HDR Discussion Thread

[HeatEquation]

Originally Posted by Staying Salty

So HDMI 2.0b is all that is required to play HDR10+. Why is the box for HDMI 2.0b/HDR10+ a NO and not a YES? Or a least a YES* with a note explaining a condition.

An old chart that is incorrect. Vincent Teoh has already debunked the idea that HDMI 2.1 is required for HDR10+.

[Staying Salty]

Originally Posted by Ruined

There are 18.7 million UHD sets projected to be sold in 2018.
18.7 million x $2.50 average royalty per set = $46,750,000.00 in royalties to Dolby.

You just stated Samsung’s and Panasonic’s real reason for not supporting Dolby Vision . Cost is not a factor for the consumer who buys a product that supports DV/HDR10. There is no indication that a DV/HDR10 disk costs more than a HDR10 disk, that a DV/HDR10 Display costs more than a HDR10/HDR10+ display and that a DV/HDR10 player costs more than a HDR10 player. Now we both know that there is a tiny cost for DV passed on to the consumer, but since a typical consumer keeps a player and a TV about 5 to 10 years the cost amortized over those years would be pennies a week.. (Just a guess, math is not my strength ).

Originally Posted by Ruined

HDMI 2.0b is going to go away over the next 1-3 years.

I see you finally got your time machine working. What is the “Shocking” revelation in the next Star Wars saga. Be sure to use the “spoiler” feature.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Ruined

LG is going to care since they don't support the only HDR dynamic metadata option for future Fox HDR movies, LG's OLEDs won't be bright enough for pure HDR10, and Samsung QLED will look far superior as a result.

Until they support HDR10+ LG is now at a disadvantage with Fox movies due to LG OLED inability to display HDR10 static with enough brightness.

LG will likely stretch it out as long as they can but they will need to cave to HDR10+ for their OLED sets to remain competitive with Samsung QLED across all content.

Re panasonic, they are one of largest Blu ray founders so point is there should be no issue getting HDR10+ through BDA.

Oh they are so worried!

LG OLED Sweeps 2017 TV Shootout- Sound & Vision NYC thanks Robert Zohn and Joel Silver

Samsung, normally a stronger contender against the LG OLED with its top line sets in previous years, was also done in by the dark blacks and precision dark-screen uniformity of the OLED models; the Q9 features an edge-lit backlight this year instead of a full-array local dimmer, and ultimately showed its limitations.

yeah Samsung was done in again, so much for re-branding quantum dot technology into a acronym (QLED)to confuse consumers its comparable to emission screen technology (OLED).

But wait we have another shootout from London, and Samsung lost again.

Panasonic OLED Wins 2017 TV Shootout; LG B7 Voted Best for HDR - HDTVtest

Perhaps you better pushing those cost effective faux 4K projectors with not enough brightness for HDR10+.

[HeatEquation]

Originally Posted by HeatEquation

Unlike any other studio that has committed to DV, Fox actually has a vested interest in getting its dynamic HDR format on as many discs as possible. So I predict that a large portion of their discs will contain HDR10+, maybe even the majority of them. Then you've got WB rumored to be looking at HDR10+, Universal is a partner of Samsung's and could follow suit. I'm sure we'll see other studios jump on board as well.

If HDR10+ has issues like DV, then all it would mean is that static HDR10 will remain the king of HDR (at least for a little while longer.)

Here is another thing that supports my prediction:

In fact, Fox representatives and other HDR10+ proponents implied at IFA meetings that creating content in the new format is relatively straightforward, and so may well be implemented on a wide number of future titles.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc.../#5de9714314da

The cost and straightforward aspect of the content creation should entice other studios as well (WB rumored to be among them.)

[RockyIII]

QLED is a scam

[DanBa]

Originally Posted by DanBa

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/465-hi...l#post54128881

Originally Posted by Staying Salty

So HDMI 2.0b is all that is required to play HDR10+. Why is the box for HDMI 2.0b/HDR10+ a NO and not a YES? Or a least a YES* with a note explaining a condition.

In my book, it is still a NO.
I can’t be more informed than the HDMI Forum.


https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...8#post13336708

The transmission of SMPTE ST 2094 dynamic metadata (i.e. ST 2094-10 dynamic metadata of ST 2094 compliant Dolby Vision, ST 2094-20/30 dynamic metadata of Technicolor HDR or ST 2094-40 dynamic metadata of HDR 10 Plus) across HDMI is described in CTA-861-G.

HDMI 2.0b is compliant with CTA-861-G. Is it fully or partially compliant?

According to the HDMI Forum, it is fully compliant with HLG HDR, i.e. the HDMI Forum has not confirmed that HDMI 2.0b is fully compliant with the CTA-861-G/HDMI 2.1 feature Transmission of SMPTE ST 2094 dynamic metadata.
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=2681

Apparently, the same goes for Samsung.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/465-hi...l#post54748462

Originally Posted by Rudy1

One of the [Samsung] directors told me last week that the HDR10 Plus firmware update (USB & streaming) for 2016 TVs is still on track. They've not determined yet whether HDR10 Plus over HDMI is possible with the current (2016/2017) HDMI chipsets.

Originally Posted by Rudy1

They feel more testing is necessary before they can be sure that the 2017 sets will work reliably over HDMI with HDR10 Plus. This late into the model year they may just to wait for HDMI 2.1 (and all its features) for the 2018 TVs, then upgrade 2016/2017 sets with an OCB if all of the connection/interoperability issues can be resolved.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by HeatEquation

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc.../#5de9714314da

While I consider John Archer very speculative as a source, he did write close to the top of his attempt to capitalize on possible consumer confusion this odd comment against HDR:

A technology which, to make matters worse, was already bogged down in complication, confusion and inconsistency.

Every performance leap presents complication, challenges to learn from. What makes HDR any different?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Every performance leap presents complication, challenges to learn from. What makes HDR any different?

Because it was all to one single video standard.


HDR is a cluster- with different standards for mastering (1000 nits? 4000?) and no calibration tools available for the home user.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

I guess studios think 10 bit, 4:2:0 and apparent banding with HDR grading is "good enough" if they're going to be mostly using HDR10+.

Why they didn't make 12 bit, 4:2:2 or greater mandatory from the get go is baffling, but the industry always has made dumb choices for the sake of expediency and various other factors.

[HeatEquation]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

I guess studios think 10 bit, 4:2:0 and apparent banding with HDR grading is "good enough" if they're going to be mostly using HDR10+.

Why they didn't make 12 bit, 4:2:2 or greater mandatory from the get go is baffling, but the industry always has made dumb choices for the sake of expediency and various other factors.

HDR10+ will become HDR12+ when consumer 12 bit panels start hitting the market.

[HeatEquation]

Originally Posted by DanBa

In my book, it is still a NO.
I can’t be more informed than the HDMI Forum.


https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...8#post13336708

The transmission of SMPTE ST 2094 dynamic metadata (i.e. ST 2094-10 dynamic metadata of ST 2094 compliant Dolby Vision, ST 2094-20/30 dynamic metadata of Technicolor HDR or ST 2094-40 dynamic metadata of HDR 10 Plus) across HDMI is described in CTA-861-G.

HDMI 2.0b is compliant with CTA-861-G. Is it fully or partially compliant?

According to the HDMI Forum, it is fully compliant with HLG HDR, i.e. the HDMI Forum has not confirmed that HDMI 2.0b is fully compliant with the CTA-861-G/HDMI 2.1 feature Transmission of SMPTE ST 2094 dynamic metadata.
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=2681

Apparently, the same goes for Samsung.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/465-hi...l#post54748462

The HDMI 2.1 upgrade via a new OCB is intriguing. I'd settle for HDR10+ over HDMI, but the full HDMI 2.1 would be nice. We'll probably be forced to pony up $200 or more, but it would still be better than buying a new TV.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by HeatEquation

HDR10+ will become HDR12+ when consumer 12 bit panels start hitting the market.

Is there an official road map? Why not encode 12 bit masters right now as Dolby Vision does? 12 bit discs dithered to 10 bit for 10 bit panels via the HDR decoding chip would still be beneficial now. That's, again, what Dolby Vision does currently.

[HeatEquation]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Is there an official road map? Why not encode 12 bit masters right now as Dolby Vision does? 12 bit discs dithered to 10 bit for 10 bit panels via the HDR decoding chip would still be beneficial now. That's, again, what Dolby Vision does currently.

Highly debatable, and this theoretical benefit has not been seen in practice.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

I guess studios think 10 bit, 4:2:0 and apparent banding with HDR grading is "good enough" if they're going to be mostly using HDR10+.

Why they didn't make 12 bit, 4:2:2 or greater mandatory from the get go is baffling, but the industry always has made dumb choices for the sake of expediency and various other factors.

Because without larger storage capacity and/or even more efficient compression then they had to make compromises somewhere. DV requires a nominal 25% increase in bandwidth atop the HDR10 layer to achieve its 12-bit (and reportedly 4:2:2) output for UHD disc but laying down 12-bit 4:2:2 4K directly onto disc is a different proposition. It's eminently possible but it might just take up too much space, perhaps the movie would be okay but alternate languages etc would be out the door and that was a key concern of the BDA's back when they were still umming and aahing over 100GB replication.

Besides, you wanna blame anyone, blame Dolby. ST 2084 is their creation after all, making it open source for everybody to share. They're like a crack dealer doling out freebies to get the kids hooked. You create your market, then you hit them with your premium A-grade gourmet shit...only Dolby didn't figure on their supply chain getting all fouled up, and unless they sort it out quickly then that sly Korean mother****er down the block is gonna swoop in and steal their bidness. Psst! Kid? You wanna try some of this HDR10+? It's real good man, cheap as chips and it'll give you a hit almost as good as that Dobly shit!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by HeatEquation

Here is another thing that supports my prediction:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc.../#5de9714314da

The cost and straightforward aspect of the content creation should entice other studios as well (WB rumored to be among them.)

I see Big John also heard from Florian Freidrich that putting both HDR10+ and DV on one disc wasn't easily doable, as I thought it might not be, but he's talking about it in terms of disc space which is strange at first glance. Yes, Dolby's extension layer is 1920x1080 so in simple terms that's a quarter of the size of the main feature that you have to add on, but if HDR10+ is just metadata atop a regular HDR10 base layer then that will only take up a fraction more bandwidth.

So if you've budgeted your bits properly (oo-er missus) to include DV then including HDR10+ should be a cinch...unless you really DO have to master your HDR10 layers separately for each dynamic format for the reasons I explained (badly) here:

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

When you're doing a Dolby Vision pass for UHD Blu then the HDR10 layer is a fundamental component of how it all works, being both derived from and the technical basis for the proper Dolby Vision output. Point being, the HDR10 layer is created from the Dolby original, it's an intrinsic part of that chain so where does HDR10+ fit in re: the creation of its own metadata from source in that specific environment? I suppose the tech gurus could take the same HDR source master (not the DV/HDR10 offshoots) and run that through their HDR10+-O-Matic to create their own metadata, but seeing as the HDR10 layer has already been trimmed from the Dolby master specifically then the HDR10+ data could be making choices not best suited to the Dolby-derived base layer.

I know that's as clear as mud, I'm even confusing myself, but I just think that the HDR10+ workflow would be FAR cleaner if dealing with a freshly graded HDR10 base layer that's its own thing and not an offshoot from the Dolby master. Yes, I also know that with everything on there then everybody wins but it sounds like too much hassle to me with far greater potential for mistakes.

I do think Archer's getting slightly panicky over it for no good reason though. Yes, it may well end up as a format war of sorts but come on: how many video format wars over the years still had a 'base' version on the competing formats that was playable on BOTH sets of competing gear? I understand what he's saying, that having competing 'luxury' formats rather than one basic format/one luxury format means that the 'luxury' becomes the standard that people expect, but at the same time so much of what HDR does is still up in the air anyway, as Peter attested to above, so adding just a lil' bit more consumer confusion is par for the course. And as displays get better and better then their handling of static HDR10 itself will only improve.

[Staying Salty]

Originally Posted by HeatEquation

The HDMI 2.1 upgrade via a new OCB is intriguing. I'd settle for HDR10+ over HDMI, but the full HDMI 2.1 would be nice. We'll probably be forced to pony up $200 or more, but it would still be better than buying a new TV.

Why would you pay $200 or more just to view HDR10+ content?

[HeatEquation]

Originally Posted by Staying Salty

Why would you pay $200 or more just to view HDR10+ content?

HDMI 2.1 would bring a lot more than just HDR10+ over HDMI.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by HeatEquation

The HDMI 2.1 upgrade via a new OCB is intriguing. I'd settle for HDR10+ over HDMI, but the full HDMI 2.1 would be nice. We'll probably be forced to pony up $200 or more, but it would still be better than buying a new TV.

But how can it be full HDMI 2.1? You have HDMI 2.1 cables? 8K display?

Originally Posted by Staying Salty

Why would you pay $200 or more just to view HDR10+ content?

This is a interesting question to consumer interest, kinda like will it be that desirable. After all its only streaming, and yes you will have some improved video presentation, but is it worth it. Going from 1080P to streaming content with 2160P + HDR is a nice step up, this would be a much smaller step. Yes Samsung enthusiasts would bite, would you?

[Staying Salty]

Originally Posted by HeatEquation

HDMI 2.1 would bring a lot more than just HDR10+ over HDMI.

Ok, I need an education. I thought you only needed HDMI for a player to view video content.

[HeatEquation]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

But how can it be full HDMI 2.1? You have HDMI 2.1 cables? 8K display?

This is a interesting question to consumer interest, kinda like will it be that desirable. After all its only streaming, and yes you will have some improved video presentation, but is it worth it. Going from 1080P to streaming content with 2160P + HDR is a nice step up, this would be a much smaller step. Yes Samsung enthusiasts would bite, would you?

I'd purchase 2.1 cables if need be, though they aren't required for all features.

Your second paragraph makes no sense. The 2016 TVs are already guaranteed to get HDR10+ support for streaming and USB. The only question is if they can display it over HDMI with the current HDMI chipset. If they can't, then a new One Connect Box will take care of that, in which case we'll have the ability to watch HDR10+ discs when they come out (and it will also likely add the full HDMI 2.1 spec.)