Search the Community

Scouting my next monior, I've gotten hooked on the 4k train for the last year or two, want it to be 32" making me come down to like 4 (3 right now) monitors. Cheapest and specs wise worst BenQ. A 600nit Asus A 1400nit Asus And the already announced but yet to be released PG32UQXR Taken aback by the price difference however, miniLED versions costs x3 as much as I guess "normal" monitors. Pretty much the difference I can see here is the HDR technology. Would this difference be noticable? Has someone compared the ASUS models directly? Is 600nit for HDR stuff more or less just a checkbox where as the 1400nit is what is actually needed to try HDR? £1000 was already asking a lot but £3000 is unjustifyabe for me. God forbit how much the latest model will cost if the old one is already £3k. And here I was thinking the 1400nit model will be £1000 tops... Is 1400nit worth it? Or would if get buyers remorse if I went with 600nit? What if 600nit is already plenty as I'd come from a shitty, dark TN panel?

Hey folks, I've been looking for a new monitor for some time now and I was wondering what brightness I should be targeting for a pretty bright room. I would use it during the day and the room looks like this (no curtains, nor am I planning to hang any, ever): Small round West window ┌────────┐ ┌───────────── │ │ ────────────────┐ │ │ │ Monitor here │ ┌┴─┐ └────────┘ ┌────────────┐ │ South-West │ │ │ │ ┌┴─┐ Window │ │ │ Desk │ │ │ North-East │ │ │ │ │ │ Window │ │ └────────────┘ │ │ │ │ chair │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ └──┘ ──┘ I get occasional direct sunlight at the monitor from the round west-facing window (~1h/day during peak summer), but I can deal with the monitor not being usable when that happens :) What SDR sustained 100% Window brightness should I be targeting? I currently have an old 32" 1080p TV from LG and it's OK brightness-wise. It's pretty much the only comparison point I have. The LG site says it does "450 nits" but I'm not sure I can trust it (is it peak brightness, sustained whole screen brightness, etc., who knows?), and obviously I can't find any independent reviews... I plan to use this monitor for the next 10 years (I don't like e-waste :O), so I'm ready to wait to get something that will last. I use my monitor for pretty much everything I do at home (gaming, coding, watching videos, reading, occasional content creation, grading student papers, etc.). Although I'm not necessarily asking for recommendations (it seems we're not there yet for what I'm looking for), I'm looking for a monitor with those specs: 32" high-refresh rate (at least 100Hz) 4K low input lag max budget of 1500 CAD (~1200 USD) I don't really care about HDR and I'm fine with OK-ish color accuracy, as long as it's reasonable.

I'm currently looking for a Tablet (or an external Screen) whose entire purpose would be viewing PDFs outside, under direct Sunlight, to study while stuck at home due to corona. My current Laptop is quite capable, but isnt't bright enough for that. Because this is a fairly limited use case, i would rather not spend more that 200€ for it. The Problem: in this price range, most of the devices have quite bad screens or, in case of the many chinese no-name brands, no reliable brighntess information is available. I just think that there has to be a device that tries to fill that gap, but I cant really find one. I also don't have a reference what amount of nits would be enough, or how different Panels would compare under direct sunlight. Does anyone of you have a device that has a capable screen under those criteria, and even if yours is too expensive, could you please post your model so i can get a feel what brighness to aim for? Thanks a lot!

Okay, so I'll preface this by saying that I totally get it in the case of HDR monitors, where their whole point is that different sections of the monitor are at different brightnesses. However... As the title suggests... I really, really don't understand why monitor reviews (and monitor specs, and so forth) and only ever mention a monitor's maximum brightness. Sure, if you're going to be using the monitor for content creation under a dozen fluorescent lights anyways, then maybe that's all that matters. But surely I'm not alone in being a gamer who plays mostly at night, and has all of his screens turned down to minimum brightness? I want reviews to start at least mentioning how dim a monitor can get, plus associated side effects. Dozens of monitors on the market have serious issues at low brightness; my iiyama howls like a banshee because of coil whine in the PSU whenever it's below 50% brightness. Other monitors I've tried have a minimum brightness that's still enough to illuminate an entire room completely and hurt your eyes at night. Are all reviewers people who sleep with their overhead lights on? I just don't understand. What are your guys' thoughts on this? Am I just a crazy person, or does this issue bother you too? How many of you use your screens at the dimmest setting possible?

HDR Monitors increase the amount of light (nits) and/or decrease the shadows. To prevent color banding, sometimes 8-bit color space has a lookout table or the monitor is 10-bit. So far this is my understanding and I am able to see the increased contrast and vibrant colors of HDR in Video and Games. But what about still images? I did some research and found here that some image formats - OpenEXR, Radiance (.HDR), DirectDraw Surface (.DDS), and JPEG XR - can display the increased contrast and wide color gamut in still images. Web browsers can display HDR video, but they don't seem to support these file formats nor take advantage of the increased nits & WCG in images that could potentially have this information, for example, a screenshot of an HDR video or game. What gives? Balubish Tech in this video shows that just by encoding a video in HDR, there is increased nits and shadows (contrast), even if the source was SDR. If he is right or wrong, I do not care, but it got me thinking that it is the image encoding/format what is needed to make HDR images. Even though it seems easy to achieve that encoding in Premiere Pro, it does not seem to be as straight forward or supported in Photoshop. Furthermore, wouldn't any 16-bit RAW photograph be enough to encode/display a wide color gamut? Then the only thing the image would need is the peak brightness. Why do we have HDR video and Games but no HDR still images? Cheers!

I just bought a HP X360 envy, I love the PC but there is one but... I'm not happy with it's brightness level, that's lower then what would like. Is there any way to "hack" windows 10 so I can go beyond what the screen can do as stock?

I often see people complaining about the fact that pc monitors are much more expensive than tv displays (at least comparing screens with a similar size), but I know that the difference is due to a lot of things that monitors have (adaptive sync, higher refresh rate, lower imput lag, superior color accuracy) that is more difficult to find on a tv. But why while true HDR seems to be a reality on the new tv displays, we are still seeing expensive pc monitors that can reach only 400 nits? Case in point, this new LG monitor Is there a technical explanation for this or it's just greed?

Hey all! I'm looking for a cheap high brightness monitor. With all this 'stuff' going on i'm forced to work from home. I really love to be outside on my terrace (and kind of my best option if i don't want to be disturbed), but i miss my triple monitor setup, because none of my monitors are bright enough, even in shade. My 2019 15" Macbook Pro seems to be bright enough (just barely though, it's around 500Nits i think). Don't need HDR, 4k would be nice, but i can live with lower resolution. Any recommendations are welcome!