HDR is crayons

[Nothing371]

Originally Posted by TheButcherPlays

All movies I've watched with HDR Have been dark and unnatural. I dislike it. I find bluray to be more vibrant clear, and 4K has been disappointing. This is coming from a guy with a $500 4k player and a 4K HDR Dolby Vision television.

Do you think the problem is 'all movies'? Or could it quite possibly be your television set???

[78deluxe]

Originally Posted by Nothing371

Do you think the problem is 'all movies'? Or could it quite possibly be your television set???

Different person here, but I've found that I have to change my TV settings to get HDR to not get too dark.

I own a calibrated 65inch OLED, not exactly a low tier TV.

I'm also on the bandwaggon that HDR as it has been applied to most films released thus far is not natural across the spectrum.

Not that it doesn't have its own place. The expanded colors can be great, but the boost in contrast and artifical dynamic range betweens lights and darks frequently isn't film like at all.

[sonyfanboy]

Want to see 2001, or Lawrence, Ben-Hur, The Godfather, The Magnificent Seven, or Elvira Madigan in 4k?

No problem.

We're ready for it, and there's no reason why those films can't be released, except those which don't fit on the
current sized discs.

You’re wrong. Disney managed to fit Star Wars 8 on a 66GB disc. A 152min disc which has Dolby Vision, HDR and Dolby Atmos.


A 100GB disc could certainly fit 230 minutes of video with all of those features.

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by 78deluxe

The expanded colors can be great, but the boost in contrast and artifical dynamic range betweens lights and darks frequently isn't film like at all.

It's not "artificial" though. You mean to say it is more dynamic by default. The way the studios do it the scanned data (catalog film) is simply more revealed than SDR was previously. And during the 2K/4K DI phase the same is also true.

Being used to how that looks, and saying it's enhanced or fake is a different thing. And TV sets capability definitely feeds into the idea it's how its meant to look.

[Crow]

Originally Posted by TheButcherPlays

All movies I've watched with HDR Have been dark and unnatural. I dislike it. I find bluray to be more vibrant clear, and 4K has been disappointing. This is coming from a guy with a $500 4k player and a 4K HDR Dolby Vision television.

I'm in complete agreement with you.
I'm staying with 1080P Blu-ray, that's the way to go!
To not admit that 4K UHD Blu-ray releases have been a huge disappointment is disingenuous.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Crow

I'm in complete agreement with you.
I'm staying with 1080P Blu-ray, that's the way to go!
To not admit that 4K UHD Blu-ray releases have been a huge disappointment is disingenuous.

[lilboyblu]

Originally Posted by Crow

I'm in complete agreement with you.
I'm staying with 1080P Blu-ray, that's the way to go!
To not admit that 4K UHD Blu-ray releases have been a huge disappointment is disingenuous.

Then there’s this guy who, based on the bolded statement above, doesn’t even own any 4K discs or equipment. What proof are you supporting your “complete agreement” on?

[oddbox83]

Well, after upgrading to my 65" B8, I find Blu-rays very flat, even soft looking.

Mind you, some 4K titles can look pretty flat too. Solo, I'm looking at you.

[Brahmzy]

You guys with dim or dark HDR movies need to ditch your OLEDs and buy better TVs.
Pretty simple known fact.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Lol

[poke smot]

Sort of reminds me of all the 3d arguing back in the day.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Brahmzy

You guys with dim or dark HDR movies need to ditch your OLEDs and buy better TVs.

Week ago I made a jump from 55" Samsung KS7000 (it's an European version of US KS8000) to 65" LG OLED B8 and all I can say is that I can finally see, appreciate and be amazed by real HDR. Also I don't understand why people think OLEDs are too dark, when they're not. To me HDR (or picture quality overall) is not about nits, which is just a number, but about the CONTRAST.

I showed my mom a scene from Passengers in Dolby Vision on iTunes and she was overwhelmed by how beautiful it looked.

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

Week ago I made a jump from 55" Samsung KS7000 (it's an European version of US KS8000) to 65" LG OLED B8 and all I can say is that I can finally see, appreciate and be amazed by real HDR. Also I don't understand why people think OLEDs are too dark, when they're not. To me HDR (or picture quality overall) is not about nits, which is just a number, but about the CONTRAST.

I showed my mom a scene from Passengers in Dolby Vision on iTunes and she was overwhelmed by how beautiful it looked.

It’s about both. Saying nits is “just a number” is disingenuous, considering HDR grades are mastered at specific nit values, and the lower a TV goes beneath that mastering level, the more you have to deal with tone mapping (which is, uh, imperfect) to get to a somewhat representative visual experience.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

Week ago I made a jump from 55" Samsung KS7000 (it's an European version of US KS8000) to 65" LG OLED B8 and all I can say is that I can finally see, appreciate and be amazed by real HDR. Also I don't understand why people think OLEDs are too dark, when they're not. To me HDR (or picture quality overall) is not about nits, which is just a number, but about the CONTRAST.

I showed my mom a scene from Passengers in Dolby Vision on iTunes and she was overwhelmed by how beautiful it looked.

Originally Posted by brainofj72

It’s about both. Saying nits is “just a number” is disingenuous, considering HDR grades are mastered at specific nit values, and the lower a TV goes beneath that mastering level, the more you have to deal with tone mapping (which is, uh, imperfect) to get to a somewhat representative visual experience.

Your both right in your own way. I’m an OLED owner and feel it’s pleny bright. The real winner is the contrast and the perception of added detail. Specs are just that, it’s how content looks that matters but yes discs are mastered at a certain reference so viewing discs on a panel that isn’t reference will be a compromise.

[rroeder]

I watched about 30 UHD's on a 4K SDR tv and recently bought a 900F, I was not expecting that much of an upgrade but really wanted to see what HDR was all about. I've been amazed at the picture quality, the contrast, color, shadow detail or detail in dark scenes in general, the bright highlights during special effects really does add to the viewing experience.

This is also my first FALD display and I can tell a diff in regular HD content as well. When I watch my 4k SDR display now I can notice a diff the image does look flatter with less depth

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Your both right in your own way. I’m an OLED owner and feel it’s pleny bright. The real winner is the contrast and the perception of added detail. Specs are just that, it’s how content looks that matters but yes discs are mastered at a certain reference so viewing discs on a panel that isn’t reference will be a compromise.

Yeah, every consumer TV is gonna be some form of compromise, and we all have different priorities and preferences. I would really love it if people would stop throwing around inflammatory rhetoric about one tech being the “correct” way to watch UHD content.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

It’s about both. Saying nits is “just a number” is disingenuous, considering HDR grades are mastered at specific nit values, and the lower a TV goes beneath that mastering level, the more you have to deal with tone mapping (which is, uh, imperfect) to get to a somewhat representative visual experience.

But it is just a number. You can have a TV with 1500 or 2000 nits, but if it's an edge lit one you won't see HDR which is, just to remind, High Dynamic Range. In theory KS7000 is brighter than B8, but every time there was a scene that required dark and light at the same time, it ended looking flat and washed out.

Currently I'm watching movies mostly in dark room and sometimes this OLED is even too bright. I can't even imagine it being twice as bright to hit 1500 nits and with infinite contrast it's enough to my eyes.

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

But it is just a number. You can have a TV with 1500 or 2000 nits, but if it's an edge lit one you won't see HDR which is, just to remind, High Dynamic Range. In theory KS7000 is brighter than B8, but every time there was a scene that required dark and light at the same time, it ended looking flat and washed out.

Currently I'm watching movies mostly in dark room and sometimes this OLED is even too bright. I can't even imagine it being twice as bright to hit 1500 nits and with infinite contrast it's enough to my eyes.

And there’s more of that rhetoric I was talking about. I’m glad you’re happy with your OLED, but that statement is objectively incorrect.

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

It’s about both. Saying nits is “just a number” is disingenuous, considering HDR grades are mastered at specific nit values, and the lower a TV goes beneath that mastering level, the more you have to deal with tone mapping (which is, uh, imperfect) to get to a somewhat representative visual experience.

Though I would hope good tone mapping is pretty close to perfect. It shouldn't be clipping anything, just re-mapping the dynamic stops to the limits of the display. If it's losing any of the range, it's doing it wrong.

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

But it is just a number. You can have a TV with 1500 or 2000 nits, but if it's an edge lit one you won't see HDR which is, just to remind, High Dynamic Range.

I'm a proud OLED owner now, but that is nonsense. I had an edge lit LG 850V and it's lighting and dimming was a constant source of frustration to me, but it was HDR. Was, could and did.

My OLED kicks it into the long grass. It's true it was incapable of showing the breadth of colour and range my OLED can but to say my old LG didn't show me HDR at all would be an outright lie.