Need help in understanding a monitor with HDR which has 250nits max brightness.

[bypassrestrictions]

I'm considering a monitor which has HDR support but it's max brightness is 250 nits.

I presently have a monitor which has the same brightness but it doesn't support HDR.

Is it a gimmick or how would the new monitor support HDR when my present monitor isn't supporting HDR with same brightness? Would it be a waste of money to buy the new monitor?

 

[Colif]

what make/model monitor? I would look on reviews of the monitor and see what they say about that

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Hi and welcome

Its a gimmick, HDR 400 isnt really HDR at all.

Why Your HDR Monitor is (Probably) Not HDR at All - and Why DisplayHDR 400 Needs to Go - TFTCentral

Share this contentMarketing a display as supporting HDR (High Dynamic Range) is becoming increasingly common in the monitor market with most new displays talking about how great HDR is, and....[click link for more]

tftcentral.co.uk

Spoiler: HDR 400 from the article some important bits

If you look at the low end DisplayHDR 400 standard in any detail you realise that its requirements are very loose, and not really in line with providing any meaningful HDR experience. To earn the HDR 400 badge a display needs only offer:

• Peak brightness of at least 400 cd/m2 – this isn’t actually much beyond what a “normal” screen can offer, which are typically 300 – 350 cd/m2 anyway. It’s also nowhere near the higher peak luminance that the main HDR10 and Dolby Vision (and other) content is mastered to.
• Global dimming – this is where the entire screen is brightened or darkened all in one go depending on the viewed content. This is the same as the old “Dynamic Contrast Ratio” technologies of years gone by, which fell out of fashion about 5 years ago as no one really liked it or used it! Global dimming won’t improve the contrast ratio experienced on the screen at any given point in time, as the whole screen is being dimmed or brightened in one go. You are limited by the screens normal static contrast ratio, typically around 1000:1 for a TN Film or IPS panel, but typically around 3000:1 from a VA panel. The global dimming doesn’t help achieve any higher contrast ratio (or high dynamic range) compared to a normal screen though. Most people don’t like the appearance of dynamic contrast ratios either, and the way it changes the backlight brightness up and down.
• Colour space / colour gamut – they only require 95% of the ITU-R BT.709 colour space, basically 95% sRGB which again is the norm on nearly every display around now. No requirement to actually offer the wider colour gamut associated with HDR content and an improved viewing experience.
• Colour depth – there is a requirement for a true 8-bit colour depth, which at least rules out some of the 6-bit+FRC panels on the market. However, most normal screens nowadays are 8-bit anyway, so this doesn’t really require any improvement over those normal models. A 10-bit colour depth is really required to support the colours of HDR content, and that’s not a requirement for a screen to earn the HDR 400 badge.

As we said earlier, local dimming is VITAL for the production of an improved dynamic range from a display, and it is the lack of this which really hampers the HDR 400 certification level. Without local dimming of any sort, we don’t feel a screen should be marketed as HDR to be quite honest. Global dimming doesn’t count.

 

[Colif]

lots of pretend HDR out there

glad i didn't care about HDR when I updated last time as LG HDR isn't the best anyway, so I was better with the non HDR model I got.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

We just got a TV that supports HDR 10+ and it is better than a normal picture when its on, even though it doesnt have local dimming. My monitor that only does HDR 400 actually looks worse when enabled.

I think you need local dimming to get close to the full experience, but a brighter screen and full colour range does help. Of course YMMV between different screen types and brands.

 

[Colif]

Maybe in 5 years or so when I get a new monitor I will look at HDR then. It wasn't a priority last time. I didn't even think of it really.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

I'd rather get an OLED, then again I'd also rather not pay for one!

 

[bypassrestrictions]

Thanks for the welcome.

Here is the link to the monitor I'm considering: https://www.benq.com/en-ap/monitor/entertainment/ew2480-24-inch.html

[Mod edit: fixed link, removed unnecessary quotes.]

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Your link doesn't work but I found it anyway. Nothing wrong with that monitor particularly, but it depends as always.

I'm really not sure how that managed to get HDR 10 certification with only 250 nits, but I only casually understand HDR . Anyways I wouldn't make HDR the main focus of what I was looking for in a PC gaming monitor at all.

Is it mainly going to be used for gaming?

Whats your maximum budget?

What CPU and graphics card do you have to use with it?

 

[bypassrestrictions]

Your link doesn't work but I found it anyway. Nothing wrong with that monitor particularly, but it depends as always.

I'm really not sure how that managed to get HDR 10 certification with only 250 nits, but I only casually understand HDR . Anyways I wouldn't make HDR the main focus of what I was looking for in a PC gaming monitor at all.

Is it mainly going to be used for gaming?

Whats your maximum budget?

What CPU and graphics card do you have to use with it?

I have RX 570 8GB and Ryzen 3 3200G. I'm from India so I can spend around Rs. 16,000.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

For gaming I'd be more concerned with response times and refresh rate than HDR.

This one seems to be pretty good for your price range for gaming. I'm not very familiar with the Indian market though so there may be better deals available. And I'm having to assume a lot about your use of it.

 

[Komodo]

HDR support but it's max brightness is 250 nits.

As others have said, this isn't HDR but a gimmick. You need at least 600 nits to have even passable HDR. 1000 nits or more to really enjoy it. Anything below 600 just looks sub-par.

I've got a Samsung MU6300 television and it only does 400 nits. While my 4K HDR movies look ok, they would look so much better on a brighter set. I didn't do my due diligence when buying my first 4K TV, so don't make the same mistake.

Use this site to help narrow down choices: https://displayhdr.org/

 

[bypassrestrictions]

As others have said, this isn't HDR but a gimmick. You need at least 600 nits to have even passable HDR. 1000 nits or more to really enjoy it. Anything below 600 just looks sub-par.

I've got a Samsung MU6300 television and it only does 400 nits. While my 4K HDR movies look ok, they would look so much better on a brighter set. I didn't do my due diligence when buying my first 4K TV, so don't make the same mistake.

Use this site to help narrow down choices: https://displayhdr.org/

I would thank you or like your post but I don't have ability for either.