000 – TEST UAE (ok to delete)

TOP SECTION…

Photography is about to improve in a massive way. Display technology is beginning to transition to HDR or “High Dynamic Range”. This is the most significant improvement in image quality in decades. And there’s a good chance you already own such a display and don’t even know it. On this page, you’ll learn how you can start to explore this incredible world of HDR.

standard (JPG) AVIF seems to be an issue

HDR image gallery

Click and drag the vertical slider on these images to compare before and after converting to HDR. All HDR images here were derived from existing SDR images, and could potentially be further enhanced with editing for HDR from the start. Use the slider to compare before and after. If the image on the right isn’t clearly brighter and better looking (or won’t display at all), s

standard (JPG) xxx
standard (JPG) xxx
standard (JPG) xxx
standard (JPG) HDR (AVIF)
standard (JPG) HDR (AVIF)
standard (JPG) HDR (AVIF)
standard (JPG) HDR (AVIF)

What is the dynamic range of HDR?

Up to this point, I’ve focused on the extra stops of brightness one can see with an HDR monitor. That’s paints a fairly clear picture, but it isn’t the whole story. The dynamic range is the difference between light and dark. So the minimum black for your monitor also matters. Having deeper blacks also increases dynamic range. Our SDR images have always had the option to encode for black. What’s more important is to understand your actual display.

If you create a 32-bit document with a pure black background (0.000) and then put extremely dark black (0.0001) text over it, you can clearly read that text on my Eizo monitor. You can’t directly request or measure smaller values in Photoshop, but you can add a curve that reduces it down to roughly 4% of that (0.000004) and the text can still be read. The text is never blurry, the only thing that limits visibility is that the background black is clearly lit (substantially brighter than the black plastic edges of the monitor). This is caused by a backlight being used for the entire screen. It is high quality, but nothing gets truly black. The result is that you can see very dark shadows, but they don’t look impressive due to a lack of contrast.

Conversely on a 2021 M1 MacBook Pro’s XDR display, the background is a true black (there is no detectable backlight, it looks the same as the darkness around the screen in a black room). However, the ability to see this values is significantly diminished. You can vaguely detect something on the screen at 0.0001, the text is not even slightly readable until about 0.0004, and only clearly visible starting around 0.0010. The text looks extremely blurry at the low end of the range, caused by the spread of the local backlight. Unlike a single backlight, this display uses mini-LED to locally provide light if some pixels in a given region are not black. At the lowest levels, the backlight bleed is the dominant factor, giving things a blurry feel. However, while you can’t clearly make out some extremely dark details as well, the result is higher contrast shadows which look much nicer.

Each of these technologies has potential various advantages. If you were to compare these to an OLED TV, you’d find the OLED can achieve true blacks. This gets promoted as “infinite contrast ratio” (suggesting infinite dynamic range), but is a fairly useless concept in practice. OLED displays are susceptible to burn-in (ghosting / damage) if they are turned up too bright, so they cannot produce the stunning bright whites of the XDR display. The extra deep blacks would primarily help when viewing such a screen in a very dark room with no ambient light or reflections.

This should make the next generation micro-LED (which only illuminates a single pixel and achieves high higher brightness than OLED) extremely attractive. As great as these screens are, there is still a lot of room for useful improvement.

So how much extra dynamic range do we get with HDR? It depends on the monitor and how you use it. There probably isn’t a definitive answer – you could make many different and good arguments even for the same hardware (and I’m sure several people will in the comments below). The 32-bit files allow you to specify values as anything as bright or dark in the real world, but no monitor can achieve this. The most important monitor factors are peak brightness and the minimum black. There are of course nuances such as the degree to which dark pixels retain detail due to the backlight design. The useful range of a display also depends on ambient lighting (viewing conditions) and the degree to which your screen reflects that ambient lightSo which of these factors really matters?

The difference in shadow detail for a given monitor would affect both SDR and HDR images, and we rarely view screens only in dark rooms where the deepest black is the most critical factor. So from a visual impact standpoint, the greatest benefit of an HDR display is the enhanced peak brightness. I’d argue that we’re gaining about 2-4 stops of dynamic range with best-in-class HDR displays at the moment in typical viewing conditions (more than 4 stops are possible if you configure the display properly and view in a dark room, but this won’t be relevant to most users). If we hit the 4000 nits target of Dolby Vision, we’re probably gaining as much as 5 or 6 stops in typical usage. At that point, further gains would might only matter when watching a monitor in a bright outdoor setting. Monitors are making great progress towards recreating light and color which we see in the real world, and we should continue to see some nice improvements in the years to come.

Up to this point, I’ve focused on the extra stops of brightness one can see with an HDR monitor. That’s paints a fairly clear picture, but it isn’t the whole story. The dynamic range is the difference between light and dark. So the minimum black for your monitor also matters. Having deeper blacks also increases dynamic range. Our SDR images have always had the option to encode for black. What’s more important is to understand your actual display.

If you create a 32-bit document with a pure black background (0.000) and then put extremely dark black (0.0001) text over it, you can clearly read that text on my Eizo monitor. You can’t directly request or measure smaller values in Photoshop, but you can add a curve that reduces it down to roughly 4% of that (0.000004) and the text can still be read. The text is never blurry, the only thing that limits visibility is that the background black is clearly lit (substantially brighter than the black plastic edges of the monitor). This is caused by a backlight being used for the entire screen. It is high quality, but nothing gets truly black. The result is that you can see very dark shadows, but they don’t look impressive due to a lack of contrast.

Conversely on a 2021 M1 MacBook Pro’s XDR display, the background is a true black (there is no detectable backlight, it looks the same as the darkness around the screen in a black room). However, the ability to see this values is significantly diminished. You can vaguely detect something on the screen at 0.0001, the text is not even slightly readable until about 0.0004, and only clearly visible starting around 0.0010. The text looks extremely blurry at the low end of the range, caused by the spread of the local backlight. Unlike a single backlight, this display uses mini-LED to locally provide light if some pixels in a given region are not black. At the lowest levels, the backlight bleed is the dominant factor, giving things a blurry feel. However, while you can’t clearly make out some extremely dark details as well, the result is higher contrast shadows which look much nicer.

Each of these technologies has potential various advantages. If you were to compare these to an OLED TV, you’d find the OLED can achieve true blacks. This gets promoted as “infinite contrast ratio” (suggesting infinite dynamic range), but is a fairly useless concept in practice. OLED displays are susceptible to burn-in (ghosting / damage) if they are turned up too bright, so they cannot produce the stunning bright whites of the XDR display. The extra deep blacks would primarily help when viewing such a screen in a very dark room with no ambient light or reflections.

This should make the next generation micro-LED (which only illuminates a single pixel and achieves high higher brightness than OLED) extremely attractive. As great as these screens are, there is still a lot of room for useful improvement.

So how much extra dynamic range do we get with HDR? It depends on the monitor and how you use it. There probably isn’t a definitive answer – you could make many different and good arguments even for the same hardware (and I’m sure several people will in the comments below). The 32-bit files allow you to specify values as anything as bright or dark in the real world, but no monitor can achieve this. The most important monitor factors are peak brightness and the minimum black. There are of course nuances such as the degree to which dark pixels retain detail due to the backlight design. The useful range of a display also depends on ambient lighting (viewing conditions) and the degree to which your screen reflects that ambient lightSo which of these factors really matters?

The difference in shadow detail for a given monitor would affect both SDR and HDR images, and we rarely view screens only in dark rooms where the deepest black is the most critical factor. So from a visual impact standpoint, the greatest benefit of an HDR display is the enhanced peak brightness. I’d argue that we’re gaining about 2-4 stops of dynamic range with best-in-class HDR displays at the moment in typical viewing conditions (more than 4 stops are possible if you configure the display properly and view in a dark room, but this won’t be relevant to most users). If we hit the 4000 nits target of Dolby Vision, we’re probably gaining as much as 5 or 6 stops in typical usage. At that point, further gains would might only matter when watching a monitor in a bright outdoor setting. Monitors are making great progress towards recreating light and color which we see in the real world, and we should continue to see some nice improvements in the years to come.

Up to this point, I’ve focused on the extra stops of brightness one can see with an HDR monitor. That’s paints a fairly clear picture, but it isn’t the whole story. The dynamic range is the difference between light and dark. So the minimum black for your monitor also matters. Having deeper blacks also increases dynamic range. Our SDR images have always had the option to encode for black. What’s more important is to understand your actual display.

If you create a 32-bit document with a pure black background (0.000) and then put extremely dark black (0.0001) text over it, you can clearly read that text on my Eizo monitor. You can’t directly request or measure smaller values in Photoshop, but you can add a curve that reduces it down to roughly 4% of that (0.000004) and the text can still be read. The text is never blurry, the only thing that limits visibility is that the background black is clearly lit (substantially brighter than the black plastic edges of the monitor). This is caused by a backlight being used for the entire screen. It is high quality, but nothing gets truly black. The result is that you can see very dark shadows, but they don’t look impressive due to a lack of contrast.

Conversely on a 2021 M1 MacBook Pro’s XDR display, the background is a true black (there is no detectable backlight, it looks the same as the darkness around the screen in a black room). However, the ability to see this values is significantly diminished. You can vaguely detect something on the screen at 0.0001, the text is not even slightly readable until about 0.0004, and only clearly visible starting around 0.0010. The text looks extremely blurry at the low end of the range, caused by the spread of the local backlight. Unlike a single backlight, this display uses mini-LED to locally provide light if some pixels in a given region are not black. At the lowest levels, the backlight bleed is the dominant factor, giving things a blurry feel. However, while you can’t clearly make out some extremely dark details as well, the result is higher contrast shadows which look much nicer.

Each of these technologies has potential various advantages. If you were to compare these to an OLED TV, you’d find the OLED can achieve true blacks. This gets promoted as “infinite contrast ratio” (suggesting infinite dynamic range), but is a fairly useless concept in practice. OLED displays are susceptible to burn-in (ghosting / damage) if they are turned up too bright, so they cannot produce the stunning bright whites of the XDR display. The extra deep blacks would primarily help when viewing such a screen in a very dark room with no ambient light or reflections.

This should make the next generation micro-LED (which only illuminates a single pixel and achieves high higher brightness than OLED) extremely attractive. As great as these screens are, there is still a lot of room for useful improvement.

So how much extra dynamic range do we get with HDR? It depends on the monitor and how you use it. There probably isn’t a definitive answer – you could make many different and good arguments even for the same hardware (and I’m sure several people will in the comments below). The 32-bit files allow you to specify values as anything as bright or dark in the real world, but no monitor can achieve this. The most important monitor factors are peak brightness and the minimum black. There are of course nuances such as the degree to which dark pixels retain detail due to the backlight design. The useful range of a display also depends on ambient lighting (viewing conditions) and the degree to which your screen reflects that ambient lightSo which of these factors really matters?

The difference in shadow detail for a given monitor would affect both SDR and HDR images, and we rarely view screens only in dark rooms where the deepest black is the most critical factor. So from a visual impact standpoint, the greatest benefit of an HDR display is the enhanced peak brightness. I’d argue that we’re gaining about 2-4 stops of dynamic range with best-in-class HDR displays at the moment in typical viewing conditions (more than 4 stops are possible if you configure the display properly and view in a dark room, but this won’t be relevant to most users). If we hit the 4000 nits target of Dolby Vision, we’re probably gaining as much as 5 or 6 stops in typical usage. At that point, further gains would might only matter when watching a monitor in a bright outdoor setting. Monitors are making great progress towards recreating light and color which we see in the real world, and we should continue to see some nice improvements in the years to come.

Up to this point, I’ve focused on the extra stops of brightness one can see with an HDR monitor. That’s paints a fairly clear picture, but it isn’t the whole story. The dynamic range is the difference between light and dark. So the minimum black for your monitor also matters. Having deeper blacks also increases dynamic range. Our SDR images have always had the option to encode for black. What’s more important is to understand your actual display.

If you create a 32-bit document with a pure black background (0.000) and then put extremely dark black (0.0001) text over it, you can clearly read that text on my Eizo monitor. You can’t directly request or measure smaller values in Photoshop, but you can add a curve that reduces it down to roughly 4% of that (0.000004) and the text can still be read. The text is never blurry, the only thing that limits visibility is that the background black is clearly lit (substantially brighter than the black plastic edges of the monitor). This is caused by a backlight being used for the entire screen. It is high quality, but nothing gets truly black. The result is that you can see very dark shadows, but they don’t look impressive due to a lack of contrast.

Conversely on a 2021 M1 MacBook Pro’s XDR display, the background is a true black (there is no detectable backlight, it looks the same as the darkness around the screen in a black room). However, the ability to see this values is significantly diminished. You can vaguely detect something on the screen at 0.0001, the text is not even slightly readable until about 0.0004, and only clearly visible starting around 0.0010. The text looks extremely blurry at the low end of the range, caused by the spread of the local backlight. Unlike a single backlight, this display uses mini-LED to locally provide light if some pixels in a given region are not black. At the lowest levels, the backlight bleed is the dominant factor, giving things a blurry feel. However, while you can’t clearly make out some extremely dark details as well, the result is higher contrast shadows which look much nicer.

Each of these technologies has potential various advantages. If you were to compare these to an OLED TV, you’d find the OLED can achieve true blacks. This gets promoted as “infinite contrast ratio” (suggesting infinite dynamic range), but is a fairly useless concept in practice. OLED displays are susceptible to burn-in (ghosting / damage) if they are turned up too bright, so they cannot produce the stunning bright whites of the XDR display. The extra deep blacks would primarily help when viewing such a screen in a very dark room with no ambient light or reflections.

This should make the next generation micro-LED (which only illuminates a single pixel and achieves high higher brightness than OLED) extremely attractive. As great as these screens are, there is still a lot of room for useful improvement.

So how much extra dynamic range do we get with HDR? It depends on the monitor and how you use it. There probably isn’t a definitive answer – you could make many different and good arguments even for the same hardware (and I’m sure several people will in the comments below). The 32-bit files allow you to specify values as anything as bright or dark in the real world, but no monitor can achieve this. The most important monitor factors are peak brightness and the minimum black. There are of course nuances such as the degree to which dark pixels retain detail due to the backlight design. The useful range of a display also depends on ambient lighting (viewing conditions) and the degree to which your screen reflects that ambient lightSo which of these factors really matters?

The difference in shadow detail for a given monitor would affect both SDR and HDR images, and we rarely view screens only in dark rooms where the deepest black is the most critical factor. So from a visual impact standpoint, the greatest benefit of an HDR display is the enhanced peak brightness. I’d argue that we’re gaining about 2-4 stops of dynamic range with best-in-class HDR displays at the moment in typical viewing conditions (more than 4 stops are possible if you configure the display properly and view in a dark room, but this won’t be relevant to most users). If we hit the 4000 nits target of Dolby Vision, we’re probably gaining as much as 5 or 6 stops in typical usage. At that point, further gains would might only matter when watching a monitor in a bright outdoor setting. Monitors are making great progress towards recreating light and color which we see in the real world, and we should continue to see some nice improvements in the years to come.

Up to this point, I’ve focused on the extra stops of brightness one can see with an HDR monitor. That’s paints a fairly clear picture, but it isn’t the whole story. The dynamic range is the difference between light and dark. So the minimum black for your monitor also matters. Having deeper blacks also increases dynamic range. Our SDR images have always had the option to encode for black. What’s more important is to understand your actual display.

If you create a 32-bit document with a pure black background (0.000) and then put extremely dark black (0.0001) text over it, you can clearly read that text on my Eizo monitor. You can’t directly request or measure smaller values in Photoshop, but you can add a curve that reduces it down to roughly 4% of that (0.000004) and the text can still be read. The text is never blurry, the only thing that limits visibility is that the background black is clearly lit (substantially brighter than the black plastic edges of the monitor). This is caused by a backlight being used for the entire screen. It is high quality, but nothing gets truly black. The result is that you can see very dark shadows, but they don’t look impressive due to a lack of contrast.

Conversely on a 2021 M1 MacBook Pro’s XDR display, the background is a true black (there is no detectable backlight, it looks the same as the darkness around the screen in a black room). However, the ability to see this values is significantly diminished. You can vaguely detect something on the screen at 0.0001, the text is not even slightly readable until about 0.0004, and only clearly visible starting around 0.0010. The text looks extremely blurry at the low end of the range, caused by the spread of the local backlight. Unlike a single backlight, this display uses mini-LED to locally provide light if some pixels in a given region are not black. At the lowest levels, the backlight bleed is the dominant factor, giving things a blurry feel. However, while you can’t clearly make out some extremely dark details as well, the result is higher contrast shadows which look much nicer.

Each of these technologies has potential various advantages. If you were to compare these to an OLED TV, you’d find the OLED can achieve true blacks. This gets promoted as “infinite contrast ratio” (suggesting infinite dynamic range), but is a fairly useless concept in practice. OLED displays are susceptible to burn-in (ghosting / damage) if they are turned up too bright, so they cannot produce the stunning bright whites of the XDR display. The extra deep blacks would primarily help when viewing such a screen in a very dark room with no ambient light or reflections.

This should make the next generation micro-LED (which only illuminates a single pixel and achieves high higher brightness than OLED) extremely attractive. As great as these screens are, there is still a lot of room for useful improvement.

So how much extra dynamic range do we get with HDR? It depends on the monitor and how you use it. There probably isn’t a definitive answer – you could make many different and good arguments even for the same hardware (and I’m sure several people will in the comments below). The 32-bit files allow you to specify values as anything as bright or dark in the real world, but no monitor can achieve this. The most important monitor factors are peak brightness and the minimum black. There are of course nuances such as the degree to which dark pixels retain detail due to the backlight design. The useful range of a display also depends on ambient lighting (viewing conditions) and the degree to which your screen reflects that ambient lightSo which of these factors really matters?

The difference in shadow detail for a given monitor would affect both SDR and HDR images, and we rarely view screens only in dark rooms where the deepest black is the most critical factor. So from a visual impact standpoint, the greatest benefit of an HDR display is the enhanced peak brightness. I’d argue that we’re gaining about 2-4 stops of dynamic range with best-in-class HDR displays at the moment in typical viewing conditions (more than 4 stops are possible if you configure the display properly and view in a dark room, but this won’t be relevant to most users). If we hit the 4000 nits target of Dolby Vision, we’re probably gaining as much as 5 or 6 stops in typical usage. At that point, further gains would might only matter when watching a monitor in a bright outdoor setting. Monitors are making great progress towards recreating light and color which we see in the real world, and we should continue to see some nice improvements in the years to come.

Up to this point, I’ve focused on the extra stops of brightness one can see with an HDR monitor. That’s paints a fairly clear picture, but it isn’t the whole story. The dynamic range is the difference between light and dark. So the minimum black for your monitor also matters. Having deeper blacks also increases dynamic range. Our SDR images have always had the option to encode for black. What’s more important is to understand your actual display.

If you create a 32-bit document with a pure black background (0.000) and then put extremely dark black (0.0001) text over it, you can clearly read that text on my Eizo monitor. You can’t directly request or measure smaller values in Photoshop, but you can add a curve that reduces it down to roughly 4% of that (0.000004) and the text can still be read. The text is never blurry, the only thing that limits visibility is that the background black is clearly lit (substantially brighter than the black plastic edges of the monitor). This is caused by a backlight being used for the entire screen. It is high quality, but nothing gets truly black. The result is that you can see very dark shadows, but they don’t look impressive due to a lack of contrast.

Conversely on a 2021 M1 MacBook Pro’s XDR display, the background is a true black (there is no detectable backlight, it looks the same as the darkness around the screen in a black room). However, the ability to see this values is significantly diminished. You can vaguely detect something on the screen at 0.0001, the text is not even slightly readable until about 0.0004, and only clearly visible starting around 0.0010. The text looks extremely blurry at the low end of the range, caused by the spread of the local backlight. Unlike a single backlight, this display uses mini-LED to locally provide light if some pixels in a given region are not black. At the lowest levels, the backlight bleed is the dominant factor, giving things a blurry feel. However, while you can’t clearly make out some extremely dark details as well, the result is higher contrast shadows which look much nicer.

Each of these technologies has potential various advantages. If you were to compare these to an OLED TV, you’d find the OLED can achieve true blacks. This gets promoted as “infinite contrast ratio” (suggesting infinite dynamic range), but is a fairly useless concept in practice. OLED displays are susceptible to burn-in (ghosting / damage) if they are turned up too bright, so they cannot produce the stunning bright whites of the XDR display. The extra deep blacks would primarily help when viewing such a screen in a very dark room with no ambient light or reflections.

This should make the next generation micro-LED (which only illuminates a single pixel and achieves high higher brightness than OLED) extremely attractive. As great as these screens are, there is still a lot of room for useful improvement.

So how much extra dynamic range do we get with HDR? It depends on the monitor and how you use it. There probably isn’t a definitive answer – you could make many different and good arguments even for the same hardware (and I’m sure several people will in the comments below). The 32-bit files allow you to specify values as anything as bright or dark in the real world, but no monitor can achieve this. The most important monitor factors are peak brightness and the minimum black. There are of course nuances such as the degree to which dark pixels retain detail due to the backlight design. The useful range of a display also depends on ambient lighting (viewing conditions) and the degree to which your screen reflects that ambient lightSo which of these factors really matters?

The difference in shadow detail for a given monitor would affect both SDR and HDR images, and we rarely view screens only in dark rooms where the deepest black is the most critical factor. So from a visual impact standpoint, the greatest benefit of an HDR display is the enhanced peak brightness. I’d argue that we’re gaining about 2-4 stops of dynamic range with best-in-class HDR displays at the moment in typical viewing conditions (more than 4 stops are possible if you configure the display properly and view in a dark room, but this won’t be relevant to most users). If we hit the 4000 nits target of Dolby Vision, we’re probably gaining as much as 5 or 6 stops in typical usage. At that point, further gains would might only matter when watching a monitor in a bright outdoor setting. Monitors are making great progress towards recreating light and color which we see in the real world, and we should continue to see some nice improvements in the years to come.

Up to this point, I’ve focused on the extra stops of brightness one can see with an HDR monitor. That’s paints a fairly clear picture, but it isn’t the whole story. The dynamic range is the difference between light and dark. So the minimum black for your monitor also matters. Having deeper blacks also increases dynamic range. Our SDR images have always had the option to encode for black. What’s more important is to understand your actual display.

If you create a 32-bit document with a pure black background (0.000) and then put extremely dark black (0.0001) text over it, you can clearly read that text on my Eizo monitor. You can’t directly request or measure smaller values in Photoshop, but you can add a curve that reduces it down to roughly 4% of that (0.000004) and the text can still be read. The text is never blurry, the only thing that limits visibility is that the background black is clearly lit (substantially brighter than the black plastic edges of the monitor). This is caused by a backlight being used for the entire screen. It is high quality, but nothing gets truly black. The result is that you can see very dark shadows, but they don’t look impressive due to a lack of contrast.

Conversely on a 2021 M1 MacBook Pro’s XDR display, the background is a true black (there is no detectable backlight, it looks the same as the darkness around the screen in a black room). However, the ability to see this values is significantly diminished. You can vaguely detect something on the screen at 0.0001, the text is not even slightly readable until about 0.0004, and only clearly visible starting around 0.0010. The text looks extremely blurry at the low end of the range, caused by the spread of the local backlight. Unlike a single backlight, this display uses mini-LED to locally provide light if some pixels in a given region are not black. At the lowest levels, the backlight bleed is the dominant factor, giving things a blurry feel. However, while you can’t clearly make out some extremely dark details as well, the result is higher contrast shadows which look much nicer.

Each of these technologies has potential various advantages. If you were to compare these to an OLED TV, you’d find the OLED can achieve true blacks. This gets promoted as “infinite contrast ratio” (suggesting infinite dynamic range), but is a fairly useless concept in practice. OLED displays are susceptible to burn-in (ghosting / damage) if they are turned up too bright, so they cannot produce the stunning bright whites of the XDR display. The extra deep blacks would primarily help when viewing such a screen in a very dark room with no ambient light or reflections.

This should make the next generation micro-LED (which only illuminates a single pixel and achieves high higher brightness than OLED) extremely attractive. As great as these screens are, there is still a lot of room for useful improvement.

So how much extra dynamic range do we get with HDR? It depends on the monitor and how you use it. There probably isn’t a definitive answer – you could make many different and good arguments even for the same hardware (and I’m sure several people will in the comments below). The 32-bit files allow you to specify values as anything as bright or dark in the real world, but no monitor can achieve this. The most important monitor factors are peak brightness and the minimum black. There are of course nuances such as the degree to which dark pixels retain detail due to the backlight design. The useful range of a display also depends on ambient lighting (viewing conditions) and the degree to which your screen reflects that ambient lightSo which of these factors really matters?

The difference in shadow detail for a given monitor would affect both SDR and HDR images, and we rarely view screens only in dark rooms where the deepest black is the most critical factor. So from a visual impact standpoint, the greatest benefit of an HDR display is the enhanced peak brightness. I’d argue that we’re gaining about 2-4 stops of dynamic range with best-in-class HDR displays at the moment in typical viewing conditions (more than 4 stops are possible if you configure the display properly and view in a dark room, but this won’t be relevant to most users). If we hit the 4000 nits target of Dolby Vision, we’re probably gaining as much as 5 or 6 stops in typical usage. At that point, further gains would might only matter when watching a monitor in a bright outdoor setting. Monitors are making great progress towards recreating light and color which we see in the real world, and we should continue to see some nice improvements in the years to come.

Greg Benz Photography