Hmmmm. I do have two different reds in Firefox. But I wouldn't describe the test as "working fine"; the two reds are so similar to each other that I'm unable to perceive the webkit logo. I can tell there's a circle, and that takes effort.
For a test to be "working", the judge needs to be able to tell the difference between "test succeeded" and "test failed".
How can we tell whether it is the test that is broken or just that some screens render the colours differently?
There's a visible difference in most of the samples here https://webkit.org/blog-files/color-gamut/
My Firefox on Android happily displays a difference, the webkit logo is very visible. And my AMOLED screen can actually go beyond DCI-P3.
But the phone is cheating. It's "enhancing" sRGB colors to wide gamut by cranking up the saturation accross the whole screen, and the settings are "sRGB" or "DCI-P3", but that doesn't turn off the post-processing filter it just adjusts the strength.
The P3 flowers on that test page in particular look completely wrong on my phone.
For proper HDR you need 1000+ nits. Only Apple monitors and a few very expensive alternatives can do this. On other monitors the gamut is compressed and there's little difference between the colors at the edges.
You can test your monitor with this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NlAsAuBtmps When it stops getting brighter, you've maxed out your display and it can't display the additional range.
For whatever reason TV tech is way better. Even cheap TVs tend to be brighter than the brightest PC monitors. If you have the space, a 40 inch TV sitting farther away will be far superior picture quality than a monitor
> You can test your monitor with this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NlAsAuBtmps
Actually I'm surprised to hear Youtube supports HDR video at all. I was under the impression that web support for HDR video was still rather lacking.
YouTube has surprisingly great support for HDR and Wide Color Gamut. There's some utterly breathtaking 4k 60fps HDR WCG videos of Japanese cities I've been watching. The only downside is you practically need a supercomputer to decode them in realtime.
Many games are also getting "definitive edition" remasters with HDR and they look glorious.
Getting a quality HDR screen was a bigger upgrade for me than 1080p->4k . There's simply a shitload of colors that older monitors can't produce
That's good to hear. Does it work on PC? I assume it's browser / OS limited if so.
> but many of these colors are physically dim and much harder to notice than the HDR "pop" of extremely bright colors
That's true, but on the other hand the typical diffuse white of an HDR film is only about 200 nits or so, well within reach of most SDR screens. Extremely bright things like small points of light and explosions do look way better in HDR, but there are also plenty of extra-sRGB colors that display perfectly fine on a 200 or 300 nit WCG SDR scren.
> Getting a quality HDR screen was a bigger upgrade for me than 1080p->4k
That's the exciting part of the new technology for sure. You've got to sit pretty close to a 4k screen to notice a difference. It's more useful for professionals who sit a couple feet away typing text into a 30 inch monitor all day.
HDR is great for lifelike scenes. Games and movie. For browsing, kinda pointless.
People don't realize that sunny days are 5000+ nits and regular screens only hit 300. HDR makes things way more lifelike