HDR is crayons

[Mierzwiak]

Just to be clear:

Yes, it's HDR, but not its full representation, that's what I meant.

My KS7000 annoyed me many times, but I would lie if I said I wasn't impressed, it was still pretty huge leap from SDR BDs.

[brainofj72]

And again:

[Mierzwiak]

9Smile and roll your eyes all you want, I couldn't care less

Just one more thing: I wonder how people who think HDR is too dark are watching SDR content, with backlight set at maximum? If so then yes, HDR will indeed look darker, and no, that's not how you suppose to watch content mastered at 100 nits, at least if you care about creator's intent.

[oddbox83]

It might be me it's aimed at this time, Mierzwiak.

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

9Smile and roll your eyes all you want, I couldn't care less

Just one more thing: I wonder how people who think HDR is too dark are watching SDR content, with backlight set at maximum? If so then yes, HDR will indeed look darker, and no, that's not how you suppose to watch content mastered at 100 nits, at least if you care about creator's intent.

This is possibly true in many cases, they are also wasting money on power as well for that needless light. I have set my OLED with a backlight of 54 for SDR. This approximates 200 nits which is a good all-rounder for an average room so I don't have to fiddle with the settings when sun comes streaming in or I'm watching in low light levels. 100 nits is too low unless it was for a dedicated cinema room.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

Just one more thing: I wonder how people who think HDR is too dark are watching SDR content, with backlight set at maximum? If so then yes, HDR will indeed look darker, and no, that's not how you suppose to watch content mastered at 100 nits, at least if you care about creator's intent.

This is one issue, yes. I think a lot of people are used to maxed out backlights and see HDR, which keeps a standard nit range around 100 form most titles, as "too dark." I see this all the time, both here and on other forums. It's a real issue.

Also TVs with bad HDR tainting perspectives (though it's ridiculous you count any edge-lit set among those. Edge-lit sets need a bias light, but good quality ones certainly display HDR very well, including mine, which was one of the top HDR sets of 2016).

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

Just one more thing: I wonder how people who think HDR is too dark are watching SDR content, with backlight set at maximum? If so then yes, HDR will indeed look darker, and no, that's not how you suppose to watch content mastered at 100 nits, at least if you care about creator's intent.

Yep, I've said the same thing before. If someone is watching SDR with everything nuked then HDR really WILL look dimmer and darker because the APL of many HDR titles is nearer to SDR-esque levels of general brightness, and by SDR-esque I mean between 100-200 nits of thereabouts. (I personally have my SDR set to 140 nits peak). But if the actual SDR on a TV is being cranked to 400-500 nits or beyond then it's going to look way brighter than HDR on the same set because the HDR has nowhere else to go.

Originally Posted by oddbox83

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.

You can't remap without losing something, be it the intended brightness, colour volume or highlight range, you can't have it all. Cue people saying "my TV gets plenty bright, I can't imagine 1500 nits!" as they always do - and with dat infinite contrast comes a hell of a lot of goodness, no doubt - but if we had something that did "perfect black" and solid 1000+ nit brightness without encountering ASBL or ABL then oh mai, we'd have an HDR monster that's finally capable of giving us EVERYTHING good about this wondrous format.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Yeah I’m ecstatic with my OLED but the second I can get an infinite contrast display with 1500 nits I’ll be camped outside Best Buy until the store opens.

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You can't remap without losing something, be it the intended brightness, colour volume or highlight range, you can't have it all. Cue people saying "my TV gets plenty bright, I can't imagine 1500 nits!" as they always do - and with dat infinite contrast comes a hell of a lot of goodness, no doubt - but if we had something that did "perfect black" and solid 1000+ nit brightness without encountering ASBL or ABL then oh mai, we'd have an HDR monster that's finally capable of giving us EVERYTHING good about this wondrous format.

Well, obviously you're going to lose the brightness with something like an OLED. What I mean is, the tone mapping should shape everything down appropriately so no image data is clipped. The full range from below black to above white preserved within the displays limits. Akin to converting RGB to YUV, done poorly it creates errors, done properly it shouldn't.

Anyway, it's actually the contrast between black and white with all the stops in between that I feel holds the most wow, irrelevant of nits and OLED is perfectly suited to do that.

[Geoff D]

It is, and I'm not telling people what they should or shouldn't like. But HDR is also predicated around absolute brightness levels and the sooner we get to a display than can do contrast, colour volume and brightness nearer to what this content is actually mastered at the better.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

though it's ridiculous you count any edge-lit set among those. Edge-lit sets need a bias light, but good quality ones certainly display HDR very well, including mine, which was one of the top HDR sets of 2016.

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"

Next stop: microLED with 4000 nits peak brightness?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

Next stop: microLED with 4000 nits peak brightness?

Oh hells yeah. Sign me up.

[oddbox83]

Nits be damned, my OLED goes bright enough for me.

And realistically, the 2000 nit top of the range QLED can't sustain anywhere near that anyway in actual tests. It's the Sony Z9s and X9x0Es that rule for raw brightness right now, with the usual LED caveats. OLEDs are still brighter than most LED TVs on the market, there are only the very top of the range few that beat OLED. Which you know, I'm just stating it for those who might come in here thinking OLEDs are quite dim for a TV, when they aren't.

[Geoff D]

Eh, people keep referencing the Samsungs as the top of the LCD tree but they're still flawed, crushing black details far too much in an effort to overcome the inherent backlighting issues that LCD has when it gets this bright. That's why these new mini/micro LED backlighting systems could be the game changer as far as LCD panels are concerned, as 2000 zones will provide far greater control at higher brightness levels and provide the holy HDR trinity.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Yeah I’m ecstatic with my OLED but the second I can get an infinite contrast display with 1500 nits I’ll be camped outside Best Buy until the store opens.

You and me both.....but this display will have to also have perfect blacks and great viewing angles like my OLED. Those are things that any LCD based technology has NOT been able to do ever.

That being said, I’m not married to OLED tech. If some other new tech comes along or LCDs can magically get blacks, contrast and viewing angles right then I’ll beat you to the store door!

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Eh, people keep referencing the Samsungs as the top of the LCD tree but they're still flawed, crushing black details far too much in an effort to overcome the inherent backlighting issues that LCD has when it gets this bright. That's why these new mini/micro LED backlighting systems could be the game changer as far as LCD panels are concerned, as 2000 zones will provide far greater control at higher brightness levels and provide the holy HDR trinity.

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.

[wxman2003]

DV does not look dark on my E6. If HDR10 looks too dark on OLED, force your player to output to DV like the OPPO 203 can do. Then select DV Bright room in the picture mode settings. If you think that is too dark, then you may have vision problems, because it's quite bright with all HDR movies.

[Noremac Mij]

OLED has the best HDR by far. Who gives a shit about nits? HDR is so much more than nits. Having 2000, 4000 nits may just be the most useless feature on a home TV in the history of home TVs. Literally everything else is more important than nits, styling, remote layout, and all the way down to retail packaging’s font.

[Geoff D]

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.

600+ zones on the 65ZD9 does a hell of a job, it does cause some halos and some stuff makes it have an outright shitfit but 90% of the time you'd never know any dimming was even there (Dolby Vision has also helped to quell some of the backlighting issues as well, owing to the way that the reference file is set up to take into account the actual lighting system of the television). The 75" model has 800 zones and the 100" has 1000 zones, Vincent Teoh noted in his review of the latter that it had no discernable haloing at all - though I'm quite sure that when fed certain torture tests then it would still show it up.

But double that again to 2000 zones, stick it inside a 65" and the dimming will end up closing the gap on that other ten percent. Still not perfect, I never said it would be as intricate things like starfields will still be a challenge, but combine that with the extra control over black level and contrast plus the increased brightness and thus colour volume and they could be something very special indeed.

[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.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

600+ zones on the 65ZD9 does a hell of a job, it does cause some halos and some stuff makes it have an outright shitfit but 90% of the time you'd never know any dimming was even there (Dolby Vision has also helped to quell some of the backlighting issues as well, owing to the way that the reference file is set up to take into account the actual lighting system of the television).

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