-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
I have seen the light of HDR at last.
- Thread starter Tahnit
- Start date
Cheapest I believe is the TCL 6 series, but those start at $499 and 55 inches. Comes with good hdr and wcg though, and very low input lag.
What tv do you recommend for OP and people like me? Let's keep it to this thread rather than having to hunt and pick other threads, bec
Im not actively encouraging anything other than just not being a douche. The first reply -- the one I replied to which offended you -- was not helpful at all, it came off as snarky and condescending.
OP
OP
then why even bitch about the fact that i dont have true HDR when its not an option? For my little bedroom this is perfectly fine.
It's your thread title as mentioned before. People just pointing out that you're not even close to seeing the potential of the technology.
You might want to read up on a guide for Windows 10 HDR because it's pretty flaky still on PC.
Just a heads up the base PS4 does HDR fine, you don't need the Pro to enjoy HDR. Not sure about on the X1 side. HDR on PC has been kind of a crapshoot for me personally, but I thought Far Cry 5 looked pretty nice with it turned on. I would say RDR2, but not sure if it supports HDR on PC.
Regardless, enjoy your new toy op!
Because you were the one who made a thread title about "seeing the light", that's a strong proclamation without any research on your part.
This sentence:
NU6900 only hits like 300 nits brightness, you still ain't even seen proper HDR
Is not snarky or condescending. What are you reading?
It's literally just a factual sentence but I guess if you're really defensive about it "proper HDR" might be mildly condescending. I'm grasping at straws here mate.
That sentence is completely accurate. Not sure what the problem is.
Just pointing out the differences you may be seeing may be do to the enhancers and not the HDR. I'm not sure if you have calibrated the TV yet, but if you did, then you should be seeing how dark HDR gets on these sets.
Again, enjoy the TV as you like, although those enhancers aren't great for input lag and the motion interpolation will make the rest of the shows and movies not look as intended. That's if you even have them turned on. It's a great price for the 4K picture quality and the overall quality, it's just not a true HDR output and you will have a better experience by setting it to SDR. It's your TV so enjoy your purchase just as you like.
rtings's HDR gaming score is very problematic, which was discussed before.
For one, the TV purchased doesn't even support local dimming.
this is the cheapest TV I've seen ($349) that is actually entry level HDR as opposed to faux HDR
Last edited:
lol I have the Vizio P Quantum 2018 and it's 2400nits is insane
However, if the TV does accepts HDR signal and does a good SDR tone-mapping, at 300nits it should still look better than SDR.
And that's fine OP. If you are seeing a difference, by all means, enjoy it!
However, I want to be transparent. If this is "seeing the light" in your case, then prepare to see a Supernova when you eventually see an actual 700-1000 nits display with wide color gamut and a good HDR game implementation (or Dolby Vision + OLED)
The whole experience can only improve, congrats on your purchase!
You are conflating some TVs that's genuinely do HDR poorly with all TVs bellow 600 nits doing HDR poorly.
I've got a KS8000 that gets to 1000 nits, and it delivers a great HDR picture. I also bought a Samsung 7100 this weekend, and I can say the 7100 does a respectable job with HDR, regardless of the nits count.
Download these demos, copy to a usb drive, plug to the one-connect box and enjoy.
😎
I find KS8000 doing better HDR (without subtitles) than TCL P617 and on par with SONY X930E, which is kinda surprising.
This is the truth. Fucking nighttime headlights and police sirens in HDR content look like actual goddamn headlights and police sirens. It's wild.
300 nits is a lot when you compare to older TVs. I had a TV maybe 6 or 7 years old and a 4k Dell XPS, the difference in quality is huuuge. Now I've beem using my parents low end 4k (30fps, no HDR) TV and the difference to my Dell isnt huge anymore. Just like anything else a low end device today is way better than a low end device half a decade or more ago. It might not be the true HDR, but it is an improvement and it is great to see it. Enjoy your purchase OP! I've heard Infamous has good HDR implementation, in case you have it.
SDR is intended to be viewed at 100 nits and with a smaller color gamut than HDR.
Going from 100 nits to 300 nits with a wide color gamut can still be a noticeable difference, even if it's not a proper representation of HDR.
But most people seem to watch SDR above the 100 nit spec, and the TV doesn't support P3 color, so whatever they're seeing is probably just some kind of image processing that is applied when it's fed an HDR signal.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that a good HDR conversion could be preferable to watching the native SDR output though, even if it's not a true HDR image.
RTINGS' reviews are full of great content, but their scoring system is worthless. Its high score is because the input latency is low when HDR is active, not because it does a good job of displaying HDR.
https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/nu6900 said:
Wow my X900F already hurts my eyes when there is a sun or a white loading screen
Imagine a 2400 nit screen damn
From the reviews, this TV is decent and for the money it's actually pretty great. While his experience with HDR might be a placebo, it was still a massive jump over whatever he or she had before. So it's a win win for him.
I switched from an old 1080p TV to a 4K HDR TV while playing Assassin's Creed Odyssey, and the difference was absolutely astounding.
Definitely try AC Odyssey as well if you have the chance.
Definitely try AC Odyssey as well if you have the chance.
I just got a 65" Q90R and can't tell the difference from my old non-hdr 46" 1080p screen :P then again i don't have them side by side to really see. Just playing off memory at this point.
I guess I should have been more clear, the number is meaningless, you need to read the review and look at the brightness values and (lack of) local dimming.
"It can't get very bright and does not have a wide color gamut, so it cannot deliver good HDR performance."
I'm not trying to shit on OP or ruin his purchase, it's a great TV, it's just unfortunate that manufacturers have glommed onto "HDR" as a selling point without really spending the money to ... do HDR.
A lot of folks will disagree but I've always thought Destiny 2 looked amazing on both console and PC w/HDR. One of the best implementations in my book even if it's not totally accurate tech/HDR jargon-wise.
It may depend on some conditions. Sadly, HDR standardization is a mess at this stage.
Since your TV is a high end HDR LCD, you may be trying to map to something like this:
- Old TV (non HDR) - SDR content vs New TV (HDR) - SDR content
- Old TV (non HDR) - SDR content vs New TV (HDR) - HDR content
- TV: non calibrated SDR and HDR modes for movies or games (for movie/streams or games)
- Content: the actual content you are trying may not be the best in HDR (movies, games, etc.)
- Other devices: the "in-game" HDR calibration, or the device HDR calibration (PS4, Fire Stick 4k, Windows, etc.), may be incorrectly setup.
it is true that in the 43" space your options are limited. The best would be a Samsung q6 and then slightly behind that would be a vizio m or tcl 5 series. All of them wide color gamut. Only the Samsung hits even over 500 nits iirc. The tcl and the vizio are like 400 nits. The tcl is a bit tricky because rtings only measures in tcls "dark Dolby vision" mode when there's a normal and bright dv setting that is brighter and you can offset the contrast and blue tint changes those modes introduce. They did measure normal hdr at 374 nits. Eyeballing it bright hdr seems at least a another hundred nits over normal as the dark hdr is only 300 or so nits. Also hdr 10 stuff seems brighter than dv stuff in general. So it might actually be a 500-600 nit set, there just aren't any comprehensive measurements.
I just got the tcl s525 43" and I'm very impressed with it. It's nearly as good as my b7 oled.
this 600 nit stuff is hogwash. You can still get a good hdr effect with wcg and even 300-400 nits. You just might miss out a bit in the 2% and 10% highlights, which while important, isn't the only thing going on with hdr. Even without wcg Samsung is doing something to improve just a regular 4K image so chill out people.
Last edited:
As they said your TV doesn't even support real HDR, your is just a placebo effect or something, i also have an LG 29WK600 Ultra Wide monitor which is marketed as HDR but really doesn't have the specs to display it fully, indeed on my PC with HDR on and HDR content it has blurrier image, washed colors and lower brightness compared to HDR off, so i never use it and i'd rather have it in standard mode
I have the 49X800D. The reason is the peak brightness is only at 380 nits for the TV. Some HDR content requires much more. I've tried spending ages as well. I have a x900f and there's a difference in brightness (1000 nits) and HDR looks much more impressive. Just read it's also because of local dimming zones which X800D didn't have.
OP
OP
should i return the samsung and go with the tcl? samsung doesnt have the wide color gamut. is the tcl brighter?
honestly up to you. depends if you want to deal with the hassle and spending a bit more, and if you like the roku smart platform or Samsung. If you're happy with your set be happy with it.
The great thing about nits that high is when you're playing a game with decent HDR, like Assassins Creed Odyssey, coming out of a cave and having the sun shine in your face makes it really seem like the real sun is shining in your face.
OP
OP
would you say its brighter than the samsung? in non dark mode that is?