You should try this if you have an HDR monitor

[PowerPie5000]

My LG screen is only HDR400 capable as far as I know (basically next to useless on the HDR scale)... But I did notice the HDR setting in Far Cry 5 and New Dawn looked pretty good when enabled! Much better than I was expecting as Windows itself doesn't look that great with HDR enabled (I usually leave it off).

Not tried any other HDR compatible games yet though.

 

[Gray2233]

Please hold in mind that HDR is dependent on more than whether or not your screen can take the signal -- it needs to be able to present the data it receives adequately. In big TV's this comes down to how many nits (brightness level, generally you want 600 + but ultimately the more the better) the screen is capable of and requires either OLED or FALD to get the best out it.

This is not to say you wont benefit from it in screens not capable of those things, but they do make a huge difference. It's also worth pointing out that things such as FALD and OLED are generally not available outside of mid-high end TV's -- they're not something you tend to see in monitors. Monitors also tend to have much reduced nits, there's even an "OLED monitor" due to hit the market that's limited to 400 for some reason. I would not be overly concerned with HDR (personally) unless I had an adequate budget and room for a FALD or OLED TV, SDR 4K can still look very good for monitor use.

 

[chrcoluk]

My LG screen is only HDR400 capable as far as I know (basically next to useless on the HDR scale)... But I did notice the HDR setting in Far Cry 5 and New Dawn looked pretty good when enabled! Much better than I was expecting as Windows itself doesn't look that great with HDR enabled (I usually leave it off).

Not tried any other HDR compatible games yet though.

Yeah it still benefits from more vibrant colours, so not sure why people say HDR400 is useless, I expect though once you seen a proper HDR panel, HDR400 would look pretty bad compared to that so I guess it depends on your baseline experience.

However I wont defend HDR400 screens from the manufacturing point of view, if a manufacturer is going to bother with extended colour range, and stick a HDR label on their box, marketing, then they should at least bother to meet HDR600 spec.

 

[Baddass]

Yeah it still benefits from more vibrant colours, so not sure why people say HDR400 is useless, I expect though once you seen a proper HDR panel, HDR400 would look pretty bad compared to that so I guess it depends on your baseline experience.

However I wont defend HDR400 screens from the manufacturing point of view, if a manufacturer is going to bother with extended colour range, and stick a HDR label on their box, marketing, then they should at least bother to meet HDR600 spec.

the problem with HDR400 is that it isn't actually improving the dynamic range HDR isn't technically about colour improvements, although the uplift in colours has become synonymous with the term for marketing HDR displays.

HDR is supposed to be about improving the dynamic range, i.e the contrast and difference between bright and dark areas of the image. you can only achieve that with some form of local dimming for the backlight on LCD displays, otherwise you are stuck with just the panel's native contrast ratio whatever that might be. The issue and gripe with HDR400 certified screens is that as a spec it doesn't require local dimming to even be used to achieve that badge, and i can't think of any screen which includes it as a result! Yes, HDR400 screens can accept an HDR10 input signal, yes they can reach a bit brighter than many screens (that might be more commonly 250 - 300 cd/m2), and yes it might help with colour and brightness mapping for HDR content. Yes it might therefore look better than if you didn't have that "HDR" support when you view HDR content... but in no way is it actually doing anything to improve the dynamic range of the image, which is really the name of the game.

 

[cuke2u]

If I turn on HDR in Windows 10 the picture is horrible and dull but if I turn on HDR within the monitor settings I get a far better pq..

 

[chrcoluk]

the problem with HDR400 is that it isn't actually improving the dynamic range HDR isn't technically about colour improvements, although the uplift in colours has become synonymous with the term for marketing HDR displays.

HDR is supposed to be about improving the dynamic range, i.e the contrast and difference between bright and dark areas of the image. you can only achieve that with some form of local dimming for the backlight on LCD displays, otherwise you are stuck with just the panel's native contrast ratio whatever that might be. The issue and gripe with HDR400 certified screens is that as a spec it doesn't require local dimming to even be used to achieve that badge, and i can't think of any screen which includes it as a result! Yes, HDR400 screens can accept an HDR10 input signal, yes they can reach a bit brighter than many screens (that might be more commonly 250 - 300 cd/m2), and yes it might help with colour and brightness mapping for HDR content. Yes it might therefore look better than if you didn't have that "HDR" support when you view HDR content... but in no way is it actually doing anything to improve the dynamic range of the image, which is really the name of the game.

There is also the range between different shades of colour, wide gamut screens achieve that even with same contrast ratio, this is why it always baffled me when people think HDR is just about contrast ratio on black and white.