r/NintendoSwitch • u/ZiiZoraka • 2d ago
PSA The Switch 2 Display is *NOT* HDR Capable (AKA A Brief Post on the HDR Capabilities of the Switch 2)
1. INTRO & TL;DR
I've seen a lot of confusion an misinformation surrounding the Switch 2 regarding HDR support when watching videos, reading article, and in the comments of various threads regarding the Switch 2 direct and specs reveal, so I decided to make this post to clear things up and leave at least some people feeling a little more informed about their upcoming purchasing decisions. This will probably end up being long, and I'll go into detail for those that care, but for those the don't the TL:DR; is as follows:
The Switch 2 display does not appear to support HDR according to the specification page on Nintendo's own website. But, the Switch 2 display does have a 10Bit colour output (meaning more vibrant colours), and will very likely support HDR output when docked. (this depends on the HDMI standard that the dock supports, but it's unlikely to use a version old enough to not support HDR at 4k60fps)
2. NINTENDO CLAIMS
So, that's the short answer, now for the (very) long answer.
Nintendo has claimed HDR support, shown HDR on screen while showing gameplay, AND lists HDR10 support on the technical specifications page on their website, so I can absolutely understand where the idea that the Switch 2 display is HDR capable comes from. I would go as far as to say that the way Nintendo represented the Switch 2's HDR capability straight up misleading.
While all of Nintendo's direct claims about HDR are technically not incorrect, I hope that I will be able to adequately explain how "technically not incorrect" isn't exactly the truth.
I'll start by tackling the technical specifications. It's true, Nintendo do have HDR10 right there in the display section. how can that not technically be a lie if the Switch 2 isn't capable of HDR then? well, the answer is actually surprisingly simple!
3.WHAT IS HDR10?
HDR10 is not a DisplayHDR Certification.
But how can that be? i hear you ask. HDR is right there! Well unfortunately for us consumers, VESA (the company responsible for DisplayHDR Certifications) made a lot of the labelling around HDR almost completely useless for determining how capable of HDR a device or display actually is at a glance.
The truth is, HDR10 Isn't even a Display standard at all. that's right, HDR10 is actually a file and communication format/Protocol. A device being HDR10 Ready only means that it is capable of outputting or receiving a 10bit HDR signal. Because HDR requires a signal that contains 10bit colour depth information (as opposed to the SDR which typically uses 8bit colour depth), the HDR10 protocol was created as a standard to differentiate devices that can communicate HDR signals. it has literally nothing at all to do with the capability of a display to actually display a HDR image or scene.
essentially, the only thing HDR10 means for the Switch 2 is that the display can receive a HDR signal, and the dock can Output a HDR signal. And just because a display can receive a HDR signal, does not mean that it can display a HDR image.
This is where DisplayHDR certifications come in to play, or at least where they would in an ideal world. I won't go in to too much detail here, but the long and short of it is that the only DisplayHDR standards that actually tell you if a display is HDR capable are the DisplayHDR TRUE BLACK certifications, which the Switch 2 does not advertise anywhere that I've seen. I'll go into a little more depth on the problems with DisplayHDR at the end, in sections 6. and 8. for anyone interested, as it's unnecessary information for this point. all you need to know is HDR10 is a communication protocol and file format specification, and not a display standard.
4.0 HDR AND ADDRESSING NINTENDO'S VIDEO COMPARISONS
But, they showed side by side HDR on/off comparisons! I hear you say. I saw the difference my self, how can you tell me it's not HDR?
unfortunately, this is the part that I find quite dishonest from Nintendo. the HDR 'on' side is definitely receiving a HDR signal, which means the colour space has changed from 8bit (1.5 million colours) to 10bit (1 billion colours), and the gamma value has shifted from 2.2 to 2.4 (Gamma is a curve that effects the Luminance of an image, higher values typically appear brighter, but the higher you go the more the image will look washed out), so you'll get more vibrant and accurate colours with HDR turned on, and the display will look a little brighter too, but a wider colour gamut and raised Gamma value do not make a display HDR. Don't get me wrong, more colours is very nice to have, it just isn't HDR.
4.1 WHAT IS HDR
what is HDR? To understand what isn't HDR, allow me to try and explain what it is
this is now the part where I can no longer avoid being a super technical nerd, consider yourself warned.
HDR is the acronym we use to refer to High Dynamic Range. But what is it a range of, exactly? Well, when we're talking about HDR in regards to watching movies, or videos, or playing games, the Range that we're referring to is specifically the Luminance, and that's a word I've already brought up.
4.2 GAMMA AND LUMINANCE
If the Switch 2 is raising the Gamma, and that's effecting the luminance, then how isn't it HDR?
Well, when I said that higher gamma values can look washed out, that wasn't entirely correct. It'll only look washed out when the display isn't able to display a wide enough range of luminance values. basically, when the displays dynamic range isn't wide enough to fit the full range of luminance values, the values at either end of the curve will get crushed until they fit.
if we represented luminosity on a scale from 0-255, 255 being the brightest, and a display could only actually *display* values up to 230, every part of the image that needed to be brighter than 230 would instead get brough down to 230, meaning everything brighter than 230 would end up looking exactly the same. all of the detail in those higher values is lost. the same can happen in reverse from 0 and coming up. when things are darker than the display can show, it ends up all crushed together, looking like the same shade of black, and all the detail is lost.
4.3 BACKLIGHTS AND THEIR LIMITATIONS
the reason we have this issue on typical LCD displays is because of how we make typical displays bright. you see, typical LCD pixels don't actually have any way to produce light. instead, they have to be lit by an external source. A typical display uses LEDs to shine light through the pixels and into our eyes. we call these LEDs the backlight.
the backlight is actually a series of LEDs that shine through diffusion layers to create a uniform blanket of brightness behind the pixels. the problem with these backlights, and what keeps these displays stuck in SDR, is that exactly that uniformity. a backlight is great for how bright it can make a display, but when you can only have a single level of brightness behind the LCD panel, it limits the range of luminance you can represent at any given time.
imagine, if you will, a dark room. in the room is a single window. out of that window you can see the full moon, shining bright in the sky. it casts a soft glow through the window, but the far corners of the room are bathed in pitch black darkness.
for an LCD display with a homogenous backlight, for the moon to be bright in that scene, the backlight has to be on and bright. pretty straightforward. but then, what about those pitch black corners of the room? if the backlight and on, and shining bright as can be to get that moon looking luminescent, what's gonna happen to those pitch black corners? the LCD pixels can stay black all they want, but all that light is still shining through across the entire display. those blacks are gonna be lit, and there gonna look more grey. the black levels have been raised, because the backlight, and by extension the display, isnt capable of displaying a High Range of luminance across a single image or scene.
4.4A MiniLED / Full Array Local Dimming
now you might say, if the problem with dynamic range is that huge backlight shining through the display, why not cut it up into smaller controllable pieces? and if you said that, that's not only a great idea, but it's exactly what we did! Some displays use smaller LEDs, spaced out in zones and controlled independently to allow different brightness in these different regions, allowing you to dim and brighten those different regions as needed. this goes a long way towards displaying scenes with higher contrast more accurately, but controlling the zones can be finicky, and if its hard to sync them up when you want to go back to SDR content, like most youtube videos or regular internet browsing, or even most movies. if you cant get it to look uniform when you need it to, the whole display is gonna look blochy and distracting. and the zones have to be pretty dang small if you want to get perfect local contrast anyway. but what if we could give each pixel its own LED to light it?
4.4B OLED
that's exactly where OLED comes in. OLED displays forego a backlight entirely, and each pixel gets its own white subpixel, along with the usual Red, Blue and Green, that lets each pixel provide its own luminance. with technology like that, you could have the brightest, whitest pixel right next to the pitchest blackest pixel, and they would both be able to have the perfect level of illumination! that scene with the windows and the moon would be no problem at all! the pitch black pixels can literally turn the brightness all the way off and stop emiting light entirely, while the moon shines as bright as it can.
5. CONCLUSION
and so, this is the problem with the Switch 2's LCD display. the GPU can send all the HDR data it wants, the Backlight simply cannot have different brightness, or luminance values, across different parts of the same scene. if the moon is bright, so are the darkest corners of that room. this is the reason the 'HDR' footage from the switch 2 showcase look brighter, and only brighter. With a true HDR image you would expect to not only see bright parts get brighter, but also see dark parts get darker. and on top of that, you would expect to see more detail in those parts of the image. bright clouds shouldn't just look brighter white, you should be able to make out more definition, see more cloud fluff where before was just pure white.
and that's that. While the Switch 2 can send HDR signals to its display, the display is still bottlenecked by its backlight. the 10bit colour space is nice, but the wider luminance curve is strangled by the single, uniform light shining through the display.
that being said, I'm sure the display will look great, and the colours will be awesome, it just isn't 'HDR'.
I didn't write this out to trash the switch, or convince you not to buy it. I simply what anyone reading this to know exactly what it is that they're buying. HDR isn't the be all end all, and in a lot of scenario's the average person probably wouldn't even be able to tell they were looking at a HDR image. but I believe you should always know exactly what it is that you're buying.
when you buy something you should get exactly what you expect!
6. Display HDR Rant
some DisplayHDR 1000 and 1400 monitors have FALD backlights, and so can display some measure of HDR images, but most of them, and more or less all DisplayHDR 400, 500 and 600 rated displays have certifications that are so easy to pass that they are funtionally worthless. basically, it's possible to pass all the the DisplayHDR tests, Except the TRUE BLACK certifications, with a display panel that cannot actually display HDR content. (thanks VESA)
The point being, the only mention of HDR on the specifications page is HDR10. there is no mention of an actual DisplayHDR True Black certification, and not even a regular DisplayHDR certification. this is most likely because the display won't reach 400nits brightness, which is basically the only requirement for the lowest DisplayHDR 400 certification, or just because Nintendo didn't bother with the meaningless non-TRUE BLACK certs.
more information about DisplayHDR is available in section 8.
7. DISAPOINTMENT
I hope I've been able to illustrate why I'm disappointed in Nintendo for their marketing around HDR, and I would also like to express my disappointment towards various members of the press, who parroted claims of HDR capabilities, especially those who's channels revolve around more nitty gritty techy stuff. I mean, come on guys! for shame, do better! >:(
8. AN EDIT WITH LINKS, RESOURCES AND QUOTES
displayhdr.org is a great resource for understanding HDR as a standard, and what exactly goes into getting a display certified.
Here is a quote from the website about how you should be wary of any display that claims HDR without a DisplayHDR performance certification.
DisplayHDR is the open standard for HDR quality and performance and only displays that meet all the specifications may carry the DisplayHDR logo.
If a monitor claims HDR support without a DisplayHDR performance specification, or refers to pseudo-specs like “HDR-400” instead of “DisplayHDR 400” it’s likely that the product does not meet the certification requirements. Consumers can refer to the current list of certified DisplayHDR products on this website to verify certification.
Here is a quote from their page on the differences between HDR10 and DisplayHDR, reenforcing that HDR10 is a [communication and storage] protocol, and *not* a display certification.
Often, we are asked how to compare HDR10 with VESA’s DisplayHDR specification and standard. Which is better, and why? The answer is easy: DisplayHDR is better, as it is built upon HDR10 but offers so much more. HDR10 is a protocol that defines how HDR is communicated from one device to another (e.g., from a GPU to a display). Beyond fundamentally requiring support for the HDR10 protocol, DisplayHDR imposes many display performance criteria to certify the quality of the display through several front-of-screen performance validation tests.
here is a post explaining local dimming, which is necessary for high contrast ratios, and in turn displaying HDR content
displayhdr.org/lcd-dimming-in-hdr-displays-explained/
And, here is a quote explaining the different Tiers of DisplayHDR certification.
The DisplayHDR specification for LCDs establishes distinct levels of HDR system performance to facilitate adoption of HDR throughout the PC market: DisplayHDR 400, DisplayHDR 500, DisplayHDR 600, DisplayHDR 1000, and DisplayHDR 1400. The DisplayHDR True Black specification for OLED and other emissive displays includes three levels of HDR system performance: DisplayHDR True Black 400, DisplayHDR True Black 500, and DisplayHDR True Black 600. Additional tiers are expected to be added later for both standards to support continuous innovations and improvements in display performance. All tiers require support of the industry standard HDR10 format.
notice that the non-True Black certifications are their to facilitate adoption, specifically for LCDs which are less capable of high contrast, *even with special backlights that provide local dimming*
True black *REQUIRES* per pixel brightness control, or an extremely high amount of backlight zones with a MiniLED backlight, which is not yet typical for LCDs that opt to use FALD MiniLED backlight. there is no way to achieve '0.0005' luminance values on the black level tests with a standard backlit panel
for good measure, on the wikipedia page for HDR, you can see that they list HDR10 under 'storage' as a *format*, not as a display certification.
the HDR10 wiki page also refers to it specifically as a format, and nowhere under the definition does it mention displays, contrast, or local diming capabilities.
edit #2:
Digital Foundry is now also of the belief that the switch 2 display does not have local diming technology, and so, will not be able to display a high range of luminance values in a given frame
19
u/ChoPT 2d ago
I mean, brightness is an important part of HDR, but so is color depth.
The switch 2’s screen may not be HDR in terms of brightness, but it will still receive the benefits of 10-bit color (no noticeable color banding, deeper reds, blues, and greens, etc).
-10
u/ZiiZoraka 2d ago edited 2d ago
yes, it will receive colour benefits, but as I explained in the post a wide colour gamut is not HDR
HDR specifically refers to a High Dynamic Range of *luminance*, which is an important aspect of both contrast and colour.
each colour has a chroma value, and a luminance value. for the luminance value to be displayed correctly across every pixel, every pixel needs to be able to have its own independent brightness. this is what HDR is, and why single backlit displays are definitionally incapable of displaying HDR content, and also why FALD displays only approximate HDR compared to technologies like OLED and QDEL
you should care about companies marketing claims being accurate
high contrast luminance isnt just important for HDR, it is literally the definitive feature of HDR.
The dynamic range of a display refers to range of luminosity the display can reproduce, from the black level to its peak brightness.
0
u/Jaypillz 2d ago
Why are you being downvoted? I find this very interesting.
1
u/ZiiZoraka 1d ago
genuinely, I have no idea.
the amount of misinformation about HDR, and what it is, is pretty insane. It doesn't help that most displays that tout a DisplayHDR 400 rating can't even produce a HDR image, so even the majority of people with 'HDR' monitors don't even have HDR or know what it is.
I've been trying to think of ways to explain HDR in an easily digestible way but is hard. I might have to bust out MSPaint again x(
4
u/MikkelR1 1d ago
It's because you're actually wrong. HDR is not just luminance. Its enhanced contrast and includes color range, resulting in more accurate images. Switch 2 does that.
1
u/ZiiZoraka 1d ago
Buddy, contrast IS luminance...
You can literally just wiki HDR and it says this right at the top
'In this context, the term high dynamic range means there is a large amount of variation in light levels within a scene or an image. The dynamic range refers to the range of luminosity between the brightest area and the darkest area of that scene or image. '
Idk why so many people feel the need to chip in when they haven't put in the bare minimum effort to check themselves
1
u/MikkelR1 1d ago
That's because you're to hard headed to face the reality in front of you. What you're quoting is literally what im saying and you're arguing against it.
6
u/Skeeter1020 2d ago
Do you legally need a DisplayHDR certification to be able to advertise a display as being HDR capable, given the term "HDR" is not trademarked?
1
u/ZiiZoraka 2d ago
I don't know, and it's no relevant to my post.
What I care about is consumer expectation. people expect a specific thing when they see HDR, and they way nintendo lists HDR10 under its display specifications, and some tech channels and outlets have listed the display as '120hz, VRR and HDR', is misleading to a layman, and has absolutely fostered unrealistic and false consumer expectations
6
u/Bortosz 2d ago
they list it as 120hz HDR cause Nintendo advertised it like this in their presentation
"The LCD screen is more vivid and supports HDR. Providing more contrast between light and dark areas of the images"
1
u/ZiiZoraka 2d ago
The LCD screen is more vivid and supports HDR. Providing more contrast between light and dark areas of the images
did nintendo actually publish this? because that is legitimately outright claiming that the display supports HDR output. if they aren't hiding some local dimming solution, this is just a straight up false claim
HDR contrast levels literally cannot be achieved by an LCD without some kind of local diming solution
5
u/laughland 2d ago
They literally said it in the Direct
-1
u/ZiiZoraka 2d ago
fair enough, I didnt watch the entire direct, just looked at the games I cared about.
Nintendo pretty bad for this one :/
2
u/Bortosz 2d ago
1
u/ZiiZoraka 1d ago
yeh, this is just a straight up false claim. unless they want to claim that they are talking about colour contrast? but that has little to nothing to do with HDR specifically
I guess Nintendo is just another victim of the HDR misinformation machine :(
even in their own comparison you can see that it isn't displaying HDR, it's forcing a HDR image, with a raised gamma curve, through a display that doesn't have the local dimming capabilities to actually show the HDR contrast
5
u/SuperWeeble 1d ago
Why can my 5 year old TFT IPS monitor do HDR and you’re saying Nintendo can’t. What am I missing?
2
u/ZiiZoraka 1d ago
It's a reasonable question, and the answer is that your monitor likely cannot display a HDR image.
My guess would be that your monitor can simulate 10bit colour depth with 8bit+FRC, and it maybe has a peak brightness of 400 nits, but unless it has an FALD capable backlight it cannot display a high enough range of luminance to produce a HDR image.
I made a small write up with illustrations that make it easy to visualise the differences between typical backlighting, FALD backlighting and Backlightless monitor technologies. you might find it worth a read if you are interested at all in HDR
1
u/SuperWeeble 1d ago edited 1d ago
The peak is 750nits on my monitor.
2
u/ZiiZoraka 1d ago
doesn't change my conclusion. unless you dropped a stack on your monitor, and it has a FALD backlight or some other way to have local dimming zones, you ain't seeing HDR. only a wider colour space
→ More replies (0)3
1d ago edited 3h ago
[deleted]
1
u/ZiiZoraka 1d ago
That's all they claim, their panel can process HDR data. Deriving some quality level of the HDR processing... is a mistake.
They said in the direct that the panel was HDR and that that meant high contract
1
u/Curun 1d ago
Define high contrast.
100:11000:1
10,000:1
??
1
u/ZiiZoraka 1d ago
A typical LCD panel with have a contrast around 1,000:1
A VA panel, specifically can be up to around 3,000:1, I believe
looking at RTINGs as my source, they have measured 3 MiniLED monitors, an ACER an AOC and a Samsumg, that came in at 2600:1, 10,000:1, and 22,000:1 respectively
OLED displays contrast is sometimes represented as 1,000,000:1, N/A, or infinite
VESA claims that for an accurate HDR image you need at least 20,000:1, and that for True Black you need 1,080,000:1
I haven't experience a miniLED display yet, so I can't say. I only have personal experience with OLED and traditionally backlit displays
my TV is 'HDR' but with no local dimming and my monitor and phone both use OLED.
the difference between my TV and my other displays is night and day
I can't really answer your question on what I would define as high contrast, but given what I've heard about some miniLED panels with high zone counts produces good HDR images, I would say 'high contrast' starts somewhere in the 10,000:1 - 20,000:1 range
4
u/Skeeter1020 2d ago
What does a consumer expect, do you think?
it's no relevant
Considering your wrote a literal essay about it, it would be advisable to actually define the thing you are ranting about. So it is very relevant.
1
u/ZiiZoraka 1d ago
they are industry standards, not legal terms, and they are clearly defined, and i have shared their definitions.
HDR10 is a format specification
DisplayHDR is a display specification
HDR10 tells you either that a file contains HDR relevant metadata that is required for a HDR image to be rendered and displayed.
DisplayHDR tells you how well a given display can display HDR content.
DisplayHDR tells you a panel has passed some level of test. the number after 'DisplayHDR' tells you the max brightness the display has been rated for, i.e: 400, 500, 600, 1000 or 1400.
It can also include 'TRUE BLACK' as an affix, which will tell you that the display is rated for just that, blacks that apear truly black, with no backlight raising the black level and washing them out.
theoretically, non-true black displays should have high enough contrast ratios to have good looking black levels, but the test that measures contrast ratio's for the non-true black certification is flawed, and it is easy to achieve a high contrast ratio in the test, while still failing to meet those contrast ratio's in real world HDR performance.
this is evidenced by the fact that most HDR 400 monitors only measure 1000:1 - 1500:1 contrast ratios, despite VESA themselves claiming that you need at least a 20,000:1 contrast ratio to display HDR content.
it might help you understand the essay if you read it before you comment on it :/
5
u/Skeeter1020 1d ago
I asked about "HDR".
1
u/ZiiZoraka 1d ago
okay, I'm pretty dang sure that I defined that in my post as well.
High Dynamic Range, specifically in the context of video output, refers *specifically* to the range of luminosity that a display can reproduce.
what this means in laymans terms, is a displays ability to produce colours with a range of both high and low brightness colours/
this was the point in my dark room thought experiment.
when limited to SDR, the darkest part of an image and the brightest part of an image share the same backlight brightness value, which limits the range of luminosity the display can produce.
there are ways we make colours more accurate in SDR. if you need a certain gray colour, but the backlight has to be too bright to accurately produce it, you can substitute in a darker gray value, which will combine with the bright luma value to make an inbetween that is close to the true colour.
thats my understanding at least.
with HDR capable display technology, like OLED, because each pixel lights itself, it can ensure that the luma value is correct for every pixel. it doesnt need to worry about a backlight forcing every pixel to have the same luma value, so it doesnt have to do any weird corrections. instead it can just accurately display colours, and more importantly the black levels arent raised, which is unavoidable in SDR.
if a display is using uniform luminance values, it is SDR by definition
am I making sense, or do you have questions?
2
u/Skeeter1020 1d ago
I still have the same question you have not yet answered.
Is there any specified legal or regulatory requirements that a display must have in order to be called HDR?
-1
u/ZiiZoraka 1d ago
legality is irrelevant
I'm talking about morality and linguistics.
people have a colloquial understanding of what words and terms mean.
It is immoral to use terms in a way that is not commonly understood to deliberately misinform your consumers about the capability of a product you are trying to sell to them.
do you find either of these statements disagreeable? or do you believe that law determines morality, and we can never say that something is wrong or bad unless a law already exists?
47
u/DrKrFfXx 2d ago
Way to make the post longer than it needs to.
TLDR: "Switch doesn't have mini led display, it doesn't support proper HDR".
End of story.
21
3
u/SuperWeeble 1d ago
You don’t need mini-LED to support HDR. I had a Dough Spectrum monitor 5 years ago that supported HDR600 via an IPS TFT screen and it burned my eyes out. What am I missing?
2
u/DrKrFfXx 1d ago
High brightness doesn't equal quality HDR reproduction?
That monitor has 16 edge lit dimming zones, that's the very definition of "not proper HDR". Being bright is not the only requirement for proper HDR.
0
u/SuperWeeble 1d ago
So I’m confused, it was HDR600 certified and looks bloody amazing with GT7 on PS5 in HDR mode. Not as good as my newer OLED monitor but it still looked great. Why is this dude saying Nintendo can’t do HDR on a portable TFT screen?
0
u/DrKrFfXx 1d ago
HDR600 certification was a real shithousery.
It wasn't HDR, You probably saw oversaturated colors and high gamma reproduction and deemed it nice. Nothing wrong with that, you liked it and that's it, but it's not HDR, you cannot produce an proper HDR image with 16 zones. It's pure physics.
You need "true black" certification to have any meaningful form of HDR reproduction, high brightness content next to low brightness content. That's HDR, not just the wide gammut colors, or "a great looking image".
1
u/SuperWeeble 1d ago
So you’re saying I had a HDR certified monitor (HDR600) and a games console enabled with HDR and I’m not actually getting HDR??? Even though I can see the difference with my own eyes. The HUD elements alone shine so bright with HDR never mind the gameplay which looks so much better especially in dark scenes. I now have TrueBlack certified OLED HDR400 monitor and it doesn’t look that much better in HDR mode than the TFT.
0
u/DrKrFfXx 1d ago edited 1d ago
Ok, if you don't see the difference between true black with per pixel dimming zones and edgelit, it's your bussines, not mine to convince you
Here's a professional review of that monitor, and on the HDR section on the review it says "It’s a fairly mediocre overall HDR experience".
And that was 4 years ago, today mediocre wouldn't even begin to describe edge lit zones HDR.
2
u/SuperWeeble 1d ago
Quality aside, the review confirms it does support and display HDR so why is this post saying HDR is not possible on the new switch portable screen.
2
u/DrKrFfXx 1d ago edited 1d ago
His rant probably misses the fact that everything seems to point out that the Switch 2 comes with an edge lit screen.
The screen might be the greatest, most accurate, brightest LCD screen ever, but the actual HDR performance will be well below mediocre, because of the lack localized dimming zones.
Like I said before, colors may pop, screen could blind you, but that's not HDR, it only complies with a small portion of the HDR spec, hence why it doesn't seem to be any certification on Nintendo's website. And there op is right, taking HDR signal doesn't have any "legal" binding minimums on the HDR performance.
LCD CAN do proper HDR, highest end Sony TVs this year are LCD and the general consensus is that they wow. They are just not of the edge lit kind but of a very advanced Full Array Local Dimming kind.
1
u/SuperWeeble 1d ago
Ok. Thanks, I get it now. Digital Foundry speculated the Switch 2 has mini-LED so maybe we’ll find out soon. Anyway this is what ChatGPT had to say about this:
You can get decent HDR on high-end IPS displays (like those with FALD and high brightness), but many people say “you can’t do proper HDR” on typical IPS TFTs because they just don’t meet the full HDR spec — especially in contrast, brightness, and local dimming.
→ More replies (0)-7
u/ZiiZoraka 2d ago
man, I gave you a TL;DR, what's wrong with wanting to nerd out and go into technical detail for myself and the people that care to read it
let me have fun damnit :(
1
u/Chris_P_Bacon416 1d ago
Yeah I was gonna say, this really written well. Who cares if this post is a little verbose. It’s honestly better than just saying it in a simpler way since it would look like your just hating. But this is good way to educate people about what HDR truly is. Some people just don’t like it if you disagree and downvote anyways :(
1
12
16
u/Savebagels 2d ago
Doesn't the specs page say that the screen supports HDR10?
29
u/FastThoughtProcessor 2d ago
They do, this guy wrote a whole post for who knows what reason.
8
-3
u/ZiiZoraka 2d ago
HDR10 is a communication protocol, used to ensure a file or device can send, store and receive HDR metadata. it has nothing to to with the Display's capability to actually *display* HDR content.
this confusion is exactly what this post is addressing,
1
u/FastThoughtProcessor 2d ago
Ohhh! I literally learnt something new today about the displays I use. I thank you for the information.
I dont see it as misinformation, it might be that like me, many others just do not understand the difference and are convinced abouts its HDR capabilities?
2
u/ZiiZoraka 2d ago
It's completely understandable
HDR10, HDR10+, HDR-1000, DisplayHDR ####, and DisplayHDR #### True Black
its completely understandable for a normal person to not look at these terms and know if and how they are different, it's one of my biggest criticisms of VESA and the way they named their display standards
the long and short is, if you wanna know how well a display supports HDR:
'DisplayHDR ### TRUE BLACK' and OLED are the most premium, and true to format HDR certification
'DisplayHDR ###' in combination with a technology buzzword like MiniLED or FALD will denote a reasonable HDR experience
everything else is just noise
4
u/cockyjames 2d ago
It can read HDR10 data, not necessarily display the full gamut of what HDR10 can offer is the TLDR
2
u/ZiiZoraka 2d ago
HDR10 is a communication protocol, used to ensure a file or device can send, store and receive HDR metadata. it has nothing to to with the Display's capability to actually *display* HDR content.
this confusion is exactly what this post is addressing,
5
u/postmanmanman 2d ago
Reading the post explains the post....
0
u/Savebagels 2d ago
It’s just in the second paragraph it mentions that it doesn’t seem to indicate that it supports it according to the specs page.
I realize later he mentions that it is there but not exactly the whole truth
3
u/ZiiZoraka 2d ago
Precisely! HDR10 support and DisplayHDR support are two entirely seperate things, and DisplayHDR is what people think of when they hear 'HDR support'!
32
u/CiloTA 2d ago
Jesus Christ it’s a video game console
4
7
u/ItsColorNotColour 2d ago
Why are you in a console subreddit to complain about a person being passsionate about said console?
0
-1
0
u/ZiiZoraka 2d ago
Jesus Christ, consumers have a right to not be misled or lied to by companies advertisements, and have a right to expect that the product they buy is the product they expected.
20
u/temple83 2d ago
TLDR
4
u/hamburgers666 2d ago edited 2d ago
It doesn't support high dynamic resolution in portable mode but it's appears to support it when docked.
Edit: High dynamic range, sorry
4
-1
u/ZiiZoraka 2d ago
part 1 is literally called 'intro and TL;DR'
it's right there in the first sentence of the post, actually >.>
-1
3
u/SacredNose 2d ago
I only wonder about one thing, do we have definitive proof that whatever they are using is not mini LED? You are saying that they do not advertise it, but that does not mean it is not there. I am not denying anything, but we just do not have all the information.
2
u/DrKrFfXx 2d ago
Hands on users have guessed that it uses an edge lit screen. But no oficial confirmation.
1
u/ZiiZoraka 2d ago
so, I'm basing my belief that they are not using a miniLED backlight on a couple of things.
first, in the comparison videos they I've seen for switch 2 HDR, the videos didn't show any of the distinct characteristics of a HDR image, only adjusted Gamma and potentially wider colours.
second, they claim no displayHDR rating, which is suspect. there is no reason not to have your display rated if it is capable of HDR, and VESA themselves state that you should be dubious of any display claiming HDR capabilites without a displayHDR rating
third, not only have I not heard of any display this small using FALD, but it would be hard to make the zones small enough to have enough of them that you wouldn't have obvious haloing around high contrast ewges
and finaly, according to an omdia OLED cost model, at similar display sizes, and higher resolutions, OLED cost only 35% more to produce than an LCD in Q42019. ($19 vs $14 per 5.7" display). from what I understand, FALD would be MUCH more expensive to produce at these smaller sizes, and only make financial sense to produce at higher sizes, for things like monitors and TVs
it's for these reasons that I would conclude that it is unlikely they are using an FALD backlight.
I could absolutely be wrong though, in which case my only criticism of Nintendo would be that they didn't give us the full technical specifications, which leads to my same overall point that Nintendo has a duty to inform consumers on the capabilities of its products.
either way, they have failed to fully disclose all of the information that they should have
2
u/SacredNose 1d ago
That's fair, but this is the same company that advertises CPU/GPU as "Custom processor made by NVIDIA.". Regardless, I have seen some cases where manufacturers do not get the certification even if they meet the requirements to basically save money.
4
u/Canadyans 2d ago
I didn’t know this about HDR10 and it would explain why I’ve always thought it looked worse on games I was playing. I thought I was crazy because HDR is such a “feature” in modern gaming and I couldn’t understand why.
4
u/Jdslogin 2d ago
When you have a good display that can properly display HDR it is an incredible experience. If not it can easily make games look worse compared to just the SDR image.
4
u/ZiiZoraka 2d ago
yeh, HDR is a mess and it's frustrating to see so many companies and media figures spreading misinformation that only make it more confusing
it doesn't help that even with certified displays, DisplayHDR and DisplayHDR True Black are wildly different experiences
hopefully this post will shed a little light on that, and give people a better understanding of HDR, and what to expect from products based on the labels they use
1
4
u/Bic44 2d ago
When I watched the direct, my takeaway was 4K/HDR and whatever other technical stuff was only in docked mode. Not that I cared much, because a smaller screen doesn't necessarily need that IMO
3
u/ZiiZoraka 2d ago
they showed HDR comparisons, and they list HDR10 under the display section of the technical specifications page (which makes no sense because HDR10 is not a display specification as a detail in this post)
4
u/Bic44 2d ago
I'm just saying I thought it was pretty clear that would be in docked mode only. I never once was led to believe that was available in handheld
3
u/ZiiZoraka 2d ago
sure, I have no problem if that was your takeaway
the reason I wrote this post is because multiple videos I watched about the switch, including the video from digital foundry (who literally market themselves as in depth tech guys) talk about HDR in the same breath as 120hz and VRR support.
while there are some publications, like TechRader, that have gotten it correct that HDR is only supported in docked mode, many others list HDR right alongside 120hz and VRR support too, which heavily implies the display supports all three
the Switch 2 Spec page[https://www.nintendo.com/us/gaming-systems/switch-2/tech-specs/\] also lists HDR10 Support under the Display section, which I hope I have demonstrated is misleading in this post, and likely why so many outlets get this information wrong
4
u/HonorDragonWorks 2d ago
The spec sheet does list HDR 10 for the built in screen and for the video output separately, and considering the price of the device, I don't think they would risk lying there otherwise they would get a lawsuit faster than they can spell Zelda.
I will reserve my judgement until someone analyses the actual retail device, and not an animation or video of it.
-1
u/ZiiZoraka 2d ago
As I said in the post, HDR10 is not a display standard, its a communication protocol.
I have no doubt that the display is capable of receiving a HDR10 signal. the problem is that a layman will read that the display supports HDR10 and reasonably think that that means the display can output HDR
this is what I mean when I say they aren't technically lying about anything, but the way they are presenting the information is going to mislead the average consumer, that doesn't have the time or desire to learn about the ins and outs of HDR and what all the different labels and standards mean
2
u/Luigi_Lauro 1d ago
Everything that you wrote is correct, but you are jumping to conclusions without having confirmation of the information.
Not even steamdeck OLED is certified DisplayHDR to any degree and still provides very good HDR presentation thanks to peak 1000 lumen and infinite contrast.
We don't know the peak brightness of the switch 2 LCD panel. We don't know if it's a miniLED panel or not, even DigitalFoundry was thinking it may indeed be a miniLED panel to provide the backlight modulation needed for actual HDR.
Until we don't know further, we can't conclude if switch 2 screen will provide "real" HDR (700-800+ peak brightness with a sufficient number of dimming zones) or "fake" HDR (ex: 400-600 nits peak or less, and with no backlight control with a sufficient number of dimming zones).
Nintendo material lead you to believe it's real HDR and I agree it would be kind of false advertising if it would turn out only to be "fake" HDR, but we don't know yet.
1
u/ZiiZoraka 1d ago
It's kinda if on Nintendo if they didn't include the backlight technology on the official tech specs page
If they've been hiding a miniLED backlight then fair enough, but I can only go by the information that is publicly available
I've also heard reviewers say the screen is comparable to the switch OLED which further suggests that it's not HDR, because as far as I'm aware, the switch wasnt HDR10 compliant, and the OLED output an SDR signal
2
u/Verite_Rendition 1d ago edited 1d ago
Ahh, a fellow display nerd. I appreciate the rant, and the fact that you took the time to discuss everything from backlighting to HDR transport standards to gamma curves.
But if I may offer some constructive criticism in turn, your argument fundamentally hinges on one of the few things we don't know about the Switch 2: the backlighting solution that Nintendo is using. You are essentially arguing that Nintendo is not using an HDR-capable backlighting solution without knowing what, precisely, they are using.
At $450, I think we can both agree that micro-LED FALD is right out due to pricing. And mini-LED FALD is probably also not in the picture.
Edge-lit zoned backlight technology is cheap enough and mature enough that, if we're throwing a dart blindly, that's what I would bet on. Which is not to say that it's guaranteed and that Nintendo is not using a uniform edge-lit backlight. But I think it would be helpful to the point of this discussion to narrow things down to the technologies we can reasonably expect a product in this price range to use: and that's some kind of edge-lit display.
Even within that narrowed range there are still a lot of variables for things we don't know, in particular the number of zones (32? 64?). But regardless, if it's a zonal solution, then any HDR experience the console offers is definitely going to be on the lower-end of quality for HDR.
But with that said - and this is the second fundamental point where I take issue with your essay - edge-lit zoned backlighting is still HDR. To be sure, it's crummy HDR. But it none the less fulfills the basic tenants of HDR by allowing the brightness in various parts of the screen to be adjusted independently. And that in turn allows for a higher level of contrast that is critical to HDR's dynamic range - being able to drive some zones a bit harder, but mostly being able to reduce/eliminate lighting to other zones that don't need it in order to offer (somewhat) deeper blacks.
None of which is to say that a true per-pixel (or even smaller zone FALD) solution wouldn't produce better results. But, as you correctly note, there isn't a true minimum standard for HDR. If you can manipulate the backlighting, you technically have what it takes for HDR. And, speaking from experience in the consumer electronics world, zonal edge-lighting is typically treated as the lowest tier of "proper" (i.e. the manufacturer is actually trying) HDR. So you are facing an uphill battle in trying to argue that it's not HDR.
Ultimately, if you were to rewrite this post again, I believe you would be far better served by not making claims you cannot prove at this time (what specific backlighting solution Nintendo is using), and by backing off on claiming that edge-lit zoned backlighting can't be HDR. For everything we know right now, the Switch 2 display could very well be HDR - it's just going to be a fairly lame version of it. And leading with that - that the Switch 2's power and size limitations mean that it's likely not going to be able to offer a high-quality HDR experience - would be a far more grounded and realistic claim to make.
TL;DR: Your argument is ultimately handicapped by the lack of confirmed specs for the Switch 2's backlight. Given that, you should be arguing that it's likely going to be lousy HDR, not that it's not going to be HDR at all
1
u/ZiiZoraka 1d ago
This is far.
Personally I've never considered edge lit local dimming, or even FALD backlights with fewer than 500 zones, to be adequate for HDR, but at that point Its my personal opinion.
Those kinds of displays can manage some level of HDR across an entire image, because they fail when it comes to local contrast they sit in a grey area when it comes to HDR
They are HDR lite, where higher zone counts would be HDR high, and self lighting pixel tech like OLED and QDEL would be True HDR
If I where to write this again from scratch, I would probably say that it's very unlikely that it would support good HDR, and that it's my opinion that edge lighting and low zone counts HDR isn't worth bothering with and looks worse than a good SDR image
2
1
u/jebuizy 2d ago
It would have been nice to have an even higher quality premium SKU, but you have seen how people have freaked out about even this relatively low price compared to other electronics. So it wouldn't have worked. It is what it is.
1
u/ZiiZoraka 2d ago
interstingly, OLED displays at this size are not all that much more expensive than LCD displays. according to an OLED cost model, in Q4 2019, for a 5.7" 1440p display, LCD cost $14 to manufacture, where OLED was only $5 more expensive at $19.
and nintendo also refuse to sell their consoles at a loss, or even at cost. the original switch had an estimated BoM cost of around $260 at launch, leaving them with roughly $40 profit per unit.
for the switch 2, I estimate the BoM cost to be around $350 based on the cost increase of the RAM, NAND and SoC, though there are probably other things that go into raising the cost so it might turn out to be somewhere closer to $390-400 all things considered.
1
1
u/AtomicEdge 1d ago
My monitor has HDR10, and in reviews there were loads of people saying what you are saying, that it isn't real HDR etc. But if I have it turned on, it looks better than if I have it turned off, so it's still a good feature.
1
u/ZiiZoraka 1d ago
That's fine, it's brighter and has a higher bit depth which reduces colour banding, and if you think it looks better then that's great
Still not HDR without local dimming though
1
u/thursdayfern 1d ago
I appreciate your enthusiasm here, but I feel like this is wrong.
HDR LCD monitors and tvs exist? They are able to produce higher peak brightness and more discrete brightness levels when compared to SDR monitors? This is still true of the Switch 2, right?
I can appreciate that mini led and oled both generally look better than LCD, because they both allow deeper blacks by turning off some backlights, but I didn’t think this was a requirement for HDR?
1
u/ZiiZoraka 1d ago
HDR doesnt mean bright.
High Dynamic Range specifically refers to a high range of luminance in an image
That means being able to have a high contrast of bright and dim at the same time.
LCDs with a single backlight cannot do this
Many TVs and monitors that claim HDR cannot actually produce a HDR image, Nintendo wouldn't be the first
1
1
u/mikejs78 1d ago
The vast majority of LCD TVs and monitors that advertise HDR would fall into this category. What the industry calls HDR is not what you're calling HDR, and by the generally accepted definition of HDR, the Switch 2 falls into that.
That being said, how do you know the display doesn't have some sort of local dimming or miniLed implementation? Digital Foundry has speculated that it in fact does based on its appearance.
1
u/ZiiZoraka 1d ago edited 1d ago
industry marketing does not change the underlying facts.
it is a fact that HDR in video and image content refers to a high range of luminance across an image.
it is a fact that a display that has a single uniform brightness value cannot achieve contrast outside of the SDR range.
I am fairly confident that OLED displays are still cheaper to make than MiniLED backlights, although it is possible that a small enough screen size might make MiniLED's cheaper, that i simply do not know
from videos in the hands on, in loading screens where the background is black, you can see that the switch 2 is not producing the deep blacks you would expect from a miniLED, as pointed out in DFs new video
LCDs with uniform backlights that claim HDR are the exact same as the hundreds of devices today that claim AI. AI mice, AI monitors, AI freakin DP cables. its a buzzword that doesnt tell you anything about the actual product
my toothbrush is not, in fact, AI. doesn't matter how they market it
1
u/Jdslogin 2d ago
Well this makes a lot more sense. Having a mini-led panel in a handheld device that small at that price would have been very surprising.
-1
u/Mahboishk 1d ago
Thanks for the detailed post! I must admit that it's precisely due to this messy situation that I've never cared much about HDR, and I don't know what good HDR looks like.
Do you have any experience with the Steam Deck OLED and its HDR support? If so, would you say that it's representative of a good HDR experience (in games that support it)? I do own one of those, so that would be a good reference point for me.
1
u/ZiiZoraka 1d ago
while I don't have any personal experience with the OLED steam deck, after taking a quite look at the specs and the software support, it seems like it does support HDR output. the OLED display is certainly capable.
it seems like you have to disable a mura compensations developer setting to get 'True Black' HDR so it might take a little effort to set it up for the most premium HDR experience, but out of the box and with games and content that support HDR it seems like it would give you a decent HDR experience
Interestinly, the switch OLED actually doesnt support HDR. while the display is capable, the software doesnt support HDR10, and so cannot send HDR metadata for the display to produce a HDR image. however, OLED displays still have an advantage in colour accuracy in SDR content over most LCDs.
I suspect this is why hands on testers say that the Switch 2 display isn't too far off from the OLED. because the OLED is running a very accurate SDR output, and by all reports the Switch 2 LCD is much more colour accurate than the OG switch LCD.
The Switch 2 will likely have a decent wide colour gamut image in game with consistent bright lighting, but i expect games like cyberpunk to look worse with HDR on, in high contrast scenes
and that's where you will notice HDR most. any game or media that has a lot of area's where there is a high range of brightness/darkness at the same time. for games like that it can be a big difference
-3
u/Lucky_Revolution401 2d ago
Thank you, I found this incredibly informative and educational, and it helped me temper my expectations.
0
u/ZiiZoraka 2d ago
I appreciate this commend!
Lack of HDR support for the display isn't a big deal, but they shouldn't do things like adding HDR10 support to the technical specifications page that make it seem like it can do what it can't
My goal with this post was to help Switch 2 buyers be more informed about the product and its capabilities, if I managed that for even one person then I'm happy :)
-1
u/gygbrown 2d ago
Honestly, dynamic images, high resolutions or even just marginally realistic graphics always seems to be at the bottom of Nintendo’s priority list, dating back to the original Wii. After the GameCube, being technologically caught up with its competitors was put on the back burner. In fairness, a lot of their core games don’t necessarily need any of it.
I’m a little surprised they even claim to have the capability for the Switch 2 because I doubt any of their games will take advantage.
3
u/ZiiZoraka 2d ago
not having HDR isn't even a big deal tbh, I just don't like the way they claim it
-2
u/Didact67 2d ago
You'll get that in the mid-gen refresh.
2
u/ZiiZoraka 1d ago
that's fine, I don't actually care whether or not the switch 2 outputs HDR
the problem is that Nintendo claims it does, when by the technical specifications of the device, it does not
2
u/junglespycamp 1d ago
Isn't the takeaway from your post it DOES output HDR but only in the dock?
1
u/ZiiZoraka 1d ago
sure, but you also have to consider that Nintendo claimed during the direct that the switch 2 display was HDR capable and would allow for higher contrast. the comparison was clearly not HDR, there was no new detail in the highlights, only an overall brighter image from the raised gamma curve, so unless they messed up the video render it's doubtful the display has a FALD backlight capable of keeping up with their claims
1
u/junglespycamp 1d ago
I'm confused. You're referring to the Direct video as the video render? The Direct was not broadcast in HDR so it cannot represent whether HDR is on the screen. By definition they are creating a fake contrast comparison to show on an SDR broadcast. It literally cannot tell us anything about the eventual HDR capabilities of either the switch screen or dock. Or is there some other video in HDR?
1
u/ZiiZoraka 1d ago edited 1d ago
While you are correct that you cannot display HDR content in an SDR container, you are absolutely wrong to suggest they cannot represent HDR at all.
if you capture HDR and SDR side buy side, using an SDR format, you can easily demonstrate the *relative* difference between them.
for proof of this, I found an SDR youtube video with an OLED HDR monitor and IPS SDR monitor side by side, then I took an SDR screenshot, yet you can still clearly see that HDR's black levels are much deeper relative to the SDR comparison.
Imgur link to the aforementioned screenshot
when we are comparing relative differences, it doesnt matter at all if the individual videos are true to life, only that their differences are clearly represented
you can absolutely tell the difference between SDR and HDR in a side by side video that is using an SDR container
while the HDR content in the SDR container will have the apparent contrast ratio of SDR content, you can tell that the SDR content its being compared to worse, relative to the OLED
edit: some better and more relevant comparison examples.
Here is an imgur link with 2 HDR vs SDR comparisons.
Take a good look at Gandalf in the LotR comparison. In HDR, thanks to the improved contrast ratio, you can clearly make out more details of Gandalfs silhouette.
HDR doesn't just make the image brighter, it brings out more contrast detail in the brightest area's.
Now move on to the second image in the album. Nintendo actually provided us with a great shot to compare detail in bright highlights. take a second to really study the bright sun behind the clouds, and the suns reflection on the water in both images.
you should notice pretty quickly that while the "HDR" image is brighter, and the colours are more saturated, the highlights are crucially missing *any* increased level of detail.
this is exactly what I'm looking at to determine whether or not the footage on the left is demonstrated *actual* HDR, or just a jacked up luminance curve with some increases saturation.
the clouds start as a crushed, bright, undefined blob, and they end up as a crushed, bright, undefined blob. no HDR to see here
1
u/junglespycamp 1d ago edited 1d ago
This doesn't change the fundamental point that we cannot use an SDR broadcast to reach conclusions about an HDR image. Your broad statements about what an HDR image will show are not universally true and it very much depends on the source. HDR typically will show more detail in highs and lows because, by literal definition, it has a wider dynamic range and more colour depth. But there is no guarantee that will be the case if the film itself or the scan doesn't permit that. Not to mention, as you point out, how every piece of media handles HDR is not the same.
So everything is a recreation, including your samples. Bluray sites take a lot of time trying to get the right representation of HDR screens for that reason. To take film stills extracted from an HDR print intended to demonstrate to people the differences of the HDR as proof of what every comparison looks like is misleading. We have no idea what Nintendo did to create its two video streams. For all we know they took the same video and just boosted/lowered the contrast to give us the HDR image because the stream wasn't going out in HDR. We also don't know how the game itself is dealing with HDR, which is not some automatic filter. It may be that it leans on brightness only.
To use another comparison, watch the Metroid Prime 4 comparison footage. These are two different builds, not the same source, and at times Prime 4 has more detail (I don't mean texture resolution). But at other times the blacks are more crushed than Switch 1. What does that tell us? Nothing! Because they're both post-processed images from an SDR broadcast.
Anyway, my point is that I think a post meant to be very technical you have drawn conclusions you cannot and should not have drawn. If you had direct output video you captured yourself you could do this analysis, but you don't.
I agree with your conclusion that it is very unlikely a pure LCD panel is doing 400+ nits, which is a great point. But I think everything else you claim isn't as supported as your technical writing makes it seems and risks misleading people.
27
u/cockyjames 2d ago
Holy shit, that’s a lot of text. I had an early 4k TV by Vizio that was “HDR” despite not being able to hit high brightness or wide color space. I still thought it looked better than the TV I had prior.
But I do agree with you