I basically let HDR pass me by for quite a while, but I just got a new
Gsync monitor and it was economical and came with HDR. It also has a max
refresh rate of 240Hz, which I keep at 144Hz, so no more Gsync static
image flicker in games (the trick to get rid of that was to cycle down to
143 Hz.)

Wow.

Bloom finally looks like it should. The sunlight on the leaves in BG3 is
amazing. Talos 2, and this is a high compliment, looks even better, with
the laser effects becoming nothing short of stunning.

I never realized what I was missing. I actually want to replay games that
support an HDR display now.

Anyway, for anyone who hasn't jumped on that particular horse, I can say
it's well worth it. Way better than VR and half the price.

https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/List_of_games_that_support_high_dynamic_range_display_(HDR)

--
Zag

West of House
There is a small mailbox here.

>read leaflet
"WELCOME TO USENET!

USENET is a game of adventure, danger,
and low cunning. In it you will
explore some of the most amazing
territory ever seen by mortals. No
computer should be without it!"

On 27/04/2024 18:11, Zaghadka wrote:
> I basically let HDR pass me by for quite a while, but I just got a new
> Gsync monitor and it was economical and came with HDR. It also has a max
> refresh rate of 240Hz, which I keep at 144Hz, so no more Gsync static
> image flicker in games (the trick to get rid of that was to cycle down to
> 143 Hz.)
>
> Wow.
>
> Bloom finally looks like it should. The sunlight on the leaves in BG3 is
> amazing. Talos 2, and this is a high compliment, looks even better, with
> the laser effects becoming nothing short of stunning.
>
> I never realized what I was missing. I actually want to replay games that
> support an HDR display now.
>
> Anyway, for anyone who hasn't jumped on that particular horse, I can say
> it's well worth it. Way better than VR and half the price.
>
> https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/List_of_games_that_support_high_dynamic_range_display_(HDR)
>

Glad you like it but personally graphics got to the more than good
enough for me about 2010 or something. It's not that I can't appreciate
the advances made since then but instead that lasts about an hour before
they no longer become important to am I enjoying the game.

On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 10:41:57 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>On 27/04/2024 18:11, Zaghadka wrote:
>> I basically let HDR pass me by for quite a while, but I just got a new
>> Gsync monitor and it was economical and came with HDR. It also has a max
>> refresh rate of 240Hz, which I keep at 144Hz, so no more Gsync static
>> image flicker in games (the trick to get rid of that was to cycle down to
>> 143 Hz.)
>>
>> Wow.
>>
>> Bloom finally looks like it should. The sunlight on the leaves in BG3 is
>> amazing. Talos 2, and this is a high compliment, looks even better, with
>> the laser effects becoming nothing short of stunning.
>>
>> I never realized what I was missing. I actually want to replay games that
>> support an HDR display now.
>>
>> Anyway, for anyone who hasn't jumped on that particular horse, I can say
>> it's well worth it. Way better than VR and half the price.
>>
>> https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/List_of_games_that_support_high_dynamic_range_display_(HDR)
>>
>
>Glad you like it but personally graphics got to the more than good
>enough for me about 2010 or something. It's not that I can't appreciate
>the advances made since then but instead that lasts about an hour before
>they no longer become important to am I enjoying the game.

I more or less agree. Sure, newer visuals are nice but it's often more
the artistry than the technical aspects that impress me. It's why I
can still see beauty in DOS-era games, despite the limitations of
running in 256-color/320x240 resolution. Games like "Loom" or "Ultima
VII" or even "MS Flight Simulator 5" can - at times - still impress me
with their graphics, despite their age. Sure, there are a lot of
stinkers from that era as well... but the best games

By the mid- to late-2010s, most games had reached a 'good enough'
level of visual fidelity that... well, it's not that they don't
impress me, but I know longer see it as extra-ordinary. I /expect/
games to be gorgeous these days. Whether it is "Far Cry Primal"
(2016), "Star Wars Battlefront II" (2017), "The Vanishing of Ethan
Carter" (2014), or even "Fire Watch" (2016), I remain so impressed by
modern graphics that it's barely worth mentioning anymore. I've even
wondered if - with the power of modern graphics engines - it's
possible to /make/ ugly games anymore.

So it's not that I wouldn't notice the benefits of an HDR monitor...
but I don't think it would have as much an effect on me. It's like the
supposed advantages and increased fidelity of raytracing being added
to games bypass me entirely. I've reached a level with satisfaction
with modern visuals that the minor gains from such trickery barely
register anymore. I'm more likely to see the underlying flaws that
remain - the repeating textures, too-static world design, stuff like
that - than I am to notice that the HDR effects make the lighting
flicker 5% more realistically.

(And that's assuming my aging eyes would even ALLOW me to see the
difference ;-)

In a way, I'm almost jealous that some people still do get excited
about stuff like that. After four decades, I've sort of become jaded
to all the improvements.

On 28/04/2024 18:31, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> So it's not that I wouldn't notice the benefits of an HDR monitor...
> but I don't think it would have as much an effect on me. It's like the
> supposed advantages and increased fidelity of raytracing being added
> to games bypass me entirely. I've reached a level with satisfaction
> with modern visuals that the minor gains from such trickery barely
> register anymore. I'm more likely to see the underlying flaws that
> remain - the repeating textures, too-static world design, stuff like
> that - than I am to notice that the HDR effects make the lighting
> flicker 5% more realistically.

I did watch a video of a blind test for RTX and although this wasn't
science it did have some interesting results. The three people who
didn't really understand how traditional lighting effects worked where
pretty much guessing but the one person who did understand got it right
every time.

As a slight aside I did also read an interesting article that look at
'perceived' frame-rates of the human eye. What that pointed to was there
was quite a lot of variance between individuals so maybe the answer to
that long standing debate about how much frame-rates matter isn't yes or
no but instead it depends.

Am 27.04.24 um 19:11 schrieb Zaghadka:
> I basically let HDR pass me by for quite a while, but I just got a new
> Gsync monitor and it was economical and came with HDR. It also has a max
> refresh rate of 240Hz, which I keep at 144Hz, so no more Gsync static
> image flicker in games (the trick to get rid of that was to cycle down to
> 143 Hz.)
>
> Wow.
>

Yes proper HDR is a huge upgrade if the HDR range and brightness is good
enough, cheap hdr monitors usually do not get enough brightness level to
really be called it HDR, so many monitors basically have HDR slapped on
top and can only deliver if at all HDR 400 or less with those you only
will see small differences, add on top of that that you wont get proper
black and white contrasts due to not having any dimming whatsoever.

Your monitor sounds like from the more expensive proper HDR range of things!

JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote at 07:26 this Monday (GMT):
> On 28/04/2024 18:31, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> So it's not that I wouldn't notice the benefits of an HDR monitor...
>> but I don't think it would have as much an effect on me. It's like the
>> supposed advantages and increased fidelity of raytracing being added
>> to games bypass me entirely. I've reached a level with satisfaction
>> with modern visuals that the minor gains from such trickery barely
>> register anymore. I'm more likely to see the underlying flaws that
>> remain - the repeating textures, too-static world design, stuff like
>> that - than I am to notice that the HDR effects make the lighting
>> flicker 5% more realistically.
>
> I did watch a video of a blind test for RTX and although this wasn't
> science it did have some interesting results. The three people who
> didn't really understand how traditional lighting effects worked where
> pretty much guessing but the one person who did understand got it right
> every time.
>
> As a slight aside I did also read an interesting article that look at
> 'perceived' frame-rates of the human eye. What that pointed to was there
> was quite a lot of variance between individuals so maybe the answer to
> that long standing debate about how much frame-rates matter isn't yes or
> no but instead it depends.

So what you're saying is some people could see in 400fps?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

"Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> writes:

> Yes proper HDR is a huge upgrade if the HDR range and brightness is
> good enough, cheap hdr monitors usually do not get enough brightness
> level to really be called it HDR, so many monitors basically have HDR
> slapped on top and can only deliver if at all HDR 400 or less with
> those you only will see small differences, add on top of that that you
> wont get proper black and white contrasts due to not having any
> dimming whatsoever.

So is this "proper HDR" now generally available in gaming monitors?
When I bought a new monitor a few years ago, an AOC AG273QS3R4, it was
one of the few that had any kind of HDR and high refresh rates and Gsync
compatible too. So now it's "only" HDR 400 so nothing much HDR at all?

Still, I thought it's pretty cool in the few games that actually have
HDR.

Am 02.05.24 um 14:09 schrieb Anssi Saari:
> "Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> writes:
>
>> Yes proper HDR is a huge upgrade if the HDR range and brightness is
>> good enough, cheap hdr monitors usually do not get enough brightness
>> level to really be called it HDR, so many monitors basically have HDR
>> slapped on top and can only deliver if at all HDR 400 or less with
>> those you only will see small differences, add on top of that that you
>> wont get proper black and white contrasts due to not having any
>> dimming whatsoever.
>
> So is this "proper HDR" now generally available in gaming monitors?
> When I bought a new monitor a few years ago, an AOC AG273QS3R4, it was
> one of the few that had any kind of HDR and high refresh rates and Gsync
> compatible too. So now it's "only" HDR 400 so nothing much HDR at all?
>
> Still, I thought it's pretty cool in the few games that actually have
> HDR.

Well good hdr is defined by several factors, peak brightness and
contrast and color gamut, but yes most HDR monitors just plaster HDR on
top because they can make more money that way, they definitely lack peak
brightness and of course also contrast because their dimming is subpar!
OLEDs had a problem with peak brightnes until a few years ago but they
were top notch oin the other areas, now with OLED displays being able to
reach 1500nits plus they defintely have caught up.
Regarding dimming, OLED does not have this problem, LCDs have especially
with the border backlight most LCDs provide, you wont get the contrast
which you would need because they have almost no dimming. But we are
speaking about a nice to have feature here, if you do not have real HDR,
nothing is lacking, you just get a slightly worse image quality in the
sense of less contrast brightness!

Am 02.05.24 um 14:34 schrieb Werner P.:
> Am 02.05.24 um 14:09 schrieb Anssi Saari:
>> "Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> writes:
>>
>>> Yes proper HDR is a huge upgrade if the HDR range and brightness is
>>> good enough, cheap hdr monitors usually do not get enough brightness
>>> level to really be called it HDR, so many monitors basically have HDR
>>> slapped on top and can only deliver if at all HDR 400 or less with
>>> those you only will see small differences, add on top of that that you
>>> wont get proper black and white contrasts due to not having any
>>> dimming whatsoever.
>>
I forgot to mention the HDR 400 logo was installed so that cheap
monitors and tvs can be sold as hdr ready...
The original HDR Logo was for 1000Nits+ peak brightness and a fixed
limit of dimming zones as lower limit!
But those tvs and monitors turned out to be way too expensive for the
average consumer, so they wated the logo down!

On 5/2/2024 5:36 AM, Werner P. wrote:
> Am 02.05.24 um 14:34 schrieb Werner P.:
>> Am 02.05.24 um 14:09 schrieb Anssi Saari:
>>> "Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> writes:
>>>
>>>> Yes proper HDR is a huge upgrade if the HDR range and brightness is
>>>> good enough, cheap hdr monitors usually do not get enough brightness
>>>> level to really be called it HDR, so many monitors basically have HDR
>>>> slapped on top and can only deliver if at all HDR 400 or less with
>>>> those you only will see small differences, add on top of that that you
>>>> wont get proper black and white contrasts due to not having any
>>>> dimming whatsoever.
>>>
> I forgot to mention the HDR 400 logo was installed so that cheap
> monitors and tvs can be sold as hdr ready...
> The original HDR Logo was for 1000Nits+ peak brightness and a fixed
> limit of dimming zones as lower limit!
> But those tvs and monitors turned out to be way too expensive for the
> average consumer, so they wated the logo down!
>

I've not been particularly impressed with my LG 27GL650F-B which what I
can find is 400 nits. It's way too fucking bright! I have to put it on
the absolute minimum brightness and it's still way too bright at night.
The only time it isn't too bright at that setting is when the sun's
glinting through the window on it. I'd like something between what I've
got and what I had here.

27" is really just too big for the distance I've got available on it as
well. I can't really fit another monitor, which I could do with a 24"
and a smaller 19" which is actually more annoying than anything else
about it. At least it's large enough I can read on it at it's max
resolution with my old eyes.

The g-sync and up to 144hz is nice I suppose, I might have some issue
going back, but I barely noticed the difference from my old 60hz when I
got it.

I've been tempted to switch it out for my son's 24" for all the reasons
above, but between the g-sync 144hz and the fact I can read it at native
resolution is all that's stopping me.

Basically I feel like I wasted an extra $250 for a tiny improvement with
a lot of drawbacks.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On 5/2/2024 5:34 AM, Werner P. wrote:
> Am 02.05.24 um 14:09 schrieb Anssi Saari:
>> "Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> writes:
>>
>>> Yes proper HDR is a huge upgrade if the HDR range and brightness is
>>> good enough, cheap hdr monitors usually do not get enough brightness
>>> level to really be called it HDR, so many monitors basically have HDR
>>> slapped on top and can only deliver if at all HDR 400 or less with
>>> those you only will see small differences, add on top of that that you
>>> wont get proper black and white contrasts due to not having any
>>> dimming whatsoever.
>>
>> So is this "proper HDR" now generally available in gaming monitors?
>> When I bought a new monitor a few years ago, an AOC AG273QS3R4, it was
>> one of the few that had any kind of HDR and high refresh rates and Gsync
>> compatible too. So now it's "only" HDR 400 so nothing much HDR at all?
>>
>> Still, I thought it's pretty cool in the few games that actually have
>> HDR.
>
> Well good hdr is defined by several factors, peak brightness and
> contrast and color gamut, but yes most HDR monitors just plaster HDR on
> top because they can make more money that way, they definitely lack peak
> brightness and of course also contrast because their dimming is subpar!
> OLEDs had a problem with peak brightnes until a few years ago but they
> were top notch oin the other areas, now with OLED displays being able to
> reach 1500nits plus they defintely have caught up.
> Regarding dimming, OLED does not have this problem, LCDs have especially
> with the border backlight most LCDs provide, you wont get the contrast
> which you would need because they have almost no dimming. But we are
> speaking about a nice to have feature here, if you do not have real HDR,
> nothing is lacking, you just get a slightly worse image quality in the
> sense of less contrast brightness!

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 16:47:49 +0200, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Werner P. wrote:

>Am 27.04.24 um 19:11 schrieb Zaghadka:
>> I basically let HDR pass me by for quite a while, but I just got a new
>> Gsync monitor and it was economical and came with HDR. It also has a max
>> refresh rate of 240Hz, which I keep at 144Hz, so no more Gsync static
>> image flicker in games (the trick to get rid of that was to cycle down to
>> 143 Hz.)
>>
>> Wow.
>>
>
>Yes proper HDR is a huge upgrade if the HDR range and brightness is good
>enough, cheap hdr monitors usually do not get enough brightness level to
>really be called it HDR, so many monitors basically have HDR slapped on
>top and can only deliver if at all HDR 400 or less with those you only
>will see small differences, add on top of that that you wont get proper
>black and white contrasts due to not having any dimming whatsoever.
>
>Your monitor sounds like from the more expensive proper HDR range of things!

Naw. It's just 400 nits, but it's still a big improvement. I can imagine
how awesome a "proper" one is.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten