Confused with the HDR craze - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 16Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 36 Old 06-25-2015, 01:46 AM - Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 537
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Confused with the HDR craze

I am not really understanding the purpose of HDR, I've been reading up online and it appears that the maximum contrast ratio our eyes can see at once is about 600:1. Our eyes are designed to auto adjust to the light to be able to see lower light levels and really bright levels, which is wonderful!


But the issue is if this is the case, then this means HDR just reduces detail. This is because it makes the image super bright, your eyes adjust to the bright light and in doing so it clips the lower light levels. After a few seconds, the image looks the same as it did without HDR except worse detail because you can no longer see the darker levels.


This is why bias lighting is the best way to improve contrast on a TV, because the ambient light prevents your eyes from adjusting to the lower light levels of darker scenes... making the blacks much darker. Essentially the bias light fixes your eyes to the 600:1 contrast, provided that the light is brighter than the actual TV set.


So this is why I am confused why so many people want HDR


At the same time, I realize that I effectively ruined the advantage of OLED as our contrast is very limited. But it appears OLED is still better despite this fact, I can only think of because each pixel is self illuminating, making it expose much more detail compared to LCD as the backlight can make certain areas of the screen too bright or too dark.

Last edited by Chase Payne; 06-25-2015 at 02:42 AM.
Chase Payne is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 36 Old 06-25-2015, 05:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,101
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1408 Post(s)
Liked: 1377
I'm not sold on HDR, but that article is making a common mistake. And here it is:

Do not
get carried away with big contrast numbers. The eye dynamic response is the limiting factor; at any one point in time, you would not be able to perceive a contrast ratio of more than at most 1,000:1 - irrespective of display technology.
The reason they're stepping on themselves is that no one is overly concerned about the contrast range at any particular time. You want a display that can display uber black in dark scenes. And in bright scenes you want a display that can display brightly.

For further example, I just don't care about being able to see an uber black square in a field of super bright white background. That black square will appear uber black regardless because of the super white background.

Their concept that because you cannot see both at the same time that somehow a display's display range doesn't matter is fraudulent and based upon ignorance, and nothing else.

Where they are mostly correct is in their assessment of ambient light; at least for the part I read. For instance, you cannot see a major difference in black level between a competent midlevel LCD vs. an OLED black on the super bright floor of best buy. I've verified this many times (it took me by surprise), and the reports of seeing dramatic differences in bottom level black outside the darkened Magnolia room is just confirmation bias at work.
reallynotnick and tubetwister like this.

Cogito ergo sum makes a fundamental mistake because it ignores the implied existence of the narrator. Descartes might as well have said "A rose is red, therefore I am".

Last edited by tgm1024; 06-25-2015 at 05:11 AM.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #3 of 36 Old 06-25-2015, 06:31 AM - Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 537
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
I'm not sold on HDR, but that article is making a common mistake. And here it is:

Do not
get carried away with big contrast numbers. The eye dynamic response is the limiting factor; at any one point in time, you would not be able to perceive a contrast ratio of more than at most 1,000:1 - irrespective of display technology.
The reason they're stepping on themselves is that no one is overly concerned about the contrast range at any particular time. You want a display that can display uber black in dark scenes. And in bright scenes you want a display that can display brightly.

For further example, I just don't care about being able to see an uber black square in a field of super bright white background. That black square will appear uber black regardless because of the super white background.

Their concept that because you cannot see both at the same time that somehow a display's display range doesn't matter is fraudulent and based upon ignorance, and nothing else.

Where they are mostly correct is in their assessment of ambient light; at least for the part I read. For instance, you cannot see a major difference in black level between a competent midlevel LCD vs. an OLED black on the super bright floor of best buy. I've verified this many times (it took me by surprise), and the reports of seeing dramatic differences in bottom level black outside the darkened Magnolia room is just confirmation bias at work.
Why is it ignorance? There are dozens of articles stating the same thing, we can only see a very limited range of STATIC contrast. We just have a huge dynamic contrast ratio, that adjusts our static based off the light we see.

This is the whole reason why bias lighting works, it prevents our eyes from adjusting the dynamic contrast.

You can see OLED difference on the showroom floor, primarily in the colors because there is no backlight washout. Also, the viewing angle of OLED is significantly better. Black level uniformity is also very noticeable as well, as FALD TV sets can still run into clouding.

The black levels of an LCD degrade horribly when viewing in a non optimal viewing angle.


The point here is most displays can get 1000:1 contrast ratio that the black level will appear exactly the same as OLED. However, OLED still looks better overall because of its uniformity and viewing angles.

Last edited by Chase Payne; 06-25-2015 at 07:08 AM.
Chase Payne is online now  
post #4 of 36 Old 06-25-2015, 07:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,101
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1408 Post(s)
Liked: 1377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chase Payne View Post
Why is it ignorance? There are dozens of articles stating the same thing, we can only see a very limited range of STATIC contrast. We just have a huge dynamic contrast ratio, that adjusts our static based off the light we see.
Read what I wrote again, and not your BS speedreading this time.

Yes, there is a limited amount of CR that can be seen all at once. The issue with TVs is not what you can see all at once.

When a scene is predominantly dark, your eyes adjust, just as they would in a darkened room. The longer the scene is on, the better. The adjustment starts right away, but doesn't take full affect for many seconds, but all along your eyes adjust to the drop in light.

When a scene is predominantly light, your eyes adjust, just as they do outside.

Having a display capable of both, does not mean that we're stretching our eyes' ability past their neuro-physiological limits.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chase Payne View Post
You can see OLED difference on the showroom floor, primarily in the colors because there is no backlight washout.
That's not the claim, and never has been the claim made by others. OLED's claim by others has always been "Wow, I can see real black so much better than on an LCD!" Well, no you can't on the bright bright floor of Best Buy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chase Payne View Post
Also, the viewing angle of OLED is significantly better. Black level uniformity is also very noticeable as well, as FALD TV sets can still run into clouding.

The black levels of an LCD degrade horribly when viewing in a non optimal viewing angle.
Viewing angle? Stay on topic please. Black level and CR were what I and the article are discussing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chase Payne View Post
The point here is most displays can get 1000:1 contrast ratio that the black level will appear exactly the same as OLED.
Only when there is a full exercising of that CR on the screen at the same time will you start to push past what the eye can do. In a dark room, put on a long dark scene, and the black of the OLED will become noticeable over a non-FALD LCD.

Cogito ergo sum makes a fundamental mistake because it ignores the implied existence of the narrator. Descartes might as well have said "A rose is red, therefore I am".

Last edited by tgm1024; 06-25-2015 at 07:55 AM.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #5 of 36 Old 06-25-2015, 08:08 AM - Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 537
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
Read what I wrote again, and not your BS speedreading this time.

Yes, there is a limited amount of CR that can be seen all at once. The issue with TVs is not what you can see all at once.

When a scene is predominantly dark, your eyes adjust, just as they would in a darkened room. The longer the scene is on, the better. The adjustment starts right away, but doesn't take full affect for many seconds, but all along your eyes adjust to the drop in light.

When a scene is predominantly light, your eyes adjust, just as they do outside.

Having a display capable of both, does not mean that we're stretching our eyes' ability past their neuro-physiological limits.




That's not the claim, and never has been the claim made by others. OLED's claim by others has always been "Wow, I can see real black so much better than on an LCD!" Well, no you can't on the bright bright floor of Best Buy.




Viewing angle? Stay on topic please. Black level and CR were what I and the article are discussing.




Only when there is a full exercising of that CR on the screen at the same time will you start to push past what the eye can do. In a dark room, put on a long dark scene, and the black of the OLED will become noticeable over a non-FALD LCD.
Black level is perfectly uniform on a bright showroom floor, so yes you can see the difference. They also put demos on the screen that has very bright colors with a black background, something FALD sets cannot do because it dims the bright image at the same time. That's why people state it looks so well.

There is no purpose of having your eyes constantly adjust light levels, all it does is cause eye strain. Hense why you should be using bias lighting. It has nothing to do with the contrast level, there are many factors in OLED that make it stand out from LCD.

I am on topic, OLED looks better because of viewing angles; unlike LCD even the black levels of an LCD can be harmed by standing in a bad spot.
Chase Payne is online now  
post #6 of 36 Old 06-25-2015, 08:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,101
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1408 Post(s)
Liked: 1377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chase Payne View Post
Black level is perfectly uniform on a bright showroom floor, so yes you can see the difference. They also put demos on the screen that has very bright colors with a black background, something FALD sets cannot do because it dims the bright image at the same time. That's why people state it looks so well.
Try again. I wasn't talking about FALD. I was talking about mid-level LCDs, not high end ones.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chase Payne View Post
There is no purpose of having your eyes constantly adjust light levels, all it does is cause eye strain. Hense why you should be using bias lighting. It has nothing to do with the contrast level, there are many factors in OLED that make it stand out from LCD.

I am on topic, OLED looks better because of viewing angles; unlike LCD even the black levels of an LCD can be harmed by standing in a bad spot.
YOU brought up CR (the ENTIRE subject of the first post). YOU brought up an article making claims about CR. ***I*** was addressing both of those positions (yours and the article's). You start slipping into other topics when you start talking about viewing angles.
reallynotnick and tubetwister like this.

Cogito ergo sum makes a fundamental mistake because it ignores the implied existence of the narrator. Descartes might as well have said "A rose is red, therefore I am".

Last edited by tgm1024; 06-25-2015 at 08:28 AM.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #7 of 36 Old 06-25-2015, 08:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 8,337
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 503 Post(s)
Liked: 378
Contrast ratio is the measurement of the difference in light intensity between the brightest white and the darkest black. The higher the contrast ratio the better the color information will appear against a darker background. For example 1000:1 contrast ratio gives a better color representation against a darker background then say 500:1 contrast ratio.

The static (or "native") contrast ratio measures the difference between the brightest white and the darkest black that can be on the screen at the same time.

Dynamic contrast ratio measures the difference between the brightest white a screen can ever produce and the darkest black it can ever produce.

The dynamic ratio is always going to be larger than the static ratio--which is why the dynamic ratio is usually advertised. But the static ratio is the more important number, because this is the maximum contrast you will ever actually see on the screen.

Just as an FYI.
tubetwister likes this.
Otto Pylot is online now  
post #8 of 36 Old 06-25-2015, 08:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,101
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1408 Post(s)
Liked: 1377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Pylot View Post
Contrast ratio is the measurement of the difference in light intensity between the brightest white and the darkest black. The higher the contrast ratio the better the color information will appear against a darker background. For example 1000:1 contrast ratio gives a better color representation against a darker background then say 500:1 contrast ratio.

The static (or "native") contrast ratio measures the difference between the brightest white and the darkest black that can be on the screen at the same time.

Dynamic contrast ratio measures the difference between the brightest white a screen can ever produce and the darkest black it can ever produce.

The dynamic ratio is always going to be larger than the static ratio--which is why the dynamic ratio is usually advertised. But the static ratio is the more important number, because this is the maximum contrast you will ever actually see on the screen.

Just as an FYI.
I of course know this, and I think Chase does too. We're talking solely about static CR.

By on the screen at one time, I (and the article, and Chase) are referring to how much we can see all at once.

The measurable static CR is limited by the eye at any given moment when you look at a screen. Mostly the iris is what throttles this downard when an upward limit is hit, but there are saturation effects as well.

A TV's static CR is not viewable by our eye in its entirety the way a calibration sensor can pick up and measure. Hence in one dark scene, our eyes can detect the low end of the static CR's range, and a bright scene later in the movie, our eyes can detect the high end of the static CR's range.

BTW, this discussion (and all the articles) are all fraught with peril, because it's largely unknown. In a "theoretical" HDR OLED or other emissive device we can have a near black scene with one dinky but enormously bright pixel in the corner that then exceeds our eye's CR ability depending upon how much of that pixel strikes our eye....something that is not easily accounted for in any article I've seen.

Cogito ergo sum makes a fundamental mistake because it ignores the implied existence of the narrator. Descartes might as well have said "A rose is red, therefore I am".

Last edited by tgm1024; 06-25-2015 at 08:54 AM.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #9 of 36 Old 06-25-2015, 10:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 8,337
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 503 Post(s)
Liked: 378
Thanks. I just thought I'd throw the basic definitions out there for the lurkers who get hung up on the term "contrast ratio". Probably not appropriate for this particular discussion.
tgm1024 and tubetwister like this.
Otto Pylot is online now  
post #10 of 36 Old 06-25-2015, 11:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,783
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 616 Post(s)
Liked: 460
Dynamic range != contrast ratio.

Anyone on AVS who can't tell the difference between 600:1 CR and 6000:1 or infinite contrast must hand in their AVS membership card until pending review of their eyesight has taken place.

Same for those who walk by a 0-100 nits (calibrated) BT.709 SDR TV and can't tell the difference between that and 0-1000 nits HDR right next to it.

You are probably legally blind in most states if you can't see the difference between 100 nits and 1000, and therefore unable to have a driver's license.
reallynotnick likes this.
RLBURNSIDE is online now  
post #11 of 36 Old 06-25-2015, 12:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,101
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1408 Post(s)
Liked: 1377
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
Dynamic range != contrast ratio.
I myself have made that case before (a few times now), but it's a tricky conversation.

There's a legacy issue involved. With LCD, because you can throttle down or ramp up the backlight without the CR changing at all, you can argue that dynamic range and CR are different forms of the same metric.

I'm uncomfortable with that though when it comes to OLED, even though it's how many white papers still use the term, because frankly it just doesn't tell the whole story.

Cogito ergo sum makes a fundamental mistake because it ignores the implied existence of the narrator. Descartes might as well have said "A rose is red, therefore I am".
tgm1024 is offline  
post #12 of 36 Old 06-25-2015, 12:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,101
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1408 Post(s)
Liked: 1377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Pylot View Post
Thanks. I just thought I'd throw the basic definitions out there for the lurkers who get hung up on the term "contrast ratio". Probably not appropriate for this particular discussion.
Well it isn't a bad distinction to make either. Covering the fundamentals never hurt anyone.

Cogito ergo sum makes a fundamental mistake because it ignores the implied existence of the narrator. Descartes might as well have said "A rose is red, therefore I am".
tgm1024 is offline  
post #13 of 36 Old 06-25-2015, 01:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,783
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 616 Post(s)
Liked: 460
The two things are completely independent though. A 0-1000 nits dynamic range TV has 10x greater DR than a bt.709 calibrated OLED with infinite contrast ratio. DR has units of candela / m^2, whereas Contrast Ratio is unitless.

I don't mean to belittle anyone, but people would do well to get some basic scientific literacy when comparing numbers and concepts. For this thread, if the units are totally different, or one has units and the other is just a number (a ratio), then you cannot compare them directly. And in this case you can easily have, as I made clear, something with an infinitely higher CR that has a small fraction of the brightness range of another TV. So it's not like greater CR -> greater DR, that does not follow, at all.

The true answer to the OP is : These two metrics are complementary, not redundant. One should get both the best CR and the best DR you can get in a TV set, for the price. It's easy to argue infinity to one CR + 0-100 DR, results in greater image quality than 3000:1 with 0-1000 DR, but one would be wrong, if that qualification were being done during the daytime, for example, or in a brighly lit room.

OLED HDR is definitely going to be amazing, that's for sure. But HDR on its own represents the biggest leap in LCD image quality, or even in general video quality on any set, since FHD. Your eyes like additional brightness and are designed to handle way more than 100 nits at once, even in the same frame. And the same goes for contrast ratio. Anyone who's seen an OLED and an LCD side by side can easily tell which is superior (the OLED of course). HDR is a point in LCD's favor, because it's available for a small faction of the price. Increasing CR on and on has diminishing returns. OLED is terrific but it's not that much better than a Kuro, which has nowhere near infinite CR. And a FALD set, aside from blooming from having too few zones, is pretty impressive too for like half the price of OLED and many more inches. Hopefully in a year or two OLED will be affordable for the mid-range TV segment.
RLBURNSIDE is online now  
post #14 of 36 Old 06-25-2015, 01:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rlindo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ON, Canada
Posts: 4,932
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 206 Post(s)
Liked: 221
Bias lighting is nice and helps especially if one's eyes aren't that great with low light vision. On the other hand, any bias lighting in any room that isn't dark (specifically if it isn't all black) will have a negative impact on the image from light reflecting off surfaces back onto the screen.

I also don't believe a display with a 1k:1 contrast ratio will produce the same black level as an OLED (or another display with a very high contrast ratio) with bias lighting active. Reality (as opposed to someone spouting some theory) and experience has shown me this is false.
rlindo is online now  
post #15 of 36 Old 06-25-2015, 01:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ray0414's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: michigan
Posts: 4,515
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2840 Post(s)
Liked: 1120
Hdr wont be for everyone. It's a lot more intense and at times will go against conventional ideals.

Take this dolby setup. The hdr picture is actually darker in some spots which does hide small details in some areas.

I personally do prefer the HDR image.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	attachment_1435264773534.jpg
Views:	94
Size:	50.3 KB
ID:	795146  
ray0414 is online now  
post #16 of 36 Old 06-25-2015, 01:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,101
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1408 Post(s)
Liked: 1377
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
The two things are completely independent though.
Mostly, but it's still true that the former (two point range) derives the other (ratio of those two points).


Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
A 0-1000 nits dynamic range TV has 10x greater DR than a bt.709 calibrated OLED with infinite contrast ratio.
And this ^^^^ is the problem with using ratios when the divisor is zero or exceedingly close to zero. I've said this myself probably 100 times. We have got to get used to using two numbers to describe this metric, and I believe we will, sooner or later.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
DR has units of candela / m^2, whereas Contrast Ratio is unitless.
(?) Sure, but so? That's what happens when you have a ratio of a unit over the same unit. The units cancel each other out.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
I don't mean to belittle anyone,
Yes you do. It's coming right up...


Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
but people would do well to get some basic scientific literacy when comparing numbers and concepts.
And there it is ^^^^.

(rest snipped out)

BURNSIDE, you're preaching to the choir, but you need to understand that there is a tremendous inertia to some of these terms, and one of them is the contrast ratio concept.

It's still a useful concept, though one that I really would rather go away. Dynamic Ranges are ranges, and ranges are by their nature two numbers. A ratio particularly becomes unwieldy, or of limited usage, when one of the numbers ends up being so close to zero.

The reason that CR applies so well to the eye is that the eye can manage ranges that slide (based upon the iris). Our eyes can easily handle low ranges, medium ranges, and high ranges, all throttled by an automatically directed bio-aperture. This is why people tend to jump to CR in the first place----it unifies each of those ranges (low, med, high) into the same value.

But for displays, it really needs to go IMO, and probably should have long ago. It's absolutely perfect for non-FALD LCD's (no matter what happens with the backlight, your ratio is the same). But it's awfully weird now, particularly with HDR, and especially with OLED.

Cogito ergo sum makes a fundamental mistake because it ignores the implied existence of the narrator. Descartes might as well have said "A rose is red, therefore I am".

Last edited by tgm1024; 06-25-2015 at 06:27 PM.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #17 of 36 Old 06-26-2015, 12:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 3,598
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 397 Post(s)
Liked: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chase Payne View Post
But the issue is if this is the case, then this means HDR just reduces detail. This is because it makes the image super bright, your eyes adjust to the bright light and in doing so it clips the lower light levels. After a few seconds, the image looks the same as it did without HDR except worse detail because you can no longer see the darker levels.
No, it doesn't look the same except worse. For one thing, the absolute level of brightness matters. It may be that, after adaptation, a night scene and a daytime scene have the same ratio of perceptible bright detail to dark detail, but that doesn't make day and night look the same. Day is not like night. It's brighter. (You knew that, really.)

More importantly, I think the author of the article you referred us to is hypnotized by the labels. A difference, or ratio, between brightest and darkest is not the only thing that characterizes the sources and displays that are being advertised as "HDR". We ought to consider more than what the label "high dynamic range" implies. There is more to it. The HDR systems not only have more brightness at the top, but they also have better than 8-bit color (it's at least 10-bit color), they use a perceptually based gamma curve, and they have a wider color gamut. Arguably the term HDR is not very appropriate, because there are other important differences besides just dynamic range, but regardless of the label, it is what it is.

Your reference makes the point that our eyes are less sensitive to differences in brightness for bright colors. The designers of HDR knew that. A perceptually based gamma curve has been an intrinsic part of HDR systems from the beginning. More difference in physical brightness levels for bright colors is made to compensate for this fact about human vision.

The reference doesn't seem to account at all for the increased number in HDR of distinguishable levels of grey (4-16 times as many levels) and likewise for each primary color.

Whatever the theoretical concerns, people who have actually seen HDR sources on HDR displays seem to like it.

Greg Lee
GregLee is online now  
post #18 of 36 Old 06-26-2015, 01:25 AM
Newbie
 
impulse7ex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlindo View Post
Bias lighting is nice and helps especially if one's eyes aren't that great with low light vision. On the other hand, any bias lighting in any room that isn't dark (specifically if it isn't all black) will have a negative impact on the image from light reflecting off surfaces back onto the screen.

I also don't believe a display with a 1k:1 contrast ratio will produce the same black level as an OLED (or another display with a very high contrast ratio) with bias lighting active. Reality (as opposed to someone spouting some theory) and experience has shown me this is false.
You mean, like these? My TV is in the middle of a cubicle, walls on both sides (you can't see them clearly in the pictures), lights bounces off left and right sides but I'm cool with it. I'm still over the fences over painting my wall black or not?
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	WP_20150521_02_41_15_Pro.jpg
Views:	55
Size:	226.0 KB
ID:	796242   Click image for larger version

Name:	WP_20150521_02_40_56_Pro.jpg
Views:	45
Size:	250.4 KB
ID:	796250   Click image for larger version

Name:	WP_20150521_02_40_30_Pro.jpg
Views:	37
Size:	301.4 KB
ID:	796258   Click image for larger version

Name:	WP_20150521_02_40_06_Pro.jpg
Views:	41
Size:	130.9 KB
ID:	796266   Click image for larger version

Name:	WP_20150521_02_41_02_Pro.jpg
Views:	36
Size:	244.6 KB
ID:	796274  


Last edited by impulse7ex; 06-26-2015 at 01:32 AM.
impulse7ex is offline  
post #19 of 36 Old 06-26-2015, 01:51 AM
Member
 
EvLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 168
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Liked: 98
Claims of 600:1 or even 1000:1 being sufficient are hogwash. It's been well established through scientific research that HDR displays need at least 5,000:1 to match the visual system for steady state viewing. See Timo and Kunkel, A Reassessment of the Simultaneous Dynamic Range of the Human Visual System, 2010. If you also want to convey the sensation of transitioning from a very dark scene in shadow to a bright scene in full illumination then additional range well beyond 5,000:1 is needed.

Putting numbers aside, the reason people are excited about HDR is because it opens up a whole new palette for filmmakers to work with and the pictures can be unlike anything you've ever seen on a standard display.
EvLee is offline  
post #20 of 36 Old 06-26-2015, 01:51 AM
Senior Member
 
Squirrel!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 288
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 54
http://farbspiel-photo.com/learn/hdr-before-and-after

I like HDR.

Main: Mitsubishi 73734 DLP|Amazon Fire TV|Toshiba HD DVD-A35|Panasonic BD65|Denon AVR-4311CI|MartinLogan Preface|Phantom|MartinLogan Encore TF|2 DIY Class 'G' 540w 12" Subs|APC H15|Harmony 720 Remote|Linksys E3000 Dual Band N-Router|Linksys SE2500 Ethernet Switch

MBR: Vizio VF550M|Roku 2XS|Sony BDP-S1100|Denon AVR-X1000|Chane A1rx-c|Phantom|Dayton Audio SAT-BK|MartinLogan Dynamo 300|Belkin PureAV PF30|Harmony 550 Remote
Squirrel! is offline  
post #21 of 36 Old 06-26-2015, 03:45 AM - Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 537
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvLee View Post
Claims of 600:1 or even 1000:1 being sufficient are hogwash. It's been well established through scientific research that HDR displays need at least 5,000:1 to match the visual system for steady state viewing. See Timo and Kunkel, A Reassessment of the Simultaneous Dynamic Range of the Human Visual System, 2010. If you also want to convey the sensation of transitioning from a very dark scene in shadow to a bright scene in full illumination then additional range well beyond 5,000:1 is needed.

Putting numbers aside, the reason people are excited about HDR is because it opens up a whole new palette for filmmakers to work with and the pictures can be unlike anything you've ever seen on a standard display.
That research you linked is talking about the dynamic range of the human perception.

The topic is about static contrast ratio, meaning the claim that 1000:1 consistent and fixed contrast ratio is actually valid. We already know that our dynamic range is much, much higher than that.

You can get a seamless transition from solid black to white with just 1000 to 1 static ratio, although it is REQUIRED to use bias lighting, to fix your eyes permanently at that dynamic range. The image must reach 1000 to 1 contrast, as we cannot see that well and your eyes clip the low light level of black that it actually *appears* as solid black as OLED.


An image at 50 nits looks no different than an image at 20,000 nits provided that the display exceeds the overall ambient light level of the area, and that your eyes have adjusted its dynamic range.

HDR looks attractive at first... but after 5 minutes it doesn't look any different. HDR just "looks" better because they are purposely shifting it on and off since it takes like 30 seconds for our eyes to shift dynamic contrast. HDR is just exploiting our dynamic contrast, which sounds like a great idea, but all it does in the end is cause eye strain. HDR will always cause an image to clip detail in low luminance levels too, it's just how our eyes work; so you will likely only see HDR in brighter scenes as if they did it for dark scenes it would look uncanny or less detailed.


Also the statistics for 90% better experience, how many of those people actually tried watching their TV with bias lighting? Have these people ever watched TV without experiencing eyestrain? Perhaps they are so used to eyestrain that they assume it is normal?

Last edited by Chase Payne; 06-26-2015 at 06:07 AM.
Chase Payne is online now  
post #22 of 36 Old 06-26-2015, 09:06 AM
Advanced Member
 
reallynotnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 541
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Why do we keep speaking in terms of CR? That number becomes very nonsensical with newer displays especially OLED that have absolute black as that creates infinite contrast even with a 1nit display.
reallynotnick is offline  
post #23 of 36 Old 06-26-2015, 09:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 8,337
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 503 Post(s)
Liked: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by impulse7ex View Post
You mean, like these? My TV is in the middle of a cubicle, walls on both sides (you can't see them clearly in the pictures), lights bounces off left and right sides but I'm cool with it. I'm still over the fences over painting my wall black or not?
The purists will tell you that proper bias lighting is best when the surrounding walls are a neutral color and the light temp, behind the panel, is as close to D65 as possible.
Otto Pylot is online now  
post #24 of 36 Old 06-26-2015, 10:02 AM
Advanced Member
 
ktownhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 707
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 397 Post(s)
Liked: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Pylot View Post
The purists will tell you that proper bias lighting is best when the surrounding walls are a neutral color and the light temp, behind the panel, is as close to D65 as possible.
I have a dark green wall behind my TV and bias lighting still works great.
TheCrow1994 likes this.
ktownhero is online now  
post #25 of 36 Old 06-26-2015, 10:22 AM
Newbie
 
impulse7ex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 2
Ok, dark, neutral color or any color as long as it's dark. Is the usage of bias light viable with TVs which are not hanged to the wall. And there is some distance between the back of the tv with the wall behind it. Some would say just pull the TV back closer to the wall.


Putting that asides, I found that Kingsman The Secret Service movie is quite watchable in Dynamic mode. Videophiles,mercy! maybe its no coincidence it is one of the few movies getting the HDR treatment?? Can you find the connection, Dynamic and High Dynamic Range. Lol

Last edited by impulse7ex; 06-26-2015 at 10:26 AM.
impulse7ex is offline  
post #26 of 36 Old 06-26-2015, 10:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JWhip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wayne, PA
Posts: 4,701
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 485 Post(s)
Liked: 559
Having seen HDR myself now done right. I am ALL in. The Exodus movie looked way better in ALL respects done in HDR vs. the SDR right underneath it. Joe Kane's 4K and 8K HDR videos were as lifelike as I have ever seen. The sun setting behind some clouds and throwing off light on the ground looked superb. Again, it is a tool and I am sure some will abuse it. Done right, it is a game changer, from what I have seen.

Louder is NOT better!
JWhip is online now  
post #27 of 36 Old 06-26-2015, 11:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 8,337
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 503 Post(s)
Liked: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktownhero View Post
I have a dark green wall behind my TV and bias lighting still works great.
As I said, the "purists" will tell you neutral and D65. Personally, I think it's what ever looks best to you and feels comfortable. Our walls are neutral (Navajo White) with 3500k LED light directly behind the panel. That's the only light on in the room in the evening and it works just fine for us. Some people like to use the LED light strips that change colors
tgm1024 likes this.
Otto Pylot is online now  
post #28 of 36 Old 06-26-2015, 11:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 8,337
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 503 Post(s)
Liked: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by impulse7ex View Post
Ok, dark, neutral color or any color as long as it's dark. Is the usage of bias light viable with TVs which are not hanged to the wall. And there is some distance between the back of the tv with the wall behind it. Some would say just pull the TV back closer to the wall.
As I said in my response above, most prefer a neutral color as opposed to a darker color but it's what feels and looks best to you. If you hang your tv on the wall, there are quite a few LED light strips that you can pick from that will work well. Our tv is on a media console so it's about 8-10" from the wall. Visually, the light is evenly distributed on both sides of the tv and all the way to the top of the cathedral ceiling.
Otto Pylot is online now  
post #29 of 36 Old 06-26-2015, 11:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ray0414's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: michigan
Posts: 4,515
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2840 Post(s)
Liked: 1120
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWhip View Post
Having seen HDR myself now done right. I am ALL in. The Exodus movie looked way better in ALL respects done in HDR vs. the SDR right underneath it. Joe Kane's 4K and 8K HDR videos were as lifelike as I have ever seen. The sun setting behind some clouds and throwing off light on the ground looked superb. Again, it is a tool and I am sure some will abuse it. Done right, it is a game changer, from what I have seen.

Were both tvs js9500s? And was the sdr version 1080p blu ray or a 4k version ?
ray0414 is online now  
post #30 of 36 Old 06-26-2015, 11:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JWhip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wayne, PA
Posts: 4,701
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 485 Post(s)
Liked: 559
It was shown on the smaller of the Sammy flagship LGs. I am not sure if it was 4K or not. MY guess is that it was 4k. All of Joe kan'e footage was either 4k or 8K downconverted to 4k.

Louder is NOT better!
JWhip is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply LCD Flat Panel Displays



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off