[ineedasername]

I think I must be some weird outlier on HDR. I recently upgraded to a display that supports it, and when I turn it on, everything just looks darker to me. As though the brightness went to half at the same time that contrast was cranked up high. Playing with color and exposure and other settings just made things worse.

[rebuilder]

It sounds like a color profile mismatch. Specifically, it sounds like you're viewing linear light on something like an srgb profile without the proper color conversion. If pumping gamma up to 2.2 makes things look more or less normal, that's a strong indication it's an srgb issue.

[mceachen]

HDR needs a bunch of things to work correctly:

1) the software needs to render with the correct gamut profile (typically "P3.display")

2) the OS needs to have a reasonable color profile for the display that knows about the higher gamut

3) the display needs to be in the correct mode to interpret and render in the correct gamut.

My LG HDR400 display only has 1 obvious setting for HDR as a "quick" setting, but it behaves like what you're said, and that just drops gamma.

[cptskippy]

Laptops shipping with HDR displays don't even get it right.

[ineedasername]

If I'm on a standard Win10 Pro box, any idea what I should look for? I'm running a amd vega 64.

[rado]

Same here, very frustrating. When HDR is on, everything is washed out, no matter the color profile. I was hoping to use full HDR brightness for the macOS UI, but no luck so far.

[dannyw]

It sounds like your display is not really HDR but is just advertised it.

Monitors that are IPS (i.e. most monitors) with HDR are more mostly fake.

If you want real HDR600, try the Samsung Odyssey G7; but even that does not have full-array local dimming (which you'd expect to spend $2k for).

[ineedasername]

It's not IPS: Asus gaming monitor with standard HDR10 support.

[dannyw]

HDR10 isn’t really “HDR”. You want at least HDR600.

Anything else, in my opinion, is like selling LTE as “5Ge”.

[ineedasername]

I'm not sure why you would say it's not really HDR. It is. It's the base standard, the others use the same 10bit dynamic colors range. The 400/500/600 just refer to the maximum brightness of the display, something that may be a benefit but is not related to whether or not something is "true" HDR. HDR10 is true HDR. All HDR600 etc are also HDR10 with the added benefit of increased brightness.

[account42]

HDR600 etc are not just a maximum required brightness but also a minimum required black value. That gives you an actual dynamic range; 10bit is not a range, it's a resolution.

[ineedasername]

HDR10 is a 10bit color depth. Not resolution. 1080p is generally considered minimum resolution, but that has nothing to do with the "10bit" part of HDR10: HDR10 Media Profile, more commonly known as HDR10, was announced on August 27, 2015, by the Consumer Technology Association and uses the wide-gamut Rec. 2020 color space, a bit depth of 10-bits [0]

Also, no, the 400/600 etc is just brightness: HDR10 and HDR 400 are the same, except HDR 400 mentions the level of brightness on the display. [1].

You may be thinking of HDR True Black, which is a further enhancement, but something different. Deeper blacks can also be achieved by non-OLED displays that support full-array local dimming, and it looks like most displays that support FALD are also HDR displays.

[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic-range_video

[1]https://www.bluecinetech.co.uk/hdr10-vs-hdr400/#:~:text=HDR-...

[mrkstu]

Having some similar issues. The thing is that the OSD controls are nice and bright- so the brightness is there, but all the actual video content seems mostly darker than the previous non HDR TV.

[ineedasername]

I actually just got an HDR tv too, in addition to the computer display... Luckily HDR wasn't a selling point for either decision. On the TV (samsung q70 qled) I just don't notice a difference on or off.