>there are people on /g/ right now who have their TFT set

>>56535630
I have mine set to 0% brightness, and the contrast set to whatever value results in no clipping

File: image.png (322KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 420x420px

>>56535664
>0% brightness

>>56535871
sad thing is it's still too bright for me. (Comes out at around 65 cd/m2)

I often find myself using soft-contrast controls in mpv to go even lower, usually down to about 50% or so.

I stay around 35% unless I pull the blinds up all the way (then I have to go to 80%).
My monitor hums at anything below 100%, but I've gotten used to it by now.
I've noticed that Samsung displays tend to blow out the colors at 100% brightness.

>>56535630
whats wrong with that dog
why is it so cute

File: 1358839604684.jpg (40KB, 450x448px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 450x448px

>tfw both brightness and contrast set to 69

File: 1471885493364s.jpg (9KB, 241x250px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 241x250px

>>56535630
used to have 100% brightness
after 6 years i set it to 15%

cannot believe how retarded I am because monitor is now using like 40W less

>not using a 10,000 cd/m^2 HDR TV
please, I thought this was the technology board

>get a new monitor
>ridiculously bright out of the box (75%)
>have to turn it down to 20% to not burn my retinas
Why do manufacturers do this? Does anyone even have their monitors that bright?

>>56536333
yeah it's absurd how big the difference is between 100% and something in the middle or even less.
for burgers it doesn't make much of a difference since they have to pay next to nothing for their juice but if you're an europoor living alone, all this shit adds up.

also, you get a lot more life out of the backlight of the TFT if it still uses ccfl tubes.

>>56536420
>Why do manufacturers do this?
Same reason the loudness war exists. Exact same reason.

If you show 20 devices in a store, humans will naturally tend to gravitate towards the display that's brighter than the rest, even if only slightly. (Also, the more saturated display)

Basically the more vivid an impulse is, the more likely we are to pick up on it out of a lineup. Of course, marketing knows this, and therefore displays come with stupid high maximum brightness and saturation ranges so stores can set them to completely overblown brightness/contrast/saturation levels (aka “torch mode”) , completely destroying all semblence of image quality in the process.

It still sells, because the types of people who buy displays by looking at them in stores are clueless idiots either way and just buy whatever has the flashiest marketing.

>>56535956
>sad thing is it's still too bright for me
this, my monitor is stupidly bright at 0% as well.

File: 23424545.jpg (83KB, 960x639px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 960x639px

50:50 mustard race

>>56536420
>Does anyone even have their monitors that bright?

I like to set it to blindingly 100% when I want to watch an action flick.

Otherwise it goes right back to 50

>not having a 10+ year old monitor that is barely bright enough at 100%

>>56536508
>brightness attracts customers

If they're clueless first-time buyers, which are rare if we're talking about people buying monitors, televisions, and mobile devices.

High-contrast and saturation are more likely to attract attention, but even amateur consumers attracted to such things will shy away from the typical overblown reds found in cheaper displays these days. Even more, those same amateurs dislike slow response, so the spectacle must be high-contrast with good color representation and no ghosting in motion.

Vividness may bring customers into a store, but it certainly won't keep them there.

>>56536948
>If they're clueless first-time buyers, which are rare if we're talking about people buying monitors, televisions, and mobile devices.
90% of people buying monitors, televisions and mobile devices are clueless, but especially (i.e. 100%) those doing it by visual comparison in a shop.

First-time has nothing to do with it, people keep falling for the same marketing tricks over and over again.