HDR gaming on PC. Do you feel like you're missing out?

[DigDog]

Commanderdredd is arguing so hard on behalf of hrd you would think he has sex with it.

My answer to the op is NO.

I do not miss this enhancement nor do i think im missing out. The shiny-ness of the graphics, whether they involve better detail or not, does not preoccupy me because i still feel that graphics are irrelevant compared to gameplay (when well made; when badly made they make things worse).

I am content waiting for display technology to slowly get better and for me to find new functions enabled on whatever monitor ive just lazily bought, but i certainly wont go out of my way to buy hdr if i can save money without it.

 

[Regs]

It's also about pixel accuracy too. Older displays or ones without HDR can bleed into each other. Panels with HDR have more precision and local area lighting - HDR is just the end effect of a monitors capability.

 

[Midwayman]

Viewing the right kind of image on a proper SDR screen will also show tons of dynamic range. How do you think something like this or this were created on a calibrated standard display before the advent of HDR monitors if according to you an SDR display can't show the full dynamic range?

By the way dynamic range is measured in stops - log_base2(contrast ratio). Film and the best digital sensors have a dynamic range of ~15 stops. To achieve such DR ratio you need a contrast ratio of 30000:1, which is a far cry from what these "HDR" displays are advertising.

You are confusing tone mapping with HDR. You can composite several exposures together to make a HDR image. That is, one that includes more dynamic range. Than typically possible. That various of course in photography as each camera is a little different in dynamic range. Anyhow the output is done through tone mapping. The end product is a SDR image that can be effectively displayed or printed. People have colloquially used HDR to refer to the end product, that's not technically correct. Displaying a real HDR image without tone mapping on a HDR display would result in clipping. Tone mapping often produces weird halos, etc as an artifact of the contrast gradients. A real HDR image on a real HDR display will always look more natural that a HDR image tone mapped onto a SDR display. That isn't to say making a real HDR image on a SDR isn't possible. You just use your curves to adjust exposure, but you're operating blind.

 

[tamz_msc]

You are confusing tone mapping with HDR. You can composite several exposures together to make a HDR image. That is, one that includes more dynamic range. Than typically possible. That various of course in photography as each camera is a little different in dynamic range. Anyhow the output is done through tone mapping. The end product is a SDR image that can be effectively displayed or printed. People have colloquially used HDR to refer to the end product, that's not technically correct. Displaying a real HDR image without tone mapping on a HDR display would result in clipping. Tone mapping often produces weird halos, etc as an artifact of the contrast gradients. A real HDR image on a real HDR display will always look more natural that a HDR image tone mapped onto a SDR display. That isn't to say making a real HDR image on a SDR isn't possible. You just use your curves to adjust exposure, but you're operating blind.

No I'm not. Technically an HDR image is just an image with high dynamic range, it is only a matter of exposing it in a way that can be viewed on a display. Tone-mapping is just a post-processing technique that enables viewing all the captured dynamic range on a display as best as possible. Yes there can be artifacts as a result of it but you'll never map all the captured information completely on to a limited range. HDR displays just use fancy technology to expand this mappable range, in reality though the end result is going to be barely any better than a SDR display except in an image with a high number of localized bright spots.

 

[Midwayman]

No I'm not. Technically an HDR image is just an image with high dynamic range, it is only a matter of exposing it in a way that can be viewed on a display. Tone-mapping is just a post-processing technique that enables viewing all the captured dynamic range on a display as best as possible. Yes there can be artifacts as a result of it but you'll never map all the captured information completely on to a limited range. HDR displays just use fancy technology to expand this mappable range, in reality though the end result is going to be barely any better than a SDR display except in an image with a high number of localized bright spots.

And you don't see the contradiction inherent in that statement? Putting a 12 stop image on a 12 stop display is different than mapping a 12 stop image to a 6 stop display. The fact that HDR will inevitably have some tone mapping between the camera and the media doesn't invalidate the fact that it is truer to the original. From HDR media to HDR there is no tone mapping.

 

[tamz_msc]

And you don't see the contradiction inherent in that statement? Putting a 12 stop image on a 12 stop display is different than mapping a 12 stop image to a 6 stop display. The fact that HDR will inevitably have some tone mapping between the camera and the media doesn't invalidate the fact that it is truer to the original. From HDR media to HDR there is no tone mapping.

But that doesn't mean that a good SDR display can't approximate to the best extent possible how an HDR image is supposed to look like. We have only begun to properly implement the required technology to achieve this, but on most implementations up to now there is tone-mapping involved when switching to HDR mode. That is why HDR on most advertised displays except something like the PG279UQ or some oleds is mostly a gimmick, because they don't have the full array of technologies to effectively achieve that level of contrast required for it. Which is the whole point of the pointlessness of all these HDR-certified labels that manufacturers like to tout on their monitors which results in nothing but screwed up tone-mapping when enabling HDR mode.

 

[ImpulsE69]

HDR while enhancing is hardly a necessity and I'm not quite sure that anyone but the hardest up videophiles would care to throw money at it right now. But then again, I'm fine without 4k as well at this point. I won't belittle those who love it, because we all have our quirks, I just don't see it as something to chase at this time. (granted my tv will do HDR/HDR10?/DV but, having to get all new equipment as well as new 'video' to use it is such a PITA - it frankly is just another thing for the movie companies to push out yet another version of their movies).

 

[Alpha One Seven]

The argument was you can create the same image using traditional SDR display tech. It’s false

No, that was never said nor implied, it's just not possible for SDR to match HDR displays. They are made differently and to different specs.
Look at rtings.com and compare an SDR to an HDR display to see for yourself.

 

[Alpha One Seven]

No they aren't, you'd probably have seen what an oversaturated image looks like, and how displays can make things look oversaturated, especially on oled mobile screens.

Yes HDR is an image processing technique. But I am talking about the dynamic range of content you view on screen. HDR displays can't match the output dynamic range of digital images, in fact they are barely better than SDR displays.

There are standards for what can be called HDR displays and they are far superior to SDR specs.
On a typical SDR display, for instance, images will have a dynamic range of about 6 stops. HDR content is able to almost triple that dynamic range, with an average approximate total of 17.6 stops. Higher end HDR displays can exceed this amount.
That is a Huge difference, not just barely better. You also get a much richer color gamut as well.

Sometimes the grapes are just out of reach, not sour.

A Fox one day spied a beautiful bunch of ripe grapes hanging from a vine trained along the branches of a tree. The grapes seemed ready to burst with juice, and the Fox’s mouth watered as he gazed longingly at them.

The bunch hung from a high branch, and the Fox had to jump for it. The first time he jumped he missed it by a long way. So he walked off a short distance and took a running leap at it, only to fall short once more. Again and again he tried, but in vain.

Now he sat down and looked at the grapes in disgust.

“What a fool I am,” he said. “Here I am wearing myself out to get a bunch of sour grapes that are not worth gaping for.”

And off he walked very, very scornfully.

Moral

There are many who pretend to despise and belittle that which is beyond their reach.

 

[Midwayman]

HDR while enhancing is hardly a necessity and I'm not quite sure that anyone but the hardest up videophiles would care to throw money at it right now. But then again, I'm fine without 4k as well at this point. I won't belittle those who love it, because we all have our quirks, I just don't see it as something to chase at this time. (granted my tv will do HDR/HDR10?/DV but, having to get all new equipment as well as new 'video' to use it is such a PITA - it frankly is just another thing for the movie companies to push out yet another version of their movies).

If you're watching cable or satellite good luck getting 1080p that doesn't look like garbage. Streaming has been better in general for me, but banding is pretty band in backgrounds. I have little faith of media companies being able to deliver 4k and HDR content when they are already bandwidth starving 1080p. Yeah. I can now spend my 8mbps budget on more pixels and bit depth rather than descent compression settings. Of course Media providers never got their shit together for 480p either. Maybe by demanding 4k and HDR we'll get a feed that approaches well compressed 1080p?

 

[ImpulsE69]

If you're watching cable or satellite good luck getting 1080p that doesn't look like garbage. Streaming has been better in general for me, but banding is pretty band in backgrounds. I have little faith of media companies being able to deliver 4k and HDR content when they are already bandwidth starving 1080p. Yeah. I can now spend my 8mbps budget on more pixels and bit depth rather than descent compression settings. Of course Media providers never got their shit together for 480p either. Maybe by demanding 4k and HDR we'll get a feed that approaches well compressed 1080p?

I stream everything and have for probably 8 years. I'm not sitting 2 foot from my tv so much of what you talk about doesn't bother me. I won't say I don't have preferences/standards for quality, but I'm more forgiving on the bulk of it

 

[Midwayman]

I stream everything and have for probably 8 years. I'm not sitting 2 foot from my tv so much of what you talk about doesn't bother me. I won't say I don't have preferences/standards for quality, but I'm more forgiving on the bulk of it

I envy you. Once you see the artifacts you can't unsee them.

 

[tamz_msc]

There are standards for what can be called HDR displays and they are far superior to SDR specs.
On a typical SDR display, for instance, images will have a dynamic range of about 6 stops. HDR content is able to almost triple that dynamic range, with an average approximate total of 17.6 stops. Higher end HDR displays can exceed this amount.
That is a Huge difference, not just barely better. You also get a much richer color gamut as well.

Sometimes the grapes are just out of reach, not sour.

A Fox one day spied a beautiful bunch of ripe grapes hanging from a vine trained along the branches of a tree. The grapes seemed ready to burst with juice, and the Fox’s mouth watered as he gazed longingly at them.

The bunch hung from a high branch, and the Fox had to jump for it. The first time he jumped he missed it by a long way. So he walked off a short distance and took a running leap at it, only to fall short once more. Again and again he tried, but in vain.

Now he sat down and looked at the grapes in disgust.

“What a fool I am,” he said. “Here I am wearing myself out to get a bunch of sour grapes that are not worth gaping for.”

And off he walked very, very scornfully.

Moral

There are many who pretend to despise and belittle that which is beyond their reach.

Yeah right, show me a display with a contrast ratio of 200,000:1. You have no clue what you're talking about. Go look up a review of any HDR display on tftcentral. Depending on the implementation contrast ratio falls off dramatically once you exceed 50% coverage.

 

[Midwayman]

Yeah right, show me a display with a contrast ratio of 200,000:1. You have no clue what you're talking about. Go look up a review of any HDR display on tftcentral. Depending on the implementation contrast ratio falls off dramatically once you exceed 50% coverage.

My Panasonic ST60 had a claimed contrast ratio of about 2,000,000:1. *shrug* I very much doubt it actually does it. Probably measured with one pixel at max brightness vs the entire screen off, and jacking the overall brightness level in between. Those stupid high contrast levels are always about the black level though. A completely imperceptible change in black level will really jack it up.

 

[Hans Gruber]

I feel I am missing out not having OLED but not HDR. I know it comes with HDR but I think OLED is really that good after seeing OLED many times.

 

[moonbogg]

The thing I am hung up on is the potential for artistic expression in video games using the tool of area specific luminance control. I think this can be a very unique and interesting artistic tool. I'm not actually hung up on all the HDR specs. I simply think the idea of having a specific object or effect in a game stand out due to high brightness is a cool idea. I understand the argument about HDR photos looking good on an SDR screen. They still have a high range to them, but the way I see it, the one ingredient they are missing is brightness control. SDR panels seem to have good control over color, but they have little control over brightness. It just seems to be a variable that's completely missing from SDR monitors.

Naturally, there is some brightness control of course. You can have dark scenes or light scenes. For instance, let's say you are playing a game and are in a dark room and the walls are blue. Now imagine simply increasing the backlight luminance on one of the walls. What happens? Does it get more blue or brighter blue? How is that handled compared to an SDR monitor? As a matter of fact, it's at this precise moment that I have just realized how confusing all of this is and I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about.

 

[local]

HDR is meh, but then again I only joined the 1080p fad two years ago. The only time I ever wanted any kind of HDR is during the last Olympics when the only 4k channels Dish provided required HDR and my TV does not have that.

 

[Fenixgoon]

i have an HDR-capable monitor, but i don't know that there's really any benefit to it. i got the monitor mostly because it's comically large, has reasonably good color accuracy for editing photos , and has freesync for games when i need it (LG-32ud59B)

 

[shortylickens]

I remember when we used to ask if they were fun.

Gaming is such a bad experience these days.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I usually game on a Sony VPLHW45ES. It's contrast is the best I've seen since the era of CRT. It's not HDR or 4K, but, the quality is awesome. Maybe in 5-10 years a 4k sxrd projector will dip below 2K and I might be tempted, but, this thing is awesome.