HDR on Odyssey G5 LS27AG500NU

[Mikealongo]

Hi,

 

I just  bought and installed a Samsung Odyssey G5 LS27AG500NU, my first HDR display, and i was playing with settings and when i turned on HDR (both in windows and in the display settings), the colours get much washed out and with a blue hue than with de sRGB mode.

I know that ther is a slider that adjust brightnes but with the slider at 100% the white just get burned...

Is just me, is there any option there that i should be awere of?

 

Thank you

[Skiiwee29]

Thats normal in windows. HDR in windows is broken and never displays correctly.

 

Also, Unless you're buying a very high end 4k panel, the HDR experience is not that great and most of the time games/content will look better in SDR opposed to poor HDR. 

[Chris Pratt]

44 minutes ago, Mikealongo said:

I just  bought and installed a Samsung Odyssey G5 LS27AG500NU, my first HDR display

That's not an HDR display. It doesn't get nearly bright enough, and can't reproduce true black. The result is that it can only reproduce the mid range of the high dynamic range, or grey. That's why everything looks washed out. Unfortunately, monitor manufacturers are very misleading with HDR marketing. Something like "HDR10" or "HDR capable" just means it can receive an HDR signal, not that it can actually display HDR (which would be the entire point, I know).

[Mikealongo]

22 hours ago, Skiiwee29 said:

Thats normal in windows. HDR in windows is broken and never displays correctly.

 

Also, Unless you're buying a very high end 4k panel, the HDR experience is not that great and most of the time games/content will look better in SDR opposed to poor HDR. 

 

21 hours ago, Chris Pratt said:

That's not an HDR display. It doesn't get nearly bright enough, and can't reproduce true black. The result is that it can only reproduce the mid range of the high dynamic range, or grey. That's why everything looks washed out. Unfortunately, monitor manufacturers are very misleading with HDR marketing. Something like "HDR10" or "HDR capable" just means it can receive an HDR signal, not that it can actually display HDR (which would be the entire point, I know).

Thank you for your fast response! I will turn HDR off then  

[Stahlmann]

On 1/6/2022 at 12:16 PM, Skiiwee29 said:

Thats normal in windows. HDR in windows is broken and never displays correctly.

 

Also, Unless you're buying a very high end 4k panel, the HDR experience is not that great and most of the time games/content will look better in SDR opposed to poor HDR. 

Windows HDR is in fact not broken. At least for me in W10 and W11. It's mostly bad HDR tuning - if it's tuned at all - from the monitor manufacturer.

 

I can use HDR permanently enabled with my PG35VQ and there is not difference compared to disabling it for SDR content. Color gamut clipping is correct, local dimming works fine, gamma is correct, etc. The reason for this is that my monitor reports real values to windows so it can work with that.

 

Most monitor brands bake in completely wrong values in their firmware and windows interprets these firmware values and tonemaps the HDR and SDR content accordingly. If your standard "HDR10 supporting" monitor tells windows it can do 0-1500 nits but realistically it is at 0.3-300 (example for 1000:1 contrast) nits of course it will look broken and wrong. I saw a thread a few days back where someone asked why his monitor only does 600 nits when windows says it can do 1500 or so (can't remember the exact values). Turns out the monitor firmware reported an unrealistic value for some reason. My PG35VQ reports it can do 0-1100 nits, which is exactly what it's capable of.

 

If your monitor reports unrealistic values to Windows, then it will look borked. If it reports realistic values Windows can tonemap accordingly and HDR will look as intended. Sadly most brands don't include realistic values in their firmware for whatever reason.

 

For the G5 it's really like what @Chris Pratt said and it doesn't have any real HDR capabilities other than accepting the signal. All HDR does on this monitor is capping out brightness, essentially cutting of more information in the dark scenes while still losing the highlight detail in the bright ones because it cannot get bright enough, so it's a lose-lose in terms of HDR compared to SDR. And adding the fact the color temperature is also wrong (blue tint) will then also decrease accuracity. Most monitors cannot even change their color control in HDR modes. Again, Asus is one of the few brands that actually implement HDR somewhat decently in my experience.

[Chris Pratt]

7 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

Windows HDR is in fact not broken. At least for me in W10 and W11. It's mostly bad HDR tuning - if it's tuned at all - from the monitor manufacturer.

 

I can use HDR permanently enabled with my PG35VQ and there is not difference compared to disabling it for SDR content. Color gamut clipping is correct, local dimming works fine, gamma is correct, etc. The reason for this is that my monitor reports real values to windows so it can work with that.

 

Most monitor brands bake in completely wrong values in their firmware and windows interprets these firmware values and tonemaps the HDR and SDR content accordingly. If your standard "HDR10 supporting" monitor tells windows it can do 0-1500 nits but realistically it is at 0.2-300 nits of course it will look broken and wrong. I saw a thread a few days back where someone asked why his monitor only does 600 nits when windows says it can do 1500 or so (can't remember the exact values). Turns out the monitor firmware reported an unrealistic value for some reason. My PG35VQ reports it can do 0-1100 nits, which is exactly what it's capable of.

 

If your monitor reports unrealistic values to Windows, then it will look borked. If it reports realistic values Windows can tonemap accordingly and HDR will look as intended. Sadly most brands don't include realistic values in their firmware for whatever reason.

 

For the G5 it's really like what @Chris Pratt said and it doesn't have any real HDR capabilities other than accepting the signal. All HDR does on this monitor is capping out brightness, essentially cutting of more information in the dark scenes while still losing the highlight detail in the bright ones because it cannot get bright enough, so it's a lose-lose in terms of HDR compared to SDR. And adding the fact the color temperature is also wrong (blue tint) will then also decrease accuracity. Most monitors cannot even change their color control in HDR modes. Again, Asus is one of the few brands that actually implement HDR somewhat decently in my experience.

I get a decent enough HDR experience on my MSI with a VA panel and Display HDR400 certification, but it's no where near the LG C1 OLED in my living room, of course. I find it kind of ridiculous that monitor manufacturers are able to play so fast and loose with HDR marketing, when the vast majority can't do it at all or only provide a somewhat better than SDR experience.

[Stahlmann]

8 minutes ago, Chris Pratt said:

I get a decent enough HDR experience on my MSI with a VA panel and Display HDR400 certification, but it's no where near the LG C1 OLED in my living room, of course. I find it kind of ridiculous that monitor manufacturers are able to play so fast and loose with HDR marketing, when the vast majority can't do it at all or only provide a somewhat better than SDR experience.

If i'd have a word in VESA certifications i'd probably ask for at least some form of FALD even on the entry-level HDR400 certification. Anything not having local dimming is not HDR, simple as that. The only way these displays can get the higher brightness is by also raising black levels with the contrast ratio staying the same.

[Chris Pratt]

10 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

If i'd have a word in VESA certifications i'd probably ask for at least some form of FALD even on the entry-level HDR400 certification. Anything not having local dimming is not HDR, simple as that. The only way these displays can get the higher brightness is by also raising black levels with the contrast ratio staying the same.

Definitely. The only reason it's passable on mine is because of the higher native contrast of VA, but it's still not HDR in any real sense.