"the eye-popping HDR panel on the other review unit was an impressive 469 nits with 199 percent gamut."
My understanding is that LCD screens require 1000 nits to be minspec HDR-compliant and OLED screens need 540 nits. Any idea why this is considered an HDR screen at 300 or 500 nits?
In most of these standards there are differences between the nits required for highlights and full screen brightness.
That article also seems to be talking about a particular 'Ultra HD Premium' sticker. At this point anything capable of displaying HDR encoded content can probably be called an HDR screen, regardless of whether it does a good or bad job.
Personally I'm also a bit confused by the obsession with absolute brightness. I mean, watching a desert at original brightness is a nice gimmick but I'd much prefer to watch my TV without sunglasses.
"When I reviewed the ThinkPad X1 Carbon (6th Gen) in March, I called it the "Maserati of business laptops" because of its awesomely snappy keyboard, luxurious soft-touch deck and bright, colorful display"
...now he can call it the "Maserati of business laptops" because of its poor QC and unreliability
5 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 19.9 ms ] threadMy understanding is that LCD screens require 1000 nits to be minspec HDR-compliant and OLED screens need 540 nits. Any idea why this is considered an HDR screen at 300 or 500 nits?
https://www.wired.com/2016/01/what-is-hdr-tv/
That article also seems to be talking about a particular 'Ultra HD Premium' sticker. At this point anything capable of displaying HDR encoded content can probably be called an HDR screen, regardless of whether it does a good or bad job.
Personally I'm also a bit confused by the obsession with absolute brightness. I mean, watching a desert at original brightness is a nice gimmick but I'd much prefer to watch my TV without sunglasses.
...now he can call it the "Maserati of business laptops" because of its poor QC and unreliability