lol they claiming HDR but only use 8-bit color. 🙄

RavenMaster:

lol they claiming HDR but only use 8-bit color. 🙄

Display hdr 400 certified. Nothing to write home about.

1. brightness 300 cd / ㎡ 2. high dynamic range compliant with Display HDR 400 Are manufacturers actually trolling morons now? They literally tell you in one spec the display is only 300 nits and then claim "HDR 400" which means it should reach 400 nits 300 nits is brightness of every standard office monitor for the last 15 years. Its an SDR monitor

geogan:

1. brightness 300 cd / ㎡ 2. high dynamic range compliant with Display HDR 400 Are manufacturers actually trolling morons now? They literally tell you in one spec the display is only 300 nits and then claim "HDR 400" which means it should reach 400 nits 300 nits is brightness of every standard office monitor for the last 15 years. Its an SDR monitor

300nits is an sdr brightness while hdr should go up to 400 nits peak brightness. Either way its not hdr capable.

well, actually, if you calibrate the monitor for photo critical work you will be calibrating it at 120nits (120 cd / ㎡ ), but whatever. Some people always keep dynamic contrast ON, in one form or another, and then go and judge the image quality around forums...

Like most HDR monitors, it still meets the demand for VESA certificate, so it is in fact HDR 400 capable what ever we like it or not. In NVCPL one can select 10 bit too, although it's still only 8bit + FRC, which also means HDR looks crap like on most monitors that boast with an HDR certificate. Properly calibrated per use and as said above disabling dynamic contrast these displays can look descent. Got a G32QC myself, VA just suits a dark room, never using it's HDR since I can't be arsed en-disabling it, everything SDR looks crap with it on, looses to much color and even the brightness adjustment at minimum still makes it much brighter. Same experience with my HDR 1000 monitor. It looks better with content that runs in HDR on both, but not enough to make it worth the hassle tbh.

gx-x:

well, actually, if you calibrate the monitor for photo critical work you will be calibrating it at 120nits (120 cd / ㎡ ), but whatever. Some people always keep dynamic contrast ON, in one form or another, and then go and judge the image quality around forums...

I calibrate my monitors to 120 nits but that's because they get some mixed use. Mostly use them at night but they get some use during daylight so I go with 120 nits. Compromises. If I was purely calibrating for photography, I'd calibrate to 90 nits in a dark room. Just saying. And agreeing with you. People use their monitors all kinds of wrong, most of the time. I see the same thing happen with TVs, people just blast up the brightness when all that does is ruin the image.

Mineria:

Like most HDR monitors, it still meets the demand for VESA certificate, so it is in fact HDR 400 capable what ever we like it or not. In NVCPL one can select 10 bit too, although it's still only 8bit + FRC, which also means HDR looks crap like on most monitors that boast with an HDR certificate. Properly calibrated per use and as said above disabling dynamic contrast these displays can look descent. Got a G32QC myself, VA just suits a dark room, never using it's HDR since I can't be arsed en-disabling it, everything SDR looks crap with it on, looses to much color and even the brightness adjustment at minimum still makes it much brighter. Same experience with my HDR 1000 monitor. It looks better with content that runs in HDR on both, but not enough to make it worth the hassle tbh.

Problem is, when you have 400 nits peak brightness, it would still look meh. You'd need an OLED with perfect blacks to make it look good. Even my HDR 1000 VA display (G9) looks like pants in HDR because while it gets bright, it can't do the blacks. This is not up for discussion, this is a fact. My OLED has a peak brightness which is a fair bit lower than the G9 but it has perfect blacks and in HDR (DV) it makes me squint. That's how wide the dynamic range is. The problem with non OLED HDR is that the blacks will always lack. Regardless of the dimming zones. You'll always end up with a washed up image, compared to OLED HDR.

Mineria:

Like most HDR monitors, it still meets the demand for VESA certificate, so it is in fact HDR 400 capable what ever we like it or not. In NVCPL one can select 10 bit too, although it's still only 8bit + FRC, which also means HDR looks crap like on most monitors that boast with an HDR certificate. Properly calibrated per use and as said above disabling dynamic contrast these displays can look descent. Got a G32QC myself, VA just suits a dark room, never using it's HDR since I can't be arsed en-disabling it, everything SDR looks crap with it on, looses to much color and even the brightness adjustment at minimum still makes it much brighter. Same experience with my HDR 1000 monitor. It looks better with content that runs in HDR on both, but not enough to make it worth the hassle tbh.

I think the only time HDR is really gona take off is when NO more Panels are made for SDR and no content is made as SDR. HDR is hit or miss on PC on Consoles it much more consistent HDR CAN look amazing and I think it look amazing on Consoles, IF use that same Display I using on Consoles for HDR where it looks amazing, FOR PC it is most the time anything but amazing. Not sure who to blame for that? MS/Windows? Nvidia? Developer?

tsunami231:

I think the only time HDR is really gona take off is when NO more Panels are made for SDR and no content is made as SDR. HDR is hit or miss on PC on Consoles it much more consistent HDR CAN look amazing and I think it look amazing on Consoles, IF use that same Display I using on Consoles for HDR where it looks amazing, FOR PC it is most the time anything but amazing. Not sure who to blame for that? MS/Windows? Nvidia? Developer?

Nah, not really. My OLED TV will simply switch to HDR or Dolby Vision when the content is HDR or Dolby Vision. I don't have to touch a thing. The TV just does it for me. And in SDR content it'll just stick to my SDR settings. On PC it's a bit more of a painful process. You have to turn on HDR first, then launch the game. And even then, you can spend £1000 on a monitor (G9) and still have a terrible HDR experience. HDR is mind blowing, especially on OLED TVs. But on PC, it's a bit of a clusterf*ck until we get mini LED which will bring it to somewhat acceptable levels. Even then, those monitors will cost £3000 and have 2000 dimming zones on a VA panel. Which is still not good enough compared to having 8 million diming zones on an OLED. I'll say this though, some games have HDR implemented better than others, it's just that the manufacturers are happy to charge a ridiculous amount of money for it. When you can just buy an OLED TV for £1200 and be done with it. It's funny to thing that OLED is actually a lot cheaper than top end monitors.

metagamer:

Nah, not really. My OLED TV will simply switch to HDR or Dolby Vision when the content is HDR or Dolby Vision. I don't have to touch a thing. The TV just does it for me. And in SDR content it'll just stick to my SDR settings. On PC it's a bit more of a painful process. You have to turn on HDR first, then launch the game. And even then, you can spend £1000 on a monitor (G9) and still have a terrible HDR experience. HDR is mind blowing, especially on OLED TVs. But on PC, it's a bit of a clusterf*ck until we get mini LED which will bring it to somewhat acceptable levels. Even then, those monitors will cost £3000 and have 2000 dimming zones on a VA panel. Which is still not good enough compared to having 8 million diming zones on an OLED. I'll say this though, some games have HDR implemented better than others, it's just that the manufacturers are happy to charge a ridiculous amount of money for it. When you can just buy an OLED TV for £1200 and be done with it. It's funny to thing that OLED is actually a lot cheaper than top end monitors.

Exactly, even midrange TV's do HDR way better than any of the top end monitors besides switching between SDR and HDR automatically, but not very practical to use a TV as PC monitor, 4K needs to many sacrifices for a acceptable framerate and size also gets a tad to much when used at a desk. The only game I ever seen do auto switching between SDR and HDR on a PC is Destiny 2, every other game seems to depend on it being globally enabled in Windows. I run my monitors brightness and contrast around what is recommended for photos, only thing that I boost up for games is saturation, since most games look to dull with the same settings used for photos, but that is more an exception than a rule. While looking much better OLED still has a weakness when it comes to color accuracy in terms of oversaturation besides not being as good in bright rooms?

Mineria:

Exactly, even midrange TV's do HDR way better than any of the top end monitors besides switching between SDR and HDR automatically, but not very practical to use a TV as PC monitor, 4K needs to many sacrifices for a acceptable framerate and size also gets a tad to much when used at a desk. The only game I ever seen do auto switching between SDR and HDR on a PC is Destiny 2, every other game seems to depend on it being globally enabled in Windows. I run my monitors brightness and contrast around what is recommended for photos, only thing that I boost up for games is saturation, since most games look to dull with the same settings used for photos, but that is more an exception than a rule. While looking much better OLED still has a weakness when it comes to color accuracy in terms of oversaturation besides not being as good in bright rooms?

You can calibrate your OLED to be accurate. People charge around $300 for an OLED TV calibration. But In fact, most OLEDs are pretty accurate right out the box, as long as you land on the right settings. On LG OLEDs that will be ISF modes and moderate levels of OLED light. If you stick to "standard" or "vivid" on LG OLED, it'll look awful, when I say awful I mean way over blown. I calibrate my monitors to 120 nits 6500k 2.2 gama. Always. It's what I've used for years and I don't feel like I need ot crank up saturation, but I guess it'll depend on what you like. Interesting about Destiny 2, I was thinking about installing it again. Makes you wonder why PC games can't auto switch between HDR and SDR based on content. But the truth is, I would most likely want SDR still, as the PC monitors go just can't do blacks. Even my G9 which has a decent contrast ratio as far as PC monitors has washed out blacks and near blacks. But perhaps I've just been spoilt by OLED. Maybe it wouldn't be such an issue if I never owned an OLED. Agree about OLEDs being too big for desk use. But as soon as there's a 40" OLED with another generation of burn in prevention tech, I think they will be what people will be using more and more. 4k isn't really that hard to drive tbh, unless you're a competitive gamer and need as much fps as you can get. Even my 2080 drives the 5120x1440 resolution of the G9 pretty well, I'm actually surprised how good games run.

metagamer:

. But perhaps I've just been spoilt by OLED. Maybe it wouldn't be such an issue if I never owned an OLED.

This happened to me. After I got my LG + my Samsung phone, I can't even look at my monitor anymore, and worse it's practically prevented me from buying any monitors recently - I was looking at the Samsun G series but it's like why am I dropping ~$1000 on a monitor that's not going to be as good as my TV? I might as well just wait for monitor sized OLEDs or MicroLED. They all just look so bad compared to the contrast of OLED. I was playing Cyberpunk on my PC monitor and at some point during a dark scene I just gave up and said this looks like shit - streamed it over to my Shield and continued on that with a controller like a peasant.

At this point in time I perfer VA panels cause dark on IPS are just utter crap. even compared to TN in my eyes. And while IPS has come long way in response times. those times are still to slow compared to CRT in my eyes and darks horrible on IPS and TN. VA is middle ground. Sadly HDR is just hit or miss on PC and Oled are still pipe dream, well less of pipe dream in past year or so then before but still still waiting for that 27" Oled Monitor that I can afford or hell a TV with it

tsunami231:

At this point in time I perfer VA panels cause dark on IPS are just utter crap. even compared to TN in my eyes. And while IPS has come long way in response times. those times are still to slow compared to CRT in my eyes and darks horrible on IPS and TN. VA is middle ground. Sadly HDR is just hit or miss on PC and Oled are still pipe dream, well less of pipe dream in past year or so then before but still still waiting for that 27" Oled Monitor that I can afford or hell a TV with it

Every single ips monitor suffers from ips glow and bleed which is game breaking for me. Im sure samsung odyssey va panels are the best if you exclude oled.

metagamer:

You can calibrate your OLED to be accurate. In fact, most OLEDs are pretty accurate right out the box, as long as you land on the right settings. On LG OLEDs that will be ISF modes and moderate levels of OLED light. If you stick to "standard" or "vivid" on LG OLED, it'll look awful, when I say awful I mean way over blown. I calibrate my monitors to 120 nits 6500k 2.2 gama. Always. It's what I've used for years and I don't feel like I need ot crank up saturation, but I guess it'll depend on what you like. Interesting about Destiny 2, I was thinking about installing it again. Makes you wonder why PC games can't auto switch between HDR and SDR based on content. But the truth is, I would most likely want SDR still, as the PC monitors go just can't do blacks. Even my G9 which has a decent contrast ratio as far as PC monitors has washed out blacks and near blacks. But perhaps I've just been spoilt by OLED. Maybe it wouldn't be such an issue if I never owned an OLED. Agree about OLEDs being too big for desk use. But as soon as there's a 40" OLED with another generation of burn in prevention tech, I think they will be what people will be using more and more. 4k isn't really that hard to drive tbh, unless you're a competitive gamer and need as much fps as you can get. Even my 2080 drives the 5120x1440 resolution of the G9 pretty well, I'm actually surprised how good games run.

Interesting, thanks for the info. I find blacks to be just ok using SDR with my VA when using Black EQ set to 10, they look bad on my IPS panel compared to, but I find the whole IPS grey balance looks kind of milky/washed out in comparison, not a cheap panel either. 40" would be to much for me if we talk 16:9 none curved, 32-34" 16:9 curved hits the sweet spot, for ultra wide I would at least want the same height and more curve. I tend to enable as much eye candy as possible, which even a 2080S can have problems keeping steady 60fps with at 4K, just switching from 2560x1440 to 3440x1440 adds a performance penalty. Lowering resolution is a no go too, 2560x1440 on a 4K monitor looks blurry compared to, consoles seem to do something different which works better there to.

Undying:

Every single ips monitor suffers from ips glow and bleed which is game breaking for me. Im sure samsung odyssey va panels are the best if you exclude oled.

Like said VA is the only panel tech that I currently like ( excluding Oled). Compared to my TN monitor I prefer my VA 55" UHDTV and IPS has that glow you mentions its blacks are terrible which made worse by how bad ips bleed imo. IPS look GREAT dont get me wrong, but that opinion of it looking GREAT only stands when it is a Bright and Still/Slow Image, which same with TN/VA/IPS. in motions it all look like crap to me 1ms is not fast enough. We need CRT times for me to change that imo. and only thing that comes close to that atm is what Oled? maybe MicroLed? Seriously it been more then 2 decades since OLED was announced and I still have yet see Small Monitors/Screen that dont cost an arm and leg. They say it to expensive or dont make sense to make them for small screens yet they making them for smart phones screen that size And we still working with "fixed" display panel type every res other then is native res is scaled. and we still have Sat/Cable/OTA channel cling to 480i/p and most are still 720/1080i and few that are 1080p + are so highly compressed that they might as well still be using lower res. Cause these types of panels only Truly shine when they get content that is there native res. with as little compression as possible (PC gaming/Consoles gaming/ Bluray?) that about it. but soon as it starts moving it starts looking like muddy/smudged mess to me certainly better then it was 20+ years ago. but still not on CRT level

https://www.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/predator-model/UM.HX3AA.X05 I was looking at that monitor the other day. Tick most everything I wanted, There is even a 4K model I saw IPS said, Nope the search continues. The M28U ticks them too only to be ruined by IPS. Soon as IPS fix the blacks and bleeding I might consider IPS but till then just no. Then again till I see Flatpanel tech with Response times equal to or better then CRT so things in motions dont look like crap to me I will probably never like current flat panel tech no mater how well it reproduces colors.

@tsunami231 You never saw a good IPS* it seems...Black glow is only a problem if most of the screen is black, which is rare. Otherwise, blacks can be very good. Not as good as VA, but hey, no washed out colors when you tilt your head... EDIT: * CALIBRATED, decent IPS screen.

Yeah monitor makers must be paying bribes to LG to keep them out of the monitor business, cos as soon as there is *affordable* OLED HDR monitors on 27" or similar, other old shite tech that monitor makers are currently flogging for stupid money, are dead.