←back to thread

What is HDR, anyway?

(www.lux.camera)
789 points _kush | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
mxfh ◴[] No.43984652[source]
Does anyone else find the hubris in the first paragraph writing as off-putting as I do?

"we finally explain what HDR actually means"

Then spends 2/3rds of the article on a tone mapping expedition, only to not address the elephant in the room, that is the almost complete absence of predictable color management in consumer-grade digital environments.

UIs are hardly ever tested in HDR: I don't want my subtitles to burn out my eyes in actual HDR display.

It is here, where you, the consumer, are as vulnerable to light in a proper dark environment for movie watching, as when raising the window curtains on a bright summer morning. (That brightness abuse by content is actually discussed here)

Dolby Vision and Apple have the lead here as a closed platforms, on the web it's simply not predictably possible yet.

Best hope is the efforts of the Color on the Web Community Group from my impression.

https://github.com/w3c/ColorWeb-CG

replies(9): >>43984882 #>>43985074 #>>43985248 #>>43985299 #>>43985887 #>>43986100 #>>43986356 #>>43987821 #>>43987913 #
sandofsky ◴[] No.43985299[source]
> Does anyone else find the hubris in the first paragraph writing as off-putting as I do? > "we finally explain what HDR actually means"

No. Because it's written for the many casual photographers we've spoken with who are confused and asked for an explainer.

> Then spends 2/3rds of the article on a tone mapping expedition, only to not address the elephant in the room, that is the almost complete absence of predictable color management in consumer-grade digital environments.

That's because this post is about HDR and not color management, which is different topic.

replies(3): >>43985827 #>>43986813 #>>43987398 #
klausa ◴[] No.43985827[source]
>No. Because it's written for the many casual photographers we've spoken with who are confused and asked for an explainer.

To be fair, it would be pretty weird if you found your own post off-putting :P

replies(1): >>43986457 #
1. mullingitover ◴[] No.43986457[source]
Me, routinely, reading things I wrote a while ago: what is this dreck