unless you paid a lot for your monitor you don't need to worry about it

>>108642421
It generates the same frame multiple times with different light so that it averages out and doesn't create a monotone light as seen in older games.

You see anon, all you need to do is buy a monitor with at least HDR10+ (lower values are just marketed gimmicks), then enable HDR (it's been in beta for 10+ years on every operating system), then find content that actually makes use of HDR in a competent way (about 9 movies and 3 video games) and you're good

>>108642431
i did tho

>>108642421
HDR is a function of display brightness and content quality

there is metadata and shit in play for video files and games to help automate HDR, but there are no real standards and most of it is just attempts at content recognition.

with a properly bright monitor you can capture video or render a game/rtc and recreate lightning effects like bloom realistically instead of simulating them. Like looking at a fire or a sparkler in bright sunlight, the source of high intensity light looks bright as fuck irl, our eyes dont do auto brightness shit the way cameras do, and thats what HDR recreates

it doesnt need any overhead, the current schemes are literally just automatic brightness and contrast adjustment and thats it

File: FB_IMG_1562662319219.jpg (37 KB, 720x960)

37 KB JPG

>>108642421
in graphics programming HDR just means your colors aka lights dont have an upper bound like LDR does, which means you can model lighting much better. Think of a lamp vs the sun, the sun is obviously orders of magnitude brighter than the lamp but it's hard to model this difference when you're constrained to LDR.

>>108642421
I remember when HDR was just whatever half life 2 did in the lost beach level and I thought it meant just making light look good

I did a lot of research after getting an OLED monitor and yeah ultimately I didn't really get it either. Seems to be some unholy combination of hardware requirementa you need to meet, and then software requirements, and then the source. You can have a HDR monitor and and HDR video, but it turns out Firefox doesn't even support HDR viewing. So no HDR. Or you can have an HDR monitor and HDR video playing software (this is more complicated than you'd think), but then it turns out your video is not HDR.
Also you need to manually enable HDR. Or you could not. This is where it gets really fucking confusing because if you turn HDR on there is a difference in visibility even if its not and HDR video. So what was it the metadata within the video or not? Or is it faking HDR? If it can fake HDR then HDR isn't the metadata in the video.

Apart from software/player/source issue your HDR monitor has different specific HDR ratings but they may or may not just be lies or something because there isn't actually a real standard or something like that so VESA tteublack 500 HDR 10 is just a meme

Even after you meet those requirements you have to worry about calibration.
But even if you do everything right apparently you still see people saying "this game/movie has terrible HDR" so it out your control, of you're really in control at any point of this process

>>108642632
>our eyes dont do auto brightness shit
Do you even dilate your pupils sis

>>108642421
The black is so black that my monitor being on and off looks the same with a black background

>>108642421
HDR is auto enabled on TVs and it makes everything look really dark, can't see shit.
I enabler HDR in my video game and all it did was make the screen unreasonably bright.
I don't hold a Master's in Computer Monitors so I don't know how to use this fancy technology.

>>108642421
>I get it's some kind of bright stuff and dark stuff at the same time?
Yes, it basically allows for control of brightness. Think of it like this: you have a white light and a white sheet of paper. On any SDR monitor you can only represent these as the white color, but this doesn't actually make sense because the light should be much brighter than a sheet of paper, despite being the same color, right? This is what HDR does, the white light can actually be brighter than the white piece of paper.

>it doesn't seem like just some button you press.. it's like deeply integrated with games or something
Yes the game needs to render the image in HDR. There are probably also going to be some settings you need to adjust in order to match your monitor and preferences. It's definitely not as plug and play as it should be.

>>108642421
What's there not to understand? You have an HDR monitor and you activate it ehen viewing HDR content (movies/games). In some games it's well implementedand in some games it's shit. It basically makes the colors "pop out". And no, you shouldn't have HDR on all the time.

Much as I love the technology it is very much a fucking mess.
It gets advertised as more colorful, but that doesn't have to do much with it.
It gets advertised on displays that are not capable of it.
This cool technology means a completely different thing in photography than it does on displays.
It's also not easy to handle because there's multiple "standards", and if content is not mastered the right way or, if you have a game that doesn't support it, so the vast majority of content, all you can do is get something close to HDR, but not quite. A conversion of sorts. You can have wrong implementations on software. You can have shit that just looks outright wrong. Most of the time, I use HDR when possible on games, but I need to look for RenoDX mods, sometimes it doesn't look great even with that. Proper HDR to me is a beautiful thing but it's fairly unattainable outside of a certain combination of factors. You get a miniLED display capable of this and when shit gets dark, blooming everywhere. You get an OLED display and there's this awful thing called ABL where if the scene happens to get bright enough, suddenly your image looks actually dimmer than if you weren't using that type of display, it's inconsistent, and the only solution is to cap it to a much lower brightness that makes HDR barely different than SDR in terms of brightness.

>>108643836
Also, you'll find software that "supports HDR" in such a way that it treats it like a toggle, but doesn't have any settings. macOS has no calibration tool for this that I've seen. Linux with GNOME has nothing but a brightness slider. In order to get something decent going, you need multiple adjustments, and these people don't make those accessible.

>>108642421
put simply it's a set of standards which expand the possible range of brightnesses that can be captured/stored/reproduced in video.
it's pretty messy and hard to do "right"

>>108642421
What it's NOT: SDR with more colors.
What it is: a fucking mess.
SDR was created to look okay at any screen brightness/room illumination through various transformations that happen under the hood, gamma curves, etc. HDR decided to do away with that and make values correspond to something in real life... except they had to assume the illumination of your room for that. So basically it never works properly. It will never be standard because it by design can't replace SDR.

>>108643846
oh yea doesn't help people often confuse it with;
- brightness in general (brighter display != hdr, on its' own)
- dynamic range compression (DRC), which on many cameras/phones is labelled "HDR" even though it's functionally the OPPOSITE of HDR
- high contrast (better contrast != HDR, again not on its' own)

>>108643853
Here's the breakdown, it's such a mindfuck I still can't comprehend it
https://youtu.be/yRHlOxzgHmA

>>108642421
Real HDR starts at HDR1000 to 1400, it increases the difference between the darkest and brightest areas of an image, say example you're watching a movie and the action is at nighttime, and someone shines a flashlight right at the camera, on most screens that provokes no reaction but on a good HDR it almost feels like you had a flashlight shined on you, which is pretty cool

File: hdr.gif (12 KB, 1024x1024)

12 KB GIF

>>108642421
>I don't understand "HDR" at all
you can have more brightness levels in an image, meaning you can have bigger differences in brightness and saturation in the same image

>>108642421
Conventionally when rendering graphics you ultimately convert each pixel to 255 different brightness values. With HDR you output floating point numbers which have much higher dynamic range, hence the hame. Hardware needs to be able to support that.

See I have this one IPS monitor that advertises HDR support. Obviously it's garbage, but I find it funny how it works.
If I use it on macOS and I enable HDR, and watch some video on youtube, it'll blow out the image. In order to get something watchable, I have to lower the general brightness down. Which gives the semblance of working HDR (because everything except for the video itself is really dim).
Meanwhile on an OLED display I can generally have HDR enabled with high brightness on desktop, and HDR videos will still look correct, not blown out.

File: hdr.jpg (13 KB, 474x222)

13 KB JPG

>>108642421
>But I don't know how it works or how it's supposed to be "enabled".. it doesn't seem like just some button you press..
Huh?

>>108644124
That's one step of the whole process, hardware side you have it enabled, software side it's chaos

>>108644158
windows handles HDR like shit compared to smart TVs unfortunately

>>108644163
No horseshit, linux is the only hope on this. For the longest time there's been no support, and god knows it's still buggy, but they're trying hard to get a better result. I know that at least I can actually have HDR permanently enabled on KDE Plasma and not have fucked up brightness or colors or anything similar on SDR content (there's no AutoHDR though, but that's hacky shit and not always does it look good).

File: 1718331531127.gif (3.96 MB, 1587x1160)

3.96 MB GIF

This is the best simulation viewable on an SDR screen to get you an idea for what HDR does. The right side is a series of photos taken at different levels of exposure. With HDR you can just have it all in one image so it will properly show the brightness difference between the bright and non-bright parts without either making dark parts too bright or bright parts too dim.

>>108644268
inb4 "hey I can see both on my SDR monitor"

>>108644268
No you’re mixing up concepts. That’s HDR capture and processing not HDR display

>>108644286
I can see both on my screen. Thats literally not what HDR output is. What you are showing is something every modern game engine does internally even before showing you an SDR image. It’s linear compositing on internal (generated in games or recorded for video) HDR data. The guy who got it pretty much right is >>108643780

>>108644367
>no you're wrong, but this guy who describes the same thing is right

File: this monitor is 30 years old.webm (1.48 MB, 1280x720)

1.48 MB WEBM

>>108644343
you're the one mixing up concepts. anon isn't describing DRC even though he's using multiple photos of different exposures which is a step in making a DRC image, it's also a step in making an HDR image instead, which is what he describes.
naturally you can't actually show an HDR comparison with an SDR picture, that doesn't make sense, you have to take what is shown and use your imagination to make up for the constraints of the medium used to demonstrate it.

clip related is a similar example, while this isn't "HDR", it's a video showing how changing the exposure of my camera affects how things appear, namely how the camera is unable to capture the full dynamic range of the monitor with a single exposure (by the time the dim stars become visible, the bright planet is over-exposed). both details are visible to the naked eye at the same time

File: a.png (248 KB, 758x1160)

248 KB PNG

>>108644268
easy way to imagine it is to imagine taking the darker exposure and displaying it on a fuck-off bright display such that the dark parts became as bright as the sdr image.
that's basically what hdr can enable, detail in areas far brighter than conventional displays could display. lights and fire that actually appear truly bright and not just the same brightness as paper

>>108645091
It's a problem because just like high refresh rates on early days, it's something that wasn't particularly shown around or easy to discern without having control of a display with those features. I've seen examples of this technology being shown on TVs where instead of trying to display something like this, they just have a side by side comparison where the HDR picture is just oversaturated shit and SDR appears washed out.
Everyone experiencing proper HDR on a display would be able to tell what's "HDR" about it, but it's an investment and some setup autism on PC.

>>108645183
it's just generally trying to explain a better version of a medium on a worse version of a medium. like i remember seeing ads for DVD on VHS copies of movies, naturally any such demonstration can't actually appear or sound any better than VHS, because it's on a VHS tape. for some reason some people just really struggle with this issue.

https://youtu.be/Zc4uTz9-Q1Q