HDR Discussion Thread

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

....Have a great weekend.

We did . Dem dogs, like me, were indifferent to the box score, as it was just cool to hang out and socialize on a pleasant evening.....

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

(as I know how much you videophiles count on your eyes to thoroughly enjoy this hobby, be it nit picking or not). Shingles can lead to vision loss….https://www.cdc.gov/shingles/about/complications.html

The CDC now recommends that folks 50 years and older get the Shingrix vaccine. Thing is, now several months later, insurance companies are beginning to cover the vaccine at no charge, e.g. http://rbgsocal.com/unitedhealthcare...tive-benefits/.

....with the same name.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

....I just posted in the last few pages about The Look (http://www.thelooklondon.com/) and Marquise Tech (http://www.marquise-tech.com/hdr.html) joining the HDR team.

And how could I’ve forgotten, from Pieter V’s neck of the woods….https://post.united4all.nl/
(https://united4all.nl/en/news/dolby-vision)

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

LordoftheRings, you’re the song man and I'm not certain of your tastes, but does that clip ^ remind you of the song from any movie?.....especially if one has lost their Mom to thee angels before her time.

¿ https://m.soundcloud.com/timjanssens...venture-begins
¿ https://m.soundcloud.com/timjanssens...y-tim-janssens
¿ https://m.soundcloud.com/timjanssens...aunting-beauty

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Nothing?
Think thousands and thousands of miles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hbc...ature=youtu.be

¤ https://m.soundcloud.com/timjanssensmusic/for-eternity

[edmoney]

First time visitor and poster to this thread. I originally posted something in the Oppo UPD-203 thread and was suggested to post here instead.

I have an LG OLED E6 (professionally calibrated) and just bought an Oppo 205 a couple of days ago. I’m considering watching UHD BDs without HDR, and here’s why. While I believe that fully realized HDR in theory is better than watching in SDR, my understanding is that all consumer OLEDs are not close to capable of hitting the full HDR brightness required to accurately display HDR content on the discs. Therefore, tone mapping is utilized as a way to compensate for that. But doesn't that still lead to a highly compromised picture (i.e. a much brighter picture forced into a dimmer display)? Add in the fact that tone mapping approaches vary highly by TV manufacturers and the fact that there is still no agreement within the industry on HDR standards, it seems that if I want to go for the most accurate picture possible (one where the display’s capabilities match more closely with the requirement of the content), it makes more sense to go with the most accurate SDR picture (even with its limitations) than a more compromised HDR picture.

Does what I’m thinking make sense or am I looking at it the wrong way? I'd be very interested in getting knowledgeable insights to help me understand what I’m gaining and losing by watching an HDR encoded disc converted to SDR by the player. Or is a compromised HDR picture still preferable to a well-done SDR picture if one cares about accuracy? Thanks – and please excuse any incorrect usage of terminology or concepts, as I’m new to HDR.

[LordoftheRings]

You have the best 3D/4K/UHD/HDR/ Dolby Vision OLED TV in the world.
You have the best universal 4K Blu-ray player in the world, supporting HDR10 and Dolby Vision.

You should be able to watch the best 3D movie experience, and to watch the best 4K UHD HDR Dolby Vision movie experience. You deserve the best because you have the best, anything less is not a valid option, in my opinion.

[edmoney]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

You have the best 3D/4K/UHD/HDR/ Dolby Vision OLED TV in the world.
You have the best universal 4K Blu-ray player in the world, supporting HDR10 and Dolby Vision.

You should be able to watch the best 3D movie experience, and to watch the best 4K UHD HDR Dolby Vision movie experience. You deserve the best because you have the best, anything less is not a valid option, in my opinion.

Thanks for the encouraging words.

But can you or anyone else explain why it's still better to watch in HDR than SDR given what I said earlier? So I believe that all HDR movies are mastered either to 1,000 or 4,000 nits. I think OLEDs top out at 700-800 nits? So doesn't that means that tone mapping would have to lower the Average Picture Level (making for a dimmer overall picture) to allow for the TV to fit the brightest highlights within the TV's limits? Also, LG and Sony (just to mention two examples) use different tone mapping strategies as evidenced by that HDTVTest video with the clip from Batman vs. Superman. The clip looks very different for the two TVs. So it seems like there's still a lot of guesswork on how to make HDR work for today's TVs. So while watching in SDR means you're losing out on some of the benefits of HDR, at least you can get much closer to watching an accurate version of the intended SDR picture. Or at least that's what I'm guessing.

[PaulGo]

Watch the movie both ways to see what you like best. What others think in not relevant since you are the one that needs to be happy. Brightness is only one factor with HDR you also get a much wider color spectrum. My TVs are limited in brightness but I prefer HDR.

[jibucha]

Originally Posted by edmoney

Thanks for the encouraging words.

But can you or anyone else explain why it's still better to watch in HDR than SDR given what I said earlier? So I believe that all HDR movies are mastered either to 1,000 or 4,000 nits. I think OLEDs top out at 700-800 nits? So doesn't that means that tone mapping would have to lower the Average Picture Level (making for a dimmer overall picture) to allow for the TV to fit the brightest highlights within the TV's limits? Also, LG and Sony (just to mention two examples) use different tone mapping strategies as evidenced by that HDTVTest video with the clip from Batman vs. Superman. The clip looks very different for the two TVs. So it seems like there's still a lot of guesswork on how to make HDR work for today's TVs. So while watching in SDR means you're losing out on some of the benefits of HDR, at least you can get much closer to watching an accurate version of the intended SDR picture. Or at least that's what I'm guessing.

This applies to UHD/Dolby Vision; it does not apply to UHD/HDR10.

No, the SDR range for both SDR content and HDR content remain the same.

Essentially, HDR is an extension the SDR range (100-nits) or (80-nits / 120-nits reference range) to that of the content (HDR grading/mastering of 1000-nits/4,000-nits/10,000-nits).

Tone-mapping is limited to the area or levels outside of the SDR range, specifically the additional HDR range; simple enough.

Tone-mapping, does not lower the APL. Tone-mapping simply manages the grading/mastering levels of content, adjusting the content levels to the available display levels, which vary. Meaning, it adjusts from the SDR range to the limit of the display, or throughout the HDR range. The SDR performance range is essentially consistent whether SD/SDR, HD/SDR or UHD/HDR.

HDR10

All bets are off. Computers do the adjustments, which are an incomplete application of HDR, etc. The lower/dimmer range you mentioned would be an example of UHD/HDR10 compromises, not of UHD/Dolby Vision improvements.

[jibucha]

Originally Posted by edmoney

First time visitor and poster to this thread. I originally posted something in the Oppo UPD-203 thread and was suggested to post here instead.

I have an LG OLED E6 (professionally calibrated) and just bought an Oppo 205 a couple of days ago. I’m considering watching UHD BDs without HDR, and here’s why. While I believe that fully realized HDR in theory is better than watching in SDR, my understanding is that all consumer OLEDs are not close to capable of hitting the full HDR brightness required to accurately display HDR content on the discs. Therefore, tone mapping is utilized as a way to compensate for that. But doesn't that still lead to a highly compromised picture (i.e. a much brighter picture forced into a dimmer display)? Add in the fact that tone mapping approaches vary highly by TV manufacturers and the fact that there is still no agreement within the industry on HDR standards, it seems that if I want to go for the most accurate picture possible (one where the display’s capabilities match more closely with the requirement of the content), it makes more sense to go with the most accurate SDR picture (even with its limitations) than a more compromised HDR picture.

Does what I’m thinking make sense or am I looking at it the wrong way? I'd be very interested in getting knowledgeable insights to help me understand what I’m gaining and losing by watching an HDR encoded disc converted to SDR by the player. Or is a compromised HDR picture still preferable to a well-done SDR picture if one cares about accuracy? Thanks – and please excuse any incorrect usage of terminology or concepts, as I’m new to HDR.

You want to 'always watch' in HDR, regardless any issues you might encounter; when available, especially in UHD.

If you really want to investigate what this is really about; acquire a few UHD/Dolby Vision titles and simply enjoy your movie(s). Doing so, you will learn more this way than any forums.

HDR (Dolby Vision) is more than 'theory', it's 'an experience' unlike any without it.

[puddy77]

Originally Posted by edmoney

First time visitor and poster to this thread. I originally posted something in the Oppo UPD-203 thread and was suggested to post here instead.

I have an LG OLED E6 (professionally calibrated) and just bought an Oppo 205 a couple of days ago. I’m considering watching UHD BDs without HDR, and here’s why. While I believe that fully realized HDR in theory is better than watching in SDR, my understanding is that all consumer OLEDs are not close to capable of hitting the full HDR brightness required to accurately display HDR content on the discs. Therefore, tone mapping is utilized as a way to compensate for that. But doesn't that still lead to a highly compromised picture (i.e. a much brighter picture forced into a dimmer display)? Add in the fact that tone mapping approaches vary highly by TV manufacturers and the fact that there is still no agreement within the industry on HDR standards, it seems that if I want to go for the most accurate picture possible (one where the display’s capabilities match more closely with the requirement of the content), it makes more sense to go with the most accurate SDR picture (even with its limitations) than a more compromised HDR picture.

Does what I’m thinking make sense or am I looking at it the wrong way? I'd be very interested in getting knowledgeable insights to help me understand what I’m gaining and losing by watching an HDR encoded disc converted to SDR by the player. Or is a compromised HDR picture still preferable to a well-done SDR picture if one cares about accuracy? Thanks – and please excuse any incorrect usage of terminology or concepts, as I’m new to HDR.

Originally Posted by edmoney

Thanks for the encouraging words.

But can you or anyone else explain why it's still better to watch in HDR than SDR given what I said earlier? So I believe that all HDR movies are mastered either to 1,000 or 4,000 nits. I think OLEDs top out at 700-800 nits? So doesn't that means that tone mapping would have to lower the Average Picture Level (making for a dimmer overall picture) to allow for the TV to fit the brightest highlights within the TV's limits? Also, LG and Sony (just to mention two examples) use different tone mapping strategies as evidenced by that HDTVTest video with the clip from Batman vs. Superman. The clip looks very different for the two TVs. So it seems like there's still a lot of guesswork on how to make HDR work for today's TVs. So while watching in SDR means you're losing out on some of the benefits of HDR, at least you can get much closer to watching an accurate version of the intended SDR picture. Or at least that's what I'm guessing.

If you are that concerned about a compromised picture, do not watch an HDR UHD blu-ray in SDR mode. It is also tone mapping down to SDR. The Oppo may be the best at converting to SDR, but it's still an algorithm that seems to change with every new firmware. So you are choosing between an inaccurate HDR image or an inaccurate SDR image. You can test this with one of the Shout Factory IMAX UBDs that has both an HDR and SDR grade on the disc; see how they are not exactly the same.

The only way to avoid tone mapping is to watch the SDR HD blu-ray, or find one of the rare movies that has an SDR UHD blu-ray.

LG OLEDs are used in a lot of mastering houses to evaluate home HDR grades. So you can rest assured that the display, even though it can't reach the most extreme highlights, is showing an image approved by many creators.

[edmoney]

Originally Posted by PaulGo

Watch the movie both ways to see what you like best. What others think in not relevant since you are the one that needs to be happy. Brightness is only one factor with HDR you also get a much wider color spectrum. My TVs are limited in brightness but I prefer HDR.

True, what I like should be more important to me than what others like, but I'm curious what is more technically accurate and why. It's similar to why some people will choose to calibrate their displays according to industry standards and others will just choose settings that are more pleasing just by eyeballing it. Does watching HDR with TVs that tone map mean sacrificing overall picture accuracy just to get greater dynamic range? Does the benefit of wider color gamut offset the overall dimmer picture that's created by tone mapping? Can one still get the benefit of wider color gamut on a UHD BD with HDR turned off or are the two tied together? Was hoping to get a bit of a technical explanation to these types of questions if anybody here knows the answers.

EDIT: posted this before I saw the preceding replies.

[jibucha]

Originally Posted by edmoney

Does what I’m thinking make sense or am I looking at it the wrong way? I'd be very interested in getting knowledgeable insights to help me understand what I’m gaining and losing by watching an HDR encoded disc converted to SDR by the player. Or is a compromised HDR picture still preferable to a well-done SDR picture if one cares about accuracy? Thanks – and please excuse any incorrect usage of terminology or concepts, as I’m new to HDR.

Your concerns are well founded (considerable confusion exists currently as to just what HDR is or is not).

What you are gaining, in UHD, is considerable; resolution - color - contrast - 10-bit/12-bit encoding.

What you are gaining, in HDR, is an extension of the dynamic range (both the black levels and the white levels), which properly implemented, results in remarkable improvement to the overall image. UHD/Dolby Vision - exhibits co-existing improvements to both dark and light areas, exhibiting an 'extremely natural and realistic' picture quality previously unattainable. It represents a quite comfortable viewing. Black areas will exhibit improved color and detail. White levels/range will be represented by 'dramatically improved highlights' unavailable in SDR.

SDR

If you really want to do a comparison (for yourself), simply acquire a UHD/Dolby Vision title (of your choice), which will include a HD/SDR copy of the same title, and compare them (for yourself); that should inform you more than any reading.

UHD/HDR (discs) down-converted to HD/SDR, represent an improved picture quality comparatively, to a native HD/SDR disc. This, for the obvious reasons of being an higher quality original source.

Dolby Vision

It's tone-mapping will prevent 'clipping of extreme levels of white', that color and resolution are maintained, 'within the capabilities of the display'; whatever it's nit-level capabilities, managing that range to the range of the original content. The improvement in color and contrast is compelling.

Regrettably, an 'compromised picture quality' in UHD/HDR10, is still an 'overall improvement' to HD/SDR picture quality. I engage in comparisons regularly for a variety of reasons, recently specifically with a focus on the relative merits of HD/SDR and UHD/HDR10.

This comparison an aside to, and in conjunction to previous UHD/HDR10 and UHD/Dolby Vision comparisons. UHD/Dolby Vision is obviously the best possible picture quality; unequivocally.

Accuracy is quite important; I agree. Unfortunately though, we currently have to endure the compromises of UHD/HDR10. UHD/Dolby Vision, of course, is not an compromise; by any measure.

Your learning status. Do not worry, do not concern yourself.

You're doing just fine. If you trust your eyes, on your system, which seems just fine; that it's 700-nits is irrelevant. I also, only have a 700-nit display. Additionally, I have seen many displays (2,000-nits range and 10,000-nits as well, which is the limit of current standards); you're not 'missing' as much as many indicate.

[jibucha]

Originally Posted by edmoney

Does watching HDR with TVs that tone map mean sacrificing overall picture accuracy just to get greater dynamic range?

no

absolutely not

[jibucha]

Originally Posted by edmoney

Does the benefit of wider color gamut offset the overall dimmer picture that's created by tone mapping?

"Tone-mapping does not create a dimmer picture".

Tone-mapping manages the 'highlights' from the SDR range, throughout and to, the HDR range; concurrently balancing the capabilities of the display with what is available in the respective content.

[jibucha]

Originally Posted by edmoney

Can one still get the benefit of wider color gamut on a UHD BD with HDR turned off or are the two tied together?

yes

Although there is an interactive aspect to their respective performance.

Question though.

Does your player allow this capability? I am currently unaware of any player that does this, but I know little of an Oppo features and functionality.

If your player does have this capability, and you're curious; simply compare for yourself; that's what i would do/recommend.

[edmoney]

Originally Posted by jibucha

regrettably, an compromised picture (UHD/HDR10) is still an 'overall improvement' to HD/SDR (i engage in comparisons regularly for a variety of reasons, recently specifically with a focus on the relative merits of HD/SDR and UHD/HDR10 as UHD/Dolby Vision is obviously the best possible picture quality (unequivocally)

accuracy is quite important (i agree) :: but, unfortunately we currently have to endure the compromises of HDR10 (Dolby Vision, of course, is not an compromise, by any measure)

Thanks for all of your helpful info. I have a question about Dolby Vision vs. HDR10. So everyone talks about how Dolby Vision is more robust and inherently superior to HDR10, and I can certainly believe it. However, my understanding is that one drawback associated with Dolby Vision is that many TVs can't be calibrated to it, whereas TVs can be calibrated to HDR10. My LG OLED was professionally calibrated last year, and the calibrator told me that he could't calibrate for Dolby Vision because there are no "golden reference files" for it. He suggested that if given the choice to watch a particular title in Dolby Vision vs. HDR10, I might be better off choosing HDR10 (despite the superiority of DV) because at least my TV is calibrated to it. Thoughts?

[gkolb]

Originally Posted by edmoney

Thanks for the encouraging words.

But can you or anyone else explain why it's still better to watch in HDR than SDR given what I said earlier? So I believe that all HDR movies are mastered either to 1,000 or 4,000 nits.
...

I'm disappointed that no one has pointed out the fallacy in this statement so you have a better understanding of what's going on inside the grading studio and the coding on the HDR10 disc.

Rec. 2020 is a container for the WCG and the HDR luminance values of the content (movie). 1,000 and 4,000 are merely the MAX values for nits for a particular container. There is not necessarily a relationship of the max container nits to the max nit scene in a particular movie. Goodfellas in HDR10 has been noted to only hit a max nit value of approx. 240 in the entire movie. Not sure of the container on that one, might be 1,000 (it's not in my possession).

On the other hand, if I recall Mad Max Fury Road HDR10 has some pretty high nit values for the flame scenes in the chase, I can't quote a number off the top of my head, maybe 800 or maybe over a 1,000. Your display will try to tone map what exceeds it's capacity, RARELY will you have an issue that lasts for longer than those few frames or maybe a scene.

I will concede that my Sony 65 Z9D probably doesn't roll off until 1,600 nits or so, so experiences vary with the display you have, zero blacks and no haloing with yours, higher top end with mine. Neither comment is a judgment of what we bought, it's just what each one is.

So you should jump into HDR10 and Dolby Vision with both feet because you have a GREAT display. DV should look fantastic, and if you have had your display calibrated for HDR10, then DV is just a better version of that (both were created by Dolby) that your set should handle just fine.

[jibucha]

reminder

"just watch and compare yourself, with your display/player - it really will teach you most of what you wish to know"

Originally Posted by edmoney

Thanks for all of your helpful info. I have a question about Dolby Vision vs. HDR10. So everyone talks about how Dolby Vision is more robust and inherently superior to HDR10, and I can certainly believe it. However, my understanding is that one drawback associated with Dolby Vision is that many TVs can't be calibrated to it, whereas TVs can be calibrated to HDR10. My LG OLED was professionally calibrated last year, and the calibrator told me that he could't calibrate for Dolby Vision because there are no "golden reference files" for it. He suggested that if given the choice to watch a particular title in Dolby Vision vs. HDR10, I might be better off choosing HDR10 (despite the superiority of DV) because at least my TV is calibrated to it. Thoughts?

Calibration of HDR

Actually, as I currently see it, neither are generally being 'accurately calibrated'; sparks are about to fly. So, it's not an issue to be concerned with at this point in time. UHD/HDR10 is certainly further along in this regard, and UHD/Dolby Vision is certainly further into the future.

While i am aware of a few 'high level' professional calibrators that currently can 'accurately and successfully' calibrate for either of these formats, the likelihood of engaging one of them is more than a bit 'unlikely'. It will be years before the necessary calibration support for the various HDR formats will generally be properly implemented by 'most professional calibrators'.

Just because your display is not calibrated for UHD/Dolby Vision, does not mean that you are experiencing a 'less than ideal picture quality' of UHD/Dolby Vision. Fact of the matter, is that Dolby and the manufacturer 'cooperatively' do in fact provide a calibration of UHD/Dolby Vision. Why anyone engaged in information exchanges in this regard would not be aware of this fact, is both confusing and concerning, especially a professional in calibration.

This is one of the primary advantages of Dolby Vision, that is almost completely ignored; it's comprehensive 'end-to-end' workings from content creation to the end user display of that 'same' content. Definitively, this preoccupation with 're-calibration' of UHD/Dolby Vision, which is essentially 'already calibrated', is without merit, contributing to extensive misunderstandings of this aspect of UHD/Dolby Vision.

The advice that you received from the calibrator you referenced is complete nonsense; I could not disagree more. The inherent limitations/flaws of UHD/HDR10, whether calibrated or not, are nowhere near the inherent performance level of picture quality that UHD/Dolby Vision provides 'as is', whether 'further' calibrated or not.

Any calibrator today should be informing consumers just how good their respective display performance is 'without calibration' compared to previous years. Displays currently available without professional calibration, are significantly better adjusted 'out of the box' than is commonly known, which any professional calibrator should be well aware of.

This is not intended to diminish the value of a 'true' professional calibration to 'industry video standards', which after all nonsense, will provide the definitive best possible picture quality performance available from each respective display; done properly.

In closing, given that you already have a calibration (hopefully his calibration is better than his advice) and the equipment that you indicated owning, you are so close to where you are trying to get that it's fair to say "you're already there" and should simply relax and enjoy. Essentially, you already have what you are seeking, and the only thing missing is you do not know it, and no-one is informing you that this is so. Although I am.

"for what its worth"

I currently have two identical players (one with UHD/HDR10 and the other with UHD/Dolby Vision), and also currently use an LG OLED 55C7P display for comparisons. There is simply no way that any display calibrated to UHD/HDR10 can compete with the picture quality of 'any' UHD/Dolby Vision display (uncalibrated?). UHD/Dolby Vision is 'that much better'!

[MelonGx]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

That’s beyond the scope of my experience, perhaps one of the PC/madVR guys can help you out.

Self-tested the MadVR Exclusive mode.
For graphic cards support HDMI 2.0 output, exclusive mode does enable the HDR on SONY 75Z9D.
But for internal graphic (UHD630) 's HDMI 2.0 output, it's still impossible to enable the HDR on SONY 75Z9D.
Thanks anyway.