Lauster said: Thanks Don and John for your answer.
Yes, as Svennoj experimented in GT Sport for example. I think it's something I can notice, but if I have the good panel and content as you said.
Yes, it's still a better option, I suppose, even if the gain is much less than a person with normal vision. Does the lumen power of a panel depends on its HDR capabilities ?
For explaining color blindness, pictures are better than words : https://hitek.fr/42/vision-des-couleurs-daltoniens_4682 (scroll down to examples) In my case, it's a deuteranomaly, and I can't see any difference between a deuteranomaly picture and a normal vision picture. Thus, about color perception from HDR, I'm not sure that I can see the difference with a No-HDR display. |
I don't know how exactly you see, but HDR give more options in all color spectrum, so even if you can't differentiate some colors you don't see the world in a 16 color palette =p, so having more color gradiente could be good.
Question for you, do you see a general difference in color between real world and games? If you do, the HDR will give you more natural colors.
On the brightness/contrast... a panel doesn't need to be HDR to have high bright or contrast, it is more on the opposite, it needs good brigh and contrast to receive HDR classification. But since the parameters are quite big you can have inane HDR to excelent and both would receive the seal. Plus the content needs to enable it and make good use (not like RDR2).
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."