Better without local dimming bad for HDR?

Duvan · 20 Oct 2022 at 19:49

I've been reading reviews, on mainly Rtings.com, and many budget gaming 27" monitor reviews, say "Terrible local dimming." and that it doesn't help in HDR, but that you also can't disable it.
It makes me think, that is it better then to get a monitor without local dimming? Does HDR look better on monitors without local dimming than those with it that still suck at it?
I know HDR400 isn't ideal for HDR but maybe still fun to try out at times

Skilid · 20 Oct 2022 at 19:52

No. HDR on monitors with no local dimming looks pants. HDR on monitors with pants local dimming looks pants. HDR only looks good on monitors that have FALD or have self emissive pixels (OLED).

Amatsubu · 20 Oct 2022 at 20:16

Proper HDR doesn't exist without good local dimming. Only screens with FALD and Oleds are capable of displaying HDR properly because they allow bright highlights to pop due to their ability to either dim zones (the more, the better) or turn off individual pixels (the absolute best for this). This allows for great contrast between dark areas and bright highlights, less haloing around objects etc. In the case of Oled absolutely none because the pixels are self-emissive. Basically infinite contrast.

HDR is not about in-your-face brightness, it's about the dynamic range (hence "High Dynamic Range") of said brightness. You simply won't get that on any budget HDR400 monitor. HDR400 is nothing.

Howling · 20 Oct 2022 at 20:39

HDR400 isn't worth the paper I wipe my ass with. You really need HDR1000 with a lot of FALD zones on LCD screens... HDR400 Black too, but afaik only OLED can meet that?

EsaT · 20 Oct 2022 at 21:57

This is what non-FALD "HDR" looks:

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com

Here's FALD in properly done monitor... What Sony isn't...

Amatsubu said:
HDR is not about in-your-face brightness, it's about the dynamic range (hence "High Dynamic Range") of said brightness.

You should tell that to marketing scammers pushing ever higher brightness instead of giving good black...

Duvan · 21 Oct 2022 at 07:36

Thanks for the input! So in your opinion, HDR doesn't really matter on HDR400. But do you mean that to the extent that games look better in SDR on HDR400-only-monitors?
Since I'm not likely to buy a real HDR monitor, should I just not bother if the monitor has HDR then or not? Does full HDR gamut help at all in HDR400?

Another thing I was thinking about was Freesync premium pro. That enables VRR in HDR. Without it, Freesync doesn't work at all with HDR?
And related to that, looking at the Asus VG27AQ TUF. It says it has adaptive sync and that it is Gsync compatible, but doesn't mention Free Sync. Does that mean it won't it necessarily work with AMD GPU:s? I guess it should. But more importantly, it won't at least have LFC as I guess "adaptive sync" does not come with Freesync Premium features? I currenly have an old GPU so I will definitely run some games at 30-40 FPS

bimbleuk · 21 Oct 2022 at 08:25

Duvan said:
Thanks for the input! So in your opinion, HDR doesn't really matter on HDR400. But do you mean that to the extent that games look better in SDR on HDR400-only-monitors?
Since I'm not likely to buy a real HDR monitor, should I just not bother if the monitor has HDR then or not? Does full HDR gamut help at all in HDR400?

I have a Dell with HDR400 but it's edge lit. When you enable the HDR400 the blacks basically turn grey as the overall brightness/contrast is increased to meet the 400 nit brightness. Not nice. Now the deep blacks and contrast of the VA panel are lost so yeah you've basically made the monitor worse than in SDR.

My main monitor is the Alienware QD-OLED which has the HDR 400 true black mode. Because each pixel is self light and the contrast is rated as infinite the monitor can do great HDR highlights with only ~400 nits.

Those Samsung QLED monitors with 2000 nits (really only 1200) and ~1000 FALD lighting zones are able to get close to the same performance with better overall HDR brigtness but some small haloing around fine details.

Haggisman · 21 Oct 2022 at 08:26

Duvan said:
Thanks for the input! So in your opinion, HDR doesn't really matter on HDR400. But do you mean that to the extent that games look better in SDR on HDR400-only-monitors?
Since I'm not likely to buy a real HDR monitor, should I just not bother if the monitor has HDR then or not? Does full HDR gamut help at all in HDR400?

Another thing I was thinking about was Freesync premium pro. That enables VRR in HDR. Without it, Freesync doesn't work at all with HDR?
And related to that, looking at the Asus VG27AQ TUF. It says it has adaptive sync and that it is Gsync compatible, but doesn't mention Free Sync. Does that mean it won't it necessarily work with AMD GPU:s? I guess it should. But more importantly, it won't at least have LFC as I guess "adaptive sync" does not come with Freesync Premium features? I currenly have an old GPU so I will definitely run some games at 30-40 hz

From someone who has previously had HDR400, HDR600 and currently HDR True Black 400/HDR1000 monitors, unless you have the budget for a proper* HDR monitor, then don't bother, instead get a good monitor ignoring the HDR implementation, and if it has HDR then try it and see if it's worthwhile, but don't compromise the rest of the monitor just because it says "HDR" on the box

* HDR600 is "just" about passable depending on how the local dimming is implemented, but ideally you want HDR1000+ or True Black 400+