Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What is HDR, anyway?

lux.camera

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 352 posts

Re: What is HDR, anyway?

#31

Post by lordleft »

mxfh wrote: post #22

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…

Isn't that the point of the article? That the colloquial meaning of HDR is quite overloaded, and when people complain about HDR, they mean bad tone-mapping? I say this as someone as close to totally ignorant about photography as you can get; I personally thought the article was pretty spectacular.

Re: What is HDR, anyway?

#32

Post by mikepurvis »

echo_time wrote: post #7

Note for Firefox users - view the page in Chrome to see more of what they are talking about. I was very confused by some of the images, and it was a world of difference when I tried again in Chrome. Things began to make a lot more sense - is there a flag I am missing in Firefox on the Mac?

Can confirm on Windows 11 with HDR enabled on my display— I see the photos in the article correctly on Chrome and they're a grey mess on Firefox.

Re: What is HDR, anyway?

#33

Post by corndoge »

sandofsky wrote: post #21
gyomu wrote: post #5

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 th…

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,…

The effect of HDR increasing views is explicitly mentioned in the article

Re: What is HDR, anyway?

#34

Post by nfriedly »

the__alchemist wrote: post #4

So, HN, are HDR monitors worth it? I remember ~10 years ago delaying my monitor purchase for the HDR one that was right around the corner, but never (in my purchasing scope) became available. Time for another look? The utility of HDR (as described in the article) is without question. It's amazing looking at an outdoors (or indoors with windows) scene with your Mk-1 eyeballs, then taking a photo and looking at it on a…

A lot of monitors that advertise HDR support really shouldn't. Many of them can decode the signal but don't have the hardware to accurately reproduce it, so you just end up with a washed out muddy looking mess where you're better off disabling HDR entirely.

As others here have said, OLED monitors are generally excellent at reproducing a HDR signal, especially in a darker space. But they're terrible for productivity work because they'll get burned in for images that don't change a lot. They're fantastic for movies and gaming, though.

There are a few good non-OLED HDR monitors, but not many. I have an AOC Q27G3XMN; its a 27" 1440p 180hz monitor that is good for entry-level HDR, especially in brighter rooms. It has over 1000 nits of brightness, and no major flaws. It only has 336 backlight zones, though, so you might notice some blooming around subtitles or other fine details where there's dark and light content close together. (VA panels are better than IPS at suppressing that, though.) It's also around half the price of a comparable OLED.

Most of the other non-OLED monitors with good HDR support have some other deal-breaking flaws or at least major annoyances, like latency, screwing up SDR content, buggy controls, etc. The Monitors Unboxed channel on YouTube and rtngs.com are both good places to check.

Re: What is HDR, anyway?

#35

Post by sandofsky »

dsego wrote: post #28

Isn't the result of their tone mapping algo similar to adjusting shadow and highlight sliders in other software?

No. When you simply adjust shadow and highlights, you lose local contrast. In an early draft of the post, there was an example, but it was cut for pacing.

Re: What is HDR, anyway?

#36

Post by NBJack »

CarVac wrote: post #3

HDR on displays is actually largely uncomfortable for me. They should reserve the brightest HDR whites for things like the sun itself and caustics, not white walls in indoor photos. As for tone mapping, I think the examples they show tend way too much towards flat low-local-contrast for my tastes.

HDR is really hard to get right apparently. It seems to get worse in video games too.

I'm a huge fan of Helldivers 2, but playing the game in HDR gives me a headache: the muzzle flash of weapons at high RPMs on a screen that goes to 240hz is basically a continuous flashbang for my eyes.

For a while, No Mans' Sky in HDR mode was basically the color saturation of every planet dialed up to 11.

The only game I've enjoyed at HDR was a port from a console, Returnal. The use of HDR brights was minimalistic and tasteful, often reserved for certain particle effects.

Re: What is HDR, anyway?

#39

Post by mort96 »

lordleft wrote: post #31
mxfh wrote: post #22

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…

Isn't that the point of the article? That the colloquial meaning of HDR is quite overloaded, and when people complain about HDR, they mean bad tone-mapping? I say this as someone as close to totally ignorant about photography as you can get; I personally thought the article was pretty spectacular.

When I complain about HDR it's because I've intentionally set the brightness of pure white to a comfortable level, and then suddenly parts of my screen are brighter than that. You fundamentally can't solve that problem with just better tone mapping, can you?

Re: What is HDR, anyway?

#40

Post by perching_aix »

I'm not entirely convinced that greedy influencers are to blame for people hating on overly bright content. Instead, I think something is different with how displays produce brightness compared to just the nature outside. Light outside is supposed to reach up to tens of thousands of nits, yet even 1000 nits is searing on a display. Is it that displays output polarized light? Is it the spectral distribution of especially the better displays being three really tight peaks? I cannot tell you, but I'm suspecting something isn't quite right.

All this aside, HDR and high brightness are different things - HDR is just a representational thing. You can go full send on your SDR monitor as well, you'll just see more banding. The majority of the article is just content marketing about how they perform automatic tonemapping anyways.

Post reply on HN