HDR is crayons

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by Markgway

I guess I'll have to use my own eyes to see if there's a negative difference and if it bothers me.

Have to say this whole business sours me. If a TV can't do HDR properly they shouldn't be allowed to include it as an option let alone advertise it.

Most people would just switch on the HDR without (understandably) checking to see if it's worse than the SDR. Until recently it never occurred to me that might be the case.

I mean, there's a lot of technologies with varying levels of quality that this sort of mindset could be applied to. My Vizio M55-D0 from 2016 did HDR but no, it didn't deliver 'the full package', so to speak. Still, it was a marked improvement over SDR and I was still appreciative of it. Like anything else in this world, you get what you pay for.

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

It is harder to tell in SDR converted caps, but yes normal Blu-rays do look extremely flat after you get used to HDR.

Going back to the Vizio from 2016, even its level of HDR - which I don't even think cracked 500 nits - was more than enough to make SDR look flat in comparison after getting used it. Watching things in SDR is often a bummer now. If it's on 4K disc, I want it. Period. I still don't think I'm going to upgrade every movie I've ever owned, but I'm certainly buying way more 4K discs than I ever though I would, and I'm just getting started.

[stigdu]

I've either got a shit telly or my settings are all wrong then, as there isn't a huge WOW difference to me when watching 4k discs with HDR, and watching a film on blu-ray. There is a difference, otherwise I'd just sell my 4k kit and stick with blu-ray, but for the most part, it's minimal.

I've only watched a few films where I can hand on heart say that the picture wowed me and was much better than the blu-ray.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by stigdu

I've either got a shit telly or my settings are all wrong then

probably a bit of both

[stigdu]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

probably a bit of both

I've got a Sony XE90 and I copied my settings from an old AV Forums post.

[Geoff D]

the post still stands

[ewsjr]

Originally Posted by stigdu

I've either got a shit telly or my settings are all wrong then, as there isn't a huge WOW difference to me when watching 4k discs with HDR, and watching a film on blu-ray. There is a difference, otherwise I'd just sell my 4k kit and stick with blu-ray, but for the most part, it's minimal.

I've only watched a few films where I can hand on heart say that the picture wowed me and was much better than the blu-ray.

Try watching a Transformers: The Last Knight. If you don't see the difference watching it, maybe start over with your settings like you suggest.

[alexanderg823]

Originally Posted by ewsjr

Try watching a Transformers: The Last Knight. If you don't see the difference watching it, maybe start over with your settings like you suggest.

Eh, Transformers LK isn't even a good representation of HDR really.

High Contrast, definitely.

[Geoff D]

Expectations also play a part in it I think. HDR is hyped up as being the most amazeballs thing ever that will fry your face clean off but it's simply not the case, not with all of it. When several of the longer-term UHD owners start to eulogise about HDR it's not because it's mega bright and mega colourful but because it renders a sense of realism and depth that SDR is hard-pressed to match.

That effect can often seem so subtle as to be invisible at first but that's why I mentioned longer-term owners. Certain people - think of 'painful fabric' - often scoffed at my earlier UHD write-ups when I set out to compare HDR to SDR, saying stuff like they "shouldn't have to compare the two to see the differences", and "if you have to do that to appreciate it then the upgrade's not worth it". And yet, slowly but surely, dat HDR has gradually wormed its way into the black matter of their brains so that when they now watch an SDR disc they can quickly appreciate how much flatter and duller it looks (mostly).

HDR is one area where SDR converted screencaps literally cannot do it justice as although we may be able to see the extra highlight retention (given a competent capper, natch) we're not seeing it in conjunction with the brightness that it should have, and the combination of the two can be breathtaking.

[Bourne1886]

There must be a fair few 4k hdr discs that haven’t hit the mark in the early life cycle of this format and in years to come those discs will be updated just as blurays have been over the years hence the terms double and triple dipping.

To Quote Geoff " The goal posts change all the time." What is considered good in the early days may well be considered dated in years to come and tech will change again and always will. It always divides opinion.

[Bourne1886]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

the post still stands

Glad I didn’t buy that Sony then! Lol.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

The 2020 gamut is basically the biggest color reproduction space there is now unless you're using 4 or more color primaries/dyes/inks, and should contain most of the colors the eyes (and film) can see.

In other words, UHD HDR is the best container we have for repetitive consumer enjoyment and viewing.

I’ll remind you, for the record, that some here were advocates of using the XYZ color space for encoding (as opposed to BT.2020) - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...z#post15497298 .

And also something I think may not have ever been reported is that Pat Griffiths of Dolby Labs actually wanted 20,000 nits for PQ.

[kwr212]

Originally Posted by stigdu

I've got a Sony XE90 and I copied my settings from an old AV Forums post.

According to rtngs.com, the problem shouldn’t be your tv. You may want to double check your settings against their recommended calibration. https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/sony/x900e what player are you using? Have you done all the firmware updates? I’m not familiar with your tv, so without setting eyes on it, I can’t say if what you’re seeing is similar to what I’m seeing on my tv. But what I see on mine (Samsung Q8FN) is definitely a noticeable improvement with UHD discs vs Blu-ray.

I also looked at your 4K collection and there were some that I found very impressive in your collection. Not every disc has the same wow factor, but sometimes when I get curious if there’s been a real upgrade to 4K I’ll compare the 4K to blu on different players and swap between them on inputs. There has always been a difference when I’ve done this, sometimes a major difference even when I thought at first the 4K looked like a well authored blu.

Some people won’t see it as a worthwhile upgrade, even with the best equipment, just like some people don’t think Blu-ray is worth the upgrade from DVD. I’m personally an enthusiastic 4K supporter. I can see the difference and for me it’s a much richer, more filmic experience. And sometimes it’s like seeing an entirely new film. After seeing the 4K of catalog titles like E.T., I can’t imagine ever watching them in a lower format again. It would be like going back to VHS.

[stigdu]

Appreciate your replies, fellas (apart from Geoff who says I've got a shit TV). I don't flick back and forth between 4k and HD to compare, so maybe my eyes actually are getting used to the 4k and HDR, and maybe I would be disappointed going back to to a Blu-ray after a good 4k disc.

My mate was over this evening, and we watched a little of the new Avengers film 9n 4k disc, and then Monsters, Inc. on regułar blu-ray. He wasn't all 'amaze balls!' at Avengers but said 'wow' at the PQ of Monsters. Should have been the other way round if 4k is so great!

I don't want to come across as a complete naysayer, as I thought AFGM, Saving Private Ryan and Predator looked absolutely fantastic in 4k.

[alexanderg823]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Expectations also play a part in it I think. HDR is hyped up as being the most amazeballs thing ever that will fry your face clean off but it's simply not the case, not with all of it. When several of the longer-term UHD owners start to eulogise about HDR it's not because it's mega bright and mega colourful but because it renders a sense of realism and depth that SDR is hard-pressed to match.

That effect can often seem so subtle as to be invisible at first but that's why I mentioned longer-term owners. Certain people - think of 'painful fabric' - often scoffed at my earlier UHD write-ups when I set out to compare HDR to SDR, saying stuff like they "shouldn't have to compare the two to see the differences", and "if you have to do that to appreciate it then the upgrade's not worth it". And yet, slowly but surely, dat HDR has gradually wormed its way into the black matter of their brains so that when they now watch an SDR disc they can quickly appreciate how much flatter and duller it looks (mostly).

HDR is one area where SDR converted screencaps literally cannot do it justice as although we may be able to see the extra highlight retention (given a competent capper, natch) we're not seeing it in conjunction with the brightness that it should have, and the combination of the two can be breathtaking.

Big problem is too many people are viewing HDR on shit "EDR" displays, LCDs, especially those with only a handful of zones, being the main culprit.

To fully appreciate the enhanced depth HDR provides, you really need a display made with HDR in mind. I don't think LCD really does that.

[Fendergopher]

Originally Posted by alexanderg823

Big problem is too many people are viewing HDR on shit "EDR" displays, LCDs, especially those with only a handful of zones, being the main culprit.

To fully appreciate the enhanced depth HDR provides, you really need a display made with HDR in mind. I don't think LCD really does that.

You're saying the Z9D or Q9FN can't do HDR well? Because they're LCDs?

[alexanderg823]

Originally Posted by Fendergopher

You're saying the Z9D or Q9FN can't do HDR well? Because they're LCDs?

They certainly provide pleasing images, but for one, most people aren't using these flagship televisions to view their content on, and for two, there's just still fundamental limitations of perceived depth and contrast by having tens of thousands pixels illuminated by a single zone (and we're talking about hundreds of thosuands of pixels per zones on something like the 900F/Q8F/Vizio). By having that many pixels attributed for by a single zone, the image is still very much at the whim of native panel contrast and local dimming algorithms that can drastically change the construct of an image for the worse.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I’ll remind you, for the record, that some here were advocates of using the XYZ color space for encoding (as opposed to BT.2020) - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...z#post15497298

For the record –
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...os#post8249641

And dissecting out the pros and cons with regards to choosing XYZ vs. BT.2020 for consumer TVs ramps up between myself and Richard later on in Feb. 2014 - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...os#post8802197
and beyond, until a final decision was ultimately arrived at by the primary stakeholders.

[Fendergopher]

Originally Posted by alexanderg823

They certainly provide pleasing images, but for one, most people aren't using these flagship televisions to view their content on, and for two, there's just still fundamental limitations of perceived depth and contrast by having tens of thousands pixels illuminated by a single zone (and we're talking about hundreds of thosuands of pixels per zones on something like the 900F/Q8F/Vizio). By having that many pixels attributed for by a single zone, the image is still very much at the whim of native panel contrast and local dimming algorithms that can drastically change the construct of an image for the worse.

Well if your baseline for "good" HDR is self emissive displays then you're not going to be satisfied by LCDs, obviously. The different technologies have their pros and cons, I don't think there's an objective winner as far as consumer HDR displays go, there's always a compromise.

[alexanderg823]

Originally Posted by Fendergopher

Well if your baseline for "good" HDR is self emissive displays then you're not going to be satisfied by LCDs, obviously. The different technologies have their pros and cons, I don't think there's an objective winner as far as consumer HDR displays go, there's always a compromise.

Sure they both have their pros and cons but low zone count falds ain't gonna do the trick. It's not necessarily LCD is bad either. Notice all mastering displays going forward are the new ips LCDs with no local dimming. Native contrast ratio defines dynamic range. Everything else is trickery.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by stigdu

Appreciate your replies, fellas (apart from Geoff who says I've got a shit TV).

Don't feel bad. He thinks your shit TV is less shit than my shit TV.