Apple’s “Extended Dynamic Range” Brings HDR to Non-HDR Displays • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple’s “Extended Dynamic Range” Brings HDR to Non-HDR Displays

#211

Post by account42 » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 3:34 PM UTC

cheschire wrote: post #90

Rapzid wrote: post #87

The industry is in a very strange place right now. HDR monitors are both quite expensive and unimpressive compared to the HDR OLED TVs.. For the 5-6k that this display from Apple costs, I would certainly expect it to be an OLED display at LEAST. But it's not. How is this the best we can get and it's NOT OLED? Dimming zones for 6k? I don't understand what's going on, I just want a nice OLED monitor that will fit on my…

OLED isn't super useful on computer screens where elements stay in a static location for a long time due to burn in. Also the amount of bright colors used in computer interfaces would cause some significant discomfort. And I'm not sure how legitimate this claim is, but I've read before that OLED suffers from dead pixels at a higher rate than other screen types, but don't take that too seriously without proof.

> OLED isn't super useful on computer screens where elements stay in a static location for a long time due to burn in.

I see this repeated a lot. Do you have any numbers/images on actual burnin in OLED screens. Would be interesting to know how long an OLED screen remains useable when used as a PC monitor.

Or to put it another way: Burn in does not seem to be enough of a concern to prevent Samsung/etc from puttin OLED screens into phones.

> Also the amount of bright colors used in computer interfaces would cause some significant discomfort.

The entire point of Apple's solution here is that UI's max brightness is not the display's true max brightness.

Re: Apple’s “Extended Dynamic Range” Brings HDR to Non-HDR Displays

#212

Post by ineedasername » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 4:18 PM UTC

account42 wrote: post #210

ineedasername wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why you would say it's not really HDR. It is. It's the base standard, the others use the same 10bit dynamic colors range. The 400/500/600 just refer to the maximum brightness of the display, something that may be a benefit but is not related to whether or not something is "true" HDR. HDR10 is true HDR. All HDR600 etc are also HDR10 with the added benefit of increased brightness.

HDR600 etc are not just a maximum required brightness but also a minimum required black value. That gives you an actual dynamic range; 10bit is not a range, it's a resolution.

HDR10 is a 10bit color depth. Not resolution. 1080p is generally considered minimum resolution, but that has nothing to do with the "10bit" part of HDR10: HDR10 Media Profile, more commonly known as HDR10, was announced on August 27, 2015, by the Consumer Technology Association and uses the wide-gamut Rec. 2020 color space, a bit depth of 10-bits [0]

Also, no, the 400/600 etc is just brightness: HDR10 and HDR 400 are the same, except HDR 400 mentions the level of brightness on the display. [1].

You may be thinking of HDR True Black, which is a further enhancement, but something different. Deeper blacks can also be achieved by non-OLED displays that support full-array local dimming, and it looks like most displays that support FALD are also HDR displays.

[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic-range_video

[1]https://www.bluecinetech.co.uk/hdr10-vs-hdr400/#:~:text=HDR-...

Re: Apple’s “Extended Dynamic Range” Brings HDR to Non-HDR Displays

#213

Post by account42 » Tue, Dec 08, 2020, 8:49 AM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #212

account42 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HDR600 etc are not just a maximum required brightness but also a minimum required black value. That gives you an actual dynamic range; 10bit is not a range, it's a resolution.

HDR10 is a 10bit color depth. Not resolution. 1080p is generally considered minimum resolution, but that has nothing to do with the "10bit" part of HDR10: HDR10 Media Profile, more commonly known as HDR10, was announced on August 27, 2015, by the Consumer Technology Association and uses the wide-gamut Rec. 2020 color space, a bit depth of 10-bits [0] Also, no, the 400/600 etc is just brightness: HDR10 and HDR 400 are…

> HDR10 is a 10bit color depth. Not resolution.

Bit depth is the resolution of the color space.

> Also, no, the 400/600 etc is just brightness: HDR10 and HDR 400 are the same, except HDR 400 mentions the level of brightness on the display. [1].

Vesa [0] disagrees with you. Note the Maximum Black Level Luminance restrictions. Minimum brightness + maximum black level = minimum contrast. That's why legacy display technologies with mediocre static contrast (TN, VA, IPS) need backlight hacks to support those specifications.

[0] https://displayhdr.org/

Re: Apple’s “Extended Dynamic Range” Brings HDR to Non-HDR Displays

#214

Post by cheschire » Tue, Dec 08, 2020, 6:43 PM UTC

account42 wrote: post #211

cheschire wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OLED isn't super useful on computer screens where elements stay in a static location for a long time due to burn in. Also the amount of bright colors used in computer interfaces would cause some significant discomfort. And I'm not sure how legitimate this claim is, but I've read before that OLED suffers from dead pixels at a higher rate than other screen types, but don't take that too seriously without proof.

> OLED isn't super useful on computer screens where elements stay in a static location for a long time due to burn in. I see this repeated a lot. Do you have any numbers/images on actual burnin in OLED screens. Would be interesting to know how long an OLED screen remains useable when used as a PC monitor. Or to put it another way: Burn in does not seem to be enough of a concern to prevent Samsung/etc from puttin OLED…

Indeed, burn-in tests almost feel anecdotal because they involve no more than several TVs. We don't have the MTTF type numbers for pixels like we demand for hard drives.

The problem with contrast is more pronounced on my OLED tv than on my HDR LED monitor. I've also noticed on my TV if I watch netflix with standard size subtitles, the brightness overwhelms the lower part of the image on dark TV shows. I suspect this is less of an issue on LED monitors only because the contrast is not so extreme.

Again, all anecdotes. I do like OLED though, enough to make it my priority TV feature.