View Poll Results: Is HDR TV a Fad or Here to Stay?
It's a fad 97 15.67%
It's here to stay 522 84.33%
Voters: 619. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
 115Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 06:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wxman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,129
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5214 Post(s)
Liked: 3676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamus View Post
To each their own. I would much rather watch HDR with a Rec.709 color space than SDR BT.2020.

Even using a Rec.709 color space, HDR has colors that I had never seen in any SDR display.

Using SDR + 709 color space. the brightest a pure blue can get is 7 nits.
How to you get HDR with REC709?
goksucats likes this.

LG 65E6P FW 05.30.50
LG 65EF9500
wxman is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 07:20 PM
Newbie
 
Mr_Movie_Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 11
3D has been a fad since the 40's-50's and has been re-baked many times since then NEVER lasting for any length of time. This isn't that manufactures won't / don't support it as they would if there was a viable audience for that platform. HD or UltraHD are not the same beast and should not /or wouldn't be considered a fad persay, nor would 8K be when it comes around in a couple years, maybe around the time they finally get OLED perfected, hopefully.

3D has inherent flaws and to be honest I think the 3D distribution from the 50's and even the 70's was much better then the more current attempts to resell this old dead horse of a platform. Now I wouldn't rule 3D out down the road because as technology gets better they will eventually perfect 3D and make it feasible for all, no more epileptics going into seizures.
Mr_Movie_Dog is offline  
post #93 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 07:32 PM
wse
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 9,503
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2207 Post(s)
Liked: 813
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxman View Post
If the studios were smart, they would release a HDR10 version first, and then a DV version which also includes HDR10. People end up double dipping, which means more money for them. I still have no idea why the studios include the blu ray version with UHD version. Drop the price on the UHD movies and not include the blu ray version. The majority of us already have the blu ray version.
Yes it would be nice that they only release one disc UHD.
It was the same they did when Blu ray first came out they packaged it with a DVD and charged twice as much.

Here we go again

Last edited by wse; 02-01-2017 at 09:10 AM.
wse is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #94 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 07:37 PM
Newbie
 
kb9taf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
But when the price delta becomes negligible, they will whether they need it or not, or if they can even see it or not.

Plus if OTA ever moves up to 4K (Is Dish and DirectTV broadcasting in 4K yet? I cut the cord years ago, so I don't know), that would entice them to switch. Wallymart and other big box stores already have decent prices on the 4K's.

Just my 2 cents as a newbie poster.
kb9taf is offline  
post #95 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 08:02 PM
Advanced Member
 
Kamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 766
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxman View Post
How to you get HDR with REC709?
There are a lot of HDR Televisions out there that do HDR but don't have a wide color gamut. such as all the 2016 6 series Samsung line.

And even at ~430 nits, HDR looks compelling because all of the Samsung sets do proper tone mapping (in fact, for HDR 10, i believe only the Samsung televisions do correct tone mapping)

The panels are 10 bit though. So there's no banding.

Looking at outdoor HDR video for the first time was a revelation to me. I had no idea how much color was missing in SDR grades before I saw HDR.

However, I think the same can not be said for other brand HDR televisions (pretty sure only the Samsung televisions are doing tone mapping for HDR10 right now, which is probably the reason some people may get a "dark HDR image" if their TV can't hit the 1000 nits that most HDR10 content is graded to.

For 2017. I think LG sets will also do proper tone mapping for HDR10 (this is already the case for Dolby Vision)


Anyway, the point is, even Rec.709 benefits greatly from the color volume HDR brings.

Last edited by Kamus; 01-31-2017 at 08:18 PM.
Kamus is offline  
post #96 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 08:15 PM
Advanced Member
 
Kamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 766
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Movie_Dog View Post
3D has been a fad since the 40's-50's and has been re-baked many times since then NEVER lasting for any length of time. This isn't that manufactures won't / don't support it as they would if there was a viable audience for that platform. HD or UltraHD are not the same beast and should not /or wouldn't be considered a fad persay, nor would 8K be when it comes around in a couple years, maybe around the time they finally get OLED perfected, hopefully.

3D has inherent flaws and to be honest I think the 3D distribution from the 50's and even the 70's was much better then the more current attempts to resell this old dead horse of a platform. Now I wouldn't rule 3D out down the road because as technology gets better they will eventually perfect 3D and make it feasible for all, no more epileptics going into seizures.
3D lives on in VR at the moment.

The problem with VR though, is that the technology is nowhere near ready being mainstream.

But I suspect that once the Optics and resolution in VR are good enough so the headsets can be used as a replacement of televisions and monitors. VR will take off, even if most people can only use it as a monitor replacement due to locomotion limitations.
Kamus is offline  
post #97 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 09:48 PM
Newbie
 
nutte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: McKinney, TX
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think it will be standard in a few years, although I personally would swap it all out for HFR and have movies with 60fps instead.
I can't believe that haven't gained more interest; those Hobbit movies looked so nice and smooth.
nutte is offline  
post #98 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 11:17 PM
Member
 
gkdiamond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by goksucats View Post
That's true, but HDR requires no effort from consumers.
Well there has to be HDR content available on cable, OTA, streaming, on disc...

Streaming will cost extra for HDR content.

HDR discs will cost more.

People will have to buy their movies over again (isn't it the 4th time now - SD, 720/1080, 4K, HDR; then 8K, 16K...)

You need to upgrade your equipment (TV, AVR, disc player, Internet speed, cables...).

Many regular folks will not see a big enough difference if at all or care enough to pay more.
gkdiamond is offline  
post #99 of 150 Old 02-01-2017, 12:15 AM
Member
 
gkdiamond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvc View Post
Videophiles/enthusiasts ARE consumers and they do drive the markets! They (we) are the reason manufacturers come with the items that they do and they are the reason a product flies or flops! If left up to the general public, Blu-Ray would not have caught on because 'consumers' were happy with DVD and if they needed an HD fix, HD-DVD would have worked for them.

Videophiles pushed BD because of it's potential with larger storage. No one but people with projectors asked for 4K or it's media, but it is here and the videophiles are the ones who pay the high price tags for the early models. Why do you think early 4K or even BD titles are NOT action blockbuster titles? Videophiles usually love artistic, great films as opposed to "The Hills Have Eyes" or even a Captain America film, even if the CA film will give you the best demonstration of the medium.

Some studios like to save their biggest titles for a larger installed base to get max sales, while studios usually put out weaker titles for a new medium to get sales that they may not get if people have more choices to begin with. The average Walmart consumer does not drive any market, the videophiles do and the masses trickle in later on. Now for audio - that turned into consumers driving that market...
Videophiles are a small percentage of consumers and they DO NOT drive the market. There just isn't enough of them to make a product profitable unless it is a small company producing the product or the product is very expensive. Manufacturers come up with new products to sell to the masses and if the masses do not want it it fails, it does not matter how much videophiles want it. Philes help to drive the technology behind products but that is not the same thing as driving demand. Blu-rays success had little to nothing to do with videophiles. Blu-ray is a high resolution format which the consumer considered a significant difference over DVD along with Blu-rays additional features and extras. Sure HD-DVD would have worked because it was also a high resolution format but it lost the format war to Blu-ray. Beta was technically better than VHS but it failed even though videophiles wanted it. Everyone wants 4K, not just projector people. Most people don't even need it and they want it - nothing to do with the projector people though. The average Walmart consumer is exactly who drives the market, without them there would be no videophiles, they support your habit.
gkdiamond is offline  
post #100 of 150 Old 02-01-2017, 12:55 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
EscapeVelocity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 6,771
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 654 Post(s)
Liked: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gillietalls View Post
It's here to stay but I don't share the same thoughts on it being revolutionary and seeing it as some huge improvement as others do. It's a bump in image quality only some of the time and definitely not enough to get regular (non videophiles) tv viewers to jump onboard and start buying all new expensive equipment. Most will think HD is "good enou." Heck some people still watch DVDs.
I still watch DVDs. Quite good on HDTV sized screens, especially less than 60" but the smaller the better.

I watched DVDs on 854x480 projections up to 92".

And Im not Joe Schmoe.

I stream at 480p due to limited bandwidth (around 3Mbps if Im lucky). No 4K streaming at that bandwidth.

I also use OTA ATSC. 480i/p, 720p & 1080i. Again no 4K and nothing on the horizon.

Im happy enough with lower resolutions not to download and watch later 4K, or even 1080p for that matter.

I barely use my Blu Ray player, or DVD player for that matter these days.

I doubt Ill be beating down the doors for a 4K HDR BluRay player. My only 4k capable set cant decode it anyways. (I just got it refurb).

I also just upgraded finally to 1080p projector from 720p.

And Im an enthusiast.

4K HDR gaming seems to just starting up. Im not sure how much that's gonna drive me to get new equipment though.

My next purchase will likely be OLED...more for the black levels than the HDR. 4K more for the motion blur & screen door effect reduction than the resolution increase.
hk2000 likes this.

Epson 8350 / Panasonic AX-200u / Optoma Graywolf 92" / Draper Luma 92"
Samsung 51F8500 / Panasonic P50ST60 / Vizio P502ui-B1E / Sony 50W700B
Sony S790 / Panasonic BDT-220 / Roku 2 XS & Roku 2
Sony NT5 / Samsung F550 / Speakercraft CS3 / Yamaha YAS-105
EscapeVelocity is offline  
post #101 of 150 Old 02-01-2017, 04:58 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gillietalls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,977
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1387 Post(s)
Liked: 1294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamus View Post
Yes, I agree, and why the hell should they care? They're not in the market for a new television.

And for people in the market for a new TV all that matters, is that even if they don't know what 4k or HDR is. They will get it because it's being offered in new televisions.

Or are you suggesting that because "people don't care", manufacturers should simply still market 720p sets and not offer any new features that have been made available as the years go by?
IMO 1080p was good enough. And I believe most people are with me on that. The bump in resolution hasn't made that much of a difference and HDR10 in it's open standard leaves too many variables on whether it will look good or not. IMO the manufacturer's should have found a way to better 1080p material by adding rec2020 color and high frame rates to regular blu rays would have been great. Again, just my opinion.
Jond0, EscapeVelocity and Barry C like this.

Sony 75x940E, LG 65B7, LG 65EF9500, LG 55E6, LG 55UB8200
2 Apple 4K TVs, 2 LG UP970's, 2 Samsung UBD-K8500s, WD 4TB NAS
Nvidia Shield, Wii U, Playstation 3
Gillietalls is offline  
post #102 of 150 Old 02-01-2017, 06:51 AM
Member
 
2channellover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Metro ATL
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrummingdude View Post
Lets hope not.
Yep. I hope I'm wrong too.

Fox is reportedly going to have some 4k (and even 8k) cameras at the Superbowl for various parts of the broadcast, goal line pylons for use in replays, and some other functions, but the game itself won't be shown in 4k...sadly 720.
2channellover is offline  
post #103 of 150 Old 02-01-2017, 07:10 AM
Member
 
1_sufferin_mind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Indiana
Posts: 169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 211
Still a newb, so please be gentle!
Is HDR the same as UHD? I've read that UHD offers more than just increased pixels:
  • richer content
  • better brightness
  • more vivid colors
  • better detail
1_sufferin_mind is offline  
post #104 of 150 Old 02-01-2017, 07:37 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: College Station, Texas
Posts: 1,813
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 862 Post(s)
Liked: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbonetommygun View Post
I mostly agree, I think what TV manufacturers really need to focus on is black levels (which OLEDS already do...), viewing angles, refresh rate/pixel response times ( what happened to 240hz? it would make sense for 24fps content, and weren't old plasmas 600hz? and pixel response times are really bad on most TVs) and input lag (17ms still isn't good enough, it needs to be much lower for gaming). I would love to see something like gsync or freesync for televisions as well for gaming, as well as use with PCs.
Yes plasmas were 600hz, but there was a reason for that high a refresh rate. There is no dimming with plasmas like you can on an LCD tv. A plasma tv is either black or full brightness because there was/is no backlight. So to display various brightness levels the sets had to refresh that fast. Here is an article about it
http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-600hz/
liffie420 is online now  
post #105 of 150 Old 02-01-2017, 08:13 AM
Member
 
hk2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: VIRGINIA
Posts: 73
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 26
I can't believe how many "videophiles" are fooled by this!!! HDR looks FAKE and very unrealistic, I for one would never turn it on, let alone pay extra for it.
hk2000 is offline  
post #106 of 150 Old 02-01-2017, 08:29 AM
Newbie
 
TT135i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel LaRoche View Post
You have some valid points about how 4K doesn't magically make a home theater better, but this statement is just false. Netflix films all of their new shows in 4K, masters them in 4K, and even does the CGI in 4K. So you think you're not missing out on anything, but yes, yes you are. The detail levels on Netflix shows is perceptibly better than a Bluray movie.

Also, you are all about the 4K shows using 4x the bandwidth, but this is not true either because 4K media uses H.265 or VP9, which retain the same quality at half the size. So a 4K show will use twice the bandwidth as H.264 1080p.

Lastly, your comment about banding on 4K is laughable as well since this is the whole reason HDR exists. With the 10 bit color, you aren't going to get banding like you would with low bitrate 8 bit movies, and the 4K stream isn't going to be bit-starved either since UHD blurays are 100 GB and most 4K streaming is 20 Mbits or better.

You have some valid points, but don't just make stuff up if you don't understand the technology. 4K is here, it looks great, and I'm sorry you are missing out.
Ok, you want to find arguments just to argue. That's fine, as I can see you missed the actual point of my total post, because it's easy to pick out little things to contest and try to show one's superior knowledge on a subject. It's very common these days.

I work in video production, so no need to presume to tell me anything.
I am not missing anything by not having a 4K TV. I was discussing 4K TV as related to "TELEVISION" not in terms of the extremely limited 4K content that exists, again, on a very limited level. As I stated I have a 4K camera, and it's content looks fantastic on a 4K monitor. Does my 2K Canon 5d's HD video look not as good? Sure, the 4K has some quality that by it's very nature gives it more detail. However, again, size of monitor and distance from monitor makes a HUGE difference in whether one "needs" a 4K TV.

Any streaming, again, ANY STEAMING, is compressed so you are NEVER going to see the full quality of 4K, and the vast majority of the public have never seen the full quality of 2k HD either. So, other than those who have actual 4K content, no one is missing out on anything by not having a 4K TV as the broadcast, streaming, and cable and satellite world is concerned. And that's the condensed version and point of my post.

As for "making stuff up", I didn't make anything up. If you don't know what "banding" is, then that's your problem. Next time you watch a cable movie, or satellite, or streamed, pay close attention to a camera shot moving from a dark area, such as deep water, as it tilts upwards towards the brightness, THERE, that's "banding", where one can clearly see "bands" of the color and the separation between them rather than a smooth transition. That's not "made up", it's real.

4K's data rate is 4 times greater than 2K. That again is true. That was my only point. So, in order to transmit 4K content in equal quality to 2K, that requires greater bandwidth capacity, and takes up the capacity that exists. Again, that's true, not make up.
Bringing up compression to declare my comment "made up" shows you're barking up the wrong tree.
ANY compression is a reduction of quality, and I mean ANY compression even if it's claimed to be "lossless". Yes, there are good compression algorithms, I've used many of them, but non compare to an uncompressed version of the same content.
So, you are comparing that taste quality of an orange to an apple, and then telling me that the juice of either fruit equates to the same things as eating the whole fruit.
NO, it doesn't.

Last point, I know 4K is here, and I've given my opinion in that it will stay, and then advance to something new. However, the reason 4K is here is driven by TV manufacturers need to sell more product not because there is so much content and people ware just wondering, "where or where can I find a monitor that will let me see the glory of these new images".
The industry that creates TV content is not as enamored with 4K as are tech fans and tech manufacturers.

And, now I am done.
I would continue an actual discussion with you, but it's clear you can't behave in a civilized manner as you have a need to insult and call someone a liar, and then pretend to want to have an actual discussion.
Take care buddy.
liffie420 likes this.
TT135i is offline  
post #107 of 150 Old 02-01-2017, 08:34 AM
Advanced Member
 
goksucats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 862
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 460 Post(s)
Liked: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxman View Post
How to you get HDR with REC709?
I was wondering that one myself. Wouldn't banding be out of control on a Rec709 screen in HDR?

Sony XBR65X930C / Sony UBP-X800 UltraHD Blu-ray Player/ Toshiba HD-A3 HD DVD / PS4 Pro / Onkyo TX-NR807 / Paradigm CC-190/Paradigm Titan Monitor V5/Paradigm Atom Monitor V5/ JBL Studio L8400P 12-Inch Sub
goksucats is offline  
post #108 of 150 Old 02-01-2017, 08:36 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 8
Playing RE7 with HDR on looks great, hope it's here to stay.
skept3k is offline  
post #109 of 150 Old 02-01-2017, 08:40 AM
Advanced Member
 
goksucats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 862
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 460 Post(s)
Liked: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamus View Post
There are a lot of HDR Televisions out there that do HDR but don't have a wide color gamut. such as all the 2016 6 series Samsung line.

And even at ~430 nits, HDR looks compelling because all of the Samsung sets do proper tone mapping (in fact, for HDR 10, i believe only the Samsung televisions do correct tone mapping)

The panels are 10 bit though. So there's no banding.
It's like you're speaking a different language then the one I've been trying to learn as I attempt to grasp everything that is 10-bit, and HDR! I thought that the very point of the move from an 8 bit to a 10-bit panel was for the wide color gamut? So you're saying Samsung 6 series TV's which claim they have HDR, also have 10 bit panels, but not a wider color gamut? Why have a 10 bit panel if you're only displaying rec.709 color? I thought the WCG was necessary to eliminate banding to account for the brighter screens?

If what you're saying is true, then apparently everything I've tried to pick up over the course of the last year is completely incorrect. I have seen people claim that TV's like Samsung's 6 series claim to be HDR compatible, but without a wider color gamut so you are missing much of the benefit of HDR. But what you're saying flies in the face of everything that I feel like I've learned. And I'm not saying you're incorrect. But I am saying I'm totally confused now.

Sony XBR65X930C / Sony UBP-X800 UltraHD Blu-ray Player/ Toshiba HD-A3 HD DVD / PS4 Pro / Onkyo TX-NR807 / Paradigm CC-190/Paradigm Titan Monitor V5/Paradigm Atom Monitor V5/ JBL Studio L8400P 12-Inch Sub

Last edited by goksucats; 02-01-2017 at 08:45 AM.
goksucats is offline  
post #110 of 150 Old 02-01-2017, 08:44 AM
Advanced Member
 
goksucats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 862
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 460 Post(s)
Liked: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamus View Post
3D lives on in VR at the moment.

The problem with VR though, is that the technology is nowhere near ready being mainstream.

But I suspect that once the Optics and resolution in VR are good enough so the headsets can be used as a replacement of televisions and monitors. VR will take off, even if most people can only use it as a monitor replacement due to locomotion limitations.
Not convinced it has any place in anything but gaming. People refused to wear glasses for 3D, and we're supposed to believe they are gonna wear a helmet for 2.5 hours? I don't know. I think it's cool when I've used the PlayStation one. But I just don't know if people are willing to wear a helmet.

Sony XBR65X930C / Sony UBP-X800 UltraHD Blu-ray Player/ Toshiba HD-A3 HD DVD / PS4 Pro / Onkyo TX-NR807 / Paradigm CC-190/Paradigm Titan Monitor V5/Paradigm Atom Monitor V5/ JBL Studio L8400P 12-Inch Sub
goksucats is offline  
post #111 of 150 Old 02-01-2017, 08:44 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: College Station, Texas
Posts: 1,813
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 862 Post(s)
Liked: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1_sufferin_mind View Post
Still a newb, so please be gentle!
Is HDR the same as UHD? I've read that UHD offers more than just increased pixels:
  • richer content
  • better brightness
  • more vivid colors
  • better detail
No they are different things all together. 4K is a resolution x pixels by x pixels, HDR is an image enhancement, it increases the contrast between light and dark scenes, which in turn give you better image reproduction. It simple terms it means you will see more and better details in very bright and very dark scenes. UHD doesn't do anything on it's own other than increase the detail, or the ability to show detail in a picture or movie. But HDR is coming along with many UHD sets now.
liffie420 is online now  
post #112 of 150 Old 02-01-2017, 08:54 AM
Advanced Member
 
Larry Rosenberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 557
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 458 Post(s)
Liked: 334
Cool No mention of HDR in Samsung manuals

As an anecdotal point, I've always found it curious - and initially quite frustrating - that there is no mention of HDR, other than Samsung's fake mode of HDR Plus, in their manuals. HDR is indeed advertised as a feature but good luck finding any further instructions on how to use it. I guess it's like "1000 nits." It's just there. But on 2016 Samsungs it's not "just there." It's only available in Movie and Standard modes (and gamers tell me in Game mode, too). Further of note, all Bestbuy Samsung TV display sets are put in Dynamic mode. No HDR in that mode but all the sales reps, including the Samsung reps, will tell you what a great HDR demo you are watching. Yep, the picture does look great on those demos, and that's why our last 4 TVs have been Samsung - but no thanks to any HDR decoding. Oh well. Caveat emptor?

-----
2016 Samsung UN65KS9800, UN55KS8500, UN49KS8000
2016 Samsung K8500 UHD BD Player x 2
2016 Samsung HW-K550/SWA-8000S 5.1
2016 Pioneer SC-LX701- AudioSource AMP100VS Atmos/DTS:X 7.1.4
Larry Rosenberg is offline  
post #113 of 150 Old 02-01-2017, 09:11 AM
wse
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 9,503
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2207 Post(s)
Liked: 813
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb9taf View Post
But when the price delta becomes negligible, they will whether they need it or not, or if they can even see it or not.

Plus if OTA ever moves up to 4K (Is Dish and DirectTV broadcasting in 4K yet? I cut the cord years ago, so I don't know), that would entice them to switch. Wallymart and other big box stores already have decent prices on the 4K's.

Just my 2 cents as a newbie poster.
Hello newbie, $9 is decent for me
wse is offline  
post #114 of 150 Old 02-01-2017, 09:35 AM
Member
 
gkdiamond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by VideoGrabber View Post
That's silly and irrelevant. Of course, we will all "need" 8K-TV eventually.

When we buy our displays off the roll, by the linear foot (and 8' high) to cover our walls, 4K simply isn't gonna cut it.
I'm gonna have my ceiling raised another 4' so I'll be 16K ready.
VideoGrabber likes this.
gkdiamond is offline  
post #115 of 150 Old 02-01-2017, 11:36 AM
DAB
AVS Forum Special Member
 
DAB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: SF CA
Posts: 2,637
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 153 Post(s)
Liked: 78
I'm planning on a new 65/70 UHD all ready have the OPPO 203. A small library of BR and a few UHD discs.
witha great looking Plasma . Will not purchase a new display without 4/ UHD/DV/10 bit/wcg/ etc.
So I am going to be patient - do i want DV and all the rest-- YES-- however, I'm not die -ing for it.
Also don't need speakers nor tuner-- need a App box thought.......
DAB is offline  
post #116 of 150 Old 02-01-2017, 11:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Cleveland,Ohio
Posts: 7,020
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2977 Post(s)
Liked: 2810
Plain and simple ---HDR is in its infancy and we are early adopters.
DAB likes this.
losservatore is offline  
post #117 of 150 Old 02-01-2017, 12:24 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
adrummingdude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 1,669
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1097 Post(s)
Liked: 751
Quote:
Originally Posted by gkdiamond View Post
I'm gonna have my ceiling raised another 4' so I'll be 16K ready.

I'll go the cheaper route and look through binoculars.

HT: KEF Reference 1 - Anthem AVM60 & MCA525 - Martin Logan Focus - DefTech XTR-20BP - Dual SVS SB16 Ultra
Office 2CH: KEF LS50 - Crown - Bluesound
Stage: Allen & Heath Dlive s5000 - Westone AMPRO 30 - AKG mics - Crown Amps
WAF is currently at DEFCON ORANGE
adrummingdude is offline  
post #118 of 150 Old 02-01-2017, 12:59 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 2,941
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1126 Post(s)
Liked: 431
UHD will be niche because of the extra cost and upgrading. Will be for a long time. 3D will be back in the next 5 years or so when the dust settles on 4K. The problem is that they don't have all the standards in place for 4K. The rollout has been a long bumpy road whereas for 3D they had it right on day one because the standards for HD were already existing. Sometime in 2020 or later 3D will be back and in 4K. That said, 3D isn't for everything. The problem is that there is a much smaller market for 3D. 3D is like an IMAX experience but you don't need it for everything. So right now, 3D has been removed because it lacks 4K support, so I say build it and they will come.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #119 of 150 Old 02-01-2017, 02:20 PM
Advanced Member
 
Kamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 766
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by hk2000 View Post
I can't believe how many "videophiles" are fooled by this!!! HDR looks FAKE and very unrealistic, I for one would never turn it on, let alone pay extra for it.
I believe that you are under the impression that we're talking about the HDR in the phones. We're not, this thread has nothing to do with that form of HDR. Go read up on HDR for televisions so you can understand what we're talking about. Completely different thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gillietalls View Post
IMO 1080p was good enough. And I believe most people are with me on that. The bump in resolution hasn't made that much of a difference and HDR10 in it's open standard leaves too many variables on whether it will look good or not. IMO the manufacturer's should have found a way to better 1080p material by adding rec2020 color and high frame rates to regular blu rays would have been great. Again, just my opinion.
It was good enough for most people, since the screen size and where they sit from (most of the time) make the benefits null in some situations.

But you're missing the point. Is there really any reason to stop increasing resolution as long as it's free? We know we will get some kind of benefit until we reach close to phone like PPI.

A lot of people in this sub seem to have a hard time grasping that video has been on the information technology bandwagon for years now. And there comes a point where more pixels are no challenge for the manufacturer / content provider anymore, so why keep producing old televisions, when you can have the new ones be better for free?

Regarding SDR and Rec.2020 support and calling a day... If you're going to change standards, why stop there? We've had most of the components that make up an "HDR TV" for years now. You have to remember that SDR was made with CRT's in mind, and those haven't been around for about 15 years now.

I'm glad that if they were going to push a new format out. they took all of the advancements we've had over the last 2 decades and included them in the new standard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goksucats View Post
It's like you're speaking a different language then the one I've been trying to learn as I attempt to grasp everything that is 10-bit, and HDR! I thought that the very point of the move from an 8 bit to a 10-bit panel was for the wide color gamut? So you're saying Samsung 6 series TV's which claim they have HDR, also have 10 bit panels, but not a wider color gamut? Why have a 10 bit panel if you're only displaying rec.709 color? I thought the WCG was necessary to eliminate banding to account for the brighter screens?

If what you're saying is true, then apparently everything I've tried to pick up over the course of the last year is completely incorrect. I have seen people claim that TV's like Samsung's 6 series claim to be HDR compatible, but without a wider color gamut so you are missing much of the benefit of HDR. But what you're saying flies in the face of everything that I feel like I've learned. And I'm not saying you're incorrect. But I am saying I'm totally confused now.
Yes, most low end 2016 HDR televisions (not just Samsung) have 10 bit panels, but no WCG. because they don't have quantum dots.

10 bit helps a lot with banding, regardless of the color gamut you're using. I've seen the difference between 10 bit HDR and 8 bit HDR on my TV playing "shadow warrior 2". (PC game with HDR support) and 10 bit looks perfectly smooth, while 8 bit looks like crap because of all the banding. So the source of the banding is more because of the extra dynamic range than the color gamut.

The thing to realize here, is that only a TV with WCG and 1000 nits is showing (or should be showing) the image as it was graded.

Everything else is using software to compensate for their shortcomings. Some brands have better algorithms than the others.

For instance, I believe only Samsung sets do proper tone mapping for anything above 1000 nits in HDR10. They also do pretty good gamut conversions so the colors don't look off when using different gamut. (of course, you're bound to miss some colors regardless, especially if it's "man made" colors like neon, most "natural" colors are fine with Rec.709)

But, even with a Rec.709 gamut, you still get a lot more color volume than just using SDR. So you still get a lot more colors than you would just using SDR on those sets. SDR will look very washed out in comparison. (I've tested this in Resident Evil 7 extensively. the colors are much more vivid in HDR, with just the 709 gamut)

When it comes to Dolby Vision. there are zero sets out there than can play the content the way it was graded. All of Dolby Vision content is graded at 4000 nits. so every single Dolby Vision television out there is doing tone mapping to compensate.

But that's a good thing. Because unlike HDR10, it means that you know you're gonna get the tone mapping, regardless of what brand TV you bought, as long as it supports DV.

With HDR10. You're kind of at the mercy of how good is the software of the manufacturer you bought.

In the case of Samsung, I know it's pretty good. Since it does gamut remapping and tone mapping. And as soon as HDMI 2.0a gets upgraded via firmware for all 2016 modes, we'll also get dynamic meta data, just like dolby vision.

Dynamic metadata is meant to help with low APL scenes. by making the whole color gamut available even in low APL. (in HDR10, or SDR, what happens is, you only have a fraction of the gamut available in a low APL scene)

I hope I cleared up some of your doubts.
DAB and Jond0 like this.
Kamus is offline  
post #120 of 150 Old 02-01-2017, 02:46 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: College Station, Texas
Posts: 1,813
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 862 Post(s)
Liked: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
UHD will be niche because of the extra cost and upgrading. Will be for a long time. 3D will be back in the next 5 years or so when the dust settles on 4K. The problem is that they don't have all the standards in place for 4K. The rollout has been a long bumpy road whereas for 3D they had it right on day one because the standards for HD were already existing. Sometime in 2020 or later 3D will be back and in 4K. That said, 3D isn't for everything. The problem is that there is a much smaller market for 3D. 3D is like an IMAX experience but you don't need it for everything. So right now, 3D has been removed because it lacks 4K support, so I say build it and they will come.
3D is dead and won't be back sorry to burst your bubble. Unless they can set up glasses free 3d on tv that works for more than just a narrow sweet spot it won't be back. 4K is here and won't be going anywhere, the price of the sets dropped insanely fast from when they first popped up 3 or 4 years ago. The standards are in place for 4K and have been for a good bit of time, the only lagging behind was on 4K UHD Blu-ray which just got finalized and hit the market last year. 8K is on the horizon but I think it will be 2020 at the earliest before we see any adoption of that by early adopters. There is no content commercially available and none on the horizon at the moment. Aside from the fact with 8K you must be looking at a 70" screen size minimum and currently 70" is right near the top in size you will find in most stores but I have seen up to 92" currently for sale.
liffie420 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Community News & Polls

Tags
hdr , poll



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off