Here's yet another red flag for QD OLED. This has been clear for awhile, but the difference, relatively, is staggering, now that people actually realize how important the black point luminance is. A well calibrated VA can already achieve 0.3
I'm sitting in front of one.
Contrast and luminance are so very odd, numbers are highly deceiving. In static contrast, you need upwards of 1000:1 steps to even remotely notice a difference, especially as you go beyond 2000:1; you can put a 3000:1 and 5000:1 VA next to each other and be hard pressed to see differences, in fact, you will probably only see them clearly in a dim lit room. And then when it comes to blacks (the other end of the spectrum: identifying luminance, instead of looking for the biggest gap between bright and dark), we're super sensitive. You can clearly tell the difference between a 0.2 and a 0.1 black point. There is something about 'pitch black' that makes it special and extremely hard to achieve, and we're sensitive to it. Not illogical either: pitch black means we're blind. We don't like that.
Below graph shows; WOLED is nearly
twice as dark as QD OLED - or better at lower lux, and its good to realize 150-200 is typical there. Its a difference that makes you wonder why you'd even bother with anything other than WOLED, after all, the black point is its biggest advantage compared to LCD. It also puts a different lens on 'high brightness'. Very bright screens are NOT an advantage. Only go brighter if you need to be able to see things better, otherwise lower brightness = better. The closer you can get to the lowest possible black point, the more the image will pop, as static contrast will rise exponentially the lower you go.
Nice example of less being more.
Oh lol there it is.
