>>3891234Most HDR tvs are made slightly better than normal TVs.
What I'm saying is that a good monitor that's SDR can exceed the spefications of HDR while not being HDR. Since HDR400 is a meme, any good monitor from the past 6 or so years, including older premiumones, can usually look just as good if not better.
I'll say it again.
HDR's basic requirement is 400 nits and 1000 contrast. That's pathetic. You can beat that even with a SDR IPS monitor.
>>3891249Nope, you can have wide gamut without HDR. It has been around for decades and most SDR monitors that are wide gamut can look nicer than entry level HDR because they're often bright enough and have the contrast. Some will even have the local dimming.
>>3891248Yeah, by now Adobe RGB or equivalent should really have been the standard for displays in the $300 price range but as every electronic device is competing with an endless flood of chinkshit that is allowed to get away with false advertising everyone inevitably cuts corners that don't need cutting to increase profits because if they don't, they'll just be losing their slice of the pie.
>>3891250sRGB is problematic regardless. You can try all sorts of tricks to create illusions and change appearance but you can't increase gamut on a narrow gamut output device. Different rendering intents already change the appearance while shifting wide gamut media to fit sRGB (all camera files, for example) so there's conversion steps that shouldn't really be necessary to begin with but they are and images are nerfed to fit our low tech monitors. Even for people with high end devices, they all output sRGB versions of their images because 99% of websites don't even handle colorspace conversions or embedded profiles correctly. You don't want to upload a ProPhotoRGB image to Facebook, for example. Convert that shit to sRGB before upload or you'll regret it.
We have the technology we just don't have the baseline. Wider gamuts need to become STANDARD before sRGB can die.
