1080p HDR image better than 4k non HDR ?

[orangpelupa]

http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/uh9500
holy shit! even the most expensive LED IPS 4K HDR TV from LG have similar contrast ratio with the cheapest model! (only around 1000-1300:1)

stay away from IPS panel guys/girls. It have shitty contrast ratio. So shitty, the black never looks black.

 

[BRiT]

Hopefully there will be something available for us Plasma owners to upgrade to within the next couple years. It still isn't looking that well for us.

 

[orangpelupa]

Hopefully there will be something available for us Plasma owners to upgrade to within the next couple years. It still isn't looking that well for us.

Maybe a brighter oled in the future.

 

[Aaron Elfassy]

I have a 65 inch panasonic dx800, with only 4 horizontal local dimming areas, and it does work well. The ansi contrast is 4000:1 and does well extremely well in all scenarios, except for scenes bathed in darkness with small highlights. For example a cave scene that's lit by a flashlight. A native contrast of 20000:1 is needed for the real stuff. The dx900 and Sony zd9 are the only capable displays for now.

 

[Aaron Elfassy]

Anybody got a problem where HDR mode have crushed whites? And generally too much contrast?

I have tried fiddling with the brightness and contrast option but it's still crushing the whites.

And also inconsistent backlight?

Probably because my TV doesn't have local dimming so it simply dim the whole screen on dark scenes and brighten in daylight scenes?

It did it smoothly enough tho. So no jarring changes.

But my eyes felt like burning with so many shiny outdoor gameplay in FFXV.

Crushed whites are due to the display's port tone mapping of the hdr Metadata to your display's low native contrast. Ensure dynamic contrast is disabled to avoid clipping whites. Unfortunately nearly all edge lit displays clip whites in hdr, with the exception of panasonic

 

[mrcorbo]

http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/uh9500
holy shit! even the most expensive LED IPS 4K HDR TV from LG have similar contrast ratio with the cheapest model! (only around 1000-1300:1)

stay away from IPS panel guys/girls. It have shitty contrast ratio. So shitty, the black never looks black.

LG's LCDs seem universally unimpressive to me.

 

[mrcorbo]

Hopefully there will be something available for us Plasma owners to upgrade to within the next couple years. It still isn't looking that well for us.

As much as I would prefer a technology to emerge that wasn't so inherently flawed, there has been so much engineering thrown at mitigating the weaknesses of LCD that the pros are finally starting to outweigh the cons. And I think LCD has an inherent advantage in real-world HDR performance that I don't think OLED will be able to match in the near future. Because of this, at the point 4K and HDR finally become mainstream, I expect LCDs will be the best-performing displays to show them.

 

[orangpelupa]

Crushed whites are due to the display's port tone mapping of the hdr Metadata to your display's low native contrast. Ensure dynamic contrast is disabled to avoid clipping whites. Unfortunately nearly all edge lit displays clip whites in hdr, with the exception of panasonic

so they clipped it instead of scaling it

SDR looks much better in this TV than HDR

 

[orangpelupa]

LG's LCDs seem universally unimpressive to me.

their TV is littered with shitty IPS. only a few of them use VA and OLED

 

[London Geezer]

Maybe a brighter oled in the future.

OLED is already more than bright enough for now, especially compared to top of the line LCD.

Remember that the cd/m2/nits line is not linear: 100 nits is only one stop of brightness from 1000 nits - this means 1000 is only double as bright as 100. And 1000 nits is only half as bright as 10000 nits.
The numbering can be a bit confusing as one would think that a TV with a peak brightness of 2000 is double as bright as one at 1000 nits, which is very wrong. This is also why people who are worried that 10000 nits will burn their eyes need not worry, as it's really not that bright compared to many other things we look at every day that are illuminated by the sun. Unless you're in the UK, then everything has that cloudy kind of glow to it that makes everything sooooo fun.

So the difference between some of the best LCDs at 1000nits and the latest OLED at 700nits is a tiny fraction of a stop - off top of my head, 1000 nits is only 14% brighter than 700 nits. Under normal viewing conditions (ie when you're not comparing sets side by side) it's extremely unlikely anyone will ever actually notice the difference.

Yet at the same time, OLEDs have a few stops of darkness to play with, as 0.0001 nits might look like it's not too far from 0.01 nit but it's a whole two stops of brightness - huge. And OLED can get that dark in the same frame as it can also get 700 nits of brightness. With LCDs there is always a trade off, and FALD aren't really perfect as we all know.

This is why it's much more important to know how many stops the set can cover - and the OLED covers a lot more stops than any LCD can ever do, in the same frame - than the peak brightness alone. Which is why everyone raves about the contrast ratio and 'pop' of OLED images.

Now, having said that, I will still most likely wait for the next wave of OLEDs before I buy one. When did I become so boring and conservative??

 

[orangpelupa]

OLED is already more than bright enough for now, especially compared to top of the line LCD.

Remember that the cd/m2/nits line is not linear: 100 nits is only one stop of brightness from 1000 nits - this means 1000 is only double as bright as 100. And 1000 nits is only half as bright as 10000 nits.
The numbering can be a bit confusing as one would think that a TV with a peak brightness of 2000 is double as bright as one at 1000 nits, which is very wrong. This is also why people who are worried that 10000 nits will burn their eyes need not worry, as it's really not that bright compared to many other things we look at every day that are illuminated by the sun. Unless you're in the UK, then everything has that cloudy kind of glow to it that makes everything sooooo fun.

So the difference between some of the best LCDs at 1000nits and the latest OLED at 700nits is a tiny fraction of a stop - off top of my head, 1000 nits is only 14% brighter than 700 nits. Under normal viewing conditions (ie when you're not comparing sets side by side) it's extremely unlikely anyone will ever actually notice the difference.

Yet at the same time, OLEDs have a few stops of darkness to play with, as 0.0001 nits might look like it's not too far from 0.01 nit but it's a whole two stops of brightness - huge. And OLED can get that dark in the same frame as it can also get 700 nits of brightness. With LCDs there is always a trade off, and FALD aren't really perfect as we all know.

This is why it's much more important to know how many stops the set can cover - and the OLED covers a lot more stops than any LCD can ever do, in the same frame - than the peak brightness alone. Which is why everyone raves about the contrast ratio and 'pop' of OLED images.

Now, having said that, I will still most likely wait for the next wave of OLEDs before I buy one. When did I become so boring and conservative??

But lg oled only goes to 100 to 200 nits sustained. The 700 nits is only for short periods of time or only when it lit up small portions of the screen

 

[London Geezer]

But lg oled only goes to 100 to 200 nits sustained. The 700 nits is only for short periods of time or only when it lit up small portions of the screen

The LG OLED do have an overly aggressive limiter in place for full screen white (one of the reasons why I'm not buying one now, it doesn't need to be that strong). One simply does not need a 1000 nits of full white, especially because when most of the screen is white, if a small portion of the screen is black, then to our eyes it will always look pitch black anyway. The advantages of HDR and high brightness is really in the ratio between that and darker areas, which usually means under 25% (a whole quarter of the screen in highlights is a lot!).

HDR is not about super brightness. It's about the ratio of super bright to the super blacks, and everything in between.

Personally I just don't like that auto brightness limiter, but this table helps a lot:

http://uk.rtings.com/tv/tests/picture-quality/peak-brightness

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Even 'half as bright' 100 nits versus 1000 nits is in real terms a perceived brightness difference of about 10%, as brightness perception is logarithmic. Side by side, a white 100 Nits screen will look like 90% white on a 1000 nits screen. But compared to everything else on display, as long as there's nothing brighter in the viewing environment and the eyes are properly adjusted to the brightness of the display (so suitable ambient light), it's all about the contrast.

The only time max brightness comes into play where the viewing environment can't be controlled is when operating below at the eyes' minimum sensitivity, with pupil wide open. I don't know what the brightness of that is, but 100 Nits shouldn't be it.

Take any mobile device you have and whack up its brightness full in bright sunlight and see how crap it is. That's 100 nits or a 1000 nits or 10 nits - whatever, it'll be a lousy number. Then turn the same mobile device on at night in a black room and it'll burn your eyes out with its brightness, and you'll quickly be reaching for controls to turn it down to minimum. As long as screens are capable of being that bright in a dark viewing environment, they're capable of being HDR in experience, though not as conveniently as brighter displays that can be viewed in bright environments/daylight.

 

[London Geezer]

The problem is that the LCD technology only allows manufacturers to keep pushing up the brightness, without any help for the darker areas of the screen - in fact they can get even worse than they already are, because the backlight is pushing so much more light through. You lose a few stops of darkness, for fractions of stops in brightness. So the OLED might not be able to get 100% of the info that is coded to HDR 1000+ by a few percentage points, but LCD can never get the info encoded in the darker places, and the difference there is in orders of magnitude.

 

[mrcorbo]

As long as screens are capable of being that bright in a dark viewing environment, they're capable of being HDR in experience, though not as conveniently as brighter displays that can be viewed in bright environments/daylight.

My issue is, why pay a significant premium for a display with that caveat? There was a time when the advantage that LCD had in bright environments vs competing technologies of the day were not enough to offset it's weaknesses in other areas. Now, with all of the supporting technologies in place to shore up those weaknesses, I don't believe that's the case anymore.

 

[London Geezer]

My issue is, why pay a significant premium for a display with that caveat? There was a time when the advantage that LCD had in bright environments vs competing technologies of the day were not enough to offset it's weaknesses in other areas. Now, with all of the supporting technologies in place to shore up those weaknesses, I don't believe that's the case anymore.

The premium is quite high. OLED is still a super high end product.

 

[fehu]

The Sony X800D looks fine and relatively cheap, but is US only, someone knows the europian equivalent model?

 

[mrcorbo]

The problem is that the LCD technology only allows manufacturers to keep pushing up the brightness, without any help for the darker areas of the screen - in fact they can get even worse than they already are, because the backlight is pushing so much more light through. You lose a few stops of darkness, for fractions of stops in brightness. So the OLED might not be able to get 100% of the info that is coded to HDR 1000+ by a few percentage points, but LCD can never get the info encoded in the darker places, and the difference there is in orders of magnitude.

FALD helps tremendously with a lot of content. I'm not sure LCDs will ever be able to do a star field or night sky justice, but it can do a credible job with other scenes.

 

[mrcorbo]

The Sony X800D looks fine and relatively cheap, but is US only, someone knows the europian equivalent model?

6.5/10 Peak Brightness

Peak 2% Window
: 374.5 cd/m2
Peak 10% Window
: 375 cd/m2
Peak 25% Window
: 374 cd/m2
Peak 50% Window
: 375.4 cd/m2
Peak 100% Window
: 375.1 cd/m2
Sustained 2% Window
: 374.5 cd/m2
Sustained 10% Window
: 375 cd/m2
Sustained 25% Window
: 374 cd/m2
Sustained 50% Window
: 375.4 cd/m2
Sustained 100% Window
: 375.1 cd/m2

 

[London Geezer]

FALD helps tremendously with a lot of content. I'm not sure LCDs will ever be able to do a star field or night sky justice, but it can do a credible job with other scenes.

It helps but FALD screens also come at a premium, and if I were to jump ship I'd rather pay that premium for OLED (if they fix that aggressive auto limiter).