HDR Discussion Thread

[DanBa]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Why would Samsung pay more, raise prices, and get Dolby involved in their TV making when buyers mostly don't care about Dolby Vision? Samsung remains #1 4k TV seller by far without it.

Outside of this forum people largely don't care about Dolby Vision. If they did Samsung wouldn't be blowing away the competition in sales as they are.

Again the Dolby Vision licensing cost (only $3 per TV) is not significant for the consumers, who normally have to pay it, as well as for TV makers.

For example, the Sony Z9D doesn’t support Dolby Vision at launch.

Sony already made the announcement - no Dolby Vision support.
Someone mentioned that Samsung's dynamic metadata HDR10 proposal passed with the competent authorities and perhaps we will see something like a dynamic HDR update on the Z in the future, but this is pure speculation.
Nobody should buy this set expecting a DV upgrade in the future - it simply ain't happening.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lc...l#post46372345

Now, the Sony Z9D gets Dolby Vision with a free software upgrade.



Dolby Vision won’t go away, it’s just a piece of software on a TV.
It’s rock solid with all its supports: Apple, Google, LG, Sony, …

A list of major studios supporting Dolby Vision:




A list of Dolby Vision movies on iTunes:
https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.ph...&id=1505495519


A list of TV makers supporting Dolby Vision (also Dolby Vision is specified in ATSC 3.0):





Outside of this forum, people don’t care about Dolby Vision or HDR10+ or … .

They will just buy the HDR movie they want to watch, and they will expect that their HDR TV & AVR are able to play any existing format.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by DanBa

Outside of this forum, people don’t care about Dolby Vision or HDR10+ or … .

They will just buy the HDR movie they want to watch, and they will expect that their HDR TV & AVR are able to play any existing format.

If thats it then all they need is HDR10. (not even hdr10+). Again why most don't care about DV.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Ruined

So how are TCL's overall sales with Dolby Vision doing compared to Samsung's overall sales without Dolby Vision?

You can ask this question for any TV manufacturer supporting Dolby Vision and the answer in every case is bad news for Dolby Vision. It's pretty clear the general public doesn't really care much about Dolby Vision when buying a 4k TV.

4K in general's perception is low amongst the general public. HDR is even worse. So what's your point exactly? And why are you so invested in DV failing anyway?

[DanBa]

Originally Posted by Ruined

If thats it then all they need is HDR10. (not even hdr10+). Again why most don't care about DV.

But HDR10 is half baked. It is an incomplete HDR format (i.e. no color volume mapping / display adaptation specification).

Can we trust the industry which firstly creates an open standard HDR format (i.e. CTA HDR10 or BDA BDMV HDR =~ ST 2086 + ST 2084), then standardizes the missing dynamic metadata adaptation for consistent visual ST 2094, one of the 3 fundamental HDR building blocks.



As the industry is unable to reach a consensus on HDR, consumers should take over and push for universal HDR-compliant TV which shall be compatible with all existing and being standardized (i.e. via committed upgrade) HDR formats.

No more early-adopter industry-driven HDR TV incompatible with other HDR content, but consumer-driven universal HDR-compliant TV able to play any HDR content!

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/465-hi...-displays.html

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

4K in general's perception is low amongst the general public. HDR is even worse. So what's your point exactly? And why are you so invested in DV failing anyway?

I think HDR10+ is overall better for a number of reasons.

My main source is a projector and DV currently has nothing available for projectors. Because of its closed locked down nature there is nothing projector manufs can do. HDR10+ on the other hand could be developed for use with projectors since it's an open standard.

DV is also highly underutilized on UHDBD. This is likely due to cost because the tech has been available for a long time. I envision a future where it's financially feasible to put HDR10+ on nearly every release. DV has higher licensing and implementation costs per movie, which is likely a barrier for studios with some titles. Even Dolby admits this.

HDR10+ is backwards compatible with HDR10 (aka all current 4k projectors) on all sources. While DV is backwards compatible with HDR10 on UHDBD due to BDA requirement, DV itself by default falls back to SDR when not mandated.

DV is also a closed standard. I usually prefer open standards when they do the same thing.

Any minor technical advantages DV might have like 12bit vs 10bit don't outweigh the above points IMO.

[anthonyls]

DV is what SACDs were to music. Both formats were superior to anything on the market at the time... but the public didn't care. Sadly, DVs days are numbered. If you asked Joe Blow on the street what he thought about DV or SACDs, his response would be, "Huhh?"

[DanBa]

Originally Posted by Ruined

I think HDR10+ is overall better for a number of reasons.

My main source is a projector and DV currently has nothing available for projectors. Because of its closed locked down nature there is nothing projector manufs can do. HDR10+ on the other hand could be developed for use with projectors since it's an open standard.

DV is also highly underutilized on UHDBD. This is likely due to cost because the tech has been available for a long time. I envision a future where it's financially feasible to put HDR10+ on nearly every release. DV has higher licensing and implementation costs per movie, which is likely a barrier for studios with some titles. Even Dolby admits this.

HDR10+ is backwards compatible with HDR10 (aka all current 4k projectors) on all sources. While DV is backwards compatible with HDR10 on UHDBD due to BDA requirement, DV itself by default falls back to SDR when not mandated.

DV is also a closed standard. I usually prefer open standards when they do the same thing.

Any minor technical advantages DV might have like 12bit vs 10bit don't outweigh the above points IMO.

Regarding projectors, Dolby Vision and HDR10+ should have the same problem: how to determine the native color volume of a projector in order to perform a color volume mapping or adaptation for consistent visual.

HDR10 = PQ (without or with static metadata)
Dolby Vision = PQ + Dolby Vision dynamic metadata adaptation for consistent visual
HDR10plus = PQ + HDR10plus dynamic metadata adaptation for consistent visual

The Apple TV 4K can exclude the dynamic metadata from a Dolby Vision stream and output a HDR10 signal.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/465-hi...l#post55030904

[Penton-Man]

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=4097

^
Correctomundo ! and quite objective. I wonder if Miller doesn’t like polar bars either.

Anyway, video elucidation of Paul's post -
https://twitter.com/techinsider/stat...90316236910592

And a reminder to those feeling down about this or that - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C0D4ndt7jg#t=50s

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Ruined

I think HDR10+ is overall better for a number of reasons.

My main source is a projector and DV currently has nothing available for projectors. Because of its closed locked down nature there is nothing projector manufs can do. HDR10+ on the other hand could be developed for use with projectors since it's an open standard.

DV is also highly underutilized on UHDBD. This is likely due to cost because the tech has been available for a long time. I envision a future where it's financially feasible to put HDR10+ on nearly every release. DV has higher licensing and implementation costs per movie, which is likely a barrier for studios with some titles. Even Dolby admits this.

HDR10+ is backwards compatible with HDR10 (aka all current 4k projectors) on all sources. While DV is backwards compatible with HDR10 on UHDBD due to BDA requirement, DV itself by default falls back to SDR when not mandated.

DV is also a closed standard. I usually prefer open standards when they do the same thing.

Any minor technical advantages DV might have like 12bit vs 10bit don't outweigh the above points IMO.

^ The tech as a means for mastering at source has been around for a while, sure, but as an encoding/decoding system for UHD Blu specifically it's had its own hurdles to overcome. The encoding complexity of the HDR10 base + DV enhancement layer concept as employed on UHD Blu-ray (which doesn't just have to contend with that when considering the encoding issues of disc vs streaming: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...r#post14525078) has meant that there were few authoring houses equipped to handle it. And in order to be able to do so they have to get certified by Dolby first, which isn't so much a matter of cost as of time.

So when an outfit as respected as Deluxe only announced that they were capable of DV-on-disc authoring as late as October of last year (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...300537107.html), that shows how hard it's been to actually get this UHD Blu iteration up and running in significant enough numbers to be able to facilitate all the respective studios who want to use DV on disc. But Warners are finally starting to make a move, as are Paramount, while Lionsgate, Universal and Sony's support has varied from consistent to kinda spotty, in that order.

[Penton-Man]

Interesting.
I notice a lot of you guys are motivated to the business aspects of it all.
I’ve never worked in one, but Strategic and especially Tactical marketing departments promoting products/formats are highly competitive and the people there do make decent salaries.

Personally, I think I’ve always subconsciously respected those who started out in the trenches as engineers, be it in the field or what not -



and later on in their careers evolved into Directors or VP’s in what is essentially Strategic or Tactical as opposed to those trained solely or mostly in business/marketing principles because the former always seem to have a real core technical understanding of the products they’re trying to make a success and thusly I think make better decisions.

Anyway, being more of a techno guy and not very well nuanced in the business aspects, I can’t help but thinking in terms of the brand value/recognition of Dolby as in Dolby Vision compared to HDR10+ especially in the minds of those entering Best Buy stores and such who aren’t that well versed in high dynamic range, but interested in purchasing an HDR device.

[Ruined]

Main problem is dolby branding is almost entirely linked to audio.

Most people hearing Dolby Vision will likely think it makes sound visual or something [emoji23]

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Main problem is dolby branding is almost entirely linked to audio.
Most people hearing Dolby Vision will likely think it makes sound visual or something [emoji23]

And the reason why Dolby Cinemas are consistently sold out? That AMC is building them as fast as they can? That the "The Projector Is Still On" HDR demo still impresses?
Disney's premier El Capitan Theater highlights Dolby Vision in their mailers and website.

[Nothing371]

Originally Posted by Ruined

So how are TCL's overall sales with Dolby Vision doing compared to Samsung's overall sales without Dolby Vision?

You can ask this question for any TV manufacturer supporting Dolby Vision and the answer in every case is bad news for Dolby Vision. It's pretty clear the general public doesn't really care much about Dolby Vision when buying a 4k TV.

Taylor Swift is the best musician because she sells the most albums.

[Waboman]

Originally Posted by Nothing371

Taylor Swift is the best musician because she sells the most albums.

You just had to come in like a wrecking ball. Oh wait...

[JoeDeM]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Main problem is dolby branding is almost entirely linked to audio.

Most people hearing Dolby Vision will likely think it makes sound visual or something [emoji23]

Yes, but to the average person they will at least recognize Dolby, even though they might not know what Dolby Vision is, HDR10+ has no brand recognition at all outside of these forums.

[PaulGo]

But HDR has name recognition so HDR10+ sounds like an improved version of HDR.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by PaulGo

But HDR has name recognition so HDR10+ sounds like an improved version of HDR.

More like a multi-vitamin ingredient...

[mrtickleuk]

Originally Posted by DanBa

"MOVIELABS/DOLBY MEETING JUNE 19, 2013
PQ is not standardized, it is Dolby IP. Dolby said that ITU was starting a standards effort. However, PQ would be licensed and not given free of IP. Howard Lukk [Director of Standards at SMPTE] was not happy with that."
https://wikileaks.org/sony/docs/05/d...9-13.4.doc.pdf

Dolby people have changed their mind, and Dolby granted a free of charge license to its essential patent claims on ST 2084 PQ.
https://kws.smpte.org/higherlogic/ws...0Statement.pdf

That wikileaks document, from 2013, is fascinating. Thanks to you, and of course to Julian Assange. This caught my eye

Typical TV ranges from 350 to 1000 nits. 500 nits is often used as the average. Will
have 2000 nit displays in 3 years.

[...]
OLED’s are only good for 1000 nits for a couple of weeks

a) I don't remember 1000 nit TVs being that common in 2013!
b) it took a lot longer to get to 2000 nits than they predicted!

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by PaulGo

But HDR has name recognition so HDR10+ sounds like an improved version of HDR.

Yep I bet more people could identify that HDR10+ is HDR than Dolby Vision.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by mrtickleuk

That wikileaks document, from 2013, is fascinating. Thanks to you, and of course to Julian Assange. This caught my eye



a) I don't remember 1000 nit TVs being that common in 2013!
b) it took a lot longer to get to 2000 nits than they predicted!

Heh. My ZD9 pumps out damned near 2000 nits peak (1978 to be exact, measured on my last calibration run) and that was released in 2016 so that fits their "3 year" timeline pretty darned well from 2013. And while TVs doing 1000 nits (not so much HDR, but their general brightness output) was kinda rare for sure, my 2014 SDR TV could reach well over 400 nits peak brightness and I'm sure that the bigger sizes could get even brighter.