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:
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.
Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11
#!/usr/bin/env nix-shell#!nix-shell -i bash --packages xautomation xclipsleep 0.2
(echo'::: spoiler Anti Commercial AI thingy
[CC BY-NC-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)
Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11
```bash'cat"$0"echo'```
:::') | xclip -selection clipboard
xte "keydown Control_L""key V""keyup Control_L"
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.
no difference could be seen
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.
yes, from the capture (camera) all the way to distribution the content has to preserve the HDR bit depth.
Ah, that’s what I thought. Thanks.
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.
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.
Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11
#!/usr/bin/env nix-shell#!nix-shell -i bash --packages xautomation xclipsleep 0.2
(echo'::: spoiler Anti Commercial AI thingy
[CC BY-NC-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)
Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11
```bash'cat"$0"echo'```
:::') | xclip -selection clipboard
xte "keydown Control_L""key V""keyup Control_L"
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.
Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11
#!/usr/bin/env nix-shell#!nix-shell -i bash --packages xautomation xclipsleep 0.2
(echo'::: spoiler Anti Commercial AI thingy
[CC BY-NC-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)
Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11
```bash'cat"$0"echo'```
:::') | xclip -selection clipboard
xte "keydown Control_L""key V""keyup Control_L"
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:
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 4.0
Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11
#!/usr/bin/env nix-shell #!nix-shell -i bash --packages xautomation xclip sleep 0.2 (echo '::: spoiler Anti Commercial AI thingy [CC BY-NC-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11 ```bash' cat "$0" echo '``` :::') | xclip -selection clipboard xte "keydown Control_L" "key V" "keyup Control_L"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 4.0
Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11
#!/usr/bin/env nix-shell #!nix-shell -i bash --packages xautomation xclip sleep 0.2 (echo '::: spoiler Anti Commercial AI thingy [CC BY-NC-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11 ```bash' cat "$0" echo '``` :::') | xclip -selection clipboard xte "keydown Control_L" "key V" "keyup Control_L"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 4.0
Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11
#!/usr/bin/env nix-shell #!nix-shell -i bash --packages xautomation xclip sleep 0.2 (echo '::: spoiler Anti Commercial AI thingy [CC BY-NC-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11 ```bash' cat "$0" echo '``` :::') | xclip -selection clipboard xte "keydown Control_L" "key V" "keyup Control_L"