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!"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)