3 ms·

The most unpleasant effect from cut-rate HDR is when graphics with bright backgrounds get lazy-mapped to HDR. Perhaps the worst offender I've ever seen was the

The most unpleasant effect from cut-rate HDR is when graphics with bright backgrounds get lazy-mapped to HDR. Perhaps the worst offender I've ever seen was the Mafia remake by Hangar 17, which loads every time with a sequence of studio logos with white backgrounds that cut from black. The RGB(255,255,255) backgrounds get stretched to maximum HDR nits, and the jump from RGB(0,0,0) (especially on an OLED) is absolutely eye-searing. I literally had to close my eyes whenever I'd load the game.

xnx 1y ago
Even worse when you're in a dark room. The white flash when loading many otherwise dark mode websites and apps is the worst.
- baobun 1y ago
  At least for Firefox, having the browser chrome set to dark (typically by having it picked up from GTK theme preferences) should make the default page background dark too. And I think userchrome.css to override default bgcolor should still work. Of course there are individual wonky sites which will still flash but if applicable, those two things should reduce the occurrences significantly.
theshackleford 1y ago
> (especially on an OLED) Why would it be any more impactful on OLED than any given FALD display capable of putting out >1000 nits sustained?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- noname120 1y ago
  Contrast ratio
  - theshackleford 1y ago
    > Contrast ratio Perceived intensity in HDR is dominated by luminance, not just contrast ratios on paper. OLEDs do have effectively infinite contrast (since black pixels are off) and it's why I love them, but that doesn’t inherently make white flashes more intense on them via any other display type unless the peak brightness is also there to support it. Or in other words, a 800 nit flash on OLED is going to be less intense than a 1600 nit one on a FALD LCD. Brightness is the bigger factor in how harsh or impactful that flash will feel, not just the contrast ratio. It's not down to your panel technology in this case, but the limitation of any given panels peak and sustained brightness capabilities.
    - noname120 1y ago
      That comment was of course for a given nit level. The question doesn't make sense otherwise. Your iris expands when the overall ambient lighting is low. If there is no backlight then there is less ambient lighting so your iris are stretched to the maximum and a jump to a given luminance level blinds you more than the same luminance would on a screen with a backlight.
      - theshackleford 1y ago
        FALD screens showing this kind of imaging would have the backlighting off in the dark sections. This kind of scenario is in fact where FALD is strong. OLED really starts to pull ahead in more complex scenes where the zone counts simply can’t match up to per pixel control.
        SirMaster 1y ago
        I hate FALD though. I have yet to see a FALD LCD that doesn't exhibit distracting blooming around the brighter areas. even the latest TVs with like ~10,000 zones still aren't good enough to my eye.
        theshackleford 1y ago

xnx 1y ago

Even worse when you're in a dark room. The white flash when loading many otherwise dark mode websites and apps is the worst.

baobun 1y ago
At least for Firefox, having the browser chrome set to dark (typically by having it picked up from GTK theme preferences) should make the default page background dark too. And I think userchrome.css to override default bgcolor should still work. Of course there are individual wonky sites which will still flash but if applicable, those two things should reduce the occurrences significantly.

theshackleford 1y ago

> (especially on an OLED) Why would it be any more impactful on OLED than any given FALD display capable of putting out >1000 nits sustained?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
noname120 1y ago
Contrast ratio
- theshackleford 1y ago
  > Contrast ratio Perceived intensity in HDR is dominated by luminance, not just contrast ratios on paper. OLEDs do have effectively infinite contrast (since black pixels are off) and it's why I love them, but that doesn’t inherently make white flashes more intense on them via any other display type unless the peak brightness is also there to support it. Or in other words, a 800 nit flash on OLED is going to be less intense than a 1600 nit one on a FALD LCD. Brightness is the bigger factor in how harsh or impactful that flash will feel, not just the contrast ratio. It's not down to your panel technology in this case, but the limitation of any given panels peak and sustained brightness capabilities.
  - noname120 1y ago
    That comment was of course for a given nit level. The question doesn't make sense otherwise. Your iris expands when the overall ambient lighting is low. If there is no backlight then there is less ambient lighting so your iris are stretched to the maximum and a jump to a given luminance level blinds you more than the same luminance would on a screen with a backlight.
    - theshackleford 1y ago
      FALD screens showing this kind of imaging would have the backlighting off in the dark sections. This kind of scenario is in fact where FALD is strong. OLED really starts to pull ahead in more complex scenes where the zone counts simply can’t match up to per pixel control.
      - SirMaster 1y ago
        I hate FALD though. I have yet to see a FALD LCD that doesn't exhibit distracting blooming around the brighter areas. even the latest TVs with like ~10,000 zones still aren't good enough to my eye.
        theshackleford 1y ago