HDR tv advice

[moomoomoo]

Hello all i need a bit of advice.

Last year i bought a lg 4k hdr tv for about 300 now for that price i wasn't expecting anything amazing but overall i was fairly happy with it. The HDR was a bit of a let down but again for the price i understood i wasn't really getting Proper HDR

However my dad got a Panasonic TX49FX750B for about 900 and the HDR is so much better i played a few ps4 games on it and it feels really depressing going back to my old one.

My question is it possible to get a decent HDR tv on a tight budget 400 to 600 or do you have to spend closer to 1000 to get anything good.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

the more you spend the better it gets.

for 49" you need to spend £700 minimum on the Samsung NU8000 or £1K on the Sony XF90

both of those are the best gaming HDR tv's available under £1000.

 

[MrRockliffe]

HDR relies of a few things:

• Colour space coverage
• Brightness
• Contrast (and corresponding accuracy)

For most, the contrast will have the largest effect on HDR. OLEDs have excellent contrast, and great accuracy, due to being able to independently operate each pixel backlight.

Next best thing would be an LCD with full array local dimming, which creates zones of lights behind the TV to boost brightness in one area, but keeping it low in another. On the whole, more zones = higher accuracy (due to the zones themselves being smaller)

Though OLEDs aren't as bright, typically, as an LCD, the fact their contrast (and accuracy) is so good, the perceived effect is stronger. Think about it like this: the darker the night sky, the more stars you can see, and the brighter they look. The same with OLED - because the rest of the picture can be so much darker, the bright areas are perceived to be brighter - even if they aren't.

To tick more of the boxes, you're going to need to spend more money.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

HDR relies of a few things:

• Colour space coverage
• Brightness
• Contrast (and corresponding accuracy)

For most, the contrast will have the largest effect on HDR. OLEDs have excellent contrast, and great accuracy, due to being able to independently operate each pixel backlight.

Next best thing would be an LCD with full array local dimming, which creates zones of lights behind the TV to boost brightness in one area, but keeping it low in another. On the whole, more zones = higher accuracy (due to the zones themselves being smaller)

Though OLEDs aren't as bright, typically, as an LCD, the fact their contrast (and accuracy) is so good, the perceived effect is stronger. Think about it like this: the darker the night sky, the more stars you can see, and the brighter they look. The same with OLED - because the rest of the picture can be so much darker, the bright areas are perceived to be brighter - even if they aren't.

To tick more of the boxes, you're going to need to spend more money.

you are wrong about LCD being brighter. it's brighter when only showing a white picture. when showing blacks and whites. the blacks turn grey and they can't go as bright on the whites.

when showing a moving HDR picture LCD's are normally less brighter than OLED's. it only beats OLED in benchmarks not in usage. it's misleading.

 

[moomoomoo]

Thank you for the tips and clearing it up I knew it was a bad idea trying it out on my dads tv going back to mine is so meh I believe his has local dimming so guessing that's not as good as full array dimming

 

[jpaul]

[ sidebar

Though OLEDs aren't as bright, typically, as an LCD,

agreed with that;

you are wrong about LCD being brighter. it's brighter when only showing a white picture. when showing blacks and whites. the blacks turn grey and they can't go as bright on the whites.

I assume you are surreptitiously suggesting local dimming might reduce the overall light output if a zone had some light and dark, below that, which an oled might produce,
-I don't believe that's a done deal
.. anyway local dimming I have on a panasonic is very evident, so I turn it off and rely on basic contrast the screen provides
]