HDR displays
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
Tell me about the HDR display meme. Its 10x worse for your eyes, isn't it? Like looking into the sun?
>>54784859
anyone? Thinking of picking one up next paycheck.
>>54784859
11x actually
It's not a meme, HDR can displays more closely reproduce what things really look like.
It's a meme. I have my displays at 50 cd/m2 and any brighter hurts my eyes.
>Going up to 10,000 cd/m2
I don't know what they were thinking
>>54784973
Have any studies been done? It doesn't seem "safe" for the ol retinas.
>>54784973
It's not for that. The average brightness will still be the same, but now we get actual highlights. Or actual dark scenes where a light bulb actually looks like a light bulb.
>>54785004
sounds like you're just making this up. Video games have HDR rendering for over 10 years mate, just look at uncharted 4. This is the same, just with the brightness of the display jacked up to radioactive levels.
>>54785004
>The average brightness will still be the same, but now we get actual highlights.
Yes, which means going up to 10,000 cd/m^2, which is exactly what I said. Go figure.
>>54784995
>It doesn't seem "safe" for the ol retinas.
10,000 cd/m^2 is about the brightness of looking directly into a fluorescent tube (e.g. office lighting)
>>54785053
I'm not making anything up, it's all in the spec. The idea isn't to blind people, it's to reproduce things better. Any real life scene is going to have far more than a 1000:1 contrast ratio. Ever try to take a picture inside with an open window somewhere in frame? Either the inside is visible and the window is a white square or the inside is dark and what is outside visible. That's why HDR photography is a thing, now they're trying to bring it to displays. These displays CAN'T be stupid bright all over anyways. Power requirements would be silly and would likely destroy the lighting elements anyways.
>>54785149
>The idea isn't to blind people, it's to reproduce things better.
If I look into the sun or directly into a light bulb in real life, it hurts my eyes.
HDR is trying to capture this “experience”.
>>54785149
>ver try to take a picture inside with an open window somewhere in frame? Either the inside is visible and the window is a white square or the inside is dark and what is outside visible
Again, video games have solved this for over 10 years now. Ever hear of HDR rendering and tonemapping? Its not a new thing, by any stretch.
>>54785149
>>54785185
Cinema has solved this for ages too. HDR digital cameras exist that can directly capture a wide dynamic range, so you can then do tonemapping in post production to make both parts of the image visible.
Hang on, what content is actually able to feed HDR data to these new displays?
>>54785204
Currently it's mostly just HDR test clips, see http://demo-uhd3d.com/categorie.php?tag=hdr
>>54784859
I smoke and drink alcohol too daily, do hard drugs from time to time. I want my screen to look good without giving a crap what my eyes will be in 40 years because I know I will be long dead by then.
>>54785221
If you want to watch these you either need a HDR-capable display + a device that can appropriately tag the signal, OR a computer program capable of decoding HDR and tone-mapping it to a standard dynamic range (e.g. mpv)
>>54785204
Deadpool Ultra 4k blu ray has HDR
>>54785173
Enjoy missing out then. Video will still be backwards comparable for you.
>>54785185
>>54785196
But having an HDR display means you're getting the real data and not a tone mapped version. The fact that tone mapping is a thing means current displays have inadequate contrast.
>>54785255
Is there a rip online I can download to try it out?
>>54785256
>The fact that tone mapping is a thing means current displays have inadequate contrast.
Uncharted 4 on ps4 looks fine with tonemapping and I dont have to look at the equivalent of a lightbulb. Thats the entire point
>>54785309
I know right?
based Sony
PS4 best looking games of all time
>>54785256
>you're getting the real data
oh great, so it can be like I'm staring directly into the sun!
Isn't HDR great?
>>54785256
>Enjoy missing out then. Video will still be backwards comparable for you.
Yeah, and I'll be the one in charge of tone mapping their video so it looks “right” on my display, rather than having the mastering technicians do it. Lazy fuckers.
Isn't the future great?
how much do these hdr fuckers cost? Any with 144hz and g-sync?
>>54785337
see, even if this was true, 95% of ps4s are connect to 40"-50" 1080p TVs with ~30ms response times and 60hz refresh
>>54785661
What does that have to do with HDR?
>>54785671
nothing, it has to do with "best looking games" being on ps4
doesn't matter how good your graphics are if you're running it at 30fps or with pixels so big it looks like shit
>>54785309
>>54785344
If all you're going to pay attention to is the maximum brightness there is no point.
I only care about the black levels personally and whatever maximum brightness is specced doesn't bother me. Any decent screen will allow you to change that.
>>54785487
>k den
>>54785717
>I only care about the black levels personally
So basically, you want a SDR display with a lower black point, not a HDR display. Gotcha.
>>54785737
No, SDR is graded 1000:1, which is nowhere near enough.
>>54785767
>1000:1
Contrast is an inherently meaningless figure. The only thing SDR is “graded” for is a typical reference peak (~100 cd/m2 ±50).
If you want to preserve that peak but get a higher contrast, all you need to do is buy a monitor with a lower black point (e.g. CRT or OLED).
won't they get a lot hotter as well? will i have to skip bright scenes if i don't want it to feel like i'm staring into a heat lamp?
>>54786002
they take 11x more battery life as well
>>54785846
Yes, peak, contrast, and other things. Typical contrast is 1000:1, which is why every panel is around that. Make a panel that is 10000:1 and the black levels will be fixed, but then you're still by the 8bit color channels so you just get more banding that wouldn't be visible on a 1000:1 panel. Another thing in the HDR spec.
>>54786049
just dither the 8bit mate
>>54786049
You're beginning to not make much sense. How much do you know about the involved technologies and how much is just memeing / shilling?
>Typical contrast is 1000:1, which is why every panel is around that.
This is a limitation of current liquid crystal technology, not a design choice. TVs in the past had much higher contrast levels (CRTs) and people didn't notice the transition other than for the fact that LCD displays had brighter black levels.
You can just make the same move in reverse. The content doesn't need to be re-mastered for a higher dynamic range as long as you keep the reference brightness the same.
>Make a panel that is 10000:1 and the black levels will be fixed
Yes, you could just buy a CRT if you want this. Or get an expensive OLED display that you can throw away in a few years.
OLED technology will catch up in time, and we are already heading in this direction. If all you want is a 10000:1 contrast, get a SDR OLED display.
>but then you're still by the 8bit color channels so you just get more banding that wouldn't be visible on a 1000:1 panel.
The effective increase in banding when moving from a 1000:1 panel to a 10000:1 panel with the same peak brightness is exactly 0.9999 / 0.999 ≈ 0.09%. Hardly visible to the human eye, and that's ignoring the fact that we also use a nonlinear gamma curve on top of it.
That's also ignoring the fact that dithered 8 bit is way more than enough for visual transparency. The only time it would make sense to increase the bit depth is during the encoding stage (so you don't need to encode dither noise), which is what's already being done and has been done for years (see: Hi10P).
10-bit and 12-bit HEVC is the norm and has absolutely nothing to do with HDR vs SDR.
>>54785278
Yeah just try HDR without an HDR monitor. Good plan.
>>54786307
>what is tone-mapping
>>54786273
>current liquid crystal technology
VA panels can do 5000:1 in the panel, but you're right about most LCD. Most of the contrast will come from local dimming.
>could just buy a CRT if you want this. Or get an expensive OLED
I'd still have my CRT if the surface was flat and they came in widescreen. My phone has an OLED screen and I love it, but I don't have one for a monitor for the reasons you mentioned.
>when moving from a 1000:1 panel to a 10000:1 panel with the same peak brightness is exactly 0.9999 / 0.999 ≈ 0.09%
No
> 8 bit is way more than enough for visual transparency
also no, it's very obvious with 8-bit even with dithering. muh anime looks like shit and even my uncompressed bluray rips could be better.
>10-bit and 12-bit HEVC is the norm and has absolutely nothing to do with HDR vs SDR.
Sorta, HDR is involved in the entire process, capture, post, encoding, storage, decoding, and viewing, The display is just one part.
Any cheap HDR monitors yet?
>>54786698
>No
Yes. It's really rather simple
Assume a reference peak of 100 cd/m^2 and a 1000:1 contrast. This means your black point will be at 100/1000 = 0.1 cd/m^2.
The dynamic range of this display is therefore 100 - 0.1 = 99.9 cd/m^2, which, if you map a linear curve (which we don't do in practice) would correspond to a smallest distinguishable unit of 99.9/256 = 0.3902 cd/m^2.
Suppose we have the same peak but a 10000:1 contrast instead, this means our black point will be at 100/10000 = 0.01 cd/m^2.
The dynamic range of this display is 100 - 0.01 = 99.99 cd/m^2, which for a linear 8-bit curve would be a unit of 99.99/256 = 0.3906.
The difference between 0.3902 and 0.3906 is already bound by about 0.1%. Of course, in practice, you're using a nonlinear response function (e.g. gamma 2.2 for simplicity), so the difference is even smaller since gamma functions are locally concave everywhere.
Going from 1000:1 to 10000:1 is an absolutely tiny, almost inconsequential change to our perception of the image. It only helps decrease IPS glow by lowering the brightness floor.
>also no, it's very obvious with 8-bit even with dithering. muh anime looks like shit and even my uncompressed bluray rips could be better.
All I can say to this is that you are a fucking deluded, clueless videophile if you honestly think 8 bit dynamic range is not enough.
>>54786698
>I'd still have my CRT if the surface was flat and they came in widescreen.
Like FD Trinitrons? I got one for €10 at a thrift store a couple days ago, not a widescreen one, though.
>>54785629
>how much do these hdr fuckers cost? Any with 144hz and g-sync?
...Then you can put 'em right next to your 3D TV.
>>54785846
>Contrast is an inherently meaningless figure. The only thing SDR is “graded” for is a typical reference peak (~100 cd/m2 ±50).
No. Black point is also specified.
I just got an HDR 4K TV last week. 1080p vs 4K isn't all that of a big deal but HDR looks beautiful. Sadly i don't have a whole lot of content. Hopefully that will change in the long run :)
Also Netflix HDR is pretty good for streaming. Not as good as Bluray HDR obviously but it is better looking than the non-HDR versions.
>>54786845
The math you did is right, but you're forgetting about the non-linearity of the eye. That 0.3902 step is clearly visible at the low end, and a 0.3906 step would be even worse. And the contrast is more like 1,000,000:1 in the HDR spec. To be compliant "More than 540 nits peak brightness and less than 0.0005 nits black level"
>All I can say to this is that you are a fucking deluded, clueless videophile if you honestly think 8 bit dynamic range is not enough.
okay, sorry you're blind.
>>54786921
all g-sync monitors support 3d
>>54786988
>That 0.3902 step is clearly visible at the low end, and a 0.3906 step would be even worse.
And YOU are still forgetting the fact that this was solely about the difference between 1000:1 and 10000:1 and them being virtually equivalent in terms of banding.
Again, you are comparing a 99.9 cd/m^2 dynamic range with a 99.99 cd/m^2 dynamic range, which are almost equivalent.
>okay, sorry you're blind.
What's next, I'm also deaf for being unable to hear the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit audio? Dream on, videophile
>>54787023
>Dream on, videophile
Don't worry, I will. Have fun being poor.
>>54787097
>Have fun being poor.
kek, I use a 1600€ reference display and I'm trained in image artifact recognition.
Meanwhile you're probably using some 6-bit TN garbage watching 2 Mbps hentais and complaining about “muh bit depth”
>>54787225
>>54784859
>Like looking into the sun?
Only if the sun is in the frame.
Just don't look at the sun on the screen, like you don't in real life.
>>54787225
>I use a 1600€ reference display
How does it feel knowing that a cheap Trinitron from a thrift store (with SCART/RGB input, of course) can perform exactly the same as your "reference display" color-wise?
>>54787286
oh man there will be so many lawsuits. This is going to get BTFO. Tech websites say the new displays for 2017 are going to be 40x brighter than the current ones.
>>54787295
Show me a trinitron that can cover this gamut
>>54787304
>displays for 2017 are going to be 40x brighter than the current ones.
Current displays are dark as fuck compared to normal daylight.
Which is why you can't even use a laptop outside, not even a """high""" nits screen.
>>54787394
>Current displays are dark as fuck compared to normal daylight.
Which is a good thing when you're viewing in a darkened room
>>54787394
>Which is why you can't even use a laptop outside, not even a """high""" nits screen.
You can use a kindle outside fine, or other e-ink display
>>54787401
Yeah, but the point is you're not going to scorch your eyeballs if they made the screens 40 times brighter.
>>54787414
>e-ink
duh.
Because they work by reflecting light, rather than generating their own, so they automatically become brighter when you take them outside in the sun.
>>54785487
but HDR is less displays and more to do with the cams capturing the scene.
it's not like your TV can just display 10+ stops of DR if the cam you shot with only captures 8 stops.
>>54787432
Then why does it hurt my eyes if I turn my 50 cd/m^2 display up to 100 cd/m^2 instead?
>>54787473
Cameras have been HDR for a long time. This wave of “HDR” is purely about HDR in the display device, *not*the camera.
>>54787488
Why do eyes go blind if you look into the sun? Same difference.
>>54787368
GDM-FW900
>>54787559
Try again
>>54787625
>implying you can't just calibrate it
>>54787671
>Calibration magically changes the wavelengths at which your phosphors resonate
Does anybody in /g/ actually have even the faintest clue about technology?
I'm looking to get into 1440p gaming. Anyone know a good HRD display wit ha 1440 res?
>>54787765
100% that guy was joking.
What's the monitor on the left? TN?
>>54787488
Because your eyes haven't adjusted yet.
>>54787509
Your eyes can't adjust to looking directly into the sun, that's beyond their limit.
>>54788715
>Because your eyes haven't adjusted yet.
I'll give you points for a good guess but you're still wrong
>>54787225
Wrong on all counts but
>>54787283
is very related.
Will it catch on where VR could not?
