HDR capability worth the extra money?

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by slimdude

If they want to sabotage their own work by having their movie(s) look like it's been filmed with a camcorder (instead of film), and jump on the bandwagon because it's the latest fad, it won't last.

Based on the sales of 4k blu rays, it appears you have no clue what you're talking about. Not to mention directors learning hdr are excited to have the proper tools to display their movies in ways not possible before.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by ray0414

Based on the sales of 4k blu rays, it appears you have no clue what you're talking about

Manufacturers prey on the gullible, that's what's keep them in business because they know the early adopters( who must have the latest and the greatest of every new technology) are going to fall for it. People have been watching movies for decades, and all of a sudden they couldn't see what they were watching all these many years without HDR? Please! Now who do they think they're fooling???? Not me that's for sure because, I can still see everything in a movie very clearly and distinctively without HDR, Dolby Vision or any other sophisticated vision they may come up with. Grass is green, the sky is blue and the leaves on the trees are green (until they change colors in Autumn) since God created them over 2000 years ago, and I don't need to have HDR to see it either.

[solarrdadd]

[bootman]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Manufacturers prey on the gullible, that's what's keep them in business because they know the early adopters( who must have the latest and the greatest of every new technology) are going to fall for it. People have been watching movies for decades, and all of a sudden they couldn't see what they were watching all these many years without HDR? Please! Now who do they think they're fooling???? Not me that's for sure because, I can still see everything in a movie very clearly and distinctively without HDR, Dolby Vision or any other sophisticated vision they may conjured up. Grass is green, the sky is blue and the leaves on the trees are green (until they change colors in Autumn) since God created them over 2000 years ago, and I don't need to have HDR to see it either.

I'll ask one more very simple question.

Do you think your current 4K TV has the same color range as your current PC's display or heck even a current ipad? (it doesn't)

That is what we are talking about here.

Also the concept and practice of HDR has been around since the late 1850 with photography.
So the "gimick" isn't actually new but is is "new" on these new displays. (vs print)

I agree your EYES are the best HDR device created.
It can actually see the additional colors that a HDR display can reproduce.
The differences are not subtle like it was with 4K at the same viewing distances as 1080p.

Just open your HDR capable eyes and see for yourself.

Better yet just research the topic vs reading set manufacture's promo materials.

[ray0414]

Some people want hdr. The tvs being made for hdr have Incredible color range and brightness. Sorry, but pretty pictures will sell tvs, whether or not you think it's a gimmicks is up to you. Gimmicks are everywhere. You could say that having a 400HP V8 engine is a Gimmicks to sell cars. So what?? People like to go fast and show off.

Here's a ks8000, the 65" sells for around 2k and produces a beautiful hdr/P3 picture. I can't fault anyone for wanting to stare at that type of beauty when they sit down for movie night.

By the way, this is regular 4k, not even hdr. It's from a netflix documentary called oceans. So even if you skip hdr on an hdr set, your getting a tv with a ton of horsepower.

[steve1971]

Originally Posted by Yungheat

To me personally unless your really close to the tv you can't really tell a difference in PQ well at least for my tv I'm still very please with my kdl 65w850a Sony tv HDR and 4K Wichita I have nothing against but I'd still put my tv against any

I'm with ya all the way on that Yungheat. I feel the same as you do about my Sony 55w900a.

[Brahby]

I am still having a hard time understanding the difference between HDR compatible and what is labeled just an HDR set. I have read through a few articles and it seems that the difference comes down to "qualifying" for one title or the other based on the specs and capability of the given set. If this is true and it comes down to brightness (nits) and color gamut then couldn't a TV from 2015 (say the Samsung JS8500 or the Sony X930C) technically be more of an "HDR" set than some of the 2016 ones that are labeled just "HDR" (not HDR compatible) since they may offer things like a VA panel over an IPS (for better contrast) or full array vs edge lit. The reason I ask is because I still want a TV that supports 3d but is not an IPS preferably which in 2016 models leaves just about NOTHING as an option whereas in 2015 it gives me quite a few options.

[jibucha]

'new video enhancement' :: (definitely not so)

simply :: given advancements in display technology (performance), finally, standards of content creation and display are advancing to levels of performance previously unattainable

consequence :: cameras have 'always' captured more quality than our technology of 'display' have allowed - only now, the 'original image quality' can be realized in 'new content grading and display' therefore, we are able to 'see' more of what was 'original' - - - as film-makers 'always intended' but, until now, were unable to transfer from the set/camera to both theaters and homes

so :: as we approach the 'evolving standards' of rec.2020 (HDR & WCG are the 'early improvements') we will (especially with Dolby Vision 'grading' of content) to experience more of 'being on the original set or more specifically, 'see' more of what the 'camera captured, during the 'original film-making'

Originally Posted by slimdude

Regardless how it's phrase, or what technical jargon is used to describe HDR, HDR is just another, new video enhancement. If the image didn't look like that in theaters, or on standard Blu-ray originally (the way the filmmaker had intended), then the picture is artificially enhanced with HDR.

[jibucha]

no offense intended :: you have this 'all backwards'

'video enhancements' :: how about 'technology'?

note :: 'all' of what your referencing as 'video enhancements' in actuality, are the technology foundation that allow for the 'accurate' representation of the 'original' picture & sound, as you 'accurately represent' the importance of a 'professional display calibration' - - - to be clear, display calibration, and, (HDR & WCG) are for the same purpose

Originally Posted by slimdude

Every journalist in the world can call it whatever they want, but basically HDR, Dolby Vision, DTS Vision, King Kong Vision, Toy Story Vision, etc is nothing but a video enhancement. Any visual alterations that's been artificially applied to an image, that was not initially made during the original filmmaking process is an enhancement... Manufactures have been creating and using new terminology for the same features for decades, solely just to sell a new product. This is how they make their money. If a person can afford to paid thousands of dollars for an UHDTV, they should be able to afford to pay an extra $300.00 to have it professionally calibrated by a certified ISF Technician and have the TV look the way it should, then they wouldn't need HDR.