Where are the HDR monitors? I cannot find a single one.

>>55536463
HDR is a buzzword. What you're looking for is color gamut

You can't find one because it's not a thing.

>>55536483
>>>55536463 (OP) (You)
>HDR is a buzzword. What you're looking for is color gamut

From my understanding it is a certification isn't it? How can I tell a monitor is up to spec?

File: CIExy1931_sRGB_gamut_D65.png (251KB, 1140x1260px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1140x1260px

No such thing, HDR is just combining low contrast and high contrast together. the eye can only see one at a time so putting that on a monitor would be pointless.

You can however get monitors with a deeper color depth. Some people call it 48 bit color (refeering to the color space), or 10 bit color (the individual color)

Note you'll need an expensive mac to see this, pointless unless you're into photography.
https://www.cinema5d.com/5k-imac-10-bit-color/

File: images (39).jpg (40KB, 470x313px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 470x313px

>tfw you fell for the hdr meme

>>55536997
>>tfw you fell for the hdr meme

All I know is that a friend has an HDR Samsung TV and when he watches HDR content on it, it looks amazing.

>>55537018
t. Pajeet

>>55537018
your friend sounds like a cuck

>>55536463
>Chasing the human vision system
Except the human vision doesn't have a very high dynamic range, which is why HDR photos look unnatural.
The eye adjusts pupil size to not be blinded by the brightest light source in view, it can't do the trick HDR photography pulls by rapidly changing switching 'pupil sizes' and compositing an image of the entire field of view by taking parts of each of those images that are best exposed.

>>55536463
Monitors are HDR, it is usually the image capture that ruins it.

As you can see, by the time it reaches the display the range has already shrunk as far as it is going to.

>>55536463
Also, I should point out that the "source" image is massively over saturated, clarity has been turned way up and nothing like reality. Its just a shitty image that some two year old has attacked in photoshop.

And the banding on the background is awful.

>>55537053
Na, the human eye has way better dynamic range than cameras do right now. It is part of the reason why HDR photography is a thing.

The problem is that 90% of HDR photos you see are done in post by faggots who try to make unique looking shit. Good HDR photos look natural. If you pick them out then it would only be because you would realize that if it wasn't HDR then one section would be massively blown out or the other really dark.

Try these: http://www.necdisplay.com/category/medical-diagnostic-displays
Or just google for medical grade monitors.

Apparently, really high luminosity range is actually useful when trying to see a cancer in an x-ray image or something, so they make better monitors for hospitals. I think you'd need to be at least a little bit crazy to get one for casual use, but who am I to judge?

>>55536518
As always with technology, you look at measured performance from multiple sources if possible and have the knowledge to do basic analysis of the data. Start with Tftcentral. Hardware.info makes some good reviews too, most in Dutch.

OT: These useless marketing terms are passing me off. It's not a guarantee that you get an "extended" color gamut if you purchase an HDR display.

>>55537053
No.

HDR and UHD Premium will be just like 4K is today.

First you need to be able to record with cameras that can deliver all the data, that's maybe 1 movie a year.
Then you need companies to create screens that can deliver all of this data.
Then you have to buy it for a fortune.

4K material today is very scarce, now imagine HDR/UHD Premium..

Dell made a screen recently with OLED technology, 4k, 144hz, ips and all of that shit. That alone was 6-7k usd. Add these new features on top of that, maybe 9-11k.

Would you buy this when you can view very few thing ssupporting all the features?