Would you rather watch an HDR movie on a OLED or a LCD

JustTheFacts

Established Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
792
Reaction score
221
Points
138
Location
Bothell, Washington
kenshigintoki wrote:

OLED by far.

HDR stretches LCDs too far. By running the backlight at 100, you can see the backlight in some challenging scenes, you can see halo, blooming, the local dimming zone has to be aggressive to supresss blooming resulting in loss of shadow detail and the same happens at the opposite end of the spectrum with the lack of highlight detail due to zonal control.

If you took away OLED's pixel level control of colour and brightness, then LCDs I feel would really give them a run for its money but it the intricate control at a pixel level allows for OLED's to paint a reference looking image in HDR. LCDs on the otherhand due to zonal control, just end up IMO looking sloppy.

The Full field brightness impact of an LCD is great and better than an OLED but I don't find myself astounded by it and in certain circumstances it can be too much. I don't like being blinded in a dark room by 1000+ nits full field.

I think SDR wise, its a far more interesting battle where LCDs can hold their own a little more fairly.
 
Dodgexander wrote:

The difference between cheaper and more expensive LCD TVs is now almost exclusively how they reproduce HDR.

Years back the difference between buying a cheap LCD TV and a more expensive model was almost exclusively in overall picture quality. That is not the case now. Now if you spend more money on an LCD TV you are almost exclusively paying extra money for HDR performance, you are not paying extra for better picture quality with every source like you used to.
Mid range, and in many cases low range TVs can be 90% as good as more expensive models at displaying material that isn't in HDR yet.
So if you are thinking about upgrading your TV, consider keeping what you have, or buying a cheaper TV rather than a more expensive one until you know you'll use more HDR content!

 
Last edited:
Dodgexander wrote:

The difference between cheaper and more expensive LCD TVs is now almost exclusively how they reproduce HDR.

Years back the difference between buying a cheap LCD TV and a more expensive model was almost exclusively in overall picture quality. That is not the case now. Now if you spend more money on an LCD TV you are almost exclusively paying extra money for HDR performance, you are not paying extra for better picture quality with every source like you used to.
Mid range, and in many cases low range TVs can be 90% as good as more expensive models at displaying material that isn't in HDR yet.
So if you are thinking about upgrading your TV, consider keeping what you have, or buying a cheaper TV rather than a more expensive one until you know you'll use more HDR content!



To be honest, I can't help but feel this is incorrect. You are paying more money for local dimming which DEFINITELY improves SDR material on more expensive TVs.

The more expensive TV models usually have wide angle viewing filters too which improves PQ further. This is again not an exclusive feature to HDR and applies to SDR too.

Expensive TVs also normally have better motion and picture proccessors which again apply to SDR and HDR. Actually, I'd argue these apply EVEN more to SDR; for example Sony & Panasonic TVs clean up SDR issues and picture processing issues a little better with slightly better upscaling. 4K UHD HDR discs rarely need any picture processing outside of DTM being applied becausee the source is pristine. SDR sources need as much help as they can get normally as they veer into the <1080p fidelity. This is proven to get better up the range. LG do a similar practice, albiet they share the goods more equally tier to tier.

I've found more expansive local dimming algorithms and zone counts, the better the black level and contrast across the board from SDR to HDR TVs. For example, a Sony TV with better local dimming will most definitely outperform edge lit variants or sets with low zonal counts. This is really common sense. Black levels on an LCD are a problem in SDR AND HDR. You will see halo, blooming, and letterbox issues with a low zonal count TV; this is a science and can be quantified by tests.

Furthermore, I'm not entirely sold on quantifying picture quality in percentages, e.g. a cheaper TV gives you 90% of the experience. 90, 80, 50... these are all just arbitrary figures and we'd be better serves talking about the specific advantages AND disadvantages to going up the price tiers. Its easier to just be simple and say yes the picture quality is better on a more expensive TV in SDR and HDR.

If we want to discuss this properly, we can assess a budget, midrange and high-range LCD talking about:
1. SDR performance
2. HDR performance
3. Picture processing
4. Viewing Angles
5. Motion processing
6. Other features such as SMART features, HDMI 2.1 ports, VRR,



Sorry to sound like a knob but in LCD world, there are tangible benefits to moving up the range in LCDs and this is applicable to more than just HDR.

Furthermore, going up the range does not mean you get HDR performance which is better. Samsung's 8K high-range TVs for example are outperformed from a HDR perspective and high neat peak brightness as evidenced by Vincent Teoh's review of it.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for the long message. I didn't mean for it to be that long. I do get Dodgexander's sentiment in that quote; he is simplying the TV buying process for the average person.

However given we are on an AV enthusiast forum, I think fairier assessments of the technology is.. well fair.

Also I think the comment that going up the food chain of LCD panels only results in better HDR performance is a disservice to the higher end LCDs. They do much more than just improve HDR performance; with very easily tangible improvements to PQ for those that value them.

For those that don't care about contrast, blacks, picture processing, motion processing, viewing angles, HDMI 2.1 features, shadow detail.. I get it... but it shouldn't take away from the objective performance going up the range. High end LCDs provide a huge value to the right person afterall.




Also @Unopinionated , I know you do sometimes have a habit of taking quotes out of context ;) ;) so I'm not sure if what Dodge has said is taken out of context or not... so apologies @Dodgexander if this is the case :)

In the future if you want to create a decisive thread and open it up with two quotes from two different users, it might be nice to ask them first as this can avoid arguments lol. Although I do like the topic you have brought up !! as Its one in reviews where there seems to be a clear split.. the high-nit lovers of LCDs and the specular highlight and image accuracy lovers of the OLEDs.


it would be interesting if u brought projectors into the mix too and settled this HDR war once and for all. There are some high end projector owners who have some fantastic HDR experiences. @mb3195 @Luminated67
 
Last edited:
There is a thread elsewhere with the owner of a mid range LCD complaining that HDR on his panel looks awful, and SDR looks much better .

I think that is your answer.
 
Local dimming has certainly become more important with LCD TVs since the HDR era. But it does offer a benefit for SDR too, although a lot less.

Depends a lot on viewing conditions too, local dimming is more important in dark conditions with SDR than it is brighter conditions. It's also a lot more useful in movies than it is sport/games.
 
I have been toying with going for a 75 ZH8, I know it’s supposed sacrilege, but the guys over the pond rave about it. VT also gave it a great review as well.

75 would be the perfect fit for my wall and we never watch TV in pitch black.

It’s probably only viewing angles that would be an issue but I’m sure the wife will be ok sat at an angle! :laugh:
 
Local dimming has certainly become more important with LCD TVs since the HDR era. But it does offer a benefit for SDR too, although a lot less.

Depends a lot on viewing conditions too, local dimming is more important in dark conditions with SDR than it is brighter conditions. It's also a lot more useful in movies than it is sport/games.

Local dimming and FALD was a thing way before the HDR era and has always been apart of high end LCDs to give users the best quality image possible. FALD helps A LOT in SDR. Without it LCD TVs cannot begin to create the colour black, and the colour black has always been apart of SDR content. I'm really confused by these comments.

Local dimming is integral to HDR on LCDs for maintaining a blackfloor but it is equally as impressive and vital for SDR too. SDR if anything can demand a lot of a backlight.

For example if someone watches a film at LCD light 80, and black bars are meant to be on the sides of the screen, the TV has no way in hell of maintaining this jet-black characteristic without local dimming with the backlight driven so high.

Lights on and lights off is a moot point I don't really want to get into as we all know, with the lights on perceived contrast can go out of the window and muddy the waters considerably. But even with lights on and your discussion about high end LCDs, higher end LCDs come with antireflective coatings and they are integral to bright room performance.

High end LCDs from multiple standpoints hold tangible benefits to SDR content alone (I'm ignoring the HDR benefits here). Better picture processing, better motion, better viewing angles, better anti reflective coats, usally a better/snappier OS, better black floor, better contrast...

I mean what isn't better on a high end LCD compared to a cheaper one? Whether its WORTH it to the consumer has and always will be a question which separates enthusiasts, those interested in AV and those just shopping for a new tele.


For games, the more expensive/better LCDs disable less when it comes go game mode and have a better fidelity of image. I don't see how more expensive LCDs don't matter for games. A top of the line Samsung TV from this year gives you HDMI 2.1, VRR, FReesync, Gsync, ALLM and its PQ is improved from last years Q90R which became a grey mess in game-mode because it disabled A LOT of post processing.

Gaming has VERY tangible benefits from going up the product line. There are exceptions of course (such as Sony with the X90H debacle of it supporting HDMI 2.1 but its more premium versiosn not but this is more an exception to the rule)...
 
I have been toying with going for a 75 ZH8, I know it’s supposed sacrilege, but the guys over the pond rave about it. VT also gave it a great review as well.

75 would be the perfect fit for my wall and we never watch TV in pitch black.

It’s probably only viewing angles that would be an issue but I’m sure the wife will be ok sat at an angle! :laugh:

I just checked the 85'' versions and the price is way too high.
I think its hard to justify a 75'' LCD TV for more more than a 77'' OLED TV.

The 85'' Sony TVs would catch my mind if they all had HDMI 2.1 features TBH just as a nice stopgap.

85'' XH9096 for £2.3k with HDMI 2.1 gaming features is pretty much a bargain..
 
I just checked the 85'' versions and the price is way too high.
I think its hard to justify a 75'' LCD TV for more more than a 77'' OLED TV.

The 85'' Sony TVs would catch my mind if they all had HDMI 2.1 features TBH just as a nice stopgap.

85'' XH9096 for £2.3k with HDMI 2.1 gaming features is pretty much a bargain..
I know, I think TPS has the 75” at £4,795, if I could get JL to price match and with work discount, it would be £4,500 which is almost paletable.
 
I know, I think TPS has the 75” at £4,795, if I could get JL to price match and with work discount, it would be £4,500 which is almost paletable.

Always worth a try. I think the image it will produce will be excellent FYI. Lots of HDR impact and colour and fullness which might impress the wife.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom