ChomiqThere's no such thing as "2k" res.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution www.tomshardware.com/news/2k-definition,37641.html Nope, no such thing at all....Wikipedia can be garbage with some things but I think Tom's Hardware whatever you think of them is reputable enough to say if they do a whole article on it, it exists at the least.

dalekdukesboyen.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution www.tomshardware.com/news/2k-definition,37641.html Nope, no such thing at all....Wikipedia can be garbage with some things but I think Tom's Hardware whatever you think of them is reputable enough to say if they do a whole article on it, it exists at the least.

and to use your own source:

More often you’ll find 2K displays as having a of 2560 x 1440 resolution. However, that resolution is officially considered Quad HD (QHD).

1440p is pretty much always listed 1440p, QHD or WQHD, "2K" is marketing BS that's being fed to people by some of the manufactuers as that's nowhere near horizontal 2000 pixel width that's present on "cinema" 2K.

dalekdukesboyen.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution www.tomshardware.com/news/2k-definition,37641.html Nope, no such thing at all....Wikipedia can be garbage with some things but I think Tom's Hardware whatever you think of them is reputable enough to say if they do a whole article on it, it exists at the least.

Stupidity is only a race to the bottom and the internet has a habit of copying it because its a fact the percentage of stupid is higher than those who know whats what. Thats not a problem unless you forget marketing and reality are not the same thing.

That is 2K in a nutshell, alongside a world of other tech terminology used entirely wrong. Language does evolve, but not through the tyranny of stupidity, that just serves to flag those who are clueless more easily.

Not saying you are, btw - but for general perspective. One big warning sign though is you used the mere title to defeat an argument while the text said you are wrong. Thats the core of the issue right there. Everyone is parroting headlines with no context.

BorisDGFinally? Hello?

So, Master, give me an example!?

Vayra86Too bad you can even see the backlight bleed on the photo with the monitor logo on display. Look at the right edge



Mini led is just more of the same indeed, the only difference is higher peak brightness to meet that failure of a Vesa HDR spec. And people go "oh wow its new", see topic

All you really get is earlier eye damage.

I would argue LG OLED tv's do HDR fairly well without damaging eyes, of course they are meant for dim lit rooms to begin with.

Vayra86Amen
Black point is everything when it comes to contrast and the only holy grail here so far is OLED. Everything else is bullshit, well apart from a few thousand local dimming zones or fald. But even that is bandaid tech.

I'm okay with a decent VA panel as long as I can sit head-on to it. 3000:1 at 150 nits in a dimmed room and even if the blacks aren't completely black, they're good enough that IDGAF. My requirement for a 21:9 movie on my TV is that the black bars at the top and bottom aren't visible in a dark room.

But yeah, OLED is the only true black and that's why I hate poorly-mastered HDR. When you're viewing a grey black on an OLED screen, you know that someone, somewhere, screwed up and ruined the entire point of HDR in the first place.

Chrispy_I'm okay with a decent VA panel as long as I can sit head-on to it. 3000:1 at 150 nits in a dimmed room and even if the blacks aren't completely black, they're good enough that IDGAF. My requirement for a 21:9 movie on my TV is that the black bars at the top and bottom aren't visible in a dark room.

But yeah, OLED is the only true black and that's why I hate poorly-mastered HDR. When you're viewing a grey black on an OLED screen, you know that someone, somewhere, screwed up and ruined the entire point of HDR in the first place.

Sure, but VA has its drawbacks too, in other areas like pixel response where OLED is better too. But we agree, its the best of inferior stuff (or obtanium :D), at least for gaming.

lynx29I would argue LG OLED tv's do HDR fairly well without damaging eyes, of course they are meant for dim lit rooms to begin with.

That's right they do, because they don't need the higher peak brightness to achieve a stellar static contrast ratio. 0.01cd black point less than a competitor is a massive jump in potential contrast, because all the steps above it can be toned down a notch too. The whole image becomes more pleasing to the eyes that way. But if you need to achieve contrast (steps) by brightness, you need to make everything brighter or surrounding stuff darker - less balance in the image; that is where the over- or undersaturated, or over/underexposed shitty HDR implementations come from. Nobody ever evolved humans to keep looking straight into light sources. We're supposed to be blinded that way, especially if the peak brightness is much higher than its surroundings. Not being / doing so, is our brains keeping an image bearable - it has nothing to do with good image reproduction to present brighter lights.

Another giveaway on that fact is how everyone recommends you play games in a well lit room - it reduces the contrast between image and surroundings. Its a misconception that you need to game in a dim lit room, although it may be experienced as pleasant (I like it too), turning on a light or two is much more relaxing on the eyes. Its also not true that LG's OLED is optimized for a dim lit room. They just (or some) have lower peak brightness than other TVs, but all you really don't want is sunlight falling in on it. In a well lit / evening/regular lit room you have zero issues with brightness at its lower range.