Are games better with HDR?

meme

>>62364284
HDR is more similar how your eyes perceive differences in lighting, so I'd say yes.

>>62364284
HDR is a blue filter?

File: dmcolorrec2020_s.jpg (142KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 600x600px

>>62364284
Yes, Rec2020 begins huge change over res709, but today nobody had monitor/Tv use Rec2020.

Just waiting Rec2020,Nits 1000 deep color 10bits.

>>62364284
visuals are improved
core of games not

>>62365204
>HDR is a blue filter?
only on your shitsplay

>>62364284
The first time I encountered bloom was in Skyrim, and it looked like shit and felt very unnatural. The Sun doesn't make you blind because you look in its direction. Video game developers are retarded.

>>62365335
>The Sun doesn't make you blind because you look in its direction
umm, about that

>>62365300
not trolling I promise, but why can we not achieve displays that can cover the whole gamut yet?

>>62364284
what is hdr
explain to me like im from /v/

>>62366559
it maeks da culurs moar preeetty

>>62366444
http://spie.org/newsroom/5791-quantum-dots-for-ultra-high-color-gamuts-in-lcds?SSO=1

>>62365204
More of a green filter as the blue point of DCI-P3 is exactly the same as SRGB.

The difference in side by side comparisons are mostly the result of rigging. https://youtu.be/cgBzpYTn_8c

Really aside from the 1000 nit peak brightness, it's pointless as skin tones and the majority of colours that exist in reality are in SRGB. The extra green gamut of HDR isn't all that useful.

>>62366559
Better contrast ratio on the panel itself. Bright is brighter and dark is darker then normal panels.
HDR enabled panels also need to be driven by a GPU / games that support it, it's not just like normal colors/contract is on non-HDR panels.

No, but vidya support means we finally get some goddamn proper monitors for PCs. It's a necessary evil.

File: hdrcompdestiny.jpg (1MB, 2000x2976px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x2976px

Yes.

>>62366878
>look how good "hdr" looks on your sdr display!
They can just put different tone mapping settings for SDR and call it a day.

>>62366952
>just tone map in the 4x difference in colour data per pixel, on displays that can't guarantee the same properties as the mastering
That's not how tone mapping works. Highlights and shadows are duller in SDR for a reason.

Am I the only one who prefers the colors on the left picture?

>>62366878
tldr the panel on the right has black crush but darker measurable blacks while overall contrast is lower as well

>>62366952
Nope. You actually can tell the difference on a SDR display, as it's a photo of the display, not a screenshot. You can notice the contrast, tone mapping won't help here.

>>62367049
Not really, look at the first picture.
You can't tell that well on a SDR display, that's all.

>>62367049
They're both the same panel, just HDR on/off.

>>62367074
The photos taken are in SDR, that's the point of taking them in two different exposures per scene.

HDR is a meme. It just means 10bit.

What matters is good displays. a screen having ""HDR"" doesnt mean it's good. Likewise, a screen not having HDR doesnt mean it won't be much better than all low-medium end HDR screens.

However, since they will have different masterings they can easily make HDR look better artificially.

>>62367053
>You can notice the contrast, tone mapping won't help here.
mpv manual suggests some tone mapping algorithms that utilize non-linear contrasts at the expense of losing color-accuracy. Not an expert but test clips I tried varied from clipping out of range values to preserting dark or light areas or preserving brightness.

File: nits.png (506KB, 1023x741px) Image search: [Google]

506KB, 1023x741px

>>62364284
Some good paper
http://www.creol.ucf.edu/Research/Publications/11911.pdf

>Wide color gamut not only helps produce vivid colors but also helps reduce power consumption. This is due to the so-called Helmholtz–Kohlrausch (H-K) effect, in which a display with more saturated color is perceived to be brighter [79]–[82]. It is an entoptic phenomenon. As Fig. 13 depicts, the perceived quality metric (PQM) [83], or known as display quality score (DQS) [84], is proposed to describe the display quality quantitatively. This figure describes how display quality is affected by both luminance and color gamut. In this isoquality figure, the line at the upper right corner represents better perceived quality, and points on the same line is considered as equal quality. These lines are achieved using Adobe RGB in CIE 1976 color space.
Using the backlight sources described above, we could eas- ily mark their points in this PQM (or DQS) figure. Here, we focus on the CdSe QD and OLED’s performances; the 2pc- WLED and InP QD exhibit similar color gamut as OLED. In comparison, CdSe QD shows much larger color gamut than OLED (129% vs. 106% Adobe RGE). When it comes to the per- ceived image quality, QD-LCD would be 1.26X more efficient than OLED (347 cd/ m2 vs. 438 cd/ m2 ). Similar phenomenon has been reported when comparing OLED with 1pc-WLED based LCD [85], or in LED projectors [86], [87]. Fig. 14 illus- trates this effect more clearly. For the same luminance intensity (347 cd/ m2 ) [Fig. 14(a)], QD-LCD looks better than OLED due to its more saturated colors. To possess similar quality, we need to raise the luminance intensity of an OLED to 438 cd/ m2 [Fig. 14(b)].

>>62367146
I'm really looking forward to high refresh rate 10 bit OLED displays, the thought of having a display with god tier colors and extremely low response time while not having to worry with backlight bleed nor shitty viewing angles creams my pants

>>62366878
The difference here is the mastering OR the display is locked down unless it detects a HDR stream.

If highlights are any brighter inm HDR, SDR was intentionally gimped, by screen manufacturer or game creator.

HDR does not make a screen any brighter.
HDR does not make a screen more saturated.
HDR has more data in between minimum and maximum brightness, meaning more details, less blown out highlights (of any color) and less banding.

>>62367370
this is how it should be, too bad that some manufacturers do this locking thing and it sucks a lot

>>62367363
Same, but I dont really care about refresh rate. Can't see it.

I wonder if they'll let us have it anytime soon.

>>62366729
t. shitlord

LCD is a dead technology, pure micro LED's are the future

File: file.png (255KB, 450x278px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 450x278px

I CAN'T find not even one HDR/4K display in action, in my country.

All the stores keep hooking up all the 4K HDTVs/HDR to a 1080p BR player FUCK

Maybe someday I will watch true HDR.

>>62367490
Want to believe
https://www.microled-info.com/playnitride-aims-start-trial-production-micro-led-displays-end-2017

>>62366878
That screen isnt even 10bit, meaning any difference here is just gimping of sdr.

File: x800d.png (13KB, 855x83px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 855x83px

>>62367711
u wot

>>62367490
what's the advantage of micro leds over a OLED display though? (I understand that quantum dot displays aren't OLED)

>>62365300
rec2020 has nothing to do with hdr. Stop this meme.

File: mknlun[1].png (8KB, 525x78px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 525x78px

>>62367741
The reviewer is probably just clueless.
https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/model/ae99638

>>62367711
HDR can be rendered in 8bits as well. The two are mutually exclusive. However the quality will be poor.

>>>/v/
>
>
/
v
/

>>62367788
Sure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic-range_video

File: nope.png (107KB, 425x653px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 425x653px

>>62367791
Or your site is simply incorrect. rtings know what they're doing.

>>62367909
>this memester thinks hdr is a standard
>he probably thinks 4000 nit displays are not hdr because muhh standard doesn't include them

Where do you even find "wide gamut" in "dynamic range" ?

>>62367817
aren't* ?

Sure it can, but at that point it's pretty much SDR.
HDR has 2 major differences from SDR:
10bit color data
Various metadata for color and brightness settings

It's impossible to show HDR on a non hdr screen.
There was a study done showing that Normie's prefer 1080p HDR to 4k

>>62364284
A bit. It is noticeable, but I wouldn't switch screens. I currently play on a 4K TV which has HDR, but no Gsync like my PC monitor. This will result in heavy tearing depending on the game.

>>62368099
>It's impossible to show HDR on a non hdr screen.

It's possible on 10bit screens, and on 8bit screens with dithering(to the same level as such TVs show it)

>>62364284
>One image is b&w
>HDR image has color
Whoa. its like 1967 all over.

>>62368077
>aren't* ?
Yeah made mistake.

>it's pretty much SDR
Except not because the luminance output is still higher than conventional displays. Frankly, HDR is all about the display itself, image is ultimately of secondary importance.

>10bit color data
Not exclusive to HDR whatsoever. Any content that suffers from banding wins with 10bit data.

>Various metadata for color and brightness settings
Realistically same can be done for SDR. It's likely any new SDR TVs will have processing to remap HDR content.

>>62368138
HDR displays rate at 1000nits and upwards. SDR at 400nits and lower (PC monitors usually are no higher than 300nits). Bit depth has absolutely nothing to do with this and you're not achieving any hdr by memeing 10bits.

>>62368277
>SDR
>400 nits and lower
Man, when sRGB was designed, pretty sure we didn't have 400 nit displays.

>>62368328
Rec709 that largely borrows from sRGB (for compatibility reasons) has had 100nit target so even with that low luminance it should still look good.

>>62366878
The right looks better

>>62367930
See the "FRC" abreviation?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate_control

File: notfrc.png (5KB, 1098x37px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 1098x37px

>>62368500
It's not FRC. Faulty testing methods made them believe it was at first, other sites measured wrong or just copied from their initial review.

>>62367757
micro leds dont burn

>>62368586
but aren't micro leds a lot more expensive than the already really expensive oled, while not allowing for similar PPI?

File: qnngnn[1].png (61KB, 382x494px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 382x494px

>>62368277

>Except not because the luminance output is still higher than conventional displays.
No. Nothing stoped manufacturers from making a bright TV before hdr was a marketing gimmick. That's just matter of how high end the panel is, it has nothing to do with HDR, other than that HDR TVs often artifically limit the brightness when playing SDR content.

>Not exclusive to HDR whatsoever. Any content that suffers from banding wins with 10bit data.
No, it's not, but it's the primary difference. There's almost no 10bit video content* avalible that's not HDR.
*=There's anime encoded in 10bit to make the files smaller, but these are made from a 8bit source.

>any new SDR TVs
What, why would the make a new non-hdr TV unless it's extremely low end?

>HDR displays rate at 1000nits and upwards
Wow, you fell for the marketing huh. No, they do not. There's no brightness or color accuracy a screen has to fullfill. The TV here is >>62366878 is ~375 nits. And that's the standard for HDR TVs in that price range.

>Bit depth has absolutely nothing to do with this
Bit depth is 10bit for the standard HDR10/10+. There's however no requirement on brightness.

>>62366878
So why can I see those differences on my non-HDR monitor then when viewing this comparison?

:thinking:

File: Minestorm_Before.jpg (113KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1600x1200px

>>62364284
the vectrex did this in fucking 1982

it's a jew trick

>>62365335
>The Sun doesn't make you blind because you look in its direction
where the fuck do you live, Greenland?

>>62368546
>Faulty testing methods made them believe it was at first
No, FRC displays always show up as 10bit in windows, so that can't be the source of their potential misstanke.

>>62368743
>thinking anyone would be dumb enough to use windows output options as their "testing method"
Who said they did that?

>>62368633
I'd rather pay more than have my screen burnt in

>>62368778
You brought that idea up, not me.
Allow me to explain.

They said it was due to a driver issue. It's happened to me too, display output sometimes isnt set to 10bit when I open the nvidia control panel.

The only possible output settings are 8bit or 10bit. There's no 8bit FRC option that can be set by mistake. If it was set to 8bit, it would show a 8bit image. If it was set to 10bit, it'd show a 10bit image or 8bit FRC image. There's no situation where a actual 10bit display would show a 8bit frc image.

Actually just found this is in their testing section
>We do not differentiate between native 10-bit color and 8-bit color + dithering because we score the end result of how smooth the gradient is.

So they just rate all 8bit frc panels as 10bit. They dont even have a single TV that they detected has 8bit frc, while a lot of them are listed as 8bit frc on other sites.

>>62366878
if that thing actually had 10bit, they'd write it on their own promotional material.
All you have is random idiot chatter on the internet claiming it does more than 8.

File: 1415292088296.jpg (21KB, 386x246px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 386x246px

>>62369013
Well shit.
Oh well, impressive colour range coverage for an 8-bit display then.

>>62369137
8bit FRC is pretty good

File: eclipse-eyes-hurt.jpg (156KB, 2838x1656px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 2838x1656px

>>62365335

>>62368650
>No. Nothing stoped manufacturers from making a bright TV before hdr was a marketing gimmick
Bullshit. Power consumption was always an issue not to mention there are lots of prerequisites for content production that took a long time to become feasible or standardized.

>The TV here is >>62366878 is ~375 nits. And that's the standard for HDR TVs in that price range.
>What, why would the make a new non-hdr TV unless it's extremely low end?
That's not fucking HDR at all then. It's a typical display panel that has the gamma mapping adjusted to push midtones more into highlight region. In this case HDR is a marketting trick to sell off existing ~400nit display stock to dumb monkeys like yourself.

>There's however no requirement on brightness
Ok then enjoy your 300nit pretend "HDR". It seems you fail to understand what a high nit display actually gives to the experience.

>>62369337
>Power consumption was always an issue
eh, plasma users never cared about that.
>there are lots of prerequisites for content production that took a long time to become feasible or standardized.
no special content needed to display SDR content at higher brightness.

>That's not fucking HDR at all then. It's a typical display panel that has the gamma mapping adjusted to push midtones more into highlight region.
Welcome to the real world. This is the standard. It's HDR. It was even used in tests apparently, which makes sense as it's representative of the majority.

This is what cheap HDR tvs are like, and consequently the majority of HDR tvs on the market and in peoples homes.

1000nits is what you need to get the "Ultra HD Premium" label.

>marketting trick to sell off existing ~400nit display stock to dumb monkeys like yourself.
haha that's a projection if I ever saw one. I knew about this, you didn't. But yes, that's what HDR is. A marketing trick.

>It seems you fail to understand what a high nit display actually gives to the experience.
No, I understand it, and that's why I'm pushing back against the hdr marketing gimmick. What matters is if a screen is bright and has saturated colors or not.

File: 1504152754698.jpg (151KB, 975x962px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 975x962px

You can't judge hdr just from comparison pictures you seen on the internet. Unless you've seen it done right in person, you can't judge it

Like vr, you can't judge it unless you put on an rift or vive, it's just something you need to see in person

>>62370078
>hdr is just a marketing trick
>what matters is if a screen is bright and has saturated colors or not

It seems you think the hdr is only about being bright and being over saturated

>>62364284
Left looks better desu.

>>62370078
>A marketing trick.
So fucking stop refering to it as HDR.

>>62370319
I talked about this in a earlier post. >>62367370

>>62370393
HDR is a thing. High end screens is another.

lmao my phone displays more colors than all of your monitors combined.
>in case you are a retard its a s8
youtube with hdr looks so fucking beatiful, can't fucking wait for oreo and support for hdr in apps and games NATIVE!

>>62364284
>>62366878
Looks like a shitty SweetFX/ReShade preset lmao