ISO/TS 22028-5:2023
Photography and graphic technology — Extended colour encodings for digital image storage, manipulation and interchange — Part 5: High dynamic range and wide colour gamut encoding for still images (HDR/WCG)
Note that, in this specification’s title, “HDR” refers to luminosity ranges that are broader than sRGB supports, and “WCG” refers to colorspaces that are broader than sRGB supports.
Apple’s video is focused on the HDR component of still images, which is relatively new and not yet finalized into any ISO or W3C standards.
Support for WCG images is already widespread courtesy of ICC profiles, though many holdouts (such as Slack and Discord) continue to damage WCG images posted to their services.
Quoting Apple’s video transcript at this time index:
> This specification, TS22028-5, provides a structure for encoding HDR content into existing still image formats without compromising quality.
> The specification requires Hybrid Log-Gamma, HLG, or Perceptual Quantizer, PQ, as the encoding transfer function. These are functionally analogous to the gamma curves used in SDR images.
> The color primaries for ISO HDR files are the BT.2020 primaries
> HDR images are required to be 10 bits or more per component. This means that some formats, like HEIF, can encode HDR, but some others, like traditional JPEG, are not able to be 22028-5 compliant, as they only support 8 bits per component.
PNG only supports 8-bit or 16-bit, making it quite inefficient for 10- and 12-bit HDR. However, JPEG-XL seems to support 10 bits or more per component. This may provide supporting context for why Apple began supporting a new image format this fall.
> for required metadata, both traditional ICC profiles and CICP tags are valid.
BTW, the old JPEG is a ~12-bit format. It's widely assumed to be an 8-bit format, because libjpeg by default gives you output truncated to 8 bits. Unfortunately, libjpeg made higher depth outputs an either-or compile-time option that breaks the ABI, so nobody enables that mode.
TIL, and thanks for pointing that out. Apparently there’s a tiny subset of PNG world that can cope with bit-shifted 12-bit, but apparently like JPEG, support is diminished and ultimately not dependable.
Especially with monitors. I am so sick of every monitor with Vesa HDR-400 claiming they're an "HDR" monitor. I'm sorry, but that standard is garbage. It's so bad it's meaningless.
Not only is that a pathetic amount of brightness, but the local dimming required is just awful. You can have a screen with a whopping 4 zones that react terribly and slap an HDR label on it.
The standard may suck due to too few local dimming zones, but the "pathetic amount of brightness" is a hard "for you" kind of deal. It depends on your use case.
I use an LG OLED TV as a monitor for work (and a game here and there), 4k 120Hz and I'm more than happy with the brightness in HDR content. In fact, it's kind of just at the edge of being too bright for me... given the distance.
My complaint about HDR 400 was mostly with LCD monitors, not OLEDs. OLEDs may not get bright, but at least they get infinite contrast and perfect blacks.
That's a huge improvement compared to a lot of the garbage HDR 400 rated LCD monitors.
Have had 3 monitors claiming "HDR-400" now; all look equally as shit with HDR enabled in Windows & Gaming, first two where between £120 - £250, third was a "premium" monitor @ £500. Current "HDR" can get te fuck ;)
Most of these are IPS and struggle reaching contrast ratios of 700:1 and black levels darker than noon. Some of the LG ones barely manage 500:1 in sRGB mode…
All 3 have been VA to be fair. I do wonder if have missed a trick with IPS but have been lead to believe VA has the speed (and HDR as a plus)? that is kind of the point though I suppose, buying a "HDR ready screen" - it's been a real pain for a few years now from what I have seen >_<
Most decent IPS panels I’ve seen in the past several years have around 1000:1 contrast which still isn’t amazing, but better. Some manage to push that a little further.
Trying to play HDR content on a regular SDR screen is a mess.
If you rip an HDR version of a movie:
- VLC does nothing. It shows it as so dark it's unwatchable
- IINA shows it as brightness comparable to an SDR version of the movie, but with a weird green tint
- QuickTime is weirdly in-between, brighter than VLC but not as bright as an SDR version
- Infuse got fixed this year so that it plays HDR content to visually match the SDR version of the same content on a SDR screen (the only player I've found that can on Macs)
And if you want to convert your file in ffmpeg, good luck. I still haven't found the magic settings that reverses whatever entertainment studios are doing to translate their SDR into HDR. (The magic settings that Infuse has somehow figured out.) There's no flag or setting for it -- you have to input a bunch of custom values.
mpv with --tone-mapping=bt.2446a (or whichever you like from https://mpv.io/manual/stable/#options-tone-mapping), --hdr-compute-peak=yes, and --target-peak=SDR monitor nits, does the best I've seen yet.
I can't remember where I found this but it's what I've been using to downscale and convert the occasional 10bit downloads (using the nvenc GPU acceleration.)
The submitted title was "Apple put their weight behind an open HDR standard called “ISO/TS 22028-5”" but that broke the HN guideline against editorializing: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
If you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
I am aware of this guideline. The problem is that the original title is so... meaningless? that I decided to give the site a title that explains why it's interesting.
In no way do I disrespect the idea behind this rule, I can see how it would lead to clickbait titles and such. I also didn't want to write a blogpost with a better title that simply refers to this resource at Apple's.
The reference is in this sentence:
> Apple wants to avoid a similar fate in still photography, so this year they put their weight behind an open standard called "ISO HDR." Ok, technically it's ISO/TS 22028-5, which doesn't quite roll off the tongue. The important thing is that with iOS 17, Halide captures HDR photos. In fact, it has for years!
That all seems reasonable to me. It's a tradeoff. One thing that frequently happens is that an edited title helps an article make the front page, and then we revert it after that. I think this can be a good balance sometimes. (If it were a bad article for HN, we wouldn't do that—rather we would downweight the thread.)
I don't want to say "it's ok to break the rule in such a case for such a purpose" because one can't say that with any precision—it will just be heard as "ignore the rule and do whatever you want".
I simply wouldn’t have looked at this with the new title. The original title was better. The new title deletes the interesting insight about the format they are using. Now it just looks like a video about general HDR workflow and I don’t know why it’s been posted. The newsworthy element may not be the entire link but some element on the page, especially for longer form content.
Submitting a blog post about this would have been much more effective than linking an Apple developer video with a modified title. (And, then I wouldn’t have had to add quotes and context as a comment below.)
It didn't - one of the main reasons you can't make up your own title is that it acts as a kind of mega-comment over everyone else's comments. If you want to just comment, write a regular comment. If you want your own title with your own commentary, write your own commentary and submit it to HN with your title.
What you can't do is use someone else's stuff to make your commentary more important.
That's commentary/editorializing. Nothing wrong with these things, you just don't get to do them in the title for the reasons mentioned in the previous comment.
Would it have been more effective? HN hates blogposts that reiterate a piece of news, and since the blog post would be only a paragraph long I would expect it to be replaced with the source video as soon as a mod sees it.
A huge chunk of HN stuff is blog posts. Plus if there's nothing to say about the thing than isn't more than a messageboard comment then there's not much reason it shouldn't just be a messageboard comment.
It's definitely less 'effective' at dominating the discussion with a single comment but that's more or less the point.
A huge chunk of HN stuff is substantial blog posts talking about their own things.
Things get called blogspam all the time, and a three sentence post linking to a video will definitely get called blogspam.
And the goal isn't to "dominate the discussion". Nobody else wants to submit this video. Nobody is being shouted over. The goal is to start a discussion about a specific thing, and making a comment on an otherwise boring link is not actually very good at starting a discussion.
The thing has to be interesting/substantial/big enough to carry a discussion. That's pretty much the functional difference between a comment and an HN story. 'Every comment should be allowed to also be a story' doesn't seem like a practical way to have a site that distinguishes between stories and comments.
Big enough to carry a discussion doesn't mean you have an entire blog post ready to write all by yourself.
In general my complaint is that it's hard to link to a specific section or piece of information inside a larger article.
So letting comments become stories willy-nilly is not my suggestion. This is about having an external story, but no good way to point at it.
And a submission like this can't just be a comment because there's no story for it to be a comment on. The video would not otherwise have been submitted.
And yes the option of "submission plus comment" exists but again that's a bad way to start a discussion when the submission has nothing obviously interesting about it. And it makes the experience even worse for someone that tries to read/watch the entire submission before looking at the comments, when most of the submission is pretty boring and the submitter only wanted to submit one portion.
I mean, this is all very theoretical so perhaps you can come up with an example of something that would be a good story but isn't actually just a comment. Because this submission? Just a comment. Nearly all of them are and primarily revolve not around the difficulty of linking some subsection of a story but around the importance the poster assigns to their commentary.
when the submission has nothing obviously interesting
Again, the argument here is 'what I have to say about an uninteresting thing is interesting enough to be its own HN story'. You can see how this is tricky, right? Like, the point of the site is not uninteresting things. The trivial solution is 'find something interesting to post'.
> Like, the point of the site is not uninteresting things. The trivial solution is 'find something interesting to post'.
Sometimes interesting things are inside larger uninteresting things.
Imagine if you could only link to a domain. Half the submissions people make would become far more difficult to make.
> Again, the argument here is 'what I have to say about an uninteresting thing is interesting enough to be its own HN story'.
It's not. The argument is "this section is interesting enough to be a submission, but it would be unreasonable to expect everyone to find it in this large article/video". The pure form of this has no commentary, just linking to a very very specific part.
This exact submission isn't the purest example since it's more of a caption, but I've seen many pure examples where someone wants to submit a specific section without even a single word of extra explanation. The kind of thing you could do with text fragment links but only in some browsers and only for text.
This submission was just a comment, is what I mean. It wasn't really an HN story.
Sometimes interesting things are inside larger uninteresting things.
Sure but those are almost never interesting enough to be HN stories. There are ways to turn them into HN stories but that's done by adding interestingness. Playing logic games about what is and isn't a comment really isn't adding interestingness, it's simply claiming one can rule-lawyer one's way to interestingness and it seems sort of obvious one can't?
It's not. The argument is "this section is interesting enough to be a submission, but it would be unreasonable to expect everyone to find it in this large article/video".
Well, it is, because those things are rarely actually interesting. Like, you have to demonstrate interestingness not just claim it. And this practice is effectively elevating a claim - my claim to interestingness in someone else's uninteresting thing is so important, it deserves its own title. It's a serious special pleading and you could make the case for it with examples but as far as I can tell, there aren't many or any.
The pure form of this has no commentary
I'm not sure what the 'pure form' is, we're talking about people making up their own titles, i.e. turning their comment into the most important comment.
Incidentally, there is a site dedicated to not-having a distinction between 'comment' and 'story' and the exchange of snippets of things - twitter. It works pretty well for that use case.
> This submission was just a comment, is what I mean. It wasn't really an HN story.
Why not? "Apple backs X standard" sounds like enough for an HN story to me.
> Sure but those are almost never interesting enough to be HN stories. There are ways to turn them into HN stories but that's done by adding interestingness.
It happens often enough. Lots of news articles talk about multiple things. Sometimes you even get multiple unrelated stories in the same article. Isolating one story shouldn't be a weird thing.
You didn't reply to my question of "what if you could only link a domain" but I think that comparison is important. Sometimes URLs aren't granular enough.
> Playing logic games
I'm not playing logic games.
> Like, you have to demonstrate interestingness not just claim it.
That's what voting is for. But first is has to be a submission, and also people are supposed to be able to get a hint of what's interesting from the title.
> my claim to interestingness in someone else's uninteresting thing is so important, it deserves its own title. It's a serious special pleading
Again, the "entire domain" thing. Finding an interesting thing inside an uninteresting thing that deserves its own title happens constantly. The difference is that most of the time there's a URL you can use, but sometimes there isn't a URL you can use.
> I'm not sure what the 'pure form' is, we're talking about people making up their own titles, i.e. turning their comment into the most important comment.
The purest form is someone using a direct quote from the article, with no words of their own. Maybe they're even using a heading directly from the article. Then behind that is someone giving a very basic description for something that doesn't have its own title. Because article sections often don't have their own titles.
In the former case they are completely objectively not making a "most important comment". In the latter case, they're doing the best they can, it's not like HN blocks submissions that don't have a preexisting title.
> Incidentally, there is a site dedicated to not-having a distinction between 'comment' and 'story' and the exchange of snippets of things - twitter. It works pretty well for that use case.
And sometimes people submit tweets to HN. HN is supposed to be for anything interesting, no matter the length.
The goal here is not to confuse comments and stories. "Here is a thing I found, here is what it is in a few words, nothing further." is something I would call a valid story.
Why not? "Apple backs X standard" sounds like enough for an HN story to me
Every story sounds interesting to someone. Again, the burden of adding interestingness is on the author/poster. Could this supposed Apple support for some obscure standard most people haven't heard of be interesting? Sure. Is it interesting to merely state? No. Seems pretty straightforward.
You didn't reply to my question of "what if you could only link a domain"
I don't understand the question, I guess. The granularity of URLs happens to fit the granularity of HN stories. These things are connected and sometimes the granularity does get broken and the results are often iffy - e.g. posts of individual tweets, posts of random github issues, etc. Such posts are sometimes good but often bad because they don't actually form interesting stories that produce curious conversation. 'What if you could only link domains' just feels like a different version of 'what if HN was just twitter'. And, incidentally, HN does have conventions against certain types of 'domain' linking - if you link a domain that's a collection of things, it will get modded down and you'll be told to pick something from the collection and post that instead of the whole thing.
I'm not playing logic games.
I am!
That's what voting is for.
No, voting is just a part of that. There's a lot of convention/culture and there is very much a convention against letting people shape the conversation with their own gloss on other people's stuff. That's what commenting is for and what titling is not for.
Finding an interesting thing inside an uninteresting thing that deserves its own title happens constantly.
Well, you'll have to find some examples because the ones that come up are almost always of not-interesting things or interestingness special-pleadings.
In the former case they are completely objectively not making a "most important comment".
Of course they are, especially when they are selecting a non-representative part of the article which is quite a lot of the time - in fact, by the process you are describing, by definition. You don't get to tell other users what is important in an article that isn't yours from the privileged position of a title. You don't get to mega-comment, basically. This isn't some law of physics or the only way to run a messageboard but it's hardly some unreasonable mystery of HN. Lots of subreddits and other forums operate similarly, for similar reasons.
And sometimes people submit tweets to HN. HN is supposed to be for anything interesting, no matter the length.
Well, not so sure about no matter the length and people do submit tweets to HN and sometimes it works but sometimes it doesn't, I touched on this above. They're the wrong granularity, there are titling problems, dupeyness problems (there are infinite tweets about the same thing), etc. Tweets do kind of break the classic 'link aggregator' design assumptions. That's not the fault of tweets or the tweeters or the posters of tweets to HN but it's definitely a thing.
"Here is a thing I found, here is what it is in a few words, nothing further.
Then you use one of the many workarounds discussed. All these worlds are yours, except Makeupyourowntitleuropa. To make the argument for attempted landing there, there'd have to be at least some evidence that HN is missing out on interesting (URLless?) things due to its oppressive title regime.
> Then you use one of the many workarounds discussed.
There are two workarounds. Both are bad.
Making a blog post good enough to be a story requires a huge amount of effort, and is not a fair requirement as an alternative to simply submitting. (And a quick, simple blog post wouldn't be acceptable by HN standards.)
Making a submission with a URL that doesn't go the right place, with a comment that points out the thing, only works when the more generic URL is actually interesting enough on its own. And even then it might be worse off for bundling too much together.
"Halide 2.12: All The Latest iOS 17 Photography Features" is not very interesting on its own. "Support HDR images in your app" is not interesting on its own. With the way you're talking about keeping up standards, surely you don't want more bad URLs submitted.
> All these worlds are yours, except Makeupyourowntitleuropa.
I don't want to allow any more making up of titles than you normally get when the specific thing you're submitting doesn't have a title. Just a bit more flexibility on choosing the "specific thing". A rule that it has to be a direct quote would also be much better than the status quo. Anything to avoid a submission of one specific thing turning into a submission of a broader and 90% unrelated thing.
> at least some evidence
Jesus Christ. You keep acting like this never happens when there's an example right in front of us. That's at least "some" evidence, come on.
Even if you think the title was unacceptable, surely you'll agree that neither of these two URLs is good for submitting the thing that OP found and a good chunk of 50 people found interesting.
> Anything to avoid a submission of one specific thing turning into a submission of a broader and 90% unrelated thing.
Using a post title edit to focus a submission of a broader link — such as an Apple WWDC video about HDR still images support — onto just the piece that you find interesting — that Apple supports an ISO standard — is precisely what is unacceptable to do.
That is the exact editorial behavior that HN specifically prohibits in title edits when submitting. The reasons for this have already been explained at length by dang in hundreds of comments over the years, and the guidelines are written specifically to prohibit the behavior you’re arguing in favor of. Trying to argue against that guideline will get you nowhere in the comments on a low-quality title edit submission, and I won’t be rehashing those reasons with you. If you wish to continue participating in HN, you’ll need to get used to disappointment on title edits, or take your concerns to the site moderators in email: hn@ycombinator.com.
I stand by my original point. My top-level comment on this post is intended to show what could have been submitted, as a blog post about this issue, to HN. We could have had an informative post that provided the relevant news, the supporting context, and even the 2022 presentation about why the standard exists at all.
Pretend they didn't make up their own title. Pretend it was a direct quote. Does that help at all?
And this link was not going to be submitted otherwise, so focusing on that part didn't steal the spotlight from anyone else.
I really don't agree that the guideline was written to make certain kinds of post impossible. I think it was written to avoid people stealing the spotlight, and it's a little bit too broad for that goal.
> We could have had an informative post that provided the relevant news, the supporting context, and even the 2022 presentation about why the standard exists at all.
Cool. But you shouldn't have to do that. It would be interesting if every post had to be an informative user-written blog post, but as argued earlier HN is not that site.
You need to take your arguments to the site operators, not to me. Email them your view, highlight this thread, and ask them to reconsider. They may or may not agree, it might take a few days, but at least you’ll get a reply.
Or don’t: HN users and mods will continue flagging and reverting editorial title edits by whatever definition the mods are currently using that is unacceptable to you, and nothing will change.
Personally, I’d take the chance of persuading them by sending an email, over the certainty of having my opinion disregarded by not sending an email at all. Up to you, though.
Providing context, backstory, and the link to the presentation slides from 2022 that explained why this standard is being created at all would have made for an excellent blog post — much more than just the Apple developer video alone. It’s a wasted opportunity.
Okay, but you could say that about a ton of submissions, that detailed backstory would make an excellent blog post. Writing that up shouldn't be mandatory to post an interesting thing that's stuck inside a larger article/video.
No it isn’t, because you can’t see that from the main page so there’s no reason to look at the link or comments if you don’t know what is interesting about the post. This rule makes sense for editorialized titles, but not as much for trying to point to news that is buried in some larger page that does not have a useful title.
Yes but the guideline about 'original title' doesn't mean that. That's the editorialized title, not the original title of the thing. What you're suggesting is misconstruing the guideline to mean the opposite of what it actually means.
Putting a notice either like this or as an indicator on the submission would go a long way towards reducing (my) frustration with moderation’s title edits.
The problem with that is that there are many such notices and indicators we might put up about many things. If we did all of them, the site would get messier and more annoying and nannyish.
It seems generally better (or at least in keeping with HN's 'DNA') to err on the side of keeping things minimal and trust users to figure them out.
That’s fair. I was thinking something in the realm of a bolded asterisk next to the title. Or something similarly subtle with an explanation in the rules perhaps. Obviously there are users who would meta comment about this each time it happened (as is happening currently), so I can understand the reluctance.
Idk if iphones have this problem, but on Android, insta reels are so messed up bc of hdr. I'm watching em at night with low brightness and suddenly a hdr video pops out and it brightens my eyes to oblivion... And this issue is present for years
I tested and it looks like the iPhone lowers the peak nits based on the brightness slider, so the HDR reels aren’t “max phone brightness” bright, like they’re trying to be. Dunno how that compares, but yes, it’s present to some degree. (Low Power Mode disables EDR, which works around it, but has other effects as well.)
The original title referred to Apple’s endorsement of an upcoming ISO standard that defines how to represent HDR images within existing still image file formats such as JPEG-XL and HEIF. It turns out that there isn’t any such finalized standard — unlike, for example, BT.2020 in the moving image file formats space.
So, presumably, the existence of a standard under development — and the endorsement of it by a major manufacturer of cameras and displays — was considered newsworthy by the OP.
Has anyone actually used a decent HDR display? I’m really skeptical of the technology. I really don’t want websites and videos to be able to display blindingly bright white and other pure colours on my screen. I like things to be readable and not painful to look at.
I think my laptop has a decent HDR display? It's a MacBook Pro 14" with "Liquid Retina XDR" as they call it. I think HDR content looks more or less ... as intended.
I think it's terrible. The only time I even remember that HDR is a thing is when some embedded video in a web page gets much brighter than the rest of the screen and the rest of the screen looks dim as a result. It's never a "wow that sun looks amazing" style experience, it's always a "wow most of my screen just got really dark" style experience.
I think maybe HDR has a place in movies and TV shows and even maybe YouTube style videos (not that I've experienced that), but I think enabling HDR for small video embeds on a web page was a terrible decision.
If the rest of your screen actually dims, then your screen is not displaying things correctly.
If everything is dim in comparison because the HDR is so bright, is that happening only in especially bright scenes, or is that happening all the time?
The screen doesn't literally dim, but my experience is that the screen suddenly dims because this one part gets so much brighter than the pure SDR white it's surrounded by.
I'm not talking about this in the context of watching long videos or something, but when just browsing through stuff on sites like Reddit. I'll be clicking on the "expand image" button on a series of posts (using the old reddit design) and then suddenly one of them is a HDR video which makes the rest of the screen appear to dim until I close it. So we're not talking about "especially bright scenes". And I'm sure that if I fullscreened the video and the whole screen was covered by that single piece of HDR media, it would look alright.
My guess is that those videos are filmed on an iPhone in HDR mode.
I mean I believe it's mostly just taking pictures or videos outside on their iPhones, which I believe will automatically capture in HDR if it's bright enough. I seriously doubt that people who upload some random picture they took outside to Reddit are intentionally trolling people who happen to use a device with an HDR screen.
> I seriously doubt that people who upload some random picture they took outside to Reddit are intentionally trolling people who happen to use a device with an HDR screen.
Right. Those aren't pictures of the sun.
I'm saying Apple's code is doing the wrong thing. Apple calibrated things wrong.
The sun can end up in frame in a video taken outside without it meaning that the person taking the video or uploading it to social media is "trolling" is my point.
It's because trying to view SDR content on an HDR display doesn't work. It will look like garbage. You have to turn HDR on and off depending on what content you view.
On Apple displays you don’t have to turn HDR on or off, it’s available all the time. SDR content is displayed as usual (exactly like everything looked 10 years ago) and HDR content can sit directly next to it and use whatever brightness headroom is available for extended dynamic range. It’s totally seamless and transparent, but the experience can make the user think that SDR content is getting darker as their eyes adjust to HDR.
Have you tried it on a Mac laptop? The OS will transparently boost the backlight brightness while shifting the white point of the non-HDR content down so that everything else on screen is completely unaffected.
It's very different from the experience I've had in Windows where if you enable the HDR setting everything looks shitty and washed out.
Yes. The HDR on a recent Macbook Pro is the real deal, and unmistakable when you see it. Same with modern OLED HDR TVs - they can get so bright it hurts.
I'm sure you mean LED TVs. OLED TVs are notorious for having a limited brightness. Only since 2022 are there some newer panels (called OLED.ext) that can do decent HDR.
It would have been a pretty nice feature though, if it could've been used to uniformly make SDR content brighter, to make the laptops more useful in sunlight and with sunglasses. Too bad that's not a feature (I'm guessing because it wear out the screen or something).
Sure, but there are also times when the desire to do something computery is greater than the desire to be outside. In those situations, it's a choice between being inside with a computer or being outside with a computer.
This is a “I'd like to turn up the brightness higher” feature, which is a different beast from “this advertisement would like to blind you; permit or deny?”
What OLEDS have decent brightness? OLEDS really struggle with that because of burn in. They can get temporarily bright, or bright in tiny zones, but in less than ideal conditions they crunch it right down.
If you're willing to sacrifice everything else (including money), yes, there are some nice HDR displays. Get something with HDR1000 standard or above. Get something with FALD and a LOT of zones. Make sure to check its color space coverage. Look at independent reviews. Be prepared to spend at least a couple grand.
But you'll have to turn HDR on and off depending on the content you're looking at. If you're looking at SDR content, it will look wrong if the display is in HDR mode.
That sucks, and I hope some day is properly fixed.
OLED is also nice because it has perfect blacks (no local dimming needed), but it struggles with brightness, which is the other half of HDR. We still haven't figured out how to get both.
My new iPhone has an "HDR" display, and it's really noticeably. For example, when taking photo's or video's of bright sunlight, the results "pop out" of the screen beautifully.
For productivity/reading, I want one of the new eInk screens. For gaming and video, the HDR OLED displays I have (LG and Dell) look incredible. Mixed content looks awful, just like mixes of high DPI UIs rendering low DPI websites.
Windows HDR support is a very mixed bag, just like their early support for high DPI, and I think that’s probably what leads some reviewers to dismiss it.
OLEDs have amazing blacks and great contrast, but they truly struggle to get bright. That still isn't solved, at least to my satisfaction. They can get bright briefly or in small areas of the screen, but tend to crunch the brightness a lot otherwise.
Yeah I do pull the curtains down to watch tv during the day. Don’t care too much since I rarely have time when the sun’s up. At night it’s absolutely stunning when the content's right.
https://www.iso.org/standard/81863.html
Note that, in this specification’s title, “HDR” refers to luminosity ranges that are broader than sRGB supports, and “WCG” refers to colorspaces that are broader than sRGB supports.
Apple’s video is focused on the HDR component of still images, which is relatively new and not yet finalized into any ISO or W3C standards.
Support for WCG images is already widespread courtesy of ICC profiles, though many holdouts (such as Slack and Discord) continue to damage WCG images posted to their services.
Quoting Apple’s video transcript at this time index:
https://developer.apple.com/wwdc23/10181?time=205
> This specification, TS22028-5, provides a structure for encoding HDR content into existing still image formats without compromising quality.
> The specification requires Hybrid Log-Gamma, HLG, or Perceptual Quantizer, PQ, as the encoding transfer function. These are functionally analogous to the gamma curves used in SDR images.
> The color primaries for ISO HDR files are the BT.2020 primaries
> HDR images are required to be 10 bits or more per component. This means that some formats, like HEIF, can encode HDR, but some others, like traditional JPEG, are not able to be 22028-5 compliant, as they only support 8 bits per component.
PNG only supports 8-bit or 16-bit, making it quite inefficient for 10- and 12-bit HDR. However, JPEG-XL seems to support 10 bits or more per component. This may provide supporting context for why Apple began supporting a new image format this fall.
> for required metadata, both traditional ICC profiles and CICP tags are valid.