UCG? I tell you there are a lot professionals.

LOL
But they are not finishing material on FALD displays. Why on earth would they? They obviously have budgets when they're shooting on $60k cameras. They were even using the Sony BVM-X300 back in 2016. (https://www.mysterybox.us/post/new-standard-new-hardware)
They might use them on set cause they're so cheap that they're practically disposable, and obviously easier to lug around.
You are really gullible. People get paid to promote things. It's not a new concept.

Of course FALD LCD is not as accurate compared to a $50,000 dual-layer LCD. But it is far more accurate than a 200nits OLED with 5X more range to deliver better and realistic images.

FALD displays are not accurate, period.

Funny FALD is already commercialized for content creation such as HDR1,000. It's the OLED still cannot be.

Did you suddenly forget about those OLED reference monitors?

You should realize you are downplaying OLED accuracy by saying FALD is not accurate while OLED is even worse than FALD on the actual HDR.

You are the one constantly comparing FALD to OLED because you can't accept that FALD displays have serious shortcomings that make them completely unsuitable for any work requiring any form of accuracy.

 

[kramnelis]

LOL
But they are not finishing material on FALD displays. Why on earth would they? They obviously have budgets when they're shooting on $60k cameras. They were even using the Sony BVM-X300 back in 2016. (https://www.mysterybox.us/post/new-standard-new-hardware)
They might use them on set cause they're so cheap that they're practically disposable, and obviously easier to lug around.
You are really gullible. People get paid to promote things. It's not a new concept.

FALD displays are not accurate, period.

Funny you just said people who use FALD are idiots.

It's enough a proof that FALD can be used for professional work even on the fly. You won't see them use a 200nits OLED on set.

Again, you are downplaying OLED accuracy by saying FALD is not accurate. A 200nits OLED has much worse accuracy than FALD on the actual HDR.

 

[vick1000]

This guy yelling everything was frustrating to watch. Then he keeps repeating the same points over and over. So nobody else has to watch this crap, here's a summary:

• Likes the 360 Hz LCD best for eSports because of the higher refresh rate and how it feels to play with a locked 359 fps.
• Neo G8 best for single player games and likes the HDR brightness. Less responsive for eSports games when local dimming is used.
• LG 1440p OLED is good as an overall option for single/multiplayer games and not having to buy a more powerful GPU like you would need with the 4K Neo G8.
• Feels the LG 1440p OLED is too dim.

I don't disagree with those points. Cannot say about brightness as I haven't used the LG 1440p. I just really, really hate "YouTube personalities".

With the brightness comparison, he's docking the LG for having an accurate image, while praising the G8 when it's a blurry washed out mess. You can't even tell what's in the center of the screen on the G8, it's just a blob of light. Stupid. These are the HDR fanbois, who don't realize HDR is a marketing gimmick that has not been properly standardized or encoded in 90% of content, just so manufacturers have another logo to slap on a box. "My monitor is blinding me, it must be HDR, that's so cool." nevermind you can't make out a single detail in the blinding blob of crap on your screen.

 

[AwesomeOwl]

Funny you just said people who use FALD are idiots.

It's enough a proof that FALD can be used for professional work even on the fly. You won't see them use a 200nits OLED on set.

Lmao now THIS is what I would call moving goal posts. You're absolutely hilarious. You'll twist anything to fit your narrative no matter how little sense it makes. However I do accept your concession that FALD displays are not used to grade HDR by professionals.
Check out this clip of your personal god saying how FALD displays are not usable for finishing:

You won't see them use a 200nits OLED on set.

You will. Maybe not these guys.

Again, you are downplaying OLED accuracy by saying FALD is not accurate. A 200nits OLED has much worse accuracy than FALD on the actual HDR.

Yawn. You still can't dispute anything I say so you just try to twist things. Very boring, but I guess it's the only thing you're capable of. That, and expanding "SDR 80 nits" youtube videos to glorious HDR on you inaccurate FALD display, LOL.

 

[vick1000]

I don't have to speculate because I can speak from experience. I've owned three different OLED televisions for PC-use and gaming, beginning 5 years ago. I'm not breaking any new frontiers but rather simply followed what the owners said versus random clickbait articles on the internet about burn-in. On that note, suggesting you have to use OLED on minimum brightness to play games sounds like you've really bought into the FUD. Over a dozen thousand hours of gaming on all the sets I've owned at max brightness, and not a single hint of burn-in (which is how I was able to resell my first couple OLED displays for a good price).

I'm not saying OLED is perfect, but I feel you're definitely misrepresenting the danger of burn-in or at the very least contradicts my experience as well as what I've observed from the owner's threads. I do feel OLED offers superior picture quality with the possibility of burn-in in-mind.

EDIT: After having read everything you've said in this thread, you sound completely hyperbolic and completely at odds which the average owner's experience. But hey, I suppose everyone has preferences. You sound like you're caught up in the brightness war, and it almost sounds like you actually think image quality is purely dependent on peak brightness.


I wonder if I'm the only one who've always hid their taskbar? Never felt the need for a giant bar across the bottom of the screen taking up valuable screen space just to remind me of the programs that I already know are open. It's looks tacky.

Nope, I always hide mine, rather see my nce background image or more app frankly.

 

[kramnelis]

Lmao now THIS is what I would call moving goal posts. You're absolutely hilarious. You'll twist anything to fit your narrative no matter how little sense it makes. However I do accept your concession that FALD displays are not used to grade HDR by professionals.
Check out this clip of your personal god saying how FALD displays are not usable for finishing:


You will. Maybe not these guys.

Yawn. You still can't dispute anything I say so you just try to twist things. Very boring, but I guess it's the only thing you're capable of. That, and expanding "SDR 80 nits" youtube videos to glorious HDR on you inaccurate FALD display, LOL.

I like how you post a link to shoot yourself in the own foot. The video you show is the HDR workflow. You just post a link and think you are smart without seeing what they exactly talked about. They actually talked about the part of how to make HDR on things you can buy such as a laptop lol.

2 years ago there is already PA32UCX. They can use it in the production. One thing for sure is that they won't use a dim 200nits OLED for HDR1000 production.

Again, you are downplaying OLED accuracy by saying FALD is not accurate. You won't see them use a 200nits consumer OLED anywhere because 200nits OLED has much worse accuracy than FALD on the actual HDR.

The truth is always that simple: OLED has worse images at HDR with worse accuracy. This is why professionals can use FALD for HDR1000 instead of using a dim OLED.

This one use PA32UCX as well. Funny you won't see any of them, which you see as idiots, use an 200nits OLED for HDR 1000.





The list keeps going on. You won't be able to do anything with your 200nits OLED close to the level they did with FALD.

 

[AwesomeOwl]

Is it though? The video you show is the HDR workflow.

2 years ago there is already PA32UCX. They can use it in the production. One thing for sure is that they won't use a dim 200nits OLED for HDR production.

Again, you are downplaying OLED accuracy by saying FALD is not accurate. You won't see them use a 200nits consumer OLED anywhere because 200nits OLED has much worse accuracy than FALD on the actual HDR.

The truth is always that simple: OLED has worse images at HDR with worse accuracy. This is why professionals can use FALD for HDR1000 instead of using a dim OLED.

This one use PA32UCX as well. Funny you won't see any of them, which you see as idiots, use an 200nits OLED for HDR 1000.





The list keeps going on. You won't be able to do anything with your 200nits OLED close to the level they did with FALD.

Incredible. An even more boring post with even less originality, and still you haven't disputed any of my points. All you can say is "MORE BRIGHT MORE BETTER" while completely ignoring all the shortcomings that come with that. YOU are the one that claimed that pros use FALD displays for finishing serious work. Do you never get bored of spamming the same old garbage?
I don't speak chinese so I have absolutely no idea what you're getting at with these videos. Hilarious none the less.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

I don't know all of the technical details... but as far as HDR accuracy goes... OLED Seems to be doing alright, at least according to RTINGs

LG G2:

Vs Samsungs MiniLED QN95

I didn't now much about PQ EOTF and I still don't but I understand a bit of it... and this is a quick summary from RTINGS:
In HDR, the PQ Electro-Optical Transfer Function, or EOTF for short, is the mathematical function that a TV uses to convert the digital signal encoded in the content you're watching into brightness. In short, it converts the 1s and 0s that define how bright a scene should be into the actual light output on the screen. Measuring how well a TV tracks the PQ EOTF is another objective way to measure how well the TV displays HDR content.

 

[kramnelis]

Incredible. An even more boring post with even less originality, and still you haven't disputed any of my points. All you can say is "MORE BRIGHT MORE BETTER" while completely ignoring all the shortcomings that come with that. YOU are the one that claimed that pros use FALD displays for finishing serious work. Do you never get bored of spamming the same old garbage?
I don't speak chinese so I have absolutely no idea what you're getting at with these videos. Hilarious none the less.

Better check the video you post yourself.

I like how you post a link to shoot yourself in the own foot. The video you show is the HDR workflow. You just post a link and think you are smart without seeing what they exactly talked about. They actually talked about the part of how to make HDR on things you can buy such as a laptop lol.

Again, you are downplaying OLED accuracy by saying FALD is not accurate. 200nits OLED has much worse accuracy than FALD on the actual HDR.

With a PA32UCG, people can already make HDR1000. You are really stuck in the past.

 

[AwesomeOwl]

Better check the video you post yourself.

I like how you post a link to shoot yourself in the own foot. The video you show is the HDR workflow. You just post a link and think you are smart without seeing what they exactly talked about. They actually talked about the part of how to make HDR on things you can buy such as a laptop lol.

Since your ears apparently don't work, I'll transcribe the relevant part (which is at the time stamp where the video starts):
"there are some limitations to the xdr display that would not be the best for doing your final finishing on because there is obviously some blooming issues with the number of zones that the monitor has"
Not that this guy is in any way shape or form a guru on this stuff lol...

This discussion was never about a certain technology never being used anywhere in a production workflow. Edge lit LCDs are used in production workflow. It doesn't mean anything. You're either being deliberately obtuse or...

 

[kramnelis]

I don't know all of the technical details... but as far as HDR accuracy goes... OLED Seems to be doing alright, at least according to RTINGs

LG G2:

View attachment 549619View attachment 549628

Vs Samsungs MiniLED QN95
View attachment 549629View attachment 549630



I didn't now much about PQ EOTF and I still don't but I understand a bit of it... and this is a quick summary from RTINGS:
In HDR, the PQ Electro-Optical Transfer Function, or EOTF for short, is the mathematical function that a TV uses to convert the digital signal encoded in the content you're watching into brightness. In short, it converts the 1s and 0s that define how bright a scene should be into the actual light output on the screen. Measuring how well a TV tracks the PQ EOTF is another objective way to measure how well the TV displays HDR content.

PQ EOTF is tested without ABL. It doesn't mean a lot on how a monitor can sustain brightness on larger window size.

It's a balance between the PQ EOTF and ABL to deliver the final brightness.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

PQ EOTF is tested without ABL. It doesn't mean a lot on how a monitor can sustain brightness on larger window size.

It's a balance between the PQ EOTF and ABL to deliver the final brightness.

That is incorrect, on that review, ABL is active.

 

[kramnelis]

Since your ears apparently don't work, I'll transcribe the relevant part (which is at the time stamp where the video starts):
"there are some limitations to the xdr display that would not be the best for doing your final finishing on because there is obviously some blooming issues with the number of zones that the monitor has"
Not that this guy is in any way shape or form a guru on this stuff lol...

This discussion was never about a certain technology never being used anywhere in a production workflow. Edge lit LCDs are used in production workflow. It doesn't mean anything. You're either being deliberately obtuse or...

Since you shoot yourself in the own foot with a link you post. The important part they are taking about is how to make more HDR with things you can buy. As I already said you can buy dual-layer LCD immediately if you want as it is available for a long time.

Again, you are downplaying OLED accuracy by saying FALD is not accurate. You cannot deny the fact 200nits OLED has much worse accuracy than FALD on the actual HDR. You cannot deny the fact they use FALD for HDR1000. You cannot deny the fact you call them idiots with FALD while it is obvious you cannot do any HDR work with your OLED. You expose yourself well enough.

 

[SoCali]

I'm proud to take part in the greatest and most obnoxious hardforum thread in history.

It gets better and better every day.

 

[kramnelis]

That is not correct, on that review, ABL is active.

ABL cannot be turned off completely on any OLED or you should see full-filed 1000nits as bright as FALD LCD. And there will be tons of burn-in. PQ EOTF is tested on a very small window.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

ABL cannot be turned off completely on any OLED or you should see full-filed 1000nits as bright as FALD LCD. And there will be tons of burn-in. PQ EOTF is tested on a very small window.

Not sure where you get your info, but I am simply going by their test results and what they mention. Your word, no offense holds less weight. On their review, OLED is far more accurate in displaying HDR than Samsung's near best and more expensive non-OLED offering.

https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/picture-quality/pq-eotf#test_13904 More info for you

the best showing seems to be QD-OLED here, and in their page, it shows a full screen test.

 

[kramnelis]

Not sure where you get your info, but I am simply going by their test results and what they mention. Your word, no offense holds less weight. On their review, OLED is far more accurate in displaying HDR than Samsung's near best and more expensive offering.

EOTF combined with ABL just prove the point.

I never said Samsung TV has that much accuracy on EOTF. It raises the EOTF to pop.

When there is content needs 25% windows 1000nits, Samsung still has 1000nits. It is more accurate than OLED because OLED already drops to 380nits.

 

[AwesomeOwl]

Since you shoot yourself in the own foot with a link you post.

You already said that. Repeating things doesn't make them true, but unfortunately it is a classic and effective propaganda tool...

The important part they are taking about is how to make more HDR with things you can buy.

Nope. That isn't the important part. The important part was that FALD monitors are bad for finishing because they're inherently inaccurate. That is a fact.

As I already said you can buy dual-layer LCD immediately if you want as it is available for a long time.

You said that where? Please point me to the post. It is true. No one will deny that.

Again, you are downplaying OLED accuracy by saying FALD is not accurate.

I am? Where? I am merely telling the truth.

You cannot deny the fact 200nits OLED has much worse accuracy than FALD on the actual HDR.

FALD is not accurate on any material except test slides. That is an undeniable truth. You have had plenty of time and opportunities to try to dispute it but you haven't even attempted. Why do you want to make everything about FALD vs. OLED?

You cannot deny the fact they use FALD for HDR1000.

True. But I have never seen any evidence of any professionals colorists using FALD displays for grading.

You cannot deny the fact the you call them idiots with FALD while it is obvious you cannot do any HDR work with your OLED.

I won't deny that I think that any person that uses a FALD display for grading serious work is an idiot. I don't do any grading on my OLED, no. I'm not a professional colorist. Neither are you.

You expose yourself well enough.

LOL. LMAO even.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

EOTF combined with ABL just prove the point.

I never said Samsung TV has that much accuracy on EOTF. It raises the EOTF to pop.

When there is content needs 25% windows 1000nits, Samsung still has 1000nits. It is more accurate than OLED because OLED already drops to 380nits.

I'm using what they have to compare feel free to show some data to back up what you're saying. I looked through various monitor reviews there as well, and pretty much all NON-OLED displays seem to overshoot HDR. With the exception of a few.

 

[elvn]

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

In HDR material you'd see that all of the time, but usually in smaller %'s of the screen as scenes are typically a mixture of different levels - plus the top end compressed down from HDR 1000, 4000, 10k to within your screen's peaks as the case may be. The top end is usually not the whole screen or even 50% of the screen, nor throughout all the time in dynamic media and games.

For example, the samsung QD-OLED TV, as per RTings:

Peaks: 2% = 1028 nit, 10% = 1036 nit. 25% = 592 nit
Sustained: 2% = 1,002 nit, 10% = 997 nit , 25% = 575 nit

Those percentages would fall pretty well into HDR 1000 curve scene's typical content mixture %'s of the screen wise in relative fashion. Brightest light sources >> highlights/glinting/scintillation >>brighter mids >> standard brightness range of the bulk of the scene. 50% full brights is worse and 100% bull brights is even worse obviously at 290nit and 210nit but that's not as common or as often scene wise and even when so not necessarily for long in dynamic scenes and in regular HDR 1000 curve heat maps in dynamic content. The ABL is a factor but again not triggered as obnoxiously as some claim since the scenes/cameras~camera angles are typically changing often in media cinematography and game virtual cinematography . . and especially in game's mouse look, movement keying and controller panning. While that qd oled has absolutely made some appreciable nit gains on percentages of the screen, those are still major tradeoffs on the oled end though for sure I'm not disputing that - but like tftcentral said, oled makes up for it in it's per pixel emissive display.

Modern OLED like that QD-OLED has simmering normal % of scene along with larger intermittent areas of brighter warmth (~400 to 600nit) along with some appreciably bright flares of highlights/light sources up to over 1000nit in small %'s (10%, 2%) . . and importantly down to detail in darks and down to ultra blacks detail wise - down to the pixel level side by side, razor's edge. If the scene is brighter than it's limitations for too long ABL will trigger but it's not happening throughout in regular curves that obnoxiously often, as scenes in media and games tend to be very dynamic and normal curves's lows and mids in most scenes are large portions of the screen that aren't boosted that high and for that long. Meanwhile FALD has a ~ 45 x 25 lighting resolution of an ice cube tray of much brighter and more sustained spotlights of 7,000 pixels (4k) to 15,000 pixels (8k) each that can be large dim cells alternately .. . that affect each other like jumbo text sub-sampling with spill-over and toning brighter/lower on surrounding large cells than it should be in large areas.

How often

This gets to the heart of things I think. From what I've gathered the thing is that Kram stretches/filters HDR curves into his own curves he applies, lifts all the top lows and the mids like a torch mode. That's his contrast increase, moving the normal color curve goal posts to his own distorted ones. He's said that the default hdr curves are inadequate and made for hdr1000 and less screens most people have rather than his 1400nit one - but he'd likely throw that same kind of curveball to the top lows and the mids on a HDR 4,000 or HDR 10,000 capable game's curve vs default screen mapping on those kind of screens too if he had them.. That's fine if it's what he likes, and it can look pleasing sort of like a "HDR reshade" bump on a very bright FALD - but it's not accurate, it's just stretched/inflated/bulged. That may be being applied to objects and unknown object properties, large and small areas with unknown conditions, and scenes whose levels wouldn't necessarily accurately look lifted like that IRL or by creator's intent. It's a shaped filter so it's operating blind of what the content and scene is and what the content's properties are IRL or what they are virtually representing. It's his own custom look like someone' favorite reshade settings. Additionally, 7000 pixels to 15,000 pixels per fald zone + offsetting and toning multiple surrounding fald zones x 7k - 15k each all of the time is never going to accurate to begin with as has been evidenced many times in the thread already.

The ucg is a good screen and has more pop to HDR for sure just by the numbers, and long sustained periods on particular scenes that are overall exceptionally bright on default curves. . (especially when faced with cinematography and gameplay that isn't changing the scene dynamically as soon, though that is less common throughout). That should look pleasing for sure. And imo it would be a better static desktop/app monitor than an oled, where I would use an oled for dynamic media and gaming. I never said it was a bad screen, just that both types of screen tech have major tradeoffs and major gains separate from each other. Like when I said "pick your poison, but know that both cups are poisoned."

I'm proud to take part in the greatest and most obnoxious hardforum thread in history.

It gets better and better every day.

Just follow any major thread dialogue Kram is in and you'll see similar.

Kramnelis. . he knows better than dolby, and better than TFTCentral .. /s . . " a few words from A review" .. probably one of the top monitor reviewing sites if not the top monitor reviewing site, known for very detailed technical reviews dissecting screens and known for being very honest about it.

When faced with the actual factual import and impact of the tradeoffs of fald, or any technical topic of debate or discussion for that matter really, he'll often fall back to more enraged sounding personal attacks on individuals themselves. He's done so multiple times to multiple people in this thread and others. It's his m.o. You know that someone is hard pressed when they swing wildly like that at the person rather than the facts. It's one of the logical fallacies, ad hominem. He actually employs several of them. While no-one is immune to falling into some of those traps from time to time, I try not to fall prey to that so I usually try not to focus on the person so much for that reason but I will say that facts and opinions on performance of screen types aside (he's brought up some interesting data at times) - I find his character questionable. At least I personally find that his online persona is kind of toxic.

 

[kramnelis]

Nope. That isn't the important part. The important part was that FALD monitors are bad for finishing because they're inherently inaccurate. That is a fact.

FALD is not accurate on any material except test slides. That is an undeniable truth. You have had plenty of time and opportunities to try to dispute it but you haven't even attempted. Why do you want to make everything about FALD vs. OLED?

True. But I have never seen any evidence of any professionals colorists using FALD displays for grading.

I won't deny that I think that any person that uses a FALD display for grading serious work is an idiot. I don't do any grading on my OLED, no. I'm not a professional colorist. Neither are you.

With FALD people can already make some of the best HDR1000 on Youtube.





Still, OLED has much worse accuracy than FALD on the actual HDR.

All you do is just downplay the OLED accuracy by saying FALD cannot do very serious HDR work.

Of course FALD LCD cannot do as good as dual-layer LCD but it does much better than whatever OLED you have. That's why the professional use it. Yet you call them idiots. You are so exposed.

 

[kramnelis]

I'm using what they have to compare feel free to show some data to back up what you're saying. I looked through various monitor reviews there as well, and pretty much all NON-OLED displays seem to overshoot HDR. With the exception of a few.

The data you show is enough. OLED get hit by ABL, it loses 3X brightness that results in a even worse contrast.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

The data you show is enough. OLED get hit by ABL, it loses 3X brightness that results in a even worse contrast.

and 50% more accurate at displaying HDR content.