373
I know how to buy xorg users
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
373 points (95.6% liked)
linuxmemes
21143 readers
603 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
- These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudoin Windows. - No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Does wine run on wayland?
Edit, had to look up wth HDR is. Seems like a marketing gimmick.
Anti Commercial AI thingy
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11
:::
It isn't, it's just that marketing is really bad at displaying what HDR is about.
HDR means each color channel that used 8 bits can now use 10 bits, sometimes more. That means an increase of 256 shades per channel to 1024, allowing a higher range of shades to be displayed in the same picture, and avoiding the color banding problem:
That’s just 10 bit color, which is a thing and does reduce banding but is only a part of the various HDR specs. HDR also includes a significantly increased color space, as well as varying methods (depending on what spec you’re using) of mapping the mastered video to the capabilities of the end user’s display. In addition, to achieve the wider color gamut required HDR displays require some level of local dimming to increase the contrast by adjusting the brightness of various parts of the image, either through backlight zones in LCD technologies or by adjusting the brightness per pixel in LED technologies like OLED.
Thank you.
I assume HDR has to be explicitly encoded into images (and moving images) then to have true HDR, otherwise it's just upsampled? If that's the case, I'm also assuming most media out there is not encoded with HDR, and further if that's correct, does it really make a difference? I'm assuming upsampling means inferring new values and probably using gaussian, dithering, or some other method.
Somewhat related, my current screens support 4k, but when watching a 4k video at 60fps side by side on a screen at 4k resolution and another 1080p resolution, no difference could be seen. It wouldn't surprise me if that were the same with HDR, but I might be wrong.
Anti Commercial AI thingy
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11
:::
yes, from the capture (camera) all the way to distribution the content has to preserve the HDR bit depth. Some content on YouTube is in HDR (that is noted in the quality settings along with 1080p, etc), but the option only shows if both the content is HDR and the device playing it has HDR capabilities.
Regarding streaming, there is already a lot of HDR content out there, especially newer shows. But stupid DRM has always pushed us to alternative sources when it comes to playback quality on Linux anyway.
If you're not seeing difference of 4K and 1080p though, even up close, maybe your media isn't really 4k. I find the difference to be quite noticeable.
Ah, that's what I thought. Thanks.
I tried with the most known test video Big Buck Bunny. Their website is now down and the internet archive has it, but I did the test back when it was up. Also found a few 4k videos on youtube and elsewhere. Maybe me and the people I tested it with aren't sensitive to 4k video on 30-35 inch screens.
Anti Commercial AI thingy
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11
:::
So you’re saying you need glasses?
But yes, it does make a difference how much of your field of view is covered. If it’s a small screen and you’re relatively far away, 4K isn’t doing anything. And of course, you need a 4K capable screen in the first place, which is still not a given gor PC monitors, precisely due to their size. For a 21" desktop monitor, it’s simply not necessary. Although I‘d argue, less than 4K on a 32" screen, that’s like an arms length away from you (like on a desktop), is noticeably low res.
No. Just like some people aren't sensitive to 3D movies, we aren't sensitive to 4k 🤷
Anti Commercial AI thingy
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11
:::
People aren’t "sensitive" to 3D movies due to lack of stereoscopic vision (That’s typical for people who were cross-eyed from birth for example, even if they had corrective surgery). Or they can see them and don’t care or don’t like the effect.
If you’re not "sensitive" to 4K, that would suggest you‘re not capable of perceiving fine details and thus you do not have 20/20 vision. Given of course, you were looking at 4K content on a 4K screen in a size and distance, where the human eye should generally be capable of distinguishing those details.
I have never seen banding before, the image seems specifically picked to show the effect. I know it's common when converting to less than 256 but color, e.g. if you turn images into svgs for some reason, or gifs (actual gifs, not video)
Also dithering exists.
Anyway, it'll surely be standard at some point in the future, but it's very much a small quality improvement and not something one definitely needs.
Well, of course it is.
Banding is more common in synthetic gradients though, like games and webpages. A really easy way to see it is using a css gradient as a web page background.
Fair enough. Dithering would still be an option though. But if it's not done I agree there can be visible stripes in some cases.
Also I wanted to apologize for the negative wording in my above comment. That was uncalled for, even if I think HDR is totally not worth it at the moment.
Yeah, they've reduced the colour depth the show off the effect without requiring HDR already.
I find it a lot more noticeable in darker images/videos, and places where you're stuck with a small subset of the total colour depth.
HDR is not just marketing. And, unlike what other commenters have said, it’s not (primarily) about larger colour bitrate. That’s only a small part of it. The primary appeal is the following:
Old CRTs and early LCDs had very little brightness and very low contrast. Thus, video mastering and colour spaces reflected that. Most non HDR ("SDR") films and series are mastered with a monitor brightness of 80-100nits in mind (depending on the exact colour space), so the difference between the darkest and the brightest part of the image can also only be 100nits. That’s not a lot. Even the cheapest new TVs and monitors exceed that by more than double. And of course, you can make the image brighter and artificially increase the contrast but that‘s the same as upsampling DVDs to HD or HD to 4K.
What HDR set out to do was providing a specification for video mastering, that takes advantage of modern display technology. Modern LCDs can get as bright as multiple thousands of nits and OLEDs have near infinite contrast ratios. HDR provides a mastering process with usually 1000-2000nits peak brightness (depending on the standard), thus also higher contrast (the darkest and brightest part of the image can be over 1000 nits apart).
Of course, to truly experience HDR, you’ll need a screen that can take advantage of it. OLED TVs, bright LCDs with local dimming zones (to increase the possible contrast), etc. It is possible to profit from HDR even on screens that aren’t as good (my TV is an LCD without local dimming and only 350nit peak brightness and it does make a noticeable difference although not a huge one) but for "real" HDR you’d need something better. My monitor for example is Vesa DisplayHDR 600 certified, meaning it has a peak brightness of 600nits plus a number of local dimming zones and the difference in supported games is night and day. And that’s still not even near the peak of HDR capabilities.
tl;dr: HDR isn‘t just marketing or higher colour depth. HDR video is mastered to the increased capabilities of modern displays, while SDR ("normal") content is not.
It’s more akin to the difference between DVD and BluRay. The difference is huge, as long as you have a screen that can take advantage.