• To celebrate the release of Halo: The Master Chief Collection on Steam, Xbox Games Studios has provided 5 Steam copies of the game and 5 Xbox One copies of the game! We will be giving these away in the Gaming Giveaways |OT|. Some Steam copies will also be given away to the PC Gaming Era community.
  • An old favorite feature returns: Q&ERA is back! This time we'll be collecting questions for Remedy Entertainment, makers of Max Payne, Alan Wake, Quantum Break, and Control. Members can submit questions for the next 5 days, 8 hours, 25 minutes, 20 seconds. Submissions will close on Dec 12, 2019 at 12:00 AM.

I have seen the light of HDR at last.

aka Bueno

Member
Oct 25, 2017
632
should i return the samsung and go with the tcl? samsung doesnt have the wide color gamut. is the tcl brighter?
If the price is similar, I say switch it out for the TCL. Those 2 sets are pretty similar and don't get bright at all for HDR (around 300nits is like the lowest you can get for an HDR enabled set). But at least the TCL has WCG, so that'll at least get you some real tangible improvement over SDR. It's also slightly better in a few other areas like motion, and it also has proper 24p judder playback while the Samsung doesnt. This is important for watching movies which are filmed at 24fps, on the Samsung it will have a weird judder/stutter due to improper cadence, the TCL however can play it in it's proper 24fps judder free cadence.

Samsung handles reflections slightly better though.
 

ZOONAMI

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,397
If the price is similar, I say switch it out for the TCL. Those 2 sets are pretty similar and don't get bright at all for HDR (around 300nits is like the lowest you can get for an HDR enabled set). But at least the TCL has WCG, so that'll at least get you some real tangible improvement over SDR. It's also slightly better in a few other areas like motion, and it also has proper 24p judder playback while the Samsung doesnt. This is important for watching movies which are filmed at 24fps, on the Samsung it will have a weird judder/stutter due to improper cadence, the TCL however can play it in it's proper 24fps judder free cadence.

Samsung handles reflections slightly better though.
rtings for some reason measures tcl sets in their lowest brightness hdr mode for color accuracy reasons. It’s weird. They note that the medium brightness dv/hdr mode the tcl hits 374 nits. There’s also a bright setting that’s even brighter. You can calibrate within each hdr mode so it’s really very odd they say, hey this set doesn’t get very bright in HDR, but disclaimer we’re using the sets lowest brightness settings. Weird.
 

leng jai

Member
Nov 2, 2017
10,211
It's funny how Apple doesn't even mention the iPad Pro has HDR support when it can get up to 650nits and supports WCG too.
 
Last edited:
Jun 10, 2018
289
I could definitely notice a difference with multiple budget HDR displays (Samsung 40KU6300, Acer ET322QK, TCL 43S405, TCL 49S405, TCL 43S517, TCL 49S517, Vizio E43F1, Vizio E50-F2, Vizio D50-F1, Hisense 43R6E, & Hisense 50R6E). I have been through a lot of budget 4K HDR TV's. They obviously don't compare to a higher nit display but there is some noticeable improvements with HDR on those displays. I am using a 700 nit TV now, the Hisense 50" H8F which can be had from Best Buy for $349.99.
 
OP
OP
Tahnit

Tahnit

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,139
Thanks guys. I think ill return this set tomorrow and get that TCL. Wide color gamut sounds great and the sets are very similiar.
 

TheModestGun

Member
Dec 5, 2017
2,896
On the topic of HDR, I just installed the newest version of Windows 10 and did a clean install of my graphics drivers and suddenly PC HDR games look excellent. I’m not sure what changed but now RE2make’s HDR no longer seems super washed out and I was having issues with Jedi Fallen orders HDR looking like the gamma was very flat and washed out as well. Now with fresh Windows November update install and fresh graphics drivers the game is very vibrant and rich.

so a tip for those who have been questioning the HDR in PC games, do yourself a favor and update Windows and install fresh drivers. It might be the difference between a bad and good experience visually.

also make sure your NVIDIA or AMD color settings are set to default system settings, I think manually setting these fucks with HDR.
 
Jun 10, 2018
289
If the price is similar, I say switch it out for the TCL. Those 2 sets are pretty similar and don't get bright at all for HDR (around 300nits is like the lowest you can get for an HDR enabled set). But at least the TCL has WCG, so that'll at least get you some real tangible improvement over SDR. It's also slightly better in a few other areas like motion, and it also has proper 24p judder playback while the Samsung doesnt. This is important for watching movies which are filmed at 24fps, on the Samsung it will have a weird judder/stutter due to improper cadence, the TCL however can play it in it's proper 24fps judder free cadence.

Samsung handles reflections slightly better though.
For the TCL S525, only the 55" and above supports 24p playback with it's native apps (with the use of the Natural Cinema setting). A 43" and 49"/50" should however support 24p playback with external devices that support it.

Edit: The TCL S405 supported 24p playback through it's native apps until I think Roku OS 8. I think Roku stripped 24p playback out from Roku TV's and I don't know why. I had a Hisense 50R6E Roku TV that didn't support 24p playback through it's native apps but supported it through external devices like a Blu-Ray Player or an Xbox One X.
 

aka Bueno

Member
Oct 25, 2017
632
For the TCL S525, only the 55" and above supports 24p playback with it's native apps (with the use of the Natural Cinema setting). A 43" and 49"/50" should however support 24p playback with external devices that support it.

Edit: The TCL S405 supported 24p playback through it's native apps until I think Roku OS 8. I think Roku stripped 24p playback out from Roku TV's and I don't know why. I had a Hisense 50R6E Roku TV that didn't support 24p playback through it's native apps but supported it through external devices like a Blu-Ray Player or an Xbox One X.
That's lame that they removed that feature, I swear TV firmware updates are scary; they fuck up things more than they fix a lot of times.
 

Darknight

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,103
7.7 for HDR gaming, seems decent to me.
This is why I tell people to stop treating rtings as gospel. The scores are misleading as hell and that's the only thing some people pay attention to. This is the text from one of their reviews that scored it a 7.9 for HDR gaming:

7.9 HDR Gaming

This is a good TV to play HDR games. This is mainly due to the very low input lag that makes it very responsive, and the fast response time that leaves only a small blur trail behind fast-moving content. The HDR performance of the TV is not very good as it can't get very bright and it does not have a wide color gamut, and thus lacks the means to deliver a great HDR picture.
Out of the 72 TVs reviewed on their site, 68 of them scored a 7.0 and up. Of the four that scored below that, they scored a 4.5, 4.3, 4.2 and 4.1 for HDR Gaming. The 4.5 set was knocked on since it was a 1080p set and not 4K. The remaining three the complaint was that the set didn't support HDR at all. How does a set not supporting HDR still score over a 4 under the category of HDR Gaming?

Rting's scores are worthless on the surface level when you don't understand how their score is calculated. Even when you understand, the weighting is terrible and it makes the score lose all meaning.

Man TV ERA is super elitist haha.
There's nothing elitist in pointing out that what they think is HDR isn't HDR. Too many people get tricked from the marketing and don't really understand what HDR is and what is involved with having even a decent HDR display. It's better that more people understand rather than get tricked.

Thanks guys. I think ill return this set tomorrow and get that TCL. Wide color gamut sounds great and the sets are very similiar.
Make sure you get a TCL 6 series. Anything under that and you're just going to experience the same problems of not having something that displays HDR at a decent level. The TCL 6 series really is the cheapest TV anyone should consider if they're interested in HDR.
 

Exede

Member
Feb 8, 2019
436
Bought a 55' Samsung RU-7179 VR LED this year it's an entry level 4K TV with a 10ms game mode. Wanted to get ready for next gen. Even this TV is such a big boost from my 11 year old Panasonic 1080p plasma it was an eye opener. I know it comes with HDR+ stuff on Netflix and Amazon with HDR support looks great. I'm no tech guy, i don't knew what nits are and still don't know the nits of my TV but all just looks so nice now.
 

ShadowDeku

Member
Nov 22, 2019
26
been looking for an hdr tv recently, and from one I understand, the 2019 TCL and Hisense models are bright enough to take good advantage of hdr while being cheaper than similar Samsung and LG sets. I'd look into those brands.
 

KeRaSh

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,627
It's a massive problem with HDR marketing right now, why do you think there are so many posts here saying they can't see a difference? Every 4K TV under the sun has HDR branding but half of them can barely get past 200-300 nits which is nowhere near bright enough for proper HDR.
That why HDR sucks. There are just so many factors that play into it.

- Does your TV have enough nits?
- Does the game even have a good HDR implementation?
- Is your TV set up correctly?
- Multiple HDR standards that are confusing for consumers

Fuck that.
Hey, good for those people that have the proper TV with the proper settings and calibration while playing a game that has a proper HDR implementation.
There are just too many variables to currently call this the game changer that some are claiming it to be.
 

Ph8lanx

Member
Oct 29, 2017
72
Dark Side of the Moon
Huh?

It's just one of those things. If you have a friend who tells you "omg I just got a new car and it has heated seats! It's amazing I've always wanted to experience heated seats and now finally I get to have it!!!" And then you respond to their enthusiasm with "bro you have a Civic I wouldn't even consider their seat heaters 'heated'" it's just a way to make someone feel bad about their enthusiasm.

Like, when someone is excited about something, it's bad taste to shit on what excited them. At least there's ways to say "your hdr sucks and mine is the best hdr" that aren't as douchey as the first reply. General life advice, don't go around yucking someone's yum.
Reminds me of the time my friend bought a brand new Gold Dodge Intrepid in 95’ I believe. He was so excited to have a new car and our mutual friend sees it and says “ You can dip shit in Gold, it’s still a piece of shit.”
 

FaceHugger

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,746
I have this LG that I purchased bay in late 2016 / early 2017. Can anyone tell me if I should be shopping for a new model for better HDR or does it not really matter / not worth the cost: https://www.lg.com/hk_en/tv/lg-55UH6150

Even my tech manual doesn't list the complete specs. The best I could find was an old review in which they state that years line of 4K IPS models acheived over 700 nits, but no firm range or maximum.

Edit: fixed link
 
Last edited:

Darknight

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,103
That why HDR sucks. There are just so many factors that play into it.

- Does your TV have enough nits?
- Does the game even have a good HDR implementation?
- Is your TV set up correctly?
- Multiple HDR standards that are confusing for consumers

Fuck that.
Hey, good for those people that have the proper TV with the proper settings and calibration while playing a game that has a proper HDR implementation.
There are just too many variables to currently call this the game changer that some are claiming it to be.
What it does is a "game changer" though. Just because we're in the transition phase of how it's implemented doesn't change what it actually does and the impact it has on the video quality. I think people really forget how the HD transition went down. It had it's own set of growing pains which we now look past because the dust finally settled.

Do people forget that what people classify as HD has three different resolutions? How about how every set didn't support all three resolutions? Or how about how even if it did, you had to consider what the native resolution of the screen is because just like HDR just because it claims it was 1080p, doesn't mean it was 1080p? Do people remember a time when HDMI wasn't the standard and how some sets had it and some didn't? How about even if you had HDMI, you might be screwed for not having HDCP? Anyone remember component video which was the other method to get an HD signal? Heck does anyone remember how DVI was actually an input on TVs for HD?

People take for granted how things settled down and don't remember the transition period with all the growing pains involved. HDR is going through the same thing right now. This too will settle but it doesn't change the impact that HDR has as a feature moving forward.
 

ItIsOkBro

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
4,044
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if an LED TV has no local dimming isn't that still fake HDR? Without local dimming, the TV has no choice but to be at 100% backlight. All you'd get is a bright AF image with greys instead of blacks. It doesn't matter which TV has more nits if they both don't have local dimming. Hell, the brighter one is probably ultimately worse.
 

Darknight

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,103
I have this LG that I purchased bay in late 2016 / early 2017. Can anyone tell me if I should be shopping for a new model for better HDR or does it not really matter / not worth the cost: https://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-55UF7600-4k-uhd-led-tv

Even my tech manual doesn't list the complete specs. The best I could find was an old review in which they state that years line of 4K IPS models acheived over 700 nits, but no firm range or maximum.
Your TV doesn't even have HDR. That said, wait until more HDMI 2.1 sets are common before upgrading at this point.
 

Darknight

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,103
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if an LED TV has no local dimming isn't that still fake HDR? Without local dimming, the TV has no choice but to be at 100% backlight. All you'd get is a bright AF image with greys instead of blacks. It doesn't matter which TV has more nits if they both don't have local dimming. Hell, the brighter one is probably ultimately worse.
Correct that not having local dimming really hinders how HDR is displayed. People keep talking about nits, but really that is only one part of the equation. You need to factor in nits, black level, contrast ratio, etc.
 

FaceHugger

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,746
Your TV doesn't even have HDR. That said, wait until more HDMI 2.1 sets are common before upgrading at this point.
That must be the wrong model I linked. Mine most definitely has HDR. Maybe I downloaded the wrong manual... hmm. I'll fire it up later and see if I can bring up the exact model # later.

Edit: ah found it, I was looking at the wrong manual, got the model from the TV settings: https://www.lg.com/hk_en/tv/lg-55UH6150
 

KeRaSh

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,627
What it does is a "game changer" though. Just because we're in the transition phase of how it's implemented doesn't change what it actually does and the impact it has on the video quality. I think people really forget how the HD transition went down. It had it's own set of growing pains which we now look past because the dust finally settled.

Do people forget that what people classify as HD has three different resolutions? How about how every set didn't support all three resolutions? Or how about how even if it did, you had to consider what the native resolution of the screen is because just like HDR just because it claims it was 1080p, doesn't mean it was 1080p? Do people remember a time when HDMI wasn't the standard and how some sets had it and some didn't? How about even if you had HDMI, you might be screwed for not having HDCP? Anyone remember component video which was the other method to get an HD signal? Heck does anyone remember how DVI was actually an input on TVs for HD?

People take for granted how things settled down and don't remember the transition period with all the growing pains involved. HDR is going through the same thing right now. This too will settle but it doesn't change the impact that HDR has as a feature moving forward.
I still think the HD transition was way, way smoother and easier for consumers to understand.

/edit:

Placebo and high contrast most likely, some of the faux-HDR tvs come shipped with super high contrast and colour settings.

The most common analogue to this situation is probably the "HD Ready" tvs back in the mid 2000s when they would come with resolutions lower than 720p but would accept a 720P+ signal and scale it.
Alright, that does come pretty close to the fake-HDR confusion. Didn't know that was the case. Thought HD Ready meant 720p and that was it.

/edit end

That's the problem with HDR right now. Every TV manufacturer claims support on basically every TV model but doesn't tell you that the panel is actually shit and you won't see the difference. Even if you have a good panel you might still not see a difference because games have a shitty HDR implementation or only fix / patch it in weeks or months after the initial release. Oh, and make sure you go on internet forums and hope that someone has the same model TV as you so that person can tell you how to configure your TV so that you might experience true HDR.

Nah, fuck that.
I'm an enthusiast and even I can't make sense of that shit. The fact that manufacturers have different model numbers for the same TVs across different regions makes it even harder to find in-depth reviews and some manufacturers don't even mention all the full specs on their websites and hide that info in separate manuals that you have to download.
 
Last edited:

Ferrs

Avenger
Oct 26, 2017
9,289
I do agree that HDR right now is an annoying mess with fake HDR, confusing configs..etc..

But I also agree is a game changer because oh boy does it improve image quality beyond any resolution.
 

Yataran

Member
Jul 17, 2018
188
Copenhagen, DK
Placebo and high contrast most likely, some of the faux-HDR tvs come shipped with super high contrast and colour settings.

The most common analogue to this situation is probably the "HD Ready" tvs back in the mid 2000s when they would come with resolutions lower than 720p but would accept a 720P+ signal and scale it.
Well, I don't think it's just "placebo"... My LG 32UK550 monitor only reaches around 300 nits at maximum brightness, but the difference when using my PS4 is noticeable. I'm not saying that the effect "blows me away", but so far I've tested it by turning it on and off on Deus Ex, The Last of Us and Hellblade, and the presence of HDR makes the scenes look richer... It definitely looks "flatter" when turning HDR off. So, there's a noticeable effect even if the brightness levels are suboptimal for 'proper HDR'.
 

Darknight

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,103
I still think the HD transition was way, way smoother and easier for consumers to understand.
Basically you had HD Ready TVs supporting 720p and Full HD TVs supporting 1080p resolutions.
When you bought a HD Ready TV you knew your games would run at 720p.
Your TV manufacturer didn't tell you that it actually supported Full HD but downscaled to 720p.
The closest comparison that could be made would be if all games ran at variable framerates... maybe... but it depends on what TV you have...

That's the problem with HDR right now. Every TV manufacturer claims support on basically every TV model but doesn't tell you that the panel is actually shit and you won't see the difference. Even if you have a good panel you might still not see a difference because games have a shitty HDR implementation or only fix / patch it in weeks or months after the initial release. Oh, and make sure you go on internet forums and hope that someone has the same model TV as you so that person can tell you how to configure your TV so that you might experience true HDR.

Nah, fuck that.
The bolded is absolutely not true. You had to factor in the native res of the display which wasn't obvious to your normal consumer. Hell they still do this where you can find a TV that is "1080p" but all it does is accept the signal and then down scales it. TV manufacturers really did handle the resolution in a similar fashion as how HDR is misleading.

One problem is that people treat HDR as a checklist binary feature. They shouldn't. It doesn't help when people try to point this out that others yell at them for being elitist either.
 

mORTEN

Member
Dec 3, 2018
104
I need a better tv. I have a Sony 43X800D. HDR looks washed out no matter what settings are recommended to me by people. I’ve spent countless hours trying to get it to look good, and can’t do it.
I had to turn up the contrast quite a bit. Mines a different tv though (Samsung ks8005), but it looked washed out for the longest time.
 

Davilmar

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,116
HDR and Raytracing are one of those things that I will never seemingly understand the huge hype for, and will continually roll my eyes at people arguing about not having televisions or computer monitors or other peripheries that can properly display or demonstrate its features. Just seems like something that continues to string me along again and again.
 

1.21Gigawatts

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,936
Munich
The only game in which HDR really was worse than the regular experience was RDR2.
Their HDR implementation basically just looked like a gray veil was laid over everything. It was fine during the dark snowy opening, but everything afterward looked better with HDR off.


My favorite HDR implementation is probably the one in Spider-Man.
It just completely changed the way colors look and it looks way more realistic and less gamey.
 

Darknight

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,103
HDR and Raytracing are one of those things that I will never seemingly understand the huge hype for, and will continually roll my eyes at people arguing about not having televisions or computer monitors or other peripheries that can properly display or demonstrate its features. Just seems like something that continues to string me along again and again.
Wait, you don't get the benefits of ray tracing? Forget the early implementation of it, but the general concepts of it?
 

KeRaSh

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,627
Placebo and high contrast most likely, some of the faux-HDR tvs come shipped with super high contrast and colour settings.

The most common analogue to this situation is probably the "HD Ready" tvs back in the mid 2000s when they would come with resolutions lower than 720p but would accept a 720P+ signal and scale it.
The bolded is absolutely not true. You had to factor in the native res of the display which wasn't obvious to your normal consumer. Hell they still do this where you can find a TV that is "1080p" but all it does is accept the signal and then down scales it. TV manufacturers really did handle the resolution in a similar fashion as how HDR is misleading.

One problem is that people treat HDR as a checklist binary feature. They shouldn't. It doesn't help when people try to point this out that others yell at them for being elitist either.
I have edited my post. I actually didn't know HD Ready didn't always mean 720p. That is indeed similar to the HDR situation but it's only a small part of the problem.
I still stand by my opinion that the HDR situation is way worse.
So you buy an HD Ready TV and you get a panel with a sub-720p resolution. That sucks but there's nothing you can do to fix that.
With HDR you need to fiddle with all kinds of settings and even if your TV supports HDR there are a bunch of other factors that decide whether your HDR experience is good or bad. Contrast, black levels, nits, edge lighting, etc. all play a role in this and if any of those factors is not up to par then it ruins the whole experience.
So yes, it might be similar to the HD adoption, but it's actually way worse.
 

Davilmar

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,116
Wait, you don't get the benefits of ray tracing? Forget the early implementation of it, but the general concepts of it?
Oh sure, the technical aspect of being able to achieve one of the crown jewels of rendering is fascinating. Aside from that? Meh. That comes with the mediocre implementation, and that it doesn't fundamentally change how I play the game itself. Get me a game that demonstrated how much light plays a role in design and gameplay (i.e., Splinter Cell and others), and that will impress me as a gamer.
 

R0987

Avenger
Jan 20, 2018
1,018
I have a KS7000 which is a 'proper' HDR tv and to be fair im not being blown away when it comes to hdr in games and movies on this set the only ones that do are those bright demo videos which isnt what hdr is supposed to be according to some folks here.
 

leng jai

Member
Nov 2, 2017
10,211
Oh sure, the technical aspect of being able to achieve one of the crown jewels of rendering is fascinating. Aside from that? Meh. That comes with the mediocre implementation, and that it doesn't fundamentally change how I play the game itself. Get me a game that demonstrated how much light plays a role in design and gameplay (i.e., Splinter Cell and others), and that will impress me as a gamer.
We're just at the beginning of ray tracing, obviously the way it's done in games right now is limited and inefficient. Give it a few years and it will completely change how games are rendered. It is also potentially a huge time saver for developers themselves.
 

Davilmar

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,116
We're just at the beginning of ray tracing, obviously the way it's done in games right now is limited and inefficient. Give it a few years and it will completely change how games are rendered. It is also potentially a huge time saver for developers themselves.
I can only hope, because the current implementation in GPUs left me very underwhelmed. The only good thing is the time-saving labor it will have on developers, so I can be happy on their behalf. HDR is just been disappointing in general to me, and the amount of work needed to both get a good television, the time needed to find good adjustments, and even hoping the game or show does proper HDR makes it not worth the effort.
 

Darknight

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,103
I have edited my post. I actually didn't know HD Ready didn't always mean 720p. That is indeed similar to the HDR situation but it's only a small part of the problem.
I still stand by my opinion that the HDR situation is way worse.
So you buy an HD Ready TV and you get a panel with a sub-720p resolution. That sucks but there's nothing you can do to fix that.
With HDR you need to fiddle with all kinds of settings and even if your TV supports HDR there are a bunch of other factors that decide whether your HDR experience is good or bad. Contrast, black levels, nits, edge lighting, etc. all play a role in this and if any of those factors is not up to par then it ruins the whole experience.
So yes, it might be similar to the HD adoption, but it's actually way worse.
Like I said before, i think people take for granted the painful transition that happened when we moved to the HD era. We take it for granted now, but back when it happened, it was a complete mess and I'd say it was even worse in many ways than the HDR stuff. With the HD stuff, if stuff didn't line up, you could be really burned. HDCP was no joke and that pretty much prevented a signal from even working on your TV. That's by far worse than your colors not being as accurate.

I think a lot of the stuff that people complain about with HDR will settle down over time, just like the transition to HD. A lot of that stuff is just simply early adopter pains and things being in flux with manufacturers transitioning in the tech and content makers figuring out how to best master the content. This is one of the reasons why I urged people to not jump on things right away because the dust had not settled and people are going to get burned by jumping in too soon. People clearly have been. A lot of the stuff you're complaining about factors in to picture quality overall, so it's not just HDR. Those will always be an impact on your overall image quality, but a lot of the core things needed to make HDR look decent will be standard and common in time, just like how 1080p sets with HDMI and HDCP settled down.

Oh sure, the technical aspect of being able to achieve one of the crown jewels of rendering is fascinating. Aside from that? Meh. That comes with the mediocre implementation, and that it doesn't fundamentally change how I play the game itself. Get me a game that demonstrated how much light plays a role in design and gameplay (i.e., Splinter Cell and others), and that will impress me as a gamer.
Fair enough. I think we're in the very early stages of it, and the results are still clearly showing that, but over time, it's going to be something significant. The fact that we're getting it in some form at all is big enough. It has to start somewhere and mature, but the hype about ray tracing being a reality is totally a reasonable thing. We just need it to mature now. Think back how the first 3D polygon games looked and look at where we are now. Imagine complaining back then how awful 3D games must look compared to beautiful 2D art.
 

Davilmar

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,116
Fair enough. I think we're in the very early stages of it, and the results are still clearly showing that, but over time, it's going to be something significant. The fact that we're getting it in some form at all is big enough. It has to start somewhere and mature, but the hype about ray tracing being a reality is totally a reasonable thing. We just need it to mature now.
Everything you said is reasonable. I just wish people didn't hype this like we just cured the video game equivalent of cancer, given how early implementation was. Making it the selling point of modern GPUs I think undermined the importance of raytracing a bit, given how poorly it has been implemented so far. We're going to wait a few years regardless, but I'll hopefully have more to be happy about then.
 

Darknight

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,103
I agree with you and have a 2018 LG, but i keep seeing people say that the nits on LG OLED is still too low.
Looks good to me, though. Alien 4K and in the dark scenes w/ the flamethrower and my eyeballs are singed.
The reason is because people are wrongfully focused on nits alone. While the LG OLED doesn't have the same peak brightness, it makes up for it in the black and contrast level that LCD TVs lack.
 

dreamstation

Member
Oct 27, 2017
421
Australia
I need a better tv. I have a Sony 43X800D. HDR looks washed out no matter what settings are recommended to me by people. I’ve spent countless hours trying to get it to look good, and can’t do it.
I have a 75X9000F and I can't get HDR looking too great either. I've checked out settings online, tried my own settings and I honestly can't really tell what all the fuss is about? Maybe my eyes are shit but yeah I expected more when I first saw it to be honest.