8 hours ago, Noel said:

I find with HDR sometimes things that should not be so bright are way too bright. 

I can understand your preference.  

2 hours ago, cianpars said:

Certainly HDR makes the sky much to bright for me

That is one of the reasons I am enjoying HDR10 - in reality the sky can be blinding to look at so I appreciate a display that can replicate the effect.

Do you wear sunglasses when simming? 

HDR on my PC only makes the sky bright when I look down at the panel and other instruments. When I look up again, everything is normal. Am I missing something here?

5 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Am I missing something here?

No, that's precisely the point. Just like your eyes, the software adapts to the local lighting conditions and scales the amount of light being detected. In biology, the iris expands and contracts to do this, but I wouldn't be surprised if the visual system behind the eye also provides further scaling. Similar things happen in cameras, where the lens iris and shutter speed can be controlled to create an exposure that takes optimal advantage of the available dynamic range of the film or sensor.

Without calibration software of some kind, it doesn't seem possible to make optimal use of HDR devices, so I think that W11 would offer significant advantages in this case. The dynamic range of the real world is huge, and these monitors give us a wider range of brightness that isn't totally black or white on display. Some of us might find this to seem overly bright because our brains are used to seeing the gamut of available brightness of SDR monitors. I feel the same way about sounds, where I prefer less low frequencies especially. Fortunately, this makes for cheap audio solutions.

If anyone convinced HDR10 is best has not tried simply the GFE Details Filter alone (and you can adjust parameters within it), along with tuning gamma/contrast/brightness/vibrance in NCP I heartily recommend you give it a try. 

I've used SDR in combination with GFE filters (brightness, highlights, shadows, contrast, vibrance, tint) for a few months, mainly due to regularly making videos for youtube (HDR uploads take forever). Some days ago I returned to HDR which IMO is superior in many ways - darker darks, brighter brights, more natural looking colours, image is generally more vibrant and realistic, sky and clouds look overall better - and better night lighting IMO. 

1 minute ago, Cpt_Piett said:

I've used SDR in combination with GFE filters (brightness, highlights, shadows, contrast, vibrance, tint) for a few months, mainly due to regularly making videos for youtube (HDR uploads take forever). Some days ago I returned to HDR which IMO is superior in many ways - darker darks, brighter brights, more natural looking colours, image is generally more vibrant and realistic, sky and clouds look overall better - and better night lighting IMO. 

It's the DETAILS filter that delivers ;o)

2 minutes ago, Noel said:

It's the DETAILS filter that delivers ;o)

Not sure if I understand - the image looks just as detailed with HDR vs SDR. But can understand there's personal preferences 🙂

EDIT: Misread your post. I've not tried the details filter. 

Re: OP - no more blurriness with HDR, which I already mentioned earlier in this thread. 

Edited July 26, 20241 yr by Cpt_Piett

34 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Not sure if I understand - the image looks just as detailed with HDR vs SDR. But can understand there's personal preferences 🙂

EDIT: Misread your post. I've not tried the details filter. 

Re: OP - no more blurriness with HDR, which I already mentioned earlier in this thread. 

I've tried all the other filters in GFE but truly the Details filter is in its own class and it's all that's needed albeit one needs to adjust desktop color parameters in NCP after turning in the Details filter to dial in the basics. 

5 hours ago, Noel said:

If anyone convinced HDR10 is best has not tried simply the GFE Details Filter alone (and you can adjust parameters within it), along with tuning gamma/contrast/brightness/vibrance in NCP I heartily recommend you give it a try. 

I don't think I'm understanding what you are seeing with the details filter.  My HDR monitor can display a peak brightness of 1000 nits, but it doesn't automatically mean there is too much brightness.  Flying on a cloudy day the display isn't going to be bright, but on a sunny day, those things that should be bright are - cloud edges, sun through a humid atmosphere. However, shadows are lovely and dark.  Also, HDR means a wider range of brightness's can be displayed, so it is rare to see the sky blown out when looking down into the cockpit.

Just a little confused when you say HDR makes the screen too bright - if anything in the scene should be dull, it will be dull.  

5 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Some days ago I returned to HDR which IMO is superior in many ways - darker darks, brighter brights, more natural looking colours, image is generally more vibrant and realistic, sky and clouds look overall better - and better night lighting IMO. 

Precisely. With an SDR monitor, I made great use of Reshade or GeForce filters, but I'm stumped at how a filter could replicate an HDR monitor - there just isn't the range of brightness available.  AN HDR monitor isn't going to be too bright, because it will only use the available nits on those areas that are supposed to be bright. 

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I don't think I'm understanding what you are seeing with the details filter.  My HDR monitor can display a peak brightness of 1000 nits, but it doesn't automatically mean there is too much brightness.  Flying on a cloudy day the display isn't going to be bright, but on a sunny day, those things that should be bright are - cloud edges, sun through a humid atmosphere. However, shadows are lovely and dark.  Also, HDR means a wider range of brightness's can be displayed, so it is rare to see the sky blown out when looking down into the cockpit.

Just a little confused when you say HDR makes the screen too bright - if anything in the scene should be dull, it will be dull.  

Let's leave it be.  I've seen both, calibrated HDR10 on a capable display and the simple Details filter tuned w/ simple desktop color parameters and prefer the latter. 

I'm also someone who can't stand the types of artifact when I use NV DLSS FG, so don't use FG and live with a native rate of 45fps.  I don't know many more who see it this way.  I bring it up to point out how different people perceive and prioritize things differently.  Hence we can't objectively state HDR or FG is always best--it's all about subjective perception which is our reality.  I think ultimately my preferred approach looks more natural, more in line with real world perception.  As I say, it looks 'just right'.

Cheers

Edited July 26, 20241 yr by Noel

HDR all the way if you have a monitor/TV that can reach peak brightness of atleast 700nits and is HDR certified. There is just no way you are going to get the colour range, contrast and brightness with GFE filters. And specifically it's the dynamic range of colours that blows me away when in HDR10 mode. I have an LG C1.

I gave up on HDR with my current Samsung and not sure of the significance.

sp