Are top end HDR 1400 level monitors TOO bright (Hurts?)

[jmc111]

I've seen reviews that show the reviewer wearing sunglasses.

I assumed that the sunglasses were a joke...but now I'm wondering, were they?

 

Example monitor specs - ASUS ProArt Display PA32UCG-K - 32-inch, 4K, HDR 1400, 1600 nits.

This was tested here so hope someone here can say for sure about the HDR being truly uncomfortable.

 

I want to buy top end HDR but if that will cause great discomfort to my eyes in a game (dark area to sunlight) then no.

Needing sunglasses goes beyond "whose eyes are looking at the screen".

 

Thanks,

jmc111

 

[AnonymousGuy]

IMO yes, if the entire panel has a really high sustained brightness like >1000 nits, it's like getting flashbanged IRL.

 

I think it matters more if you only want one section of the screen to get really bright to emphasize like if you have a sun being displayed in a corner.

[jmc111]

Ok, I think I'll step it down a bit and try for 1000HDR and stay off the bleeding edge.

Don't want to take a chance and have regrets at that level.

 

Looks like I'm in no rush as I don't know when I'll be buying a videocard. Not this year maybe next.

And they are talking about Displayport 2.0 now so next gen videocard probably.

I'm still running my Vega56 & 28 inch 4K Samsung from 2014. Maybe it will die and I'll have to get what I can get.

 

Thanks,

jmc111

[KyberKylo77]

On 8/27/2021 at 12:44 AM, jmc111 said:

I've seen reviews that show the reviewer wearing sunglasses.

I assumed that the sunglasses were a joke...but now I'm wondering, were they?

 

Example monitor specs - ASUS ProArt Display PA32UCG-K - 32-inch, 4K, HDR 1400, 1600 nits.

This was tested here so hope someone here can say for sure about the HDR being truly uncomfortable.

 

I want to buy top end HDR but if that will cause great discomfort to my eyes in a game (dark area to sunlight) then no.

Needing sunglasses goes beyond "whose eyes are looking at the screen".

 

Thanks,

jmc111

 

When they advertise those nits specifications, its only gonna realistically be that bright on screen for a few seconds at best. There's a reason why its called 'peak brightness'. Sustained brightness is a lot different and for most scenes it should alright but if you primarily game in a dark environment then maybe you should go for oleds or something.

[Stahlmann]

You have to remember that most HDR content will not constantly blast your eyes with the monitors max brightness. ONLY objects (so called highlights) that are meant be this bright. (For example when looking into the sun or bright neon lights in a city) A higher peak brightness will not increase the overall scene brightness.

 

HDR content is not calling for a percentage when a certain brightness is required, but a Nit value. So content that is mastered for 1000 Nits peak brightness will run on the same brighness no matter if your monitor is HDR1000 or HDR1400. (If no Tone Mapping is enabled, but i don't want to get too technical)

 

SDR is different in that regard. It will always call out for a certain percentage when it comes to brightness, with 100% always being as bright as your monitor can be at it's currents settings.

 

Many objects and reflections out in the real world are easily several thousand "nits". So even HDR monitors are still extremely far away from being able to have real-world dynamic range. (Some HDR content is even mastered for 10.000 Nits peak brightness these days, which gives you an idea how far away from real world even HDR1400 monitors are)

 

People that say that you need sunglasses to sit in front of a 1400 Nit (peak) display just don't have any context as to how bright it actually is. And brightness doesn't scale linear with how our eyes perceive it. For example 1000 Nits does not look twice as bright as 500 Nits to our eyes. Sadly many people don't know how it works and then talk about it being too bright.

 

In the end HDR is a technology that can make games and movies look much closer to reality. But if you don't want that you can happily use any SDR monitor, turn down the brightness and save a lot of money. But if a game supports it and you have a good HDR monitor, the experience and realism is just on a whole other level. I can confirm that HDR adds a bit more eye-strain at the start, but you can and will get used to it.

[jmc111]

OK, wow, more to chew on!

 

It seems like the HDMI 2.1s are SLOWLY coming out now. DisplayPort 2.0 has gotta be next gen at best.

So I'll keep looking and maybe find the monitor I can't say no to by "next gen videocard" release time.

 

Thanks to all!

jmc111

 

[Stahlmann]

8 hours ago, jmc111 said:

OK, wow, more to chew on!

 

It seems like the HDMI 2.1s are SLOWLY coming out now. DisplayPort 2.0 has gotta be next gen at best.

So I'll keep looking and maybe find the monitor I can't say no to by "next gen videocard" release time.

 

Thanks to all!

jmc111

 

DP 2.0 is still a few years away. First we need monitors that actually need that much bandwidth before the port will be adopted. The first monitors that will NEED DP 2.0 will be 4K 240Hz monitors. Everything else will run just fine on DP1.4 with DSC. Then again 4K 240Hz doesn't make a lot of sense because there is no game that will run at this resolution and refresh rate either way.

 

If you're on the lookout for a really good HDR monitor, then the best ones that are currently available are the Asus PG35VQ and the Acer Predator X35. They're a few years old by now but still sport top of the line specs and performance even by today's standards combined with true HDR. 35" 3440x1440 200Hz HDR1000 monitors with 512 local dimming zones, etc. If you want something now that will carry you over the next years, these monitors are worth a look at. But they're expensive at $2500. I got mine as a deal for $1700 though.

 

I have the PG35VQ myself and it's HDR is extremely impressive. And that's coming from someone who also has an OLED TV.

[xg32]

9 hours ago, jmc111 said:

.

 

The preferred brightness depending on how bright the room is 100-250nits, the max full screen sustained brightness even on an hdr panel is about 400-600nits, but it can be tuned  down, tuned hdr works well and games look nice, dp2.0 isn't really needed as 1.4 with dsc works well with rtx 3000, but you do wanna make sure it has hdmi 2.1.

 

The UCG does have all that already but it's just 2000dollars more for a hdmi 2.1 port, and i've had multiple people told me that they don't see a difference between the pg27uq and pg32uqx (basically a pa32ucg-k), If money is no issue then yes you can get the ucg now, but know that the monitor isn't a true 120hz (there's slight ghosting in fast scenes) but it's as good as it gets, the panel is clearly pushed to the limit and it's alot of colors and pixels at 120hz. I can only recommend it as your first hdr experience and not if you have a similar monitor.

 

You can also look at a pg35vq, no port issues, realistically a 144hz-180hz uw hdr monitor that would give u 95% of the experience at 1800usd without port issues, just a bit less colors.

[jmc111]

@ Stahlmann

@ xg32

 

Thanks a lot for the info.

 

I've never seen HDR, still on my $600, 2016 4k, 60, Samsung.

Which I bought so that I would NOT see "monitor" pixels anymore.

And I love the smooth screen!

 

EDIT... I am concerned that when I go from my 28" 4k monitor to a 32" 4k that I might see pixels.

(20 inch view distance) Sure hope not.

 

I've settled on HDMI 2.1 as a baseline acceptable level.

Am backing off the HDR1400 spec. Looking for HDR1000 level now.

 

The UCG is crazy level money as a sight unseen purchase.

 

The much cheaper $3000 Asus monitor under that is not HDMI 2.1 which I thinks is just nuts.

I would probably buy it if it was HDMI 2.1

 

Heh, it can not cost $2000 to put HDMI 2.1 on a monitor!

 

So maybe by late next year there will be an acceptable monitor out there.

 

jmc111