>>108112938
That's because there isn't a single consumer display that accurately shows HDR the way it was mastered on professional equipment. No wonder people aren't interested when all we get is the shitty tone-mapped version of HDR instead of the real thing.

The only thing HDR did for me is fuck up the color on my torrented movies and make everything look gray only because I didn't buy a useless gimmick

>>108112969
Use mpv then

>>108112938
Fad? It's literally just a larger color space. That's like saying P3 or srgb is a fad. People not using it because implementations are bad and inconsistent is another thing but that doesn't make it a fad. HDR and color spaces beyond it are inevitable.

>>108113210
>It's literally just a larger color space
Wrong.

>>108112938
HDR is worth it if you got the display for it, on an oled monitor it's amazing.
>>108112969
as i said, if you got shitty hardware or software, it's not gonna work

>turn on hdr
>like the result, stays on
>don't like the result, turn it off again
wow that was hard

>>108112938
norms love hdr. see: digital photography from 10 years ago. consoomer slop.

I'd argue over 70% of HDR-capable displays do not display HDR properly. While an interesting concept, due to garbage implementations of it across the board, it has been reduced to a marketing gimmick.

>>108113678
that isn't HDR retard

>>108112958
>noooo that wasn't REAL "HDR"

>>108113898
shut up nigger

>>108113888
HDR TVs and HDR cameras share the same goal—a wider range of contrast and color for a more realistic image

AI (smarter than you) disagrees

quick video on the topic https://www.yedlin.net/DebunkingHDR/

>>108113906
>sh-shut up, it was real in my mind :(

Literally turn on HGIG.
When people say HDR is bad its because their display does not support it. It's like getting mad that Adobe looks like shit because you didn't buy a DCI-P3 accurate panel.

>>108112938
HDR requires an intersection of actually good hardware, support from the OS, and software that implements it correctly. If any one of those three is subpar, it won't be worth it.

HDR is definitely good for games. Definitely adds to the experience if the game supports and makes good use of it. Lighting and special effects like magic etc can look amazing.
Calling it a fad is just plain dumb.

>>108112938
Unironically what was the point of the HDR meme when practically everything is built for SDR............

>>108113978
HGIG is too proprietary and already on its way out.

>>108112969
Either your video player doesn't support it properly, or your display doesn't support it properly.

File: Federico-Beccari.png (2.77 MB, 1600x1067)

2.77 MB PNG

>>108113919
The dynamic range in cameras is mostly used to fix the exposure or alter the picture creatively in post.
Like making the sky darker and/or the shadows brighter.

But when people say "HDR" in a photography context they usually mean stacking exposures and combining them into vomit inducing garbage like pic related.

>>108113210
Shut your face bloody bitch bastard. By the power of Vishnu I cursed you Chud fagot

>>108113898
Same faggots who whine about
>Muh fake frames
Like who gives a fuck? If it looks smooth and silky and thots ass. WTF do I care if theyre "fake frames"

>>108113678
Pretty sure HDR for cameras isn't the same thing. I think HDR for cameras is some feature where the camera actually takes multiple images at different exposure levels or something like that and then processes them to produce a single output picture.

Not the same thing as HDR for displays which means wider color gamut, better contrast and higher brightness at the same time.

>>108114084
No, HGiG (HDR Gaming Interest Group) is not a proprietary, locked-down technology owned by a single company. Instead, it is an industry-wide consortium of gaming and display companies that established voluntary guidelines to improve HDR gaming experiences.
Here is a breakdown of what that means:
Collaborative Group: Founded by Sony Interactive Entertainment and Microsoft, the group includes major TV manufacturers (LG, Samsung, Panasonic, TCL) and game developers (Activision, EA, Rockstar, Ubisoft).
Open Guidelines: HGiG provides publicly available best practices for developers and display manufacturers, rather than a licensed, proprietary technology.
Voluntary Adoption: The goal is to provide a consistent standard for HDR content, enabling game consoles and PCs to handle tone mapping properly, rather than leaving it to the TV's own processing.
Not a Standardizing Body: HGiG is not a standards organization like HDMI or Dolby; it defines best practices, not rigid compliance specifications.

>>108112938
i kept waiting for hdr support on linux and for it to be an actual improvement in games
and then it never did that

>>108114133
Because it's a smooth, silky, blurry piece of shit, whereas "real" frames with something like MSAA look sublime.
You must be gaming on the lowest tier laptop screen available to post something so dumb.

>>108114204
Wayland does have HDR support now.
Not sure how well it works for gaming though.

>>108114170
It's the exact same thing. Only the operation is different, which should be obvious since one is producing an image and one is creating an image.

>>108114214
Not him but I have a 65" 4K OLED TV and an RTX 4090.
Fake frames look fine.

I'm still not a huge fan because it adds latency but for slow paced games and especially flight simulators it's a clear improvement.

>>108114221
It's really not the same.
So-called "HDR" photos are almost always exported as sRGB because photographers wants their friends with shitty screen to see the garbage they just shat out.

>>108114216
ya i saw i can use it on kde wayland but then the games didnt utilize it properly so i stayed off

>>108114170
>HDR for displays which means wider color gamut
HDR is NOT about gamut.

>>108113939
>quick
>2 hours and 20 minutes long
>mostly just boomerranting about how SDR is all you need and muh sizzle
I don't understand why this garbage video keeps getting posted. The only real critique of HDR within that whole video is the inconsistency of HDR media when tonemapped due to the unique tonemapping implementations different vendors use. Everything else is just personal preference masquerading as critique (muh SDR is already good enough, etc).
And his "solution" already exists in the form of HDR HLG.

>>108114252
It's essentially two sides of the same coin.
HDR photos are capturing a high dynamic range, HDR displays are outputting a high dynamic range.
Generally when you capture that HDR you end up compressing it into an SDR range because that's what most displays are (still).

>>108114254
works on my machine. every game with HDR support works. just get a proper monitor.

>>108114242
TVs are shit for the purposes of this discussion, sorry. There is so much goddamn post processing on TVs no person on this Earth can tell you what you'll see afterwards, no matter if it's 4k, OLED or whatever else. This has been the case forever. Whatever you're seeing, you're seeing through the eyes of your vendor's implementation and you can't turn it off.
I have a 4090 as well, with a good monitor (QLED). The MOMENT I turn on framegen on something like Baldur's Gate 3 it becomes blurry. I mention BD3 because it's very apparent, even your barely moving character in the status screen looks awful. Without framegen it looks crisp and perfect.

>>108114170
The "HDR" on phone cameras (known formally as Exposure Bracketing) from 10 years ago was an SDR postprocessing effect in which detail within shadows and highlights was squished together to create an unholy monstrosity of an SDR image.
Modern phones do "HDR" in the sense that their cameras can capture and store bright colors that would normally exceed a "comfortable" SDR white level, and phones can display this. You're essentially just capturing more of the scene and then reproducing it on the screen more accurately.

only time i've seen hdr look good was with a retrotink 4k

File: sdr vs hdr.gif (3.96 MB, 1587x1160)

3.96 MB GIF

HDR is the biggest impact you can make on your machine next to high refresh rate.

>>108113327
>on an oled monitor it's amazing
you are confusing HDR with contrast ratio. HDR just hurts your eyes by making shit really fuck off bright.

>>108114329
>Modern phones do "HDR" in the sense that their cameras can capture and store bright colors that would normally exceed a "comfortable" SDR white level, and phones can display this. You're essentially just capturing more of the scene and then reproducing it on the screen more accurately.
Cameras, including phones, have long been able to capture more than the SDR range, at 10-12bit, more commonly up to 14bit.
But what is actually done is exposure stacking, like others have said. You meld longer exposures with shorter ones to keep the lighter areas from blowing out and the darker areas from being crushed.
And because of digital sensors, this can be accomplished in what appears to be a single exposure to the user because you can essentially just cut up the longer exposure.

>>108114347
Interesting point.
To me a high refresh rate makes things look more "solid". And HDR makes lighting behave more like in a real scene instead of a washed out representation on a screen.

>>108114324
>There is so much goddamn post processing on TVs
Luckily I can disable all that on my LG OLED.

>>108112958
The HDR masters were garbage even more garbage than the SDR masters

>>108114347
>>108114378
high refresh rate does nothing
motion clarity is what you want
60hz on a crt monitor are as solid as looking outside a moving car window
You really unironically do not need more then 60hz to have perfect image clarity

>>108114408
input lag scales with refresh rate. its especially noticeable on those android devices. 60hz lcds with emulators are unplayable levels of input lag compared to 120-144hz oleds on phones. doesn't matter what chipset you have if the screen can't keep up.

File: IMG_5575-1.jpg (1.38 MB, 4032x3024)

1.38 MB JPG

>>108114352
>making shit really fuck off bright
Only if you have a very bright HDR screen.
OLED is never super bright, HDR just adds more details in the darker areas and relatively bright highlights.

With SDR you often get banding a black blobs in very dark scenes, it looks like shit but people cope and pretend it's normal.

>>108112938
Good
Virtually all 4KHDR releases of films have fucking dogshit color grading that looks far worse than 1080p SDR
No games use HDR to any significant effect
There's nothing to do with an HDR on a display, the best thing you can do is just turn it off.
Rip in piss, next to 3D TVs.

>>108114347
Right looks great on my SDR monitor

>>108114397
You are mistaking what you can turn off for the totality of the post processing. Which I knew you would do, so I warned you in advance, but you did it anyway. Monitors and TVs are not the same thing, the latter needs a lot of image processing as a baseline.

>>108114448
3D TV's haven't been a thing for decades, Gramps.

>>108114408
crts dont even have pixels youre comparing two completely different technologies. high refresh absolutely makes a difference on a digital display.

>>108114436
modern oled TVs get pretty bright now

File: hdr.webm (2.49 MB, 1280x720)

2.49 MB WEBM

>>108114458
I was wondering when this specific post was going to show up.
Just pretend that someone is turning the brightness down on both an SDR and and HDR screen, then imagine what the HDR screen looks like when you turn the brightness back up.

File: 1648415183789.png (826 KB, 926x837)

826 KB PNG

HDR just means the same scene can have multiple level of brightness to show off wider color space.
Imagine your phone at 50% brightness and a bright green glowing CIA negro occupies one third of the screen.

>>108114467
In "game mode" or "film maker mode" it works just like a computer monitor.
Seethe and cope poorfag.

>>108114352
>you are confusing HDR with contrast ratio
no, i'm not, i'm talking about watching actual HDR content on a software stack that allows enabling hdr mode on your monitor.

it's not just about contrast, the point is that you can have blindingly bright spots (ie the sun) and the rest of the picture with mostly normal contrast.

it's not just about contrast ratio, if i play HDR content with hdr capable software on the oled it looks a LOT better than if i play it in sdr mode.

File: 1762986662102557.jpg (377 KB, 1718x1900)

377 KB JPG

>>108114347
>>108114487
I still don't see the point and on god the lights look way more fake in the hdr to me they don't even have any halo anymore they look like crayons

>>108114352
>>108114519
of course i exagerated by saying "blindingly" but the point is that if you watch in a dark room and suddenly the sun gets in view, the difference in contrast is enough to make you squint.
also hdr mode is something very specific, when enabled the max brightness of the monitor is MUCH higher, way above what would cause burn in long term on an oled, but the point is, since it's only for some temporary spots that need to be bright it's fine.

when the monitor switch to hdr mode, the brighest spots will be much brighter than if it is in SDR mode.

you have an oled smartphone
just watch some hdr video on youtube, its not hard

>>108114458
thing is it's not true hdr, it's just a simulation.
on a true HDR monitor the right would look like shit compared to what the hdr monitor can do.

also doubt gifs and web browser supports hdr anyway, you need good software support, on linux x11 doesn't support it and only a few wayland compositor can.

>>108114408
It most certainly does do something and it's immediately noticeable. Even on shitty screens. If I leave my high quality monitor and look at the 360hz screen of an MSI laptop I bought 3-4 years ago, it is extremely evident. The mouse on the shitty (but high refresh) screen looks a lot more like a "real object" than on the high quality monitor.

Your conflation of 60ps with the moving car is enough to convince me you have no idea what you're talking about and is yet another person who believes in the "human eyes see in 60fps bro" myth.

>>108114468
average nigger reading comprehension

play this on an oled phone:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Or72aweqfjE

the hdr one is clearly superior.

>>108114530
>they look like crayons
They're christmas lights. And when viewing at the art in HDR, they shine brilliantly. That's the point the Viganoli GIF and my WEBM are trying to illustrate, that there's additional detail that an SDR display cannot show unless you darken the exposure, but an HDR display CAN show without needing to.

>>108114560
Yes yes, HDR is amazing, there's just no hardware that does it right, or software or media that uses it correctly
HDR truly is the communism of display technologies

>>108114580
>there's just no hardware that does it right
false, my oled monitor does it perfectly.
more often the issue is software.
if you are not a retard you can figure out how to configure your software to do it properly.
on linux it's pretty trivial, pick a wayland compositor that supports color managment ie hyprland and export the ENABLE_HDR_WSI before starting mpv.

you can also use kodi in gbm mode.

we can argue all day that the software stack is kinda shit to get working, doesn't change the fact that when you DO have it working, it absolutely is amazing compared to sdr.

Well what is graded for HDR then? Movies and TV shows. Because in the cinema how the director intended they are never in HDR and I know 99% of TV shows are on shoestring budgets that don't care especially when it's just streaming low bitrate trash.

>>108114347
The left image has crushed bright areas on purpose, to make the HDR one look like it has more dynamic range.

I don't have/use HDR but to me the leftside image looks like it was badly shot by the photographer. Which again was probably on purpose. Such crushed highlights cannot possibly be a proper professional image

I do wish we got to a point where you buy a monitor and it has hdr enabled out of the box that works perferctly on windows that is hdr by default and games dont even have sdr modes anymore and automatic brightness limiter only exist to stop people from blasting their their eyeballs opening a full white image.

>>108114560
>also doubt gifs and web browser supports hdr anyway
Google Chrome and Windows
Blame Mozilla for being complacent.

>>108114589
What HDR media do you consume?

>>108114592
almost every movies and shows has HDR versions.
though, yes, if you play it on a SDR monitor and or software that dosen't support hdr playback, it's not gonna look any better than sdr.

>>108114603
might as well wish for oled that doesn't burn in it's never going to happen

>>108114487
And what's the point of watching something on 10% brightness?

>>108114502
It doesn't, high quality monitors are miles ahead. There is a reason why monitors are much more expensive than TVs of comparable size.
You fell for the oldest trick in the book and are now the owner of a 65" monument to your own stupidity.

>>108112938
HDR is awesome. I just don't want to burn my retina and monitor using it all the time. I usually like 50% brightness or less

>>108114614
You're saying monitor HDR is better than TV? Nobody says this.

>>108114608
pretty much any time i watch a movie or show you can find it in HDR.
thing is, you do have to go through a few hops to be able to watch it in actual HDR.

generaly what i do is :
exit bspwm
start hyprland that's configured for it.
export ENABLE_HDR_WSI=1
run mpv with a few flags on the file.
before some commit you didn't need the flags but they broke it.
you can also start kodi in gbm mode.

there is also support for proton now but i'm not much of a gaymer, anyway, movies and shows do look much better in hdr mode, enough that it's worth switching sessions when i know i'm gonna watch something.
though, for anime it's less so as they aren't realy made for hdr.

>>108114063
>if the game supports and makes good use of it

If HDR is all about brightness how can a Monitor that has 1/5th the brightness of a monitor compete with it? And what about the aggressive ABL on every single oled monitor even worse than on TVs

>>108114625
That's completely unrelated, the discussion was about frame generation.

>>108114608
>>108114627
bear in mind, i thought HDR was a meme before getting an oled monitor.
i had a realy good IPS but yea, there was no worthwhile difference.
but with a good oled it's night and day, and i'm not talking about the contrast ratio of the monitor, it can actualy be switched to "HDR mode" by the right software.
watching HDR and SDR content on the same monitor is night and day as long as your software stack can put the monitor into hdr mode (which will allow much higher peak brightness).
the peak brightness is only allowed to go that high because it's for content that moves and also you switch to 10bit+ output.

>>108114637
its mostly about producing a more realistic image with more depth with the dark darks and bright bright spots
then the image itself has more visual information per pixel which gives you no banding and detail in the dark and bright areas of the picture

Oled doesnt need to blast you at 1000 nits for the image to be better than sdr

>>108114637
>>108114645
the idea is that if you have the right software, your monitor can be switched to "HDR mode" which will allow MUCH higher peak brightness for small moving objects.

the monitor cannot output that brightness on the whole display, and if it would continuously it'd lead to burn in pretty fast, but since it's for moving content it's fine.
think of it as some overclocking which is fine because it's not the same pixel for extended amounts of time.

also modern OLED can go well above 1000 nits

>>108114652
>>108114637
>>108114653
also think of it this way.
think of a day where it's sunny outside, and you can see the sunlight hit a wall through your window.

see how bright it is compared to the dimmest part of your room ?
especialy if you closed the blinds and it's just one ray.

now, imagine that SDR is much flatter in comparison, HDR on proper displays is not as good a contrast as the actual sunlight is, but it's much closer than what sdr can do.

>>108114613
>And what's the point of watching something on 10% brightness?
Iunno, ask all the people who insist SDR is good enough.
I for one like it when my highlights get brighter than UI elements.

>>108112938
>the HDR fad is finally dying
very little good media has been made in a decade, the bast majority in circulation is a DVD upscaled or dvd rips. Most of the rest is blu ray and most of those are upscaled crap as well. If the media does not have hdr it is all fucking pointless and the media made now no one cares about, It;s 1080 foever with some 4K but most people won;t give a shit, 4K TVs have gor pretty good at upscaling and no one cares.

>>108114681
almost every movie and shows have HDR releases...

>>108114681
>>108114688
also no, old movies that are rereleased in 4K are not upscales, old movies were filmed on actual films which captures a lot more detail than even 4k.
when converted to digital they used to do 1080p, but they could go much higher.

they just made new disks out of the original film with a higher resolution, not an upscale.

>>108114688
Yes, and pretty much all of them are bad releases that look far worse than SDR.

by the way, I have Lawrence of Arabia on DVD and blu ray, you can;r rell the difference on my 4K tv from the outout from a pioneer outputting 1080 upscaled to the TV which then upscales it to near 4k and the blu ray, well I just about can but no one else I've asked can see any difference. The only blu ray that really impressed me was scarfare, There is no 4k hdr version of cheers, friends, fraiser, buffy the vampire slayer or whatever the fuck german goo girls porn, it's all just upscaled. The media and vidya made in the 4K era is all shite so no one wants it.

>>108114710
>Yes, and pretty much all of them are bad releases that look far worse than SDR.
yes, hdr content will look like shit if watched on bad hardware / software.

you need a setup that actualy supports it for it to look better than sdr retard.
otherwise it'll get tonemaped to sdr which is worse than just sdr from the start.

>>108114688
>almost every movie and shows have HDR releases...
no they don't because the data was not there when they were made, you are an idiot.

>>108114710
>>108114733
even on my oled monitor, SDR content WILL look better than HDR content if i do not use the right software configuration to enable hdr mode (ie watching on X11).

but if you DO enable hdr mode, SDR looks like shit in comparison.

>>108114739
>>108114741
>no they don't because the data was not there when they were made

retard, digital cameras have been doing 12bit+ raw recordings forever, that's what's being used in movie production, even the lattest HDR specs are bellow their actual raw recording quality.

let alone movies recorded on film which have even more dynamic range...

>>108114569
okay I watched that on my oled phone and the comparison video it linked too and yes the HDR did look better but to see it I had to turn off all the lights in my room and close all my curtains
https://youtu.be/We8BD1OcMxM?si=lvfk9ekD7e_t9drr&t=353
Watching the video on sdr monitor the colours and contrast are better on HDR but the brightness difference isn't there.
this is telling me HDR is basically for cinemas or home theater rooms
also this was the first time i used youtube on my phone in a while and they hid 4K HDR under some stupid menus complete bullshit from them

>>108114730
I'm by no means a moviefag, but can't film be re-digitalized at a higher resolution if they still have it, as long as you didn't shoot it with digital cameras?

File: WIN_20260206_16_11_58_Pro.jpg (264 KB, 1920x1080)

264 KB JPG

>>108113939
BASED video
>>108114281
>The only real critique of HDR within that whole video is the inconsistency of HDR media
wrong, you are either lying or too retarded to understand all the other problems that come with HDR. The worst one for me is that all high bitrate streams now force hdr for just to get some fancy bright highlights that look like shit on 90% of shots, for the same bitrate I could get 4k 8 bit SRD or hell even 1080p and it would look like proper kino but no I'm forced to use this USELESS tech

>>108114688
But that's just some master studio making up whatever shit they want. In many cases the cinematographer or director are dead and they are still releasing HDR versions. Based on what? Several directors don't understand or care about this shit and many despise TVs completely. I never believe them when they say it's what the director intended.

>>108114761
also, bear in mind it is an oled phone, if you have a proper oled monitor, or tv, or hdr projector, the peak brightness will be much higher and the effect more pronounced.

but yes, i do understand people not getting hdr because they can only see comparisons on their potatoe screen.

>complete bullshit from them
yea youtube has not gotten better over the years.

get fucked poorcucks. my DisplayHDR 400 monitor is fucking amazing. one day you'll be able to get something used and experience the majesty of hdr.

>>108114756
>, digital cameras
Yeah, I used work in broadcast video severs were built arounf 40mbs MAX up to 20 years ago and ditital was barely betting used, stuff like the matrix and jurassic park started that and they were the exception you are full of shit, some digital copy of married with children is not riddled with 4k hdr encoding by magic, it's at best upscaled I've only seen a handful of old movies that were genuinely rescanned e,g scarfare on blu ray the vast majority are upscaled in passes an d I have about 3000 pieces od media on shelves to tell you you are wrong. Blu ray is far from perfect as well. If it was not created in 4K (mostly shit like the mcu) the data is just not fucking there. Truth hurts most stuff is just about able to pass at 1080P upscaled to 4K and normies just don't give a shit. 8K is dead. A lot of stuff looks fucking awful in 4K and 8K as well, Zulu is a great example. It's better at 1080

>>108114781
>But that's just some master studio making up whatever shit they want.
doesn't matter, if it was made on film, the dynamic range / the data is there, so you can make rerelease of existing movies with HDR, you will just have nicer dynamic range and brighter highlights, it may not look like what the producer saw when he was making the movie, but it'll look more true to what the set looked like.

if it was recorded on digital cameras then that's a bit of a different story.
there basicaly are 2 option, it was a good digital camera (which is almost always the case on high budget movies) and thus the data is there, so they can make a rerelease with the extra info.
if it was a cheap camera that didn't support hdr, someone could do some post processing to make the highlight brighter such that it's more true to life, but it'd not be true hdr and kinda cheating.
still, you can absolutely make a SDR movie look better through some post processing, will just not be as true to life as if it was actualy recorded with hdr capable hardware.
but generaly, whenever you are post processing an image, you can see your screen and try to make it look closer to what you actualy saw irl, with an hdr screen you can push the highlights futher than with an hdr one.

obviously all this didn't apply to cgi which can do whatever they want.

>>108114798
>DisplayHDR 400 monitor
kek good one

>>108114801
>20 years ago
>ditital was barely betting used
yes that's kind of my point, if it was on film you could digitize it to 4k, film contains a lot more information than that.
it was often digitized to 720p and later 1080p but that's why you can today see a 4k release of the old star wars movies, because they were made on film which captured a lot more detail than 1080p.

>>108114814
modern oleds are like max 250-300 nits after 10% full white
if they actually managed 400 nits full white that'd mean you would never have shit like abl