HDR is a gimmick

High Dynamic Range screens are useless. Why the fuck are you falling for the marketing jews and buying HDR screens?

Attached: image.jpg (1280x720, 403K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/BlPfHV36G-g?t=700
youtube.com/watch?v=tO01J-M3g0U
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I wouldn't say it's a gimmick but it's definitely not essential.

Because I can test shit myself first before buying.
I've done my own testing, I'm more than happy with it.
Also

Every Photographer would Tell you that HRD is pretty awsome

HDR =/= HDR screens.
I process all my 3d renderings in HDR.

>Why the fuck are you falling for the marketing jews and buying HDR screens?

Attached: lost coast.jpg (1280x720, 153K)

HDR isn't useless at all, the low dynamic range of present day screens are really limiting compared to the dynamic range of a real life scene, now you can argue that the "HDR" screens on the market today are useless and that is arguably true but then it's it's a problem with manufacturers' false advertising and not HDR.

>HDR in source doesn't even increase dynamic range

It's not a gimmick any more than curved screens and 3D screens were gimmicks

hdr photography at least in the style of taking two photos at different exposures and stitching them together is pretty much the worst and a meme from the dark ages of flickr and no real photographer is going to use it

so let me get this straight, despite the fact that every single implementation of this technology is useless, you're saying that it is actually good, because the potential benefit of a hypothetical future version that is designed to not be a complete scam?

at that point its not HDR, its something else

Wrong.
Real photographers often use it. They just don't use it ALL THE TIME, like flickr/instagram normies do.
HDR photography has a purpose, and when used properly you wouldn't even notice it unless you're a photographer yourself.

That's not what he said, moron.
"You can argue" != fact.

At the very least, you'd need to see a side-by-side comparison in real-life to make any sort of meaningful judgment on the matter. A non-HDR picture of a television supposedly showing said side-by-side comparison isn't going to tell you shit, though it tells you a lot more about how this shit is being marketed than the actual benefits.

it doesn't increase the maximum amount of colors that are expressed by the screen, but it does increase the perceived range of lighting conditions on on the map

it makes the dark spots appear darker and the light spots appear lighter with simulated exposure despite the fact that the engine still has the same value range

its an entirely different application of the term "HDR" than what photographers and now marketing nerds are throwing around.

Left looks absolutely retarded, actually hurts my eyes looking at it too.

This.
All the image comparisons that are put out to advertise HDR are completely useless.

Attached: hdr video meme.jpg (2600x541, 405K)

>increase contrast
>make colours more vivid
You don't need HDR for that

>More accurate mapping of light is useless
Imagine arguing that 256 colors was more than enough. That's how retarded you sound.
Why should a white piece of paper be as bright as the FUCKING SUN?

Attached: 1561874568340.gif (2267x1903, 395K)

Not quite.
HDR takes over brightness control as well to make colors more vivid. Turns out I have an HDR capable display on my phone and I watched on it and it pumps the screen brightness really fucking high to make the colors really vivid and it hurts your eyes.
Now, there are some parts that look really good, but most of the time it's worse than midday sun brightness with actually LESS contrast.

Why would you want your TV to be as bright as the fucking sun? We don't look directly at the sun for a reason.
This isn't about number of colors, at all. You can still have 8bit, 16million color HDR displays. HDR actually maps brightness SEPARATELY to the color channels in order to vary brightness in local regions.

It dynamically changes exposure which is pretty cool they also added bloom which is also dynamic nice but it has little to do with colour range or HDR

Holy shit, 90% of the thread seems to be confused on what HDR is or that there's several different things called HDR.
This is too funny. To imagine this is a technology board.

The fact it maps brightness on its own channel is exactly why it's a good thing.
No TV will ever be as bright as the sun, but the sun is supposed to look MUCH brighter than anything else in your shot. It certainly shouldn't be as bright as a piece of paper.

it's kinda hard to represent dynamic range on standard range screen.

>No TV will ever be as bright as the sun, but the sun is supposed to look MUCH brighter than anything else in your shot. It certainly shouldn't be as bright as a piece of paper.
And it does usually, because of how our brains interpret what we see and the dynamic range of the cameras recording the scene (or computer generation) that results in things surrounding the sun appearing darker.

If there is ever a movie where a piece of paper and the sun are in the same shot and they look the same brightness, then the movie is a piece of shit, not a limitation of the display.

>it's kinda hard to represent dynamic range on standard range screen.
Actually now that I watched it on my phone I do kinda agree with those comparison images.

Turn your monitor brightness to maximum for a minute and then turn it back down to the original. Now imagine your maximum brightness was twice as high. And that's what HDR is like.

When you watch HDR content on an HDR display and then go back it DOES look dim and faded in comparison, but that's because it is SO HORRENDOUSLY BRIGHT.

Film has had MASSIVE dynamic range for decades now. Pic related, notice how NASA captured both the extremely bright rocket exhaust and the blue sky, neither are washed out.
You could easily map this to a modern HDR display and get an accurate image.
You're attaching to limitations for no reason. HDR displays and (true) HDR content is more accurate to reality, that's just the facts user.
youtu.be/BlPfHV36G-g?t=700

Attached: mpv_screenshot0812.jpg (1920x1072, 174K)

I'm not denying that HDR recorded content is more accurate to reality, or at least to how we perceive light.
But there is a difference between HDR recording and HDR displays. Recording it with HDR allowed it to capture details in the extremely bright plume without drowning out the surroundings and sky. All converting it to HDR video will do is make it extremely bright.
Sure, being extremely bright will be more accurate to reality, but again, I don't want to look at the sun.

>All converting it to HDR video will do is make it extremely bright.

That's not how it works...

It actually is.
I literally just compared it.

When you look at water the glimmer is brigher than everything else. When there's a bright light in a dark area you aren't supposed to see the bulb, when you look at the morning sky it's much brighter than the ground, but the ground is still visible.
These are all shots that are real world and benefit from HDR.

Curved screens are a stupid gimmick. They only make a difference on super-wide screens (another stupid gimmick by itself). And then, if you're not sitting precisely in front of the exact center, you get a distorted image.

3D screens, though... I wish I had one, must be cool for games. But it should work without fucking glasses, like the 3DS.

That's all HDR recording. That's all about recording the image, not displaying it.
HDR displays are about ACTUAL brightness. But the fact of the matter is that having the video take over the display brightness and make things so fucking bright it actually hurts to look at isn't actually desirable.

This guy knows what he's talking about.

Reflections of sunlight are not blindingly bright.
HDR makes light look more natural, and 3D less fake.

Attached: https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fkevinmurnane%2Ffiles%2F2018%2F11%2Fkassandra-luminance-map_D (960x535, 663K)

You've obviously never used a high quality HDR display with HDR source material.

Especially if it's something you know and watch regularly at SDR.

It's a BIG difference, a larger difference than 1080p and 4k.

HDR is the biggest selling point in modern TVs, not the resolution.

pixel users would like a word.

>Reflections of sunlight are not blindingly bright.
They are off water, one of the things you mentioned.

The sun is so bright that you literally feel its heat when it hits your skin. It's what drives life on Earth.
If your eyes are able to cope seeing glittery water in real life it sure as hell can look at the orders of magnitude less dynamic range of an HDR TV, especially when a good HDR TV can barely do 1000 nits.

>HDR
>gimmick
The problem right now is that few games support the monitors that have it. I wouldn't say its worth making a purchase decision in favor of it right now. But it may be a good bet for the future.

Personally I prefer games with clarity and consistency above just about anything (think arenafps games). But the visual quality advantages of HDR are undeniable.

If my phones 570nit display hurts to look at in a decently lit room, I would hate to imagine what a 1000nit TV would be like.

Also,
>The sun is so bright that you literally feel its heat when it hits your skin.
That's infrared wavelengths. Something displays don't really give off.

You're retarded, 1000 nits for a few hundred pixels for a specular highlight on a screen with millions of total pixels is nothing.

You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, or your being obtuse on purpose hunting for (you)'s

youtube.com/watch?v=tO01J-M3g0U
Watch this on your 1000nit display then.

Your eyes are meant for sunlight. If you have problems looking at anything remotely bright it may be a sign of medical issues.

There is some benefit to the color space HDR provides, but the implementation of HDR color grading is artistic/subject and it mostly is done in a manner that supports the TV manufacturers selling point of providing deep contrasts in images that makes the image 'pop. Now it does look very good, especially in games, but it is not realistic and it's coming to the point where the image is losing realism for the sake of displaying HDR detail.

Your eyes are meant for sunlight, yes.
Your eyes are not meant to look directly at the sun, or anywhere remotely near it.
I even made sure my eyes are properly dilated before watching and it still insults my eyes, and I go outside every day so it's not like I'm living in a basement.

I've watched some nicely done HDR on my oled and it looked pretty nice.
I'm hoping more effort gets put into hdr stills. Both avif and heif should be able to do it. I'd love to revisit some of my older raw files and squeeze out that extra dynamic range.

>higher precision bad
>metric system bad

>precision