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

Chrome Jpegxl Issue Reopened

issues.chromium.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 144 posts

Re: Chrome Jpegxl Issue Reopened

#101

Post by Dylan16807 »

mort96 wrote: post #98
Dylan16807 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to avoid eye pain then you want caps on how much brightness can be in what percent of the image, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and disable it entirely. And if you're speaking from iphone experience, my understanding is the main problem there isn't extra bright things in the image, it's the renderer ignoring your brightness settings when HDR shows up, which is obviously stupid and not a prob…

If the brightness cap of the HDR image is full SDR brightness, what value remains in HDR? As far as I can see, it's all bath water, no baby

> If the brightness cap of the HDR image is full SDR brightness, what value remains in HDR?

If you set #ffffff to be a comfortable max, then that would be the brightness cap for HDR flares that fill the entire screen.

But filling the entire screen like that rarely happens. Smaller flares would have a higher cap.

For example, let's say an HDR scene has an average brightness that's 55% of #ffffff, but a tenth of the screen is up at 200% of #ffffff. That should give you a visually impressive boosted range without blinding you.

Re: Chrome Jpegxl Issue Reopened

#102

Post by mort96 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #101
mort96 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the brightness cap of the HDR image is full SDR brightness, what value remains in HDR? As far as I can see, it's all bath water, no baby

> If the brightness cap of the HDR image is full SDR brightness, what value remains in HDR? If you set #ffffff to be a comfortable max, then that would be the brightness cap for HDR flares that fill the entire screen . But filling the entire screen like that rarely happens. Smaller flares would have a higher cap. For example, let's say an HDR scene has an average brightness that's 55% of #ffffff, but a tenth of the s…

Oh.

I don't want the ability for 10% of the screen to be so bright it hurts my eyes. That's the exact thing I want to avoid. I don't understand why you think your suggestion would help. I want SDR FFFFFF to be the brightest any part of my screen goes to, because that's what I've configured to be at a comfortable value using my OS brightness controls.

Re: Chrome Jpegxl Issue Reopened

#103

Post by Dylan16807 »

mort96 wrote: post #102
Dylan16807 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the brightness cap of the HDR image is full SDR brightness, what value remains in HDR? If you set #ffffff to be a comfortable max, then that would be the brightness cap for HDR flares that fill the entire screen . But filling the entire screen like that rarely happens. Smaller flares would have a higher cap. For example, let's say an HDR scene has an average brightness that's 55% of #ffffff, but a tenth of the s…

Oh. I don't want the ability for 10% of the screen to be so bright it hurts my eyes. That's the exact thing I want to avoid. I don't understand why you think your suggestion would help. I want SDR FFFFFF to be the brightest any part of my screen goes to, because that's what I've configured to be at a comfortable value using my OS brightness controls.

I strongly doubt that the brightness to hurt your eyes is the same for 10% of the screen and 100% of the screen.

I am not suggesting eye hurting. The opposite really, I'm suggesting a curve that stays similarly comfortable at all sizes.

Re: Chrome Jpegxl Issue Reopened

#104

Post by mort96 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #103
mort96 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh. I don't want the ability for 10% of the screen to be so bright it hurts my eyes. That's the exact thing I want to avoid. I don't understand why you think your suggestion would help. I want SDR FFFFFF to be the brightest any part of my screen goes to, because that's what I've configured to be at a comfortable value using my OS brightness controls.

I strongly doubt that the brightness to hurt your eyes is the same for 10% of the screen and 100% of the screen. I am not suggesting eye hurting. The opposite really, I'm suggesting a curve that stays similarly comfortable at all sizes.

I don't want any one part of my screen to be a stupidly bright point light. It's not just the total amount of photons that matters.

Re: Chrome Jpegxl Issue Reopened

#105

Post by Dylan16807 »

mort96 wrote: post #104
Dylan16807 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly doubt that the brightness to hurt your eyes is the same for 10% of the screen and 100% of the screen. I am not suggesting eye hurting. The opposite really, I'm suggesting a curve that stays similarly comfortable at all sizes.

I don't want any one part of my screen to be a stupidly bright point light. It's not just the total amount of photons that matters.

It is not just the total amount.

But it's not the brightest spot either.

It's in between.

Re: Chrome Jpegxl Issue Reopened

#106

Post by mort96 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #105
mort96 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want any one part of my screen to be a stupidly bright point light. It's not just the total amount of photons that matters.

It is not just the total amount. But it's not the brightest spot either. It's in between.

I just don't want your "in between" "only hurt my eyes a little" solution. I don't see how that's so hard to understand. I set my brightness so that SDR FFFFFF is a comfortable max brightness. I don't understand why web content should be allowed to go brighter than that.

Re: Chrome Jpegxl Issue Reopened

#107

Post by Dylan16807 »

mort96 wrote: post #106
Dylan16807 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not just the total amount. But it's not the brightest spot either. It's in between.

I just don't want your "in between" "only hurt my eyes a little" solution. I don't see how that's so hard to understand. I set my brightness so that SDR FFFFFF is a comfortable max brightness. I don't understand why web content should be allowed to go brighter than that.

I'm suggesting something that WON'T hurt your eyes. I don't see how that's so hard to understand.

You set a comfortable max brightness for the entire screen.

Comfortable max brightness for small parts of the screen is a different brightness. Comfortable. NO eye hurting.

Re: Chrome Jpegxl Issue Reopened

#108

Post by mort96 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #107
mort96 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't want your "in between" "only hurt my eyes a little" solution. I don't see how that's so hard to understand. I set my brightness so that SDR FFFFFF is a comfortable max brightness. I don't understand why web content should be allowed to go brighter than that.

I'm suggesting something that WON'T hurt your eyes. I don't see how that's so hard to understand. You set a comfortable max brightness for the entire screen. Comfortable max brightness for small parts of the screen is a different brightness . Comfortable. NO eye hurting.

It's still uncomfortable to have 10% of the screen get ridiculously bright.

Re: Chrome Jpegxl Issue Reopened

#109

Post by Dylan16807 »

mort96 wrote: post #108
Dylan16807 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm suggesting something that WON'T hurt your eyes. I don't see how that's so hard to understand. You set a comfortable max brightness for the entire screen. Comfortable max brightness for small parts of the screen is a different brightness . Comfortable. NO eye hurting.

It's still uncomfortable to have 10% of the screen get ridiculously bright.

Yes, it's uncomfortable to have it get "ridiculously" bright.

But there's a level that is comfortable that is higher than what you set for FFFFFF.

And the comfortable level for 1% of the screen is even higher.

HDR could take advantage of that to make more realistic scenes without making you uncomfortable. If it was coded right to respect your limits. Which is probably isn't right now. But it could be.

Re: Chrome Jpegxl Issue Reopened

#110

Post by mort96 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #109
mort96 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still uncomfortable to have 10% of the screen get ridiculously bright.

Yes, it's uncomfortable to have it get "ridiculously" bright. But there's a level that is comfortable that is higher than what you set for FFFFFF. And the comfortable level for 1% of the screen is even higher. HDR could take advantage of that to make more realistic scenes without making you uncomfortable. If it was coded right to respect your limits. Which is probably isn't right now. But it could be .

I severely doubt that I could ever be comfortable with 10% of my screen getting much brighter than the value I set as max brightness.

But say you're right. Now you've achieved images looking completely out of place. You've achieved making the surrounding GUI look grey instead of white. And the screen looks broken when it suddenly dims after switching tabs away from one with an HDR video. What's the point? Even ignoring the painful aspects (which is a big thing to ignore, since my laptop currently physically hurts me at night with no setting to make it not hurt me, which I don't appreciate), you're just making the experience of browsing the web worse. Why?

Post reply on HN