I'm not implying your blacks are not black. What I am implying is that on even the highest end LCD with local dimming LED backlight, you will never get proper HDR. The whole point of HDR is that it is showing the dynamic between dark and light when you have something like sunlight filtering through leaves on a tree, or through a cloud, etc... Even with local dimming, you can't get the pixels that are showing full white to be next to pixels that show black because the backlight behind them will need to be on torch mode to make the full white pixel and thus can not be dimmed to make the black pixel black (or vice versa with the white not being full white because the backlight is set lower so that the black is actually black, and in reality what you get is that the backlight goes to an average of the intensity of the pixels that the backlight projects). The only solution is that each pixel be able to control its own light intensity independently from any other pixel, which LCD's can not do, as groups of pixels are linked together in their intensity level due to the shared backlight.
This is why plasma had a superior picture than LCD, as the intensity of the pixels was independent of the other pixels around it. The problem with plasma was that it used a lot of energy, was heavy, and "thick".
You are much more patient than I am in explaining this. It's very hard to discuss with someone who thinks visual acuity charts are laughable. Why not just dismiss the entire profession of optometry and while we're at that why not dismiss the entirety of the science of optics? It's all laughable I guess.
As for plasma I'm still enjoying my ST50 Panasonic. I think the cost of manufacture, shipping, weight, materials put an end to it. Besides marketing alone can overcome any real disadvantages. Just make people believe LCD is better. I found it very disappointing when I heard otherwise smart techically inclined people dismiss my choice of plasma over the horrible LCDs especially of that era. Today's LCDs are much better but are kludged up in every possible way to compete. It's sad how corporate marketing can cloud the judgement of even the smartest people. It's sadder still when you consider it does the same to very smart people even in fields like food safety and medicine.
The verdict on the latest LCD kludge solution is in:
http://www.extremetech.com/computin...-head-to-head-in-65-inch-displaymate-shootout
Link showing how crappy local dimming really is (see the videos):
http://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/movies/dark-scene/local-dimming
1000nits/291FtL. I think a brief conversation with an ISF certified display calibrator would show how ridiculous that is. They know the target is 16 ft-lamberts in a dark room and that some consumers reasonably prefer up to 40ft-lamberts. 291ft-lamberts is for outdoor applications or maybe for viewing inside an ultra bright big box store. The only reason a TV designed for indoor regular room use would get that bright is because it's yet another cheaply achieved marketing bullet point. Making LEDs brighter doesn't take a rocket scientist. Even if clear across the screen the panel can do 0.5nits somewhere can the human eye discern it when something is blasting it at 1000nits in its field of view? Can you make out the brand of the car when looking straight into its headlights? The standards people certainly bent over backwards to make the marketers job easy. They have disgraced the science of visual perception to help the LCD makers have their new buzzword.
Last edited: