Is HDR even worth it on 300 nits ?

[lka]

I have a Gigabyte G24F-EK monitor which has 300 nits and can turn on HDR in windows and games, but I heard that to get good HDR you need like 1000 nits. So I am wondering is it worth to turn it on, will the image be any better or worse ?

[broccoli27]

Try the setting and make your own opinion?
It probably wont be noticable or good

[YoungBlade]

From what I've heard, you really need a bare minimum of 600 nits to have an HDR experience. Also, without hundreds of local dimming zones, it just isn't worth it.

 

If you like the look, you can turn it on, but I keep it off on my Gigabyte M27Q - as is recommended for all HD-aRen't monitors.

[Chris Pratt]

The whole point of HDR is an extended dynamic range. It's literally SDR with more stops on both the dark and light end of the spectrum.

 

As such, you need both a screen that can get very bright and one that can display pure black or as close as reasonably possible. LED driven panels are always on, so without full array local dimming (i.e. zones that can be individually controlled to be on or off, and preferably a high number of them), you can't display anything but shades of grey. Without brightness exceeding 600 nits, you can't display a "white" that differentiates enough from grey.

[ewitte]

Having crappy HDR it tends to look worse except for Doom Eternal that looks a decent amount better to me and I don't have to turn it on in windows.

[Mark Kaine]

Actually i have a "300 nits" hdr monitor  (msi) and i like the "hdr" with one big downside: its way too bright especially in a dark room. so i suppose the more "nits" the worse it gets? 

[Rauten]

26 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Actually i have a "300 nits" hdr monitor  (msi) and i like the "hdr" with one big downside: its way too bright especially in a dark room. so i suppose the more "nits" the worse it gets? 

You don't need HDR for that, though - my main monitor is 350 nits and, if I open a white page, it gets blistering-ly bright.

All hail dark mode everything!

 

HDR, the way I see it, is more about "brightness contrast", rather than "let's make the user's eyes explode and then sell them new eye balls as DLC".

You can see this in LTT's own videos when they check HDR displays, they pay a lot more attention to the contrast in brightness between the dark areas and the bright areas of images/scenes.

And at 300 nits, yeah, don't even bloody bother. 400 nits is the bare minimum to even try, and even then, most 400 nits displays are often considered "HDR-ren't".

[ewitte]

17 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

Actually i have a "300 nits" hdr monitor  (msi) and i like the "hdr" with one big downside: its way too bright especially in a dark room. so i suppose the more "nits" the worse it gets? 

IDK for computer I have only tried it on a display that could handle 300 nits.  The one TV I have that supports HDR is ok (600 nits).  I think for the best experience you need 1000 and a lot of dimming zones.