I have two "bang for your buck" type HDR LCDs. HDR is great, I love it, but there is indeed a lack of content. I keep up with every single new UHD blu ray release to see if there's anything new to watch in HDR.
Anyways, the huge downside to these types of TVs that I never see talked about is that, on rtings, you can see that the max nits for 2% screen coverage is barely above SDR. In fact, with brightness in the 300 nit range, it's not HDR period. Why is the 2% number so important? Well, people rave about highlights, but on these TV's they just don't exist. With the local contrast deal, you just get a huge glowy swath of your screen. The local dimming zones are entirely too big on my TCL p607 and Hisense H8f. Especially the hisense, there's like 40 something lol. its not good. Basically, if there's a little shine off a rock or whatever, it just isn't HDR for me.
I don't know how much better OLEDs are in this regard. I don't see myself upgrading my TV for years until HDR has advanced far past what it is. And that's despite the fact that these budget manufacturers are putting these things out for a steal. You can get at least a taste of HDR for 2-300 easily.
I kinda just want to wake up when we get 4k nits overall, with at least 1000 nit highlights.
I know this is a game forum but most people underrate 4K resolution, for movies, mainly movies shot on film. It's incredible to be able to clearly see all the grain of the classics. From my understanding, film also has greater brightness dynamic range than what SDR can display so it's nice to see the extra range in classic movies too. 4k is great and a must for all game fans and especially movie fans. Even before I got to 4k I began to feel like 1080p was very limited, especially since I'm very conservative on anti-aliasing.
One last thing on my ramble here, lol at the people who think HDR brightness is too much. Like, what.
