HDR Discussion Thread

[Staying Salty]

Originally Posted by HeatEquation

It still makes sense to say that HDR10+ would become the mandatory base layer, because it would mean that HDR10+ would be on every disc that contained HDR. It's more precise, and it would be a big deal.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...42&postcount=9

Have you had an epiphany and now support dynamic metadata in all its forms as it is a big deal??

If so.

[2themax]

Originally Posted by HeatEquation

And unlike others, you kept an open mind about Rudy's post.

I kept it professional but I don't agree with his information. Also notice that he uses if and could within his statement.

[HeatEquation]

Sounds like we've got a battle of the sources.

Will be interesting to see who turns out to be right.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by clem.s

Good to know that there are SMPTE members here!

For those who couldn’t make it to the respective presentation at the 2017 SMPTE conf, this paper (proposal for specifying color tolerances using the ΔICtCp metric for HDR and WCG imagery, rather than for instance ΔEoo ) has been recently uploaded and is similar – https://www.ibc.org/download?ac=3924

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by HeatEquation

If he turns out to be wrong, I'll consider disregarding his info from now on. Until then, given his track record, I won't pretend that the BDA is some secret society that a person who is well connected within the industry can't gain access to.

It’s not a “secret society”, but there are rules – and, to that point somebody should remind Rudy’s ‘sources’ that membership (general and contributor) in the BDA may be suspended or terminated by the Board of Directors in the event such Member has breached applicable internal rules of the BDA approved by the Board of Directors.

Blu-ray Disc Association
Summary of Antitrust and Confidentiality Guidelines

All our activities, communications and discussions must be only in the furtherance of this purpose, and we must comply with applicable antitrust laws at all times. Accordingly:
Each participant should make its own independent decision about how to implement the format or other competing formats;

Each participant should refrain from disclosing or exchanging any of its competitively sensitive information except where such exchange or disclosure is necessary for the BDA’s efforts to improve the format; and

Each participant shall observe all applicable competition laws and consult with appropriate counsel when needed.

All our activities, communications and discussions will take place on a confidential basis, subject to the confidentiality obligations set forth in the BDA Bylaws such that:
All confidential information will be kept confidential, unless expressly determined otherwise by the Board of Directors; and

No participant shall use or disclose confidential information in a way contrary to the Bylaws or without express, necessary permission to do so.

------------------------------------------------

Of course now if thee idea of HDR10+ becoming the mandatory base layer for Ultra HD Blu-ray is rooted in nothing but wild speculation unconnected to actual BDA activity and then perpetuated on the internet, then Rudy’s ‘sources’ have placed no one’s membership in potential jeopardy.

[Penton-Man]

A motivator for broadcasters…..
https://www.ibc.org/download?ac=3825

Geoff, Steed, do you know who’s playing in Fig. 5 ^?

[Geoff D]

I'm assuming that one of them is 1860 München, judging from the advertising hoardings. Nothing gets past Geoffy, no sir.

[Geoff D]

As for the paper itself, I've been saying from the start that the tone-mapped SDR out of these HDR 4K discs can still look much better in terms of dynamic range than the actual SDR versions, so I'm not surprised that broadcasters may be looking at that as a concept to deliver better SDR. Sure, applying a different EOTF means that unintended artefacts can result but they've got methods to manage this and hey, it's TV, so it'll always have one artefact or another baked in.

[edit] Admittedly I eventually had to get an HDR TV because the inconsistent mapping from title to title and the ruthlessly exposed artefacts on certain titles were like a steering wheel in my groin: they were driving me nuts. (Not that HDR has been 'set and forget', not by a long shot). But the point here is that if the tone mapping is controlled in a manner that's best suited to the content then you can counteract both the inconsistency and the artefacts.

[DanBa]

Originally Posted by lewlew

There seems to be quite a few young people here who were not around for previous wars.
Don't know how long a shake out period will be required for this to settle.
Sony Beta and VHS took a couple of years with product in both formats. Finally Ma and Pa picked the decidedly poorer technology VHS because more stuff was on VHS because more people bought VHS players because it was a less expensive player and more stuff was on VHS and the vicious circle finally swamped Sony.
Then Sony was so mad about BETA's demise when HD rolled around they went nuts with the propaganda, never mind HDDVD could be pressed on current DVD machinery with minimal additional cost and would not require completely new and different machinery. I don't remember there being any substantially better picture quality in HDDVD vs BR, but I do remember the expensive and hard to produce multilayer disks.
So today is more of the same without of course a product for the masses. Who in their right mind, other than AVSers would layout that kind of money for disks in either format and buy a new player on top of that.

Wouldn't surprise me to see them both go the way of 3D or curved screens.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lc...l#post55038126

Originally Posted by blade005

What you described above in both instances were 'Physical Media' format wars. Early adopters had to choose a 'Physical Media' player and you were at the mercy of the market and what eventually wins out as the more available and prevalent physical media format. (VHS v Betamax; Blu-Ray v HD-DVD)

NOTE: I am a 100% Streaming viewer with a TCL 55P605 Roku TV that supports HDR10 and DV. No physical media player connected.

Perhaps I don't understand the issues that having a UHD Player presents, but is this really a 'Format War'? Wouldn't the same content (HDR10, HDR10+, DV) come on the same physical media that will run on your UHD player and based on the supported HDR capability of the Player and your TV Display present the best possible HDR content? In any of these cases it will be a HDR quality picture. My limited reading seems to indicate that HDR10 is a base layer that HDR10+ and DV utilize. Based on your UHD Player and TV display you would at the very least get a default HDR10 quality picture, which is pretty nice quality. Same for streaming. Support for all three (3) would be nice, but if you have a HDR capable display, at the very least you will get a HDR10 quality stream. I guess my thought is that if these three (3) formats are going to battle it out, but I still get at the very least a HDR10 quality stream to my display, I don't feel like I have lost out.

Like a lot of things in electronics, this seems like more of a 'Marketing War' than a 'Format War'.

My $.02

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lc...l#post55063478

[Geoff D]

That's the way I see it too: there will be a baseline HDR10 version on all HDR discs so where's the "format" war exactly? This is way more like Dolby vs DTS back in the day (hell, they're still skirmishing today): very much a "marketing war" between competing AV encoding methods rather than formats outright, which usually ends up with the major systems getting accommodated in one bit of kit by the tech manufacturers. We're still not even two years into our collective HDR adventure, after all.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by DanBa

lol, isn’t that essentially what happens on a day-to-day basis between forum editors from AVForums, AVS, highdefdigest, HTF, etc., etc. in order to garner more readership, without ever (or rarely) acknowledging the merit of superior knowledge with regards to some news or other audio video topic expressed on their competitors’ sites?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

confidential

Whereas, for the SMPTE members here, input to the UHDTV committee of the fairly newly named American Society of Cinematographers Motion Imaging Technology Council (MITC) is welcome provided that it can be shared on a non-confidential basis.
Contact asc-uhdtv@d-cinema.us.

[StingingVelvet]

Some people are citing some Samsung marketing statements as evidence that "HDR+" mode is meant to be on with HDR, which is the total opposite of my belief. Any further evidence of this?

[TheSweetieMan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's the way I see it too: there will be a baseline HDR10 version on all HDR discs so where's the "format" war exactly? This is way more like Dolby vs DTS back in the day (hell, they're still skirmishing today): very much a "marketing war" between competing AV encoding methods rather than formats outright, which usually ends up with the major systems getting accommodated in one bit of kit by the tech manufacturers. We're still not even two years into our collective HDR adventure, after all.

This is why you've become one of my favorite members on here, despite a couple 'heated' exchanges in the past.

You're a bit more level-headed when it comes to the HDR debate.

Honestly, the recent remarks from artists like Roger Deakins, has kind of soured my taste on wanting a panel that has "THE HIGHEST NITS EVAH!"--which is another reason when I prefer what Dolby is doing compared to Samsung. You already have a format that not only utilizes dynamic metadata, but also comes future-proofed with 12-bit color, and is already capable of incorporating ICtCp. The idea of introducing yet another 'open source' format, with dynamic metadata included, still currently has limitations compared to Dolby Vision. It's wasted R&D, being funded by Samsung, who IMO, always go the cheaper route as it is, anyway.

Your comments about this not being a format war is also true. Even if HDR10+ becomes the industry standard, studios still have the option of including a Dolby Vision layer. This isn't entirely different from what they're already doing with static HDR10.

To me, this all feels like a ruse to get people buying into the silly idea of buying panels that will eventually be upward to 5,000, 8,000, and what I imagine will eventually be, 10,000-nits. Again, to go back to Deakins, even he finds that concept utterly ridiculous.

So that's where the benefit is with Dolby. They can already do frame-by-frame adjusting on panels with lower nits. I imagine HDR10+ will have the same effect. Particularly on the higher-end 2017 Samsung panels.

[Pieter V]

Philips next 2018 OLED TV's will support HDR10+ next year.

http://www.4kfilme.de/philips-4k-fer...18-hdr10-plus/

[HeatEquation]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Philips next 2018 OLED TV's will support HDR10+ next year.

http://www.4kfilme.de/philips-4k-fer...18-hdr10-plus/

Warner has also expressed interest.

[HeatEquation]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Some people are citing some Samsung marketing statements as evidence that "HDR+" mode is meant to be on with HDR, which is the total opposite of my belief. Any further evidence of this?

I don't think it needs to be on. I don't use it. Some people are saying it acts like "Active HDR" on the LG sets, in that it generates dynamic metadata for HDR10. That may or may not be true. It hasn't been entirely proven yet.

It doesn't help that the name is so similar to HDR10+.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Philips next 2018 OLED TV's will support HDR10+ next year.

http://www.4kfilme.de/philips-4k-fer...18-hdr10-plus/

Europe only. USA stays with Dolby Vision ( and no Philips oled in USA)

[DanBa]

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by ray0414

Europe only. USA stays with Dolby Vision ( and no Philips oled in USA)

I'm good with Dolby Vision, thank you very much