• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

4K TV for nextgen questions

makaveli60

Member
So I am thinking about buying a new TV for my future PS5 (and later XSX) and I have a couple of questions.

As far as I know when we are talking about resolution the most important aspect of the TV is its pixel density. This means I will get a clearer picture if the image I see has a higher PPI than I have currently. I have a 82 cm 1080p TV now which means I have 68 PPI if the game renders in 1080p. The problem is that the smallest 4K TV I found is 109 cm and that means at 1440p I also have only 68 PPI.
So this means if I play a PS4 game in PS4 pro mode on my PS5 that had a resolution of 1440p max, I will see no resolution benefit on this new 109 cm TV compared to my 82 cm TV in full HD. Am I right or am I missing something? I know that it might look better because of other aspects of the TV but I'm talking strictly about resolution here.
So as far as I can see buying this new 109 cm would only give me benefits regarding resolution if I play a game that has a resolution of 4K.

And if I'm right in the above, can anyone recommend me smaller 4K TVs that have all the features expected nowadays and has a good picture just like its larger brothers?
 

dcx4610

Member
It's hard to find smaller 4K TVs simply because the smaller you go, the less resolution matters. It's why despite being a low resolution screen, something like the GBA can look sharp since the screen in so small.

40-43" is about as small as you are going to find. I'd say more importantly than 4K though is going to be your HDR options. If at all possible, you want FALD or OLED if you can afford it. Local dimming makes or breaks the 4K experience when viewing HDR content.
 

makaveli60

Member
It's hard to find smaller 4K TVs simply because the smaller you go, the less resolution matters. It's why despite being a low resolution screen, something like the GBA can look sharp since the screen in so small.

40-43" is about as small as you are going to find. I'd say more importantly than 4K though is going to be your HDR options. If at all possible, you want FALD or OLED if you can afford it. Local dimming makes or breaks the 4K experience when viewing HDR content.
So I take that this means I'm right about the pixel density thing. Oh, well.
And about HDR... Should I look for a TV that has HDR10+ or...?
 

J3nga

Member
So I am thinking about buying a new TV for my future PS5 (and later XSX) and I have a couple of questions.

As far as I know when we are talking about resolution the most important aspect of the TV is its pixel density. This means I will get a clearer picture if the image I see has a higher PPI than I have currently. I have a 82 cm 1080p TV now which means I have 68 PPI if the game renders in 1080p. The problem is that the smallest 4K TV I found is 109 cm and that means at 1440p I also have only 68 PPI.
So this means if I play a PS4 game in PS4 pro mode on my PS5 that had a resolution of 1440p max, I will see no resolution benefit on this new 109 cm TV compared to my 82 cm TV in full HD. Am I right or am I missing something? I know that it might look better because of other aspects of the TV but I'm talking strictly about resolution here.
So as far as I can see buying this new 109 cm would only give me benefits regarding resolution if I play a game that has a resolution of 4K.

And if I'm right in the above, can anyone recommend me smaller 4K TVs that have all the features expected nowadays and has a good picture just like its larger brothers?
Huh? Just wait for PS5 then and make a decision. Also, it's not only pixel density, you're sitting some distance away which is a factor on image sharpness. Also also, all 43inch/109 are entry-level 4k tv's with poor HDR capabilities and lacking hdmi 2.1 which PS5 will have. Also also also from my personal experience - go for a bigger screen as it has more weight to wow factor than ppi and starting from 55" that's where all the premium panels start such as OLED although LG's CX(2020 model) is available in 48".
 
Last edited:

makaveli60

Member
Huh? Just wait for PS5 then and make a decision. Also, it's not only pixel density, you're sitting some distance away which is a factor on image sharpness. Also also, all 43inch/109 are entry-level 4k tv's with poor HDR capabilities and lacking hdmi 2.1 which PS5 will have. Also also also from my personal experience - go for a bigger screen as it has more weight to wow factor than ppi and starting from 55" that's where all the premium panels start such as OLED although LG's CX(2020 model) is available in 48".
But let's assume that I sit at the same distance, then in the scenario I described I get no benefit if the PPI value is the same, right?
Also HDMI 2.1 is only needed for 120fps, no?
 

hussar16

Member
tbh take it from someone whos owned all sort of tvs for gaming. resolution is not the number one thing to look for when you want a clear picture but the tvs motion handling. Plasmas to this day for big tvs are king at motion,no blur even compared to new oleds and the picture looks better then any 4k tv because the picture is clear in motion when playing a game, unless your looking at static pictures
 

J3nga

Member
But let's assume that I sit at the same distance, then in the scenario I described I get no benefit if the PPI value is the same, right?
Also HDMI 2.1 is only needed for 120fps, no?
Yes. Don't get overly obsessed with ppi, the more detail you'll be getting with bigger screen is totally worth it. And you won't see that image got blurrier at true 4k, all you'll see is tremendous increase in picture quality. And you simply won't get a good panel with "43, they just don't make those, all the goodies go to larger panel. It's how tv's market works.
 

Celcius

°Temp. member
But let's assume that I sit at the same distance, then in the scenario I described I get no benefit if the PPI value is the same, right?
Also HDMI 2.1 is only needed for 120fps, no?
Nope, the big thing with hdmi 2.1 is variable refresh rate (VRR) to eliminate screen tearing (like if the game is rendering at 48 fps and your screen is running at 60hz). VRR will also make the motion and frame rate look smoother as the frame rate changes.
 
Last edited:

sol_bad

Member
tbh take it from someone whos owned all sort of tvs for gaming. resolution is not the number one thing to look for when you want a clear picture but the tvs motion handling. Plasmas to this day for big tvs are king at motion,no blur even compared to new oleds and the picture looks better then any 4k tv because the picture is clear in motion when playing a game, unless your looking at static pictures

How do you buy a new plasma these days?
 

Abear21

Banned
My big question; is HDR a mandatory thing to have with ray tracing? It seems like HDR is maybe a fad and will go away? I know there is no real standard with hdr and many versions.

It also seems like realistic lighting will be a huge feature for the new hardware and games, but how to maximize this is still unknown to the average consume, aka, me lol.
 

Shai-Tan

Banned
HDR is not a fad, just slow to market due to price. If I was buying a pc monitor I wouldn’t worry too much about good hdr because the only good ones are so absurdly expensive you might as well buy a tv. In the past you needed a high end pc to really take advantage of 4K but it’s within reach now of new console budget. TV is also multi function so you can justify going a little more expensive and I feel the return on that investment is better in that mass market compared to niche high end pc display space.
 
Last edited:

mango drank

Member
all 43inch/109 are entry-level 4k tv's with poor HDR capabilities
When you say these smaller TVs have poor HDR capabilities, are you saying that the specs sound good on paper (peak brightness, contrast, etc), but the actual implementation sucks, or the image quality is crappy in general or something? Or these small TVs actually sound bad on paper to begin with (low peak brightness etc)? See what I'm sayin?
 

dcx4610

Member
My big question; is HDR a mandatory thing to have with ray tracing? It seems like HDR is maybe a fad and will go away? I know there is no real standard with hdr and many versions.

It also seems like realistic lighting will be a huge feature for the new hardware and games, but how to maximize this is still unknown to the average consume, aka, me lol.

It's not mandatory but it will certainly enhance ray tracing. HDR is no fad. It would be like saying 16.9 million colors is a fad. There is a standard - HDR10. There is competing Dolby Vision but it is backwards compatible with HDR10 and now, HDR10+ is starting to show up. I'm a big UHD/4K buyer and they are all HDR10 or HDR10+.

HDR is one of those things you have to properly see in person to appreciate but once you do, you don't want to go back. Last of Us 2 was so much better with HDR to the point where if I didn't play with HDR, I don't think it would have had as much impact.

I think the biggest issue with HDR is the TV requirement. You need a TV with full array local dimming or an OLED for proper HDR. Most people are content spending $300 on a 55" TV at Walmart that says 4K UHD on the box. You'll need to spend at $1000 before you even start unlocking the features that make 4K and HDR worthwhile.
 

Gamer79

Predicts the worst decade for Sony starting 2022
So I am thinking about buying a new TV for my future PS5 (and later XSX) and I have a couple of questions.

As far as I know when we are talking about resolution the most important aspect of the TV is its pixel density. This means I will get a clearer picture if the image I see has a higher PPI than I have currently. I have a 82 cm 1080p TV now which means I have 68 PPI if the game renders in 1080p. The problem is that the smallest 4K TV I found is 109 cm and that means at 1440p I also have only 68 PPI.
So this means if I play a PS4 game in PS4 pro mode on my PS5 that had a resolution of 1440p max, I will see no resolution benefit on this new 109 cm TV compared to my 82 cm TV in full HD. Am I right or am I missing something? I know that it might look better because of other aspects of the TV but I'm talking strictly about resolution here.
So as far as I can see buying this new 109 cm would only give me benefits regarding resolution if I play a game that has a resolution of 4K.

And if I'm right in the above, can anyone recommend me smaller 4K TVs that have all the features expected nowadays and has a good picture just like its larger brothers?
Get yourself a 4k or 8k montior for smaller solutions. As for tv's TCL makes great and cheap gaming tv's.
 

Rockman33

Member
My big question; is HDR a mandatory thing to have with ray tracing? It seems like HDR is maybe a fad and will go away? I know there is no real standard with hdr and many versions.

It also seems like realistic lighting will be a huge feature for the new hardware and games, but how to maximize this is still unknown to the average consume, aka, me lol.
HDR is definitely not a fad. Almost all games will include it and all shows and movies shoot with that as well.
 
Huh? Just wait for PS5 then and make a decision. Also, it's not only pixel density, you're sitting some distance away which is a factor on image sharpness. Also also, all 43inch/109 are entry-level 4k tv's with poor HDR capabilities and lacking hdmi 2.1 which PS5 will have. Also also also from my personal experience - go for a bigger screen as it has more weight to wow factor than ppi and starting from 55" that's where all the premium panels start such as OLED although LG's CX(2020 model) is available in 48".
Is the LG CX in the same league as the LG C9 ?
 

dolabla

Member

saintjules

Member
Is the LG CX in the same league as the LG C9 ?

When it comes to picture there's minimal change in the quality from the 2019 C9 to the 2020 CX for example.

I think there may be a few new features present in the CX, but not enough to warrant a $4-500 price jump. The latest talk I came across for these two was that the C9 has 48 gbps bandwidth for HDMI 2.1 versus the 40 on the CX. Doesn't affect much for gameplay. Remains to be seen though.
 
Last edited:
I feel like for the high end tv's you have the oleds from LG and I guess sony but for non oled tv's Im looking at the LG Nano cell and the Hisense H9G
 

kittoo

Cretinously credulous
I bought an entry level HDR TV a year ago and then a C9 a couple of months back. Here are my observations-
1. Entry level TVs HDR is shit. Really. You won't see any difference. Don't go by the labels. HDR truly shines on expensive OLEDs by LG/Sony/Panasonic and to some extent Samsung's higher end QLEDs. Don't buy cheap Chinese crap with labels of HDR. You will be disppointed.
2. HDR is real. It's amazing on a good TV. It has to be seen on a good TV to be believed. Tough to explain. But in my opinion, it makes even OK looking games amazing looking. In general Sekiro is not that great a looking games, but it was flooring me every minute with HDR. And with HDR being implemented more and more, do not skimp on it. Believe the hype (as long as you have a good TV).
3. As of now the C9 is still the best and most future proof TV, even after CX launch. It's got full bandwidth HDMI 2.1 and the best picture quality. CX and a new Panasonic one are also about as good though.
4. Samsung QLEDs are good, but are no OLEDs and confuse people. Unless you sit on an extremely bright room with light everywhere, go with LG OLEDs. QLEDs don't have as good picture quality but are brighter. That's the only advantage Samsung QLEDs have.
5. In 4K vs HDR, I will take HDR as bigger picture quality improver. That's a personal preference though.
 
Last edited:

Atomic Odin

Member
Thanks for creating this thread, I'm also looking for a new tv with next gen coming up. But I can't make up my mind whether to purchase a new one right now or wait till more options appear on the market with all the hdmi 2.1 features included and some real world performance reviews with them. I'm not going to buy the new consoles day 1 but preferably 6 month or maybe even a year after the launch.

So far with my budget I've been eyeing X900H but again I don't know if its worth investing now. Currently have a 32" 1080p samsung so I guess its going to be quite a jump.
 
Last edited:

J3nga

Member
When you say these smaller TVs have poor HDR capabilities, are you saying that the specs sound good on paper (peak brightness, contrast, etc), but the actual implementation sucks, or the image quality is crappy in general or something? Or these small TVs actually sound bad on paper to begin with (low peak brightness etc)? See what I'm sayin?
Those tv's meet minimum requirement of 400nits peak brightness which allows tv manufacturers put that HDR label on a box, however it's not what tv experts call "real HDR", you need so much more, some claim it has to have ~1000nits although OLED's do not reach 1000, but thanks to high contrast and deep blacks I don't think you need that much nits unless you"re in a super bright environment. Also low end 4K HDR tv's have 10bit(8bit+frc) panel wherein real HDR tvs have true 10bit panel. Also if it's LCD panel, it has to have local dimming preferably with as much local dimming zones, low 4K HDR tvs have none of that.
 

Shai-Tan

Banned
Thanks for creating this thread, I'm also looking for a new tv with next gen coming up. But I can't make up my mind whether to purchase a new one right now or wait till more options appear on the market with all the hdmi 2.1 features included and some real world performance reviews with them. I'm not going to buy the new consoles day 1 but preferably 6 month or maybe even a year after the launch.

So far with my budget I've been eyeing X900H but again I don't know if its worth investing now. Currently have a 32" 1080p samsung so I guess its going to be quite a jump.

in my opinion, wait until winter earliest. there's a big early adopter tax that makes them a lot more expensive than they will be later on
 

Whitecrow

Banned
LG C9/CX.
No doubt.

HDR is not a fad, is just that some devs dont put too much effort into it, but I think it may change with the time as better practices gets developed.
But there are also shows and movies mastered in HDR and that's always better than sdr.
 

ZywyPL

Banned
Just hold off until 2021, when every TV manufacturer will present their new lineup, that will (hopefully) fully support next-gen consoles. As of now there are so many half-assed products out there it's just a one huge mess, HDMI 2.1 support is very sketchy, with mostly just one such port available, and not even supporting all the features. 2021 should bring a much wider and better offer to choose from when it comes to next-gen gaming.
 

makaveli60

Member
I didn't really want to spend more than around 400 € for a new TV so I'm not too glad to hear that the cheaper ones don't worth it. Here is one I was checking:
LG 43UM7050PLA

So this one doesn't worth it for example? Bad HDR, etc.? Keep in mind that my current TV is a Samsung LED TV from around 10 years ago so I assume this LG would still look miles better, isn't it?
 

Rikkori

Member
So I am thinking about buying a new TV for my future PS5 (and later XSX) and I have a couple of questions.

As far as I know when we are talking about resolution the most important aspect of the TV is its pixel density. This means I will get a clearer picture if the image I see has a higher PPI than I have currently. I have a 82 cm 1080p TV now which means I have 68 PPI if the game renders in 1080p. The problem is that the smallest 4K TV I found is 109 cm and that means at 1440p I also have only 68 PPI.
So this means if I play a PS4 game in PS4 pro mode on my PS5 that had a resolution of 1440p max, I will see no resolution benefit on this new 109 cm TV compared to my 82 cm TV in full HD. Am I right or am I missing something? I know that it might look better because of other aspects of the TV but I'm talking strictly about resolution here.
So as far as I can see buying this new 109 cm would only give me benefits regarding resolution if I play a game that has a resolution of 4K.

And if I'm right in the above, can anyone recommend me smaller 4K TVs that have all the features expected nowadays and has a good picture just like its larger brothers?

You are not right, because perception doesn't work that way. The same PPI at different screen sizes results in a different image because you forgot one very important aspect: your eyes! Because you don't have perfect vision and with infinite zoom, so a larger screen with the same PPI would allow you to see more details - literally. And if you don't believe me - look at your phone! Compare a 1080p video on that vs one on a big screen, even though phone will even have the PPI advantage. And also, the PPI doesn't change with your render resolution - the screen has the PPI whether you play at 1080p or 1440p or 4K, what changes is how that resolves, and the way it ends up being is you still get a superior picture compared to let's say if that screen were natively 1080p or 1440p at that size.

And that's even without getting into all the peculiarities of every game and how they handle AA & how that ends up looking, because in increasingly more games there's a low perceptual difference between resolutions between 1440p & 4K and actually 4K.
To say nothing that you're ignoring one major benefit - a bigger size is better!

So, don't worry about spec sheets and abstractions, a 4K TV will be an upgrade just because of the sheer number of pixels & there will be too many things you won't account for perceptually to think that you'll be able to grok out the difference just from the numbers - test it. Seeing is believing. ;)

And no, I don't recommend any <48" TV, they're all shit.

I didn't really want to spend more than around 400 € for a new TV so I'm not too glad to hear that the cheaper ones don't worth it. Here is one I was checking:
LG 43UM7050PLA

So this one doesn't worth it for example? Bad HDR, etc.? Keep in mind that my current TV is a Samsung LED TV from around 10 years ago so I assume this LG would still look miles better, isn't it?

Avoid LG TVs that aren't OLED like the plague. Trust me on this. Cheapo Sony like their 70 line (eg XF70, XH70 etc) are fine, you're giving up HDR but they look okay, I had one for a year and loved it for PC usage though the contrast isn't as good as my XF90. Don't go for <55" then though, because they use worse panels and hardware (for all TV manufacturers; exception 48" OLED etc). Even entry level Samsungs are fine, and they're about 400 Euros also for the 55" like TU7000 etc.
 
Last edited:

makaveli60

Member
You are not right, because perception doesn't work that way. The same PPI at different screen sizes results in a different image because you forgot one very important aspect: your eyes! Because you don't have perfect vision and with infinite zoom, so a larger screen with the same PPI would allow you to see more details - literally. And if you don't believe me - look at your phone! Compare a 1080p video on that vs one on a big screen, even though phone will even have the PPI advantage. And also, the PPI doesn't change with your render resolution - the screen has the PPI whether you play at 1080p or 1440p or 4K, what changes is how that resolves, and the way it ends up being is you still get a superior picture compared to let's say if that screen were natively 1080p or 1440p at that size.

And that's even without getting into all the peculiarities of every game and how they handle AA & how that ends up looking, because in increasingly more games there's a low perceptual difference between resolutions between 1440p & 4K and actually 4K.
To say nothing that you're ignoring one major benefit - a bigger size is better!

So, don't worry about spec sheets and abstractions, a 4K TV will be an upgrade just because of the sheer number of pixels & there will be too many things you won't account for perceptually to think that you'll be able to grok out the difference just from the numbers - test it. Seeing is believing. ;)

And no, I don't recommend any <48" TV, they're all shit.



Avoid LG TVs that aren't OLED like the plague. Trust me on this. Cheapo Sony like their 70 line (eg XF70, XH70 etc) are fine, you're giving up HDR but they look okay, I had one for a year and loved it for PC usage though the contrast isn't as good as my XF90. Don't go for <55" then though, because they use worse panels and hardware (for all TV manufacturers; exception 48" OLED etc). Even entry level Samsungs are fine, and they're about 400 Euros also for the 55" like TU7000 etc.
So just to be clear that I understood what you meant. Playing a game that renders at 1440p on a 43" 4K TV (68 PPI) and playing the same game but rendered at 1080p on a 32" full HD TV (also 68 PPI)... The former will look better? I know it will because of other aspects, but if we talk strictly about the resolution and clearness? And sitting at the same distance of course.
One of my pet peeves is aliasing and I'm also interested in how this affects that.

Also I see you recommended me a couple of TVs, but can you recommend me the best option based on these factors:
the smallest screen with good HDR (this is important to me, as others convinced me about it) and for max 500 €?
 

Rikkori

Member
So just to be clear that I understood what you meant. Playing a game that renders at 1440p on a 43" 4K TV (68 PPI) and playing the same game but rendered at 1080p on a 32" full HD TV (also 68 PPI)... The former will look better? I know it will because of other aspects, but if we talk strictly about the resolution and clearness? And sitting at the same distance of course.
One of my pet peeves is aliasing and I'm also interested in how this affects that.

Also I see you recommended me a couple of TVs, but can you recommend me the best option based on these factors:
the smallest screen with good HDR (this is important to me, as others convinced me about it) and for max 500 €?

Yes, the former will look better, pure resolution only etc. For aliasing there's only one solution: anti-aliasing, in whatever form that happens to be (TAA, supersampling etc.) Simply increasing resolution will not be enough no matter what resolution we're talking about and that's due to a whole heap of factors and varies game by game (eg playing RDR2 without AA is a massacre, while Witcher 3 is totally fine etc). Watch this:


The smallest screen with good HDR is a monitor, and it's not for 500€. You cannot get HDR for 500€. Sorry, that's just how it is. Right now the cheapest display with proper HDR (because anything non-FALD doesn't count) is a Sony XF90 if they're still in stock in your country, mine is the 55" and is going for about 750€ atm. There is absolutely nothing else with HDR cheaper in Europe nor smaller for that much.

So if you really want HDR, and yes, it is fantastic but also not universal nor is every implementation great, then you have two options: pony up for an XF90 assuming they are in stock in your country, or pony up even more for a FALD monitor if you want HDR in a smaller form factor.
 

makaveli60

Member
Yes, the former will look better, pure resolution only etc. For aliasing there's only one solution: anti-aliasing, in whatever form that happens to be (TAA, supersampling etc.) Simply increasing resolution will not be enough no matter what resolution we're talking about and that's due to a whole heap of factors and varies game by game (eg playing RDR2 without AA is a massacre, while Witcher 3 is totally fine etc). Watch this:


The smallest screen with good HDR is a monitor, and it's not for 500€. You cannot get HDR for 500€. Sorry, that's just how it is. Right now the cheapest display with proper HDR (because anything non-FALD doesn't count) is a Sony XF90 if they're still in stock in your country, mine is the 55" and is going for about 750€ atm. There is absolutely nothing else with HDR cheaper in Europe nor smaller for that much.

So if you really want HDR, and yes, it is fantastic but also not universal nor is every implementation great, then you have two options: pony up for an XF90 assuming they are in stock in your country, or pony up even more for a FALD monitor if you want HDR in a smaller form factor.

And here I was yesterday surprised that there are a lot of 4K HDR TVs for around 400 €... :)
So what is still not clear, what is the problem with the HDR on these cheaper TVs? Why is it not considered "real" HDR? And what do I have to look for in the specs of TVs if I want to get proper HDR? It's not easy to decide if ads only put there "HDR" and that's it.
 

J3nga

Member
And here I was yesterday surprised that there are a lot of 4K HDR TVs for around 400 €... :)
So what is still not clear, what is the problem with the HDR on these cheaper TVs? Why is it not considered "real" HDR? And what do I have to look for in the specs of TVs if I want to get proper HDR? It's not easy to decide if ads only put there "HDR" and that's it.
Because it's nothing more but marketing, they only meet 400nits HDR requirement, which is 50 nits more compared to any SDR tv/monitor also lack of local dimming if it's LCD panel does not improve the situation. What HDR does is that it makes image pop which can't be achieved with 400 nits, also you'll be getting bright and dark scenes at the same time on the screen that's why local dimming is needed if it's not OLED panel where each pixel is turned on and off individually. Cheap 4K HDR TV's have none of that, 500 euros is considered cheap, you'll need almost double the budget to get decent HDR, like SONY XF9005 which is 2018 model, but has laggy Android, you can get LG OLED B9 at around 1000 euros, but Adding another ~200 gives even better C9.
 
Last edited:

kittoo

Cretinously credulous
And here I was yesterday surprised that there are a lot of 4K HDR TVs for around 400 €... :)
So what is still not clear, what is the problem with the HDR on these cheaper TVs? Why is it not considered "real" HDR? And what do I have to look for in the specs of TVs if I want to get proper HDR? It's not easy to decide if ads only put there "HDR" and that's it.
So, HDR is basically different brightness for different elements shown on screen. For example, if you are in a cave with pitch black darkness, you should ideally see nothing. Then as someone turns on a torch, the torch should be extremely bright. Or in a scene where there is a tree with shade, sunshine all around and then sun in the sky, the sun should very bright, the sunshine area should also be pretty bright and the tree shade should be not as bright. The sun area of your TV should be such that you hesitate to look at it directly, like in real life. This brightness difference in different part of the screen, based on what that part of screen is showing, is basically- HDR.
And how do we measure the brightness? we measure it in nits, as far as the TVs are concerned. The higher the nits, the brighter the panel is. These cheap TVs, they just basically make their panels in such a way that they cover the absolute minimum brightness requirement to get HDR certified. And that is 300 or 400 nits. So lets say you get a cheap HDR TV. You fire up HDR content and then you cant really see any difference between brightness of the sun and tree shade in the scene and you say- what the big deal is about? What is even HDR? It looks same as usual content.
Then you get a good HDR TV, maybe a LG C9 or extremely high end Samsung etc. You fire up the same content. And how the sun is blinding you, the sunshine is bright and the tree shade looks like real calm place- like if you were looking at all those in real life. Then you will go damn! I dont want to look at the sun, the sunshine is making everything bright. This is great! This is like real life.
Then you play games and random sunshine reflecting on water starts looking amazing. The sunshine peering through clouds is mind-blowing. Then you realize how good HDR makes everything.
There is another twist here though, which is part 2 of my post. And these are black levels.
Black levels are basically how dim a particular area of your TV can go. Taking the example of the cave again. We all have noticed that such dark areas on our TVs are never truly black. They look more grayish. This is because all panels except OLEDs, have a panel behind them which lights up. No matter how neatly the panel tries to light up one area and turn off another area, some light will bleed. So when someone turns on the torch in the cave, the light of the torch will light up areas its not supposed to light up too. Because what the TV is trying to do is light up area where the torch light is, but keep other areas as dark as possible. And due to the way TVs work, some light is bound to bleed in other areas too. There is never true darkness. This is something called contrast ratio/black levels.
And when HDR is concerned, as I mentioned we measure it in brightness. But every bright is bright with reference to something. For example, you put a bright sun on a TV screen where all area other than the sun is also white. Both are bright, sun is brighter. Then you put the same sun in a pitch black area, suddenly sun seems much brighter- even though in intensity its the same as it was on a white background.
This is where OLEDs come in. OLEDs do not have a panel behind then lighting up the screen. In an OLED, each pixel can turn itself on and off. So there is no light to bleed. The torch will light up exactly the pixels it needs to, rest will be pitch black. So technically OLEDs have infinite contrast ratio or perfect black levels. Remember the example of sun we discussed above, against white background? Now that everything else is pitch black, the sun seems oh so much brighter. OLEDs can make everything else pitch black. All other TVs cant. So an LG C9, which is around 800 nits, is often judged as brighter by most people when put side by side with a Samsung Q70, which around 1400 nits but is not OLED. This is purely because the darks are so perfect in an OLED, they pop everything else. The brights look so much brighter, the colors look so much better.
So basically what I am trying to say is
4K HDR OLED from LG/Sony/Panasonic>High end QLED from Samsung>Any shitty cheap Chinese shit which just barely makes the HDR cut.
In fact, the cheap HDR TVs shouldnt even be in the consideration here. If you want the best right now, go for C9 or CX. You wont be disappointed.
 
Last edited:

Rikkori

Member
And here I was yesterday surprised that there are a lot of 4K HDR TVs for around 400 €... :)
So what is still not clear, what is the problem with the HDR on these cheaper TVs? Why is it not considered "real" HDR? And what do I have to look for in the specs of TVs if I want to get proper HDR? It's not easy to decide if ads only put there "HDR" and that's it.

kittoo kittoo says it well. For HDR you want the ability to control light in a particular area so that you can display light only in that area without impacting the rest of the screen. Remember what HDR stands for: High. Dynamic. RANGE. That means accurate control of the brightness in a particular region of the screen. For LED TVs (or monitors) that means having a full array local dimming backlight.

High -> for high brightness but also deep black level (how little the screen can light up while being black)
Dynamic -> meaning various elements on the screen can be shown at wildly different brightness levels
Range -> meaning there have to be a lot of steps in between 0 nits and the TV's maximum (which ideally should be equivalent to what the content was mastered at)

See this picture for reference:
Dolby-Vision-flower-nits-HDR-840x472.jpg


See how big the difference is in nits for particular areas of that image? There would be no way to properly show the brightest part of that image without blowing out the brightness of the whole image if you relied only on the backlight. That's why you have to have more granular control of how much light can shine through one part. Like this:

61e0255e2e1e6e0f41ab68d2f5456937


And here's the XF90, you can see how many zones it has control over:

TfWcRnH.png
 

makaveli60

Member
Thanks guys for the answers. I have never imagined this would be so "complicated" but I have learned a lot. One thing is sure, I won't be running to buy a 400 € TV now :)
 

Bo_Hazem

Banned
Thanks guys for the answers. I have never imagined this would be so "complicated" but I have learned a lot. One thing is sure, I won't be running to buy a 400 € TV now :)

The thread I posted has a list of people owning some of the tv's that would interest you, but according to your budget I would suggest you wait for heavy discounts for Sony X900H as it's around $999 for 55" now and should get closer to your budget range around like early-mid 2021 clearance prices.
 
Top Bottom