![]() Let me choose myself where HDR maps compared to SDR. I'd rather HDR just use the same brightness range as SDR. I don't care that theoretically HDR content would clip. It doesn't have to be possible! I don't use HDR. > how would it be possible to have HDR at all? It's literally useful to me right now as I use it. Not sure how that can be considered "no reason". > There is no reason for your graphical interfaces to reach those light levels,Īgain, I'm using Lunar right now and I find it useful sitting in next to my window. I've seen iPhone videos that were entirely in the HDR range despite being indoor scenes in ambient lighting lit from a single window. If you have any counter-examples or the particular setup you think looks bad, I'm curious to try it myself. Some examples of decent HDR - these look fine next to a browser or anything else on a MBP 14", and also in Windows with HDR on: That is not the case with the mini-led macs or better HDR monitors. Your description reminds me of a shitty Benq 'HDR400' monitor, which would artificially limit the light output for non-HDR content making it gray and dull. I don't see how the content could become harder to read, when the light output is exactly the same. If they didn't "limit" non-HDR content to 500 nits (again, already above the average monitor), how would it be possible to have HDR at all? Slack's white background should not be close in brightness to a cloudy sky. There is no point to 'high dynamic range' if a bright sky is the same brightness as a sheet of paper, or your website background it's supposed to represent real-life brightness and contrast in photography & video, and there is no reason for your graphical interfaces to reach those light levels, i.e. Of course outdoors daylight scenes will have a higher average brightness. When I open a video and switch between 500 nits and 1600 nits in Display Preferences, everything looks exactly the same, except for the highlights in the video. > HDR and SDR should have a comparable average brightness level with only "highlights" going "brighter than bright" ![]() Unfortunately, that would be most effective if they had a big curved screen and they were willing to sit very near to it :) Maybe you could make a virtual lighting portrait studio, have sharp white light on one part of the screen, then some sort of gray gradient on the other to fill in some shadow. Usually harder lights (meaning those with sharper, more defined shadows) are used for the key to create this depth, then the fill light, well, fills in these shadows with additional light to walk them back, which is why soft lights are appropriate there.Īs with all creative rules, exceptions abound. Perfectly soft light would cast no visible shadows.Īn important creative job of the key light, which is called such because it’s the main source of illumination in a scene, is to create a sense of depth by casting shadows onto the 3D objects, giving our brain cues on how to translate them from 2D space into an accurate mental image. Soft light (which a softbox ideally creates) is defined by diffuse shadows. A softbox could be used as a key light, and often is, but it’s classically more appropriate to use as a fill light.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |