A perspective on brightness of the TV

lightgamer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2020
Messages
1,545
Points
113
Location
Mumbai
This is a video from HDTVTest posted today which shows how bright real-world objects are even in a shade:


I've come across various folks who think their 500-1000 nit TVs are too bright so that it can damage their eyes. I can assure you that it is not so and it absolutely won't happen. If the TV is too bright, within a few seconds your iris will get smaller and allow less light to get in and you'll get adjusted (similar to how you come from dark to sunlight). This is also why it's necessary for a TV to be bright to be able to emulate the real world properly. If most objects in our surroundings are 500-2000 nits we also need the TV to be correspondingly brighter to be able to appear more realistic. This is the whole purpose of HDR.

Just to give a perspective, a normal sunny day in our country is over 50000 nits easy. If your eyes were in danger to 1000-nits of brightness, you would have gone blind in your childhood in the sun.
 
Here's the devils advocate to this thought: - Was just pondering on it.. and came up. @lightgamer - long time no see :D


The question then is, .. can excess brightness in a dark room watching be troublesome for ones yes?

Some things to think about individually before chasing the High nits/ brightness? I have f.lux-ed all my PC work to low / warm.

PS: A doc friend of my dad used to say, never to watch TV in full dark room.. Unnatural stark difference for eyes & not good.
(movie theaters had to do it due to projections being washed if they dont)
There in also lies the difference in Eye strain.. from Back lit screens vs Kindle e Reader type front lit screens.

Projection surfaces are not light sources o backlit but FRONT Lit surfaces.

I'd think similar notion may apply here.

No one in any culture ever recommends looking directly at a Source of light for long time; Stare at Sun/ Mirror reflecting Sun? No. Stare at Bulb/ Tubelight No. ... Our EYES naturally go in defensive mode.

Only controlled very limited focused Sun exposure I've ever done was a careful Ayurveda procedure for eyes.

May be instead of fousing on dark room tech, we need to focus on "front lit" tech instead of back lit.
Maybe because its not HIGH INTENSITY light.

I think for EYE HEALTH, direct LIGHT always less safer < than DIFFUSED light. Thats a hypothesis.
This ought to be an area of research - lighting mechanisms, frequencies, wavelengths, intensities & effects - long term on EYES.
 
This is a video from HDTVTest posted today which shows how bright real-world objects are even in a shade:


I've come across various folks who think their 500-1000 nit TVs are too bright so that it can damage their eyes. I can assure you that it is not so and it absolutely won't happen. If the TV is too bright, within a few seconds your iris will get smaller and allow less light to get in and you'll get adjusted (similar to how you come from dark to sunlight). This is also why it's necessary for a TV to be bright to be able to emulate the real world properly. If most objects in our surroundings are 500-2000 nits we also need the TV to be correspondingly brighter to be able to appear more realistic. This is the whole purpose of HDR.

Just to give a perspective, a normal sunny day in our country is over 50000 nits easy. If your eyes were in danger to 1000-nits of brightness, you would have gone blind in your childhood in the sun.
I am tired of seeing discussions on Tv’s man in this forum.Really it has become a joke on the forum filled with misinformation and fanboy comments. For me it was easy to decide which Tv was best for my usage and unlike audio where it’s difficult to know what will sound best in your room.when it comes to tv just go to showroom with your collections and play them and compare them side by side with the tv’s you shortlisted. It’s that simple. Only thing you can’t judge in show room audition is dark room performance which u can refer to u tube reviews and owner experience. But here we are crying all the time deep blacks, not bright enough, blooming blah blah blah
 
Last edited:
Here's the devils advocate to this thought: - Was just pondering on it.. and came up. @lightgamer - long time no see :D
That is mostly related to SDR content while I'm talking about HDR only. HDR content is mastered and graded differently from how SDR content is and is designed to not strain the eyes when viewing in dark.

They grade HDR movies at 5-10 nits of room brightness. Since they also view the content in an almost dark room and don't get strain you're less likely to as well. SDR content is another story and will definitely burn your eyes in pitch dark with a bright TV.
 
I am tired of seeing discussions on Tv’s man in this forum.Really it has become a joke on the forum filled with misinformation and fanboy comments. For me it was easy to decide which Tv was best for my usage and unlike audio where it’s difficult to know what will sound best in your room.when it comes to tv just go to showroom with your collections and play them and compare them side by side with the tv’s you shortlisted. It’s that simple. Only thing you can’t judge in show room audition is dark room performance which u can refer to u tube reviews and owner experience. But here we are crying all the time deep blacks, not bright enough, blooming blah blah blah
The showroom is not a great option as well as:

1. They generally won't allow you to tune the TVs to a decent picture mode. Also, you won't have time to do so.
2. The lighting in a showroom is not how you're gonna view the TV ever. Forget dark room, even moderately lit room in your home will look very different to the harsh lighting in a showroom.

In a showroom, the TV with a wider gamut, higher brightness and lower reflection will win. Basically, Samsung TVs will always look better. And we all know how bad Samsung TVs are for the money.
 
The showroom is not a great option as well as:

1. They generally won't allow you to tune the TVs to a decent picture mode. Also, you won't have time to do so.
2. The lighting in a showroom is not how you're gonna view the TV ever. Forget dark room, even moderately lit room in your home will look very different to the harsh lighting in a showroom.

In a showroom, the TV with a wider gamut, higher brightness and lower reflection will win. Basically, Samsung TVs will always look better. And we all know how bad Samsung TVs are for the money.
It depends on the showroom. The place I purchased my c9 the manager told do what ever i want and decide. I went there two days and spent 1 hour on both days. He was even willing to turn of the lights where the c9 was installed. I visited totally 15 showrooms in Chennai and every showroom allowed me to spend as much as time I wanted and tune the tv as well. Samsung didn’t look better for me even in showroom apart from being bright.
 
It depends on the showroom. The place I purchased my c9 the manager told do what ever i want and decide. I went there two days and spent 1 hour on both days. He was even willing to turn of the lights where the c9 was installed. I visited totally 15 showrooms in Chennai and every showroom allowed me to spend as much as time I wanted and tune the tv as well. Samsung didn’t look better for me even in showroom apart from being bright.
Samsung is currently trying to hog the market with their reinvention of wheel "QLED" marketting gimmicks with TVs that costs more than OLED TVs with bright pictures offering 10 year panel warranty for burn ins!! It is like offering a steering wheel component warranty for a motor cycle!!
 
It depends on the showroom. The place I purchased my c9 the manager told do what ever i want and decide. I went there two days and spent 1 hour on both days. He was even willing to turn of the lights where the c9 was installed. I visited totally 15 showrooms in Chennai and every showroom allowed me to spend as much as time I wanted and tune the tv as well. Samsung didn’t look better for me even in showroom apart from being bright.
That's nice. I haven't visited TV showrooms in years now. Need two TVs post COVID (55" OLED and a 65" TV) and will definitely try it out.
 
That is mostly related to SDR content while I'm talking about HDR only. HDR content is mastered and graded differently from how SDR content is and is designed to not strain the eyes when viewing in dark.

They grade HDR movies at 5-10 nits of room brightness. Since they also view the content in an almost dark room and don't get strain you're less likely to as well. SDR content is another story and will definitely burn your eyes in pitch dark with a bright TV.
I have not mentioned Movies or HDR at all. I am not talking about Content.

My quoted posts from another thread, as I realized was about our EYES & how we PERCEIVE the world.

Take a step back from all the tech.. back to basic Physics.. & Optics.. Eyes, Light, Objects & Perception.

Read again the rest of it.

* Light sources versus Light LIT objects - Direct Light: Intensity & Glare
vs
Diffused / Managed Light

* Strain from DIRECTLY STARING at LIGHT SOURCES; Sun, Tubelights/ Bulbs + Back Lit display IMAGES

versus

FRONT LIT - IMAGES: Kindle /Paper type e-Readers / Projector Screen
 
It depends on the showroom. The place I purchased my c9 the manager told do what ever i want and decide. I went there two days and spent 1 hour on both days. He was even willing to turn of the lights where the c9 was installed.
Which showroom was this? RD, Croma, ..some chain or local?
I visited totally 15 showrooms in Chennai and every showroom allowed me to spend as much as time I wanted and tune the tv as well.
I havent seen the staff limiting one's time on a TV, but its a pain to ask them to get remotes for several TVs, plug stuff etc.
Samsung didn’t look better for me even in showroom apart from being bright.
 
Which showroom was this? RD, Croma, ..some chain or local?

I havent seen the staff limiting one's time on a TV, but its a pain to ask them to get remotes for several TVs, plug stuff etc.
I purchased from shahs. But RD, croma and lg showrooms I visited in Chennai where all co-operative and let me have my time
 
I have not mentioned Movies or HDR at all. I am not talking about Content.

My quoted posts from another thread, as I realized was about our EYES & how we PERCEIVE the world.

Take a step back from all the tech.. back to basic Physics.. & Optics.. Eyes, Light, Objects & Perception.

Read again the rest of it.

* Light sources versus Light LIT objects - Direct Light: Intensity & Glare
vs
Diffused / Managed Light

* Strain from DIRECTLY STARING at LIGHT SOURCES; Sun, Tubelights/ Bulbs + Back Lit display IMAGES

versus

FRONT LIT - IMAGES: Kindle /Paper type e-Readers / Projector Screen
A photon is a photon. So whether the light is from a projector, a kindle or a screen if the wavelength and the number of photons are the same they will cause the same eye strain.

The reason diffused lighting or kindle causes less eye-strain is because the relative brightness compared to the surroundings is lower.

So think of it like this: if your iris is open 100% it can take in 100 nits of brightness comfortably (this is hypothetical number).

Now if you are reading a kindle, it will be the same brightness as the surroundings. However, if the surroundings are 1000 nits, your iris will just close to <10% size and comfortably let it in (this is also why you close your lids when you go to bright sun after staying in shade/dark). In this case it will never cause eye strain. Similarly, diffused lighting also lights up the surroundings.

It's more about how bright the object is compared to surroundings than about direct or diffused lighting. Even a diffused lighting will hurt the eye if it's all black velvet on the walls and hence surroundings don't light up.
 
There are photons, wide spectrum with many variants the derivatives of photons for instance blue lights, ultra violet and infrared and all those electro magnetic waves gamma rays x rays etc...

I am convinced an OLED is good for my eyes. I don't care about how others may lead people to think or believe otherwise.
 
There are photons, wide spectrum with many variants the derivatives of photons for instance blue lights, ultra violet and infrared and all those electro magnetic waves gamma rays x rays etc...
Those are all the same photons just with different wavelengths and hence energy. As I said, as long as the wavelength and the amount is the same, it will do the same damage to your eye no matter the source.
I am convinced an OLED is good for my eyes. I don't care about how others may lead people to think or believe otherwise.
Whatever you want to believe mate. I don't think OLED is better or worse for the eye compared to an LCD. There's no science to prove it. A particular panel might be better, but the technology in itself has nothing to say it's better for the eye according to science.
 
Those are all the same photons just with different wavelengths and hence energy. As I said, as long as the wavelength and the amount is the same, it will do the same damage to your eye no matter the source.

Whatever you want to believe mate. I don't think OLED is better or worse for the eye compared to an LCD. There's no science to prove it. A particular panel might be better, but the technology in itself has nothing to say it's better for the eye according to science.
Laser beams can also be of no harm according to you?? Same particles with different energy huh?
 
Laser beams can also be of no harm according to you?? Same particles with different energy huh?
Laser beams are also the exact same photon beams. There are basic laser pointers in children's toys which are not harmful at all.

It's all about the energy level. You can have the same laser in children's toys or in laser cutters. The latter just has higher energy.

The core particle is the same photon, but there are a lot of them resulting in higher energy.

Everything from the non harmful radio waves > infrared > visible light > x ray > gamma radiation(nuclear bomb and cosmic radiation) is the exact same photon with different energy levels.

It's basic physics honestly.
 
Still some wavelengths are good while some are bad. The blue light emission of LCD/LED is harmful to the eyes according to many compared to OLED.
 
Still some wavelengths are good while some are bad. The blue light emission of LCD/LED is harmful to the eyes according to many compared to OLED.
I never said otherwise. Blue light has higher energy than other colours because the wavelength is lower. That's why it's more harmful.

Violet and purple light is even more harmful. This is why most blue light filters make the colour temperature warmer.

OLED also emits blue light and can emit more pure blue than LCD depending on the backlight in latter. There's no inherent benefit from the technology here.
 
You missed the point in your over intellectualization of PHOTONS.

INTENSITY/ BRIGHTNESS obviously is ONE VARIABLE - No doubt. But.. its not the only factor given the complex dynamics of EYES & LIGHT in 3D space.

Simple "try it out" experiment.

COLORED Light SOURCE versus COLORED "OBJECT SURFACE" LIT by LIGHT source

Its not the same.. looking at both.. why?
Because properties of OBJECT SURFACE & whatever it reflects & how it does so is unique to that MATERIAL.


You may compare with a BLANK piece of paper that is FRONT LIT versus BACK LIT - Try with various INTESITIES of LIGHT

Look at it and stare at it.

In the Backlit you are STARTING TOWARDS Light Source also, in the Front Lit you are typically NOT.

We see various colors and intensities because every MATERIAL and OBJECT handles different WAVE LENGHTS differently.

Its not just RGB or DCI P3 color.. the properties & interference patterns of the Light changes based on material surface.

Given that light has Dual Nature of Wave vs Particles..
it needs a "deeper" assessment of how its different even if we attempt to equalize intensity.
 
You missed the point in your over intellectualization of PHOTONS.

INTENSITY/ BRIGHTNESS obviously is ONE VARIABLE - No doubt. But.. its not the only factor given the complex dynamics of EYES & LIGHT in 3D space.

Simple "try it out" experiment.

COLORED Light SOURCE versus COLORED "OBJECT SURFACE" LIT by LIGHT source

Its not the same.. looking at both.. why?
Because properties of OBJECT SURFACE & whatever it reflects & how it does so is unique to that MATERIAL.


You may compare with a BLANK piece of paper that is FRONT LIT versus BACK LIT - Try with various INTESITIES of LIGHT

Look at it and stare at it.

In the Backlit you are STARTING TOWARDS Light Source also, in the Front Lit you are typically NOT.

We see various colors and intensities because every MATERIAL and OBJECT handles different WAVE LENGHTS differently.

Its not just RGB or DCI P3 color.. the properties & interference patterns of the Light changes based on material surface.

Given that light has Dual Nature of Wave vs Particles..
it needs a "deeper" assessment of how its different even if we attempt to equalize intensity.
The reason a front lit source is less intense is clearly explained by me above.

A front lit scene will be brighter in the surroundings due to the light scattering. Also the source will also light up the scene around uniformly as well.

Since the whole scene apart from the object is brighter, your iris closes up more and hence you see less intensity. As overall it's seen overall less bright than it is.

This is why a phone in full sunlight will look dim but in dark will blind your eye. Our irises adjust to the overall brightness of the scene.

It's all about relative brightness and not brightness. And a front lit scene will always have low relative brightness/contrast.
 
Check out our special offers on Stereo Package & Bundles for all budget types.
Back
Top