What Does HDR Mean For Games And Movies?

This couldn't be any worse if you actually were trolling.

Snowdog said:
But what this recent section of the conversation was all about what the "HDR" buzzword means in video games.
Click to expand...
No, you decided that it was all about buzzwords. It's a straw man. Stop bringing it up. Its only relevance to the thread is terms of the stupid misconception that when people in the industry talk about HDR, they're talking about some hideous Photoshop filter. You don't know what you're talking about.

Snowdog said:
If you think that is cherry picking: Google "HDR Photography" and select image search. You will have a hard time finding a realistic looking image
Click to expand...
And it has fuck all to do with HDR displays. Big whoop, it's a stupid photography fad popular with hipster dipshits. Worst of all, it confuses people like we've seen in this very thread. Have I show enough contempt for you to realize I do in fact get your point?

Snowdog said:
"HDR" in Video games I explained above. Nothing but exaggerated presentation in 8 bits, but oddly enough it is exaggerated in the opposite direction of "HDR" in photography. Instead of pulling everything into the midtone, they force blooming and blown highlights, this photo demonstrates how they are opposite:
Click to expand...
Ahem. For hopefully the last time, everything you dislike is the result of post-processing done on the way to converting HDR to LDR, or to put it another way, converting from a physically scaled, floating point, linear color space to something viewable on an 8-bit per channel display. You can turn off or tone down some of those filters, but it's all HDR internally, which we'd like to eventually display directly, bypassing most of what you're hating on. You should be happy about that.

Snowdog said:
"HDR" in TV it is bit early to tell, but it looks like Dolby Vision is also tipping over to the side of creating a package of exaggerated effects to wow on the showroom floor. The whole point here is marketing and without stark differences, there is nothing to market. So I expect things like exaggerated colors of Dolby Vision to win out. It doesn't have to be this way: But it probably will be.
Click to expand...
Dolby may still somehow fuck it up every which way until Monday, but as has been said, that's a simulated image, because you can't actually show the effect on regular displays using regular image formats. So take anything you haven't seen in person with a grain of salt.

Me? Yes, I've seen HDR displays live, back before Dolby bought the patents from BrightSide / Sunnybrook Technologies. I saw them showing photography in native HDR image formats. They had a couple playable modded PC games. They also practically burned everyone's eyes when they opened Notepad. A 60" display packed with a tight hexagonal grid of white LEDs at full output will do that.

Also note that Dolby sells such displays to filmmakers, for the purpose of emulating other kinds of displays. The capacity for lighting accuracy is absolutely there.
 
Catalan said:
No, you decided that it was all about buzzwords. It's a straw man. Stop bringing it up. Its only relevance to the thread is terms of the stupid misconception that when people in the industry talk about HDR, they're talking about some hideous Photoshop filter. You don't know what you're talking about.


And it has fuck all to do with HDR displays. Big whoop, it's a stupid photography fad popular with hipster dipshits. Worst of all, it confuses people like we've seen in this very thread. Have I show enough contempt for you to realize I do in fact get your point?
.
Click to expand...

You are the one that conflated "HDR" photography, gaming and TV.

They are all completely different things.

"HDR" in Video Games and Photography, and in these contexts, it is basically an inaccurate marketing buzzword, for a basket of exaggerated effects.

Also you are incorrectly accusing me of a straw man argument. I am not misstating your position to attack it. It is MY position that "HDR" in Games/Photography is largely a buzzword label for a batch of cheesy effects. Get a proper understanding of fallacious arguments, before accusing people of them.

HDR TV, it remains to seen how much exaggeration will end up in it.
 
I feel like I'm playing chess against a pigeon here.

Snowdog said:
You are the one that conflated "HDR" photography, gaming and TV.
Click to expand...
Conflate? I have clarified and distinguished everything there is to distinguish. I have a copy of High Dynamic Range Imaging by Reinhard, Ward, Pattanaik, and Debevec on by bookshelf, from 2006. I know damn well the difference between things, already.

Call HDR what you want, but it actually has a technical meaning independent of marketing buzzwords... and I'd like it if we could put those marketing buzzwords aside and talk about facts. Please?

Snowdog said:
Also you are incorrectly accusing me of a straw man argument. I am not misstating your position to attack it. It is MY position that "HDR" in Games/Photography is largely a buzzword label for a batch of cheesy effects. Get a proper understanding of fallacious arguments, before accusing people of them. HDR TV, it remains to seen how much exaggeration will end up in it.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension, please. You're not misstating my arguments, and I never said you were. You're just ignoring them. The straw man is your conflating cheesy effects, filters, and marketing with something that's well defined by academics, specifications, measurements, and algorithms, then using that equivocation to denounce the whole thing.

We've had HDR displays for 10+ years. The only thing that "remains to be seen" is if the consumer version is botched or not.
 
Catalan said:
I feel like I'm playing chess against a pigeon here.
Click to expand...

People who can't make proper arguments, often resort to insults.

Conflate? I have clarified and distinguished everything there is to distinguish. I have a copy of High Dynamic Range Imaging by Reinhard, Ward, Pattanaik, and Debevec on by bookshelf, from 2006. I know damn well the difference between things, already.

Call HDR what you want, but it actually has a technical meaning independent of marketing buzzwords... and I'd like it if we could put those marketing buzzwords aside and talk about facts. Please?
Click to expand...

That you have a book on your shelf doesn't change the fact that you did conflate them when you said:
However, all the above do have measurable luminances, with orders of magnitude between them. HDR formats—whether in photography, film, or games—attempt to capture that difference.
Click to expand...

In fact, they are all very different. HDR in Video Games, and Photography is Faux "HDR" and as I pointed out in a previous point they tend to do the opposite kind of Faux "HDR" cheese. "HDR" Photography pulling everything to the mid tones, "HDR" video games creating phone blown highlights, blooming.

Those are facts BTW. Calling it a marketing buzzword, when in refers an often contradictory package of cheesy effects, is reasonable. "HDR" has become a marketing buzzword.

Now that we are going to get TV actually capable of higher dynamic range, it remains to be seen if is just going to be used to improve accuracy in shading, and reduce banding, or if like other "HDR" examples in the marketplace, they are going add a layers of cheese on top.

I am betting on the cheese.



Reading comprehension, please. You're not misstating my arguments, and I never said you were. You're just ignoring them. The straw man is your conflating cheesy effects, filters, and marketing with something that's well defined by academics, specifications, measurements, and algorithms, then using that equivocation to denounce the whole thing.
Click to expand...

I had no reading comprehension problem, you seem to have a problem comprehending before you write. If you are going to accuse me of straw man argument, then understand what is first.

Straw man - RationalWiki

"A straw man is logical fallacy that occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents an opponent's position to make the opponent's arguments appear easily defeated."
 
Last edited:
An argument is pretty much dead when you've reached the point of meta-argument. That said, bring on the crap slinging.

Snowdog said:
People who can't make proper arguments, often resort to insults.
Click to expand...
Fortunately, correlation does not imply causation.


Snowdog said:
That you have a book on your shelf doesn't change the fact that...
Click to expand...
Blah, blah, blah, I won't bother quoting it then if you care so little. It is amusing, however, to watch you insist that your personal definition of HDR be taken as gospel while getting your panties into a knot over the exact dictionary definition of an entirely tangential term. Bravo. Should I link to the formal term for that behavior, or can you Google it yourself?

Snowdog said:
Now that we are going to get TV actually capable of higher dynamic range...
Click to expand...
To prevent further misunderstanding, we should come up with a term for this television that is actually capable of higher dynamic range. I'm thinking TVACOHDR, unless you know of a better name. Maybe something a little shorter?
 
NASA is doing some spectacular things with HDR:



This is footage of Orbital ATK’s QM-2 solid rocket booster test taken by NASA’s High Dynamic Range Stereo X (HiDyRS-X) camera. HiDyRS-X records high speed, high dynamic range footage in multiple exposures simultaneously for use in analyzing rocket engine tests. Traditional high speed video cameras are limited to shooting in one exposure at a time, but HiDyRS-X can record multiple high speed video exposures at once, combining them into a high dynamic range video that adequately exposes all areas of the video image for comprehensive analysis.
 
Would've been cooler if there was variance to show the difference in speed but nope, just one speed the whole time.
 
Snowdog said:
Maybe the most zones of any LCD, but not so astonishing:
Panasonic DX900 review - FlatpanelsHD
"Because even though 512 local dimming zones on DX900 sounds like a lot, it really isn’t. We still noticed halos/blooming around bright objects; a black star-filled sky perfectly exemplifies the issue. You can increase the number of zones to several thousand and it will still happen on LCDs. Local dimming control on LCD also crushes shadow details in some instances."




Clueless article.

He repeatedly claims HDR increases contrast. It doesn't.

White/black = Contrast. It doesn't matter how many bits you have. Contrast is the same.

HDR should be about subtlety, not all the whiz bang, exaggerated over the top contrast effects.
Click to expand...


From my understanding, HDR tv sets should be able to produce an expanded color space on top of allowing more peak brightness and greater contrast.

The peak brightness is important not so that the display is ultra bright, it's so that you can get a deep and BRIGHT colors. If White is not very bright, then the blues and reds will be even much dimmer still.




A ball of white light will be brighter than a ball of red light, but if the threshold of brightness is set much higher, the brightness of red or blue that can be achieved will be off the charts, far more impressive and spectacular to behold... or so I got from that.
 
Most of you don't know what you're missing out on. HDR yeah not so much of a big deal unless side by side but realistic colour reproduction.. shit.. screens are a LONG way a way off that.

I operate high end laser projectors which have been practically covering rec2020 gamut for somewhere around 13 years now? They're all monochromatic. The yellows, cyans, peachy oranges, super deep reds, gold etc etc all can't be done on a screen. Monochromatic gold lasers (ie not blended but the real deal in pure 577nm) is like gold being painted on the wall - its an absolute trip which confuses the hell out of your eyes, thinks there is a material there but not - living light colour.

There was a laser tv design in the past, pretty sure it used coherent OPSL sources but I'm not sure what came of it, far too expensive back then.
edit: here Osram signs 'laser TV' deal with Coherent
Using OPSLs looks like 480-488nm cyan blue, 532nm green and likely 637nm red. So no deep red or deep blue at that point.

Yet to see a screen, even OLEDs come remotely close. They are closest though in terms of reproduction as they are mostly monochromatic from memory.
I'd love to see what could be done with a few of the latest scanner designs and a compact diode based full colour RGB. Four outputs each doing a chunk of 1080p, you'd be in the ballpark... ultimate way to do HDR as you are not limited by LED brightness or dot pitch... you can literally chuck 10,000 lumens into a single pixel if you want. You think TV screens are torches ;) ;)


And those who say 10bit is nothing, the banding reduction alone is wicked, depending on the content - some content this is far more visible, usually it's not as much of an issue. Scenes like e.g. ocean/sky where there is a very faint gradient it becomes visible much easier.

I for one am excited to see HDR and hopefully some far better colour reproduction in the coming future. Exciting times as this is really the end of the rabbit hole. Once we've done this we have the full range of colours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dgz
like this
Snowdog said:
Again. Bullshit.

8 bits is very close to creating shades where people can barely distinguish the difference (hence,the lack of banding in general).

You aren't going to notice any real difference with proper tone mapping of 10+ bits, because shades that are already available are so very close.

All that properly mapped higher bit depths does is insert a few more largely indistinguishable shades between them, but 10 bits would be handy for completely eliminating what banding that still remains. It would be nice for that, but hard to market when it is so rare to start with.

Since that difference is so subtle it would never be noticed by anyone, outside of the rare banding situation.

The fact that with proper tone mapping the effect is borderline invisible, leads to a host of introduced "HDR" effects to hype/market this tech (and you could do the same type of effects in 8bit).
Click to expand...
Outside of the rare banding situation? Banding is completely obvious in every black and white or other monotone picture. I don't see how you can miss this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top