Don't buy QD-OLED

[MonitorFlicker]

QD-OLED is not worth it.

 

1. It's not a true HDR 1000 monitor that requires at least 850-1150nits in 50%-100% window. It's just a HDR 400 (even less due to ABL) OLED  with gimmick 1-2% window size that reaches 1000nits. You will have frequent ABL in HDR 1000 mode. 

 

2. Despite other issues, the monitor flickers in way that's not good for the eyes. 

 

 

=============Part 1: flickering================

 

To record the flickering, the camera shutter speed is set below 1/1000.

 

In the below tests, the monitor flickers. The flickering is not perceptible to human eyes but is very prone to eye strain compared to the traditional DC dimming or high-frequency PWM dimming.

 

Due to OLED's physical properties, changing the current intensity alone will impact both the brightness and the color accuracy. OLED manufacturers have to use PWM combined with their analog algorithm, aka "emulated DC diming", to display color with moderate brightness control. But OLED still flickers due to the imperfect hybrid implementation.

 

In this case, AW3423DW is trying to use emulated DC dimming but ends up making a worse result. The flickering frequency is the same as the monitor refresh rate. The frequency is low.

 

To make things worse, due to the lack of a polarizing layer, it needs to be used with dim ambient light; due to the ABL, its brightness fluctuates. In the particular video, every parry comes with ABL though the camera doesn't show it clearly. Eye strain can happen very quickly in scenes where brightness fluctuates even if the overall brightness is less than 400nits.

 

The combination of these is commercially in a grey area where whether or not it results in eye damage in long-term use. In general, the flicker is not healthy for the eyes, especially in a dim environment.

 

The package, the manual, and the Dell website only describe "flicker-free" as far as one of Dell's product features without any indication of a flicker-free TÜV certification.

 

There is a TÜV certification on Certipedia stating this model was certified for flicker-free. From the description, the panel is specifically mentioned as a flat panel. It can be an early model.

 

The market trick is that Dell can still trademark their product features as ComfortView that includes only low blue light TÜV certification.

 

I don't recommend this monitor for the long intensive daily drive if a gamer only uses one monitor in a basement for 3 years.

 

If you have multiple monitors and tend to replace them every year, this monitor should be probably fine.

 

 

 

=============Part 2: HDR================

 

Now I talk about HDR: 

 

HDR 1000 videos are from The Spears and Munsil UHD HDR Benchmark.

 

This comparison needs at least two exposure settings for accurate HDR comparison in SDR pictures. This is how to compare HDR in SDR mode. 

 

The exposure is set at ISO 100, shutter speed 1/125, and ISO 100, shutter speed 1/25. 

 

The middle monitor shows the reference luminance level. When the curves are flattened at a top level, that level is where 1000nits is. 

 

In the pictures with 1/125 shutter speed, details are preserved on both monitors. In the pictures with 1/25 shutter speed, the details are not preserved but have more pronounced brightness in SDR. The difference regarding relative brightness is represented at both settings though a true HDR 1000 monitor appeared to be overexposed in 1/25 while AW3423DW appears to be dim in 1/125. I expect you can see it in the comparison to know that a true HDR 1000 monitor delivers 2x-3x more luminance, aka more contrast to the eyes, than AW3423DW in some high APL 800nits scenes without losing any details or causing distracting blooming. Therefore, a true HDR monitor delivers more realistic images. In HDR (also in SDR), except fast pixel response, AW3423DW is not at the same level as a true HDR 1000 monitor due to ABL. AW32423DW only looks the same when it displays small window size with a large black background. Also, in these high APL HDR scenes blooming is not noticeable because central object is emitting 1000nits luminance, making edge blooming unnoticeable to the eyes, even to the camera. In average HDR, blooming is not noticeable either unless you actively search for it. 

 

I have to warn you most people don't know HDR very well. They also don't have both monitors to compare but low brightness OLEDs. I suggest you don't listen to people who don't know how to use a true HDR monitor but a mere 200nits full-field OLED TV. 

 

OLED is always a mid-tier monitor and it is going to be a mid-tier compared to the FALD LCD. 

 

Its brightness is struggling. So does its contrast. I mean what I say: The contrast of OLED loses to FALD LCD if the brightness is not enough. The infinite (x/0) contrast of OLED is not the true contrast due to the compromise of brightness. The higher the brightness goes without rising the black level, the more contrast the monitor displays. And FALD LCD has more contrast in this regard. It's also why the premium/flagship product out there is always FALD LCD. Most people don't understand it. 

In some cases, a true HDR monitor with its caliber in SDR 400nits can look even better than AW3423DW in HDR when ABL kicks the OLED below sub 400nits. 

 

Ture HDR 1000 vs AW3423DW HDR

Spoiler

 

YCbCr SDR 400 vs AW3423DW HDR

Spoiler

 

 

=============CONSLUSION ================

 

The OLED or QD-OLED is struggling. Brightness is not enough. And PWM fatigue is more severe because the OLED is trying to use emulated DC dimming but end up making a worse result. The flickers frequency is the same as the monitor refresh rate. The frequency is low. The flicker is not healthy to the eyes especially under a dim environment. My eyes become rather irritated when looking at the monitor. It's not as comfortable compared to other true HDR 1000 monitors even though other monitors are much brighter.

 

The traditional DC dimming or high frequency PWM won't have the problem and it is safe to use for a long time. And the HDR monitor is going to hit 10,000nits for image quality.

 

The comparison of the latest QD-OLED vs a 4-year-old FALD 512-zone true HDR 1000 monitor is made to prove this point. 

 

In order to archive a high-level HDR performance, OLED has to deal with flickering and brightness one way or another. But that won't happen very soon. 

 

So I suggest you don't buy it. You wait. This monitor won't last even for a short pierid of time considering a better FALD LCD is becoming much cheaper. 

[Levent]

@DildorTheDecentHope you didnt swipe one out yourself?

[Needfuldoer]

I used to stare into the face of a particle accelerator flickering at 60 hz.

 

Modern display technology can't possibly be worse than that.

[ewitte]

38 minutes ago, Needfuldoer said:

I used to stare into the face of a particle accelerator flickering at 60 hz.

 

Modern display technology can't possibly be worse than that.

This is LCD but really old LCD.  Back in 2001ish when I had my Lasik LCD flicker was horrible for months.  I don't believe the CRTs that were still around bothered me.

[DildorTheDecent]

3 hours ago, Levent said:

@DildorTheDecentHope you didnt swipe one out yourself?

No. I'm poor.

[Kev]

4 hours ago, Needfuldoer said:

I used to stare into the face of a particle accelerator flickering at 60 hz.

 

Modern display technology can't possibly be worse than that.

For what it's worth, the other day I was modding Fallout 4 VR and one of the alternative start mods bugged out causing a black/white flicker at 90 Hz and instantly gave me a headache.

[Stahlmann]

The flicker is not a problem for most users. Only users that are particularly susceptible to flickering will find this is problematic. If you know you're susceptible to flicker, then probably avoid OLED displays for the time being. I personally have never had any eye strain problems from staring at my OLED screen, even when using it for 10+ hours at a time. And overall user reports also tell that the vast majority of OLED buyers don't have eye strain problems. In the end I wouldn't call it a dealbreaker, rather something to be aware of.

 

In terms of HDR brightness, the high peak brightness for small highlights is enough to deliver a great HDR experience. Even if it differs from the mastering brightness, you don't want 1000+ nits fullscreen brightness. It's just too bright and becomes uncomfortable more than anything else. 250 nits of fullscreen brightness is still more than enough to deliver a "flashbang-effect".

 

Danmed be reference or creative intend in that case; In my subjective opinion a dimmer OLED will always deliver a better HDR experience than a brighter LCD, as long as you can control your ambient light conditions. Even though you might have some brightness clipping on sub-1000 nit OLED's, the anscence of blooming easily makes up for that. (Again: IMO)

 

Frankly, anyone who masters average scene brightness anywhere close to 1000 nits doesn't understand what HDR is about imo. You're essentially taking away the brightness headroom to make highlights pop that HDR is offering. At this point just make it SDR and let users crank their brightness if they want to. I find dimmer movies with small highlights way more impactful than just overblown bright movies where you just lose all sense of detail.

[MonitorFlicker]

On 6/27/2022 at 5:05 AM, Stahlmann said:

Frankly, anyone who masters average scene brightness anywhere close to 1000 nits doesn't understand what HDR is about imo. You're essentially taking away the brightness headroom to make highlights pop that HDR is offering. At this point just make it SDR and let users crank their brightness if they want to. I find dimmer movies with small highlights way more impactful than just overblown bright movies where you just lose all sense of detail.

Funny how people can just talk to make themselves more professional than the professional who made HDR.

[Stahlmann]

10 hours ago, MonitorFlicker said:

Funny how people can just talk to make themselves more professional than the professional who made HDR.

Funny how a professional can sound so wrong that it seems he doesn't know what he's talking about, especially when the vast majority seems to disagree with your sentiment. Seems like not just me but every display reviewer in the world seems to disagree wíth you.

 

Also istn't it kind of bold to claim you "made HDR"? Either it's a typo or you didn't mean it like that. But statements like these don't really help me taking your posts seriously. Naming yourself "MonitorFlicker" also doesn't help. Everything about you screams anything but professional from my point of view.

[MonitorFlicker]

2 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Funny how a professional can sound so wrong that it seems he doesn't know what he's talking about, especially when the vast majority seems to disagree with your sentiment. Seems like not just me but every display reviewer in the world seems to disagree wíth you.

 

Also istn't it kind of bold to claim you "made HDR"? Either it's a typo or you didn't mean it like that. But statements like these don't really help me taking your posts seriously. Naming yourself "MonitorFlicker" also doesn't help. Everything about you screams anything but professional from my point of view.

Funny you have no idea who is the professional. Funny an OLED shill has no idea who made the HDR benchmark. 

Funny you put yourself in a box spreading misinformation and wondering who are the vast majority.

[rustable]

am i the only one who wouldnt want my whole ass display 1000 nits

[MonitorFlicker]

9 minutes ago, offweek said:

So you're saying I should buy a Samsung Odyssey Neo G8 immediately?

G8/G8 lacks color. If you actually experience the real HDR impact. You should buy FALD IPS like PG32UQX alike if you can.

[MonitorFlicker]

1 hour ago, rustable said:

am i the only one who wouldnt want my whole ass display 1000 nits

Games like Forza Horizon can have 1000+nits APL all the time, closer to real life. People say the creators must be dumb. 

[ewitte]

On 8/6/2022 at 3:48 PM, rustable said:

am i the only one who wouldnt want my whole ass display 1000 nits

"just about right" for me is 115-125 nits for normal display when not doing HDR.  Hours sitting with much more hurts my eyes.

[MonitorFlicker]

Pretty sure most people down here never experienced a true HDR monitor. The good thing is they don't make HDR.  

[ewitte]

On 8/8/2022 at 6:04 AM, MonitorFlicker said:

Pretty sure most people down here never experienced a true HDR monitor. The good thing is they don't make HDR.  

There are varying levels of HDR and it even depends on the scene.  In dark scenes with really bright areas OLEDS can look awesome but no so much if the entire screen is bright.  A 2500 nit peak brightness on an edge lit monitor also is going to look pretty washed out.  We really need technology that isn't available now to get the most of it so technically nobody has experienced "true HDR".

[MonitorFlicker]

1 hour ago, ewitte said:

There are varying levels of HDR and it even depends on the scene.  In dark scenes with really bright areas OLEDS can look awesome but no so much if the entire screen is bright.  A 2500 nit peak brightness on an edge lit monitor also is going to look pretty washed out.  We really need technology that isn't available now to get the most of it so technically nobody has experienced "true HDR".

HDR is the real life. What a true HDR monitor should do is to display enough color, brightness, contrast similar to the real life. 

 

VA has better contrast but less colorspace than IPS. HDR will look washed out on VA compared to IPS. 

OLED has the pixel zones but brightness is too low. Perceived contrast and color can be even lower than FALD LCDs. 

To make a vivid HDR experience, some choices need to be made from above. 

 

In the end, OLED is organic, the brightness and lifespan are hard to improve, QD is the lastest measure but not so much. 

OLED will eventually become SDR monitor while FALD LCD with better dimming zones will be HDR monitor.