3 ms·

Probably because low-resolution graphics look better on CRTs than on flat panels.

Const-me 6y ago
This. When people are saying something is photo-realistic, they aren’t comparing to reality, they’re comparing to photos or videos as viewed on the same display. By some metrics, even extremely expensive modern hardware is very far from reality. Pretty much all games show Sun occasionally, to reproduce same luminosity at 1m distance you need kilowatts of light (assuming 180 degree viewing angle; the surface of 1m half sphere is about 2 m^2 and the flux of visible spectrum is about 550w/m^2), these levels are simply unsafe for home use. For example, such display is going to ignite or at least melt a keyboard if it’s too close. Similar for dynamic range. Reality has extreme dynamic ranges, i.e. both very light and very dark areas on the same scene. At least modern hardware generally delivers realistic resolutions, and color accuracy.
- formerly_proven 6y ago
  > At least modern hardware generally delivers realistic resolutions, and color accuracy. I don't know, look at some flowers... most screens can't show their colors. Stuff like the intense, super-saturated reds and purples are basically impossible to get right in sRGB, with very obvious artefacts, yet in real life there are no artefacts, there is texture, detail and color, where the picture only has a smear of four different reds. P-3 and Rec.2020 might reduce the issues there, as would 10 bit color.
  - Const-me 6y ago
    > Stuff like the intense, super-saturated reds and purples are basically impossible to get right in sRGB I agree, but professional monitors are close to Adobe RGB, and have been for decades. Adobe RGB is close to DCI-P3, and not much worse than BT.2020. P.S. Doesn’t help with red/purple though, Adobe RGB extends sRGB mostly in green direction.
  - ksec 6y ago
    >Rec.2020 My naive questions. I thought Rec.2020 was already insanely good? I am reading this as it meant Rec.2020 is good, but far from perfect ?

This. When people are saying something is photo-realistic, they aren’t comparing to reality, they’re comparing to photos or videos as viewed on the same display. By some metrics, even extremely expensive modern hardware is very far from reality. Pretty much all games show Sun occasionally, to reproduce same luminosity at 1m distance you need kilowatts of light (assuming 180 degree viewing angle; the surface of 1m half sphere is about 2 m^2 and the flux of visible spectrum is about 550w/m^2), these levels are simply unsafe for home use. For example, such display is going to ignite or at least melt a keyboard if it’s too close. Similar for dynamic range. Reality has extreme dynamic ranges, i.e. both very light and very dark areas on the same scene. At least modern hardware generally delivers realistic resolutions, and color accuracy.

formerly_proven 6y ago
> At least modern hardware generally delivers realistic resolutions, and color accuracy. I don't know, look at some flowers... most screens can't show their colors. Stuff like the intense, super-saturated reds and purples are basically impossible to get right in sRGB, with very obvious artefacts, yet in real life there are no artefacts, there is texture, detail and color, where the picture only has a smear of four different reds. P-3 and Rec.2020 might reduce the issues there, as would 10 bit color.
- Const-me 6y ago
  > Stuff like the intense, super-saturated reds and purples are basically impossible to get right in sRGB I agree, but professional monitors are close to Adobe RGB, and have been for decades. Adobe RGB is close to DCI-P3, and not much worse than BT.2020. P.S. Doesn’t help with red/purple though, Adobe RGB extends sRGB mostly in green direction.
- ksec 6y ago
  >Rec.2020 My naive questions. I thought Rec.2020 was already insanely good? I am reading this as it meant Rec.2020 is good, but far from perfect ?