The gap between Xbox And PC’s HDR Support keeps on growing

@zaryia: that's good and all, but how about that picture of your pc, jankarop's alt?

If MS made all games only on Xbox, PC gamers wouldn't play the best Race games this gen. Play fun games like Sea of Thieves, State of Decay 2, Gears 4, etc.

DF are a bunch of Xbox haters. I wouldn't believe anything they say.

And the number of games xbox has with RT: 0.

Not sure why you’d believe anything that dude says lol. He always lying, passing off his opinions as if they’re fact

@xhawk27: All those games except forza are sub par expiriences.

@GioVela2010 said:

@zaryia said:

@GioVela2010 said:

@zaryia said:

MetaCritic:

PC: 411

PS4: 298

Gamespot:

PC: 380

PS4: 315

Digital Foundry:

Over 90% of multiplatform titles are better experienced on PC.

8 to 0

I mean, you were wrong on both accounts.

Most games look and run better on PC. not XB1X.

PC has the best library according to the 2 main sites we use here. Not PS4.

Explain why the game below should be counted towards PC’s AA games on Metacritic and not PS4’s

i don’t use flawed scoring methods

Probably because the dozen or so Sony websites and magazines that usually boost Sony console exclusive meta scores are busy boosting the scores of another PS4 exclusive. There are also multi plats that score higher on consoles despite having a better version on PC and a lot of PC games dont get reviewed at all, because there is so many of them.

@pelvist said:

@GioVela2010 said:

@zaryia said:

@GioVela2010 said:

8 to 0

I mean, you were wrong on both accounts.

Most games look and run better on PC. not XB1X.

PC has the best library according to the 2 main sites we use here. Not PS4.

Explain why the game below should be counted towards PC’s AA games on Metacritic and not PS4’s

i don’t use flawed scoring methods

Probably because the dozen or so Sony websites and magazines that usually boost Sony console exclusive meta scores are busy boosting the scores of another PS4 exclusive. There are also multi plats that score higher on consoles despite having a better version on PC and a lot of PC games dont get reviewed at all, because there is so many of them.

He's an idiot.

1. PC has several unscored games at MC as well. PC has less padding too, resulting in lower average scores here. Nine of PS4s AAAs are AA on PC. PC technically has a huge lead in AAAs.

2. PC has countless unscored games at GR. PC has less padding too, resulting in lower average scores here. This is all exaggerated at GR, their system writes off most PC reviews. For this reason GR has never been accepted here.

3. The site were you don't have to worry about the above issues, GS, the very site we are posting on and which was officially used for SW from 2001-2013 has PC ahead by 70 games. Both AAA and AA.

@recloud: He’s not jankarkop or dynamitecop. This guy used to like Xbox. He’s probably an alt of -God- who was another annoying overzealous fanboy who did not have a PC.

@Juub1990: they're all the same person, I was told.

Oh yeah, him.

That was a good gimmick.

Doubt it. dynamitecop/NYDAC/jankarcop/Crash Bandicoot was fairly tame compared to Zariya/-God-. He was far more reasonable and could actually be talked to unlike full blown trolls like Zariya or Giovela.

Say what you want about me (Mostly fiction but whatever), but no one can ever refute my data. I properly source and triple check. Several people in the political section thought I was a fraud for saying Russia interfered. But I had incredible sources and research, and they all ended up eating crow.

If I say PC is winning GS and MC, it's literally winning at those 2 sites. There are no two ways about it.

The only way to counter it is to make arbitrary rules (which can't be sourced/cited) or use another site (GR).

if HDR is important to you that much, then how about something advanced like RTX features?

They're exclusive to PC! Resident Evil 2 remake and more:

@zaryia: but you still don't have a pc.

@koko-goal And be stuck at 40fps/1080p on a 1000$ card? No thanks.

@appariti0n: you literally took a game from 2004 and applied the logic to a game that released...today?

Are you fucking nuts?

@recloud: You're still obsessed with him

This is absurd

HDR is one of those things I simply just don't give a DAMN!

I care about HDR about as much as Ray tracing at this point. Zero.

Ok, maybe an exaggeration. HDR does improve image quality somewhat, but I'm not willing to put up with 30 fps with dips in order to get it. bad tradeoff imo.

Note how its just the xbox gamers throwing around HDR... While PS4 gamers had HDR and games and couldn't give two s***s about HDR?... Games > Framerate > Art style & art direction > Panel type > 4K > Dedicated Subwoofer > HDR > the comfort level of your sofa/chair >Atmos, this is the where things fall in terms of impacting your gaming experience.

Also this is why your games run at 20-30FPS.

Console gamers care more about graphics than PC gamers, notice how the PC community is currently in a uproar about ray tracing and its performance impact?... Yeah if that was on a $600 console with games running at 20-30FPS at 640p users like Gio would be posting here 24/7 about how incredible it looks.

Alnd I would like to add I have a QLED TV HDR is not a big deal at all, don't fall for the hype guys you'll end up spending £2400 on a TV like I did with nothing but a meh on your face its almost as bad as 4K especially if you are streaming content.

The day that I increase my settings and get my framerate down to 30FPS is the day that I may as well be a casual gamer.

Anyone still playing games and watching movies on a 1080p SDR TV you are not missing out at all for games and especially movies, my 1080p projector is more enjoyable to watch a movie on than my 4K HDR tv and my brother C7 OLED is really not that far off from my QLED for movies either.

Also as for HDR gaming?... QLED still wins so don't let this Gio guy with his purchase justifying threads fool you, X1X is useless and HDR is not all that let alone Atmos.

https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/best/by-usage/hdr-gaming

Atmos and HDR advocates are the same people who tell you that megapixels on a camera is more important than the sharpness of the lens or the people that tell you video resolution is more important than the buffer rate. Both technologies are just the cherry on top that offer little to no impact of the game what so ever, at lease ray tracing can improve gameplay with reflections and shadows for immersion but atmos and HDR jeez they are nothing but spinning rims.

@Grey_Eyed_Elf: Which Qled did you get? And do you use the 120 hz 1440p mode?

@Grey_Eyed_Elf: Well, I don't know about TVs... but this Samsung QLED monitor is at least twice as good as the LG monitor I was rocking. I can see so many things in the dark now that I couldn't see on the LG; it's actually helped me spot enemies in competitive FPS games. Also, being 34" vs 29" helps. Lol Oh, and the colors are that much more vivid in games.

I paid 700 for it, and I thought even that was a little much, but man, it's so much better than the 300 dollar LG I had.

This thread is as stupid as when you once claimed that PC is inferior because it doesn't have vapor cooling, or blu-ray players.

PC ain't getting anything from Phil.

Recore? Flop

Killer Binstink? flop

Dud rising? flop

Six of thieves? Mega flop

5tate of decay 2? disaster

Quantum break? calamity

Ryse? abomination.

Nobody cares about any of these craptastic games aside from lemmings and that's only because they have nothing else. Don't act like Phil is 'giving' anyone anything of note because nobody is buying or playing this tacky garbage.

The one game you can say is Forza......a generic racing game. Yawn.

I only have to say, that as much as MS has been putting out crap this gen, you obviously haven't played any of these. Although, Recore does suck; we can agree on that one.

@appariti0n:

Q8FN the 55" model. Its a great TV absolutely stunning but HDR is not night and day impressive especially for gaming.

I think people get confused especially OLED where they confuse the panels attributes like contrast and black levels with the HDR capabilities and in general image quality... I tested this watching Ozark through my PC which is SDR and then watching it through the TV's netflix app, a lot of the wow factor from these modern TV's has nothing to do with the actual HDR quality of the TV's, and playing Forza 7 in HDR on and off... turning hdr off after 5 minutes you forget what the difference was.

People acting like its night and day need to chill especially when it comes to gaming there are far more impotant factors that make a much bigger impact like frame rate, input lag, refresh rates, gsynce/freesync and so on and HDR.

The panel quality is far more important, OLED/QLED is where its at right now but not because of HDR... HDR is meh, the general image quality from OLED and QLED is 95% of the wow factor, its not that hard to test. HDR is meh for movies and for gaming, its not bad but there are FAR more important things, for example I forgo HDR on my TV and 4K just so I can play at 120Hz with keyboard and mouse playing games like the division looks stunning and most importantly feels good due to the response time and refresh rate.

The only reason that one LED wins “HDR Gaming” by .1 is because of the Input Lag scores.

For pure HDR image quality wow factor OLED stillnwins of course

https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/best/by-features/hdr

You are missing the point completely.

It wins for gaming and HDR gaming there are two categories and it wins because of the peak brightness being 2x as high.

Also another way you are missing the point is that you like many others aren't judging the HDR capabilites of the display but rather the perfect blacks and contrast of OLED, which I am not arguing OLED is incredible and that is why people are impressed its not because of HDR of that panel that is making people drop their jaw.

I will give you a analogy its like your judging the sound of a 2:1 system specifically measure what has the best High but your completely flawed by the bass that you are struggle to focus on the highs and your opinion is being skewed because your are not being objective and focusing purely on the highs, same thing is happening to consumers with when viewing HDR on OLED you focus on the deep blacks and contrast that you fail to see that the peak brightness is not that impressive and in many cases struggles to give the punch that QLED's have during well lit scenes.

Also if it wins because of input lag by 0.1 what does that say to you?... HDR for gaming like I pretty much said in every way conceivable isn't the most import thing at all.

OLED is also best for Movies because of the blacks and contrast its HDR... Well not just OLED HDR capabilities in movies but in general movies need to be filmed and mastered specifically for HDR and even then the ones that are mastered to 4000 nits which we are not even close to reaching yet thus you are not and no one is getting the true HDR experience that they want its why their are so many caveats regarding TV's for HDR and the panels used.

TLDR: HDR = Meh, but OLED is great and QLED with full array local dimming is the best compromise you can get for HDR gaming until OLED catches up with its peak brightness.

I played Killer Instinct actually. 7/10 was the lowest I would go, also nostalgia.

I haven't played the rest you're right because I simply have too many good games on my SONY PLAYSTATION® 4 entertainment system to be wasting my time playing 6/10, 5/10 and 4/10 garbage. However I can understand how due to severe droughts you lemmings have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find games to play.

If Peak

It doesn’t win the HDR Gaming category because of Peak Brightness, Peak Brightness accounts for 3% of the “HDR Gaming” Score

That Vizio QLED (Not Samsung) wins the HDR Gaming category because of better 4k HDR 60hz Input lag.

If Peak Brightness was as important as your saying than the Vizio would also win the “HDR Movies” category, especially since movie content is more likely to be mastered for the higher Brightness than video games

@Alessandro_R:

Score components:

HDR Gaming:

• 25% 4k @ 60Hz + HDR
• 15% Response Time
• 8% Contrast
• 7% Color Gamut
• 7% Color Volume
• 5% Local Dimming
• 4% 1080p Input
• 4% 4k Input
• 4% Black Uniformity
• 3% HDR ABL
• 3% HDR Peak Brightness
• 3% Black Frame Insertion (BFI)
• 2% Gray Uniformity
• 2% Gradient
• 1% Reflections
• 1% Variable Refresh Rate
• 1% HDR10
• 1% Dolby Vision
• 1% Sound Quality
• <1% Permanent Burn-In Risk
• <1% Flicker-Free
• <1% Pre Calibration
• <1% Temporary Image Retention
• <1% Post Calibration

HDR Movies:

• 22% Contrast
• 13% Local Dimming
• 12% 4k Input
• 11% Black Uniformity
• 6% HDR Peak Brightness
• 6% Color Gamut
• 6% Color Volume
• 5% Gray Uniformity
• 4% Stutter
• 4% 24p Judder
• 2% HDR ABL
• 2% Motion Interpolation
• 2% Pre Calibration
• 2% Gradient
• 1% Post Calibration
• <1% HDR10
• <1% Dolby Vision

Yes that is how they score it by looking at the overall experience for that category they are not measuring the actual HDR part of image.

Objectively the only way to judge HDR capabilities is to look at the individual scores for peak brightness and colour gamut which are the two key components to measuring HDR otherwise you are just measuring the panel type.

C8:

• Color Gamut: 8.5
• Color Volume: 7.0
• HDR Peak brightness: 7.7

Vizio P:

• Color Gamut: 8.8
• Color Volume: 8.1
• HDR Peak brightness: 9.2

What skews results is contrast due to the nature of OLED it gives the impression of better dynamic range but its severally bottle-necked by the peak brightness and color volume and vice versa QLED is severely bottle-necking its HDR capability due to the nature of the technology but QLED if the screen is big enough and it has enough local dimming zones and a high peak brightness pretty much removes most of the technological drawbacks of the technology and gives that superior HDR experience.

Its a old TV but the ZD9 100" is a good example of that:

if they give contrast 22% importance for HDR movies than it’s obvious they feel contrast is the most important aspect to HDR picture quality

@Alessandro_R:

They prioritise different aspects of the image for HDR gaming vs HDR movies?... Yes, its because they are not measuring JUST the HDR capabilities they are purely measuring the overall experience of the panel ALONG with the HDR capabilities of the panel for that use which is also why the have a "Dark room alternative" because the contrast is more noticeable in a dark room and the peak brightness is less of a issue.

Actual HDR is measured by the peak brightness and the contrast between that and the deepest blacks and then the colour volume along with gamut is increased it is literally what HDR is, contrast alone means nothing if the peak brigtness isn't there.

I guess where I am going with this is until LED panels start to use 1,000+ dimming zones or OLED start to push 1000+ nits peak brightness their will always be a caveat and reviews have no choice but to skew their results in "hdr" scorings simply because both technologies offer one half of the requirements for a true HDR experience.

Its the waiting game but HDR as of right now is not superior on OLED but that doesn't mean its better on QLED because HDR is meh right now.

“Actual HDR is measured by Peak Brightness and the contrast between that and the deepest blacks”

That‘s your quote, and that’s precisely why OLED is still perceived as the best technology for HDR In blind testing.

The fact that these newest QLED’s have about 50-60% higher Real Scene Peak Brightness than OLED is superseded by the fact that OLED’s can do blacks infinitely darker.

In other words the “RANGE” between OLeDS deepest blacks and peAk Brightness is greater than that of QLED

Ugh... You are one of those.

The peak brightness increases the color volume its the third leg of HDR:

C8:

• Color Gamut: 8.5
• Color Volume: 7.0
• HDR Peak brightness: 7.7

Vizio P:

• Color Gamut: 8.8
• Color Volume: 8.1
• HDR Peak brightness: 9.2

So not only will the peak brightness be better in HDR scenes but the color will be better on a QLED.

HDR is not just contrast, there are MANY many caveats because no one technology gives the ultimate experience how are you not understanding something that all reviewers state clear as day and score clear as day?

You know those slides showing what HDR is?... Notice how the color gets more vibrant and the bright parts get brighter?... Well along with the contrast of the panel HDR is measured by the other two things.

OLED:

• Contrast

QLED:

• Peak brightness
• Color volume

I can't explain it better than this, neither of the two technologies offer the best HDR experience because HDR requirements are not being met fully by either panel technologies and by nature might never do so and micro led might end up replacing them both.

Now would also go into tonal mapping for HDR and perceived contrast but I am afraid I would lose you. That and you seem to cherry pic parts of sentences to skew the conversation so it would be absolutely futile on my part to even attempt it.

And with blind testing they are not measuring the actual HDR part of the image they are just looking at the picture which I am not arguing it will look better but not because of the capabilities of HDR that the panel can out put, its why during HDR stress testing OLED panels crush blacks and lack the color volume along peak brightness compared to QLED's with full array local dimming but QLED comes with its own draw backs and HDR caveats.

TLDR: Caveats and contrast doesn't equal HDR or better HDR it just means better overall image its why in SDR oled wins by default but in HDR its closer than you think.

Also im out I have a family to pay attention to. Enjoy your evening.

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

@Alessandro_R said:

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

@Alessandro_R:

They prioritise different aspects of the image for HDR gaming vs HDR movies?... Yes, its because they are not measuring JUST the HDR capabilities they are purely measuring the overall experience of the panel ALONG with the HDR capabilities of the panel for that use which is also why the have a "Dark room alternative" because the contrast is more noticeable in a dark room and the peak brightness is less of a issue.

Actual HDR is measured by the peak brightness and the contrast between that and the deepest blacks and then the colour volume along with gamut is increased it is literally what HDR is, contrast alone means nothing if the peak brigtness isn't there.

I guess where I am going with this is until LED panels start to use 1,000+ dimming zones or OLED start to push 1000+ nits peak brightness their will always be a caveat and reviews have no choice but to skew their results in "hdr" scorings simply because both technologies over one half of the requirements for a true HDR experience.

Its the waiting game but HDR as of right now is not superior on OLED but that doesn't mean its better on QLED because HDR is meh right now.

“Actual HDR is measured by Peak Brightness and the contrast between that and the deepest blacks”

That‘s your quote, and that’s precisely why OLED is still perceived as the best technology for HDR In blind testing.

The fact that these newest QLED’s have about 50-60% higher Real Scene Peak Brightness than OLED is superseded by the fact that OLED’s can do blacks infinitely darker.

In other words the “RANGE” between OLeDS deepest blacks and peAk Brightness is greater than that of QLED

Ugh... You are one of those.

The peak brightness increases the color volume its the third leg of HDR:

C8:

• Color Gamut: 8.5
• Color Volume: 7.0
• HDR Peak brightness: 7.7

Vizio P:

• Color Gamut: 8.8
• Color Volume: 8.1
• HDR Peak brightness: 9.2

So not only will the peak brightness be better in HDR scenes but the color will be better on a QLED.

HDR is not just contrast, there are MANY many caveats because no one technology gives the ultimate experience how are you not understanding something that all reviewers state clear as day and score clear as day?

You know those slides showing what HDR is?... Notice how the color gets more vibrant and the bright parts get brighter?... Well along with the contrast of the panel HDR is measured by the other two things.

OLED:

• Contrast

QLED:

• Peak brightness
• Color volume

I can't explain it better than this, neither of the two technologies offer the best HDR experience because HDR requirements are not being met fully by either panel technologies and by nature might never do so and micro led might end up replacing them both.

Now would also go into tonal mapping for HDR and perceived contrast but I am afraid I would lose you. That and you seem to cherry pic parts of sentences to skew the conversation so it would be absolutely futile on my part to even attempt it.

And with blind testing they are not measuring the actual HDR part of the image they are just looking at the picture which I am not arguing it will look better but not because of the capabilities of HDR that the panel can out put, its why during HDR stress testing OLED panels crush blacks and lack the color volume along peak brightness compared to QLED's with full array local dimming but QLED comes with its own draw backs and HDR caveats.

TLDR: Caveats and contrast doesn't equal HDR or better HDR it just means better overall image its why in SDR oled wins by default but in HDR its closer than you think.

Also im out I have a family to pay attention to. Enjoy your evening.

Color Volume, HDR Peak Brightness, And Color Gamut account for 17% of the HDR Movie score. (Where QLED Wins)

Contrast, Local Dimmimg, Black Uniformity, And Grey Uniformity account for 51% of the HDR movies score (Where OLED wins)

HDR Movies:

• 22% Contrast
• 13% Local Dimming
• 12% 4k Input
• 11% Black Uniformity
• 6% HDR Peak Brightness
• 6% Color Gamut
• 6% Color Volume
• 5% Gray Uniformity

What does one have to do with the other? I do wish games had Atmos.

@Alessandro_R said:

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

@Alessandro_R said:

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

@Alessandro_R:

They prioritise different aspects of the image for HDR gaming vs HDR movies?... Yes, its because they are not measuring JUST the HDR capabilities they are purely measuring the overall experience of the panel ALONG with the HDR capabilities of the panel for that use which is also why the have a "Dark room alternative" because the contrast is more noticeable in a dark room and the peak brightness is less of a issue.

Actual HDR is measured by the peak brightness and the contrast between that and the deepest blacks and then the colour volume along with gamut is increased it is literally what HDR is, contrast alone means nothing if the peak brigtness isn't there.

I guess where I am going with this is until LED panels start to use 1,000+ dimming zones or OLED start to push 1000+ nits peak brightness their will always be a caveat and reviews have no choice but to skew their results in "hdr" scorings simply because both technologies over one half of the requirements for a true HDR experience.

Its the waiting game but HDR as of right now is not superior on OLED but that doesn't mean its better on QLED because HDR is meh right now.

“Actual HDR is measured by Peak Brightness and the contrast between that and the deepest blacks”

That‘s your quote, and that’s precisely why OLED is still perceived as the best technology for HDR In blind testing.

The fact that these newest QLED’s have about 50-60% higher Real Scene Peak Brightness than OLED is superseded by the fact that OLED’s can do blacks infinitely darker.

In other words the “RANGE” between OLeDS deepest blacks and peAk Brightness is greater than that of QLED

Ugh... You are one of those.

The peak brightness increases the color volume its the third leg of HDR:

C8:

• Color Gamut: 8.5
• Color Volume: 7.0
• HDR Peak brightness: 7.7

Vizio P:

• Color Gamut: 8.8
• Color Volume: 8.1
• HDR Peak brightness: 9.2

So not only will the peak brightness be better in HDR scenes but the color will be better on a QLED.

HDR is not just contrast, there are MANY many caveats because no one technology gives the ultimate experience how are you not understanding something that all reviewers state clear as day and score clear as day?

You know those slides showing what HDR is?... Notice how the color gets more vibrant and the bright parts get brighter?... Well along with the contrast of the panel HDR is measured by the other two things.

OLED:

• Contrast

QLED:

• Peak brightness
• Color volume

I can't explain it better than this, neither of the two technologies offer the best HDR experience because HDR requirements are not being met fully by either panel technologies and by nature might never do so and micro led might end up replacing them both.

Now would also go into tonal mapping for HDR and perceived contrast but I am afraid I would lose you. That and you seem to cherry pic parts of sentences to skew the conversation so it would be absolutely futile on my part to even attempt it.

And with blind testing they are not measuring the actual HDR part of the image they are just looking at the picture which I am not arguing it will look better but not because of the capabilities of HDR that the panel can out put, its why during HDR stress testing OLED panels crush blacks and lack the color volume along peak brightness compared to QLED's with full array local dimming but QLED comes with its own draw backs and HDR caveats.

TLDR: Caveats and contrast doesn't equal HDR or better HDR it just means better overall image its why in SDR oled wins by default but in HDR its closer than you think.

Also im out I have a family to pay attention to. Enjoy your evening.

Color Volume, HDR Peak Brightness, And Color Gamut account for 17% of the HDR Movie score. (Where QLED Wins)

Contrast, Local Dimmimg, Black Uniformity, And Grey Uniformity account for 51% of the HDR movies score (Where OLED wins)

HDR Movies:

• 22% Contrast
• 13% Local Dimming
• 12% 4k Input
• 11% Black Uniformity
• 6% HDR Peak Brightness
• 6% Color Gamut
• 6% Color Volume
• 5% Gray Uniformity

Again they are measuring overall image quality they are not specifically measuring the capabilities of the panels HDR.

4K input is 12% of the image quality in terms of score yet has no impact on HDR.

How are you not understanding the difference between judging something for a purpose vs objectively measuring performance?... That is what they are doing with overall scoring vs in depth measurements in their sub categories, the arbitrary scoring system they created is just that a creation out of thin air the actual measurements are what matters you know the scientific approach rather than "I think this should be 22% just because".

I don't see this going anywhere, enjoy your evening.

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

@Alessandro_R said:

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

@Alessandro_R said:

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

@Alessandro_R:

They prioritise different aspects of the image for HDR gaming vs HDR movies?... Yes, its because they are not measuring JUST the HDR capabilities they are purely measuring the overall experience of the panel ALONG with the HDR capabilities of the panel for that use which is also why the have a "Dark room alternative" because the contrast is more noticeable in a dark room and the peak brightness is less of a issue.

Actual HDR is measured by the peak brightness and the contrast between that and the deepest blacks and then the colour volume along with gamut is increased it is literally what HDR is, contrast alone means nothing if the peak brigtness isn't there.

I guess where I am going with this is until LED panels start to use 1,000+ dimming zones or OLED start to push 1000+ nits peak brightness their will always be a caveat and reviews have no choice but to skew their results in "hdr" scorings simply because both technologies over one half of the requirements for a true HDR experience.

Its the waiting game but HDR as of right now is not superior on OLED but that doesn't mean its better on QLED because HDR is meh right now.

“Actual HDR is measured by Peak Brightness and the contrast between that and the deepest blacks”

That‘s your quote, and that’s precisely why OLED is still perceived as the best technology for HDR In blind testing.

The fact that these newest QLED’s have about 50-60% higher Real Scene Peak Brightness than OLED is superseded by the fact that OLED’s can do blacks infinitely darker.

In other words the “RANGE” between OLeDS deepest blacks and peAk Brightness is greater than that of QLED

Ugh... You are one of those.

The peak brightness increases the color volume its the third leg of HDR:

C8:

• Color Gamut: 8.5
• Color Volume: 7.0
• HDR Peak brightness: 7.7

Vizio P:

• Color Gamut: 8.8
• Color Volume: 8.1
• HDR Peak brightness: 9.2

So not only will the peak brightness be better in HDR scenes but the color will be better on a QLED.

HDR is not just contrast, there are MANY many caveats because no one technology gives the ultimate experience how are you not understanding something that all reviewers state clear as day and score clear as day?

You know those slides showing what HDR is?... Notice how the color gets more vibrant and the bright parts get brighter?... Well along with the contrast of the panel HDR is measured by the other two things.

OLED:

• Contrast

QLED:

• Peak brightness
• Color volume

I can't explain it better than this, neither of the two technologies offer the best HDR experience because HDR requirements are not being met fully by either panel technologies and by nature might never do so and micro led might end up replacing them both.

Now would also go into tonal mapping for HDR and perceived contrast but I am afraid I would lose you. That and you seem to cherry pic parts of sentences to skew the conversation so it would be absolutely futile on my part to even attempt it.

And with blind testing they are not measuring the actual HDR part of the image they are just looking at the picture which I am not arguing it will look better but not because of the capabilities of HDR that the panel can out put, its why during HDR stress testing OLED panels crush blacks and lack the color volume along peak brightness compared to QLED's with full array local dimming but QLED comes with its own draw backs and HDR caveats.

TLDR: Caveats and contrast doesn't equal HDR or better HDR it just means better overall image its why in SDR oled wins by default but in HDR its closer than you think.

Also im out I have a family to pay attention to. Enjoy your evening.

Color Volume, HDR Peak Brightness, And Color Gamut account for 17% of the HDR Movie score. (Where QLED Wins)

Contrast, Local Dimmimg, Black Uniformity, And Grey Uniformity account for 51% of the HDR movies score (Where OLED wins)

HDR Movies:

• 22% Contrast
• 13% Local Dimming
• 12% 4k Input
• 11% Black Uniformity
• 6% HDR Peak Brightness
• 6% Color Gamut
• 6% Color Volume
• 5% Gray Uniformity

Again they are measuring overall image quality they are not specifically measuring the capabilities of the panels HDR.

4K input is 12% of the image quality in terms of score yet has no impact on HDR.

How are you not understanding the difference between judging something for a purpose vs objectively measuring performance?... That is what they are doing with overall scoring vs in depth measurements in their sub categories, the arbitrary scoring system they created is just that a creation out of thin air the actual measurements are what matters you know the scientific approach rather than "I think this should be 22% just because".

I don't see this going anywhere, enjoy your evening.

wow it’s really bothering you that rtings.com perceives contrast to be 4 times more important than Peak Brightness regarding their HDR Scoring

The 7 Best 4k HDR TVs - September 2018: Reviews - RTINGS.com