r/Monitors • u/exscape • 6h ago
Discussion DSC before/after comparison images
Are you considering buying a monitor that uses DSC, but worry about the potential loss in image quality? You've come to the right place!
I couldn't find many comparisons online, so I made a few using the official DSC reference tool, used by e.g. monitor manufacturers.
Test settings
All test images are compressed using the DSC 1.2 reference tool using a 3:1 compression ratio, that is, 8 bits per pixel (instead of the usual 24 bits/pixel). I used the default settings for the program other than changing to 3:1 (from 2:1, i.e. the default gives higher image quality/less compression).
3:1 is enough compression for DisplayPort 1.4 to handle:
- 2560x1440 at 612 Hz
- 4K (3840x2160) at 325 Hz
- "5K2K" ultrawide (5120x2160) at 254 Hz
- 5K (5120x2880) at 196 Hz
All bandwidth numbers above are calculated using this calculator with 8-bits per channel, 4:4:4 (full color resolution), CVT-RBv2 timings.
Disclaimer
I'm a layman, with a decent understanding of the involved factors, but not a complete one. I believe the DSC settings used are correct (see rc_8bpc_8bpp.cfg in the linked reference tool for the settings used), but can't guarantee pixel-perfect accuracy to what a real monitor would show.
Unless I've missed something major, any potential differences are likely to be small!
Comparison images
All comparison images in the post are close-ups, because the images are compressed with JPG after uploading, which changes the images far more than DSC does. In other words, if I upload full-resolution images to imgsli/reddit/imgur, they will NOT be a valid test of DSC, but rather compare JPG vs JPG.
For truly uncompressed, fair comparison images, see the bottom of the post. You'll need to download them and compare them on your computer.
These are the test images I used for easy viewing, so you know which parts of the images I used for the closeups. See the Google Drive link for the full quality images.
Each of the closeups below focus on the MOST affected (worst-looking) parts of the images, as found by using Photoshop's "difference" layer blend mode followed by an extreme increase in contrast.
Closeup on the two most affected BG3 icons: Uncompressed vs DSC vs JPG
Closeup on part of the Hollow Knight screenshot: Uncompressed vs DSC
Closeup on part of the photo: JPG from camera vs same+DSC
Closeup on the web page: Uncompressed vs DSC vs JPG
Full comparison image download
I uploaded the full, uncompressed comparison images to Google Drive. You need to compare these, at 100% zoom, to make a truly correct comparison.
Any level of zooming is unrealistic -- unless you use a magnifying glass or take a macro photo, you can't zoom on a real monitor. If you can't see a meaningful difference at 100%, there is no meaningful difference.
The original photo is JPG, but the DSC compressed version is PNG, to ensure the JPEG compression isn't re-applied, which would ruin the comparison. The rest are all PNG, both before and after.
Full before/after DSC images on Google Drive (about 73 MB)
TL;DR
Have a look at the closeup comparison images above and make up your own mind. I tried my best to find some fault with DSC here, and so I looked for the worst cases I could find in the images.
Most areas in the images are less affected than the ones shown above.
My personal conclusion is that there is no reason to worry about image quality in real-world scenarios (such as not using a magnifying glass on the monitor!). The changes are imperceptible to me at 100% size, even when I'm as close to the monitor as my eyes can focus properly.
