Dolby High Dynamic Range Initiative - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 2Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 94 Old 12-19-2013, 10:52 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Scott Wilkinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 1,206
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 236 Post(s)
Liked: 959

At the SMPTE UHD Symposium in October (which I wrote about here), several presenters, including Dolby, talked about the need for displays with greater dynamic range than current technology provides, especially in terms of higher light output. Last week, Mark Henninger highlighted a story from Engadget that offered a sneak peek at a new high dynamic-range (HDR) display technology from Dolby. Yesterday, I got to see it for myself, and I all I can say is—wow!

 

Let There Be Light

The presentation began with some information about light levels in the real world as well as from TVs and cinema projectors. In this discussion, the unit of measurement was nits, aka candelas per square meter, rather than foot-lamberts. Why? Because the nit is a metric unit of measurement used around the world, while the foot-lambert is an old-fashioned unit that's falling out of wide usage. Both measure the same thing—the amount of light emitted (or reflected) per unit area—with a simple conversion: 1 fL = 3.42 nits, 1 nit = 0.29 fL. According to Dolby, people involved with emissive, direct-view displays have switched to using nits, while commercial-cinema folks continue to use foot-lamberts.

 

In the real world, the sun emits over 1 billion nits, while light from the daytime sky is around 1 million nits, and starlight is 0.000001 nit. So the dynamic range from direct sunlight to starlight is about 15 orders of magnitude. On the other hand, a calibrated TV in a dark room has a peak light output of around 100 nits and a black level of perhaps 0.1 nit—not counting the ability to completely shut off the illumination—which yields a total contrast ratio of about 1000:1, or three orders of magnitude. (I've seen plenty of TVs that can reach lower than 0.1 nit, so if we say it's 0.01 nit, that's 10,000:1, or four orders of magnitude.) Commercial-cinema images exhibit about half the dynamic range of calibrated TVs.

 

What about the human visual system? In total, a person with normal vision is sensitive to a dynamic range of about 12 orders of magnitude—but not all at once. At any given instant, our visual dynamic range is about six orders of magnitude, and that range shifts up and down in response to the overall amount of light in the environment. That's why everything looks so black when you first walk into a dark room from a bright, sunny day, and why your eyes might actually hurt when you emerge from a dark theater into daylight. It takes your eyes some time to adjust, or accommodate, to the new ambient light level.

 

In an effort to bring display technology into the 21st century, Dolby decided to design for the limits of the human eye, not the limits of a particular technology, citing CRT and film as the limiting technologies on which current display capabilities are based. Neither technology is relevant any more, so why not design a display system that uses the entire range of human visual ability?

 

To study this issue, the company took a digital-cinema projector and focused it down to a 21-inch screen, then asked a large group of people what they preferred. The results were astonishing—the vast majority of viewers preferred 200 times more brightness than current TVs can deliver (20,000 nits) and 4000 times more contrast (4,000,000:1 with a black level of 0.005 nit, over six orders of magnitude).

 

The Demo

Practical display technology can't reach 20,000 or even 10,000 nits, but Dolby has built a demonstration monitor based on its PRM4200 professional reference monitor that can output 4000 nits with a black level of 0.005 nit for a dynamic range of 800,000:1, almost six orders of magnitude. In the actual demo, we got to see the demonstration monitor side by side with a PRM4200 (both 1080p panels) in a completely blacked-out room displaying the same content, which had been graded separately for each display and sent as RGB 4:4:4 with 12 bits per color. The content included two segments shot by Dolby on ARRI Alexa digital cameras and some footage from Samsara, which was shot on 70mm film.

 

The PRM4200 was calibrated to 100 nits peak white and 0.005 nits black, which is a more-than-respectable dynamic range of 20,000:1. The PRM4200's color gamut was set to Rec.709, while the demonstration monitor displayed a color gamut conforming to the digital-cinema standard called P3, which is based on film emulsion; this gamut is larger than Rec.709 but smaller than Rec.2020. Both displays use full-array backlighting with RGB LEDs, and each LED is independently dimmable. The PRM4200 has 4500 LEDs (1500 for each color), while the demonstration monitor has 18,000 (6000 per color).

 

It is impossible to accurately capture the difference Dolby's new imaging technology makes using regular photography; it needs to be seen live. But here's a taste of the difference between a display using the new technology (left) and standard HD video (right). (Photo: Thom Brekke; image provided by Dolby Laboratories)

 

First, we were shown the content on the PRM4200 by itself, and it looked great—until the demonstration monitor was activated, at which point the PRM4200 looked totally washed out and dull. Of course, the demonstration monitor was much brighter, but it was not painful on the eyes at all. Instead, the entire image looked much more realistic, including greater detail in the bright and dark areas (often within the same shot), brighter highlights such as an arc welder and reflections of the sun from a shiny aluminum airplane, and richer colors, due in part to the wider color gamut but also because that gamut remained wider throughout more of the brightness range. In current TVs, the gamut often shrinks as the brightness increases, causing colorists to have to desaturate the colors in bright scenes.

 

SMPTE Proposal

In order to preclude compromises like that—and many others that must be made to accommodate current display technology—Dolby is proposing a new standard to SMPTE (the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers). The proposal includes a dynamic range from 10,000 nits down to true 0 with 12 bits per color.

 

You might think that even 12 bits isn't enough to avoid banding with a range from 0 to 10,000 nits, and you'd be right with a gamma-based system. Gamma is an exponential function that defines how a display responds to different levels of brightness in the signal; it was derived from how CRTs work, and it's still being emulated in today's displays, even though they don't need it. Part of Dolby's proposal is a new perceptual-coding system based on how humans see rather than gamma, and it is said to achieve the same smoothness of gradations as a 14-bit gamma-based system.

 

Another hallmark of the Dolby proposal is a signal format that remains the same for all display technologies, which would automatically adapt the signal for their particular capabilities. This is accomplished using a layered-coding approach, which adds things like extended dynamic range to the existing standard, making it backward-compatible. As a result, the content would need to be prepared, or "graded," only once rather than many times for different media as it is now. The studios already archive their content in the highest possible quality, so it would be relatively easy to transition to the new system.

 

It should be noted that many current TVs can produce more than 100 nits, especially in their "torch" mode—Dolby measured one Sharp Quattron model at 1000 nits. But virtually all consumer content is color graded for 100 nits, so reproducing it brighter only stretches—and thus distorts—the picture information as it's delivered today.

 

HDR is part of Dolby's effort to deliver better pictures, a goal characterized by three pillars—more pixels (UHD resolution), faster pixels (higher frame rates), and better pixels (greater dynamic range, more colors). Of course, all of this requires more bandwidth; UHD has four times as much pixel data as 1080p, and according to Dolby, HDR using its perceptual coding needs 25% more bandwidth at any resolution. New high-efficiency codecs like HEVC can cut the current data rate in half, and we will certainly see even greater gains in efficiency in the future.

 

As we've seen with UHD, TV manufacturers are rushing headlong toward more pixels, but not faster and better pixels, though Dolby believes that these technologies are finally ready to come together. In fact, greater dynamic range has much more impact on picture quality than resolution—if you're too far from the display to see the increased resolution of UHD, you can still clearly see the improvement of HDR.

 

Also, Dolby wants to make it very clear that it will not be manufacturing consumer TVs. Instead, it intends to license the technology to other companies, and company reps tell me that several OEM partners are planning to showcase displays with the new imaging capabilities at CES next month. All I can say is—I can't wait!

 

For more from Dolby, check out this blog post.

 

Like AVS Forum on Facebook

Follow AVS Forum on Twitter

+1 AVS Forum on Google+

GeorgeAB, baloo_btru and TorTorden like this.

Scott Wilkinson
AVS Editor
Scott Wilkinson is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 94 Old 12-19-2013, 11:22 AM
Senior Member
 
thrillcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Ames, Iowa
Posts: 393
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 108
So this is not just a new display technology that would display existing material and unlock chroma and luma information that current displays are unable to process, as I had understood originally. This is a new broadcast spec that will require source material to be regraded and remastered?

I love my iPhone, but it will never replace my turntable.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
thrillcat is offline  
post #3 of 94 Old 12-19-2013, 11:34 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Scott Wilkinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 1,206
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 236 Post(s)
Liked: 959
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillcat View Post

So this is not just a new display technology that would display existing material and unlock chroma and luma information that current displays are unable to process, as I had understood originally. This is a new broadcast spec that will require source material to be regraded and remastered?


Ultimately, yes, it's a new video-grading and delivery spec as well as a new display technology that can render expanded information not included in current consumer content.


Scott Wilkinson
AVS Editor
Scott Wilkinson is offline  
post #4 of 94 Old 12-19-2013, 02:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
p5browne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario, CANADA
Posts: 3,872
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 93 Post(s)
Liked: 190
The Star Trek HaloDeck is getting closer!
p5browne is online now  
post #5 of 94 Old 12-19-2013, 02:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HopefulFred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,807
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 200
Are optical sensors with adequate dynamic range already widespread? Or will the image capture side of things have some catching up to do as well?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
HopefulFred is online now  
post #6 of 94 Old 12-19-2013, 06:08 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1009 Post(s)
Liked: 865
Thanx Scott. Best explanation of HDR I've read so far.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #7 of 94 Old 12-19-2013, 06:53 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Scott Wilkinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 1,206
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 236 Post(s)
Liked: 959
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopefulFred View Post

Are optical sensors with adequate dynamic range already widespread? Or will the image capture side of things have some catching up to do as well?


At the demo, a Dolby rep said that modern digital-cinema cameras like the Sony F65, Red, and ARRI Alexa have a dynamic range of around 14 stops, which is a little over 4 orders of magnitude (10,000:1). I would have thought it was more than that. To capture 6 orders of magnitude, a camera would need a dynamic range of nearly 20 stops. Do any such cameras exist? I don't know; if so, they must be uber expensive!


Scott Wilkinson
AVS Editor
Scott Wilkinson is offline  
post #8 of 94 Old 12-19-2013, 06:54 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Scott Wilkinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 1,206
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 236 Post(s)
Liked: 959
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Thanx Scott. Best explanation of HDR I've read so far.


Thanks; coming from you, that really means something!


Scott Wilkinson
AVS Editor
Scott Wilkinson is offline  
post #9 of 94 Old 12-19-2013, 11:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Reddig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Hays, KS
Posts: 1,631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 161
I gotta admit when I had first heard about this technology I said to myself, do we really need more brightness when LED's are already searing our eyeballs? But after reading this im starting to gather that its much more than just more brightness. I always thought it foolish to have a gamma based system built around the Cathode Ray Tube television for making, displaying, and broadcasting content for modern flat panel displays as well as digital projection. This is definitly a great idea to redesign the system and Im surpised its took this long.

When you walk outside in the morning at dawn the light from the sun is bright in a way that ive never seen a display reproduce. Ive always felt that kind of large dynamic range was lacking in modern display tech. And of course contrast has got worse since the CRT for the most part. Now with OLED coming about I would guess that would be a great technology to develop HDR with.

This has me excited though. Can't wait to see for myself hopfully soon.

JBL Pro Cinema
Reddig is online now  
post #10 of 94 Old 12-20-2013, 02:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Stu03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Kingdom of Fife, Scotland.
Posts: 1,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 167
Cool smile.gif

It's addressing core stuff rather than just throwing more pixels into the equation.

This will be worth keeping eyes open for
Stu03 is offline  
post #11 of 94 Old 12-20-2013, 05:18 AM
Member
 
redrider_99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopefulFred View Post

Are optical sensors with adequate dynamic range already widespread? Or will the image capture side of things have some catching up to do as well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post

At the demo, a Dolby rep said that modern digital-cinema cameras like the Sony F65, Red, and ARRI Alexa have a dynamic range of around 14 stops, which is a little over 4 orders of magnitude (10,000:1). I would have thought it was more than that. To capture 6 orders of magnitude, a camera would need a dynamic range of nearly 20 stops. Do any such cameras exist? I don't know; if so, they must be uber expensive!

I wonder if this doesn't really matter that much?

Still photography is already doing HDR type stuff from multiple exposures. Could the same principles be applied to video using multiple cameras and, for lack of a technical term, blending the two exposures into a single higher dynamic range image? I'm not sure if the technology exists to do that on the scale of 24/48 times per second, but it's an idea.

That said, I've read many times that the photography industry would benefit from higher dynamic range sensors so this may drive that development.

This is exciting stuff and great to see change in one of the more needed areas compared to the easily marketable ones. Great write up Scott, thanks!

redrider_99 is offline  
post #12 of 94 Old 12-20-2013, 06:41 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,622
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1085 Post(s)
Liked: 2245
Quote:
Originally Posted by redrider_99 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopefulFred View Post

Are optical sensors with adequate dynamic range already widespread? Or will the image capture side of things have some catching up to do as well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post

At the demo, a Dolby rep said that modern digital-cinema cameras like the Sony F65, Red, and ARRI Alexa have a dynamic range of around 14 stops, which is a little over 4 orders of magnitude (10,000:1). I would have thought it was more than that. To capture 6 orders of magnitude, a camera would need a dynamic range of nearly 20 stops. Do any such cameras exist? I don't know; if so, they must be uber expensive!

I wonder if this doesn't really matter that much?

Still photography is already doing HDR type stuff from multiple exposures. Could the same principles be applied to video using multiple cameras and, for lack of a technical term, blending the two exposures into a single higher dynamic range image? I'm not sure if the technology exists to do that on the scale of 24/48 times per second, but it's an idea.

That said, I've read many times that the photography industry would benefit from higher dynamic range sensors so this may drive that development.

This is exciting stuff and great to see change in one of the more needed areas compared to the easily marketable ones. Great write up Scott, thanks!

It already is done with stills. What's needed to bring true HDR to video are sensors with two photosites per pixel, one high-sensitivity and one low sensitivity. Essentially, the two exposures are captured simultaneously. What can be done with still photos, can be done with video. Most of the time 14 stops is more than enough to capture the entire effective DR of a scene.


Find out more about Mark Henninger at
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
imagic is online now  
post #13 of 94 Old 12-20-2013, 02:46 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 20,499
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 196 Post(s)
Liked: 153
And/or some dynamic range expansion

Noah
noah katz is offline  
post #14 of 94 Old 12-20-2013, 04:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,768
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Liked: 798
I like what I'm reading more this time. first mention it sounded like they were just trying to increase the brightness of displays without sacrificing blacks.

I can support a system based around the human eye(hopefully without need to 'adjust' though) within todays technology limits, a lot more than just a super bright LED that has ok blacks. I didn't realize how many unnecessary things have carried over from CRT technology. it's about time somebody stepped in and said enough is enough, and drew up some new standards from scratch based on todays display technology.


that all being said, I'm still curious to see it in person and if i'll care for it personally. I do find today's LED 'painfully' bright already. I also find it nearly impossible to be outside on a sunny day without sunglasses. still, it seems like it should be easy to limit the dynamic range to what's comfortable once you have a display that can max out human sight.

I'd still like to see some efforts made to reduce black levels though. I just find my eyes will accept whatever the brightest area on screen is as 'white', but I can never accept the darkest area on screen as 'black' unless my room is brighter than the on screen content. so for me, a small change in blacker blacks will be more noticeable than a huge change in whiter whites.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #15 of 94 Old 12-22-2013, 09:47 PM
Newbie
 
yyidus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by redrider_99 View Post


Still photography is already doing HDR type stuff from multiple exposures. Could the same principles be applied to video using multiple cameras and, for lack of a technical term, blending the two exposures into a single higher dynamic range image? I'm not sure if the technology exists to do that on the scale of 24/48 times per second, but it's an idea.

As it turns out, somewhat yes, but it's not perfect:

Red cameras offer a feature called "HDRx", which first scans the image at a fast exposure, but doesn't 'reset' the sensor. Then scans it again later, yielding two images, one much 'darker' than the other, to get a higher DR. Magic Lantern for the canon cameras also has a thing where it takes two images in a row. With the new Dragon Sensor, Red claims their sensors can achieve 20 stops of dynamic range.

http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/hdrx-high-dynamic-range-video

The problem with the above method is that the 'darker' (faster shutter) image has less 'motion' in it, and in the case of the canon method, also represents info from an 'older' image. So when bringing the two images together to form the HDR frame, you have to do a bunch of math and smoothing and simulating motion in order to get the final image. For what it's worth, HDRx is REALLY good when there isn't much motion in the scene, but looks bad when the camera moves a lot.

Another approach would be to use an image splitting prism that splits say 90% of the light to one sensor, and 10% to another. This lets one sensor read a much darker version of the image. The problem with this technique is that the sensor is effectively getting less light than you would want for the whole image, and nobody likes losing ISO. Plus it requires two sensors that are very well physically synced. I'm not aware of any camera system that tries this feat.
yyidus is offline  
post #16 of 94 Old 12-23-2013, 03:44 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,622
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1085 Post(s)
Liked: 2245
Quote:
Originally Posted by yyidus View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by redrider_99 View Post


Still photography is already doing HDR type stuff from multiple exposures. Could the same principles be applied to video using multiple cameras and, for lack of a technical term, blending the two exposures into a single higher dynamic range image? I'm not sure if the technology exists to do that on the scale of 24/48 times per second, but it's an idea.

As it turns out, somewhat yes, but it's not perfect:

Red cameras offer a feature called "HDRx", which first scans the image at a fast exposure, but doesn't 'reset' the sensor. Then scans it again later, yielding two images, one much 'darker' than the other, to get a higher DR. Magic Lantern for the canon cameras also has a thing where it takes two images in a row. With the new Dragon Sensor, Red claims their sensors can achieve 20 stops of dynamic range.

http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/hdrx-high-dynamic-range-video

The problem with the above method is that the 'darker' (faster shutter) image has less 'motion' in it, and in the case of the canon method, also represents info from an 'older' image. So when bringing the two images together to form the HDR frame, you have to do a bunch of math and smoothing and simulating motion in order to get the final image. For what it's worth, HDRx is REALLY good when there isn't much motion in the scene, but looks bad when the camera moves a lot.

Another approach would be to use an image splitting prism that splits say 90% of the light to one sensor, and 10% to another. This lets one sensor read a much darker version of the image. The problem with this technique is that the sensor is effectively getting less light than you would want for the whole image, and nobody likes losing ISO. Plus it requires two sensors that are very well physically synced. I'm not aware of any camera system that tries this feat.

I've never heard of such a camera either, but it's a cool idea. Another option is to take the approach Fuji did with it's S3 DLSR and create a sensor which incorporates both high-sensitivity and low-sensitivity photosites, so the same length exposure yields a light and a dark image.


Find out more about Mark Henninger at
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
imagic is online now  
post #17 of 94 Old 12-23-2013, 09:23 AM
KOF
Advanced Member
 
KOF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 765
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Good. A direct evidence that contrasts plasma fanboys' notion of not needing extra brightness and I am one myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

I like what I'm reading more this time. first mention it sounded like they were just trying to increase the brightness of displays without sacrificing blacks.

I can support a system based around the human eye(hopefully without need to 'adjust' though) within todays technology limits, a lot more than just a super bright LED that has ok blacks. I didn't realize how many unnecessary things have carried over from CRT technology. it's about time somebody stepped in and said enough is enough, and drew up some new standards from scratch based on todays display technology.


that all being said, I'm still curious to see it in person and if i'll care for it personally. I do find today's LED 'painfully' bright already. I also find it nearly impossible to be outside on a sunny day without sunglasses. still, it seems like it should be easy to limit the dynamic range to what's comfortable once you have a display that can max out human sight.

I'd still like to see some efforts made to reduce black levels though. I just find my eyes will accept whatever the brightest area on screen is as 'white', but I can never accept the darkest area on screen as 'black' unless my room is brighter than the on screen content. so for me, a small change in blacker blacks will be more noticeable than a huge change in whiter whites.

fierce_gt, the problem with today's LCDs is with its constant light output all over the panel. Simply raising brightness will destroy black and will give off that flat look. HDR will be similiar to how a CRT handles its luminance output except that it will be done simultaneously rather than sequencial like CRT behaves, and with more zones in a full local dimming array, we will have a lot of room to play with. Take my Sony BVM CRT for example: while its max light output is 160cd/m2 when measured, it's actually much higher than the typical LCDs in the strobing zone. The rest of the picture remains dark. This is how it can give off dynamic picture without burning my retina. If LCDs have ever done this successfully, we wouldn't be saying LCDs hurt our eyes anymore. Unfortunately, I do not forsee a future full local dimming LED LCDs will be back in a full swing to take full advantage of this technology. They were killed off by inferior edge-lits for a reason. It will also take OLEDs much longer than LCDs to catch up, but I'm afraid a mediocre implementation of this technology by the edge-lits will still be enough to kill off the OLEDs. We may be in for yet another "Plasmas got killed in the showroom" episode.
Stu03 likes this.
KOF is online now  
post #18 of 94 Old 12-23-2013, 07:56 PM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1010
^Stop it, scrooge.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #19 of 94 Old 12-24-2013, 03:20 PM
KOF
Advanced Member
 
KOF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 765
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 99
^ Oh, you're rich. Noone is going to cry for Panasonic plasma's death once this technology takes off. smile.gif Me being a Panasonic plasma owner does not preclude me from saying this. smile.gif
KOF is online now  
post #20 of 94 Old 12-24-2013, 03:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,768
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Liked: 798
I'm not sure I'm following. are you for this or against it?

I don't want to go down the lcd vs plasma debate as there's nothing to gain from that.

but I do like what I'm hearing about this HDR set. more so for it's start from scratch approach though. it is pretty silly that our plasma and lcd displays are designed to act like crts. I mean, we'll never get better picture than crt until we stop trying to copy crt's.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #21 of 94 Old 12-24-2013, 05:26 PM
KOF
Advanced Member
 
KOF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 765
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

I'm not sure I'm following. are you for this or against it?

I don't want to go down the lcd vs plasma debate as there's nothing to gain from that.

but I do like what I'm hearing about this HDR set. more so for it's start from scratch approach though. it is pretty silly that our plasma and lcd displays are designed to act like crts. I mean, we'll never get better picture than crt until we stop trying to copy crt's.

It's not so much as if we have to move away from color standards that are still designed around CRT, but whether we should change our perception of how movies should look like. The HFR was our first test, the HDR will be our next. If our ultimate goal is to attain either 100% photorealism or photosurrealism, don't you think it would be a bit silly to limit our TVs to conform to whatever the vision the many of the filmmakers have when flat panels have not been a priority to them?
KOF is online now  
post #22 of 94 Old 12-24-2013, 05:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,768
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Liked: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post

It's not so much as if we have to move away from color standards that are still designed around CRT, but whether we should change our perception of how movies should look like. The HFR was our first test, the HDR will be our next. If our ultimate goal is to attain either 100% photorealism or photosurrealism, don't you think it would be a bit silly to limit our TVs to conform to whatever the vision the many of the filmmakers have when flat panels have not been a priority to them?

again, I don't understand what you're trying to say?

yes, I think displays should try to achieve photorealism. what filmmakers do with that is up to them. if they WANT the film to look like real life, now it will. but if they want to get all artsy and make it look surreal, they still can.

it needs to start somewhere. I guarantee you if TV's at home becomes way 'better' than cinema's, they will fix cinema's.

I like that instead of trying to copy another technology(whether that's crt, film, or DCI, or whatever) they are trying to copy real life.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #23 of 94 Old 12-25-2013, 12:36 AM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1010
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post

^ Oh, you're rich. Noone is going to cry for Panasonic plasma's death once this technology takes off. smile.gif Me being a Panasonic plasma owner does not preclude me from saying this. smile.gif
I sincerely hope you didn't take being called "scrooge' to heart. It was very much tongue-in-cheek. I'll be the scrooge now, everything you state is predicated on certain conditions being met aka a big IF at this point. Sony and Panasonic's joint venture went down the tubes...bringing down one of the few avenues by which mass production can arrive. The future viability of the Panasonic consumer display division as a whole is at risk.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #24 of 94 Old 12-25-2013, 10:43 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 20,499
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 196 Post(s)
Liked: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

I guarantee you if TV's at home becomes way 'better' than cinema's, they will fix cinema's.

Seems like the only way that theaters will be able to achieve HDR is with similar tech, which will be really expensive at theater screen size.

I wonder how the politic$ of that will play out.

Not sure how HDR could be applied in reasonably sized or remotely affordable HT pj's; maybe the much hypothesized but never seen additional display chip in series panel to square the CR.
rhitch likes this.

Noah
noah katz is offline  
post #25 of 94 Old 12-28-2013, 12:44 PM
Senior Member
 
milehighou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 420
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

I like what I'm reading more this time. first mention it sounded like they were just trying to increase the brightness of displays without sacrificing blacks.

I can support a system based around the human eye(hopefully without need to 'adjust' though) within todays technology limits, a lot more than just a super bright LED that has ok blacks. I didn't realize how many unnecessary things have carried over from CRT technology. it's about time somebody stepped in and said enough is enough, and drew up some new standards from scratch based on todays display technology.


that all being said, I'm still curious to see it in person and if i'll care for it personally. I do find today's LED 'painfully' bright already. I also find it nearly impossible to be outside on a sunny day without sunglasses. still, it seems like it should be easy to limit the dynamic range to what's comfortable once you have a display that can max out human sight.

I'd still like to see some efforts made to reduce black levels though. I just find my eyes will accept whatever the brightest area on screen is as 'white', but I can never accept the darkest area on screen as 'black' unless my room is brighter than the on screen content. so for me, a small change in blacker blacks will be more noticeable than a huge change in whiter whites.

I agree with you about today's LED's being very bright. I watch in a near-dark room, and I have my set calibrated to output around 40 ftL at 100% white. If I cranked my TV up to "torch mode" and I can't imagine trying to watch it in a dark room. I can't imagine wanting a display that would output more brightness than what I currently have. Like you said, black levels could still use improvement. I'd much rather have blacker blacks than a display that's capable of producing sun-like levels of brightness.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
milehighou is offline  
post #26 of 94 Old 12-29-2013, 08:15 AM
Newbie
 
boykillsworld's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I am all for this HDR stuff as long as the content will be created that supports it.

It does bring into play some interesting questions like up-conversions. Unless both systems are present and calibrated for, TVs will have to converter from one gamma to another. It sounds to me like people with new UHD TVs are never going to see the benefit of this. I also wonder what will be the fall back system for these people. Is original gamma data also going to be present in the signal? I think this will introduce large bandwidth problems if multiple signals have to be present.

That said, this sounds like an excellent advance in TV technology and I can't wait to see it's implementation.
boykillsworld is offline  
post #27 of 94 Old 12-29-2013, 09:11 AM
Member
 
safe91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: France
Posts: 73
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Thanks Scott for clear explanation of Dolby innovation system.

Let me talk about EBU analyses of HDR :

One of the questions that the EBU wishes see standardize is picture dynamics (Higher Dynamic Range or HDR). This technique involves mixing in real time two versions of each image having a different brightness setting :

• The first version of the image is processed with a brightness / low sensitivity so as to make visible the very bright parts of the final image (not Cramer white).
• The second version of the image is processed with a brightness / high sensitivity in order to make visible the dark parts of the final image (black lead).
• Both versions of image are real time mixed.

dynamique.jpg

The advantages and constraints of HDR are as follows :

• The expected gain is a more detailed picture , regardless of the viewing distance .
• Conversely, a too pronounced effect can affect the perception of color in the final image.
• Requires a color depth of 10 bits at minimum which increases the number of data to be processed (as well as the flow rate ) of about 20 % ( compared with an 8-bit signal ) .
• The gain is not visible to consumers if used on a diffuser equipped with OLED technology.
• The HDR technology exists in the world of photography but is not specified for the television industry . It will take some computing power to perform image processing in real time.
• Finally, for the maximum effect , increase the luminance range that the final diffuser must transcribe . Historically, the industry has chosen to calibrate the white value of intensity at 80 candela/m2 on TV. We can now go further and increase the scale of light intensities and therefore visible on the screen dynamics :

luminosit%e9.jpg


@+
safe91 is offline  
post #28 of 94 Old 01-01-2014, 03:03 AM
KOF
Advanced Member
 
KOF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 765
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

I sincerely hope you didn't take being called "scrooge' to heart. It was very much tongue-in-cheek. I'll be the scrooge now, everything you state is predicated on certain conditions being met aka a big IF at this point. Sony and Panasonic's joint venture went down the tubes...bringing down one of the few avenues by which mass production can arrive. The future viability of the Panasonic consumer display division as a whole is at risk.

LOL. I can't believe you're making a statement under an assumption that OLEDs will be using this. 4000 nit is extremely hard to achieve, even for LCDs. As usual, this tech will remain LCD exclusive for a while.
KOF is online now  
post #29 of 94 Old 01-01-2014, 09:59 AM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1010
Are you finishing laughing out loud yet? I am actually not interested in the benefits this provides if it's saddled with inferior technology . So yes, the mourning of the death of plasma will certainly continue as long as inferior LCD (the lack of robust full-array with local dimming) is being incorporated.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #30 of 94 Old 01-01-2014, 10:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,768
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Liked: 798
are these not full-array? I was under the impression they were full array with a TON of dimming zones.

also, according to the chart above, it looks like current displays are close to 'perfect' in terms of dynamic range already. I'm not sure what the goal is, but personally I would not want a DR that exceeds my eyes 'native' DR. that is, I don't want my irises to HAVE to contrast/dilate to view the tv. it takes me minutes to adjust and there's usually a lot of fast changes from daytime to nighttime or inside to outside in movies.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
Reply Latest Industry News

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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