I think what people notice is the ABL. OLEDs can get impressive 1000 nits for some smaller windows, but larger windows will only reach 200 nits. IMO 400nits OLED with little ABL (and preferably no ABL at all) like Alienware AW3225QF is bright enough to my eyes even during the day. The same monitor with HDR1000 look dimer, because ABL is way more agressive (it will preserve some smaller 1000 nits highlights but dim bigger windows).You are probably used to over saturated colors. Correct settings are:
color - 50 (55 for game mode)
color space - auto
all color enchantments - off
White Balance - Warm 50
I used my B2 for months with oversaturated colors. When i finally wanted accuracy it took me some time to adjust and now I don't want anything other than that.
You can try to set "native" color space, in non HDR mode it will use full gamut of tv vs correct 8 bit on auto (it will be oversaturated but it may look better to your eyes).
I love how we all used tv and monitors capable of (max) 300 nits for decades and now OLED capable of 1000 or 1500 nits peak brightness is "dim".
Sun didn't become more bright since early 2000 and somehow we were able to use old dim LCDs back then. Weird shit, it's almost like companies selling high nit panels (that use tech sites and youtubers to market them) changed people minds about it...
I had a plasma in 2007 and even then ABL was a real problem. My latest GT60 plasma has less aggressive ABL, but I still thought it's picture was a bit too dim, at least at mid panel brightness settings (at high panel brightness settings this tv was bright, but crushed shadow details).
.You're smarter than this. We were able to use dim LCDs back then because that was what was available and better stuff wasn't there yet. We were also "fine" with SDR for decades, I guess pursuing more range with HDR was just purely a marketing gimmick? Or is having more dynamic range an actual benefit? For a PC gamer and tech enthusiast, it is surprising to see you use an anti-progress argument.
I had a plasma in 2007 and even then ABL was a real problem. My latest GT60 plasma has less aggressive ABL, but I still thought it's picture was a bit too dim, at least at mid panel brightness settings (at high panel brightness settings this tv was bright, but crushed shadow details).
I don't think ABL was an issue with CRTs, at least I don't recall any discussions about it in the early 2000s or even the late 90s. I was perfectly happy with the brightness of my CRTs. I still have my old 21" CRT and it's brighter than even my 400 nits LCD. I wonder how many nits it has
My Sony A95K easily shows that it reaches 1000 nits peak in games (via in-game calibration screens). It is a 2022 model. The current models of all brands exceed this.
IMHO, everyone dedicated enough to gaming to be posting on this forum has the budget for an OLED, unless you are literally poor. You can get the prior year's LG C-series for $800-1000 USD if you wait until black friday or the following spring when the new models launch. Hell, you could get a 48" C3 right now for $1000 USD if you asked for a local shop's best price.
Yes, definitely. The amount of shitty LED TVs on the market is wild, reminds me of the days when I was into Panasonic and Pioneer's plasma displays, the LCDs just looked sterile comparatively at the time. If Sony hadn't released the Bravia 9 this year, I probably would have bought the LG G4. The Bravia 9 being as bright as it is, is very nice… but it brings in amazing color volume as well, exceeding LG's WOLED offerings. Samsung's S95D has even better color volume, but that matte screen is a nonstarter IMO. Lack of Dolby Vision support doesn't help either, Samsung needs to bite the bullet and get onboard.
I thought that "Hyper-Efficient Electroluminescence Material" used in 2'nd gen QD-OLEDs works in a similar way to the MLAA allowing brightness increase of 30% at the same power consumption.
Maybe, all I know is MLA+ yields a 60% increase, and combined with LG's new algorithm yielded an alleged 114% increase for WOLED, allowing them to stay competitive with Samsung in the brightness area. WOLED is operating from a lower brightness baseline from the outset, and loses to QD-OLED and even high end LEDs when it comes to color volume due to heavy reliance on the white subpixel. I imagine MLA+ would benefit QD-OLED even more than it does for WOLED.
Probably because your G4 has more accurate colors and you are used to oversaturated incorrect colors on the GX.
Yeah, Samsung seems to be self-sabotaging right now and it's baffling. They have the better OLED tech but they keep snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They could ditch the one connect box and redirect the money wasted on it per set to paying for the Dolby Vision licensing fee so they stop being the odd ones out in latest format war where they're supporting the equivalent of HDDVD over Bluray. Matte screen was just straight up confusing.
Here is why I went with the Samsung qn90a a few years ago.I watch stuff with color more often that I watch stuff that's super dark and while the oh does nearly black (like space) scenes better, it also crushes color and shadows in many other scenes. Here are some photos that might help.
I hear the new OLED's are better about this, but I'm not sure how much better.
I will probably wait for MicroLED to get cheaper before buying another tv.
That's an OLED Samsung, not the "QLED", which is insanely bright.
Automatic Brightness Limiter
Ghosting and blooming really, really sucks tho.
www.rtings.com
Thanks for the input. I have checked the Rtings comparison many times lol. On paper the HDR brightness is only a tad better so I was wondering if any gaf actually have real world experience to inform me if the new processor makes a noticeable difference. (Don't care the 144 Hz as much)LG C3 OLED vs LG C4 OLED Side-by-Side TV Comparison
The LG C4 OLED is slightly better than the LG C3 OLED. The C4 gets brighter in HDR, so highlights pop a little bit more on it. The C4 also has slightly better PQ EOTF tracking, so it's a bit more accurate when it comes to the content creator's intent, and its better color volume delivers...
The C4 is a but better but you'll be hard pressed to notice it.
Isn't it amazing how far the corners feel away from you after using a curved display so long even to the effect it does feel like its bent backwards
Its an odd sensation. I read it up online prior on Reddits and can yep definately feeling the same effect. My eyes will probably adjust to the screen within a couple weeks. Just like it did with my 32" G7 with the 1000R curve and that was moving on from iirc a 1800R ultrawide. Which took me a while to get to get used to. Its like going from one extreme to the other lol. Probably should have gotten the Alienware but glossy screens are a no go for me.
I used an LG C9 for four years, and a C1 and Sony A95K since then. Not once have I ever seen the screen dim in any manner unless I had the video/game paused and there was no motion on screen. I still have no idea what people are complaining about. Is it something you only see with live TV? I have no idea.
Why would it dim? The movie is SDR, and I presume the TV can handle ~120nits full screen indefinitely.I doubt that C1 won't noticeably dim during this scene.
You OK buddy? A lot of popular movies have received 4K HDR color grading.
