Alienware is bringing the first QD-OLED monitor to market for $1,300

[Ludak021]

HDR400 True Black and HDR400 are not the same.

read this : https://displayhdr.org/

"Even worse, the SDR brightness is 250 nits. That's what low end screens have."
If you want color accuracy, you will calibrate the display, like professional calibrators do, for SDR color critical work - at 120 cd/m2. So 250 is to much ( this is the third time in this thread that I am writing this)

edit: honestly, I despise curved screens under 55", I don't want to get into reasons, I am not interested in this Alienware monitor for many reasons, HDR is not one of them.

 

[Burty117]

HDR400 True Black and HDR400 are not the same.

read this : https://displayhdr.org/

"Even worse, the SDR brightness is 250 nits. That's what low end screens have."
If you want color accuracy, you will calibrate the display, like professional calibrators do, for SDR color critical work - at 120 cd/m2. So 250 is to much ( this is the third time in this thread that I am writing this)

It's a gaming monitor, not designed for critical colour work. I'm going to leave this here as this professional calibrator does a better job of explaining why higher brightness matters and shows how it affects images:

If you could please provide a link or something to backup your claim that the screen is too bright, that would be grand.

 

[Puiu]

HDR400 True Black and HDR400 are not the same.

read this : https://displayhdr.org/

"Even worse, the SDR brightness is 250 nits. That's what low end screens have."
If you want color accuracy, you will calibrate the display, like professional calibrators do, for SDR color critical work - at 120 cd/m2. So 250 is to much ( this is the third time in this thread that I am writing this)

edit: honestly, I despise curved screens under 55", I don't want to get into reasons, I am not interested in this Alienware monitor for many reasons, HDR is not one of them.

One is for OLED and the other is for LED. The only big difference is in the the wide color gamut being a requirement for True Black (the rest are just min specs on how OLED should behave, but all OLED displays fall into that category).

This from an article talking about True Black certifications when they launched:

"The net result is that the new tiers reflect what we already know about each technology: OLEDs can get very dark, but they can’t get super bright. "

And no, 250 isn't too much. This isn't about pro work it's about everything else. You can go down from 400 nits to 125 nits, but you can't go above the rated specs of the display. I was really hoping for this new tech to go above 300 nits in SDR, it makes for such a big difference.

I seriously don't understand why you are making so many excuses. What do you have to gain from all of this? We are just talking about the presented simple facts about a product and whether it is worth buying or not based on those facts.

This entire thread proves just how much of scam these certifications are...

 

[Ludak021]

It's a gaming monitor, not designed for critical colour work. I'm going to leave this here as this professional calibrator does a better job of explaining why higher brightness matters and shows how it affects images:

If you could please provide a link or something to backup your claim that the screen is too bright, that would be grand.

Vincent is TV professional calibrator Device here is NOT a TV

tftcentral.co.uk > look at any monitor review there, HDR, SDR, whichever.

 

[Burty117]

Vincent is TV professional calibrator Device here is NOT a TV

No I was using to explain why having low brightness is a problem for image quality. Please read my comment again.

tftcentral.co.uk > look at any monitor review there, HDR, SDR, whichever.

Hold up a minute, you read reviews on tftcentral.co.uk and you legit don't understand how brightness affects image accuracy? Or the various HDR specs and what they mean?

Ok, I think we're done here. Oh before I go, I literally clicked on the first three reviews (I'd already read one of them) and absolutely nowhere do they state 125 nits of brightness is the sweet spot, nothing of the sort. Where you're picking that up, is anyone's guess.

 

[RaXelliX]

Micro led is better.

Better at what? Brightness maybe. Less risk of failiure. But it's still expensive and too big for monitors.
It will be years before we will see MicroLED in monitors. Assuming OLED has not completly taken over by then.

It's only HDR400 certified meaning it's HDR performance is rubbish and most likely looks worse than just using standard SDR mode.
HDR600 monitors and above actually put some effort in and make HDR content work properly.
The only reason I'm a little sceptical this time is because it's QD-OLED meaning it might actually still work really well but just not get very bright on the overall image. Will have to wait for reviews to confirm.

HDR is more than just peak brightness. Watch any LCD that has high brightness. No matter how many dimming zones it has it still has haloing and color shift off-axis. I would gladly sacrifice brightness to get perfect blacks, colors and response time. Already with LCD the first thing I do is lower factory brightness to 30-50%. Around 150-200 nits.

It seems that early QD-OLED models will have compromises even with such steep prices.

Very few. The only compromise is see is the lack of HDR1000/1400 certification. And I would not call 1300 steep when LCD's regularly sell at this price as does CX OLED. For a first generation product that includes a $200 G-Sync module and Alienware tax it's suprisingly low.

 

[Burty117]

HDR is more than just peak brightness. Watch any LCD that has high brightness. No matter how many dimming zones it has it still has haloing and color shift off-axis. I would gladly sacrifice brightness to get perfect blacks, colors and response time. Already with LCD the first thing I do is lower factory brightness to 30-50%. Around 150-200 nits.

I wasn't standing up for LCD at all, I'm an OLED fan, They're far superior to LCD in my eyes. My monitor is currently set to 37% brightness. I was simply explaining to the other commenter HDR400 is nothing to be proud about.

 

[Puiu]

Better at what? Brightness maybe. Less risk of failiure. But it's still expensive and too big for monitors.
It will be years before we will see MicroLED in monitors. Assuming OLED has not completly taken over by then.

HDR is more than just peak brightness. Watch any LCD that has high brightness. No matter how many dimming zones it has it still has haloing and color shift off-axis. I would gladly sacrifice brightness to get perfect blacks, colors and response time. Already with LCD the first thing I do is lower factory brightness to 30-50%. Around 150-200 nits.

Very few. The only compromise is see is the lack of HDR1000/1400 certification. And I would not call 1300 steep when LCD's regularly sell at this price as does CX OLED. For a first generation product that includes a $200 G-Sync module and Alienware tax it's suprisingly low.

At least with particular monitor you also have compromises with connectivity, not just display related things. I suspect that it it could be because they used the GSync module. DP 2.0 or HDMI 2.1 might be too new, but DP 1.4a should be the minimum (the lack of "a" could affect HDR performance).

 

[Ludak021]

No I was using to explain why having low brightness is a problem for image quality. Please read my comment again.

Hold up a minute, you read reviews on tftcentral.co.uk and you legit don't understand how brightness affects image accuracy? Or the various HDR specs and what they mean?

Ok, I think we're done here. Oh before I go, I literally clicked on the first three reviews (I'd already read one of them) and absolutely nowhere do they state 125 nits of brightness is the sweet spot, nothing of the sort. Where you're picking that up, is anyone's guess.

So you what? Didn't see this? (I also opened the latest thing there)

https://imgur.com/RN44qFg

Luminance is what you call brightness or "nits"
Yes we are done with this here.

 

[Puiu]

So you what? Didn't see this? (I also opened the latest thing there)

https://imgur.com/RN44qFg

Luminance is what you call brightness or "nits"
Yes we are done with this here.

In the end the display is saved by its color accuracy and high contrast. The brightness is still low. With LG's OLED-EX launching soon too, we aren't really getting anything special. Maybe the TVs or other monitor models can improve this.

Or maybe micro-LED screens will offer the best of both worlds once manufacturing problems get resolved and prices go down.

 

[FaTaL]

Take it from someone who owns OLED TV, you'll get bleeding after few years. No thanks. the tech isn't there yet.