[HN Gopher] HDR-Infused Emoji
___________________________________________________________________
HDR-Infused Emoji
Author : tabletcorry
Score : 180 points
Date : 2025-04-17 14:42 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (sharpletters.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (sharpletters.net)
| jchw wrote:
| Looks like this works on Chrome for Android, but Firefox doesn't
| seem to support HDR at all.
|
| https://bugzil.la/hdr
|
| Maybe some day.
| lxgr wrote:
| Neither does Safari on macOS - which honestly seems like the
| correct behavior, given that this will inevitably be used by
| websites in user-hostile ways.
| lights0123 wrote:
| Safari only shows HDR in videos, not photos. It's possible to
| just show a single-frame video though.
| lxgr wrote:
| And I could see Safari changing its behavior to only allow
| HDR for actually playing videos (or even playing videos
| with actually varying content, if websites start playing
| clever games with one second loops of still images), or
| maybe only after confirming an "I am wearing sunglasses
| right now" prompt.
| jchw wrote:
| It looks like the current Safari developer preview
| supports it for images, according to the Mozilla bug.
| zamadatix wrote:
| If it were to become a real problem I'd sooner see Apple,
| of all vendors, leave it as one of the many settings
| flags in Safari than intentionally avoid or remove
| support for wide range media in their app.
|
| Related: there is also a CSS property coming which allows
| sites to control which page content should be clamped to
| standard range or not. Worst case you can just add an *
| !important override in your
| Safari->Preferences->Advanced->Style Sheet if nobody else
| considers it problematic but you still wanted to clamp
| things (in Safari, otherwise you can just disable HDR).
| lxgr wrote:
| Apple is definitely not afraid to block otherwise widely
| available features behind flags or extra clicks. For
| example, Web Push is available on iOS only for "installed
| PWAs".
| zamadatix wrote:
| Specifically media support though, for which Apple has
| built their entire OS (both macOS and iOS) and app
| experience around having the best out of the box color
| experience for designers/aesthetics (e.g. bit depth, wide
| gamut, true tone type adjustments, hdr all widely adopted
| early for this reason). This is in contrast to your
| example of Web Push, which is the antithesis of their
| goals on how the OS should be used and what for.
|
| The only reason Safari lacks HDR image support on macOS
| right now is it's their lowest priority platform for the
| feature. It's coming, it's supported on their other
| platforms, and it wasn't an unreviewed accident they've
| been working on it.
| LoganDark wrote:
| > they've been working on it.
|
| Could you provide a link to any recent communication from
| them about this, or are you just speculating based on
| that other platforms support it?
| zamadatix wrote:
| I don't know about a communication... but I can do one
| better! You can download the latest Safari Technology
| Preview on macOS, toggle the "Support HDR Display"
| feature flag, and see it working (for certain image
| formats and HDR encodings - it's a flag in preview for a
| reason). E.g. the images at https://ccameron-
| chromium.github.io/hdr-jpeg/index.html will be brighter
| (if your mac has an HDR display attached with HDR
| enabled) but not the images from this HN post yet.
| lxgr wrote:
| Apple's days of their primary customers being
| photographers, designers etc. are long past, so I'm not
| sure I see the distinction between advertisers pushing
| their content by having it render brighter than #FFFFFF
| and web push notification spam.
|
| I do believe that Apple generally has plans to implement
| HDR support in Safari, but I wouldn't be surprised if
| they immediately walked that back once we see abuse of
| the technology annoying regular users.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Why would we expect this to become more of a problem
| than, say, websites playing audio quietly to encourage
| you to turn your volume up, than playing extremely loud
| audio?
| zamadatix wrote:
| Websites can't autoplay audio anymore (which is actually
| really annoying in a few use cases) precisely because of
| abuse.
|
| I don't think it'll be problematic though because a site
| can already choose to show you images a lot more
| bothersome than a bright light (I say this as I type on a
| 1600 nit HDR monitor) already and that's not a
| particularly common problem to worry about either. Same
| for videos, which already HDR support in browsers.
| tshaddox wrote:
| > Websites can't autoplay audio anymore (which is
| actually really annoying in a few use cases) precisely
| because of abuse.
|
| But this is hardly true. There are some complicated
| heuristics (like Chrome's "Media Engagement Index") but
| many websites can and do autoplay video and audio. And
| browser policies are even more relaxed for playing audio
| on user events (like clicking).
| zamadatix wrote:
| MEI (and the like) is what I'm referring to, though
| perhaps we look at this from different angles. Sites can
| still mark audio _should_ autoplay but it 's now up to
| the browser to decide if it actually does it (because
| shitty sites would abuse that).
| new_user_final wrote:
| So many people push for more browser engines yet Firefox can't
| implement HDR in 6 years.
| LoganDark wrote:
| Wonder if Ladybird will ever support it. (Imagine HDR on
| SerenityOS!)
| matsemann wrote:
| Feels like either Chrome or my android phone is cheating,
| because if I cover the hdr image with my finger and switch
| between Firefox and Chrome, the page background in Chrome is
| noticeable more grey than the one in Firefox.
| Groxx wrote:
| This might be the best use of HDR I've ever seen.
|
| And will continue to see for quite some time when my eyes are
| closed.
| pier25 wrote:
| yes it's blinding on my MBP lol
| BoorishBears wrote:
| > These examples will work best when posted to Slack.
|
| I should not have been clued into this power.
| lxgr wrote:
| For more information on the different ways to encode HDR content
| in images, together with examples for each, I've found this
| article very useful: https://gregbenzphotography.com/hdr/
|
| And this explains how Apple implements this feature on non-
| OLED/mini-LED screens (and, in my observation, at least still to
| some extent even on mini-LED): https://prolost.com/blog/edr
| joshuaturner wrote:
| Time to make my Slack profile pic really stand out
| Hamuko wrote:
| Oh god it fucking works. It's brilliant in every sense of the
| word.
| tuetuopay wrote:
| oh god. off my evening goes tweaking the multiply value for
| proper effect.
| globular-toast wrote:
| Interesting, my phone seems to do some normalisation, I presume
| rather than clip the image. So it turns "down" the rest of the
| page leaving the emojis bright. I wonder which part of the system
| is doing this. Chrome on Android.
| Jeremy1026 wrote:
| > Works great on iPhones
|
| Funnily enough, on my iPhone I'm getting the blue box question
| mark instead of the images on the page.
| muglug wrote:
| Can confirm that this works, and can also confirm that people who
| post glaring HDR images to Slack are frequently peer-pressured to
| remove them shortly thereafter by everyone in the channel.
| ionwake wrote:
| Sorry for the noob question but I think finally someone in this
| thread can answer this for me. Sometimes when I see a youtube
| short video it looks like its HDR is whacked up by like 500% as
| per the image in this page, but Im confused how this could be
| done. Is video processing on the video before it is uploaded
| somehow giving it some sort of encoding which chrome just wacks
| up? Or is it the hardware doing it and encoding it a certain way?
|
| I am not talking about a slight brightness increase, I am talking
| Ill be scrolling youtube and suddenly this video is like a portal
| into another dimension its so bright.
|
| Can anyone explain how its done?
| harrall wrote:
| Screens can't often do full brightness on the whole screen so
| if you come across a video or image that is supposed to have a
| higher contrast ratio, the system will darken everything and
| then brighten up the pixels that are supposed to be brighter.
|
| Yes, there are formats that able to store a higher contrast
| ratio so that's why it doesn't happen on non-HDR content but
| the actual brightening of a portal on your screen isn't because
| of the format but because of your hardware (and software)
| choosing to interpret the format that way.
|
| For more a practical example, if you had an 8-bit HDR image,
| 255 on the red channel (after inputting this number through a
| math function like HLG[1] to "extract" a brightness number)
| might mean "make this pixel really bright red" whereas 255 on a
| SDR format would mean "just regular red." However, each red
| channel is still a number between 0 and 255 on both formats but
| your hardware decided to make it brighter on the HDR format.
|
| (Although in reality, HDR formats are often 10-bit or higher
| because 256 values is not enough range to store both color and
| brightness so you would see banding[2]. Also, I have been using
| RGB for my example but you can store color/brightness number
| many other ways, such as with chroma subsampling[3], especially
| when you realize human eyes are more sensitive to some colors
| more than others so you could "devote fewer bits" to some
| colors.)
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_log%E2%80%93gamma
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_banding
|
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling
| ionwake wrote:
| Thank you so much for your reply - I will look into it!
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > Screens can't often do full brightness on the whole screen
| so if you come across a video or image that is supposed to
| have a higher contrast ratio, the system will darken
| everything and then brighten up the pixels that are supposed
| to be brighter.
|
| There's no system that does that. The only thing that's kinda
| similar is at the _display_ level there 's a concept known as
| the "window size" since many displays cannot show peak
| brightness across the entire display. If you've ever seen
| brightness talked about in context of a "5%" or "10%" window
| size, this is what it means - the brightness the display can
| do when only 5% of the display is max-white, and the rest is
| black.
|
| But outside of fullscreen this doesn't tend to be much of any
| issue in practice, and it depends on the display.
| dr_kiszonka wrote:
| I use YouTube on my rather inexpensive TV. When a thumbnail
| of an HDR video starts playing, the whole screen brightens up
| significantly. I don't know as much about HDR as you do, so
| maybe they are using some other perceptual trick. It might
| also not be "full brightness." BTW, why can't screens do full
| brightness on the whole screen?
| detaro wrote:
| The video is marked as containing a different color space with
| a higher brightness/color range. That could either be because
| the initial camera recorded it that way (e.g. iPhones can do
| that) or because someone took a "normal" video and edited it.
| ionwake wrote:
| Would this be specific software on the iphone used to record
| a video ? Or a default setting on a certain iphone? I ask
| because I only very rarely see this whacked up HDR youtube
| short, like super rarely.
| detaro wrote:
| Fairly sure a stock iPhone can do it, but you might need to
| enable it explicitly for compatibility reasons? And
| depending how you edit or upload the video it could get
| lost there too, it's still something where support is not
| really universal.
| ionwake wrote:
| Interesting Im starting to think that perhaps only
| certain video software on an iphone would allow it -
| which explains why its so rare?
| LoganDark wrote:
| Does this video look super whacked up to you too? It is
| HDR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceSiK-0HX_I
| ionwake wrote:
| Yes it is! But how does one make their video upload HDR?
| I am familiar with video editing but am unsure how I
| would perform a test, using a test video with my iphone,
| and upload it so it doesnt lose its HDR encoding? I
| believe there is a HDR setting for my phone, but I dont
| think it will upload by default in a HDR state such as
| the link you just gave me.
|
| Thanks to everyone trying to help me understand this. I
| have heard of HDR for years but Ive never witnessed my
| macbook darken and brighten a video before like 2 months
| ago.
| LoganDark wrote:
| which MacBook do you have?
|
| if you record in HDR, uploading that raw footage to
| YouTube should produce an HDR video. to get the raw
| footage, you can either upload the file directly from the
| phone, or AirDrop it to your Mac from Photos (you should
| get a .mov), or sync it to iCloud (or connect the phone
| over USB, maybe) and then use Photos' "File > Export
| Unmodified Original"
| ionwake wrote:
| I have an M1 macbook, and an iphone 13. Thanks for
| instructions I think you are right I have to do a
| specific flow so the HDR isnt lost ie in software like
| CapnCut I suppose. Thanks again for the help m so glad
| Ive slowly figured this out with ur help.
| LoganDark wrote:
| yep, plenty of software will export in non-HDR and lose
| the information. some software (i.e. iMovie, Final Cut
| Pro, DaVinci Resolve) won't lose the information when
| configured correctly, but HDR workflow is always a bit
| different than SDR.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| There's many factors in play from what your SDR white point is
| at, how your OS handles HDR video, what the content contains,
| and finally what your brain is doing.
|
| HDR10(+) & Dolby Vision, for example, encode content at
| absolute luminance, so they are basically completely trash
| formats since that's an insane thing to expect (the spec for
| authoring content in this format literally just goes "lol idk
| do X if you think it's going to be seen in a movie theater of Y
| for TV and hope"). Sadly, they are also quite common. Mobile
| phones (both Android & iOS) are instead pushing HLG, which is
| better. Although then hilariously MacOS's handling of HLG was
| atrocious until the latest update which fixed it but only if
| the video contains a magic flag that iPhone sets, but isn't
| standard so nobody else sets it (the "avme" tag
| https://developer.apple.com/documentation/technotes/tn3145-h...
| )
|
| There's then also just how your eyes & brain react. When HDR
| shows up and suddenly the white background of a page looks like
| a dim gray? That's 100% a perceptual illusion. The actual light
| being emitted didn't change, just your perception of it did.
| This is a _very_ hard problem to deal with, and it 's one that
| so far the HDR industry as a whole has basically just ignored.
| But it's why there's a push to artificially limit the HDR range
| in mixed conditions, eg https://github.com/w3c/csswg-
| drafts/issues/9074
| ionwake wrote:
| You clearly know alot about this, but I think there could be
| a misunderstanding. Not trying to offend but when I see the
| youtube link mentioned above in the other comment, my macbook
| screen literally goes darker AROUND the video , which gets
| brighter. I am not making this up. I think its how chrome on
| macbooks handles raw HDR encoding.
|
| Can someone else confirm I am not mad?
|
| PS - I am not trying to shut you down, you clearly know alot
| in the space I am just explaining what Im experiencing on
| this hardware.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > my macbook screen literally goes darker AROUND the video
| , which gets brighter. I am not making this up
|
| This is almost certainly your eyes playing tricks on you,
| actually. Setup that situation where you know if you scroll
| down or whatever it'll happen, but before triggering it
| cover up the area where the HDR will be with something
| solid - like a piece of cardboard or whatever. Then do it.
| You'll likely not notice anything change, or if there is a
| shift it'll be very minor. Yet as soon as you remove that
| thing physically covering the area, bam it'll look gray.
|
| It's a more intense version of the simultaneous contrast
| illusions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_effect &
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion
|
| Eyes be weird.
| astrange wrote:
| The screen is literally getting darker so the HDR video
| will appear to have more contrast.
|
| https://prolost.com/blog/edr
| kllrnohj wrote:
| No, it literally isn't. It's literally doing the
| opposite, it _increases_ the display brightness in order
| to show the HDR content. The SDR content is dimmed
| _proportional to the increase_ such that SDR has the same
| emitted brightness before & after the change.
|
| SDR brightness is not reduced to "add contrast". The blog
| post doesn't seem to say that anywhere, either, but if it
| does it's simply wrong. As a general note it seems wrong
| about a lot of aspects, like saying that Apple does this
| on non-HDR displays. They don't. It then also conflates
| EDR with whether or not HDR is used. EDR is simply the
| representation of content between apps & the compositor.
| It's a working space not entirely unlike scRGB where
| 0.0-1.0 is simply the SDR range, and it can go beyond
| that. But going beyond the maximum reported EDR range,
| which can be as low as 1.0, the result is simply clipped.
| So they are not "simulating" HDR on a non-HDR display.
| astrange wrote:
| I agree with what you said, but I was trying to give the
| layman summary ;)
|
| > The SDR content is dimmed proportional to the increase
| such that SDR has the same emitted brightness before &
| after the change.
|
| That's the intent, but because things aren't perfect it
| actually tends to get darker instead of stay perceptually
| the same. It depends on which panel you're using. MBPs
| are prone to this, XDR displays aren't.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > I agree with what you said, but I was trying to give
| the layman summary ;)
|
| Your layman summary is wrong, though. Brightness stays
| the same is the summary, whereas you said it gets darker.
|
| > MBPs are prone to this, XDR displays aren't.
|
| On my M1 16" MBP it doesn't have any issue. The
| transition is slow, but the end result is reasonably
| aligned to before the transition. But yes MBP displays
| are not Apple's best. Sadly that remains something
| exclusive to the iPad
| recursive wrote:
| I don't think I understand HDR. It just looks brighter and more
| contrast. I can just do that with normal manipulations. What's
| this all about?
|
| Edit: Maybe my hardware doesn't support it. I'm using an LG
| monitor with Windows. There's also a good chance I've never
| actually seen anything in HDR.
| detaro wrote:
| > I can just do that with normal manipulations
|
| Then you are probably not viewing this with HDR-capable
| hardware and software. Otherwise it'd go past what you can just
| do with normal manipulation on an sRGB image.
| donohoe wrote:
| I used (abused) HDR in an editorial project last year. We were
| working with an amazing illustrator doing a take on series of
| stories exploring the intersection of faith, storytelling, and
| technology.
|
| As the early versions of the images emerged we thought we could
| used HDR to provide more or a aura to some elements. We tried to
| make it subtle and not overwhelm.
|
| This example is my favorite:
|
| https://restofworld.org/2024/divinity-altered-reality-muslim...
|
| I think it worked well - and this technique would have been
| useful. We tried something similar but could not get it to work.
|
| Our method was to use a stretched HDR video in the background.
|
| Here are the steps I used:
|
| In Photoshop create white image to proportions required. Save as
| MP4: File > Export > Render Video
|
| Save as "sample.mp4"
|
| With the MP4, generate a HDR version in WEBM:
| ffmpeg -i sample.mp4 -pix_fmt yuv420p10le -color_primaries 9
| -color_trc 16 -colorspace 9 -color_range 1 -profile:v 2 -vcodec
| libvpx-vp9 sample.webm
|
| With the plain MP4, generate the HDR version:
| ffmpeg -i sample.mp4 -pix_fmt yuv420p10le -color_primaries 9
| -color_trc 16 -colorspace 9 -color_range 1 -profile:v high10
| -vcodec libx264 sample.mp4
| timciep wrote:
| That looks amazing!
| shahahmed wrote:
| these look so tasteful and well done
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| Big fan of the final result. Very striking
| tobr wrote:
| Remember seeing this when it was published. Excellent work,
| great use of HDR.
| mzs wrote:
| Here's how RoW did it: .religion-atf__nav-
| chapter--current .religion-atf__nav-chapter__book {
| box-shadow: -4px -4px 50px 0 #fff,4px 4px 50px 0 #fff }
| InsideOutSanta wrote:
| Wow, this is super smart, and the effect is really compelling
| and novel.
| razkarcy wrote:
| This is a beautiful implementation all-around. It captures a
| similar "wow-factor" that gilded pages in physical books
| provide. If this is the future of digital media I'm excited!
| jjcm wrote:
| Incredibly well done. FWIW, the video hack is no longer needed.
| Originally that was required due to browsers only having hdr
| support with video, but recently support for PNGs were added as
| well. You can just use an all-white png with the rec2020 color
| space set.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Safari on macOS does not have HDR support in images shipping
| to general user channels yet.
| ValveFan6969 wrote:
| This is a lot of technical mumbo jumbo for a simple thing like
| brightness. HDR is a gimmick like 3D TVs. The best image
| quality is not the one with the most colors, which is entirely
| pointless, but instead a simple image, with no fancy features
| that only serve to distract the eye.
|
| Like in the famous case of the Apple logo in the 1990s. Steve
| Jobs, when asked why he uses a black and white Apple logo
| instead of a color one, said - "color will only distract the
| eye from what's important".
| throawayonthe wrote:
| calling HDR a gimmick is somewhat silly considering it's
| already in widespread use for media, and it's great
| recursive wrote:
| There are plenty of gimmicks in widespread use. I'd wager
| >99% of "surround sound" deployments would take more than a
| year to notice if they were transparently "downgraded" to
| stereo, for instance.
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| Agreed, this is exactly why I only watch silent era black-
| and-white films.
| itishappy wrote:
| Hard disagree. HDR is more than just boosted brightness, but
| the boosted brightness on it's own has been (in my humble
| opinion) the biggest advancement in TVs in the past decade.
| For instance, I'd choose a 500 nit 1920x1080 panel over a 250
| nit 3840x2160 panel any day.
| Almondsetat wrote:
| Yep, watching a logo is exactly like watching a movie
| alwa wrote:
| I feel like the whole emoji example might favor your point of
| view, but that, delightfully, grandparent commenter's example
| is one of the better counterpoints I've seen.
|
| Selectively deployed, a glint of extra brightness, above and
| beyond the "100%" baseline, simulates the glints and shimmers
| that draw our eyes naturally--in this case, in the same
| manner as gilt on the physical counterpart to the books
| they're depicting. It fits in cleverly with a long tradition
| for that specific context.
|
| Where I agree is with the idea that brighter-for-
| brighter's-sake is not better after a certain point, any more
| than color-because-we-can. And it seems, as far as I can
| tell, that uniformly cranking up the full frame brightness
| into the HDR range is not The Done Thing, at least in film
| and design, at least so far. Possibly for compatibility with
| the wide range of displays stuff will end up on.
| recursive wrote:
| Hm, so you're saying we're going to be using browsers that
| give authors/publishers another ability to "draw our eyes
| naturally"? What could possibly go wrong. I'd be turning it
| off now if I had hardware that supported it.
| ben0x539 wrote:
| What devices is this meant to work on? On my laptop I'm not
| seeing anything out of the ordinary.
| hatthew wrote:
| Do your OS and screen both support HDR and have it enabled?
| It works by default on my mbp m2's screen, but not its
| external monitor or on my windows desktop/laptop.
| dmd wrote:
| To forestall confusion: If the smiley face on the right is not
| much much brighter than the page background (which is #ffffff),
| then your hardware does not support this and you are not seeing
| what others are seeing.
| ZeWaka wrote:
| To forestall more confusion: If your system is set to dark
| mode, the page background is not #fff, and is instead #1d1e20.
| moron4hire wrote:
| There's a dark/light mode switcher at top of the page, but
| the page background still looks grey, even when going to
| another page on the blog that doesn't have the HDR images.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > If the smiley face on the right is not much much brighter
| than the page background [...] then your hardware does not
| support this
|
| Or you're using Safari because my hardware absolutely does
| support this (tested in Chrome and I am thankful that Safari
| does not support it because good grief.)
| astrange wrote:
| A funny thing I've noticed in Safari is that the play buttons
| on video elements are HDR white, and so the screen will adapt
| (turn grey) when you scroll past one.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > and I am thankful that Safari does not support it because
| good grief
|
| Safari absolutely will support HDR images if it doesn't
| already. It might not support this PNG hack, but it's
| inevitable that it'll support HDR HEVC or JPEG images since
| those are what's produced by iOS and Android cameras
| respectively, and they obviously aren't going to just ignore
| them.
| nine_k wrote:
| Works in mobile Chrome, not in mobile Firefox; increases the
| overall screen brightness a bit to add the dynamic range.
| Shines!
| jessewilson wrote:
| Instructions on turning 'em off:
| https://github.com/swankjesse/hdr-emojis
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Thanks, I hate it.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| HDR-Infused _Slack_ emoji that is, not unicode emojis.
| dangoodmanUT wrote:
| HDR is terrible
|
| The fact that you can't turn it off system wide shows the macOS
| leadership is asleep at the wheel
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| HDR is terribly _implemented_ , in most cases. (Especially
| Windows)
|
| macOS handles it about the best of the bunch.
|
| What I hate is on Windows, you need to basically explicitly set
| the program, the OS, and the monitor into an "HDR mode". Then,
| once you're done, you need to un-set it or the colors and
| brightness will be screwed up.
|
| That is tedious AF. I refuse to use it until it doesn't require
| constantly toggling crap on and off.
| benbayard wrote:
| I think with Windows 11 it's a little easier now. At least, I
| don't have to do this for playing games in HDR. But I can't
| take screenshots or record videos this way using most built-
| in tools. Like window's screencapture tools and steams tools.
| LoganDark wrote:
| > The fact that you can't turn it off system wide shows the
| macOS leadership is asleep at the wheel
|
| You totally can, at least on Apple's XDR displays.
|
| Just go to System Settings -> Displays -> Preset and change it
| from "Apple XDR Display (P3-1600 nits)" (or whatever) to
| "Internet & Web (sRGB)". You lose the ability to change screen
| brightness (I assume because you're locked to reference
| brightness), but HDR is fully off.
| AlanYx wrote:
| That option only works with Apple's XDR enabled displays
| (internal and external). For non-Apple external displays with
| HDR10, there's a separate "High Dynamic Range" toggle in the
| display settings in the display. On some Intel macs, if you
| open Display preferences while holding down the Option key,
| another option appears to disable simulated HDR. I'm not sure
| how to disable simulated HDR on the internal display of
| current Macbook Airs.
| LoganDark wrote:
| thanks for the clarification
| pier25 wrote:
| I love HDR for movies/shows on OLED but other than that I
| agree. It really sucks you can't disable HDR in apps like
| Netflix etc. It does look terrible on non OLED TVs. In Chrome
| you can force a specific color profile in the settings. I
| believe sRGB shouldn't allow HDR content.
|
| Personally I think the biggest benefit of HDR is not even those
| super bright annoying colors but 10-12 bit colors and the fact
| that we can finally have dark content. If you look at movies
| from 10-20 years ago everything is so damn bright.
| tshaddox wrote:
| That strikes me as an odd opinion. Surely the colorspaces and
| display technologies that predate HDR had as much dynamic range
| as they could reasonably squeeze out of the technology at the
| time. Is it the brightness specifically that bugs you? I could
| understand that, although brightness is not directly related to
| HDR (in the same way that loudness in digital audio is not
| directly related to bit depth).
|
| Of course I do agree that these things should be configurable.
| And on my MacBook Pro, I can set the built-in display to sRGB.
| Is that option not available on your particular Mac and
| display?
| astrange wrote:
| > That strikes me as an odd opinion. Surely the colorspaces
| and display technologies that predate HDR had as much dynamic
| range as they could reasonably squeeze out of the technology
| at the time.
|
| Some of it was just bad historical decisions. In particular
| SDR video only uses the values 16-235 instead of 0-255
| because of some NTSC compatibility thing I don't quite
| remember. That's a huge loss!
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| Agreed. I've used it on my PS4, and all that it accomplished
| was an annoying screen blank and restart every time I started a
| game which used HDR. It didn't actually make anything look
| better. I turned it off after some experimentation and I don't
| plan to ever mess with it again with how underwhelming it was.
| LoganDark wrote:
| Fun fact: On "XDR displays" (such as recent MacBook Pros and also
| Apple's new Studio Display XDR), you can actually decrease the
| display brightness to see more dynamic range.
|
| Here is a recording of this happening for those who can't
| experience it for for themselves:
|
| https://logandark.net/files/2QN2R1P3-26295O2O-9045N31P-P2POQ...
| (6.7 MB / 6.4 MiB)
|
| (sorry for the terrible quality, it was a very lazy recording)
| nialv7 wrote:
| > Works great in Chrome and Slack, and not at all on Android
| devices.
|
| Hurmm it does work for me in Chrome on Android.
| Spunkie wrote:
| Doesn't seem to work at all on linux in any browser I test. My
| laptop and distro support HDR and it's turned on.
| A_Duck wrote:
| Here are all the emojis in HDR format, ready to import to Slack
|
| My apologies to your co-workers
|
| https://we.tl/t-CV83O4r74f
| MasterScrat wrote:
| More HDR shenanigans from some time ago:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36389285
|
| Demo: https://notes.dt.in.th/HDRQRCode
|
| Interestingly that one worked on iPhone, while the new emojis one
| doesn't
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| Nice! Using HDR to improve contraste of a QR code is a really
| neat idea.
| MasterScrat wrote:
| On MacOS, if you toggle the OS from dark to light mode and back,
| you can see for a second the HDR effect being turned off
| basisword wrote:
| This worked well on my iPhone but my M3 MacBook Pro doesn't seem
| to render the HDR version of the image in Safari. Is that
| expected? Pretty sure the Photos app works with HDR.
| ALLTaken wrote:
| Here's how you do that in CSS4!
|
| For an image or video:
|
| - https://github.com/ccameron-chromium/hdr-headroom-limit/blob...
|
| - https://drafts.csswg.org/css-color-hdr/#controlling-dynamic-...
|
| For a canvas element:
|
| - https://github.com/w3c/ColorWeb-CG/blob/hdr_canvas_r2/hdr_ht...
|
| Resource: https://www.w3.org/TR/mediaqueries-5/#dynamic-range
| ValveFan6969 wrote:
| I don't have any interest in HDR. HDR is a very new technology
| that is just a gimmick. The human eye is barely able to perceive
| more than a few colors. Therefore anything above 16.7 million
| colors is not useful. And even that is overkill, 250-300 shades
| of a single color is more than enough for anybody.
| jjcm wrote:
| I was playing around with this a ton yesterday.
|
| One thing I was attempting to do was create an emoji that only
| had partial portions that had their brightness maxed, while the
| rest of the emoji displayed "normally". It turns out this was
| quite hard to do - most filters or scripts such as the one on
| this page simply max out the channels, which creates a "fried"
| look to the image.
|
| Gimp luckily has support for this, but getting an existing image
| to display the "same" with the new color space proved fairly
| difficult. I found this curve to be the best starting point,
| after which I edited things from there manually:
| https://image.non.io/a3c227d4-56d6-40bd-a898-3879fd062cf3.we...
|
| I used this to create a companion emoji to the :mean-jacob: emoji
| (https://html.non.io/emoji/mean-jacob.png) my team is quite fond
| of using (I'm Jacob). I made :angel-jacob:, which has a halo that
| shines with the brightness of a thousand suns. I don't expect my
| team will use it, but still it was a fun exercise:
| https://html.non.io/emoji/
| neilv wrote:
| This creates an additional reason to run Firefox: innate HDR
| abuse blocking. :)
| jillyboel wrote:
| It's just a white circle in firefox on linux and android, looks
| terrible. Even in chrome it looks terrible, are the eyes supposed
| to be red?
| 0xTJ wrote:
| I'm on Wayland, and get very different results between Firefox
| and Chromium. On the former, it's white with yellow eyes and
| mouth, while on the latter the face is yellowish, with whites in
| the eyes, and red pupils and mouth.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-17 23:00 UTC)