nVidia does a thing - Computex SDR vs HDR monitor was rigged?

[yian88]

zMeul make a negative nvidia post thats something, HDR = bullshit they just play with contrast and vibrancy/saturation if you look closely every movie or game HDR vs SDR comparison the HDR is much much darker, they increase constrast a lot, and they desaturate/lower the contrast in SDR comparisons, at this point im certain without doubt in every HDR comparison the SDR video was made to look worse in order to make hdr a thing so they can sell something

[mvitkun]

13 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Same problem back in 2008-09 days when "affordable" IPS monitor that you can say is "game ready" was a thing (and not reserved for the professional space due to the high response time and cost) and you are trying to explain how good it is over TN panels. You can't show them.

That's one of the advantages of brick and mortar stores, you can see something in person that is otherwise difficult/impossible to convey.

I mean more so something like Microcenter, where they have games setup on some five computers with mice and keyboards that you just come in and play on.  

  

I haven't been to Microcenter in a while, idk if they've updated the systems with VRR or HDR displays, it's just an example.

 

Obviously still flawed since the room is lit differently than your home would be but it's better than nothing.

[TidaLWaveZ]

A company purposefully manipulating a competing product to make it look as bad as possible in a side by side comparison has been common practice for over a century.

 

Is it honest? No, but this is no surprise as  the whole point of a side by side is to make your product look good and your competition look bad. Business is not nice, business is not honest, business does not care about feelings.

[Sniperfox47]

3 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Not to defend Nvidia. But my guess, is that they did this so that when people comes with their non-HDR camera to film the comparison and it is viewed by our non-HDR monitors, it doesn't appear like shit.

The issue was with a miscalibration of the non-HDR monitor though, not of the HDR screen. It's not wide colour gamut so it wouldn't have mattered. To be fair to Nvidia though while this is the lowest form of scummery, it's the lowest form of scummery that *everyone* in the industry does. If AMD didn't countertune their monitors in their Freesync2 display I'd be seriously shocked.

 

3 hours ago, mvitkun said:

Honestly I think his video is valid, yet to be seen how accurate his claims are, but you have to keep in mind that the image you see is not an accurate representation of what he's describing.

In other words his point would have been made equally well even if he hadn't referenced the footage. 

His point was valid right up until the point where he went "here's an image of these two monitors side by side so you can decide for yourself".

 

5 hours ago, FloRolf said:

Are you serious? Are you not able to see a difference between them in the video? 

Ofc we don't get the full experience by this but we still get to see the differences. 

 

Except those differences are not representative of the differences of the actual displays. The differences are as much to do with the camera trying to capture colour range it wasn't designed for as it does with the displays. And even if it were an HDR camera it would have just as much to do with the video encoder trying to interpolate that HDR footage into an SDR image since the YouTube stream isn't HDR.

 

Capturing video of HDR displays, because of how monitors and TVs handle it, isn't as simple as "point camera at it and hit record".

[GoodBytes]

15 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

The issue was with a miscalibration of the non-HDR monitor though, not of the HDR screen. It's not wide colour gamut so it wouldn't have mattered. To be fair to Nvidia though while this is the lowest form of scummery, it's the lowest form of scummery that *everyone* in the industry does. If AMD didn't countertune their monitors in their Freesync2 display I'd be seriously shocked.

HDR monitors/TVs are wide gamut. That is the whole point. In short, HDR is a standard on that (and color space, I believe), so just having a wide gamut monitor is not enough, sadly and things will still look wrong. But regardless, HDMI monitors/TV are wide gamut.

 

Quote

His point was valid right up until the point where he went "here's an image of these two monitors side by side so you can decide for yourself".

 

Except those differences are not representative of the differences of the actual displays. The differences are as much to do with the camera trying to capture colour range it wasn't designed for as it does with the displays. And even if it were an HDR camera it would have just as much to do with the video encoder trying to interpolate that HDR footage into an SDR image since the YouTube stream isn't HDR.

 

Capturing video of HDR displays, because of how monitors and TVs handle it, isn't as simple as "point camera at it and hit record".

Agreed.

[Sniperfox47]

Just now, GoodBytes said:

HDR monitors/TVs are wide gamut. That is the whole point. It is a standard on that, so just having a wide gamut monitor is not enough.

No no. My point is the issue that everyone's complaining about is that they tuned down the monitor that *wasn't* HDR, not the monitor that was HDR. The SDR monitor that they changed settings on was toned down.

 

The HDR Wide Colour Gamut monitor was left at factory settings.

[Guest Darth Revan]

Has no one read what he wrote in the comments?

Nvidia are the only ones that allowed him to mess with the settings of the monitors. Asus, Acer and someone else can't recall who he said instantly said no. No messing with the settings.

 

[Sniperfox47]

18 minutes ago, Darth Revan said:

Has no one read what he wrote in the comments?

Nvidia are the only ones that allowed him to mess with the settings of the monitors. Asus, Acer and someone else can't recall who he said instantly said no. No messing with the settings.

 

Yeah. Because as has been mentioned earlier, screen tuning is an industry standard practice in  both the AV and PC markets. I'm honestly shocked that Nvidia let him mess with stuff, and don't really blame the others for keeping things off limits.

 

At a tech show you have to grab people's attention among strong competition so everyone does their best to edge out every last bit of flair and exasterbate every little difference in comparisons.

[GoodBytes]

26 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

No no. My point is the issue that everyone's complaining about is that they tuned down the monitor that *wasn't* HDR, not the monitor that was HDR. The SDR monitor that they changed settings on was toned down.

 

The HDR Wide Colour Gamut monitor was left at factory settings.

Yea, and like I said.. well.. think as for the reason they have done this, is that Nvidia wanted to ensure that HDR looks better with standard sRGB cameras, and on our non HDR screens. You can't adjust the HDR monitor to fix the problem. The only way is to disable HDR mode, but now they both will look identical as they are.

[Sniperfox47]

1 minute ago, GoodBytes said:

Yea, and like I said.. well.. think as for the reason they have done this, is that Nvidia wanted to ensure that HDR looks better with standard sRGB cameras, and on our non HDR screens. You can't adjust the HDR monitor to fix the problem. The only way is to disable HDR mode, but now they both will look identical as they are.

Ah okay. I see where you're coming from now. Sorry, I misunderstood your original point.

 

I guess sometimes I forget that Computex is as much about the attendees airing footage to consumers nowadays as it is about being an actual tech showcase.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

11 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

In other news yeah. They crippled it. Since when is this new for display manufacturers or retailers? It may be shit but this is standard practice in the industry.

4 hours ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

A company purposefully manipulating a competing product to make it look as bad as possible in a side by side comparison has been common practice for over a century.

 

Is it honest? No, but this is no surprise as  the whole point of a side by side is to make your product look good and your competition look bad.

I don't get this kind of answers. If faking and lying becomes more widespread, then we should just care less about it? Or should we keep calling out everyone who does it?

Should these guys take the trouble to go over Computex and similar if what they are going to see is meaningless? Should we waste our time watching Compufake coverage videos? Or just skip them and wait for independent reviews are available?

 

11 hours ago, JAKEBAB said:

If this is true its kinda messed up.... I will however say its pretty similar to Samsung (i think others do it too) displaying there own demo content to sell their tv even though realistically, nothing will look that good on it since not everything is made specifically for that tv like the demo.

No, it's not. A demo shows what a product is capable of. You may consider it misleading in that there isn't enough content exploiting the advantages of said product yet, and it may never exist depending on adoption by the relevant industry. Bit it is still an honest representation of what the product can do. It's like running a Cinebench benchmark: you can complain all you want that the programs you care are not multithreaded or whatever, but it is still an honest representation of some CPU capabilities.

A demo is a demo, as in the original Doom demo.

A dishonest representation is a dishonest representation, as in No Man's Sky.

 

10 hours ago, CyberneticTitan said:

How else would he be able to make his point?

He simply can't. Any point about how different two monitors look must be made in person, there is no comparison he can help you make by pointing a camera at a screen. There just isn't.

 

4 hours ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

Business is not nice, business is not honest, business does not care about feelings.

Businesses actually care about feelings, the care a lot about feelings: they sell to your feelings what they could never sell to your reason.

[Sniperfox47]

Just now, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I don't get this kind of answers. If faking and lying becomes more widespread, then we should just care less about it? Or should we keep calling out everyone who does it?

We should care more about it if it becomes more widespread. My issue is about calling out Nvidia on it specifically or calling out AMD or Intel or Samsung or Qualcomm or whoever on it. Especially since it never seems to be the same people calling out everyone. The industry as a whole is broken, so calling out a single individual company for being broken is not really fair to them, after all if all your competitors are anti-competitive and you play fair you'll get crushed. It sucks but it's the way the world works.

 

2 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Should these guys take the trouble to go over Computex and similar if what they are going to see is meaningless? Should we waste our time watching Compufake coverage videos? Or just skip them and wait for independent reviews are available?

Yes because the vast majority of their audience is not people who care about this stuff. Their audience is normal consumers and normal consumers will still be influenced by a benchmark even if the benchmark is faked.

 

That's a bit personal. Personally I don't typically because I find it a bit of a waste, but some people like early peeks into all the cool tech coming out, even if you need to take it with a grain of salt.

 

Definitely wait for individual reviews before making a final judgement though, or better yet test things yourself of possible.

[FloRolf]

1 hour ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Except those differences are not representative of the differences of the actual displays. The differences are as much to do with the camera trying to capture colour range it wasn't designed for as it does with the displays. And even if it were an HDR camera it would have just as much to do with the video encoder trying to interpolate that HDR footage into an SDR image since the YouTube stream isn't HDR.

 

Capturing video of HDR displays, because of how monitors and TVs handle it, isn't as simple as "point camera at it and hit record".

6 hours ago, Notional said:

If the HDR signal uses wide colour gamut using the correct look up table, everything from recording with a camera, to editing, to uploading on youtube, to you playing it back on an SDR monitor, will have completely wrong colours. SO those faded reds he is talking about might simply be a wrong look up table. You won't know by watching the video.

You guys do realize that the SDR monitor was also captured with the same camera, right? 

So yeah we obviously don't get to experience actual HDR but that's not the point of the video. 

We can still clearly see the differences between the two. 

[Notional]

1 minute ago, FloRolf said:

You guys do realize that the SDR monitor was also captured with the same camera, right? 

So yeah we obviously don't get to experience actual HDR but that's not the point of the video. 

We can still clearly see the differences between the two. 

Sorry but that is not how any of this works. You could have made the exact same dual monitor setup where one was showing off adaptive refresh rate and you wouldn't be able to tell either. It is just more complex than that.

 

Either way, we don't know what setup they used, but we do know ME:A is not a great demo for HDR anyways.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

4 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

My issue is about calling out Nvidia on it specifically or calling out AMD or Intel or Samsung or Qualcomm or whoever on it. Especially since it never seems to be the same people calling out everyone

But that's exactly what we ought to do: call each of them out specifically at the time in which they do it, over and over again. Maybe, at best, they will care about being called out about a specific thing individually, as that can be harmful for their image. They will certainly never care about us calling out "the whole industry" and how everyone's bad, that can never touch their incentives.

4 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

The industry as a whole is broken, so calling out a single individual company for being broken is not really fair to them, after all if all your competitors are anti-competitive and you play fair you'll get crushed

That's exactly what doesn't work. If the industry is broken, it is precisely because we don't punish this type of behavior enough. And no, it is not unfair if you do it with everyone. The trap you are falling into is saying "I can't go individually against this case, because everyone is doing it", where precisely not going against them is what allows them to do it. Go against this case, then go against the next, go against anyone you spot doing it and it will be fair. And more important, maaaybe it will change the "everyone is doing it" landscape, because there will be incentives to be the company not being called out. Otherwise it's like saying "stealing is bad, but if everyone starts stealing then we should stop putting people in jail, that's individually unfair, let's just sit and complain about how the world has gone corrupt in general".

4 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

 

Yes because the vast majority of their audience is not people who care about this stuff. Their audience is normal consumers and normal consumers will still be influenced by a benchmark even if the benchmark is faked.

[FloRolf]

Just now, Notional said:

Sorry but that is not how any of this works. You could have made the exact same dual monitor setup where one was showing off adaptive refresh rate and you wouldn't be able to tell either. It is just more complex than that.

 

Either way, we don't know what setup they used, but we do know ME:A is not a great demo for HDR anyways.

What? These are 2 completely different things.

Either you can not follow the way i'm thinking or you are the one that doesn't know how any of this works. 

 

You can even Demo headphones through a recording and playing it back on your own headphones. OBVIOUSLY it won't sound (or look in our case) like the headphones tested but you can compare that to recording done THE SAME WAY no problem. You can easily spot differences like heavy base or high treble (or brightness levels, Detail etc in our case).

[Sniperfox47]

7 minutes ago, FloRolf said:

You guys do realize that the SDR monitor was also captured with the same camera, right? 

So yeah we obviously don't get to experience actual HDR but that's not the point of the video. 

We can still clearly see the differences between the two. 

And what you seem to not accept is that just because you can see that there are differences, doesn't mean that those differences are *representative* of the differences in real life.

 

Are the differences between the two panels irl? Absolutely without a doubt.

 

Does the picture he provides allow us to, in any meaningful way, compare differences in quality of the image, colour tones, gamut, colour depth, relative brightness, or any other factor that comes into play when you talk about dynamic range? Absolutely not.

 

All of the factors that are relevant to the discussion aren't just reduced by the recording. They are distorted.

[Sniperfox47]

6 minutes ago, FloRolf said:

You can even Demo headphones through a recording and playing it back on your own headphones. OBVIOUSLY it won't sound (or look in our case) like the headphones tested but you can compare that to recording done THE SAME WAY no problem. You can easily spot differences like heavy base or high treble (or brightness levels, Detail etc in our case).

Sure but you cannot demo the playback of 192KHz audio vs 48KHz audio on a DAC only capable of processing 48KHz audio. Once the 192KHz audio is downsampled to 48KHz it loses every thing that sets it apart as being 192KHz

 

Edit: it also typically winds up with distortion and loss compared to a native 48KHz recording due to downsampled artifacts, similar to how HDR can cause colour distortion when HDR content is recorded with a non-HDR imaging sensor.

[TidaLWaveZ]

43 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I don't get this kind of answers. If faking and lying becomes more widespread, then we should just care less about it? Or should we keep calling out everyone who does it?

Should these guys take the trouble to go over Computex and similar if what they are going to see is meaningless? Should we waste our time watching Compufake coverage videos? Or just skip them and wait for independent reviews are available?

 

The only way I can answer most of those questions is with my personal opinion. 

 

I'm not criticizing anyone for bringing things like this to attention, but if we're to constantly seek out and criticize every instance of a company pulling this BS we'll be writing them down until the day we die. It's spreading like a cancer to news media outlets and into the masses minds. Everything has an agenda behind it and it's driven by money.

 

The only thing you can do is to be sharp and DTA. Vendors are paid to make you want their product and they're going to do whatever it takes.

[Notional]

20 minutes ago, FloRolf said:

What? These are 2 completely different things.

Either you can not follow the way i'm thinking or you are the one that doesn't know how any of this works. 

 

You can even Demo headphones through a recording and playing it back on your own headphones. OBVIOUSLY it won't sound (or look in our case) like the headphones tested but you can compare that to recording done THE SAME WAY no problem. You can easily spot differences like heavy base or high treble (or brightness levels, Detail etc in our case).

I get what you mean, but it still doesn't work like that. You would get massive black crush, and oversaturated whites. The colours will be skewed, especially if using wide colour gamuts your monitor cannot show (or any part of the chain won't support).

 

But ultimately, the issue is either the way the demo is set up, or the game itself.