I'm only using my Samsung 4k TV's built in apps, because I can't get it working on my PC because my cards+software don't support it.
I'm only using my Samsung 4k TV's built in apps, because I can't get it working on my PC because my cards+software don't support it.The way you wrote it ("The only way I can get HDR working right now...") strongly implied that you had tried and couldn't get it working on your PC - especially in a thread specifically about PC HDR support.
I don't know, seems like 10 bit color falls into the same category as color space. We can display sRGB without banding with 8 bits and that color space and bit depth is already more than the human eye can discern.
I'd be glad to be proven wrong but the color fidelity stuff sounds comparable to high sample rate and high bit depth audio. Yeah, 192 kHz and 24 bit "more closely" approximates an analog audio waveform than 44.1 kHz / 16 bit, but to your actual senses, it makes no difference. You can't hear the information contained in the higher sample rate because all that buys you is ultra high frequency information which is above human hearing range, and 44.1 kHz captures all frequencies you can hear. The increased bit depth serves to decrease quantization noise, which is already lower than the threshold of human hearing at 16 bit. There's a reason SACD and DVD-Audio never took off.
The real improvement is going to come from display tech allowing for brighter whites and darker blacks.
That's not true at all, gradients can easily be seen on 8bit content if you go much higher than 100 nits. HDR content is mastered or generally displayed at 1000+ nits, which is why the 10 bit gradient is important. Content mastered and displayed with a 1000 nit ceiling would have all sorts of banding issues if it were 8 bit content.
It's not quite the same. Your statements about 8 bit color are true... if you assume a maximum light output of 100 nits. Imagine if your statement about 16bit sound were true, but only up to about 55 dB. If people wanted audio mastered for 90dB, 16bit wouldn't cut it anymore. Same thing with 8bit vs 10bit. 8bit is fine up to 100 nits, but HDR content is made to be displayed with a range up to 1000 nits.
Darker blacks more than anything. This is the main reason that plasma was always superior to LCD, and now OLED is.
LOL, the human eye can catch all color. This is the same bullshit as the human eye can't see over 60hz, now that we have 144hz monitors the difference is clear as night and day. In fact if we get 244hz monitors we are probably going to be able to notice the difference.
Ahh OLED is one of the few technologies that is more or less natively capable of displaying HDR. Especially given each pixel is individually illuminated. It's the gold standard right now. The cheaper HDR TV option with be IPS or VA with local dimming.
You can definitely notice the wider color gamut. Especially in greens and blues, trees and leaves are represented much more like how they look in real life especially.What parts of "HDR" really mean anything? Does anybody know? For typical use, 10-bit color doesn't make a difference as far as I know. It seems like what we really need is new display tech with deep blacks and very bright whites, not wider color gamut or 10 bit color.
VirtualLarry - so how do you like the 40 inch TV/monitor so far? The Amazon reviews were nasty complaining that it is not suitable for computer use. thank you as I am considering something similar
Are there fundamentally different versions of OLED? Otherwise I don't see how they will be used for PC monitors due to the image retention problems they exhibit. We never saw plasma pc monitors for basically the same reason. Here is an example of the problems from a rtings.com review:
Image retention is one thing - which might be annoying, but that's about it - but burn-in is a serious issue with OLED that noone is close to solving. At my job, we have various Samsung phones and tablets on display, running a demo loop. The loop is constant, running whenever the device isn't used for ~30 seconds, and has zero static elements. The devices automatically sleep outside of opening hours. And even with all that, there is serious burn-in on anything more than a year old. Galaxy S6, Tab S2, they've all got horrible, very visible burn-in. Sure, they're essentially displaying images for 12-ish hours a day, six days a week. But a PC monitor used for work will se as much in a year and a half, if not sooner - and with A LOT more static elements on screen. Like the Windows Task Bar? You better, because it's going to be there for as long as the display is in use.I use my LG OLED exclusively as a monitor in my living room. I had a plasma previously, image retention/burn in was painfully obvious on that screen. On the OLED, I haven't noticed it, ever. Will have to look this weekend and see if can spot it, but switching from browser/desktop into movies I don't see any residuals like I used to on plasma.
The issue is actually two fold because increased color space also decreases the resolution of colors that can be displayed.
If you look at the Rtings reviews you'll find that a lot 10-bit panels still show banding too. For me there's no middle ground on color banding, either you see it or you don't. So why the hell spend more money on some fancy 10 bit display if you still see banding?
The ultimate display will be 12-bit OLED with rec.2020 coverage, but it's going to be a while until we get there. Currently, I think the absolute best bang for the buck is a good quality VA panel with local dimming, bit depth doesn't really matter. Love my Vizio M series. Contrast isn't as good as OLED but damn does it still look good, especially given the price.