That is what I would do, yes. I'm not that interested in the peak 100% increasing that much, that can already be quite bothersome whereas increasing the 5, 10, 25% window brightness/color volume I'm down with. People talk about HDR sometimes being too bright and hurting their eyes but this depends on the content. Scenes in games/movies with HDR highlights are quite pleasing to the eye in general (car front/rear headlights at night on racing games or movies like John Wick 3, lightning in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, neon signs in Resident Evil 3) and those can go up as much as the tv can do. But you watch The Matrix, when Morpheus takes Neo to the loading system with it's all white background, and I had to cover my eyes some, even though that's hitting a much lower nit value in part because of ABL, but since it occupies most of my 65in screen, it's harder on the eyes. But relaxing ABL a bit has benefits for things like hockey or certain games that are vibrant (Mario Sunshine, Dragon Ball FighterZ).
Yes, I think all of us that follow HDR and (think we) understand it, agree that we're looking for brightness in the pixel/2%/10% windows so to speak. I haven't read Dolby's 10K lumen roadmap white paper in quite a while but i don't believe they ever advocated increasing the 100% window by much if at all.
) since we have a logarithmic response, then we might say this improvement might be juuuust noticeable for the glint off some chrome or a brighter moon, etc. You won't notice anything for full screen. I'd hazard a guess that you wouldn't notice the difference unless you had a CX and C1 side by side. That's my 2 minutes of thinking about, which is always dangerous. Any other thoughts?
