Right sreiously guys

How the hell does HDR mean an extra yellow pixel

I'm getting the feeling people are talking shit, surely HDR means High Dynamic Range, the best way to achieve this is to have deep, glorious, dark, inky, quasar producing blacks

That has FA to do with your console really

I can see how a yellow pixel element could help to make colours less harsh on the eye, and help for the old circaddian rhythms, blue light bad and all that but still, it sounds like some utter bullshit somehwere

http://support.xbox.com/en-IE/xbox-one/console/hdr-on-xbox-one-s

Seems a yes to the slim anyway having HDR. I think I read somewhere that the HDR is a software rather than technical issue so maybe both consoles can do it but the Scorpios and Pros will do it better?

edit: you still need a screen that can show it, which backs up Cockbeards point I think

As an aside on Sonys motivations, I think that yes, its a good way to sell new tech and keep people interested but given that the tech isn't the money maker I think it's overall more about keeping peoples gaming dollars focused on the playstation brand and games. There's no problem having an xbox one or pc and playing the odd game that isnt on PS4 but why buy the multi format game for xbox one when you can have the best shiny version on ps4 pro (pretty much why many people went for ps4 in the first place if I remember correctly)

The PC market must be taking some money from them though. PCs are getting easier to use (most parts are simple plugs in now) Windows and Steam on a single system gives you a great system. Emulation gives yiu the classic stuff, even if it is illegal many will use it, and with the W10/ xbox one link up, it broadens the base for a developer to sell into. I'm not saying they've picked the best option but I can see why they are doing it. 

I wouldnt be surprised if the recent announcement of PS Live on PC (or whatever its called) is part of their effort to try and keep a handle on the PC world.

@Cocko:

http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/hdr-tv-high-dynamic-television-explained

tl;dr it's not just about the blackness of the black.

djchump wrote:

so racist.

There's a Black Pixels Matter joke waiting to be made but I'm not brave enough to check my white privilage to do it.

Pfft, doesn't look HDR to me.

It's because it's an OLED screen.

Oh right. I was confused because on desktop, that's maroon. And actually says 1 new.

Measured in nits, this is already fucking ridiculous marketing bullshit. HDR and Ultra HD Premium are both utter bollocks

You can already measure brightness in lumens, and then the contrast ratio is all that matters, my plasma was around 100000:1 and thats plenty for anyone

Of course I understand what the words mean and how they relate to sound recording, image/video capture and image/video display

What I mean is that this is all marketing guff with no real stuff inside, I wonder what contrast ration the spec of Ultra HD Premium defines, or how many "nit"s who the hell made that up. It's hardly a standard measurement of light output is it, we have candels and lumens, why pull some random word out of their arse? That's why I refuse to trust it

What would you think if Ford launched a new car and said said it did 7000 miles to the gloople (not a typo)

It's just bollocktalk

From the sounds of it, the way they're talking about it may well be bollocks. It's got definite value, though.

For example, an outdoor scene in SDR might have a sky where you can't make out much detail to it because there are only a small number of tones between it's lowest and highest brightness. With HDR you'll be able to make out a lot more detail because the range of colours it's able to display are higher. It's a bit like 8 bit vs 16 bit graphics.

And in the case of these consoles, that's exactly what's happening, AFAIK. I don't think we should be down on them because marketing in general is fucked.

Makes sense. I don't pay much attention to it all, so have no idea what's being sold as what.

Hang on, got my sums wrong...

djchump wrote:

They're SI, not marketing guff bollocktalk, so as such, very much are the standard measurements. nit is colloquial for the SI unit for luminance = cd.m^2. lux is the SI unit for illuminance (i.e. luminous flux density/luminous exitance) = lumen.m^2  Poynton p.604 and 607 for the defs.

Everyday's a schoolday

Happily corrected, I'd never heard of nits before, except the things you get in your hair at infants

cockbeard wrote:

djchump wrote:

They're SI, not marketing guff bollocktalk, so as such, very much are the standard measurements. nit is colloquial for the SI unit for luminance = cd.m^2. lux is the SI unit for illuminance (i.e. luminous flux density/luminous exitance) = lumen.m^2  Poynton p.604 and 607 for the defs.

Everyday's a schoolday

Happily corrected, I'd never heard of nits before, except the things you get in your hair at infants

Tbh I'd not heard of em either before all this - I checked up in Poynton as that's my tv and colour format bible. Kinda confusing with exit radiance being over solid angle of sphere (which is normally what you'll see quoted for point lights) whereas this is in specific direction from flat surface (like an area light).