AMD Comments on FreeSync 2 HDR Controversy

[bug]

HDR literally means "high dynamic range" it is not a certification, you can write it down and slap it on your car, if you wish.

Nearly all "HDR" TVs without Premium UHD certification hardly produce anything beyond SDR gamut.

Yeah, somehow we've ended up with different standards for handling HDR input and outputting HDR content. It's going to confuse the crap out of users.

 

[medi01]

Yeah, somehow we've ended up with different standards for handling HDR input and outputting HDR content. It's going to confuse the crap out of users.

You don't need to process HDR input to slap HDR on whatever.

 

[bug]

You don't need to process HDR input to slap HDR on whatever.

What?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Care to point what in your post contradicts anything I've said?

DisplayHDR 400 means pretty much any monitor out there that's not bottom of the barrel. It doesn't raise the bar at all, it literally means sRGB with 350cd/sqm and no dithering.

350 cd/m2 is wrong, requires 400. It also requires local and global dimming, 95% compliance with ITU-R BT.709 color space (sRGB is based on the same thing but there's no requirement to comply), and fast backlight response time.

 

[bug]

350 cd/m2 is wrong, requires 400.

Wrong. It requires 320. 400 is either flash or local.

It also requires local and global dimming,

Wrong again. HDR 400 only requires global dimming. In fact all three DisplayHDR certification levels only require global dimming, but nobody managed to implement 600 without local dimming. Much less 1000.

95% compliance with ITU-R BT.709 color space (sRGB is based on the same thing but there's no requirement to comply),

sRGB is REC 709. Just look at the values they define.

and fast backlight response time.

I'll give you this one, since I'm not sure is actually faster than what's already in the market.

I believe my point still stands: if it's not a bottom-of-the-barrel 6-bit+dithering or with a horrible black point monitor, it almost certainly qualifies for DisplayHDR 400.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Wrong. It requires 320. 400 is either flash or local.

SDR panels are marketed by peak brightness, not sustained. Flash/local is peak. 400 > 350 and, in reality, most SDR panels don't even reach 350.

Wrong again. HDR 400 only requires global dimming. In fact all three DisplayHDR certification levels only require global dimming, but nobody managed to implement 600 without local dimming. Much less 1000.

DisplayHDR 400 establishes a specific requirement for contrast that SDR lacks ergo, it's an improvement over SDR.

I believe my point still stands: if it's not a bottom-of-the-barrel 6-bit+dithering or with a horrible black point monitor, it almost certainly qualifies for DisplayHDR 400.

Very, very few SDR panels meet or exceed 400 cd/m2.

I'm not saying DisplayHDR 400 isn't a minor improvement over SDR because it is minor. The point is certified DisplayHDR 400 displays should have better picture quality than non-certified panels.

 

[bug]

SDR panels are marketed by peak brightness, not sustained. Flash/local is peak. 400 > 350 and, in reality, most SDR panels don't even reach 350.


DisplayHDR 400 establishes a specific requirement for contrast that SDR lacks ergo, it's an improvement over SDR.


Very, very few SDR panels meet or exceed 400 cd/m2.

I'm not saying DisplayHDR 400 isn't a minor improvement over SDR because it is minor. The point is certified DisplayHDR 400 displays should have better picture quality than non-certified panels.

Will you stop it already? Here's a TN-Film gaming monitor that almost makes the cut for HDR 400: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/lg_27gk750f.htm
Measured peak brightness 450cd/sq m. It just fails in the contrast department because instead of 950:1 if only does 900:1.

Edit: HDR 400 is meant for OLED which can't shine as bright and maybe laptops where you don't want to kill the battery. HDR 400 on desktop monitors is outright dishonest.

 

[medi01]

HDR 400

HDR 400 is meant for OLED

Could you please:
1) Stop calling DisplayHDR 400 standard HDR 400
2) Spreading misinformation

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Will you stop it already? Here's a TN-Film gaming monitor that almost makes the cut for HDR 400: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/lg_27gk750f.htm
Measured peak brightness 450cd/sq m. It just fails in the contrast department because instead of 950:1 if only does 900:1.

Fantastic! They should apply for DisplayHDR 400 and see if it gets certified then.

 

[bug]

Could you please:
1) Stop calling DisplayHDR 400 standard HDR 400

I'll call it however I want, what difference does it make?

2) Spreading misinformation

Show me that I'm wrong and I'll stop. In the meantime, I'm basing my comments on this: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/hdr.htm#ultrahd_premium (and yes, those are different specs, but OLED's physical limitation are still the same).