[Avid-L2] HDR monitor Sony vs Flanders BVM-HX310, FSI XM311K/XM310K?

I guess for critical reference HDR monitors we are now stuck LCD technology.  As far as I know Sony and Flanders have abandoned OLED for HDR in the 30 critical reference monitor category, is this true?

My limited understanding is because they couldn't get any where near 1,000 nit luminescence for more than 10 percent of the screen with OLEDs they have opted for LCD tech that allows for more screen area brightness.  I haven't done much in person comparison but have heard that as a result the crisp OLED blacks are gone.

I have heard that with a Flanders monitor they have a lifetime calibration policy that you can send them your monitor and they will calibrate it for free.  Can anyone confirm this and does anybody know if in LA there is a local location that the monitor could be brought instead of shipping it?

I've been a fan of Sony OLED monitors because they are more like my years with CRT display, in fact they are even better in the black department.  I know there has been a bit of green concern with the Sony OLEDs but that has never really presented me with a problem.  I follow the scopes and the Sony OLEDs have done a decent job of displaying things the way I am use to in the SDR world.

I have a C9 LG OLED that was professionally calibrated for both SDR and HDR and it has about 742 nit according to the Calman print out.  I have been taught and have experienced how it is very helpful to have at least a 55 inch display to get the real feel of how most HDR content will be viewed.  The 30 inch ref monitors are great but that large screen area seems to change the feel of the image so even if I get/rent an HDR Ref monitor I want to keep the LG handy to compare.

I see the FSI XM310K can output 3,000 Nits and the XM 311K output 1,000 Nits.  Most delivery specs are based on 1,000 Nits so I'm wondering what the advantage of the 3,000 Nit monitor would be in practical use.  It seems like it would be less likely to represent the consumer experience although I've heard that the exponential nature of visual perception the difference between 1,000 and 3,000 Nits doesn't make as drastic a difference as the numbers might look.  Given consumer models aren't even near 1,000 Nits is there some hidden or future proofing reason the 3,000 Nit monitor would be a better choice?

I just wish I could find the PVM equivalent in HDR to my PVM-2541 for SDR.  Doesn't Sony know I have college tuition to pay?  ;-)

John Moore Barking Trout Productions Studio City, CA bigfish@pacbell.net