Originally Posted by reanimator
Exactly. "Good HDR" doesn't mean my retinas have to get fried.
Why not, at least in certain examples? You don't have to have an OLED to have "good" blacks. Many displays can do merely "good" blacks. But there is something extra-special about the perfect blacks of OLED, which videophiles crave, now isn't there?
Well it is the same for HDR. Sure, a few consumer displays today can give a "good" HDR performance, but there is something extra-special about a "superb" or "spectacular" HDR performance, just like there is something extra-special about those OLED blacks. The best consumer display for HDR is the Z9D, hands down, and even with that there is quite a bit of room for improvement, so we are a long way from "perfect HDR".
Yesterday was a beautiful clear sunny day, and I went for a walk along the river, to see the eagles. The sun was shining and reflecting off the water, and it was so blindingly bright that I had to turn away and not stare at it too long. If the ultimate goal is to have displays reproduce scenery as close as possible to the real world, then why wouldn't you want your display to be retina-frying, since that is how the sun and reflections from the sun look like in real life?
I think folks who say "My TV is bright enough, I don't need or want any more brightness" either have not experienced or don't fully understand or appreciate the full benefits of HDR, or are jealous that their display cannot get bright enough to compete with the ones which can do 1500-2000 nits (for now), so they attempt to convince themselves that the increased luminance capabilities are superfluous and unnecessary.