Originally Posted by imagic
Actually, the underlying issue when it comes to color volume is that W-OLED uses a white pixel to achieve its peak brightness, and that's why the gamut it can achieve at higher brightness levels starts to drop. Since LCDs are using RGB sub-pixels, colors can be more fully saturated at peak luminance levels. When you rely on a white sub-pixel to achieve that HDR-friendly peak luminance, what gets lost is the ability to render wide color gamut at high luminance levels. This limitation is irrelevant for BT.709 content,but with HDR content it can lead to clipping, which is visible and is not relative i.e. dependent on the adaptation of the human eye. The image with the candy, that's just one photo. My camera is not dynamic, it captured the same limitation I described in my article.
What is true is that if you have nothing to compare a display to (a reference), your eyes and brain adapt.
Here's the original photo (cropped)...
Not exactly what I mean. Perhaps OLED have less color volume at peak luminance, but where you calibrate peak luminance can vary. Our eyes never measure anything in absolutes, so if the OLED display is the brightest thing in the room, then to your brain, that is peak brightness, that is the reference point. Because OLED displays can do true black, the overall dynamic range is still greater.
The point is, if you calibrate an OLED correctly, and are in a dark room, then then the display is what controls your eyes dialation. You can control light output so that you get the same volume of increase over baseline brightness and the same amount of dialation from a much lower amount of luminance. .001 nit vs 1nit is the same as 1nit vs 1000nit (i cant remember if the scale is linear or log, but who cares, the specific numbers are irrelevant). This is true as long as the oled display is what is controlling the Eye's dilation. There are still flaws and limitations no doubt, but it is not a simple A is better than B scenario, and it doesn't make side by side tests any more valid.
Also you are incorrect. Your camera is dynamic, that is what the FStop and Shutter speed are for. If you manually set aperture then you could be best targeting either display or neither. If you set aperture manually, then the camera just like your eye adjusted to the total light input it was seeing which means it calibrated to the brighter display in the room. To accurately photograph both displays with a fair comparison for low light viewing, you would need to use a LUX meter to measure each display and then mathematically determine the appropriate Fstop.
Also, you are ignoring things like localized contrast. Because of the way backlights work, there is no way to accurately control the contrast of light and dark objects that are near eachother. LED in this instance would have TOO MUCH color volume. ie, if there is a bright highlight of a color near a normal brightness object of the same color, the backlight cannot magically make it both bright and dark. You can use a few different tricks such as oversaturating the brightness of the highlight rather than increasing actual brightness to simulate an increase in brightness due to the way the brain perceives saturation, but what you cannot do is make both the highlight AND the normal brightness object accurate at once.
This gets a bit ironic as even the best LED lose most of their brightness when the entire image is bright (when the backlight is more uniform). It's only for highlights that they can achieve the extreme brightness figures. I find it hard to believe you could drive any SMALL part of the display at 1400nits without causing some degree of blooming/haloing no matter how good your panel and processing are. Yes, it is only really visible when whats around it is black, but that doesn't mean the effect isn't happening even when its not over black. The processing engine ends up with a choice, make the highlight accurate, make the lowlight accurate, or meet in the middle. But this means that you always have compromised panel uniformity.
I'd be very interested in the measurements you would see if you used multiple meters on these displays and took multiple readings in both the light and dark sections (that are close to eachother) at once. I suspect, (and could be wrong) that you would see a pretty significant difference in that the OLED would better maintain it's accuracy regardless of where the readings where taken.