Unforgiven 4K UHD (1992)

[Geoff D]

Mine's been posted from zavvi, yay! And for £18 so it didn't break the bank, and the UV code will come in handy for a few extra sovs as well.

[TheSweetieMan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I don't think "industry standard" means what you think it means. By definition Dolby Vision on UHD disc is an optional HDR format whereas HDR10 - the open source system that requires no royalties - is mandatory for all UHD discs and TVs that contain HDR, now and into the future. You won't find DV on Samsung or Panasonic TVs either.

But you're missing the point with all my tech jargon in the post you quoted, as well as the follow-up: if the HDR10 grade has been supervised by the filmmaker and your TV is capable of realising that image in its entirety (or near enough) then you ARE still seeing it as intended. Even Dolby Vision will reduce mapping to a minimum if the TV can actually 'do' the image that it's been presented with. Don't just take my word for it:

Name a film where HDR10 has been overseen by the filmmaker?

Because I can certainly name more than a handful of filmmakers and Colorists that support Dolby Vision.

Again, because the latter is the industry standard.

No matter how much you want to dress it up in technical terms and buzz words, HDR10 is not as good--nor accurate--as Dolby Vision.

"Dolby has been working on this stuff longer than anyone. They’ve been developing this technology since long before anyone even heard the term HDR, around 2003. They practically invented the HDR LED local dimming display for crying out loud! The result: the Dolby Vision system. Dolby Vision is a complete and comprehensive system encompassing tools and standards for monitoring and grading of content, through delivery and transmission, and finally to the end user’s display in their home.

On the content creation side, on the surface at least, it’s pretty straight forward: The capabilities of the monitor are known, the artist is free to work their magic, and a ton of metadata is tagged to the content. The real genius comes at the other end.

Here I am with my Dolby Vision TV with, let’s say, a 500 nit capability. I play content which was mastered to 4,000 nits. What happens to the picture data between 500 and 4,000 nits? There is a Dolby Vision processor chip in the TV which, using all that juicy metadata generated during encoding, “remaps” the luminance portion which is above the display’s peak. This is not a canned “4,000-to-500 nits” tone map: it is dynamic and content aware, employed on a per-frame basis.

So for example if one scene has data up to 4,000 nits and the next peaks at 1,500, the two will be tone mapped differently. As cliché as this sounds, it’s going to looks as good as it possibly can while being faithful to the source content within the display’s capabilities. Dolby Vision displays are calibrated by referencing something somewhat humorously called the model’s “Golden Reference”."

Source.

Also, keep in mind that even when HDR10+ introduces metadata, it's going to be the TV manufacturer that decides how to process it.

With Dolby, you're getting the image you're supposed to see: scene by scene, or frame by frame.

EDIT: Also, Samsung is trash. And I couldn't tell you what Panasonic is doing since they don't sell sets in the States anymore.

I will, however, point out that Sony, Universal, Lionsgate, Warner Brothers, LG, Vizio, and many others are backing Dolby Vision.

Not that that really matters, though. The HDR format "War" isn't going to be like HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. Multiple HDR formats will around for the foreseeable future; Dolby Vision included.

[mzupeman]

You make a bunch of solid points, but the initial statement was that Dolby Vision was an industry standard. Even if it’s what the entire universe prefers at this very moment, it is not standardized. There are UHD TV’s that do not support it, there are UHD players that do not support it, and every single UHD disc released to this point does not have it. Nothing about that screams ‘standard’ to me.

I’m not dogging Dolby Vision at all, though. Dolby Vision content looks great, and it very well may become the standard, but ‘becoming the standard’ means it’s not there yet, because it isn’t. You can’t really say that until every single television that’s released can do it, and the same goes for UHD players. The brand new Sony X800 doesn’t even support it yet, even though their home entertainment division is releasing a Dolby Vision disc quite soon.

[TheSweetieMan]

Ok, let me contextualize my statement a bit more.

Dolby Vision is the industry standard as far as High Dynamic Range mastering goes. HDR10 is an open source to avoid paying royalties to Dolby, basically.

The studios or brands that opt for that HDR10 format are doing so for the sake of being cheap, really.

HDR, in general, is amazing. So, I'm not really trying to knock HDR10. It's just, once you've had the real thing (Dolby) it's hard to justify wanting HDR10, when the latter is basically an imitation.

When you have people like Ben Affleck, Zack Snyder, Tim Miller, Ridley Scott etc. saying that Dolby Vision allows viewers to experience their films the way that they intended--and to observe dynamic contrasts, and details in shadows that they forgot were even there when they were filming--that lends Dolby the credibility to call itself the industry standard. At least as far as mastering HDR content goes.

I don't remember if I mentioned it in this thread before or not, but Technicolor HDR is the only other HDR format worth mentioning as a challenger at this point. Again, and not to sound like a broken record, but because content creators will use that as a standard as well.

As far as Dolby compatible Blu-Ray players, it's too early to really be saying stuff like that. We did, after all, just start getting UHD discs not even a year ago.

With the firmware updates coming to the Oppo UDP-203 and LG UP-970, I'm sure we'll see more brands rolling out Dolby compatible Blu-Ray players as time goes on.

[elwaylite]

I'm not doubting DV is the smarter move, its when someone acts like DV on Vudu is going to be superior to the UHD disc version with HDR10, that ain't even correct, period.


Streaming shills have been around for a long time, and they will continue to be around, but for anyone that cares about the best audio and video experience, they will buy optical.

Here is the other thing about DV, that I argued with folks over HDR10 about. Many displays from the past couple of years SUCK at HDR10, period, so people watch them and think it looks bad. Don't think DV is going to be perfect, especially if you care about image accuracy.

My 2016 OLED for example can be cal'd in HDR10 mode, and it looks exceptional. It cannot, like just about every other 2016 display, be calibrated for DV. The DV calibration requires Calman to have a Golden Reference File and the controls to be unlocked, so as long as I own a display that cannot be calibrated for DV, and can be calibrated for HDR10 accurately, I will use HDR10.

IMO, DV will be superior to HDR10 in the right scenario, just like HDR is superior to SDR in the right scenario. BUT, HDR10 is not always superior to SDR if you don't have the proper gear (and care about accuracy).

This is why so many opinions about UHD are all over the place, and disc reviews do not match what I see a lot of times. Hell, when I had my 2015 OLED, people freaked out when I wanted to use 4k SDR 2020 since it sucked at HDR1. I'm sure folks will be flabbergasted why someone would not use DV, but once again, I pay to have my gear calibrated a few times a year, and accuracy is of utmost importance to me. The next display I buy must have HLG, HDR10 and Dolby Vision, and their needs to be a golden reference file issue for it so it can be calibrated in DV mode.

[bruceames]

Sweetieman, It's pretty obvious that you really don't know that much how HDR actually works. Geoff has gone into detail with you and all you have are buzz words and generalities as a rebuttal (BTW, I wouldn't argue HDR with him, he really knows his stuff )

Basically Dolby Vision is an upgrade, however the amount of upgrade you will see is inversely proportional to the quality of the display (ie, the lower the capability in nits and color gamut, the bigger difference you will see).

So my point, that you said "isn't true at all", still stands. If you watch HDR10 on a display that can handle all (or practically all) the metadata on the disc, then HDR10 will look just as good as Dolby Vision. However, when 12 bit displays come out, THEN Dolby Vision will look significantly better on the high nits display because obviously HDR10 is limited to 10 bits.

All this about scene-by-scene or frame-by-frame is irrelevant if the display does not need it. Only if the display's capabilities are less than the metadata is the tone mapping really needed.

So for now, Dolby Vision's main benefit is for the lower end display, but later, when 12 bit TVs come out and especially become the norm, then of course Dolby Vision will look superior on all displays. But for now, it's only on "most" displays.

[benhoppel]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

With Dolby, you're getting the image you're supposed to see: scene by scene, or frame by frame.
.

You get what the colorist saw with HDR10 and with DV if your screen can do what the colorist's could do. If not you see a different picture in both cases. With DV the difference is under the control of the colorist, with HDR10 under the control of your display chain which you can control to various degrees. DV offers better control for film makers over what people see at home when they can't see the image as originally graded. An advantage for sure. But projectors don't support it for now and they need it most, which is a big disadvantage.

[Geoff D]

Roger Deakins personally supervised the HDR grading of Sicario (thanks for that reminder to dvdmike). Tim Miller did Deadpool. Inarritu did The Relevant. Just because it says 'Dolby Vision' on the tin doesn't mean the home grade has been any more or less creator supervised than the HDR10 ones we've seen so far, and it's foolish to assume otherwise.

[edit] Oh, and it's worth mentioning that the Perceptual Quantizer EOTF at the heart of HDR10 was CREATED by Dolby and is part of DV too, so all this bashing of HDR10 as some kind of half-assed knock-off is so far off the mark it's unreal.

[Doctorossi]

Listen to this man. His posts are:

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The Relevant

[OI8T12]

@ TheSweetieMan - Why the bashing of Samsung? I understand that you had trouble with one of their TV's, but what does that have to do with Dolby Vision, or HDR10?

[HeatEquation]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

Technicolor HDR is the only other HDR format worth mentioning as a challenger at this point. Again, and not to sound like a broken record, but because content creators will use that as a standard as well.

Stop embarrassing yourself by using terms you don't comprehend, kiddo.

[HeatEquation]

Originally Posted by bruceames

Sweetieman, It's pretty obvious that you really don't know that much how HDR actually works. Geoff has gone into detail with you and all you have are buzz words and generalities as a rebuttal (BTW, I wouldn't argue HDR with him, he really knows his stuff )

Basically Dolby Vision is an upgrade, however the amount of upgrade you will see is inversely proportional to the quality of the display (ie, the lower the capability in nits and color gamut, the bigger difference you will see).

So my point, that you said "isn't true at all", still stands. If you watch HDR10 on a display that can handle all (or practically all) the metadata on the disc, then HDR10 will look just as good as Dolby Vision. However, when 12 bit displays come out, THEN Dolby Vision will look significantly better on the high nits display because obviously HDR10 is limited to 10 bits.

All this about scene-by-scene or frame-by-frame is irrelevant if the display does not need it. Only if the display's capabilities are less than the metadata is the tone mapping really needed.

So for now, Dolby Vision's main benefit is for the lower end display, but later, when 12 bit TVs come out and especially become the norm, then of course Dolby Vision will look superior on all displays. But for now, it's only on "most" displays.

It's not really surprising that he finds DV to be drastically better than HDR10 on his particular set. His TV only reaches 750 nits of peak brightness and has very poor tone mapping. I imagine that makes for some poor HDR10 performance on certain discs, although certainly not all.

[TheSweetieMan]

First off, you don't know what set I have.

Secondly, I haven't used any buzz words. Industry standard as far as content creation goes has more merit than anything anyone else in this discussion has posted.

Dolby Vision is, and always will be, undisputedly better than HDR10.

If you can't comprehend that DV matches what the director or content creator wants to show you, and therefore that metadata can be processed to match how it was specifically encoded--compared to a TV manufacturer having to choose how the metadata will be processed, then don't even try to speak to me about what I know or don't know.

I may not be Ridley Scott, Tim Miller, or any of the filmmakers I mentioned that do support Dolby Vision. But as a content creator myself, who would opt for the real thing as opposed to settling for a limited format just to save a buck, my opinion has merit no matter which way you slice it.

EDIT: Also, it won't matter who oversees the transfers for HDR10 content. Sure, it can look as good as HDR10 can possibly look in the right hands. However, it still won't measure up to a proper Dolby Vision transfer. Especially when you take into consideration that those films all received a DV color grade during their theatrical runs. Aside from maybe Sicario, I believe.

[Brian81]

Originally Posted by vincentric

''HDR vanilla ... Dolby Vision mint chocolate chip'' - TheSweetieMan

I like it.

I rather have HDR10 then. Mint

[TheSweetieMan]

Believe me, Brian, you wouldn't.

I could use a better analogy if you'd like.

After going from viewing Pacific Rim from its HDR10 UHD disc, to the Dolby Vision stream on Vudu, that's when I knew what I was missing out on when it came to experiencing Dolby Vision.

It's the premiere HDR format no matter how people in this thread try to twist it.

[Kamelot121]

Originally Posted by HeatEquation

It's not really surprising that he finds DV to be drastically better than HDR10 on his particular set. His TV only reaches 750 nits of peak brightness and has very poor tone mapping. I imagine that makes for some poor HDR10 performance on certain discs, although certainly not all.

Oh bloody hell, that's the new TV i've just ordered after hearing nothing be glowing reviews....

[HeatEquation]

Originally Posted by Kamelot121

Oh bloody hell, that's the new TV i've just ordered after hearing nothing be glowing reviews....

It's a very good TV, but every TV has weaknesses. And as I said, while some owners on here have complained about certain discs, the majority of discs shouldn't be a problem.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

Believe me, Brian, you wouldn't.

I could use a better analogy if you'd like.

After going from viewing Pacific Rim from its HDR10 UHD disc, to the Dolby Vision stream on Vudu, that's when I knew what I was missing out on when it came to experiencing Dolby Vision.

It's the premiere HDR format no matter how people in this thread try to twist it.

On your TV, it is. Lower nit TVs that don't tone map well benefit greatly from DV.

[mzupeman]

Take this discussion to the HDR thread. Enough.

[TheSweetieMan]

One last thing before I derail this thread even further.

Please, don't talk about nits when it comes to HDR. Not on current consumer market panels. They don't even come close to actually replicating the true advantage of HDR. So, that's easily the most eye-rolling inducing argument to have when it comes to any of the HDR formats.

Anyway, I'm not gonna comment on this any further.

I'll keep an eye out on this thread for an official review for the Blu-Ray.