HDR is crayons

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Bvfilmreview

I still believe HDR to be unneeded alteration to a film that further takes it away from the intended experience. I have talked to a lot of cinephiles who believe HDR doesn't enhance a film, but instead hinders it. It's all opinion though, some people enjoy it.

You have it backwards. HDR actually makes home video look closer to film. It can make it pretty much indistinguishable. It’s the nits that are completely superfluous past a certain point.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

I wouldn't be surprised if ZD9 ended up as the last great LCD TV

ZD9 is the greatest LCD of all time, but LCD as TV technology is pure junk. The sooner LCD and all of its iterations go away the better. It’s almost as bad as front projection.

CRT<Plasma<OLED<?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

I wouldn't be surprised if ZD9 ended up as the last great LCD TV

As current tech stands, I'm inclined to agree with you. With the proliferation of OLED in recent years then I can see OLED taking over the big-screen market completely, at least from the major manufacturers. But if they can make mini/micro tech work then it might result in next-generation LCD performance. If only we could get the kind of double-layered LCD tech that certain mastering monitors use, two panels sandwiched together to deliver 1,000,000:1 contrast, but there's a reason why those things cost tens of thousands of dollars.

[Fendergopher]

Still looking forward to the day when solid-state self-emissive displays are available to consumers at a reasonable price. Should be entirely possible with consistently high yields, not that that's an easy task.

Let's just hope it's not a pipe dream.

[Crow]

Originally Posted by Bvfilmreview

I still believe HDR to be unneeded alteration to a film that further takes it away from the intended experience. I have talked to a lot of cinephiles who believe HDR doesn't enhance a film, but instead hinders it. It's all opinion though, some people enjoy it.

Well said.
I 100% agree.
HDR is, without a doubt, quite simply, a marketing gimmick.

[wxman2003]

Originally Posted by Crow

Well said.
I 100% agree.
HDR is, without a doubt, quite simply, a marketing gimmick.

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by Bvfilmreview

I still believe HDR to be unneeded alteration to a film that further takes it away from the intended experience. I have talked to a lot of cinephiles who believe HDR doesn't enhance a film, but instead hinders it. It's all opinion though, some people enjoy it.

What about colour photography? Man, what a gimmick that is.

Some things never change.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

Pure marketing. "HDR2000" on the Q9 sounds fantastic. The reality isn't as great.

I don't believe 2000 zones will cut it on large screens, even if that'll be great for smaller sizes. It sounds a lot, but on a 65" screen for example with 4k pixel count it's potentially still going to cause visible halos and the dimming could still be overdone. Early days, we'll see how it develops.

Each zone would be about about 64 x 114 pixels if 16:9 shaped. ~1" x 1.75" in a 65"

[nick4Knight]

And we're back to good old HDR is crayons status. Cool...

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

You have the same TV I had for 2 years and I would never said it's a bad HDR TV - it was very good with bright, colorful scenes, but with more demanding, contrasty shots - well, that's another story and sometimes even bias light couldn't help me with those bright "blacks"

I honestly never see bright blacks or blooming at all with my bias light on. I did tweak the gamma though, and it probably depends on the panel and the eyes. Anyway I'm not gonna try and say an edge-lit set from 2016 is the best thing out there, my main point was there are great TVs that aren't OLEDs and OLEDs are still behind in a few areas like peak nits, which does make a difference with HDR.

I'm looking to get a 2019 or 2020 OLED, depending on the nits they reach and any issues with near-black.

[brainofj72]

OLED is really exciting tech, but unfortunately the potential for burn-in is an instant dealbreaker for me and always will be. I know myself, and I know it will constantly bother me. I could maybe deal with lower peak brightness, but not that.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

OLED is really exciting tech, but unfortunately the potential for burn-in is an instant dealbreaker for me and always will be. I know myself, and I know it will constantly bother me. I could maybe deal with lower peak brightness, but not that.

I do hate that but I rarely play games and almost always on my PC monitor, so the only concern would be black bars on scope and academy ratio content. Hopefully I'd switch it up enough with full screen stuff to make that a non-issue? I'd read up on it a LOT before purchasing, that's for sure.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

OLEDs are still behind in a few areas like peak nits, which does make a difference with HDR.

I'm looking to get a 2019 or 2020 OLED, depending on the nits they reach and any issues with near-black.

Believe me, with pixel-level control and perfect contrast there's really no need for more nits, every light source or fire (torches in the dark scene with Rick and Evelyn at the beginning of Mummy Returns are perfect example) looks very bright and impactful. Bright, daylight scenes are even a little bit uncomfortable to watch in a dark room.

When it comes to above black details, this problem seems to be non existent on 2018 LG OLEDs, I tested many dark scenes and everything looked amazing.

Don't count on more nits in upcoming years, at least not until Samsung start to make their own OLED panels with Quantum Dots.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

Believe me, with pixel-level control and perfect contrast there's really no need for more nits, every light source or fire (torches in the dark scene with Rick and Evelyn at the beginning of Mummy Returns are perfect example) looks very bright and impactful. Bright, daylight scenes are even a little bit uncomfortable to watch in a dark room.

Fair enough you believe that, but many tech experts disagree with you. Tone-mapping is great and all, but the closer you get to matching the mastered nits level the better. Considering I use a bias light anyway, and black levels aren't even on my pet peeves list really, it makes sense to wait for brighter OLEDs before switching since I love HDR so much.

[Agreach2]

I've been starting to feel the same way. I was very excited for 4k but have been pretty dissapointed. I recently got wreck it ralph on 4k and it was so dim about half way through the movie I put the regular bluray in and was much more pleased. Maybe its the few 4ks I have played or maybe its just my personal set up up or maybe im just turning into a grumpy old man lol but 4k is not what I hoped for. Im still holding out hope though

[Agreach2]

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've been starting to feel the same way. I was very excited for 4k but have been pretty dissapointed. I recently got wreck it ralph on 4k and it was so dim about half way through the movie I put the regular bluray in and was much more pleased. Maybe its the few 4ks I have played or maybe its just my personal set up up or maybe im just turning into a grumpy old man lol but 4k is not what I hoped for. Im still holding out hope though

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Tone-mapping is great and all, but the closer you get to matching the mastered nits level the better.

True, but on the other hand most movies' max CLL - even of those mastered on 4000 nits studio monitors - is still within OLEDs capabilities. Some titles go far beyond that, but they're minority as you know.

Of course in a perfect world we would see exactly what director, DP and colorist, just like in a perfect world everyone would have the same amazing, calibrated TV... Just imagine: a world without a single cringy post about HDR being stupid, gimmicky or looking worse than SDR

[Nothing371]

I wish this was a site that banned idiots for incorrect framing of the technology, TV-tech elitism, and ignorant bigotry. But alas, the trolls run amok.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

True, but on the other hand most movies' max CLL - even of those mastered on 4000 nits studio monitors - is still within OLEDs capabilities. Some titles go far beyond that, but they're minority as you know.

Of course in a perfect world we would see exactly what director, DP and colorist, just like in a perfect world everyone would have the same amazing, calibrated TV... Just imagine: a world without a single cringy post about HDR being stupid, gimmicky or looking worse than SDR

Eh, some people still just plain wouldn't like it. We're all allowed to have our own like and dislikes I guess.

[CarlosMeat]

I do think that HDR has serious issues. Different mastering nits ,displays all over the map in their capabilities, few getting any sort of calibration so we are seeing something close to the same thing.

I have a large projection system . I love it since it allows a level of immersion I just can't get from a panel. It only has 240 nits capability thus tone mapping gives me a reasonably pleasing HDR image yet nothing like an OLED in it's high nit capability to maximize HDR.

I was invited to see a projector with 21 million to 1 sequential contrast and 60,000 lumens displayed on a 20 screen. For the first time I saw what HDR and a gigantic size image could look like...everything in one box. Well , a wet dream really. The problem as you might imagine is the price....quite a bit more than my home.

For me until I have something like I saw there I will have to watched an HDR image that is quite compromised.