←back to thread

What is HDR, anyway?

(www.lux.camera)
789 points _kush | 3 comments | 14 May 25 12:46 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
aidenn0 ◴[14 May 25 15:01 UTC] No.43985366[source]▶
> A big problem is that it costs the TV, Film, and Photography industries billions of dollars (and a bajillion hours of work) to upgrade their infrastructure. For context, it took well over a decade for HDTV to reach critical mass.

This is also true for consumers. I don't own a single 4k or HDR display. I probably won't own an HDR display until my TV dies, and I probably won't own a 4k display until I replace my work screen, at which point I'll also replace one of my home screens so I can remote into it without scaling.

replies(7): >>43985419 #>>43985522 #>>43985991 #>>43986618 #>>43986876 #>>43990252 #>>43994476 #
dmitshur ◴[14 May 25 15:05 UTC] No.43985419[source]▶
To demonstrate some contrast (heh) with another data point from someone closer to the other extreme, I’ve owned a very HDR-capable monitor (the Apple Pro Display XDR) since 2020, so that’s 5 years now. Content that takes full advantage of it is still rare, but it’s getting better slowly over time.
replies(1): >>43985584 #
colechristensen ◴[14 May 25 15:16 UTC] No.43985584[source]▶
I have a screen which is "HDR" but what that means is when you turn the feature on it just makes everything more muted, it doesn't actually have any more dynamic range. When you turn HDR on for a game it basically just makes most things more muddy grey.

I also have a screen which has a huge gamut and blows out colors in a really nice way (a bit like the aftereffects of hallucinogens, it has colors other screens just don't) and you don't have to touch any settings.

My OLED TV has HDR and it actually seems like HDR content makes a difference while regular content is still "correct".

replies(1): >>43986957 #
1. zamadatix ◴[14 May 25 17:15 UTC] No.43986957[source]▶
The cheap displays adding broken HDR400 support destroyed so much public opinion on HDR. Not actually providing a wider range but accepting the HDR signal would at least have been a minor improvement if the tone mapping weren't completely broken to the point most people just associate HDR with a washed out picture.
replies(1): >>43988958 #
2. colechristensen ◴[14 May 25 20:40 UTC] No.43988958[source]▶
>The cheap displays adding broken HDR400 support destroyed so much public opinion on HDR.

It's funny because the display I have that does this was a relatively premium Odyssey G7 which at $700 isn't at all a cheap monitor. (I like it, it's just not at all HDR, or at least not perceivably so compared to Apple devices and an OLED TV)

replies(1): >>43991109 #
3. zamadatix ◴[15 May 25 01:55 UTC] No.43991109[source]▶
The only HDR monitors I have actually enjoyed (which, admittedly, is a slightly higher bar than "most of this price aren't completely miscalibrated") have been $1500+ which is a bit ridiculous considering far cheaper TVs do far better with HDR (though tend to suck as monitors). In the Odyssey line this would be the Neo G9 options, but I've never went home with one because they lack flat variants for the ones with good HDR.