|
|
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Best 4K Blu-ray Deals
|
Best Blu-ray Movie Deals, See All the Deals » |
Top deals |
New deals
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() $22.49 5 hrs ago
| ![]() $16.05 1 day ago
| ![]() $22.49 5 hrs ago
| ![]() $29.96 9 hrs ago
| ![]() $14.99 9 hrs ago
| ![]() $34.99 7 hrs ago
| ![]() $27.95 1 hr ago
| ![]() $22.49 5 hrs ago
| ![]() $19.99 1 day ago
| ![]() $22.49 15 hrs ago
| ![]() $29.99 | ![]() $37.49 |
![]() |
#1 |
Active Member
Feb 2016
Hollywood
|
![]()
There is no doubt that one of the great evils of HDR is the ABL (automatic brightness limiter) and what ultimately causes in HDR images. We all know that because of this limitation, more typical of OLED than LCD technology, HDR suffers greatly and images lose much of their true impact. However, my question is:
Is it true that many HDR contenders are deliberately biased from the studios themselves because colorists and cinematographers have to create content with the handbrake on, precisely because of the impact that the ABL would have on such content when they are played on consumer TVs current as the OLED? Is it convenient to affirm that many HDR contents do not reflect the true creative intention because they are born with the important drawback that their creators cannot unleash their entire imagination when creating HDRs because of the ABL? |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
|
|