←back to thread

What is HDR, anyway?

(www.lux.camera)
791 points _kush | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.928s | source
Show context
gyomu ◴[] No.43984462[source]
As a photographer, I get the appeal of (this new incarnation of) HDR content, but the practical reality is that the photos I see posted in my feeds go from making my display looking normal to having photos searing my retinas, while other content that was uniform white a second prior now looks dull gray.

It's late night here so I was reading this article in dark mode, at a low display brightness - and when I got to the HDR photos I had to turn down my display even more to not strain my eyes, then back up again when I scrolled to the text.

For fullscreen content (games, movies) HDR is alright, but for everyday computing it's a pretty jarring experience as a user.

replies(8): >>43984624 #>>43984641 #>>43984694 #>>43984803 #>>43985865 #>>43986070 #>>43993667 #>>43994385 #
sandofsky ◴[] No.43984641[source]
While it isn't touched on in the post, I think the issue with feeds is that platforms like Instagram have no interest in moderating HDR.

For context: YouTube automatically edits the volume of videos that have an average loudness beyond a certain threshold. I think the solution for HDR is similar penalization based on log luminance or some other reasonable metric.

I don't see this happening on Instagram any time soon, because bad HDR likely makes view counts go up.

As for the HDR photos in the post, well, those are a bit strong to show what HDR can do. That's why the Mark III beta includes a much tamer HDR grade.

replies(8): >>43984892 #>>43985603 #>>43985943 #>>43986273 #>>43986614 #>>43986673 #>>43987025 #>>43988076 #
1. corndoge ◴[] No.43984892[source]
The effect of HDR increasing views is explicitly mentioned in the article
replies(2): >>43985453 #>>43985490 #
2. ◴[] No.43985453[source]
3. nightpool ◴[] No.43985490[source]
You are replying to the article's author.