Monitoring HDR on the Liquid Retina XDR MacBook Pro screen

I have learned that the new M1 Max MacBook Pro 14/16 inch laptops have really nice built in displays. This is a long, multi-part question regarding the feasibility of using the Liquid Retina XDR screen on the new MacBook Pro's to monitor HDR footage.

Question 1: How good is the Liquid Retina XDR display from a technical specification standpoint?
Hypothetically, if you were to rip this screen off of the MacBook and package it as a separate monitor, with the ability to be calibrated and load LUTs like any other professional monitor, would you use this monitor? These Liquid Retina XDR Displays are mini LED panels with many ideal characteristics for color grading:

• The display can go up to 1600 nits in brightness. This is pretty nuts because most monitors under $3000 only go up to 1000 nits. Even the popular LG C2 OLED TV can only hit 850 nits peak.
• The display has 10,000 dimming zones. According to this Techspot article [1]:

  Apple choosing to use 5-10x the zone count massively improves the achievable contrast ratio in tricky situations and I'd say this amount of zones - and the density of zones - is what is required as a minimum for the best HDR experience with an LCD panel. Even Apple's own ridiculously overpriced Pro Display XDR doesn't compare as it has a paltry 576-zone backlight...

This makes the built-in display much more capable spec-to-spec compared to monitors in the same sub $3000 price range.

Question 2: How close can it get us to a workable image vs a clean feed setup?
I understand that the ideal HDR monitoring setup would be to have a computer with the clean feed signal from DaVinci Resolve going through a UltraStudio/Decklink into a calibrated monitor. However, could the MacBook screen get us 70% of the way there, and be a great budget option for those who can not afford a fully calibrated setup?

The built in monitor seems drastically better than what is available in the price range of the laptop. Also, even though the screen is hard to truly calibrate on our own, and it is not possible to circumvent macOS color management, shouldn't we trust that Apple engineers must have done at least some work on their part to make sure the display was color accurate to a certain degree? From the review's I've read so far [2], the factory calibration of the laptop display has a pretty low DeltaE below 2.0. Again, much better than what is available in the under $3000 range.

I know that many people do not like answering this question because "good enough" varies from person to person, so it is easier to answer whether or not something is 100% or 0% of the way there. But I can't be the only person who:

1. Does not have $15,000 to spend on a nice OLED HDR monitor
2. Does not work for a Hollywood production, but would still like footage that is graded to look better than the average amateur
3. Is always on the lookout for the most budget friendly setup that has an acceptable tradeoff with performance

Surely we can agree that the MacBook display won't get us 100% of the way there, but for those that have been working in the industry for awhile, based on your personal opinion and testing, can it get us 50% of the way? What about 70%? of the capability of an ideal setup?

Question 3: Is it better or worse than competing setups in the price range?
This is a continuation of Question 2, with specific budget examples. It looks like many people on this forum use the LG OLED CX/1/2 series as a budget HDR monitoring solution. In this setup, the monitor is usually paired with an UltraStudio or Decklink to get a clean, non-OS color managed output to the monitor (For those unaware, Windows and macOS operating systems apply their own color management to GPU outputs, which cause the output image to not be a "true representation" of what DaVinci is supposed to generate). Lastly, there is usually a budget colorimeter used to calibrate the screen. The cost breakdown of this setup would look something like this:

Code: Select all

LG C2 42 inch - 4K OLED HDR TV                                      $1400
Blackmagic Design DeckLink Mini Monitor 4K - PCIE card              $200
Datacolor SpyderX Pro Colorimeter                                   $170
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Total Price: $1770


It's hard to estimate how much a MacBook Pro would cost since there are so many configurations. A moderately well spec'ed machine would be around $3000. Regardless of price and configuration, all 14/16 inch MacBook Pros come with the same great screen. Most editors with the previous setup would have a computer that is at least $1500 to $2000, which would bring the two very similarly in terms of price.

With this in mind:

• Does the more color accurate setup with the LG OLED outweigh the better screen on the MacBook Pro, even though the MacBook can not be truly calibrated to the same level?
• Another way to look at it; is Apple's factory calibration paired with its brighter built-in laptop monitor holistically superior to the LG OLED setup, which has a less bright monitor, but the benefit of being able to calibrate to a higher degree of accuracy (supposedly)?
• In other words: For someone who is constrained on budget near $3000-$5000, which setup would you rather pick when only considering image quality/color fidelity for the purpose of HDR grading?

Question 4: Has anyone considered using the MacBook display solely as a monitor using the UltraStudio 4K Mini?
So far, we know the display on the laptop is not bad. I have not worked out all the points in this solution yet, but I think it's something worth considering. I am wondering how effective it would be to use the MacBook screen as a full screen monitoring solution. Since it supports HDR, and has a higher brightness limit than comparable monitors, why not try it?

• A typical chain in Question 3 would look like this: Desktop Computer > Decklink > LG OLED
• What if we did this instead: Desktop Computer > Decklink > UltraStudio 4K Mini [3] > Thunderbolt 4 port on MacBook Pro
• Why would we do this? Our desktop computers are typically more powerful than MacBooks, but our monitors would cost more than a MacBook if we were to get one that would match the quality of the monitor on the MacBook.
• How would this work? From the Decklink, the host computer is able to output a clean feed of HDR footage. This clean feed is taken in by the UltraStudio 4K Mini, which also will not manipulate the input signal. This signal can also support HDR (I'm curious if the UltraStudio Recorder 3G would work here as well? I didn't see HDR support in the tech specs [4] however.) Thus, we are now able to view our HDR footage on a monitor that supports 1600 nits, but costs way less than $15,000.
• I understand that the one downside is that the the MacBook monitor is hard to calibrate correctly, and is ultimately managed by macOS color management.
• However, based on Question 3, if the conclusion is that the MacBook display is still superior to the LG OLED setup, even when considering the downsides of macOS color management, wouldn't this be a good setup?

Concluding Thoughts
Ultimately, I'm hoping that we can have a discussion around my questions, but also the details in each question, which can hopefully fill in some of the missing gaps in our knowledge. For HDR, I think there is a gap that exists where those that can't afford to do it usually don't have the knowledge, and those that do have the knowledge probably do not need to consider budget constraints on the magnitude of hundreds or thousands of dollars. I think by trying to push the limits of budget hardware, we will acquire fundamental knowledge along the way. I hope this thread can become a great learning opportunity; I usually learn a lot from thread comments!

Links
I'm new so I can't post URLs:
[1] https://www. techspot.com/review/2365-apple-macbook-pro-xdr-display/
[2] https://www. rtings.com/laptop/reviews/apple/macbook-pro-16-2021
[3] https://www. blackmagicdesign.com/products/ultrastudio/techspecs/W-DLUS-11
[4] https://www. blackmagicdesign.com/products/ultrastudio/techspecs/W-DLUS-13

That's a lot of questions!

1) I don't think the XDR screen in the MacBook Pro M1 Max is good enough to use for color corrections. I think you can glance at it in the so-called "reference mode" (HD Video Rec709/BT1886), with TrueTone and Night Shift turned off, and you could call it a "real world" look at an uploaded video. But it may or may not be accurate. I'm staring at a MacBook Pro M1 Mac XDR screen right this moment, and while it's a good computer screen, I wouldn't want to trust it for color grading.

2) you need to have a calibrated display fed by a color-managed output to get an accurate picture in Resolve. Light Illusion has some good explanations as to why:

http://www.lightillusion.com/why_calibrate.html
https://www.lightillusion.com/grading_displays.html

3) I think a calibrated LG C1 or C2 OLED will give you better results, assuming a color-managed output from Resolve. Bear in mind that a C1 or C2 will probably cost you about US$1200, and I think the display in an Apple laptop is maybe $200 (from a parts point of view).

Before you try to tackle color grading HDR, I suggest you research what it takes to color-grade in Rec709 first. Even doing that is hard. It used to take many thousands of dollars (like $15,000-$20,000) to do it, and now you can do it for maybe $2000, including the display adapter and calibration. But HDR is at a whole different level -- not just for brightness, but also in terms of the degree of difficulty.

IMHO, it all depends on your target audience. If you are working for professional distribution, everything Marc wrote is perfect advice.

If you work for folks watching your results from sources like YT or Vimeo on a computer screen at home, the screens of those MBPs are pretty good. I'd not hesitate to use it for Rec 709.

Unfortunately, it's difficult up to now to find the right tables for a probe, as Art Suwansang explained in his videos, like this one, for example: youtube.com/watch?v=cLl01EjHU3Q&t=9s. So, don't try to calibrate them. Switch off the gimmicks, find a good intensity setting and then compare to a known good, calibrated display by eye. If it looks good to you and your color perception is in the normal range (9% of males' is NOT), you are probably good for anybody but the most critical clients.

Who are those very critical clients if you work for the internet? Clients who want to check their brand color on a crappy boardroom projector! Even if 99% of their audience will never see the right colors, it'll be up to you to educate them. You'll need to bring your own screen, together with a recent calibration protocol, and show them that your colors are right and their equipment is wrong. If you can't do that, good luck to get paid.

HDR is a very different story and, as Marc wrote, a very complex task. There's not only the higher contrast, but the larger color space is very critical in color precision. I would not trust any laptop for that other than for amateur use.

LG C2 42 inch - 4K OLED HDR TV $1400
Blackmagic Design DeckLink Mini Monitor 4K - PCIE card $200
Datacolor SpyderX Pro Colorimeter $170
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Price: $1770

As you mentioned....
Must be the most cost-effective and best entry to HDR.

Jerry

That's a lot of questions!

1) I don't think the XDR screen in the MacBook Pro M1 Max is good enough to use for color corrections. I think you can glance at it in the so-called "reference mode" (HD Video Rec709/BT1886), with TrueTone and Night Shift turned off, and you could call it a "real world" look at an uploaded video. But it may or may not be accurate. I'm staring at a MacBook Pro M1 Mac XDR screen right this moment, and while it's a good computer screen, I wouldn't want to trust it for color grading.

2) you need to have a calibrated display fed by a color-managed output to get an accurate picture in Resolve. Light Illusion has some good explanations as to why:

http://www.lightillusion.com/why_calibrate.html
https://www.lightillusion.com/grading_displays.html

3) I think a calibrated LG C1 or C2 OLED will give you better results, assuming a color-managed output from Resolve. Bear in mind that a C1 or C2 will probably cost you about US$1200, and I think the display in an Apple laptop is maybe $200 (from a parts point of view).

Before you try to tackle color grading HDR, I suggest you research what it takes to color-grade in Rec709 first. Even doing that is hard. It used to take many thousands of dollars (like $15,000-$20,000) to do it, and now you can do it for maybe $2000, including the display adapter and calibration. But HDR is at a whole different level -- not just for brightness, but also in terms of the degree of difficulty.

When it comes to HDR those WRGB OLEDs have about no color pass around 200nits (if I remember well from FSI talk), so this is how good they are (for HDR). Apple screens will be actually way better than LG in this respect.
Vicent's video showing XDR against Sony really tells a lot. Problem with Apple HDR screens lie not in brightness, PQ/color tracking accuracy, but elsewhere (size, blooming, uniformity, etc.)

200$ for panel? Do you think LG 42 inch panel itself does cost more? You are comparing 14inch panel price to 42inch whole OLED TV. Size has huge impact on price and difficulty to make a good panel, so this "by price" comparison is worthless.

FSI did not take consumer OLED panel (pro panels don't exist) to create reference screen as they know they are simply not good enough, but zoned panel, which itself is also questionable (but as they said- still better choice). There is simply no (still produced), reference HDR panel out there. Industry has to compromise massively. FSI has just released their new model after been working on it for a long time. Can anyone show it against dual layer model (which can be in big shortcut called 2MLN zones). I simply don't believe in those 2.5K zones to be "transparent" (which they admit themselves actually) specially when they bumped peak brightness to 5K. Their main work was on backlight layer, so this is proprietary, but panel is just a consumer model (may still be specially sourced though).
Calibrate those Apple screens properly (not sure if it's possible today) and if you forget about size, blooming, etc. they may be not that bad at all compared to OLED or other options. It's just hard to work on 14/16inch screen, so we are back to the beginning

There is a huge problem with whole "reference" word.
What can be a reference screen for wedding videography is not near going to be for an A class movie. In the same time I don't need a 20K display screen to color correct weddings.
It's all relative as always + has to make sense from a business point.

Well, I suppose we are talking about non-professional gear?
HDR monitoring and delivery is nasty and the marketing for "HDR-monitors" stinks.

I use Mac and Ultrastudio Mini 4K from Resolve in various combinations with:
Eizo cg 319 limited to 350 nits clip but calibrated for Rec 2020 and DCI. PQ and HLG.
Asus ProArt PA32UCG, 1600 nits (third replacement monitor on its way) a complete joke concerning software and calibration.
The new Atomos Sumo 19SE, both for production and grading, 1000nits.
LG C9 as client monitor.
MBP M1, some other Apple devices and a Windows Oled laptop as end user reference for the web.

My best setup is the Eizo CG319 and the Sumo 19SE as a sidekick for luminance control.
Very similar and fairly correct in color.
The LG is easy to match by internal settings, didn't even calibrate it.

I would look out for the new Eizos 5-600 nits HDR.

Eizo is Eizo

Jerry

ColorEdge CG2700X is 500nits, but it's not good enough for HDR.
Review for brother CG2700S model:
https://www.prad.de/testberichte/test-e ... erfektion/

Problem is that Eizo stated that they won't touch zoned panels (as it creates too many problems), so no idea what they are going to do as there are no "other" HDR panels out there

ColorEdge CG3146 may be the best HDR monitor out there. Based on prad.de review, when compared to Sony BVM-HX310 it seems to be overall better choice. No idea how other options based on this Panasonic panel will hold up though. One thing which stands out is use of 24bit processing by Eizo for HDR (Sony is still at 12bit processing "only" I think). Eizo been using 16bit processing for ages and they raised it for HDR to 24bit.
So far they stayed away a bit from video world, focusing rather on print and Adobe RGB, but CG3146 changed it.

ColorEdge CG2700X is 500nits, but it's not good enough for HDR.
Review for brother CG2700S model:
https://www.prad.de/testberichte/test-e ... erfektion/

Problem is that Eizo stated that they won't touch zoned panels (as it creates too many problems), so no idea what they are going to do as there are no "other" HDR panels out there

ColorEdge CG3146 may be the best HDR monitor out there. Based on prad.de review, when compared to Sony BVM-HX310 it seems to be overall better choice. No idea how other options based on this Panasonic panel will hold up though. One thing which stands out is use of 24bit processing by Eizo for HDR (Sony is still at 12bit processing "only" I think). Eizo been using 16bit processing for ages and they raised it for HDR to 24bit.
So far they stayed away a bit from video world, focusing rather on print and Adobe RGB, but CG3146 changed it.

Well, you are talking high end reference monitors.
I think this is about entry level HDR.
Eizo 500 nits color accuracy is ok.
Whats wrong with 500 nits HDR?
Will display beautifully on most consumer HDR devices.

Jerry

Not grading HDR, but 'HDR effect' is achieved in those top highlights and actually not that much falls into 400-700 area (for 1K nits masters). You have mid brightness way below 400 and then all highlights which are typically 600+, so for me 500 nit monitor doesn't allow you to create "optimal" HDR content. 800 nits is more like it. In this case maybe it's better to have less accuracy, but be able to hit 1K nits. Not sure.

Maybe if you keep grade like it would be SDR and then only those highlights push to 500 nits (as you say) it may actually look fine on screens which actually can't do real 1K nits. You can alway guess the look and grade to 1K by using just scopes
I don't have anywhere near real world experience to say it's 100% true

I may be working soon with a lot of HDR masters (not making, but working with them), so I can see if my theory holds up (how nits are typically spread over 1K range).

Not grading HDR, but 'HDR effect' is achieved in those top highlights and actually not that much falls into 400-700 area (for 1K nits masters). You have mid brightness way below 400 and then all highlights which are typically 600+, so for me 500 nit monitor doesn't allow you to create "optimal" HDR content. 800 nits is more like it. In this case maybe it's better to have less accuracy, but be able to hit 1K nits. Not sure.

Maybe if you keep grade like it would be SDR and then only those highlights push to 500 nits (as you say) it may actually look fine on screens which actually can't do real 1K nits. You can alway guess the look and grade to 1K by using just scopes
I don't have anywhere near real world experience to say it's 100% true

I may be working soon with a lot of HDR masters (not making, but working with them), so I can see if my theory holds up (how nits are typically spread over 1K range).

Well, Rec 709, 100 nits or the Rec 2020 500 nits, BIG difference.

Jerry

If you just want to make video look better than P3+500nits is for sure better than old SDR.
Always limit gamut to P3 as you have no idea how anything outside it will look like.

If you just want to make video look better than P3+500nits is for sure better than old SDR.
Always limit gamut to P3 as you have no idea how anything outside it will look like.

Agree, and its all about sitting down in the viewers chair.

Jerry

Before you try to tackle color grading HDR, I suggest you research what it takes to color-grade in Rec709 first. Even doing that is hard. It used to take many thousands of dollars (like $15,000-$20,000) to do it, and now you can do it for maybe $2000, including the display adapter and calibration. But HDR is at a whole different level -- not just for brightness, but also in terms of the degree of difficulty.

This is a really good point, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for the reference links too. It's truly amazing what technology can do.

When it comes to HDR those WRGB OLEDs have about no color pass around 200nits (if I remember well from FSI talk), so this is how good they are (for HDR). Apple screens will be actually way better than LG in this respect.
Vicent's video showing XDR against Sony really tells a lot. Problem with Apple HDR screens lie not in brightness, PQ/color tracking accuracy, but elsewhere (size, blooming, uniformity, etc.)

200$ for panel? Do you think LG 42 inch panel itself does cost more? You are comparing 14inch panel price to 42inch whole OLED TV. Size has huge impact on price and difficulty to make a good panel, so this "by price" comparison is worthless.

These are really interesting points you've hit on. You are right, I did not account for the size of the monitors in my original post. I was more interested in the quality of the image regardless of the size. Please ignore my poor language about price comparison . My ideal monitor would be below 27 inches anyway, which was why the 42 inch size difference slipped my mind.

Big fan off Vincent Teoh from HDTVTest too! I believe this is the video you are referring to https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=rtd7UzLJHrU. I just watched it and wanted to share his conclusion here too:

It may appeal to a YouTuber wanting to produce HDR videos without caring too much about low light accuracy... but for professional color grading work, unfortunately, I cannot recommend this monitor...

Your WRGB comment is also new to me. This is exactly the type of neat technical detail that I was hoping to learn from this post! The monitor trades blows pretty well in bright scenes, but is lacking in shadow detail. Would you say this is just as bad as WRGB OLED panels, except in the opposite spectrum? (WRGB having a deficit at the 200 nit level, while mini LED having a deficit at the dark blacks, because it can't actually turn off the pixel/led like OLED to represent true black) Still, really cool for amateurs that can afford it.

Calibrate those Apple screens properly (not sure if it's possible today) and if you forget about size, blooming, etc. they may be not that bad at all compared to OLED or other options. It's just hard to work on 14/16inch screen, so we are back to the beginning

Hey that's nice to hear. It also looks like blooming is present but less pronounced on these devices vs the iPad Pro's https://www. macrumors.com/2021/10/28/macbook-pro-display-blooming-reports/

Well, I suppose we are talking about non-professional gear?
HDR monitoring and delivery is nasty and the marketing for "HDR-monitors" stinks.

I use Mac and Ultrastudio Mini 4K from Resolve in various combinations with:
Eizo cg 319 limited to 350 nits clip but calibrated for Rec 2020 and DCI. PQ and HLG.
Asus ProArt PA32UCG, 1600 nits (third replacement monitor on its way) a complete joke concerning software and calibration.
The new Atomos Sumo 19SE, both for production and grading, 1000nits.
LG C9 as client monitor.
MBP M1, some other Apple devices and a Windows Oled laptop as end user reference for the web.

My best setup is the Eizo CG319 and the Sumo 19SE as a sidekick for luminance control.
Very similar and fairly correct in color.
The LG is easy to match by internal settings, didn't even calibrate it.

I would look out for the new Eizos 5-600 nits HDR.

Eizo is Eizo

Jerry

This is a question for everyone but this quote reminded me.

• Regarding brightness with HDR content: if I'm targeting phones and displays around 600-800 nits, is it beneficial to use a higher brightness level when working?
• Should you be grading at the same brightness as your intended consumer delivery device?
• Is it true that I am able to see more of the ACES colorspace if I have a brighter monitor? I understand that there does not exist any monitor that can represent the whole ACES colorspace, but it would still help right?
• Say I am working in the ACES colorspace but targeting a Rec2020 delivery. Would working at higher than 1000 nit brightness be beneficial? I'm assuming that working in a wider gamut wouldn't hurt since the final result would be tone-mapped back to whatever limited colorspace I export in?

Not grading HDR, but 'HDR effect' is achieved in those top highlights and actually not that much falls into 400-700 area (for 1K nits masters). You have mid brightness way below 400 and then all highlights which are typically 600+, so for me 500 nit monitor doesn't allow you to create "optimal" HDR content. 800 nits is more like it. In this case maybe it's better to have less accuracy, but be able to hit 1K nits. Not sure.

Maybe if you keep grade like it would be SDR and then only those highlights push to 500 nits (as you say) it may actually look fine on screens which actually can't do real 1K nits. You can alway guess the look and grade to 1K by using just scopes
I don't have anywhere near real world experience to say it's 100% true

I may be working soon with a lot of HDR masters (not making, but working with them), so I can see if my theory holds up (how nits are typically spread over 1K range).

What happens on a device that has a maximum brightness lower than what you graded at? If I grade at 1000 nits and the consumer's display is at 600 nits max, does everything past 600 just get overblown? What if I used HLG, is the transfer function able to account for the difference in max brightness and remap the 1-1000 nits to fit a 1-600 nit display?

Since I don't grade it HDR, I can't answer these questions, I'm quite sure Andrew can.
But regarding blooming in dark images, the display is quite decent. As long as you don't work on sci-fi all the time, you'll hardly notice it

Grade to 1K nits (if you target device which do around 800). If device can't do 1K nits then it will most likely tone map and eg. 1K to 800nits will look absolutely fine. It's more of an issue when you go to 100 nits. Home devices don't clip, but rather tone map (pro ones do opposite).

WRGB OLEDs loose "color" when brightness goes up (this is what they have W pixels for- they just pump white to get more nits), so for color critical work they are really not a good choice (fine for SDR though). Not my word, but FSI main guy. More nits you grad to (and better monitor is) the more color volume (so more colors regardless of brightness). WRGB OLEDs are bad in this aspect, very bad. There is a reason why Sony first OLED HDR monitor was RGB based, not WRGB.
Anything zoned will have other bad points (but good peak and color volume), so this is about it. Nothing is perfect and industry struggles with HDR reference monitors.
Best tech for HDR was dual layer panel from Panasonic, but it's not produced anymore (probably due to too high power consumption, which prohibits its from home usage due to EU, etc law restrictions). Still could be used for pro market though as those rule don't apply there I think. Panasonic decided to kill all development though. Probably seen no money just in pro market.

Don't use Rec.2020 as final target gamut- always limit to P3 as you don't have clue how your video will look like on display with 100% Rec.2020 coverage.

Don't use Rec.2020 as final target gamut- always limit to P3 as you don't have clue how your video will look like on display with 100% Rec.2020 coverage.

I don't think 100% Rec 2020 monitors exist, not even close.

Jerry

This is why you should alway limit to P3, as this is what you can monitor.

New laser projectors can do close to 100% of Rec.2020, but they cost small fortune.

This is why you should alway limit to P3, as this is what you can monitor.

New laser projectors can do close to 100% of Rec.2020, but they cost small fortune.

'''

I always do...
Even the 30k Eizo 3146 cant make 100% Dci-P3 (99)

Jerry

I stand a little corrected about the 1600 nitsAsus PA32UCG as I received my third replacement monitor yesterday. Says something about the problems they have delivering good products.
This one is really nice factory calibrated and the software now works for hardware calibration.

Still think the cheapest and best entry level for HDR grading is a calibrated LG TV and a I/O device for correct signal.

A step up would be the new 1200 nits Atomos Sumo 19 SE. 2k USD. Hardware calibration etc. Small though.
Next step is around 5-7 K USD and there is a lot of choices.


Jerry

Sumo is just Rec.709. I don't think it's great choice. I doubt a bit in its panel quality.
It's just a "bright monitor", but it's edge lit, so HDR experience won't be great. Again, same FSI guy said anything claiming HDR, but edge lit is a bulxxx (I agree with him).
If a monitor can hit 1000, etc. nits it doesn't mean it's HDR (as per meaning of this standard).

Sumo is just Rec.709. I don't think it's great choice. I doubt a bit in its panel quality.
It's just a "bright monitor", but it's edge lit, so HDR experience won't be great. Again, same FSI guy said anything claiming HDR, but edge lit is a bulxxx (I agree with him).
If a monitor can hit 1000, etc. nits it doesn't mean it's HDR (as per meaning of this standard).

19SE Tech specs

"1200 nit HDR touchscreen covering DCI-P3 color gamut"

Jerry

Sumo is just Rec.709. I don't think it's great choice. I doubt a bit in its panel quality.
It's just a "bright monitor", but it's edge lit, so HDR experience won't be great. Again, same FSI guy said anything claiming HDR, but edge lit is a bulxxx (I agree with him).
If a monitor can hit 1000, etc. nits it doesn't mean it's HDR (as per meaning of this standard).

19SE Tech specs

"1200 nit HDR touchscreen covering DCI-P3 color gamut"

Jerry

Are you expecting your "FSI-guy" give credit to anything else than FSI?
I know some highly professional "Eizo guys"
Do you want me to quote them in a thread about entry level first time HDR attempt at lowest cost??

Jerry

Yes, let's hear what they have to say.

Sumo is just Rec.709. I don't think it's great choice. I doubt a bit in its panel quality.
It's just a "bright monitor", but it's edge lit, so HDR experience won't be great. Again, same FSI guy said anything claiming HDR, but edge lit is a bulxxx (I agree with him).
If a monitor can hit 1000, etc. nits it doesn't mean it's HDR (as per meaning of this standard).

19SE Tech specs

"1200 nit HDR touchscreen covering DCI-P3 color gamut"

Jerry

Looked at Sumo 19, which is different model I assume. SE looks better at least on paper.

Sumo is just Rec.709. I don't think it's great choice. I doubt a bit in its panel quality.
It's just a "bright monitor", but it's edge lit, so HDR experience won't be great. Again, same FSI guy said anything claiming HDR, but edge lit is a bulxxx (I agree with him).
If a monitor can hit 1000, etc. nits it doesn't mean it's HDR (as per meaning of this standard).

19SE Tech specs

"1200 nit HDR touchscreen covering DCI-P3 color gamut"

Jerry

Are you expecting your "FSI-guy" give credit to anything else than FSI?
I know some highly professional "Eizo guys"
Do you want me to quote them in a thread about entry level first time HDR attempt at lowest cost??

Jerry

It's not about credit. FSI is small company with good people who know what they are talking about. He was quite honest about everything.
Try to deliver good contrast from edge lit panel. You can't even get 2000:1 which is not even close for HDR needs.

If you happy with anything <30inch then it's easier to get some cost effective HDR monitor. The smaller you go the easier it's.

Yes, let's hear what they have to say.

One of them says:

"Ytterligare ett korkat inlägg som absolut inte tillför något till trådskaparens fråga"

Jerry

When it comes to HDR those WRGB OLEDs have about no color pass around 200nits (if I remember well from FSI talk), so this is how good they are (for HDR). Apple screens will be actually way better than LG in this respect.

I'm only talking about Rec709. I don;t think it's possible to master HDR inexpensively -- at all.

If somebody is doing wedding videos or small YouTube channel videos, just do it in Rec709 and do the best you can. HDR is meaningless for this market. Content is king, and nobody at that level cares if it's 1000 nits or 500 nits or even 200 nits. They're fine with "regular" Rec709 HD. I'd worry much more about lighting and exposure and sound and all the other things that go into good content... not HDR.

Still think the cheapest and best entry level for HDR grading is a calibrated LG TV and a I/O device for correct signal.

I don't think "entry level" and "HDR grading" belong in the same sentence. HDR is really difficult to do even if you can afford real HDR or Dolby Vision grading displays. It's not simple and it's not easy.

Rec709 HD grading has only become affordable in the last 10 years. Will it eventually happen with HDR? It's possible but it's not quite there yet. There are the "inbetween" displays like the Asus and the LG 32EP950, but even those are only good to maybe 500 nits. And calibration is still very tricky.

When it comes to HDR those WRGB OLEDs have about no color pass around 200nits (if I remember well from FSI talk), so this is how good they are (for HDR). Apple screens will be actually way better than LG in this respect.

I'm only talking about Rec709. I don;t think it's possible to master HDR inexpensively -- at all.

If somebody is doing wedding videos or small YouTube channel videos, just do it in Rec709 and do the best you can. HDR is meaningless for this market. Content is king, and nobody at that level cares if it's 1000 nits or 500 nits or even 200 nits. They're fine with "regular" Rec709 HD. I'd worry much more about lighting and exposure and sound and all the other things that go into good content... not HDR.

May not be very easy to shoot wedding for HDR, but that's not the point (if you see footage is not good enough you can abandon idea at any time). If audience doesn't care about accuracy then it doesn't matter if it's SDR or HDR. Also as you said- it's content which sells, not grading (this is just a small portion of the success). For prosumer market grading has actually even smaller impact, so if it's not perfect then not a big deal. I rather have average HDR than technically "perfect" Rec.709 as HDR will make way bigger impact on viewer than SDR.
I'm sure there is a market for it as some couples are willing to spend good money on the wedding video.

For pro work "cheap HDR" is a problem atm. as clients expect a lot and it's hard to do it on budget as there is no pro middle ground. I fully agree.

You think HDR is meaningless for this market? If not TV/phone manufactures and 'masses' there would be no HDR probably. Today this drives industry, not SMPTE experts. Seen in on own eyes how "industry" was crazy sceptic about HDR when Dolby started talking abut it.
Even BM started creating SDI 12G cards before standard was rectified as it was taking so long to happen. If not consumer demand (which was artificially boosted by TV manufactures) we would be still watching SD.

It's actually a nice thing that eg. wedding videography (regardless if it's not done perfectly) can do things which pro post struggles. In the past it was simply impossible and this is a fact which many "industry veterans" still can't grasp. We are at very different times. Today 1min phone shot video can make more money than 100M$ budget movie.

I will apply HDR material to my corporate customers as a complement to SDR.
Messed around with it a couple of years now and its time to take the leap.
Large TV:s is often the display for my customers and that's the easy part.
I think I found a good enough solution for one SDR/HDR delivery to Youtube to.
And finally you get rewarded for all the archived heavy log footage

It just looks so much better...

Jerry