HDR Lighting

[HappyHaddock]

Hi,

 

I wondered if anybody here might be able to chip in with any knowledge or speculation about IL-2 and High Dynamic Range Lighting.

 

Those that know me are aware that I work professionally as an artist and "have a thing" about correct balance of contrast of hue and tone in terms of giving a more pleasing image. There seems to be very mixed feelings here about IL-2's implementation of HDR as whilst turning on this setting clearly makes a difference not everyone feels it makes things better, just different.

 

True HDR increases the number of hues and tones any image can be broken down into, both  to allow more subtle transitions and contrasts between similar hues and tones, and also it will typically extend the possible range  between the lightest and darkest tones to span more of the colour spectrum, where the industry seems to be undergoing some sort of commercial battle to establish which of the various standards out there get adopted as a new default.  However  whilst 8bit colour coding like sRGB has been default for years it is  the case that many cheaper monitors still  cannot accurately display the full extremes of this simplest of colour standards. The use of newer 10 bit (or even 12 bit or 14bit) standards requires newer (specialist) monitors capable of handling the larger data set representing hue and tone, alternatively the monitor requires some form of internal compression to covert the 10bit data signal back to a simpler  8 bit format (thereby losing the advantage of a more detailed colour coding). Plus on top of this there are a wide array of so called "HDR" monitors on the market that, whilst having electronics and firmware able to handle higher bit rate data signals, they still lack the full colour gamut screens capable of actually displaying the far extremes of this higher bit colour data.

 

Anyway whilst the technical background to HDR is a topic that could be delved into in much greater depth, could I ask if anybody here knows if IL-2's HDR setting is a genuine conversion to outputting  a higher bit data set to represent finer graduation of hue and tone for those with screens capable of handling such data, or is it merely a manipulation of values within a regular sRGB data set to artificially  adjust the balance of shadow and highlight in the manner of a post effect filter like re-shade?

 

Secondly, whilst the devs announced move to deferred shading needn't technically affect the colour space used to define a scene on screen, a major overhaul of the lighting engine would be an ideal opportunity to look at other changes, so do you think that we may see a difference in the HDR implementation brought about with this planned change?

 

Cheers

 

HH

 

 

Edited April 8, 2020 by HappyHaddock

[Burdokva]

Isn't enabling HDR pointless on a non-HDR capable monitor? I have a decent large IPS screen and I've always wondered if there's any point of using HDR on it...

[HappyHaddock]

8 minutes ago, Burdokva said:

Isn't enabling HDR pointless on a non-HDR capable monitor? I have a decent large IPS screen and I've always wondered if there's any point of using HDR on it...

 

Depends exactly what the devs mean by HDR...

 

If the signal is genuinely a higher bit rate colour coding then a non-HDR monitor will either fail or offer a lower quality image by using software compression to convert back to what it can handle.  However the term HDR is much used and abused to mean many things, where if the IL-2 HDR setting is merely a filter which increases contrast within a regular sRGB signal , then there is no advantage in owning an HDR screen other than if the monitor itself includes software to try and upscale the standard sRGB signal to a higher bit rate colour code. Plus, as I've said, a lot of screens use the term HDR in their branding but you need to be sure how much that refers to the inputs the electronics can handle and what the screen can actually show.

 

As I say it is a topic that could be discussed in depth...

 

In short I'm browsing and looking at new monitors. I currently have a 24" 60Hz 1080HD IPS screen with excellent and accurate coverage of the sRGB colour spectrum. I can now get a new 32" 4k HDR 144hz screen for a fraction of the cost of what I paid for my exiting screen a decade ago. However in spite of all the headline numbers these cheap new screens offer a less complete and certainly less accurate coverage of the sRGB colour space and so I won't go near them.... I'm looking at what's on the market and wondering  how much of my existing colour accuracy and coverage of the sRGB space I may be willing to sacrifice in terms of gaining the option to run HDR data or gain a decent coverage of Adobe colour space.

 

As an artist I work in paint on canvas so theoretically don't need a computer at all for work, but I know I am fussy about on-screen colour reproduction so if I'm going to be spending more on my monitor than my PC is worth I want to make an informed choice as the likelihood is I'll be using whatever I buy for at least the next decade.

[blitze]

HDR also can relate to the difference in lighting with indoor to outdoor transitions or visa-versa .  For Il2 it is used to allow for ones cockpit to be better visible contrast wise to the outside environment.  If you turn HDR off - you have a dark cockpit when flying but when you turn it on, the cockpit is lighter and easier to see instruments.

 

In photography it means if you take a photo from inside looking out a window neither the inside is displayed to dark nor the outside overblown with light exposure.  This is natural for the human eye but is a more recent thing in photography with the advent of digital sensors and multi exposure image capture at the same time with AI combing the results.

 

As for 10bit or greater support, it adds to the colour palate one has access too and gives much nicer transitions in gradients so that you eliminate banding.

 

Blume on the other hand - using ones config file - it can be turned off. Can lead to over brightened objects.  Maybe the new rendering system will calm that down some.

[HappyHaddock]

In terms of changing/lightening of the cockpit that is clear as the image below shows. This is also what makes me think that IL-2's HDR isn't really true HDR but simply a brightness contrast adjustment of an sRGB signal to allow for the fact the vast majority of screens have very poor contrast in terms of differentiating levels of black. If it were true HDR all that darkness in the non-HDR image would still be dark just many more subtle dark shades potentially stretching further towards true black which would require a screen with a very strong ability to subtly differentiate this so that we could see those differences.

 

As it is on my non-HDR screen everything in the shadows is lightened considerably by turning on HDR.

 

I suppose, given all I've said about he quality of my existing screen I should ask how many people looking at the image below see the HDR cockpit as essentially one black shape, or like me do you actually see the modest degree of subtle detailing and form within the model/data signal?

 

HH

 

 

 

 

Edited April 8, 2020 by HappyHaddock

[peregrine7]

From a gaming perspective HDR means something different Happy Haddock. A leftover from when games were doing something similar but not quite like photography HDR. Nowadays game engines are more advanced, as are monitors, and true HDR can exist in everyday games not just some freakish experiment.

It is more akin to "dynamic contrast and midpoint", kinda like a LUT but with a little more flexibility. The game is taking the current histogram (of non-HDR) and trying to make it match more closely to a custom histogram curve.

This video shows it in action

There is no increase to the number of samples, the bit depth, etc etc. It just takes the non-hdr and changes it.

 

 

It does not change the output of the game, but is rather a filter. paradoxically, the original image is more apt to being shown in an HDR format as it hasn't been "crushed"

 

 

EDIT: Well, you figured it out in the time it took for me to post haha. I can see all the shades in shadows on the left on a shitty screen with f.lux running - I don't think anybody will struggle with that.

Edited April 8, 2020 by peregrine7

[HappyHaddock]

1 hour ago, peregrine7 said:

It does not change the output of the game, but is rather a filter. paradoxically, the original image is more apt to being shown in an HDR format as it hasn't been "crushed"

 

Thanks for this, it is as I suspected in terms of non-HDR screens I just wasn't sure if it was a multi-layered thing that did apply a genuine HDR affect for those screens IL-2 was able to detect as 10bit capable?

[hetstaine]

1 hour ago, HappyHaddock said:

In terms of changing/lightening of the cockpit that is clear as the image below shows. This is also what makes me think that IL-2's HDR isn't really true HDR but simply a brightness contrast adjustment of an sRGB signal to allow for the fact the vast majority of screens have very poor contrast in terms of differentiating levels of black. If it were true HDR all that darkness in the non-HDR image would still be dark just many more subtle dark shades potentially stretching further towards true black which would require a screen with a very strong ability to subtly differentiate this so that we could see those differences.

 

As it is on my non-HDR screen everything in the shadows is lightened considerably by turning on HDR.

 

I suppose, given all I've said about he quality of my existing screen I should ask how many people looking at the image below see the HDR cockpit as essentially one black shape, or like me do you actually see the modest degree of subtle detailing and form within the model/data signal?

 

HH

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see enough that if that is how the game was i could deal with it and still read the gauges, but i would much prefer not too

[SharpeXB]

HDR in IL-2 is not the same thing as HDR in consumer video ie “4K HDR” monitors and TVs etc

I have an HDR monitor and games which support HDR (you’ll see this as HDR10 or DolbyVision in the settings) look really amazing

Really most all new mainstream games now support HDR as do the current game consoles 

HDR support in a flight sim would be fantastic due to the greater color depth, just imagine how much this would help spotting aircraft. 
If I was in the market for a new monitor I would definitely get HDR, there’s hardly a reason not to. It’s a very standard feature outside of niche games like this one. 

[LizLemon]

6 hours ago, Burdokva said:

Isn't enabling HDR pointless on a non-HDR capable monitor? I have a decent large IPS screen and I've always wondered if there's any point of using HDR on it...

 

Its not that kind of HDR. Its taking a 16bit framebuffer and converting it to 8bit. With HDR turned on the game is doing some contrast, s-curves and saturation adjustments along with autoexposure and white balance - but not doing gamma conversion correctly.

 

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

If I was in the market for a new monitor I would definitely get HDR, there’s hardly a reason not to. It’s a very standard feature outside of niche games like this one. 

 

As long as it isn't HDR 400, which is just a bad joke. You really need 600 minimum, and ideally 1000, especially for movie/tv content.

[HappyHaddock]

17 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

If I was in the market for a new monitor I would definitely get HDR, there’s hardly a reason not to. It’s a very standard feature outside of niche games like this one. 

 

In many respects that was my thinking until I started looking at what is available by way of HDR monitors... Lots use the term HDR in their marketing, but about half of what is out there doesn't meet what I'd consider the bare minimum for colour quality/accuracy as they seem to get less accurate as they stretch beyond basic sRGB, or (like Lizlemon says) they offer a token nod towards HDR but don't really go far enough to be worth calling HDR.... The screens that offer all of what I want as artist seem to push well into four figure price tags.  As I never watch movies on my PC and the only game I own is IL-2 FC my need for HDR seems minimal, where as what I want is decent colour accuracy for  creative work along with more screen real estate (physical size and actual pixels) for running multiple windows/software side by side; that I can get for a lot less money by not buying into HDR....

 

It's just that as you say HDR is becoming so main stream I can imagine that a few years down the line I'll feel I missed out if I bought a new screen without HDR... I'll probably end up doing what I've done for some  while and stick with what I've got... it delivers the colour quality I want within sRGB (though doesn't really cover the full Adobe colour space which would be nice) and is still going strong after about a decade, that way I can keep browsing whilst waiting for something worthwhile to hit the market.... I'd hoped to find some sort of 32" 4k IPS screen I would be happy to use for about £500-£700 (uk sterling) but at the moment I've not found anything I'd consider a worthwhile upgrade for under a grand, as on paper it is easy to get "better specifications", just not in the ones that matter to me.

 

HH

 

[SharpeXB]

52 minutes ago, HappyHaddock said:

The screens that offer all of what I want as artist seem to push well into four figure price tags. 

Well that’s definitely a specialized use for monitor. And since IL-2 is your only game that’s a factor as well. I don’t see any monitors with local dimming and OLED might have issues with burn-in so that technology for gaming with fixed HUD elements could be an issue. Most gamers are concerned with things like input lag rather than absolute color correctness. 
The monitor I have has, if I recall, 500 nit brightness. That’s short of the full HDR spec but very bright for a screen that I’m sitting close to. For gaming purposes it does look quite nice.

[HappyHaddock]

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Well that’s definitely a specialized use for monitor. And since IL-2 is your only game that’s a factor as well. I don’t see any monitors with local dimming and OLED might have issues with burn-in so that technology for gaming with fixed HUD elements could be an issue. Most gamers are concerned with things like input lag rather than absolute color correctness. 
The monitor I have has, if I recall, 500 nit brightness. That’s short of the full HDR spec but very bright for a screen that I’m sitting close to. For gaming purposes it does look quite nice.

 

I've been really impressed by the quality of image produced by OLED but, as you say, doubt their life expectancy, plus there really aren't that many OLED monitors out there. They do however offer really black blacks so can produce insane contrast ratios even without needing high maximum brightness levels.  500nit brightness is great for HDR but in a darkish studio is about 300 more than I'd be comfortable using...

 

I think what I need to do is win the lottery and then go shopping at Eizo!

 

HH