Originally Posted by Gillietalls
With this HDR and nits war going on... Does anyone know what nits this TV is capable of and how much of the DCI or P3 does it cover? Just curious.
Here's what I've seen on the X850C threads...All of this is in the HDR FAQ tab in the X850C FAQ in my sig.
Originally Posted by DoctorM
True HDR requires "More than 1000 nits peak brightness"?! On the x850c, with clearness at 0 and the backlight at Max, you get 282.2nits. This setting makes my eyes hurt. I mean squinting at the screen hurt. Do we really need 4 times brighter?
I think HDR is doomed to failure before it even starts just from eyestrain.
Below are a couple of posts on this subject from King Richard which are interesting and related to your question about NITS.
Originally Posted by King Richard
"The minimum spec of 1000 nits has to do with the brightness of ""specular highlights"" (very small areas of the screen) not the overallmium” logo. It does not mean that other HDR ready TVs (like the X850C series) will not be able to display HDR but only that they will not be able to display the Logo.
In other words, the HDR capable/ready TVs (again, like our X850Cs) that can't reach 1000 nits brightness will still be able to display HDR content but the ""specular highlights won't be as bright.
As far as Rec.2020 color space is concerned, the specs. don't say that a TV has to reach 100% of the Rec.2020 (no modern display can do that, it's not possible). It simply states that the TV needs to accept a Rec.2020 color space signal.
It further stipulates that, in order to have a licence to display the “Ultra HD Premium” logo, it needs to be able display over 90% of the DCI P3 spec. DCI P3 is only 72.9% of Rec.2020. Therefore, 90% of P3 would be less than 70% of the Rec.2020 color gamut.
Color Palette (Wide Color Gamut)
* Signal Input: BT.2020 color representation
* Display Reproduction: More than 90% of P3 colors
Originally Posted by King Richard
"""Peak brightness"" (and the brightness of 'specular highlights') is only one small part of what HDR is all about. For instance, HDR is about capturing/displaying/seeing a lot more details both in the bright parts of the Image as well as the dark parts of the image (shadow details). And it is also about better, brighter, more saturated and vibrant ""true-to-life"" colors, and is closely related to a wider color gamut (WCG) and color depth (bits).
The ""Color Space"" is a 2 dimensional measurement of the color (chroma); the brightness (luminance/luma) or HDR is the third dimension. When you combine both HDR and WCG (luma+chroma) you get a three dimensional measurement called ""Color Volume"". When you increase the dynamic range, you can increase the brightness of an image without 'washing out' the colors.
For example, if you are trying to display a bright blue sky with fluffy white clouds on a SDR (standard dynamic range) display and you want to increase the brightness on the sky, the blue will 'wash out' and quickly start fading into white and the clouds will start 'disappearing'. However, if you increase the dynamic range, then you have a lot more 'headroom' to play with and therefore you can increase the brightness a lot more while still retaining the saturation of the blue.
The same goes for the ""lower end"" of the dynamic range. You can decrease/lower the brightness a lot more before the dark grays fade into black and you start losing all the 'shadow detail'. The same applies to the ""middle"" of the dynamic range as well (which is also ""stretched""), resulting in better, brighter, more saturated colors.
And Civuck had an interesting HDR post here: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lc...l#post40336970
Originally Posted by Civuck
I've been thinking a lot about this myself also, and it seems with HDR, a lot of previous fundamentals and rules about display calibration are getting thrown out.
And like with 3D before it, I think there will be a lot of short-term novelty with HDR before viewer comfort ultimately wins in the end. 1000 nits of brightness is the new 3D glasses - both too uncomfortable to the viewer over prolonged viewing.
I would venture to say that all properly calibrated displays are not done with settings that push the display to its maximum brightness potential. If anything, properly calibrated displays often get accused of being too dark.
So where does that leave us? I think LG makes a stronger - if not more realistic- argument for HDR by promoting the "dark end" of the brightness scale, where OLED really excels. If viewers, for comfort reasons, are just going to dial back those 1000 nit capable displays - what's the value of that capability? I think there will be more value - at least in common lighting environments - in being able to resolve and convey more detail in the darker areas of the image.