HDR Discussion Thread

[sapiendut]

This dual stacked LCD have been talked about for more than a decade. I first heard about it at Dolby booth at CES 2008 (or earlier). This is when their booth was essentially mext to DTS at South Hall of LVCC

[Gillietalls]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

This dual stacked LCD have been talked about for more than a decade. I first heard about it at Dolby booth at CES 2008 (or earlier). This is when their booth was essentially mext to DTS at South Hall of LVCC

Make me wonder what's taken it so long to be used for consumer TVs. Energy constrictions? I know pro grade monitors have been using this for some time now...

[sapiendut]

I think it’s the cost and production yield for large sized screens.

[Geoff D]

Sony are switching to it for their BVM-X300 successor, the HX310, but that is indeed a smaller screen size and will cost a good 20-30 grand. In much the same way that the X300 had a true RGB OLED panel which is off limits for large-screen consumer OLED - none of this white sub-pixel malarkey - the dual-panel tech in the HX310 won't be seen in a consumer Sony model any time soon.

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

So news channels are unreasonable viewing? I have the YouTube logo burnt into the picture. Is YouTube unreasonable viewing? Especially seeing as the YT app comes with the TV.

Having several displays for various specialised uses I think is the way to go.
I use my tablet for soap operas (FOX & CNN), and my OLED for 4K content, and LED for 3D and documentaries.

For movies there are home theaters and public theaters. ...With full picture & sound.

Between all, the world is as flexible as there are people inside of it.
Too serious or not enough serious ... right in the middle.

[LordoftheRings]

Penton-Man must be proud of us; he can relax now and have a normal life with his family.

[Scarriere]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

Having several displays for various specialised uses I think is the way to go.
I use my tablet for soap operas (FOX & CNN), and my OLED for 4K content, and LED for 3D and documentaries.

For movies there are home theaters and public theaters. ...With full picture & sound.

Between all, the world is as flexible as there are people inside of it.
Too serious or not enough serious ... right in the middle.

Got any pics?

[mrtickleuk]

Originally Posted by PaulGo

R.I.P. OLED?

Fear and Trembling: LG Display faces the axe for OLED burn-in and market squeeze

After seven years of ignoring the warning signs,

"IGNORING" the warning signs? That's a completely ridiculous thing for them to write! Terrible journalism.

LG shouldn't have been making and selling OLED TVs by that logic. LCD isn't any good, plasma isn't possible to make any more, so let's have some nice heavy 85" 4K HDR CRTs.

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by Scarriere

Got any pics?

Did you thank few arrogant members who keep insulting me.
Then take a rest. The dating advice thread might provide you with pictures of your real interest.

[Robert Zohn]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

While good contrast is a fundamental cornerstone in getting good HDR, it's disingenuous to claim that it is the [I]only[/I] thing needed for good HDR because it's a system built that is built around absolute luminance. That's a fact, and all these things like dynamic metadata and HDR Optimisers are merely agents of compromise when you really stand back and analyse them.[/B]

The same is very much true in the reverse though, that it's not solely about high luminance either, and contrast is perhaps still the most important part of the equation but this is why having a combination of great contrast and great brightness unfettered by ASBL and ABL is the utimate goal for HDR and is why I wouldn't trade my ZD9 for anything right now; I'd rather have good contrast and great luminance rather than great contrast and good luminance. Of course it's flawed up the wazoo, it's an LCD TV, but time after time after time I keep watching stuff on it and it still takes my breath away (do I get a point for a Top Gun reference?), it's extraordinary how over-engineered this TV was at the time.

HDR is built around the a larger dynamic tonal range and not about how bright your display can reach. I beleive video experts would agree that an HDR image that can reach down to 0 luminance and have a max luminance of 800 nits and show all 1096 of the luminance levels will delievr a far better and be closer the the original content with a more dimensional and detailed image reporduction than a display that starts with elivated blacks and can hit 1,800 nit peak luminance. OLED displays have a higher and more natural contrast ratio that the highest peak LCD luminance TVs.

Panasonic's HDR Optomiser is very well engineered to perfectly follow the EOTF PQ curve. So when you see the tone mapped image that faitfully follows the EOTF PQ curve and that matches the luminance capibility of your display you would have to agree that this is the real deal. Dynamic Metadata is a critical element of reporducing HDR in home systems.

We differ on this one; I'd rather have great contrast that starts at 0 luminance that can go to 800 nits luminance rather than lower contrast contrast and very high peak luminance.

We agree on the excellent picture quality of Sony's Z9D, in fact, I beleive it's the best LCD TV of all time and is amazing it's a 2016 TV. Thankfully Sony put the Backlight Master Diver in the 2019 Z9G.

[PaulGo]

Originally Posted by Robert Zohn

HDR is built around the a larger dynamic tonal range and not about how bright your display can reach. I beleive video experts would agree that an HDR image that can reach down to 0 luminance and have a max luminance of 800 nits and show all 1096 of the luminance levels will delievr a far better and be closer the the original content with a more dimensional and detailed image reporduction than a display that starts with elivated blacks and can hit 1,800 nit peak luminance. OLED displays have a higher and more natural contrast ratio that the highest peak LCD luminance TVs.

Panasonic's HDR Optomiser is very well engineered to perfectly follow the EOTF PQ curve. So when you see the tone mapped image that faitfully follows the EOTF PQ curve and that matches the luminance capibility of your display you would have to agree that this is the real deal. Dynamic Metadata is a critical element of reporducing HDR in home systems.

We differ on this one; I'd rather have great contrast that starts at 0 luminance that can go to 800 nits luminance rather than lower contrast contrast and very high peak luminance.

We agree on the excellent picture quality of Sony's Z9D, in fact, I beleive it's the best LCD TV of all time and is amazing it's a 2016 TV. Thankfully Sony put the Backlight Master Diver in the 2019 Z9G.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There are many factors that should influence buying an OLED vs an LCD. Does one want a brighter picture? Is the room the TV in dark or bright? The content that will be watched (which could cause burn-in). Price - the cost of a large OLED TV can be prohibitive.

As the quality of LCD TVs improve can LG keep the costs down to stay competitive? To a large degree OLED TVs are a niche product which will never be sold in mass quantities so will enough consumers purchase this for LG to stay profitable and continue its manufacture?

[LordoftheRings]

What kind of display the majority of professional movie reviewers use for their 4K Blus? They sure know best they are video experts.
And what says the professional 4K UHD/HDR ISF/THX video certified calibrators?
They sure know best they are video professionals.

And Robert here who have flat panel shootouts for how many years now?

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by DJR662

I read about this dual stacked LCD tech. It sure seems very interesting but I don't think we'll be seeing this in stores in the near future. Although Hisense is apparently releasing their ULED XD in China, so who knows what might happen when/if other manufacturers follow suit...

Originally Posted by sapiendut

This dual stacked LCD have been talked about for more than a decade. I first heard about it at Dolby booth at CES 2008 (or earlier). This is when their booth was essentially mext to DTS at South Hall of LVCC

This new article ...
▪ https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-t...-oled-tvs/?amp

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Robert Zohn

HDR is built around the a larger dynamic tonal range and not about how bright your display can reach. I beleive video experts would agree that an HDR image that can reach down to 0 luminance and have a max luminance of 800 nits and show all 1096 of the luminance levels will delievr a far better and be closer the the original content with a more dimensional and detailed image reporduction than a display that starts with elivated blacks and can hit 1,800 nit peak luminance. OLED displays have a higher and more natural contrast ratio that the highest peak LCD luminance TVs.

Panasonic's HDR Optomiser is very well engineered to perfectly follow the EOTF PQ curve. So when you see the tone mapped image that faitfully follows the EOTF PQ curve and that matches the luminance capibility of your display you would have to agree that this is the real deal. Dynamic Metadata is a critical element of reporducing HDR in home systems.

We differ on this one; I'd rather have great contrast that starts at 0 luminance that can go to 800 nits luminance rather than lower contrast contrast and very high peak luminance.

We agree on the excellent picture quality of Sony's Z9D, in fact, I beleive it's the best LCD TV of all time and is amazing it's a 2016 TV. Thankfully Sony put the Backlight Master Diver in the 2019 Z9G.

Absolute luminance is just that: a set of code values which the content has been mastered specifically to hit and anything less is a compromise. A well-engineered compromise in certain cases, but a compromise nonetheless. You keep referencing how well the Optimiser works to retain colour volume but why would it have to do that AT ALL if the tonal range wasn't being compromised during the tone mapping of peak brightness? Dude, that's just how the PQ EOTF works, that's just how tone mapping of that EOTF works when it comes to greatly chopping down the luminance and thus all the colour volume that this 10k-nit 'container' has.

As I said above I'm not willy waving exclusively for one or the other, it's about having BOTH contrast and luminance to truly get the best possible HDR representation as mastered at source, in an ideal world there would literally be no tone mapping required if all HDR displays could do what the master display does. But they don't, so here we are. And consumer OLEDs do better at managing tones in darker parts of the image, LCDs do better at managing tones in the brighter parts of the image, as nicely summed up in this SMPTE slide:



All things being equal, if we got the perfect TV tomorrow that did 4k nits and "perfect" black with no ASBL or ABL then you'd get a lot more experts raving about the HDR luminance as well as everything else. The ultimate aim for HDR is to get a colour volume that is as TALL as it is WIDE, this image is also from that SMPTE webinar by Lars Borg:

[Show spoiler]

But right now most people in this field are so deathly afraid of losing their credentials (the ones that still have any left, lol) in the eyes of the professional cognoscenti and their dogmatic worship of OLED that they'll just continually dismiss luminance out of hand - particularly when given a rather fancy Band-Aid to cover up the loss of luminance - without realising it's a big piece of the HDR puzzle. In a few years' time I think that tune will change, though people like Vincent Teoh are brave enough to be stating stuff to that effect now, e.g. https://www.instagram.com/p/BxAMyYfA6xq/ and I believe he referred to himself as a "nits wh0re" after getting a look at the 4k nit Dolby Pulsar in action.

[sapiendut]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

What kind of display the majority of professional movie reviewers use for their 4K Blus? They sure know best they are video experts.
And what says the professional 4K UHD/HDR ISF/THX video certified calibrators?
They sure know best they are video professionals.

And Robert here who have flat panel shootouts for how many years now?

Technicolor and De Luxe use Panasonic OLEDs

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

Technicolor and De Luxe use Panasonic OLEDs

I think the questions were rhetorical, David.

LOTR, always so keen to stress his flowery 'live and let live' credo, that we're all in it together. Well, that is until he disagrees with someone, lol

[sapiendut]

LOL. I didn’t “get” it. Bahahahah!!!!

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

Technicolor and De Luxe use Panasonic OLEDs

Indeed, that was the point of my questions, David.
_____

Extra: https://imagingscience.com/

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I think the questions were rhetorical, David.

LOTR, always so keen to stress his flowery 'live and let live' credo, that we're all in it together. Well, that is until he disagrees with someone, lol

You can call me Bob, Geoff. We're here to have fun sharing and learning and humorously.
There are many styles here, that's the way it goes.

Please proceed, I enjoy the reads.

[MindBlank]

Hey everyone!

I have been reading up on HDR, to better understand what the actual hardware requirements are, and things are pretty clear to me, but there is one question I have that I've not found an answer to in white papers, articles, videos etc.

Let's take a scene - a hill with a sunny sky and a few clouds - simple. In HDR, (and let's assume no tone-mapping is required and the EOTF is 100% tracked in this scene), the hill is supposed to be at 200 nits (average) the blue sky at 400 nits (average) and the bright few clouds at 600 nits (average).

In this case, I understand the following (please correct me if wrong, this is why I am posting):

- On OLED displays this can be 100% achieved, theoretically without issues, as long as the panel can output 600 nits on the clouds. In real life, ABL might interfere screwing up highlights or even more, but otherwise, things will be displayed at the correct luminosity described above, right?

- On LCD displays, I fail to understand how the different luminosities can be correctly displayed IF the LCD is not FALD. If it's edge-lit with vertical dimming zones, I gather that it can't do this: It will ramp up the backlight to achieve 600 nits on the clouds, therefore skewing the luminosity of the 200 nit hill and 400 nit sky...

So, my question is: does HDR's metadata/general working principle specify on a pixel level its intended luminosity? And if so, does this work in real life with uniform brightness backlight?

Because, if not, then in the case of LCD displays, if it does not have FALD, you are getting more like a truncated version of HDR. The effect will be not completely lost, but definitely skewed. If it does have FALD, than it can correctly display luminosity levels for the scene.

I mean, this is really clashing in my head, since I am far away from an expert on this. I also understand that there is inherent luminosity with colors. I mean, the hill would be brown and the clouds white, so inherently will measure at different luminosity levels. So this is something I also don't understand how it ties in with HDR...

Sorry for the long post, but I appreciate if someone can make things a bit clearer in my head.