troy_s 
Genco Uney@troy_s is there any "HDR" standard used in theatres I wonder
@genco The irony that all mythical "HDR" displays are *natively* 2.2 EOTF is not lost upon me.
@troy_s eh? Where do you find that info? In what way? Is it like the PQ or whatever gets decoded to 2.2 then it gets decoded again to linear by the panel controller?
@troy_s but... That defeats the entire purpose of encoding in the first place. Probably the only reason it doesn't break even further is that the interchange in the middle is like 12 or 14 bits.
The world doesn't make sense.
@genco How many times must I say "HDR does not exist" only to have someone try to deny the claim in some private Discord server or forum?
I state this based on facts:
1. To the best of my knowledge, the *native* response of all displays is plus or minus 2.2 as an EOTF.
2. To the best of my understanding in terms of general mechanisms, the majority of the cellular biological operation is not "scalar measurement" but rather differential.
On *both* fronts, "HDR" does not exist. But we can go a
@genco step further based on the hardware claim.
The evidence supports the claim that the basic "response" is a 2.2, and that all "mappings" are driving the "backlight" or equivalent response.
As such, given the equivalence of the EOTFs ultimately, as they *all* are strictly encoding techniques, and always yield linear radiometric energy, we can ask what the core defining "difference" is between the *ideology* of "HDR" and "SDR", given it is a false dichotomy.
@genco The "ideological" premise, which is nothing more than a falsifiable *theist* belief, is the *belief* that some "appearance related cognition" such as a "highlight" or or "white" or any of the other *cognitive* constructs, can be *mapped* to a given stimuli code level of emission.
We can falsify this without much intellectual rigour.
Literally *one* demonstration that shows that code values cannot predict cognitive constructions dismisses all of "HDR".
@troy_s what I'm saying is that, it defeats even their own thought process. The thought of "HDR" is flawed at the root yes. But idiots are so incoherent it keeps getting worse, the more I learn how they follow through on the thought.
@genco I've tried to say this.
But alas... folks just fail to exert any form of rigorous thought.
The whole thing is an artificial sham that is nothing short of a theist ideology.
The panel is 2.2.
Just let folks target the native EOTF, and grant them 10 or 12 bit or whatever the current economic level permits.
The rest is all utterly, completely, bewildering **rubbish**.
"HDR" is *literally* an **ideological** proposition that **can be falsified**.
@genco If someone buys a car that needs to abide by some strict protocol to turn the heater on, such as a subscription or arbitrary electronically locked out feature, folks lose their marbles.
But a display's response buried underneath the *completely nonsensical* protocol, that is forwarded by some corporate IP? Perfectly acceptable, and the Useful Idiot class will even promote it for them.