The two screens on display cannot be captured by photo properly, but they are flabberghasting beautiful with HDR games...

Literally can't make this shit up

>starring at 10k nits
you don't understand how HDR works if you think that's how it happens

Most HDR panels can't get anywhere near 10k nits, and further, the one or two that can only do so for small specular highlights, it's not as if the entire panel hits 10k nits, that would be blinding.

Think about the moon in a dark scene at night, the moon itself should be a very bright point in the scene, HDR allows the moon to be bright as fuck AND still have nice inky black stary sky that isn't grey and washed out from the brightness of the moon like you get with SDR.

HDR on anything other than OLED or MicroLED is a meme

Nah, there are some high end LCDs do HDR very well, like the Sony X930E, X940E and Z9D. OLED's relatively low brightness takes a lot of the impact out of the specular highlights. Though since 99.9999999% of content isn't HDR, I'd still rather have an OLED because LCD can't compete anywhere else.

FALD backlit VA panels are probably the best HDR for the money currently.

You can get inky black's and highlights with any SDR display that isn't shit, good old CRT's did it just like plasma did and OLED's do
While no display does more than 5k nits peak it's still retarded to get such highlights anywhere on a screen that has any sort of acceptable contrast, millenials used to absolute shit tier LCD panels and IPS bleeding might not have known good old CRT's calibrated to 2.4 gamma that had inky black's and great highlights with just 120 nits peak, even though CRT's suffered from glass reflections they still had more than enough contrast than what the human eye can see
That's a meme pushed by TV makers, you don't get any extra impact from muh bright highlights, unless your black levels are complete shit and the only way to get any sort of contrast it's to push a few thousand nits in the dark

You can get a 55" OLEDs on sale for less, and you'll get a much bigger and better screen for movies and games.

>You can get inky black's and highlights with any SDR display that isn't shit
Fuck off

SDR TVs can display a dynamic range of ~6 stops. Professional SDR displays can display a dynamic range of about 10 stops.

An HDR capable display that can do 2,000 nit at 10-bit per sample will have 17 stops of dynamic range. Far more than ANY SDR display.

>That's a meme pushed by TV makers, you don't get any extra impact from muh bright highlights, unless your black levels are complete shit and the only way to get any sort of contrast it's to push a few thousand nits in the dark
No, it's not. Having owned both an X930E and and an LG B7, I much prefered HDR on the Sony. You absolutely do get far more impact from the additional brightness, and it didn't come at the expense of shit black levels either. Even scenes like the propaganda films from the first episode of The Man in the High Castle looked amazing on it, despite the dark room/bright highlight contrast.

I still sent it back in the end though, as it had other issues that annoyed me (Android TV is shit, sluggish UI, only two real HDMI ports).

There is no point in HDR, desktop and websites look far worse in HDR. There are like 3 or 4 video games with HDR settings and they all look like crap with it.

You don't need a pro SDR display to do 10 stops, just not a bottom of the barrel badly calibrated display like the ones found on Chinkpads and Macbooks
And the human eye can hardly do more than 7 stops without readjusting, rendering the HDR meme as pure snake oil just like (((Hi-Res))) audio
Was you display at the very least calibrated with a usable colorimeter and spectro? Or are you one of those new AVSForum people that emulate HeadFi faglords and peddle every snake oil your corporate overlords sell to you?

>And the human eye can hardly do more than 7 stops
disingenuous
>The adapted human eye can see about 7 stops but, with local adaption, can see 10-14 stops of dynamic range in a single, large area image. With longer term adaption the human eye can see about 24 stops! Therefore, higher dynamic range results in an experience closer to reality. Also, higher dynamic range increases the subjective sharpness of images and perceived color saturation.

It is literally impossible to show HDR on a

I already bought the 2018 Samsung Q9F, which has Steam Link built in, so I don't need a gaming monitor.

That's because they're being displayed incorrectly due to not being made with HDR in mind you dumb faggot.

Whats worse it that they use local dimming as a "feature" for selling you low grade panels for 2x markup.

That's a retarded way to peddle their shitty products, adaptation won't occur with proper bias lighting and even without that it takes a long time for it which doesn't happen in video and much less in most scenes with specular highlights
With proper color management, which even Chrome does nowadays, this isn't a issue unless your profile it's completely fucked
But muh local dimming and (((dynamic contrast)))

>Was you display at the very least calibrated with a usable colorimeter and spectro

>pretending to know anything about home theater
The absolute state of Jow Forums

>muh HDR
>oh yeah I run my ultimate display with the DYNAMIC setting since it's the brightest

>But muh local dimming and (((dynamic contrast)))
Are you retarded? Even mid-range TVs with VA panels hit 5000:1 to 6000:1 static contrast easily. You clearly don't know anything about the state of home theater so stop typing. You're making yourself look like a mongoloid who's only ever used piss poor economy IPS monitors that have image quality on par with 2012 TVs.

That's about the shitty monitor OP site it's peddling

HDR and local dimming are two different things