List of UHDs that contain HDR10+

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's not any different from standard HDR in terms of the visuals at source, the only difference is that it comes with content-derived metadata that allows the TV to tone map it more accurately.

Do you actually have a HDR10+ compatible TV and UHD player?

I think there is more to this. For one, dynamic metadata doesn't do a lot for "tone mapping" per se. The display has to know what it is capable of and then exactly what the content is. With Dolby, there is a file upload that tells the Dolby processor in the display exactly what it can do, so the metadata helps. With a HDR10+ display, it has to have something similar that outlines the displays capability and then what to do for content above that. If the tone mapping inside the display is already aware of its peak limitation, the tone map may not be that different. It doesn't do much for the bulk of the content anyway, because PQ is absolute, so it shouldn't change all the way from 0 to the point where the tone map starts to roll. This is why there isn't a lot of difference in most content between the formats.

But what HDR10+ and DV do allow is for a FAR more intelligent dynamic contrast system. I've mentioned this is why Samsung was hot to trot on this in the first place. By including scene by scene data, you know EXACTLY where the dynamic backlight and any gamma manipulation should be set for instead of guessing on the fly, which leads to pumping artifacts and other gamma issues.

We also don't know how accurate the numbers actually are for HDR10+, because they were ANYTHING but accurate for HDR10. Without a way to look at them, for all we know there aren't any at all, or not on a frame by frame basis.

I think people expect bigger differences with different formats than there really are or should be. It is only the most difficult cases that will likely show differences, and even then you may need to see something side by side to show the differences clearly. Plus most content on the market is still relatively low in peak output, so with a lot of the displays out there, tone mapping isn't even required, or the amount that actually IS tone mapped is VERY small. You'd probably see color luminance differences before you'd see tone map differences, and even then it would require side by side comparisons most likely.

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Interesting, so the passthrough isn't actually adding a specific DV/10+ compatibility feature, it's just letting the signal through as unmolested as possible?

Bingo! But most AVRs don't have a pure unmolested video pass thru because of overlays, OSDs and other stuff.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

I think there is more to this. For one, dynamic metadata doesn't do a lot for "tone mapping" per se. The display has to know what it is capable of and then exactly what the content is. With Dolby, there is a file upload that tells the Dolby processor in the display exactly what it can do, so the metadata helps. With a HDR10+ display, it has to have something similar that outlines the displays capability and then what to do for content above that. If the tone mapping inside the display is already aware of its peak limitation, the tone map may not be that different. It doesn't do much for the bulk of the content anyway, because PQ is absolute, so it shouldn't change all the way from 0 to the point where the tone map starts to roll. This is why there isn't a lot of difference in most content between the formats.

But what HDR10+ and DV do allow is for a FAR more intelligent dynamic contrast system. I've mentioned this is why Samsung was hot to trot on this in the first place. By including scene by scene data, you know EXACTLY where the dynamic backlight and any gamma manipulation should be set for instead of guessing on the fly, which leads to pumping artifacts and other gamma issues.

We also don't know how accurate the numbers actually are for HDR10+, because they were ANYTHING but accurate for HDR10. Without a way to look at them, for all we know there aren't any at all, or not on a frame by frame basis.

I think people expect bigger differences with different formats than there really are or should be. It is only the most difficult cases that will likely show differences, and even then you may need to see something side by side to show the differences clearly. Plus most content on the market is still relatively low in peak output, so with a lot of the displays out there, tone mapping isn't even required, or the amount that actually IS tone mapped is VERY small. You'd probably see color luminance differences before you'd see tone map differences, and even then it would require side by side comparisons most likely.

Whatever way you want to couch what dynamic metadata is doing to the image, this sort of content-led processing is vital in getting absolute luminance content to look as good as it can. That much we're agreed upon - BUT I ain't just talking about all the mega-showy light-blasting demo discs here, I'm thinking of all the low-nit low-APL SDR-esque titles that have been murder for lots of TVs to tone map correctly - and still are, if the wider reaction to Solo was anything to go by.

As you say, there's no reason at all why even the poorest HDR TV shouldn't be able to show something like Goodfeathers in its 247-nit entirety, but as the mastering metadata is showing 4000 nits then some TVs are taking that as gospel and smashing the shit out of the APL as a result. So it's not mapping the big bright presentations that worry me in this wider context, it's precisely the sort of unshowy content that El Royale represents that is in much greater need of it.

[Kris Deering]

Agree completely Geoff. If HDR and PQ worked as it should, Solo and stuff like Arrival should all look EXACTLY the same on ALL of the displays in terms of luminance levels. Contrast would be different obviously, but how dim or bright the image is should be absolutely identical. BR2049 is another perfect example. But some displays just look at the mastering data and see 4000 nits and then adjust their tone map. But even then, they should only be adjusting near the top end, it should be doing NOTHING to the first 100 or so nits, which is where the bulk of the image is anyways.

The Panasonic player would fix this issue since it actually changes the metadata the display sees specifically to avoid that issue. So if you use the Panasonic and select high bright LCD, it changes the metadata to 1500 nits so that the display tone maps to 1500 nits and Panasonic handles everything above that. So it is not only handling the tone map roll off, it is changing the metadata the display sees as well.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by ray0414

Disney in Japan is going hdr10+


https://www.phileweb.com/sp/news/d-a.../10/46249.html

this news is nothing to freak over about IMO.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

Agree completely Geoff. If HDR and PQ worked as it should, Solo and stuff like Arrival should all look EXACTLY the same on ALL of the displays in terms of luminance levels. Contrast would be different obviously, but how dim or bright the image is should be absolutely identical. BR2049 is another perfect example. But some displays just look at the mastering data and see 4000 nits and then adjust their tone map. But even then, they should only be adjusting near the top end, it should be doing NOTHING to the first 100 or so nits, which is where the bulk of the image is anyways.

The Panasonic player would fix this issue since it actually changes the metadata the display sees specifically to avoid that issue. So if you use the Panasonic and select high bright LCD, it changes the metadata to 1500 nits so that the display tone maps to 1500 nits and Panasonic handles everything above that. So it is not only handling the tone map roll off, it is changing the metadata the display sees as well.

I'm not so sure about the Optimiser's efficacy though Kris, I've put a reply in the 820 thread pertaining to that.

[Kris Deering]

Saw that. It should be perfect for HDR10 material though. I've talked to Panasonic's head engineer and he says that the player will NOT clip. So it should show to the full range the metadata says is there (as long as MaxCLL does not exceed mastering monitor, then it falls back to the mastering monitor). Be careful with test patterns. They show full range, but the metadata doesn't always support. And then there is whatever the display may be doing. Sometimes it is hard to separate them all out.

[TheSweetieMan]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

If it's so obvious why did you say it's a bigger joke now, genius?

In all seriousness, I'm not mocking the format because of what it's supposed to be--but rather, because of how it's being marketed from a business standpoint. It's random. There doesn't seem to be a central figure to keep the A/V public informed on not only how it distinctly works, but which titles actually have it. The fact that GITS: Innocence is encoded with HDR10+, but nothing about it was ever mentioned until what, a half a year after its release, is rather silly.

Personally, I've been long past the discussions and arguments about which format will be better, and which one will outlast the other; when truthfully, as Geoff already mentioned, if no compression/encoding anomalies occur from having both HDR10+ and Dolby Vision on the same discs, then there is no actual format war. Both will survive the long terms, alas DTS and Dolby on the audio front.

I'm just not partial to a format, or branding, that doesn't seem to have a central focus on what its intentions are for the future of the medium. Unlike Dolby, which even in its imperfections, at least has a very public, very focused, and centralized format that tells you ever conceivable step of how it's supposed to work. That, I can actually get behind, as I don't feel I have to dig through 900-different pieces of information, in order to stitch it all together, unlike HDR10+

Better?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

Saw that. It should be perfect for HDR10 material though. I've talked to Panasonic's head engineer and he says that the player will NOT clip. So it should show to the full range the metadata says is there (as long as MaxCLL does not exceed mastering monitor, then it falls back to the mastering monitor). Be careful with test patterns. They show full range, but the metadata doesn't always support. And then there is whatever the display may be doing. Sometimes it is hard to separate them all out.

It's not test patterns that I'm talking about in that case though, but with actual video content. And I know that the TV's settings aren't doing anything because it ignores metadata in general. I'm trying to work up some kind of visual aid as to what I'm seeing with each mode.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

Better?

Sure. Sorry if I was harsh. I do agree it seems like a weak-sauce effort still, I just thought it was odd to say it's more of a joke when they finally got their pants on and left the house a little bit.

Dolby honestly seems to have it all sewn up except everywhere but discs.

[TheSweetieMan]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Sure. Sorry if I was harsh. I do agree it seems like a weak-sauce effort still, I just thought it was odd to say it's more of a joke when they finally got their pants on and left the house a little bit.

Dolby honestly seems to have it all sewn up except everywhere but discs.

All good man. I wasn't trying to be a dick, either.

I could've contexualized my original post a bit better--but I did think that when I pointed out the fact that they already encoded a disc with HDR10+ over half a year ago and no one knew, it was me directing the laughs at how the format is being marketed as opposed to how it's being implemented.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

All good man. I wasn't trying to be a dick, either.

I could've contexualized my original post a bit better--but I did think that when I pointed out the fact that they already encoded a disc with HDR10+ over half a year ago and no one knew, it was me directing the laughs at how the format is being marketed as opposed to how it's being implemented.

Look at it this way: the Japanese are ALWAYS ahead of the curve, amiright? And seeing as HDR10+ playback in the display side of things has literally only just been implemented at the consumer level - pretty dang crucial, I'm sure you'll agree - then why make a big fuss about it being on these discs at the time, when no-one outside of a test lab would've been able to use the 10+ for the better part of six months? I just don't think it's as big a cockup as you think it is.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Look at it this way: the Japanese are ALWAYS ahead of the curve, amiright?

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

Bye bye DV

Originally Posted by Geoff D

While at the same time Panasonic adopts DV after years of saying they didn't need it, lolz

I could easily see the same thing happening to DV that happened to TrueHD and VC-1 on Blu-ray. Initially, there was a ton of VC-1 & TrueHD support but once mature software was released and adopted by authoring houses for more open A/V formats almost everything eventually swung to MPEG4 AVC & DTS-HD. HDR10+ should theoretically be a lot cheaper to utilize than DV and give a similar effect, so given corporations want to always maximize profit it seems like the likely endgame, especially since its seamlessly compatible with HDR10 which is the overwhelming standard of HDR compatibility.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

If the AVR/pre-pro already supports DV, it should pass HDR10+ with no issue. To support DV it has to be a pure passthru or else it messes with the metadata in the stream. It isn't doing anything special, just not touching it at all. So if it does it with DV, it shouldn't be any different with HDR10+. Be easy to try if you have a chain. I don't have a HDR10+ display to try it with.

That is good to know. I have a Marantz AV8802A processor which supports DV pass, so hopefully it works with HDR10+. I have no HDR10+ equipment to test (and might never have it since this is on a projector-based theater) but still good to know.

[Brian81]

Doesn't HDR10+ have less restrictive criteria than DV? That Dolby won't get involved with home video projectors because every setup will be different in regards to screens (in contrast to DV theaters which I'm assuming everything is controlled before being certified),whereas with TVs it is possible because the picture quality can be controlled? Not sure how to word this... If HDR10+ becomes possible with projectors, that could be a plus.. Even if it will be gimped to some degree.

[King Crimson]

Originally Posted by Ruined

I could easily see the same thing happening to DV that happened to TrueHD and VC-1 on Blu-ray. Initially, there was a ton of VC-1 & TrueHD support but once mature software was released and adopted by authoring houses for more open A/V formats almost everything eventually swung to MPEG4 AVC & DTS-HD. HDR10+ should theoretically be a lot cheaper to utilize than DV and give a similar effect, so given corporations want to always maximize profit it seems like the likely endgame, especially since its seamlessly compatible with HDR10 which is the overwhelming standard of HDR compatibility.

I believe this will eventually happen too, ''but but DV has so much support!" Its only year 4(just started) in the last few weeks more 10+ titles announced than DV, correct? And they announced the ZG9 will have 10+ Add Sony to the list.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Ruined

I could easily see the same thing happening to DV that happened to TrueHD and VC-1 on Blu-ray. Initially, there was a ton of VC-1 & TrueHD support but once mature software was released and adopted by authoring houses for more open A/V formats almost everything eventually swung to MPEG4 AVC & DTS-HD. HDR10+ should theoretically be a lot cheaper to utilize than DV and give a similar effect, so given corporations want to always maximize profit it seems like the likely endgame, especially since its seamlessly compatible with HDR10 which is the overwhelming standard of HDR compatibility.

But AVC was better than VC-1, they didn't switch because it was cheaper or whatever else it is that people have got into their heads about how HDR10+ works, either technically or politically. And DV has a fully backwards-compatible HDR10 layer (if not comprised entirely OF an HDR10 layer with a minimum enhancement layer) when on disc too, while streaming versions simply bust out whatever iteration the source device is telling the server it can handle. So that means DV is also fine with the "overwhelming standard of HDR compatibility" and means little if we're predicting the demise of one or the other.

And if Sony are getting involved with 10+ then, as with Panasonic, we'll have more TVs that support both and is another step on the rung to 'universal' HDR support. I keep mentioning Dolby and DTS audio co-existing over and over and over and over again and I firmly believe the same thing will happen here. Dolby isn't going anywhere in a theatrical sense either so they'll always have a foot in the door of the HDR ecosystem that they literally created (the PQ EOTF being their invention, in case people didn't know), unless HDR10+ cinema happens to become a thing? Samsung have got their giant LED screens, yes, but they won't become an ubiquity for years, if ever.

Why people have to be so tribal on these matters blows my mind. In a few year's time most new premium TVs will have DV and HDR10+ and all this dick-measuring can be put aside...well, until the next new thing comes along.

[Vangeli]

Seems like TV manufacturers are finally getting on board if only because of IMAX Experience discs. Samsung just isn't a brand anyone wants to work with, the only thing they could do was step back.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Ruined

I could easily see the same thing happening to DV that happened to TrueHD and VC-1 on Blu-ray. Initially, there was a ton of VC-1 & TrueHD support but once mature software was released and adopted by authoring houses for more open A/V formats almost everything eventually swung to MPEG4 AVC & DTS-HD. HDR10+ should theoretically be a lot cheaper to utilize than DV and give a similar effect, so given corporations want to always maximize profit it seems like the likely endgame, especially since its seamlessly compatible with HDR10 which is the overwhelming standard of HDR compatibility.

HDR10+ is not really cheaper, theoretically or not.
In any case, DTS:X is "open" and is it the defacto standard for object based audio? Which in turn has helped it lose the lead it had on 4K vs. Blu-ray.
DTS-HD MA & TrueHD have the same end result where DV & HDR10+ do not always since DV does have that 12-bit and individual shot tweaking capability which studios like Paramount & Lionsgate use on a regular basis. The HDR10 layer is just as "seamless" since the encoder outputs it automatically.