A lot of negativity here... All the man is trying to tell you is that with future OLEDS, with higher brightness potential, will not only mean a brighter TV but better presentation of actual HDR content! Where more details are preserved in scenes with High Dynamic Range content, pretty simple stuff...
I think the issue is that he cherry picking specific scenes that are extremely bright and are literally 0.015% of the movie. Who cares? That said, I love his videos and appreciate his analysis.
I watch Movies and UA-cam videos in moderate to subdued lighting, and on rare occasions in a darkened room. When I was a CET, we were taught that these sorts of lighting conditions were optimal for critical viewing. I had to turn the brightness on my OLED down during HDR content because it kept making me wince. Owning a TV set with brightness levels so high that it feels as if you need sunglasses to watch it isn't necessary to enjoy HDR content. Just darken the room a bit.
@@maximilianadair3237 he didn’t cherry pick. That’s how HDR works. Not all scenes need as high of nits. The proper way to create HDR is to keep the darks and mid values the same. So most of everything will still look good at 100 nits. It’s everything above where different levels of brightness can keep more detail. This is precisely why HDR goes up to 10,000 nits. It’s those areas that would normally be crushed white flat scenes that can hold more detail. With only 400 nits those specular highlight areas will be washed out because there is no detail left. 650 nits isn’t even showing the full potential of HDR here and ironically Hollywood movies rarely make good use of HDR. Theaters have horrible brightness. Real life material or material designed to be HDR would show an even larger difference between 400 nits and 650 nits. 650 nits isn’t even all that great. 1600 nits is my new standard. It really shows that much more highlight detail and makes liquids and metals look extremely lifelike. Every display technology right now has cons. When it comes to OLED burnin and lack of brightness are it’s two major cons. I see no point in getting upset over that fact. If you have OLED enjoy it. It does look great. Just know it’s brightness is limited. That can’t really be disputed. It’s a cold hard fact and right there in the numbers. If HDR uses up to 10,000 nits how on earth could 400 nits be good enough? Black level also has nothing to do with brightness. Just because the darks can be darker doesn’t mean that has an impact on the mid range values or the highlights. It strictly means the really dark values can actually get really dark. That’s it. It may increase contrast and make the image more punchy but that doesn’t have any impact at all on highlight detail. It’s the highlights that really matter in HDR. It’s those values over 100 nits we are trying to preserve. Micro LED is where we all want to be. Mini LED and OLED are both temporary solutions with negatives.
Nothing about this is simple dude. People are salty because they spend thousands of dollars and then see a video like this basically saying their TV is garbage. I have what many consider to be the best OLED available right now: LG C1 77" it has the Evo panel but I'm not going to activate it because I don't want to void my warranty. I'm just saying I have the right to be salty. Lol
@@JackBusiness89 except nobody said their TV was garbage. It’s pointing out the fact that OLED doesn’t get as bright but it has other advantages. Not once was anything called garbage. Not sure why anyone needs to be salty about it. At the very least don’t direct that saltiness towards a well thought out video that points out that OLED is not perfect at everything.
It’s clear some of you didn’t watch this video. Vincent isn’t saying that OLED is suddenly a terrible technology to buy into, he’s just saying that it’s a fact that LED handle HDR content in brighter scenes much better then OLED. That’s been known for a while now and it isn’t some new phenomenon, as a OLED TV owner you understand that your sacrificing brightness and maximum HDR detail for dark scenes that look absolutely stunning compared to a LED screen with its halo effects.
The point people are making is that he never made that point before, about OLEDs not being good for HDR when he was selling it to people. He's not trying to sell LCDs, he's trying to sell the new Evo OLEDs to people
@@loughrey101 The montage at the end of the video was literally him stating that OLEDs were not that great for peak brightness in HDR content compared to LED.
Exactly. People are losing their shit because of this video when he didnt even say anything bad lol, all he did was explain why 1000 nits would be better.
@@loughrey101 Yes he did, did you even watch the video? Also you can check his review from the 100 inch ZD9 for example where he calls it the HDR king. Vincent has ALWAYS explained how nits are important for HDR.
@@loughrey101 You havent been paying attention because he has always said that. Some people just like to try to discredit someone when there is nothing there.
It no joke, my friends always complain when choosing a movie to watch and I know that a 4k release is imminent or available. I refuse to watch anything less.
@@anthonysorensen3666 Some scenes yes, not always. Even some HDR 4K are not much better then 1080p versino. But I still can't watch it if there's a 4K released.
@@dealerovski82 I recently started watching movies in 4K, and I’ve noticed that there is a huge difference in quality between every 4K release. For example, I watched John Wick Chapter 3 and The Meg. John Wick had amazing colors, but the image was very grainy, whereas The Meg was incredibly sharp and clear. While I love both releases, I was surprised at the difference between the two.
It amazes me at how offended people get if something negative is said about the technology of your choice. Everyone knows there isn't a perfect tv technology available. How else will tech companies continue selling their newer tech if something is already perfect? Vincent has always been honest about the drawbacks of all worlds. If you chose to ignore it then that's on you. I bought multiple LCD's and one OLED, none of them were perfect but the one that impressed me the most was the 75Z9D. That's what I stuck with and to be honest OLED is not for me. I'm a gamer and I put in lots of hours. OLED was too dim and unspectacular with HDR content.
Right. There simply isn't a perfect TV. If there was the price would be above obscene. You have to find the best compromise for you. Vincent does a great job trying to educate people to the pros and cons of each technology, each TV. In the end it has to be a compromise. Get educated, go check it out, get the best one for you. Then enjoy.
True, OLED are not meant for general rooms to begin with. It's only good for the dark TV room or night watching when it's already dark no light coming from out side. My family is always Sony and because we play video games from different consoles and the guys loves watching sports. My big sisters and nephews are big gamers. But we don't have a play or TV room. Our TV is in the family room that is not ideal for OLED.
It still crushes me that Sony would not ship the 75" to my country. I love my 65Z9D but man, going back down in size and it being such a great telly hurts. It hurts.
When I bought my LG OLED 65 B7V I knew that peak brightness would be lower (700 nits at 10% coverage max) but the black level detail is so much better so that what's important to me. I've watched about 250 HDR10 en DV films on it and I can't say the limited peak brightness is a big problem. Sure, it could be better, but a lot of HDR movies (certainly older ones) have indeed SDR level brightness. And the better ones look excellent to me because how many scenes does a movies count where if goes over the peak brightness capabilities of your OLED TV? Very very few I'm sure. But very good explanation of the PQ curve and excellent video!
Well said. Im happy with my Panas gz960 .. blurays, uhd player with hdr and dv, netflix and gaming. Before i had an Sony with LED's.. the picture was great, but dark areas were bleeding with light.. for me, the jump from led's to oled was huge
Im an OLED owner and fanboy. This is a good video and its very fair. The issue is that for me to get more NITS I then have to trade that off and lose my perfect blacks, unlimited contrast & viewing angles. Its not worth it to me but scientifically this video is accurate and well done. No argument. No TV tech is perfect.
Trouble is perfect blacks, you suffer black crush and lose a lot detail in very dark scene. There is no perfect one display, but QD OLED May have more promise as it gives the advantage of OLED and Quantum dot tech which has improved LED tech, in QLED tvs much better than standard LCD/LED tvs
@@denodan oled rarely ever crush blacks, dark scenes are darker than lcd but 95% there is no black crush. It’s literally a non issue compared to shitty haloing blooming and garbage backlight transitions from lcd that are always there.
I had the 2018 Vizio P Series Quantum, which was Insanely bright. like 2400 nits bright. The HDR highlights were insane... I now own the LG C9 and find that the highlights aren't as blinding but the contrast and complete lack of haloing and light bleed from LED TVs is a more pleasing image. The HDR highlights still pop at a fraction of the peak brightness due to the fact it has perfect contrast ratio.
Also, HDR is mastered for theater/home theater environments. Imo you should design your room around your screen and surround sound, not the other way around... including light sources, direct lighting vectors and overall lighting environments.
@@elvnmagi9048 haha, whilst that is great in theory life (kids) have a habit of getting in the way of such a dream so we have to make do with the environment we have.
@@elvnmagi9048 It’s already ridiculous to have to babysit OLEDS in order to prevent burn-in. I definitely don’t want to also have to design my house around the shortcomings of OLED technology. If I were going go to that much trouble, it would make more sense to just buy a projector and put it in a dedicated, light-controlled theater room.
LOL. These comments. Okay; I am an LG GX owner here and have my screen in a mostly dark room. I absolutely LOVE the picture quality of my OLED. Everything looks so good on PS5 and even HDR content on Netflix and Blu ray. Would I be stoked if I could get my screen brighter by 20%? You betcha. Does it mean this tv sucks? Nope. Do I wish I’d have gotten the Samsung QLED? Not at all-not even the 8k. Is Vincent accurate when he says that OLED brightness isn’t good enough for bright specular highlights? He is. And I totally agree. Yet I can still love my current TV. Crazy.
This is a very difficult composition to illustrate with ISO challenges from a camera. Great job Vincent. Your messaging was overwhelmingly evident on my 77” CX in 4K using the native UA-cam app.
My Sony X930E is still one of the brightest TVs ever made, approaching 1,500 nits. I considered OLED, but it’s low brightness just made HDR severely underwhelming. The X930E, by comparison, is stunning with HDR. Yes, OLED is better in dark scenes, but I think that a good LED TV can get far closer to OLED blacks than an OLED can get to LED brightness. Since there are trade offs at both ends of the brightness spectrum, LED wins overall because it can cover more of the total “color volume” due to its much wider luminance range. That “looking through a picture window” effect that is achieved with quality 4K content is far more realistic on a bright LED. There is no substitute for specular highlights that actually make you squint as in real life. That effect really causes a suspension of disbelief. Last, but not least, after owning one of the early CRT-based HD rear projection TVs, I refuse to ever again own a TV on which I have to carefully monitor what type of programming I am watching, and how often, in order to avoid burn-in. I want a TV, not a babysitting job.
Exactly where I come from. Also owning that mighty XE93 and Been using this as Proof to Most OLED-fans that a Higher end LED TV can create a Superior Viewing experience. I think Most people only really Know entry- or midrange Level LED Displays... And from that Point of View, I could get the wrong ideas about OLED being Superior. But what Vincent Said Here in this Video is what I am preaching for quite a few years now: OLED doesn't do bright HDR presentations Justice.
I have both x930e 65" and the x940e 75". While it's true x930e gets super bright, it does have a weakness in blooming artifact due to not being full array. On the other hand while x940e is slightly less bright, but because it has full array local dimming, I find the overall picture better (less blooming). But then x930e is better for gaming than x940e, so I use the x940e mainly for movies, and x930e for gaming.
Ok so let me lay this all to rest. I am a techie, love my tech and recently got an a80j. My wife has no idea about tech, we had a Sony led before. She said something while we were watching daredevil which hit me. She said it feels like that is happening in our room. The picture on an oled just looks so much more realistic then an led. Sure, an led can get more brighter but that is not realistic, we have just got used to it. Remember, plasmas had a max nit of 100 and were considered to have the better picture quality. Because we have got used to seeing unrealistic images on traditional TV's it takes a while getting used to a realistic image, once you do there is no going back.
Not really, no. Perceptual part means that you should not work with this side-by-side method, but should adapt to the tone curve as it is on the display.
It won't matter. Every other thread there are a barrage of MY OLED BLINDS ME. I DON'T UNDERSTAND!!! WHO NEEDS NITS??? Despite Vincent explaining it over and over. I have a suspicion these people need to be told not to look directly at the sun...
I don't think it's really even comparable, the OLED destroyed the LED in all those tests, it would be cheaper to just buy a lightbulb and stare at it if brightness is that important.
Defeats the purpose of HDR, but doesn't matter when viewing SDR content. I have a NU8000 series Samsung TV from 2018 that has 5400:1 contrast ratio. I would love the OLED blacks but this is still amazing value for 75" screen that cost around 1500eur 2,5 years ago.
I agree. As with Plasma screens, the picture quality and accuracy is worth the trade off. All other display technologies have their own advantages, but overall are inferior to Oled, as they were to Plasma.
Seems a pretty fair assessment. I'd still go OLED as I watch 99% of the time in the evening in a dimly lit room. Brighter OLEDs are a welcome upgrade and should be plenty good enough until microled arrives. Remember it's horses for courses, buy the technology that best suits your use case.
Exactly! I also watch in the evening with really dim lighting or dark and I prefer not to have my retinas burned out by 1000 nits thank you very much. My LG B9 is awesome....😁
This was one of biggest deterrents against getting an OLED (besides the very small chance of burn in). It is a double-edged sword when it comes to TV tech and going for either perfect blacks, or higher peak brightness.
Everything explained in this video is NOTHING new. Anyone that has been paying attention to this channel knows the following things: OLED excels in the color black. What OLED lacks in peak brightness, it compensates with superior contrast, response time, and black levels. OLED is meant to be used in dark room environments. LED LCD excels in the color white. What it lacks in black levels and contrast, it compensates with superior peak brightness. THE PERFECT CONSUMER-PRICED TV STILL DOES NOT EXIST.
Everything is HDR, he is done with the LG CX. He will move on to the 2021 TVs. Interesting that he posts his most negative CX video this late and not 8 months ago. Views are king.
it's interesting to me that most people end up squinting there eyes when looking at bright objects and I must admit I often look at darker items in a bright scene.
@John Hooper Exactly. People argue that we dont need super high brightness for displays, which is basically like arguing that you should walk around with sunglasses on your entire life. Content creators have to trust you wont stare at 1500+ nit areas of the screen because it's instinctually uncomfortable, but having that ability to produce such brightness still has a significant impact on the overall contrast of the image, not to mention the greater color depths possible.
i get it. so its not simply about overall brightness but the difference in brightness between different pixels to show detail where limiting peak brightness does not allow for specific pixels to reach a different level of brightness compared to those around it in order to show affected details in the image. its like being color blind for light levels. think of the cards used to determine color blindness. they use specific varying colors to show numbers. by removing a color(limit peak brightness in a sense) you remove the number from the image that would have otherwise been detectible. its why being able to display more shades of any color allow for more detail to be shown in images that use mostly or all of the same exact color.
I got an OLED because I thought they were the best in terms of contrast and HDR. Imagine my mixed feelings when it turns out my much cheaper Mini LED monitor has better HDR representation... The OLED has better contrast, though.
He's just saying there's no perfect display tech around... Calm yourselves. OLED is still the best tech if you value contrast and blacks and do not fuss about losing some details of the picture sometimes. I watch a movie because of the story not because and I dont nedd to watch all the details to the milimeter
There’s just something about OLED, I don’t know if it’s because of the contrast, but images have this 3D pop to them. Maybe it’s not the contrast, because IPS panels have a bit of that effect too. VA panels look the most” 2D” to me
@@justsaying993 really? I've never had this 3d pop up effect on my OLED (BX9). But I've had it though on the Hisense flagship model of 2020 like crazy 😅. Funny how the experience differse.
This is just like the discussion about Hifi audio equipment. On one side, content creators and enthusiasts are deeply dissatisfied with the poor quality of the average speaker, and perplexed as to why many consumers claim that the tinnitus-inflicting sound of their laptop or TV is perfectly fine for them. On the other side, the average consumer doesn't either have the buying power or simply care as to why they should spend thousands upon thousands on massive and often visually unattractive speakers. In the end, in many cases, neither side is wrong. No-one should be forced to buy what they don't feel is worth their money, on a subject that isn't important to them. But it is absolutely wrong to claim there isn't a difference and that it doesn't matter, when obviously there is a difference and it does matter to plenty of people who work, distribute and enjoy said content.
Suomi mainittu! Yeah, people need to understand that everyone has different needs and when you have neighbours to consider, you can't have big loud sound system. But in Hifi, the technology doesn't evolve as fast and i bought second-hand passive reference monitors for 200€, these will work for rest of my life and "better" analog amps are available hopefully if i need to upgrade something.
Hm, yeah, massive I get. Expensive, hell yeah. But visually unattractive?! Focal Kanta, Sopra and Utopia. Absolutely gorgeous. Dali Epicon. KEF Reference, Blade, Muon. Raidho D and TD. etc. They sound great, and they look like a million bucks.
" visually unattractive speakers" sounds like sour grapes. I've spend thousands and I only go up not back again because the difference is so big and the price point allows choose between the design.
Vincent nailed it again. After years of publication of this video OLED tech matured and now it is fully capable displaying the 650nit content. Im a G3 owner and the content is exactly the same as the reference becuase the G3 is capable to display 650nits easily (in fact its double is also okey for her). So Vincent was right!
Weird question: does your mechanistic understanding of how displays work get in the way of the experience of the material you watch? Im afraid that the close to reality your videos bring me (I watch most of them) the more difficult it is to get lost in what I watch lol
Actually you're so right. First and foremost we must enjoy of watching whatever we would like.... Bringing up excessive technicality and scrutinization would reduce our joy and excitement ....
This is exactly where I’m at right now, unfortunately. Just recently bought my first HDR QDOLED monitor, and everything I watch is subconsciously scrutinised, whereas before it was just about the experience and fidelity of the resolution. It’s akin to listening to music and just enjoying the experience in a general kind of way. But after learning to play an instrument and researching and learning, suddenly you’re hearing individual instruments, how they’re projected through the headphones soundstage and how they’ve been mixed in. I’m really trying to get back to just enjoying the experience without too much fuss, but every now and again I wonder into the settings to tweak.
ok you made your point that 650 nits is better than 400 nit BUT is there a benefit from 650 -> 1000 ? At some point there are diminishing returns and if the creator mastered the content for 650 nits peak brightness, there is no big benefit to have more brightness. Even in your own bluray review we see that peak brightness rarely even uses 1000 nits.
Not every single frame of a movie has to reach 1000 nits. Those that do will be more impactful on a display that can reproduce a higher level of brightness. It is thrilling to watch bright scenes of my own HDR videos on my 1200 nit iPhone 12 Pro Max in a way that my LG 55CX can't match.
But there are several titles that exceed that, so on OLED it would be much more beneficial. The 20% increase in brightness, could mean a higher APL of 200 nits(evidence in films released recently), and little to no tone mapping for content graded with peaks as high as 1000 nits.
If the movie has details that needs 2000 nits, you need tv that can show 2000 nits to show those details! So 1000 nits tv does show more of those 2000 nits content than 650 nits tv can, but still lose a lot of them. So the better nits tv can show the better! But it depends on the content! A movie like Blade runner 2049 where peak brighnes is 200 nits is as good with 400 Nits oled and 1300 nits oled. All details can be seen with both. So it all depends on the content!
I think the reason most people who have an OLED are satisfied with the peak brightness is because mostly it is being used in a dark room, where sometimes you even have to turn down the brightness,
Yes, and the contrast which you eyes are adjusted for with the blacks being black. Playing games on mine HDR scenes with lots of sunlight hurt my eyes even with the brightness tamed. Horses for courses.... and of course Vincent is one of those people that wants it exactly as it was intended by the creator.
Did you watch the video, this wasn't the point at all. If creators make 1000 nit HDR content, it will be bad on LG CX. Also it makes HDR scenes/highlight dimmer. But I think most content is less than 1000 nits, then it's quite good.
I hate to say it but he is right. I own the LG OLED 55E7P model and watch a lot of UHD Bluray discs but my friend just bought a newer Sony OLED with 1200 nits and I was blown away by the HDR highlights.
I 💯% agree! I just got back from best buy. I was sitting looking at 77in CX thinking about getting an Open Box. Medium dim lighting there and they had Avatar playing on it.... No way, not bright enough plus allot of crushed blacks. Sitting next to Z8H which had great pop colors and good brightness but not near the contrast. Sat there thinking, I want Z8 brightness on that CX panel. I hope we get that this year, it's worth waiting for and the 8k added nothing to the picture, the OLED was way sharper. GX, A90J for me unless I just decide to go REALLY big with a 950j 85in
I also have the E9 65" and I'm very satisfied with it. I think isf bright room works really well for SDR content in daylight and cinema home for HDR when it's not dark around me.
I would argue that a sudden fullscreen whiteout of 150nits while watching a movie in a dark room is already blasting pure pain into my eyes. Can't imagine the same scene at several hundred nits. That said, I'm definitely in favor of following creative intent, and if the creative intent is for my eyes to melt down onto my cheeks, then I do want a screen that enables that. For now, this OLED will have to suffice.
This was actually a VERY GOOD video. It lays peak brightness criticism to rest. I think there might be a nits level at where there won't be much gains boosting the overall peak brightness any more - but it's certainly not at 650 nits, at which OLEDs currently are at. That level will be substantially higher.
No, 650 nits for 1/10th of the screen. 150 nits peak brightness, for the entire screen. If we are trying to show a HDR recording of a beach in Africa at high noon with the sun beaming directly down at large areas of White Sand. That oled isn't going to show you 650 nits, rather somewhere around 200 nits. While in reality the beach was overflowing with +4000 nits. Not to mention 650 nits isn't bright. If you bought a lamp for your livingroom with 650 nits, that's a dim light bulb ...
Same here. I find my TV to be plenty bright for my current use. In 5 or so years when I'm in the market for a new OLED I'm sure there will be vast improvements in OLED tech.
@@timbibbs9101 I would purchase now if you are getting a C or B model. The 2021 models are basically the same. Only the 2021 GX is getting the new updated panel and I'm sure it will be pricey as usual.
Thanks, Vincent, this is awesome information for someone who is deciding b/w OLED and LCDs. Also, now I don't feel as bad about smashing all the OLEDs in a nearby mart that one time when I realized I couldn't afford OLEDs. Thanks to you!
Me reading the title of this video: "My LG B7 from 2017 has a peak brightness of 730 nits (or 783 nits in Cinema Home) which is enough." Me after watching this video: "Oh... damn." When the LG C10 was compared to the Sony XH90 the difference between them was even more noticeable than the first comparison between the 400nit C10 and the 650nit C10. I'm looking forward to the LG Evo G1. Great video Vincent!
Yeah the thing is any of the newer LCD TV's will crush OLED in bright HDR scenes since the 700+ nits is full screen sustained brightness whereas on the OLED it will drop down to a very small 150 nits max on OLED like Vincent says in video!
Personally, the lower overall brighness of OLED + the risk of burn in is what led me to spend extra on the Asus PG32UQX monitor instead of any OLED monitors on the market. The fact that nearly all OLED options were either 1440p monitors, or huge 45" 4K panels didn't help either. Yes, they have blooming, and tests can definitely bring it out. But when watching real content, like movies, videos, or playing games, I never notice it. That, it's higher 4k resolution, more reasonable 32" 16:9 size, higher brightness and no risk of burn in made it the obvious choice for me.
Up until now I didn't fully understand the issue with lower peak brightness on OLED. I always thought that it just made the light HDR-parts less bright, where the brightness range of the movie is just mapped on the brightness range of the TV. The trade-off between LED and OLED is basically high peak brightness and dynamic range vs. perfect blacks and contrast. Thanks for this video! I'm curious to see what microled will be like in a few years from now, theoretically the best of both worlds.
The bright parts of the HDR scenes are mapped to the range of the TV, if Dynamic Tone Mapping is on. This is tuned for maximum HDR accuracy and therefore has Dynamic Tone Mapping off.
Great information and wonderfully done video. Although, Using brightness to try to make a display look better is horribly misconstrued by many and doesn’t necessarily mean better overall picture results as you have clearly demonstrated. I understand that 400 nits isn’t extremely bright and it is at the lower level of just good enough, especially in a dark room, but a lot of it is about perception and the environment you are watching in. However, we both know your title is not a fact but an opinion. Whoever is watching this might have a 1000 nit oled if not a 600 one. I am light sensitive so if a display gets over 600 nits I have to turn my eyes away because it is painful. I prefer to keep my display brightness down because of this. I’ll just be happy the day micro led televisions are readily available.
Man same here. I love our Plasma but it looks weak compared to even some of the low end stuff these days. It looks great color wise though. And Panasonic built it like a tank so i don't think it'll ever die...making it harder for me to justify buying something new.
I wouldn't trade in my plasma for any new TV. Not LCD, not OLED. Perhaps Micro LED, as I have yet to see those in action. I tried good LCDs and OLEDs, including with HDR content. But the look of a good plasma is just something special. It makes everything look great. Especially 24p. I'm praying that it won't ever die, cause I really have no idea how I could replace it.
@@michaelmayers3622 So? Cheap speakers can be loud too, but that doesn't make them better. The plasma is bright enough for me. Benefits from the higher brightness of an LCD is easily offset by the better handling of motion and colors that a good plasma offers.
you succinctly summarized what my eyes have been showing my brain, and what I've basically known for a while - peak brightness is very important in any good tv........
Thanks a lot for the information in this video. I'm currently considering an OLED TV as a monitor. In your experience, is ABL a big issue if you use a TV at a lower brightness level all the time anyway? I have my current monitors calibrated to 120 nits as that's plenty bright enough for the one window in my room. I didn't want to stray too far away from an SDR-target-calibrarion of 100 nits.
Thats why i went with qled, saw the same demo playing on lg oled and samsung qled, the oled was too dark for my taste and also we watch in a very bright living room. So far no regrets the qled is great for movies and gaming
I'm returning my Q80t for the sheer fact that the brightness is too bright and there's not enough dark contrast. Even with messing with intelligent mode on and off, changing all of the dimming settings, color saturation etc there's always this kind of "halo" effect around images. It's so bad in some scenes it looks like the blooming is producing a double image.
@@supergrendel only in a dark room but some of us have bright living rooms and in such an environment a qled is performing better. Also most things i watch or game are bright games with lots of static HUD elements. The qled is good enough for me at the Moment. Next time ill upgrade has to be something like 12bit panel, freesync premium pro, mini or micro led and ps6 or ps6 pro
I returned a couple of qleds, one was the x900h. For several reasons but the reason I commented is because and I kid you not.. my wife and I both could not watch hdr content without it hurting our eyes. It's not usually a really bright room and we're use to an older Panasonic plasma so we weren't ready for that bright of a tv in the dark. And actually after adjusting it and adjusting it, it didnt seem to get to a place that agreed with our eyes. I would guess that a fair amount of people can't even watch hdr with too high of nits tbh.
@@Optionvideo209 qleds are not supposed for dark room watching in that case go for oled but for me in a bright living room or also at night with the lights on qled is much better
Alright, ya called me out Vincent and touche, I obviously just didn't understand how peak brightness on HDR worked apparently and the compression of highlight detail when below the mastering that the movie used. I stand corrected and I bow to your knowledge about the intricate details associated with these technologies. I was using caveman brain logic that "brighter is just mor brighterer" and didn't think about PQ curves or crushed highlights. I still think my Oled is plenty bright for HDR for me with tone mapping, but I can see your point now, the brighter the better for HDR up unto the mastering levels used
Sorry, it was not our intent to call you (or anyone) out. We were just screenshotting comments that prompted us to make this video to explain the reason why peak brightness is important for accurate reproduction of HDR highlight detail.
@@hdtvtest no way, call me out, I was wrong haha, I have no issue with it at all. I'm glad you corrected me and the others. I'm not so proud as to not admit when I'm wrong Also keep up the good work Vincent!
I dont know: It all sounds awesome. But in reality, you sit in a dark room and get blinded by the screen anyway in those scenes. I have Philips 901F that goes to 540Nits according to specs, and i dont even run it at maximum OLED brightness. And i use the ECO mode most of the time with the external sensor to lower the brightness when the room is dark. Otherwise my yes get tired fast.
Would you recommend a Q90/Q95T for PS5 considering this fact over an LG CX? The PS5 always has HDR on(even for non HDR stuff) and that's my primary use case. Also wouldn't setting the OLED light at 100 in HDR increase the risk of burn in?
A couple of years ago I purchased a LG C7 OLED and returned it because of a stuck green pixel. Later I got a Sony x900f (TV I have right now) and for me the picture of the Sony is much better than the C7 in HDR mode. It's a personal preference between inky blacks and details preservation in specular highlights and overall peak brightness. Personally I prefer the later but I understand why some people might prefer the OLED especially in a pitch black room. For sdr contents OLED is really, really good though.
Marcus: Thanks so much for your generous reply to my query about HDR brightness. I was pleased to get a better understanding of HDR and very much appreciated your taking the time to respond to my comments. Best regards, John
THANKS VINCENT . Someone finally is speaking the truth . Owner of b6 - b9 oled , q85r - qled and acer x27 monitor and the higher brightness in LED panels makes up a much more impressive picture in many scenes in HDR . No matter how perfect the picture may look to the oled's , in HDR you need both low blacks and high brightness and people just seem not to get that.
So I was in the middle of writing a comment pertaining to the Vizio OLED maintaining more specular highlight detail at the 5:45 mark. Then I realize you put a little foot note in there regarding Sony’s tone mapping philosophy lol. Guess I’m what you call an “eagle eye viewer”....but I was focused too much on the picture, and not looking at your footnote 😅 From my understanding, Sony’s tone mapping will favor maintaining APL, in turn, sacrificing/clipping some specular highlight detail. Pretty sure you said that many times, but is always something I noticed in comparisons. LG’s tone mapping is kinda the exact opposite. Idk which I honestly prefer. Sometimes I like the way DTM on my CX looks and performs with certain content. I like how it preserves and doesn’t clip highlight detail, although it will make the image overall dimmer sacrificing APL. I also like how turning DTM off, gives you a Sony like tone mapping setting/philosophy. LG just give you more choices, regarding which tone mapping approach you want to use. Flexible! But also not where I want the tone mapping to be…it could be improved imo. But the Vizio seemed like it was maintaining APL just as well as the Sony, in this particular scene, which doesn’t seem to have a very high APL. So are OLEDs typically superior in maintaining more highlight detail in lower APL scenes? Or is this just a tone mapping philosophy difference? You would think the Sony, being able to achieve higher peak brightness, would be able to both maintain specular highlight detail, and APL. I just find this kinda odd.
My Panasonic GZ2000 blinds me when a very bright scene follows a very dark scene in a movie and it's not set at full brightness, that's bright enough for me
That's an oled characteristic because how they emit light. I had c1 and qn900a from samsung at the same time and samsung brightness was way higher but it never felt like it was to bright.
I have a CX, and Sony 8H, the motion on the Sony is 100x better. I don’t know why nobody talks about how bad the motion is on the CX. I hope the c1 dramatic,y improves on this issue. If not it is defiantly worth the 30% higher price tag for the sony.
I watch my oled in a dark room.. its more than bright enough.. sometimes I have to squint when a bright scene happens.. even with a couple of windows open in my livingroom @ day time, the tv doesn't look dim at all.. I can see everything on the screen. Oled is just fine for everyday use. No complaints.
@@Ambolik it's OK if the new oleds are 30% brighter, but to my eyes, the oled Iight is pretty bright watching in a dark room.. and I'm coming from super bright led tvs. And from my experience with led vs oled.. 1500 nit highlights ain't nothing when the surrounding pixels for that highlight is impacted because of blooming.. oled 700 nits highlights trumps it when it's controlled better. That's why u need high zone count led tvs to appreciate the bright highlights.
Really good information here. I believe you use a GH5 for your videos? Would you please consider recording these type of videos in HDR/HLG and uploading them. It would be much easier to see the difference that way.
@2:40 i see more detail in the white inner shirt and the green outer jacket seems more vivid and solid on the LEFT 400nit. All the side by side with the new EVO comparisons, like the 2 tvs with the galaxy picture, the brighter picture is blown out. look back to the darker older tv, you will see more detail where it is blown out in the new brighter tv. blown out brightness is just as bad an issue as crushed blacks. They should be focusing on these 2 issues instead of 8k. I thought OLEDs were 800 nits anyway?!??
Yup. Any light in your room will diminish the effect of perfect blacks. That’s why bias lighting is really effective for balancing the low contrast of IPS screens
Yes, OLEDs isn't for people who watch TV with the light on most of the time. You're wasting your money if you do. It's for the cinema, lights off experience
@@loughrey101 nah I still find it fine with dim lighting. I still notice a difference. But I pretty much avoid using it when the sun’s out for this reason + the glare
This is y I’m sceptical of buying an OLED . I’m in a semi bright room - the light doesn’t hit the tv and is quite far from the tv . I’m not sure if an OLED is suitable for the room or not . I’m still waiting for 2021 model reviews to give me confidence I need in deciding between mini led and oled
@@justsaying993 dim lighting is not cinema experience. Lcd and ips suck balls in a dark room. My dad has my old ips monitor in his room for netflix and blacks and viewing angles are dreadful. If you have a semi bright living room, then you miss out on the advantages of oled. Oled is unrivaled in a dark room currently.
Vincent just demonstrated that higher peak brightness is better for OLED; for HDR. A thousand nits OLED is better the usual 700 nits models. That's all he mainly said. Now the OLED fanatics are mad!
My 700 nit OLED tends to look much better in HDR than my 1000 nit LED. Is there SLIGHTLY less detail? Well, actually, my OLED does tonemapping while my LED doesn't, so, not necessarily, but regardless, it actually looks brighter due to the deeper blacks and stronger contrast. The raised black levels on the LED results in weak contrast which makes the highlights look less impactful to my eyes. ABL sounds like an issue, but when watching in a dark room, your eyes adjust to whatever the APL of the image is, so ABL doesn't really cause problems, especially since it's very rare that extreme ABL effects are applied. The scenes where ABL is extreme is when highlights cover a large portion of the screen. In which case, you may prefer the intensity to be lower anyway, for comfort. All this being said, I can't wait until 4000+ nit OLEDs (or equivalent tech) is possible.
@Andy Depends on the LED TV. Most are basic and crap. If you aren't comparing OLED to something like QLED... you'll never "see the light" (pardon the pun). The LED/LCD panel at least needs to have full-array + localized dimming as the backlight, or the fight isn't fair. Nor will you ever be impressed by higher nits, if the black levels are fully backlit all the time. It's too much of a tradeoff. You want 4000 nits? "Equivalent tech" has been available for 2-3 years now :) I have a Samsung QLED Q900, which boasts 4000 nits in Dynamic Mode. 2000 nits otherwise. At least with QLED's full-array backlight, every square half-inch of the screen has it's own independent CPU-controlled LED - which goes from 0 to 4000 nits. So where pixels are black, they are true black. Or barely backlit to get the near-blacks. The only exception are hard edges of black/white, etc... where the crybabies worry about "bloom" ... which is so reduced by the algorithms on full-array panels like the Q900, that it's virtually irrelevant. In fact, it's so good now, full-contrast black next to white "blooming" like rolling white credits on a black screen, look like natural coronas your eyes see anyway, in full contrast situations. Other than that, side by side with OLED, the black levels were virtually indistinguishable.... just not important enough to me. But man... the ability to blaze HDR highlights in Xbox or movie scenes at up to 4000 nits... THAT is contrast. :) I play Modern Warfare on my Xbox with HDR10 on... and on my Q900, the HDR is rendered exactly as the designers intended for it to display. Night time missions in the campaign really show off what HDR means... as the scenes look deep, dark, great, and normal range... but the burning oil barrels, flares, tracers, or fires ACTUALLY sear with real-life brightness. Like they are hot, or real flames. It's stunning to see. I finally understood what true HDR looked like. Games like the recent Cyberpunk have a setting where you can give your panel's max nits... and it will render with the HDR curve up to that nit maximum. So while 4K HDR BluRay is allegedly only mastering up to 1000 nits... it's the gaming consoles, where your content is rendering from a GPU in realtime... that can output right up to 10000 nits if they want to. So the content is already here. I set my Cyberpunk to 4000 nits. The neon signs, street lamps, laser beams... all look "real" ... just blazing to the eyes. While the rest of the scene looks normal. And yes, on QLED all the black levels go right down to black and look great. If the scene cuts to a full black frame while loading something, the TV looks like it is off. I mean literally, in a pitch dark room, the panel on the wall disappears for a moment. Just like OLED. No slightly glowing grey rectangle or anything. Completely disappears. Full-array CPU-controlled backlight is where it's at. It's the only way to see true HDR, as big luminous flux coming out of the screen is needed for all those super-bright components in HDR scenes (both games and movies). Remember, white isn't just white... there is normal white (RGB 255,255,255) ... but that can also be displayed with a second dimension - flux - right up to 10000 nits... and HDR video contains that data. Sometimes capped at 1000, like most current HDR movies. But uncapped if coming off a gaming console like Xbox or PS5. An OLED is capped at 700 nits for *highlights* ... little parts of a frame, for example. If it's full screen of hot white like the Lord of the Rings "heavenly" sequences shown in the video above, then the panel starts pulling back down the brightness to the panel average... which for OLED is a mere 150 nits. It doesn't want to fry the little organic LEDs. OLED can show a penny-sized sun at 700 nits in a fullscreen outdoor scene... but *just* the sun. So your panel isn't really 700 nits. Just occasional bursts of it, in small spots. QLED can blaze a full-frame hot white at 2000-4000 nits for hours. The LCD's simply all open up, and the full-array backlight goes ALL-on, and FULL brightness. It can sit that way for hours, days, weeks. Blinding to look at, by the way. It looks like the sun is lighting the room. No joke. This is what Vincent means when he discusses the minimum nits needed to show HDR properly. In 2020-2021, people need to start paying attention to luminous flux of a panel. Forget contrast. Current tech has black display nailed, on any panel worth it's salt. Everybody is so obsessed with blacks... which BTW... unless you are watching BluRay, anything else (streaming, NetFlix, UA-cam, etc) those are all very compressed , and the black details are all crap anyway. The first thing thrown away by compression algorithms is the black and near-black details. *For HDR - you need nits. As many nits as you can get*
@@TheMamaluigi300 Current HDR BluRay's yes - 1000 nits tops. Not on gaming consoles, though. Current console GPU's fully render HDR10 no problem, with no cap on the 10000 nit range. Each *game* may have an internal cap of their own, but it's easily much higher than 1000. On *Cyberpunk* there is an actual settings option to enter your panel's maximum nits.
@@abandoned-mines-novascotia No matter how good your local dimming is, it doesn't even remotely come close to OLED. You will always see raised blacks in any non-black frame and they will always result in less impressive colors and contrast. The highlights and the contrast of those highlights, and the color all look more impressive at 700 nits than 1000 nits, and my screen has full local dimming like you said. Also you are vastly overestimating the effect of ABL. I'm well aware of ABL but it's pretty much never going to kick in on a 2.39:1 movie like LOTR, and on full 16:9 content, it still rarely kicks in and when it does, typically only dims by a small amount. Yes, even on bright scenes, which are rarely SO bright that they do much ABL. What you've suggested is not equivalent tech to an OLED. I'm talking where every single pixel has its own individual light source. In the past, that was Plasma, right now, that's OLED, but in the future, who knows what we'll come up with. There is content that pushes 4000 nits and even 10000 nits like you said, but it's rare, and the PORTION of that content that goes above the ~1300 nit rolloff point of my 700 nit OLED, is VERY small, and VERY rare.
1300 Nits of new Sony Oleds are not enough for HDR so I'll happily continue watching my one week old 77" CX in my living room and my 65" B7 Oled in my bedroom. Next upgrade when 4000-10000 nit MicroLeds are feasible for a common consumer like me. Thank you for your continuing service for AV enthusiasts, Mr Teoh. Kudos.
I don't understand why all these comments are complaining about your views..... They CLEARLY don't watch all your videos when you have always expressed extreme praise for the extremely bright backlit led tvs for bright HDR presentations. All he is doing is telling how important the new developments in brightness in OLED panels next year is a huge deal! Yes OLED is king for contrast because of true black but he is only pointing out the obvious that having a tv not being able to properly display brighter highlights or fullscreen brightness. He is not a sell out lol, he literally has talked about stuff like this in the past. Like does no one remember is discussion of ABL and everything else. And at the end he shows literal proof of past examples of the shortcomings of OLED tech. That's why making oleds brighter is super important because it's helping to close the gap of OLED vs LED on brighter scenes.
0:35 usually the "oled light" control doesn't behave as a simple peak limiter and does also reduce the overall picture brightness. ??? Strange, and why didn't vincent use the peak luminance setting within the custom tm template for this purpose?
I've had Both, currently on the CX. I can say that HDR performance on the OLED is so so so much better, despite losing some peak brightenss. The colours are richer, the contrast is better, the blacks are unbelievable. After buying oled I'm not sure why people value brightness so much but each to their own.
OLEDs arent the holy grail of tvs. They have their own problems. Potential burn in. Abl. Side by side in a bright room the q90t destroys the cx. The qled has punchier colors and you really notice the brightness difference in HDR and SDR. I prefer a brighter and puncher image with good blacks (fald) than a dim image with perfect blacks, better contrast with potential burn in.
@@sweedishpie360 Its well known OLEDs offer the best picture quality on the market atm. Seen countless videos of the cx against the q90t and I would much rather accurate, rich colours, inky blacks and amazing contrast over bloated, bright unnatural colours, bloom and a washed out look due to unnecessary brightness. What you gain in brightness you lose in depth. After experiencing OLED ill never go back
@@jj6392 You've owned both you say. Was it the q90t? UA-cam videos are terrible to compare tvs. Anyone can make a tv look better than the other when they have control over the settings. So I take any video comparing both with a grain of salt. Each tvs has their pros and cons. I compared both in real life before choosing the qled over the cx. My living room is very bright so qled was the obvious choice! To each their own! However once you get burn in you definitely go back lol 😉
@@sweedishpie360 I know this comment is old but I do t care. You’re incredibly pretentious about something that is entirely subjective. And OLED burn in is rare.
@@shangrilaw7561 oh yeah that's an old comment haha my views have definitely changed since then! I actually own an lg c1. And I still have the q90t. Burn in and abl is certainly not an issue! I'm even using an OLED as a PC monitor! Having both, I've obsessively compared them. Both excel in their own ways. Dark scenes belong to the OLEDs. There's no arguing that. The black levels and contrast is just so jaw dropping. It's ok on the qled when you don't have it next to it to compare. But when you do the difference is quite staggering. Qleds on the other hand excel in brighter day scenes. Being able to reach very high nit levels, bright day scenes are vibrant and actually feel like day scenes! It's ok on the OLED but side by side, qled wins there. I love and use both. I go from one to the other and never really feel like I'm missing out when I play them. That being said. If I could somehow merge these two tvs together, that would make one perfect tv! Sorry for the long post! Haha
I love my LG c9 and think it's plenty bright in my dungeon of a home theater room . I look forward to the Sony a90j to really see how much better, if any it will be in the same room. Thanks for the video Vincent and info.
I find that maxing out the OLED light when watching in a pitch dark room really strains your eyes. I can't enjoy it being that bright, that's why I also lower it. I can't imagine how straining it would be at over a thousand nits. The loss in detail in the scenes in this video doesn't appear very significant, they're very subtle texture details that are unlikely to significantly diminish the overall experience, it will obviously look worse when you're seeing a side-by-side, but they're things you won't notice in real time. I find eye strain to be a far more important when it comes to enjoying the movie.
The eye strain comes from watching stuff in the dark. But for OLED you have to do that to get the most HDR effect. A high nits panel on the other hand allows you to have some light on and still get great HDR effect without the eye strain.
@@_omega3_ hi could you give more info here? You’re saying your eyes aren’t as dialated in a brighter room so the highlights don’t have as much impact on eye strain?
@@andyfma123 It’s actually the constant adjustment of your pupil dilation which causes eye strain. And when you’re in a dark room with only the TV as a light source then that effect is increased. A movie can have scenes with many varying brightness levels, so that means your eyes are adjusting constantly throughout. That’s why some recommend to have bias lighting behind the TV to mitigate this effect.
Yes they are imo. It’s only very close to the bright highlight on a black background where they get minor blooming, at least on the high zone count FALD’s anyway. The ultra high count mini/micro led’s should be the best of both worlds solution we are looking for...I hope.
@@Dr.WhetFarts no it really doesn't look horrible. Is it as good as oled? No but it isn't "horrible". Hdr is about color depth and peak brightness. You can defend your oled until you're blue in the face but it still changes nothing and it is still to dim for good hdr.
@Mertens , it’s all about the trade off’s when you’re comparing LED LCD vs OLED. The end user is the one who has to decide which elements they can and can’t live without. I love both my Q90R and C8 for different reasons, but when I sit down to watch HDR content the Q90R is the better ‘overall’ choice for me. Ymmv.🤷♂️
@5:50 this why you cant and should never have OLED next to LED LCD TV screen looks grayish instead of true white! @3:01 best explanation of PQ and EOTF curve I seen on YT!
Awesome video Vincent. So many OLED owners just don’t understand what they’re missing. OLED’s will remain handicapped until they can hit minimum 1000 nits calibrated and do away with ABL. Of course, this may never happen due to increased burn in risk. The added HDR impact and detail you get from a high nit LED LCD can’t be overstated. It makes a huge difference imo.
I have a C8 OLED and I understand its strengths and weaknesses perfectly. Along with your perfect blacks comes a lot of black crush and loss of shadow detail. Both tech’s have their strengths and weaknesses. But, for this conversation we are talking about HDR, which OLED struggles with due to limited brightness and ABL. It’s no secret that the tests they do in those shootouts are heavily biased towards the strengths of OLED. For example, their testing rooms are pitch black. What happens if you turn on a light or two?
The creative (or rather, commercial) intent itself is becoming the issue. Just like what happened with the "loudness wars" in music, the creators are mastering these HDR movies at stupidly high average brightness levels, and contrary to what happen with a CD where it's relative encoding compared to full scale so you can lower the volume, with HDR it's absolute so you can only endure those stupid high brightness scenes the creators choose to inflict upon your eyes, or use dynamic tonemapping.
I had a ks9800 (around 1300nits) before I traded it in for E6 oled(700nits). Ks9800 was like having a tanning bed in your living room so extreme hdr impact but I couldn't get over very visible flashlights. LG E6 did not have the impact obviously but between the contrast and enough brightness to highlight most details it was a better well rounded natural pq. Honestly I had to turn down brightness alot with ks9800.
The newer generations of OLED panels will definitely close this gap fast and be great at both soon enough but I wonder how that will effect burnin and wear. As the saying goes “The flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long”
If achieving TRUE black comes at the cost of a bit of brightness, I happily accept that. If I miss a SMALL bit of detail on a shirt, or dress, or mountain pass, I just don’t feel like I would miss it too much to begin with. You know, you FINALLY save up enough money to buy the BEST TV on the consumer market, followed shortly by the videos explaining to you, why your new TV completely SUCKS, and isn’t “good enough…”
Thank you!!! My parents have a 2019 lg SM9800 led, amazing colours, goes up to 1500 nits. And yet I would always cringe when I saw dark scenes. The blooming was off the charts even with local dimming. I finally got myself an Oled B1 (2021) and I am blown away. Lower brightness for sure, but much much better contrast and overall a more believable image.
I have 2 OLEDS and have been saying this for years: it’s not bright enough! Rn I’m playing Cold War on PS5 and it’s a huge decrease in brightness whenever HDR is on! Don’t get me wrong, it’s still amazing and I love it, but always wish it was brighter, even in dark rooms. Seems like QLED has a better balance right now if you’re looking for a tv and use HDR mainly.
Welcome to being a normal person. All the oled owners that say "my oled is bright enough because of the pure blacks" are just defending their purchase.
@@randybobandy9828 Yep. It was bright enough for the first month but after watching a bunch of movies I can use some more brightness. Especially for HDR
@@randybobandy9828 i have to say my last tv of 8 years was a plasma , which max is 150 nits , so i noticed a huge difference on my oled , i still don't find it dim and that had me worried when i purchased it .
@RubiiX oh really? Because I own a 1400nit display and it could be brighter. Now shut up and quit trying to justify your oled purchase. Oled is just not the best for hdr content and that just that
@@andremelandray7102 well your oled has a full screen brightness of only 150nits too so. But please provide some documentation that your plasma was only 150nits because that is fucking dim. He'll my 8 year old Samsung is pushing over 400nits easy.
What is the correct setting for Local Dimming and ECO for the q95T? I have local dimming on high. Do I loose details with the eco system? What is the best setting in this case? Thank you very much guys
Yep, although I like to understand all the details and settings, I do find that as tech has progressed everyone is really paranoid about small picture details and what best settings to have, I remember the days when I never even cared about these small things or what settings to use.
Dolby Vision is not a cure-all. By retaining highlight detail, the brightness would have to be sacrificed, again deviating from the true, original creative intent.
Awesome Vincent. Some people would rather lie to themselves so they can pretend their TV is like the one ring to rule them all when OLED falls short often in peak brightness for HDR. Regular LED wins that battle. But soon the new OLEDs will catch up and be the one to rule them all. 😁
and yet, all winners of Vincent's 2020 TV round up, in ALL categories, were OLED's. Sure, even though they win the category, I fully understand that no panel will be perfect but it's a big 180 to now all of a sudden state that OLED is "Not good enough for HDR". Why has he never mentioned that throughout 2020? "Less impactful" is not the same as "not good enough for HDR" or "not showing all HDR detail in bright scenes". To me, "less impactful" means the details is there but isn't as oversaturated as brighter panels. Now all of a sudden he tells me detail is missing AFTER I bought my OLED based on HIS reviews. That's what's upsetting people, he wasn't very clear about it in the past
@Wim Vermont: Stop putting words in our mouth. We never said OLED is not "good enough for HDR", just that it is "not bright enough" to accurate reproduce both the luminance and detail component of HDR specular highlight detail of higher-nit content, hence "less impactful". Don't blame us if you misinterpret our findings, which we have always been honest and transparent to point out in many of our previous videos, as shown at 6:24 in this video. The CX remains still an excellent display due to its many other strengths due to OLED's self-emissive qualities, so we're not sure why you (and other people) are so upset.
OLED Puritans are up in arms that this professional tv reviewer dare to say something negative about their beloved OLED TV. These fanboys make me laugh every time.
surprisingly no. people are claiming he is an OLED and LG shill. Only caring about HDR now. Yes, that is what people are saying. I guess you cannot win in the internet. :(
@@bernardeugenio He nerver was an LG or OLED shill, he showed in this video that he already stated that they weren't bright enough and in recent videos he came back to show that with the evolution of OLED this problem can probably be overcome. It's not about defending something but the evolution of the technology, and it happens to all segments of technollogy
The problem is you have too many brand loyalists and fanboys vs facing conclusions that oled still has its inherit faults. Yes burn in is hardly an issue anymore but that doesn't mean the panel is 100% perfect. I say buy what fits your needs and budget wise and stop listening to an echo chambers of regressive manchildren crying about my tech is better than your tech arguments.
I'm still rocking my 2009 Panasonic plasma tv and it feels really bright to me. The idea of buying a new tv that is supposed to be several times brighter makes me feel like it will be like flashlights pointed at my face. I remember so many people with modern tvs were complaining that they couldn't tell what was going on in the battle of Winterfell in Game of Thrones because all of the detail was lost but I could see everything perfectly on my 2009 plasma.
I’ve noticed this clipping on my tv just changing the tv picture presets watching Netflix one day. I then realized my tvs brightness is actually around 200 nits less than what is advertised. If I go over 70 percent on the backlight you begin notice the image starts to have less contrast and looks more flat. But it does get slightly brighter. I have found it best to just leave the brightness at 50% and don’t go over 70%.
A lot of negativity here... All the man is trying to tell you is that with future OLEDS, with higher brightness potential, will not only mean a brighter TV but better presentation of actual HDR content! Where more details are preserved in scenes with High Dynamic Range content, pretty simple stuff...
I think the issue is that he cherry picking specific scenes that are extremely bright and are literally 0.015% of the movie. Who cares? That said, I love his videos and appreciate his analysis.
I watch Movies and UA-cam videos in moderate to subdued lighting, and on rare occasions in a darkened room. When I was a CET, we were taught that these sorts of lighting conditions were optimal for critical viewing. I had to turn the brightness on my OLED down during HDR content because it kept making me wince. Owning a TV set with brightness levels so high that it feels as if you need sunglasses to watch it isn't necessary to enjoy HDR content. Just darken the room a bit.
@@maximilianadair3237 he didn’t cherry pick. That’s how HDR works. Not all scenes need as high of nits. The proper way to create HDR is to keep the darks and mid values the same. So most of everything will still look good at 100 nits. It’s everything above where different levels of brightness can keep more detail. This is precisely why HDR goes up to 10,000 nits. It’s those areas that would normally be crushed white flat scenes that can hold more detail. With only 400 nits those specular highlight areas will be washed out because there is no detail left. 650 nits isn’t even showing the full potential of HDR here and ironically Hollywood movies rarely make good use of HDR. Theaters have horrible brightness. Real life material or material designed to be HDR would show an even larger difference between 400 nits and 650 nits. 650 nits isn’t even all that great. 1600 nits is my new standard. It really shows that much more highlight detail and makes liquids and metals look extremely lifelike.
Every display technology right now has cons. When it comes to OLED burnin and lack of brightness are it’s two major cons. I see no point in getting upset over that fact. If you have OLED enjoy it. It does look great. Just know it’s brightness is limited. That can’t really be disputed. It’s a cold hard fact and right there in the numbers. If HDR uses up to 10,000 nits how on earth could 400 nits be good enough?
Black level also has nothing to do with brightness. Just because the darks can be darker doesn’t mean that has an impact on the mid range values or the highlights. It strictly means the really dark values can actually get really dark. That’s it. It may increase contrast and make the image more punchy but that doesn’t have any impact at all on highlight detail. It’s the highlights that really matter in HDR. It’s those values over 100 nits we are trying to preserve.
Micro LED is where we all want to be. Mini LED and OLED are both temporary solutions with negatives.
Nothing about this is simple dude. People are salty because they spend thousands of dollars and then see a video like this basically saying their TV is garbage. I have what many consider to be the best OLED available right now: LG C1 77" it has the Evo panel but I'm not going to activate it because I don't want to void my warranty. I'm just saying I have the right to be salty. Lol
@@JackBusiness89 except nobody said their TV was garbage. It’s pointing out the fact that OLED doesn’t get as bright but it has other advantages. Not once was anything called garbage. Not sure why anyone needs to be salty about it. At the very least don’t direct that saltiness towards a well thought out video that points out that OLED is not perfect at everything.
It’s clear some of you didn’t watch this video. Vincent isn’t saying that OLED is suddenly a terrible technology to buy into, he’s just saying that it’s a fact that LED handle HDR content in brighter scenes much better then OLED. That’s been known for a while now and it isn’t some new phenomenon, as a OLED TV owner you understand that your sacrificing brightness and maximum HDR detail for dark scenes that look absolutely stunning compared to a LED screen with its halo effects.
The point people are making is that he never made that point before, about OLEDs not being good for HDR when he was selling it to people. He's not trying to sell LCDs, he's trying to sell the new Evo OLEDs to people
@@loughrey101 The montage at the end of the video was literally him stating that OLEDs were not that great for peak brightness in HDR content compared to LED.
Exactly. People are losing their shit because of this video when he didnt even say anything bad lol, all he did was explain why 1000 nits would be better.
@@loughrey101 Yes he did, did you even watch the video? Also you can check his review from the 100 inch ZD9 for example where he calls it the HDR king. Vincent has ALWAYS explained how nits are important for HDR.
@@loughrey101 You havent been paying attention because he has always said that. Some people just like to try to discredit someone when there is nothing there.
Imagine having Vincent over to watch a movie. 😂
It’s like inviting a famous chef over to eat dinner at your place.
It no joke, my friends always complain when choosing a movie to watch and I know that a 4k release is imminent or available. I refuse to watch anything less.
@@dealerovski82I’m like that at some movie theaters. They have the worst black levels 😂
@@anthonysorensen3666 Some scenes yes, not always. Even some HDR 4K are not much better then 1080p versino. But I still can't watch it if there's a 4K released.
@@dealerovski82 I recently started watching movies in 4K, and I’ve noticed that there is a huge difference in quality between every 4K release. For example, I watched John Wick Chapter 3 and The Meg. John Wick had amazing colors, but the image was very grainy, whereas The Meg was incredibly sharp and clear. While I love both releases, I was surprised at the difference between the two.
@@domphilbrick those differences has to do with the chosen camera systems during filming rather then on the 4k transfer.
It amazes me at how offended people get if something negative is said about the technology of your choice. Everyone knows there isn't a perfect tv technology available. How else will tech companies continue selling their newer tech if something is already perfect? Vincent has always been honest about the drawbacks of all worlds. If you chose to ignore it then that's on you. I bought multiple LCD's and one OLED, none of them were perfect but the one that impressed me the most was the 75Z9D. That's what I stuck with and to be honest OLED is not for me. I'm a gamer and I put in lots of hours. OLED was too dim and unspectacular with HDR content.
Right. There simply isn't a perfect TV. If there was the price would be above obscene. You have to find the best compromise for you. Vincent does a great job trying to educate people to the pros and cons of each technology, each TV. In the end it has to be a compromise. Get educated, go check it out, get the best one for you. Then enjoy.
True, OLED are not meant for general rooms to begin with. It's only good for the dark TV room or night watching when it's already dark no light coming from out side. My family is always Sony and because we play video games from different consoles and the guys loves watching sports. My big sisters and nephews are big gamers. But we don't have a play or TV room. Our TV is in the family room that is not ideal for OLED.
It’s because people but all their eggs in one basket with oled and now they are and because it’s not what they thought it was. Smh
i turned off hdr when playing games
is hurting my my eyes
It still crushes me that Sony would not ship the 75" to my country. I love my 65Z9D but man, going back down in size and it being such a great telly hurts. It hurts.
When I bought my LG OLED 65 B7V I knew that peak brightness would be lower (700 nits at 10% coverage max) but the black level detail is so much better so that what's important to me. I've watched about 250 HDR10 en DV films on it and I can't say the limited peak brightness is a big problem. Sure, it could be better, but a lot of HDR movies (certainly older ones) have indeed SDR level brightness. And the better ones look excellent to me because how many scenes does a movies count where if goes over the peak brightness capabilities of your OLED TV? Very very few I'm sure. But very good explanation of the PQ curve and excellent video!
Well said. Im happy with my Panas gz960 .. blurays, uhd player with hdr and dv, netflix and gaming. Before i had an Sony with LED's.. the picture was great, but dark areas were bleeding with light.. for me, the jump from led's to oled was huge
@@MrPimpJuiice I think you need to checkout the x940e or z9d ....even though those are led based, they do excellent in uhd HDR movies.
Im an OLED owner and fanboy. This is a good video and its very fair. The issue is that for me to get more NITS I then have to trade that off and lose my perfect blacks, unlimited contrast & viewing angles. Its not worth it to me but scientifically this video is accurate and well done. No argument. No TV tech is perfect.
Dont forget screen burn in and short lifespan!
Trouble is perfect blacks, you suffer black crush and lose a lot detail in very dark scene. There is no perfect one display, but QD OLED May have more promise as it gives the advantage of OLED and Quantum dot tech which has improved LED tech, in QLED tvs much better than standard LCD/LED tvs
Think QLED is a good compromise, but only the top flagship model, not so in the lesser models
OLEDS SO DIM AND DULL
@@denodan oled rarely ever crush blacks, dark scenes are darker than lcd but 95% there is no black crush. It’s literally a non issue compared to shitty haloing blooming and garbage backlight transitions from lcd that are always there.
I had the 2018 Vizio P Series Quantum, which was Insanely bright. like 2400 nits bright. The HDR highlights were insane... I now own the LG C9 and find that the highlights aren't as blinding but the contrast and complete lack of haloing and light bleed from LED TVs is a more pleasing image. The HDR highlights still pop at a fraction of the peak brightness due to the fact it has perfect contrast ratio.
Vincent is definitely right when it comes to sunshine. Thankfully I have a terrible sleep schedule so I’m mostly watching at night.
Also, HDR is mastered for theater/home theater environments. Imo you should design your room around your screen and surround sound, not the other way around... including light sources, direct lighting vectors and overall lighting environments.
Movies are made to be watched during the night.
@@elvnmagi9048 haha, whilst that is great in theory life (kids) have a habit of getting in the way of such a dream so we have to make do with the environment we have.
@@elvnmagi9048 It’s already ridiculous to have to babysit OLEDS in order to prevent burn-in. I definitely don’t want to also have to design my house around the shortcomings of OLED technology. If I were going go to that much trouble, it would make more sense to just buy a projector and put it in a dedicated, light-controlled theater room.
@@mikemckee6583 You don't need to baby your oled in 2021. That's mostly a thing of the past now.
LOL. These comments. Okay; I am an LG GX owner here and have my screen in a mostly dark room. I absolutely LOVE the picture quality of my OLED. Everything looks so good on PS5 and even HDR content on Netflix and Blu ray.
Would I be stoked if I could get my screen brighter by 20%?
You betcha.
Does it mean this tv sucks? Nope.
Do I wish I’d have gotten the Samsung QLED? Not at all-not even the 8k.
Is Vincent accurate when he says that OLED brightness isn’t good enough for bright specular highlights? He is. And I totally agree.
Yet I can still love my current TV.
Crazy.
Yup oleds are dim AF. if they weren't they would be perfect.
A thumbs up for LOTR as reference material.
AND MY AXE!
You will die where your sword fell!
Short and detailed. Perfect.
i wouldnt say short lmao
This is a very difficult composition to illustrate with ISO challenges from a camera. Great job Vincent. Your messaging was overwhelmingly evident on my 77” CX in 4K using the native UA-cam app.
He mastered it into SRGB so it was very evident even on my SRGB Samsung gaming VA monitor.
My Sony X930E is still one of the brightest TVs ever made, approaching 1,500 nits. I considered OLED, but it’s low brightness just made HDR severely underwhelming. The X930E, by comparison, is stunning with HDR. Yes, OLED is better in dark scenes, but I think that a good LED TV can get far closer to OLED blacks than an OLED can get to LED brightness. Since there are trade offs at both ends of the brightness spectrum, LED wins overall because it can cover more of the total “color volume” due to its much wider luminance range.
That “looking through a picture window” effect that is achieved with quality 4K content is far more realistic on a bright LED. There is no substitute for specular highlights that actually make you squint as in real life. That effect really causes a suspension of disbelief.
Last, but not least, after owning one of the early CRT-based HD rear projection TVs, I refuse to ever again own a TV on which I have to carefully monitor what type of programming I am watching, and how often, in order to avoid burn-in. I want a TV, not a babysitting job.
Well if anything, i guess the one thing LED still has going for it is price, until all LED's are discontinued except for maybe bottom of line models
Exactly where I come from. Also owning that mighty XE93 and Been using this as Proof to Most OLED-fans that a Higher end LED TV can create a Superior Viewing experience. I think Most people only really Know entry- or midrange Level LED Displays... And from that Point of View, I could get the wrong ideas about OLED being Superior. But what Vincent Said Here in this Video is what I am preaching for quite a few years now: OLED doesn't do bright HDR presentations Justice.
I have both x930e 65" and the x940e 75". While it's true x930e gets super bright, it does have a weakness in blooming artifact due to not being full array. On the other hand while x940e is slightly less bright, but because it has full array local dimming, I find the overall picture better (less blooming). But then x930e is better for gaming than x940e, so I use the x940e mainly for movies, and x930e for gaming.
@@matthew6994the s95c and the G3 have another idea
Ok so let me lay this all to rest. I am a techie, love my tech and recently got an a80j. My wife has no idea about tech, we had a Sony led before. She said something while we were watching daredevil which hit me. She said it feels like that is happening in our room. The picture on an oled just looks so much more realistic then an led. Sure, an led can get more brighter but that is not realistic, we have just got used to it. Remember, plasmas had a max nit of 100 and were considered to have the better picture quality. Because we have got used to seeing unrealistic images on traditional TV's it takes a while getting used to a realistic image, once you do there is no going back.
It is a trade-off between the two. I prefer the oled with inky colors over the bright led lcd.
Dark room definitely
[Laughs in Samsung QN90A]
Qled get higher color gamut coverage.. Advantage of OLED is contrast.
There are LED TVs that are just as good.
@@cameron818 Some people spend more time staring at black bars than the actual image displayed. Leave them alone and don't be a bully.
Brilliant. Explained a seemingly complex concept like PQ in detail in less than 15seconds
Not really, no. Perceptual part means that you should not work with this side-by-side method, but should adapt to the tone curve as it is on the display.
It won't matter. Every other thread there are a barrage of MY OLED BLINDS ME. I DON'T UNDERSTAND!!! WHO NEEDS NITS??? Despite Vincent explaining it over and over. I have a suspicion these people need to be told not to look directly at the sun...
@@halfvader8015 😂That last bit got me laughing. Indeed
The lower ceiling of brightness on the OLED is more than excusable for the incredible contrast and color reproduction imo
Definitely. Coming from a Q90T and OLED owner, OLED destroys when it comes to overall picture quality
I don't think it's really even comparable, the OLED destroyed the LED in all those tests, it would be cheaper to just buy a lightbulb and stare at it if brightness is that important.
Defeats the purpose of HDR, but doesn't matter when viewing SDR content. I have a NU8000 series Samsung TV from 2018 that has 5400:1 contrast ratio. I would love the OLED blacks but this is still amazing value for 75" screen that cost around 1500eur 2,5 years ago.
It is, he's just creating content for the sake of creating content. The bit depth and colour accuracy is what matters when it comes to bit depth.
I agree. As with Plasma screens, the picture quality and accuracy is worth the trade off. All other display technologies have their own advantages, but overall are inferior to Oled, as they were to Plasma.
Seems a pretty fair assessment. I'd still go OLED as I watch 99% of the time in the evening in a dimly lit room. Brighter OLEDs are a welcome upgrade and should be plenty good enough until microled arrives. Remember it's horses for courses, buy the technology that best suits your use case.
Exactly! I also watch in the evening with really dim lighting or dark and I prefer not to have my retinas burned out by 1000 nits thank you very much. My LG B9 is awesome....😁
@@steven2809 Is not like you have the option...
but you completely missed his point, regardless if you watch in a dark basement or a moderately lit room you need more nits for a good HDR experience
The world of HDR would be so lacking without this guy, thank god there's still someone out there who's willing to dig deep
This was one of biggest deterrents against getting an OLED (besides the very small chance of burn in). It is a double-edged sword when it comes to TV tech and going for either perfect blacks, or higher peak brightness.
Everything explained in this video is NOTHING new. Anyone that has been paying attention to this channel knows the following things:
OLED excels in the color black. What OLED lacks in peak brightness, it compensates with superior contrast, response time, and black levels. OLED is meant to be used in dark room environments.
LED LCD excels in the color white. What it lacks in black levels and contrast, it compensates with superior peak brightness.
THE PERFECT CONSUMER-PRICED TV STILL DOES NOT EXIST.
@@PSYCHOV3N0M Except for the new 2022 models coming out lol
Thank you for this. OLED fanboys are freaking out in the comments but I appreciate your unbiased statement of facts and where TV tech is today.
It is such a pity that this video is not HDR. Could you upload HDR version, please?
Vincent: Tells me to buy OLED
Also Vincent:Its not bright enough
Yes. And you love it.
OLED is for black level, not for brightness level, it's obvious. And he is talking about HDR, not SDR. SDR is 100 nits and OLED can do that.
I have a C9 and I've never really got what all the HDR fuss is about
Hdr on oled is better though because you start from pure black
Everything is HDR, he is done with the LG CX. He will move on to the 2021 TVs. Interesting that he posts his most negative CX video this late and not 8 months ago. Views are king.
it's interesting to me that most people end up squinting there eyes when looking at bright objects and I must admit I often look at darker items in a bright scene.
@John Hooper Exactly. People argue that we dont need super high brightness for displays, which is basically like arguing that you should walk around with sunglasses on your entire life. Content creators have to trust you wont stare at 1500+ nit areas of the screen because it's instinctually uncomfortable, but having that ability to produce such brightness still has a significant impact on the overall contrast of the image, not to mention the greater color depths possible.
That is just an inctinct.
i get it. so its not simply about overall brightness but the difference in brightness between different pixels to show detail where limiting peak brightness does not allow for specific pixels to reach a different level of brightness compared to those around it in order to show affected details in the image. its like being color blind for light levels. think of the cards used to determine color blindness. they use specific varying colors to show numbers. by removing a color(limit peak brightness in a sense) you remove the number from the image that would have otherwise been detectible. its why being able to display more shades of any color allow for more detail to be shown in images that use mostly or all of the same exact color.
I got an OLED because I thought they were the best in terms of contrast and HDR. Imagine my mixed feelings when it turns out my much cheaper Mini LED monitor has better HDR representation... The OLED has better contrast, though.
you were fooled by the OLED fanboys and their propaganda, im afriad
He's just saying there's no perfect display tech around...
Calm yourselves. OLED is still the best tech if you value contrast and blacks and do not fuss about losing some details of the picture sometimes.
I watch a movie because of the story not because and I dont nedd to watch all the details to the milimeter
There’s just something about OLED, I don’t know if it’s because of the contrast, but images have this 3D pop to them. Maybe it’s not the contrast, because IPS panels have a bit of that effect too. VA panels look the most” 2D” to me
@@justsaying993 so it's not the contrast then, since VA has at least 2x the contrast compared to IPS 😆
@@justsaying993 really? I've never had this 3d pop up effect on my OLED (BX9). But I've had it though on the Hisense flagship model of 2020 like crazy 😅.
Funny how the experience differse.
There is, its called Micro LED 😏💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵
@@SP95 there is still no consumer microled tv available and until it's been reviewed it's only perfect in theory
This is just like the discussion about Hifi audio equipment. On one side, content creators and enthusiasts are deeply dissatisfied with the poor quality of the average speaker, and perplexed as to why many consumers claim that the tinnitus-inflicting sound of their laptop or TV is perfectly fine for them. On the other side, the average consumer doesn't either have the buying power or simply care as to why they should spend thousands upon thousands on massive and often visually unattractive speakers.
In the end, in many cases, neither side is wrong. No-one should be forced to buy what they don't feel is worth their money, on a subject that isn't important to them. But it is absolutely wrong to claim there isn't a difference and that it doesn't matter, when obviously there is a difference and it does matter to plenty of people who work, distribute and enjoy said content.
Suomi mainittu! Yeah, people need to understand that everyone has different needs and when you have neighbours to consider, you can't have big loud sound system.
But in Hifi, the technology doesn't evolve as fast and i bought second-hand passive reference monitors for 200€, these will work for rest of my life and "better" analog amps are available hopefully if i need to upgrade something.
Hm, yeah, massive I get. Expensive, hell yeah. But visually unattractive?! Focal Kanta, Sopra and Utopia. Absolutely gorgeous. Dali Epicon. KEF Reference, Blade, Muon. Raidho D and TD. etc. They sound great, and they look like a million bucks.
" visually unattractive speakers" sounds like sour grapes. I've spend thousands and I only go up not back again because the difference is so big and the price point allows choose between the design.
@@lennutrajektoor I bought SWANS M1 monitors for 200€, including cables. :D
All i have to say is Suomi mainittu torilla tavataan perkele!
What a great video. Concise, packed full of all of the information you could want without doing a ridiculously long deep dive. Fantastic work.
Vincent nailed it again. After years of publication of this video OLED tech matured and now it is fully capable displaying the 650nit content. Im a G3 owner and the content is exactly the same as the reference becuase the G3 is capable to display 650nits easily (in fact its double is also okey for her). So Vincent was right!
Weird question: does your mechanistic understanding of how displays work get in the way of the experience of the material you watch? Im afraid that the close to reality your videos bring me (I watch most of them) the more difficult it is to get lost in what I watch lol
Actually you're so right.
First and foremost we must enjoy of watching whatever we would like....
Bringing up excessive technicality and scrutinization would reduce our joy and excitement ....
This is exactly where I’m at right now, unfortunately.
Just recently bought my first HDR QDOLED monitor, and everything I watch is subconsciously scrutinised, whereas before it was just about the experience and fidelity of the resolution.
It’s akin to listening to music and just enjoying the experience in a general kind of way. But after learning to play an instrument and researching and learning, suddenly you’re hearing individual instruments, how they’re projected through the headphones soundstage and how they’ve been mixed in.
I’m really trying to get back to just enjoying the experience without too much fuss, but every now and again I wonder into the settings to tweak.
@@exhermit at least now you have a choice to be critical or just relax :) thanks a good thing.
ok you made your point that 650 nits is better than 400 nit BUT is there a benefit from 650 -> 1000 ? At some point there are diminishing returns and if the creator mastered the content for 650 nits peak brightness, there is no big benefit to have more brightness. Even in your own bluray review we see that peak brightness rarely even uses 1000 nits.
Not every single frame of a movie has to reach 1000 nits. Those that do will be more impactful on a display that can reproduce a higher level of brightness. It is thrilling to watch bright scenes of my own HDR videos on my 1200 nit iPhone 12 Pro Max in a way that my LG 55CX can't match.
But there are several titles that exceed that, so on OLED it would be much more beneficial. The 20% increase in brightness, could mean a higher APL of 200 nits(evidence in films released recently), and little to no tone mapping for content graded with peaks as high as 1000 nits.
If 650 nits is perfect for you, don't change it.
If the movie has details that needs 2000 nits, you need tv that can show 2000 nits to show those details!
So 1000 nits tv does show more of those 2000 nits content than 650 nits tv can, but still lose a lot of them. So the better nits tv can show the better! But it depends on the content!
A movie like Blade runner 2049 where peak brighnes is 200 nits is as good with 400 Nits oled and 1300 nits oled. All details can be seen with both. So it all depends on the content!
@@haukionkannel Even if a movie has 2000 nits, it's usually just specular highlights that don't have any details.
I think the reason most people who have an OLED are satisfied with the peak brightness is because mostly it is being used in a dark room, where sometimes you even have to turn down the brightness,
Indeed
That's it!
Yes, and the contrast which you eyes are adjusted for with the blacks being black. Playing games on mine HDR scenes with lots of sunlight hurt my eyes even with the brightness tamed. Horses for courses.... and of course Vincent is one of those people that wants it exactly as it was intended by the creator.
Did you watch the video, this wasn't the point at all. If creators make 1000 nit HDR content, it will be bad on LG CX. Also it makes HDR scenes/highlight dimmer. But I think most content is less than 1000 nits, then it's quite good.
My eyes are sensitive to brightness, and sometimes it can still be too much for me to watch hdr on a oled in a living room with the lights on.
It's so nice to hear somebody talk about this topic who actually understands it.
Thank you.
I hate to say it but he is right. I own the LG OLED 55E7P model and watch a lot of UHD Bluray discs but my friend just bought a newer Sony OLED with 1200 nits and I was blown away by the HDR highlights.
I 💯% agree! I just got back from best buy. I was sitting looking at 77in CX thinking about getting an Open Box. Medium dim lighting there and they had Avatar playing on it.... No way, not bright enough plus allot of crushed blacks. Sitting next to Z8H which had great pop colors and good brightness but not near the contrast. Sat there thinking, I want Z8 brightness on that CX panel. I hope we get that this year, it's worth waiting for and the 8k added nothing to the picture, the OLED was way sharper. GX, A90J for me unless I just decide to go REALLY big with a 950j 85in
This is why I'm glad I went for the E9 instead of the CX. They lowered the brightness on the CX to 650 nits, down from 800 nits on the E9/C9.
No They didn’t
You have the E9??? I wish Sony made a picture-on-glass TV design. 😑🤬
I also have the E9 65" and I'm very satisfied with it. I think isf bright room works really well for SDR content in daylight and cinema home for HDR when it's not dark around me.
I would argue that a sudden fullscreen whiteout of 150nits while watching a movie in a dark room is already blasting pure pain into my eyes. Can't imagine the same scene at several hundred nits. That said, I'm definitely in favor of following creative intent, and if the creative intent is for my eyes to melt down onto my cheeks, then I do want a screen that enables that. For now, this OLED will have to suffice.
Just outstanding. You make technical jargon understandable to me. Thank you.
amazing video, extremely professional, there's no channel that comes even close in this domain!
thank you for your work!
This was actually a VERY GOOD video. It lays peak brightness criticism to rest. I think there might be a nits level at where there won't be much gains boosting the overall peak brightness any more - but it's certainly not at 650 nits, at which OLEDs currently are at. That level will be substantially higher.
That’s why HDR standards exist. 1000 nits peak is the first standard. 4000 is the second
No, 650 nits for 1/10th of the screen.
150 nits peak brightness, for the entire screen.
If we are trying to show a HDR recording of a beach in Africa at high noon with the sun beaming directly down at large areas of White Sand.
That oled isn't going to show you 650 nits, rather somewhere around 200 nits.
While in reality the beach was overflowing with +4000 nits.
Not to mention 650 nits isn't bright.
If you bought a lamp for your livingroom with 650 nits, that's a dim light bulb ...
I’m enjoying my LG CX 65” I’ll wait for the next round of tv selections in 2025 Woot!!!!
Same here. I find my TV to be plenty bright for my current use. In 5 or so years when I'm in the market for a new OLED I'm sure there will be vast improvements in OLED tech.
It's good tv, the only problem is, we kinda bought our tv on wrong year. C9 was just as good, and this year there are big improvements.
@@kiisseli1337 No. There will be close to zero improvements for the 2021 C series. Only the G series gets the new panel!
I’m currently deciding which tv to purchase, should I wait for the LG 2021 models or get the CX now? Thank you.
@@timbibbs9101 I would purchase now if you are getting a C or B model. The 2021 models are basically the same. Only the 2021 GX is getting the new updated panel and I'm sure it will be pricey as usual.
Thanks, Vincent, this is awesome information for someone who is deciding b/w OLED and LCDs.
Also, now I don't feel as bad about smashing all the OLEDs in a nearby mart that one time when I realized I couldn't afford OLEDs. Thanks to you!
I returned my OLED, cant stand that "deep black" effect , everything is so dark. I cant believe some people actually seek that
Me reading the title of this video: "My LG B7 from 2017 has a peak brightness of 730 nits (or 783 nits in Cinema Home) which is enough." Me after watching this video: "Oh... damn." When the LG C10 was compared to the Sony XH90 the difference between them was even more noticeable than the first comparison between the 400nit C10 and the 650nit C10. I'm looking forward to the LG Evo G1. Great video Vincent!
Yeah the thing is any of the newer LCD TV's will crush OLED in bright HDR scenes since the 700+ nits is full screen sustained brightness whereas on the OLED it will drop down to a very small 150 nits max on OLED like Vincent says in video!
Personally, the lower overall brighness of OLED + the risk of burn in is what led me to spend extra on the Asus PG32UQX monitor instead of any OLED monitors on the market. The fact that nearly all OLED options were either 1440p monitors, or huge 45" 4K panels didn't help either. Yes, they have blooming, and tests can definitely bring it out. But when watching real content, like movies, videos, or playing games, I never notice it.
That, it's higher 4k resolution, more reasonable 32" 16:9 size, higher brightness and no risk of burn in made it the obvious choice for me.
Up until now I didn't fully understand the issue with lower peak brightness on OLED. I always thought that it just made the light HDR-parts less bright, where the brightness range of the movie is just mapped on the brightness range of the TV. The trade-off between LED and OLED is basically high peak brightness and dynamic range vs. perfect blacks and contrast. Thanks for this video! I'm curious to see what microled will be like in a few years from now, theoretically the best of both worlds.
The bright parts of the HDR scenes are mapped to the range of the TV, if Dynamic Tone Mapping is on. This is tuned for maximum HDR accuracy and therefore has Dynamic Tone Mapping off.
Great information and wonderfully done video. Although, Using brightness to try to make a display look better is horribly misconstrued by many and doesn’t necessarily mean better overall picture results as you have clearly demonstrated. I understand that 400 nits isn’t extremely bright and it is at the lower level of just good enough, especially in a dark room, but a lot of it is about perception and the environment you are watching in. However, we both know your title is not a fact but an opinion. Whoever is watching this might have a 1000 nit oled if not a 600 one. I am light sensitive so if a display gets over 600 nits I have to turn my eyes away because it is painful. I prefer to keep my display brightness down because of this. I’ll just be happy the day micro led televisions are readily available.
*Cries in my plasma tv that is even dimmer than all modern OLEDs
Man same here. I love our Plasma but it looks weak compared to even some of the low end stuff these days.
It looks great color wise though.
And Panasonic built it like a tank so i don't think it'll ever die...making it harder for me to justify buying something new.
I wouldn't trade in my plasma for any new TV. Not LCD, not OLED. Perhaps Micro LED, as I have yet to see those in action. I tried good LCDs and OLEDs, including with HDR content. But the look of a good plasma is just something special. It makes everything look great. Especially 24p.
I'm praying that it won't ever die, cause I really have no idea how I could replace it.
Same here...everything is great on my 11 years panasonic plasma st10 except the hdr thingy...probably i'll go on sony a8h this year...
@@kadajawi6567 and dim , leds more bright and colorful
@@michaelmayers3622 So? Cheap speakers can be loud too, but that doesn't make them better. The plasma is bright enough for me. Benefits from the higher brightness of an LCD is easily offset by the better handling of motion and colors that a good plasma offers.
you succinctly summarized what my eyes have been showing my brain, and what I've basically known for a while - peak brightness is very important in any good tv........
Thanks a lot for the information in this video. I'm currently considering an OLED TV as a monitor. In your experience, is ABL a big issue if you use a TV at a lower brightness level all the time anyway? I have my current monitors calibrated to 120 nits as that's plenty bright enough for the one window in my room. I didn't want to stray too far away from an SDR-target-calibrarion of 100 nits.
Thats why i went with qled, saw the same demo playing on lg oled and samsung qled, the oled was too dark for my taste and also we watch in a very bright living room. So far no regrets the qled is great for movies and gaming
I'm returning my Q80t for the sheer fact that the brightness is too bright and there's not enough dark contrast. Even with messing with intelligent mode on and off, changing all of the dimming settings, color saturation etc there's always this kind of "halo" effect around images. It's so bad in some scenes it looks like the blooming is producing a double image.
@@supergrendel only in a dark room but some of us have bright living rooms and in such an environment a qled is performing better. Also most things i watch or game are bright games with lots of static HUD elements. The qled is good enough for me at the Moment. Next time ill upgrade has to be something like 12bit panel, freesync premium pro, mini or micro led and ps6 or ps6 pro
@@supergrendel gotta be joking? Are you telling me that if you turn contrast enhancer off its too bright? You must be a bat.
I returned a couple of qleds, one was the x900h. For several reasons but the reason I commented is because and I kid you not.. my wife and I both could not watch hdr content without it hurting our eyes. It's not usually a really bright room and we're use to an older Panasonic plasma so we weren't ready for that bright of a tv in the dark. And actually after adjusting it and adjusting it, it didnt seem to get to a place that agreed with our eyes. I would guess that a fair amount of people can't even watch hdr with too high of nits tbh.
@@Optionvideo209 qleds are not supposed for dark room watching in that case go for oled but for me in a bright living room or also at night with the lights on qled is much better
Just came here for the comments... Didn't disappoint. Vincent, I guess you're just one of those men that simply want to watch the world burn. 😄
Haha exactly the same here.
Alright, ya called me out Vincent and touche, I obviously just didn't understand how peak brightness on HDR worked apparently and the compression of highlight detail when below the mastering that the movie used. I stand corrected and I bow to your knowledge about the intricate details associated with these technologies. I was using caveman brain logic that "brighter is just mor brighterer" and didn't think about PQ curves or crushed highlights. I still think my Oled is plenty bright for HDR for me with tone mapping, but I can see your point now, the brighter the better for HDR up unto the mastering levels used
Sorry, it was not our intent to call you (or anyone) out. We were just screenshotting comments that prompted us to make this video to explain the reason why peak brightness is important for accurate reproduction of HDR highlight detail.
@@hdtvtest no way, call me out, I was wrong haha, I have no issue with it at all. I'm glad you corrected me and the others. I'm not so proud as to not admit when I'm wrong
Also keep up the good work Vincent!
Finally a grown up response. Thank you!
It’s amazing how personal people take it when someone points out a fault in their technology of choice.🤦♂️
I was going to buy a LG CX 55inch in a few weeks , not sure what to do I don’t have £2,000 - £4,000 to spend on a tv
Just bought one this week. It's awesom.
Now I know what the PQEOTF curve/perceptual quantisation means... Even though I'm probably not gonna need it, great video again Vincent
I dont know: It all sounds awesome. But in reality, you sit in a dark room and get blinded by the screen anyway in those scenes. I have Philips 901F that goes to 540Nits according to specs, and i dont even run it at maximum OLED brightness. And i use the ECO mode most of the time with the external sensor to lower the brightness when the room is dark. Otherwise my yes get tired fast.
Would you recommend a Q90/Q95T for PS5 considering this fact over an LG CX? The PS5 always has HDR on(even for non HDR stuff) and that's my primary use case.
Also wouldn't setting the OLED light at 100 in HDR increase the risk of burn in?
I got the Q90T 85 inch and I'm very satisfied while playing the ps5. Follow this guy's tuning guide for gaming on that tv.
If you care at all about Dolby Vision, don't get a Samsung. No Dolby Vision support on ANY of their TV's.
Yes but the whites are burning my eyes on my CX so I have to lower oled light anyways or I'll go blind
I find the same. It can get quite eye piercing at times 😂
Yup. In a dark room, I have to cut it down anyways.
That's the average picture brightness that you are lowering. We still want bright peaks
A couple of years ago I purchased a LG C7 OLED and returned it because of a stuck green pixel. Later I got a Sony x900f (TV I have right now) and for me the picture of the Sony is much better than the C7 in HDR mode. It's a personal preference between inky blacks and details preservation in specular highlights and overall peak brightness. Personally I prefer the later but I understand why some people might prefer the OLED especially in a pitch black room. For sdr contents OLED is really, really good though.
Marcus: Thanks so much for your generous reply to my query about HDR brightness. I was pleased to get a better understanding of HDR and very much appreciated your taking the time to respond to my comments. Best regards, John
An increase in brightness yes, no extra risk of burn in, but the brighter you have the setting the shorter its lifespan.
You do realize HDR peak brightness isn't sustained for long right???
Nothing to worry about with OLED when viewing HDR content on these new panels.
THANKS VINCENT . Someone finally is speaking the truth . Owner of b6 - b9 oled , q85r - qled and acer x27 monitor and the higher brightness in LED panels makes up a much more impressive picture in many scenes in HDR . No matter how perfect the picture may look to the oled's , in HDR you need both low blacks and high brightness and people just seem not to get that.
Thanks for making this, now I know when 4000 nits becomes available I should consider upgrading.
Looking at the sun will give you that many nits
The Samsung QLED Q900 boasts 4000 nits in Dynamic Mode. It's been out for 2-3 years.
@@abandoned-mines-novascotia And it was $15,000.
Glad that tandem OLED tech is basically fixing this. From what I’ve seen on the new iPads its look p good so far. Can’t wait for LG to bring to TVs
So I was in the middle of writing a comment pertaining to the Vizio OLED maintaining more specular highlight detail at the 5:45 mark. Then I realize you put a little foot note in there regarding Sony’s tone mapping philosophy lol.
Guess I’m what you call an “eagle eye viewer”....but I was focused too much on the picture, and not looking at your footnote 😅
From my understanding, Sony’s tone mapping will favor maintaining APL, in turn, sacrificing/clipping some specular highlight detail. Pretty sure you said that many times, but is always something I noticed in comparisons. LG’s tone mapping is kinda the exact opposite. Idk which I honestly prefer. Sometimes I like the way DTM on my CX looks and performs with certain content. I like how it preserves and doesn’t clip highlight detail, although it will make the image overall dimmer sacrificing APL. I also like how turning DTM off, gives you a Sony like tone mapping setting/philosophy. LG just give you more choices, regarding which tone mapping approach you want to use. Flexible! But also not where I want the tone mapping to be…it could be improved imo.
But the Vizio seemed like it was maintaining APL just as well as the Sony, in this particular scene, which doesn’t seem to have a very high APL. So are OLEDs typically superior in maintaining more highlight detail in lower APL scenes? Or is this just a tone mapping philosophy difference? You would think the Sony, being able to achieve higher peak brightness, would be able to both maintain specular highlight detail, and APL. I just find this kinda odd.
My Panasonic GZ2000 blinds me when a very bright scene follows a very dark scene in a movie and it's not set at full brightness, that's bright enough for me
That's an oled characteristic because how they emit light. I had c1 and qn900a from samsung at the same time and samsung brightness was way higher but it never felt like it was to bright.
I have a CX, and Sony 8H, the motion on the Sony is 100x better. I don’t know why nobody talks about how bad the motion is on the CX. I hope the c1 dramatic,y improves on this issue. If not it is defiantly worth the 30% higher price tag for the sony.
I watch my oled in a dark room.. its more than bright enough.. sometimes I have to squint when a bright scene happens.. even with a couple of windows open in my livingroom @ day time, the tv doesn't look dim at all.. I can see everything on the screen. Oled is just fine for everyday use. No complaints.
Have you seen the video? He says brighter oled panel is much for better high-light details accuracy than simply brighter average level.
In the first sentence you complained about squinting. Is it a complaint or not? Fix it by lowering OLED light.
@@Ambolik it's OK if the new oleds are 30% brighter, but to my eyes, the oled Iight is pretty bright watching in a dark room.. and I'm coming from super bright led tvs. And from my experience with led vs oled.. 1500 nit highlights ain't nothing when the surrounding pixels for that highlight is impacted because of blooming.. oled 700 nits highlights trumps it when it's controlled better. That's why u need high zone count led tvs to appreciate the bright highlights.
@@nataflet no, I'm just saying the oled isnt dark or dim in real life viewing.
@@DurtySpriteEnt As said: brighter OLED panel is useful for better high-light details accuracy. Higher average bright level is not the purpose.
Really good information here. I believe you use a GH5 for your videos? Would you please consider recording these type of videos in HDR/HLG and uploading them. It would be much easier to see the difference that way.
@2:40 i see more detail in the white inner shirt and the green outer jacket seems more vivid and solid on the LEFT 400nit. All the side by side with the new EVO comparisons, like the 2 tvs with the galaxy picture, the brighter picture is blown out. look back to the darker older tv, you will see more detail where it is blown out in the new brighter tv. blown out brightness is just as bad an issue as crushed blacks. They should be focusing on these 2 issues instead of 8k. I thought OLEDs were 800 nits anyway?!??
I've felt that once you have sunlight in your room, all deep black advantages disappear. I think mini led provides the best experience overall.
Yup. Any light in your room will diminish the effect of perfect blacks. That’s why bias lighting is really effective for balancing the low contrast of IPS screens
Yes, OLEDs isn't for people who watch TV with the light on most of the time. You're wasting your money if you do. It's for the cinema, lights off experience
@@loughrey101 nah I still find it fine with dim lighting. I still notice a difference. But I pretty much avoid using it when the sun’s out for this reason + the glare
This is y I’m sceptical of buying an OLED . I’m in a semi bright room - the light doesn’t hit the tv and is quite far from the tv . I’m not sure if an OLED is suitable for the room or not . I’m still waiting for 2021 model reviews to give me confidence I need in deciding between mini led and oled
@@justsaying993 dim lighting is not cinema experience. Lcd and ips suck balls in a dark room. My dad has my old ips monitor in his room for netflix and blacks and viewing angles are dreadful. If you have a semi bright living room, then you miss out on the advantages of oled.
Oled is unrivaled in a dark room currently.
Vincent just demonstrated that higher peak brightness is better for OLED; for HDR. A thousand nits OLED is better the usual 700 nits models. That's all he mainly said. Now the OLED fanatics are mad!
My 700 nit OLED tends to look much better in HDR than my 1000 nit LED. Is there SLIGHTLY less detail? Well, actually, my OLED does tonemapping while my LED doesn't, so, not necessarily, but regardless, it actually looks brighter due to the deeper blacks and stronger contrast. The raised black levels on the LED results in weak contrast which makes the highlights look less impactful to my eyes.
ABL sounds like an issue, but when watching in a dark room, your eyes adjust to whatever the APL of the image is, so ABL doesn't really cause problems, especially since it's very rare that extreme ABL effects are applied. The scenes where ABL is extreme is when highlights cover a large portion of the screen. In which case, you may prefer the intensity to be lower anyway, for comfort.
All this being said, I can't wait until 4000+ nit OLEDs (or equivalent tech) is possible.
Andy Gilleand this video agrees with your statement ua-cam.com/video/lP1jkmax3uY/v-deo.html
I think to be fair, most HDR content is probably mastered at up to 700 nits
@Andy Depends on the LED TV. Most are basic and crap. If you aren't comparing OLED to something like QLED... you'll never "see the light" (pardon the pun). The LED/LCD panel at least needs to have full-array + localized dimming as the backlight, or the fight isn't fair. Nor will you ever be impressed by higher nits, if the black levels are fully backlit all the time. It's too much of a tradeoff.
You want 4000 nits? "Equivalent tech" has been available for 2-3 years now :) I have a Samsung QLED Q900, which boasts 4000 nits in Dynamic Mode. 2000 nits otherwise.
At least with QLED's full-array backlight, every square half-inch of the screen has it's own independent CPU-controlled LED - which goes from 0 to 4000 nits. So where pixels are black, they are true black. Or barely backlit to get the near-blacks. The only exception are hard edges of black/white, etc... where the crybabies worry about "bloom" ... which is so reduced by the algorithms on full-array panels like the Q900, that it's virtually irrelevant. In fact, it's so good now, full-contrast black next to white "blooming" like rolling white credits on a black screen, look like natural coronas your eyes see anyway, in full contrast situations. Other than that, side by side with OLED, the black levels were virtually indistinguishable.... just not important enough to me. But man... the ability to blaze HDR highlights in Xbox or movie scenes at up to 4000 nits... THAT is contrast. :)
I play Modern Warfare on my Xbox with HDR10 on... and on my Q900, the HDR is rendered exactly as the designers intended for it to display. Night time missions in the campaign really show off what HDR means... as the scenes look deep, dark, great, and normal range... but the burning oil barrels, flares, tracers, or fires ACTUALLY sear with real-life brightness. Like they are hot, or real flames. It's stunning to see. I finally understood what true HDR looked like. Games like the recent Cyberpunk have a setting where you can give your panel's max nits... and it will render with the HDR curve up to that nit maximum. So while 4K HDR BluRay is allegedly only mastering up to 1000 nits... it's the gaming consoles, where your content is rendering from a GPU in realtime... that can output right up to 10000 nits if they want to. So the content is already here. I set my Cyberpunk to 4000 nits. The neon signs, street lamps, laser beams... all look "real" ... just blazing to the eyes. While the rest of the scene looks normal. And yes, on QLED all the black levels go right down to black and look great. If the scene cuts to a full black frame while loading something, the TV looks like it is off. I mean literally, in a pitch dark room, the panel on the wall disappears for a moment. Just like OLED. No slightly glowing grey rectangle or anything. Completely disappears.
Full-array CPU-controlled backlight is where it's at. It's the only way to see true HDR, as big luminous flux coming out of the screen is needed for all those super-bright components in HDR scenes (both games and movies). Remember, white isn't just white... there is normal white (RGB 255,255,255) ... but that can also be displayed with a second dimension - flux - right up to 10000 nits... and HDR video contains that data. Sometimes capped at 1000, like most current HDR movies. But uncapped if coming off a gaming console like Xbox or PS5.
An OLED is capped at 700 nits for *highlights* ... little parts of a frame, for example. If it's full screen of hot white like the Lord of the Rings "heavenly" sequences shown in the video above, then the panel starts pulling back down the brightness to the panel average... which for OLED is a mere 150 nits. It doesn't want to fry the little organic LEDs. OLED can show a penny-sized sun at 700 nits in a fullscreen outdoor scene... but *just* the sun. So your panel isn't really 700 nits. Just occasional bursts of it, in small spots. QLED can blaze a full-frame hot white at 2000-4000 nits for hours. The LCD's simply all open up, and the full-array backlight goes ALL-on, and FULL brightness. It can sit that way for hours, days, weeks. Blinding to look at, by the way. It looks like the sun is lighting the room. No joke.
This is what Vincent means when he discusses the minimum nits needed to show HDR properly. In 2020-2021, people need to start paying attention to luminous flux of a panel. Forget contrast. Current tech has black display nailed, on any panel worth it's salt. Everybody is so obsessed with blacks... which BTW... unless you are watching BluRay, anything else (streaming, NetFlix, UA-cam, etc) those are all very compressed , and the black details are all crap anyway. The first thing thrown away by compression algorithms is the black and near-black details. *For HDR - you need nits. As many nits as you can get*
@@TheMamaluigi300 Current HDR BluRay's yes - 1000 nits tops. Not on gaming consoles, though. Current console GPU's fully render HDR10 no problem, with no cap on the 10000 nit range. Each *game* may have an internal cap of their own, but it's easily much higher than 1000. On *Cyberpunk* there is an actual settings option to enter your panel's maximum nits.
@@abandoned-mines-novascotia No matter how good your local dimming is, it doesn't even remotely come close to OLED. You will always see raised blacks in any non-black frame and they will always result in less impressive colors and contrast. The highlights and the contrast of those highlights, and the color all look more impressive at 700 nits than 1000 nits, and my screen has full local dimming like you said.
Also you are vastly overestimating the effect of ABL. I'm well aware of ABL but it's pretty much never going to kick in on a 2.39:1 movie like LOTR, and on full 16:9 content, it still rarely kicks in and when it does, typically only dims by a small amount. Yes, even on bright scenes, which are rarely SO bright that they do much ABL.
What you've suggested is not equivalent tech to an OLED. I'm talking where every single pixel has its own individual light source. In the past, that was Plasma, right now, that's OLED, but in the future, who knows what we'll come up with. There is content that pushes 4000 nits and even 10000 nits like you said, but it's rare, and the PORTION of that content that goes above the ~1300 nit rolloff point of my 700 nit OLED, is VERY small, and VERY rare.
1300 Nits of new Sony Oleds are not enough for HDR so I'll happily continue watching my one week old 77" CX in my living room and my 65" B7 Oled in my bedroom. Next upgrade when 4000-10000 nit MicroLeds are feasible for a common consumer like me. Thank you for your continuing service for AV enthusiasts, Mr Teoh. Kudos.
Always learn something from your videos. Thanks Vincent!
Vincent just broke a million hearts 😭
😂😂😂
Why? He's still using OLED himself. OLED is superior tech by a mile over the dated LCD tech.
@@Dr.WhetFarts No, it isn't. :)
All OLED owners are suddenly going to become expert engineers in the comments
Yeah, the sad part is that the majority don’t even understand the point of HDR. They just assume it’s about total image brightness.
All? Thanks.
I don't understand why all these comments are complaining about your views..... They CLEARLY don't watch all your videos when you have always expressed extreme praise for the extremely bright backlit led tvs for bright HDR presentations. All he is doing is telling how important the new developments in brightness in OLED panels next year is a huge deal!
Yes OLED is king for contrast because of true black but he is only pointing out the obvious that having a tv not being able to properly display brighter highlights or fullscreen brightness. He is not a sell out lol, he literally has talked about stuff like this in the past. Like does no one remember is discussion of ABL and everything else. And at the end he shows literal proof of past examples of the shortcomings of OLED tech. That's why making oleds brighter is super important because it's helping to close the gap of OLED vs LED on brighter scenes.
0:35 usually the "oled light" control doesn't behave as a simple peak limiter and does also reduce the overall picture brightness.
??? Strange, and why didn't vincent use the peak luminance setting within the custom tm template for this purpose?
I've had Both, currently on the CX. I can say that HDR performance on the OLED is so so so much better, despite losing some peak brightenss. The colours are richer, the contrast is better, the blacks are unbelievable. After buying oled I'm not sure why people value brightness so much but each to their own.
OLEDs arent the holy grail of tvs. They have their own problems. Potential burn in. Abl. Side by side in a bright room the q90t destroys the cx. The qled has punchier colors and you really notice the brightness difference in HDR and SDR. I prefer a brighter and puncher image with good blacks (fald) than a dim image with perfect blacks, better contrast with potential burn in.
@@sweedishpie360 Its well known OLEDs offer the best picture quality on the market atm. Seen countless videos of the cx against the q90t and I would much rather accurate, rich colours, inky blacks and amazing contrast over bloated, bright unnatural colours, bloom and a washed out look due to unnecessary brightness. What you gain in brightness you lose in depth. After experiencing OLED ill never go back
@@jj6392 You've owned both you say. Was it the q90t? UA-cam videos are terrible to compare tvs. Anyone can make a tv look better than the other when they have control over the settings. So I take any video comparing both with a grain of salt.
Each tvs has their pros and cons.
I compared both in real life before choosing the qled over the cx.
My living room is very bright so qled was the obvious choice!
To each their own!
However once you get burn in you definitely go back lol 😉
@@sweedishpie360 I know this comment is old but I do t care. You’re incredibly pretentious about something that is entirely subjective. And OLED burn in is rare.
@@shangrilaw7561 oh yeah that's an old comment haha my views have definitely changed since then! I actually own an lg c1. And I still have the q90t. Burn in and abl is certainly not an issue! I'm even using an OLED as a PC monitor!
Having both, I've obsessively compared them. Both excel in their own ways.
Dark scenes belong to the OLEDs. There's no arguing that. The black levels and contrast is just so jaw dropping. It's ok on the qled when you don't have it next to it to compare. But when you do the difference is quite staggering.
Qleds on the other hand excel in brighter day scenes. Being able to reach very high nit levels, bright day scenes are vibrant and actually feel like day scenes! It's ok on the OLED but side by side, qled wins there.
I love and use both. I go from one to the other and never really feel like I'm missing out when I play them. That being said. If I could somehow merge these two tvs together, that would make one perfect tv! Sorry for the long post! Haha
I love my LG c9 and think it's plenty bright in my dungeon of a home theater room . I look forward to the Sony a90j to really see how much better, if any it will be in the same room.
Thanks for the video Vincent and info.
I love my lg b9. Have never questioned whether or not if it is bright enough. Colors just pop.
I find that maxing out the OLED light when watching in a pitch dark room really strains your eyes. I can't enjoy it being that bright, that's why I also lower it. I can't imagine how straining it would be at over a thousand nits. The loss in detail in the scenes in this video doesn't appear very significant, they're very subtle texture details that are unlikely to significantly diminish the overall experience, it will obviously look worse when you're seeing a side-by-side, but they're things you won't notice in real time. I find eye strain to be a far more important when it comes to enjoying the movie.
The eye strain comes from watching stuff in the dark. But for OLED you have to do that to get the most HDR effect. A high nits panel on the other hand allows you to have some light on and still get great HDR effect without the eye strain.
Exacly. You problem is watching tv in too dark room! Use some sold light and you reduce eye strain and Also maintain the huge contrast of oled tv!
@@_omega3_ hi could you give more info here? You’re saying your eyes aren’t as dialated in a brighter room so the highlights don’t have as much impact on eye strain?
@@andyfma123 It’s actually the constant adjustment of your pupil dilation which causes eye strain. And when you’re in a dark room with only the TV as a light source then that effect is increased. A movie can have scenes with many varying brightness levels, so that means your eyes are adjusting constantly throughout. That’s why some recommend to have bias lighting behind the TV to mitigate this effect.
Are LCD's dark enough for HDR though? It's not just about brightness bu the whole range, no?
Yes.
Yes they are imo. It’s only very close to the bright highlight on a black background where they get minor blooming, at least on the high zone count FALD’s anyway. The ultra high count mini/micro led’s should be the best of both worlds solution we are looking for...I hope.
LCD and dark scene HDR is miserable, because you'll get backlight bleed, clouding, corner glow and halo effect, looks horrible
@@Dr.WhetFarts no it really doesn't look horrible. Is it as good as oled? No but it isn't "horrible". Hdr is about color depth and peak brightness. You can defend your oled until you're blue in the face but it still changes nothing and it is still to dim for good hdr.
@Mertens , it’s all about the trade off’s when you’re comparing LED LCD vs OLED. The end user is the one who has to decide which elements they can and can’t live without. I love both my Q90R and C8 for different reasons, but when I sit down to watch HDR content the Q90R is the better ‘overall’ choice for me. Ymmv.🤷♂️
@5:50 this why you cant and should never have OLED next to LED LCD TV screen looks grayish instead of true white! @3:01 best explanation of PQ and EOTF curve I seen on YT!
stellar content as always. I learn something new in every video. thank you for your work. The only person I trust when it comes to display technology.
I've finally found it, after 15 years. The scroll of truth!
Vincent: You're oled tv is not bright enough for HDR.
Me: NYEHHH
Your
Your = Possessive. You're = Contraction for You are.
@@thrummer1953 Hotel? Trivago.
Awesome video Vincent. So many OLED owners just don’t understand what they’re missing. OLED’s will remain handicapped until they can hit minimum 1000 nits calibrated and do away with ABL. Of course, this may never happen due to increased burn in risk. The added HDR impact and detail you get from a high nit LED LCD can’t be overstated. It makes a huge difference imo.
And you don't know what your missing without perfect blacks after all the brightness talk oled still win the tv shootout every year
I have a C8 OLED and I understand its strengths and weaknesses perfectly. Along with your perfect blacks comes a lot of black crush and loss of shadow detail. Both tech’s have their strengths and weaknesses. But, for this conversation we are talking about HDR, which OLED struggles with due to limited brightness and ABL.
It’s no secret that the tests they do in those shootouts are heavily biased towards the strengths of OLED. For example, their testing rooms are pitch black. What happens if you turn on a light or two?
The creative (or rather, commercial) intent itself is becoming the issue.
Just like what happened with the "loudness wars" in music, the creators are mastering these HDR movies at stupidly high average brightness levels, and contrary to what happen with a CD where it's relative encoding compared to full scale so you can lower the volume, with HDR it's absolute so you can only endure those stupid high brightness scenes the creators choose to inflict upon your eyes, or use dynamic tonemapping.
I had a ks9800 (around 1300nits) before I traded it in for E6 oled(700nits). Ks9800 was like having a tanning bed in your living room so extreme hdr impact but I couldn't get over very visible flashlights. LG E6 did not have the impact obviously but between the contrast and enough brightness to highlight most details it was a better well rounded natural pq. Honestly I had to turn down brightness alot with ks9800.
The newer generations of OLED panels will definitely close this gap fast and be great at both soon enough but I wonder how that will effect burnin and wear.
As the saying goes “The flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long”
If achieving TRUE black comes at the cost of a bit of brightness, I happily accept that. If I miss a SMALL bit of detail on a shirt, or dress, or mountain pass, I just don’t feel like I would miss it too much to begin with. You know, you FINALLY save up enough money to buy the BEST TV on the consumer market, followed shortly by the videos explaining to you, why your new TV completely SUCKS, and isn’t “good enough…”
Thank you!!!
My parents have a 2019 lg SM9800 led, amazing colours, goes up to 1500 nits. And yet I would always cringe when I saw dark scenes. The blooming was off the charts even with local dimming.
I finally got myself an Oled B1 (2021) and I am blown away. Lower brightness for sure, but much much better contrast and overall a more believable image.
I have 2 OLEDS and have been saying this for years: it’s not bright enough! Rn I’m playing Cold War on PS5 and it’s a huge decrease in brightness whenever HDR is on! Don’t get me wrong, it’s still amazing and I love it, but always wish it was brighter, even in dark rooms. Seems like QLED has a better balance right now if you’re looking for a tv and use HDR mainly.
I have my A8H in a complete dark room, and I still wish it was brighter
Welcome to being a normal person. All the oled owners that say "my oled is bright enough because of the pure blacks" are just defending their purchase.
@@randybobandy9828 Yep. It was bright enough for the first month but after watching a bunch of movies I can use some more brightness. Especially for HDR
@@randybobandy9828 i have to say my last tv of 8 years was a plasma , which max is 150 nits , so i noticed a huge difference on my oled , i still don't find it dim and that had me worried when i purchased it .
@RubiiX oh really? Because I own a 1400nit display and it could be brighter. Now shut up and quit trying to justify your oled purchase. Oled is just not the best for hdr content and that just that
@@andremelandray7102 well your oled has a full screen brightness of only 150nits too so. But please provide some documentation that your plasma was only 150nits because that is fucking dim. He'll my 8 year old Samsung is pushing over 400nits easy.
What is the correct setting for Local Dimming and ECO for the q95T? I have local dimming on high. Do I loose details with the eco system? What is the best setting in this case? Thank you very much guys
Life is much better if one pay attention to the movie instead of all tiny little details, LOL.
Yep, although I like to understand all the details and settings, I do find that as tech has progressed everyone is really paranoid about small picture details and what best settings to have, I remember the days when I never even cared about these small things or what settings to use.
Wouldn’t Dolby Vision take care of this issue though? Doesn’t it retain the highlight detail regardless of the peak brightness of the tv?
Dolby Vision is not a cure-all. By retaining highlight detail, the brightness would have to be sacrificed, again deviating from the true, original creative intent.
I'm pretty sure his example was using a Dolby Vision source
Ah, that makes sense.
I don’t think Dolby vision has the capability to locally tone map high lum area without bringing the whole screen down.
@@qiuboujun Interesting, I didn’t know that.
Awesome Vincent. Some people would rather lie to themselves so they can pretend their TV is like the one ring to rule them all when OLED falls short often in peak brightness for HDR. Regular LED wins that battle. But soon the new OLEDs will catch up and be the one to rule them all. 😁
and yet, all winners of Vincent's 2020 TV round up, in ALL categories, were OLED's. Sure, even though they win the category, I fully understand that no panel will be perfect but it's a big 180 to now all of a sudden state that OLED is "Not good enough for HDR". Why has he never mentioned that throughout 2020? "Less impactful" is not the same as "not good enough for HDR" or "not showing all HDR detail in bright scenes". To me, "less impactful" means the details is there but isn't as oversaturated as brighter panels. Now all of a sudden he tells me detail is missing AFTER I bought my OLED based on HIS reviews. That's what's upsetting people, he wasn't very clear about it in the past
@Wim Vermont: Stop putting words in our mouth. We never said OLED is not "good enough for HDR", just that it is "not bright enough" to accurate reproduce both the luminance and detail component of HDR specular highlight detail of higher-nit content, hence "less impactful". Don't blame us if you misinterpret our findings, which we have always been honest and transparent to point out in many of our previous videos, as shown at 6:24 in this video.
The CX remains still an excellent display due to its many other strengths due to OLED's self-emissive qualities, so we're not sure why you (and other people) are so upset.
OLED Puritans are up in arms that this professional tv reviewer dare to say something negative about their beloved OLED TV. These fanboys make me laugh every time.
surprisingly no. people are claiming he is an OLED and LG shill. Only caring about HDR now. Yes, that is what people are saying. I guess you cannot win in the internet. :(
@@bernardeugenio He nerver was an LG or OLED shill, he showed in this video that he already stated that they weren't bright enough and in recent videos he came back to show that with the evolution of OLED this problem can probably be overcome. It's not about defending something but the evolution of the technology, and it happens to all segments of technollogy
This video is more directed at the people who constantly goo huuuuur ma tv is bright enough durrr
The problem is you have too many brand loyalists and fanboys vs facing conclusions that oled still has its inherit faults. Yes burn in is hardly an issue anymore but that doesn't mean the panel is 100% perfect. I say buy what fits your needs and budget wise and stop listening to an echo chambers of regressive manchildren crying about my tech is better than your tech arguments.
There are Puritans with LCD tech too. Do they make you laugh too or are folks laughing at you for being a LCD fanboy?
I'm still rocking my 2009 Panasonic plasma tv and it feels really bright to me. The idea of buying a new tv that is supposed to be several times brighter makes me feel like it will be like flashlights pointed at my face. I remember so many people with modern tvs were complaining that they couldn't tell what was going on in the battle of Winterfell in Game of Thrones because all of the detail was lost but I could see everything perfectly on my 2009 plasma.
I’ve noticed this clipping on my tv just changing the tv picture presets watching Netflix one day. I then realized my tvs brightness is actually around 200 nits less than what is advertised. If I go over 70 percent on the backlight you begin notice the image starts to have less contrast and looks more flat. But it does get slightly brighter. I have found it best to just leave the brightness at 50% and don’t go over 70%.