HDR TV â?? Fad or Here to Stay? - Page 3 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
View Poll Results: Is HDR TV a Fad or Here to Stay?
It's a fad 97 15.67%
It's here to stay 522 84.33%
Voters: 619. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
 115Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 11:25 AM
Advanced Member
 
Kevinw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Jacksonville Fl
Posts: 569
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 19
No reason for it to go away. As video games incorporate HDR it will drive the market farther. As people buy new TVs they will have the content. Reminds me of the 1080p discussions back in the day or even HD tv discussions back in early 2000's.
ray0414 likes this.
Kevinw is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 11:33 AM
Advanced Member
 
csan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: by the Brazilian sea...
Posts: 731
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 1195
I also see HDR is here to stay. Not as a shifting point on imaging, but as an improvement and also as a selling feature, such as 4k is being on the marketing today (and for me, useless for small screens).

Industry will always find a revenue point. I do expect to see one day 50 or 60 inch 8K tv, even knowing that it's nonsense. But for the common consumer, they might sell as "the hihger, the better", as we can see on the 40 inch or so UHD panels right now in online store.

3D used to be a revenue point some years ago, and went away, with lack of support from TV and media player manufacturers. I don't think it's the case with HDR. You don't need extra hardware (as glasses) to see it. Medias are supposed to be the same, differently as it was with 3D.

Improvement in picture quality are all welcome, as 10bit color, HDR, Dolby Vision and so forth, but it won't make me change my actual 1080p plasma or LED panel, until it's broken for any reason.

Last edited by csan; 01-31-2017 at 11:43 AM.
csan is offline  
post #63 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 11:46 AM
Newbie
 
heffeque's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrummingdude View Post
There will always be a few crazies who want to sit 4 feet away from an 80" screen...most of 'em hang out around here too.
Nobody will really answer the question about screen size needed for a 10 feet viewing distance to notice 8K because deep down they already know that even 4K in reality is overkill for anything under 70" (unless sight better than 20/20).

Use this: referencehometheater DOT com/2013/commentary/4k-calculator/ (sorry can't post links yet)

If 4K is already overkill for 99% of people, imagine how overkill 8K is.

It's just ridiculous.

What needs to be perfected is color accuracy, WCG, black levels and "refresh rate" (as in no ghosting, etc., not referring to fps, which I enjoy keeping at 24/25 for movies. I really hate the soap opera effect).
csan and Gillietalls like this.
heffeque is offline  
 
post #64 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 11:47 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
p5browne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario, CANADA
Posts: 8,778
Mentioned: 190 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3132 Post(s)
Liked: 2447
Many Members, where room (and wife) will allow, are heading into bigger sets as the quality improves. Interesting poll would be as to what size TV members have, or want to have. See postings of 65" becoming more common. HDR is still trying to straighten out it's final specifications.
richlife likes this.

UN65HU9000 with SEK-3500U in JS Mod Mode + Input at 1080P 60HZ 444. 4K separate input- Mine
UN75JU7100 / UN55HU7250 with SEK-3500U / UN32EH5300 (On floor and up for sale) / 2 X LG 55LHXs - wife's ! New addition UN40J5200AF
PN64F8500 still up for sale
p5browne is offline  
post #65 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 11:58 AM
Member
 
FresnoJT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hawthorne/Los Angeles California
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 3
Funny!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by santa rosa peter View Post
In 8k, I think the screen size is expressed in kilometers, so more properly labeled "8km"
But seems there may be some truth to that....
FresnoJT is offline  
post #66 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 11:58 AM
Member
 
Kirkus Maximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 58
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Here to stay but live broadcasts need to catch up. The SuperBowl is in 720p this year which is a bit sad. Just about every TV since 2010 can handle 1080p @60fps which is what I suspect the next wave of live sports broad-castsing will adopt. For fast action sports, 1080p@60 will look better than 4k@30 for the vast majority of consumers, and it's backwards compatible with old TVs, uses less bandwidth, and so it's probably the future of sports.
richlife likes this.
Kirkus Maximus is offline  
post #67 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 12:00 PM
Advanced Member
 
kleenex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 987
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 356 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by FresnoJT View Post
what size screen will be required to see a noticeable difference between 8K and 4K?
I will easily say at 100" you will certainly see a difference. For me I have certainly seen a difference at a 70" Screen size for 4K TV screen size.

I still want an 8K 4" Smartphone just for the PPI baby.
FresnoJT likes this.
kleenex is offline  
post #68 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 12:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
richlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Central NC
Posts: 1,297
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 731 Post(s)
Liked: 851
Yes, I think it's here to stay, but it will take a while for the "common" viewer to buy in.

I never thought of myself as "cutting edge", but as I've upgraded recently, I've found myself squarely below the guillotine. Basically, every member of AVS who is following this thread and the parallel tech threads is at some level "cutting edge" -- even if they are reactionary and not ready to update their plasma or use Atmos.

But the general BB customer is not following all this -- and that is the VAST majority of the population. So yeah, 85% of "cutting edge" think HDR will stay and develop. The other non-cutting edge, (75-90% of the populace?) don't know what HDR, OLED and 4K even mean.

Until our new tech (TVs, AVRs, soundbars, players and streamers) all work without active involvement to get that high quality HDR/WCG image, most people will NOT buy in and the revolution will only creep along.

So it's up to us to keep the movement alive!

Atmos/DTS:X HT in Vaulted Room -- LG OLED Settings Options
Yamaha RX-A3060: 7.2.4 or 7.2.2 + Zone2 (switchable); OPPO 203; LG OLED65B6P; Harmony 650 & Home Hub
Base: Mirage OM-6 (FLR), MC-si (C), OM-R2 (SLR), FRx-nine (BLR)
Presence: ELAC A4s (FP), RSL C34Es (RP); 2 aci Titan subs; RP amp: AudioSource AMP100VS
richlife is offline  
post #69 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 12:03 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 0
HDR is a deal-breaker

HDR is the only convincing reason to upgrade from 1080p HD to 4K.
caspersozza is offline  
post #70 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 12:04 PM
Member
 
FresnoJT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hawthorne/Los Angeles California
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 3
agreed

Quote:
Originally Posted by heffeque View Post
Nobody will really answer the question about screen size needed for a 10 feet viewing distance to notice 8K because deep down they already know that even 4K in reality is overkill for anything under 70" (unless sight better than 20/20).

Use this: referencehometheater DOT com/2013/commentary/4k-calculator/ (sorry can't post links yet)

If 4K is already overkill for 99% of people, imagine how overkill 8K is.

It's just ridiculous.

What needs to be perfected is color accuracy, WCG, black levels and "refresh rate" (as in no ghosting, etc., not referring to fps, which I enjoy keeping at 24/25 for movies. I really hate the soap opera effect).
keep refining what we can get with current tech, lower the price through competition, and improve quality control before it leaves factory.

How did they spend refining the old tube type TVs anyway? from 1928 to 1987. Maybe some time perfecting 4K would pay off.
FresnoJT is offline  
post #71 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 12:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
csan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: by the Brazilian sea...
Posts: 731
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 1195
Quote:
Originally Posted by heffeque View Post
...what needs to be perfected is color accuracy, WCG, black levels and "refresh rate" (as in no ghosting, etc., not referring to fps, which I enjoy keeping at 24/25 for movies. I really hate the soap opera effect).

I agree. Unfortunately, both LCD and OLED use "Sample and Hold" tecnology to generate image. Except for black levels, i think manufacurers will have to struggle with that to attenuate these problems which are to me as crucial as HDR, regarding TV image quality.
csan is offline  
post #72 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 12:45 PM
Member
 
jokaly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 4
here to stay
jokaly is offline  
post #73 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 01:03 PM
Senior Member
 
ROMEO 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Chesapeake V.A., USA
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Like Kevinr said, video games have it and I noticed that my Playstation 4 has it in the setup.

KAHN: Stay or go..., but do it because it what you wish to do
ROMEO 1 is offline  
post #74 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 01:08 PM
Senior Member
 
SoCal71RS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 272
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I think the tech is great and all but its killing the hobby for the average guy. Regular old 5.1 is awesome anything more is just additional icing on a cake with not all that much return on investment. Same with the new 4K TV and media. Plus they are already talking about 8K by 2020!!! I have a nice 80" TV and you really need something like that to truly appreciate 1080P. Anything less than 65" and you might as well just get a 720P cause from a proper viewing distance you aren't going to notice anything. A big part of the hobby to me is collecting movies and music. Yeah, physical media is dying but if your a fan of quality you shouldn't be helping it along. Replacing DVD with Blu-ray's made sense. Big difference in quality of sound and picture. 4K not so much and all your doing is alienating the vast majority of people that are sick of everything becoming disposable so fast and pushing more people to lower quality streaming. Not to mention who knows when and why some of your cloud collection could disappear.
So in my opinion Atmos, Auro..., yeeeeaahh kinda cool, totally not worth it. 3D and curved screens total waste of money. 4K, 8K... 16K or whatever is coming just not worth it and killing the hobby.
You really want the next big thing people will jump on...? Virtual reality, full immersion with some kind of Swedish suction adapter...
Apart from that, I'm fully happy with my properly calibrated 1080P 80" TV tied into my Pioneer Elite and my Oppo all being broadcast through my fantastic Bowers & Wilkins 5.1 system. Its been about 20 years that I got into home theater and it took a long time to get where I am today. I'm tickled pink and have no intention of upgrading any time soon.
csan likes this.
SoCal71RS is offline  
post #75 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 01:19 PM
Newbie
 
TT135i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Advancing any technology is dependent on how people use it, or how they decide to use it, and with things like TV's it's all about CONTENT.

TV/monitor manufacturers are advancing their technologies and their TV's capabilities because they can.
And they are relying on the consumer to want the "newest", "latest", and "greatest" technology, but at the same time they rely on the majority of consumers who don't know that a 4K HD TV is not going to give them a better image over an equal quality 2K HD TV when both are being fed the same content.

Sorry, but those of you who argue the "upconverting" makes a "better" image are having the wrong discussion.
Needing to process a 2K source so that it fits on a 4K screen does not make the image "better", it simply makes the 2K image work on the 4K TV.
Interpolation is a process by which data is added to what is there, and that doesn't necessarily mean that the image is not "better".

There is no question that a 4K source played on a 4K monitor looks amazing, and depending on screen size and distance from the monitor the 4K image on the 4K monitor looks a bit better than a 2K source on a 2K monitor. I have a couple of 2K HD Panasonic Pro AG-HMC150 camcorders that have beautiful HD images and recordings. A year ago we purchased a Blackmagic Design URSA Mini 4K EF mount so that we could use the lenses that we have for our Canon 5D MKIII.
The Canon 5D's HD video is gorgeous. If you don't already know, a major factor of image quality is the lens, perhaps sometimes as much if not more so than the imaging chip.
The Pana 150's HD video is very nice as well and overall it's a much better shoot and run camera as it's a traditional style permanent mount zoom lens with great XLR audio in's.
The Blackmagic's image with the same Canon lenses is stunning as well, but it's a more complicated cinema shooting type camera, so it's part Canon 5K and part Panasonic camcorder.

The straight play image into a 4K monitor from the Blackmagic is gorgeous, rich, vibrant, deep and contrasty.
The Canon 5D's 2K HD image into a 2K monitor is also gorgeous, rich, vibrant, deep and great contrast. IOW, both images are very similar so much so that the difference between the 4K to the 2K using the same lenses is not a "WOW" type thing at all. Yes, the 4K looks a bit crisper, maybe a touch more color shade reproductive, but definitely nothing like the difference between an old digital SD studio camcorder to when we got the Panasonic HD 150's.

The difference between SD and HD is simply astounding, immediate, noticeable, and literally eye opening.
The difference between 2K HD and 4K HD is not that at all, not even close.

So, what's my point on the new 4K TV's fad or here to stay?
Well, obviously 4K, and eventually 8K, is here to stay because TV manufacturers want to sell you a new TV as often as possible.
If they can do that every year with clever marketing and techy sounding verbiage, then they will do their best to do so.
The last thing they want to do is sell you a TV that will keep you out of the market for the next 5 or 10 years.

I bought my first HD TV in 2003. It was a Sony LCD projection HD TV. It has 3 LCD, RGB, and a bright light shown through that setup that hit a mirror and projected a beautiful 60" image.
I LOVED that TV. I kept that TV until last year when I finally decided to get a new and MUCH thinner LCD TV. I replaced the bulb in that Sony once in the 12 years that enjoyed that TV.
It also had great sound as it had a body shell that was something like 15" or 18" deep so it had real speakers and a small sub in it. My new 65" Samsung LCD 2K HD speakers are ok, but don't come close to sounding as good as that old Sony. But then this new 65" Samsung is not even an inch thick.
I wasn't going to replace my Sony except that it started to develop a problem where it would shut off randomly for about 30 seconds. After it would do that once then it might not happen again for a few days, but other times it would do that every hour or two. So, it was time to replace.

I bought at a good time because it seems like last year was the last year the most manufacturers offered up their best 2K HD TV's at their lowest prices.
I paid around $1100, on sale at Costco, for my 2015 65" Samsung LCD, UN65J6300 65-Inch 1080p Smart LED TV.
In 2003 I paid $3100 for the 60" Sony!

I looked at the 4K models and their "up conversion" fakery and was not impressed in the least.
I don't have any 4K content so why do I need a 4K TV? I don't. Some say that there is 4K content on Netflix or other places, but the truth is that that content is 2K HD content that has been upconverted and then sent out, which just increases the amount of data with no resulting increase in quality.
The TV industry invested BILLIONS of dollars to go from the old NTSC SD to the current HD system, and those places are not interested in reinvesting in 4K transmission equipment along with all of the new 4K production equipment needed. Sure, 4K production equipment prices have come down, that's why we bought a Blackmagic 4K. However, shooting in 4K is rather pointless as it requires so much data that its silly for anything except for movie theaters or where the best and most defined image is needed.

As it is right now, and has been for quite some time, nearly every person who has watched HD TV since it started transmitting has never really seen how great actual 2k HD really is. Why? Because the vast majority have only seen HD TV/video from their cable companies coax system, or streamed online. Either way both of those methods are so COMPRESSED that you've never seen real 2K HD such that you think or know you need 4K, which actually requires even more compression to be able to transmit it over that data limited copper coax.

4k and up is here to stay but only because TV makers want to sell more TV's, and not because there is enough content to justify having a 4K TV. Also, 4K content isn't going to magically appear just because the TV's exist. 4K has 4 TIMES the data that 2K uses. Again, 4K has 4 TIMES the data of 2K. You thought your regular HD content quality was compromised with tremendous compression, because it is, well, any 4K content will require even MORE compression, and oh boy won't those color banding artifacts looks so much uglier in 4K than they do in 2K. The best quality can only be achieved and improved when the FULL content is actually shown. Having to compress 4K at an even greater level than with 2K isn't going to improve anything.
The greater and better improvement would be for ATT's Uverse and Verizon's FIOS to actually bring fiber from the head-end all the way into your house so that you can watch ALL of the FULL content and quality of HD. After that, then we will have the bandwidth to fully appreciate and deliver 4K content.
TT135i is offline  
post #76 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 01:30 PM
Senior Member
 
SoCal71RS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 272
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrummingdude View Post
Remember commodore 64's and 386 computers? In your pocket is a computer faster than anything from that time, and do you consider yourself a computerphile? How about the kid next door who has the same exact computer in his pocket?


Regardless of what video and audiophiles think, or how long we try to hold on to the good 'ol days, new tech will always make AV look better, sound better, transfer faster, and be more immersive.


20 years from now, HDR WCG will look like a VHS tape does now, and consumers will expect the new standards, even if it isn't bleeding edge for the day.


Not so sure. While I follow your thinking and it seems quite logical. I am blown away by all my nephews and nieces not being blown away by my system and they and their friends all seem to be perfectly happy watching movies on there phones. I would never waste my time. Same with music. They crank up already bad "music" through the little iphone speakers, which sound awful and they are perfectly happy. I'm only in my 40s, I'm not old, old... But I just don't get it...
SoCal71RS is offline  
post #77 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 01:34 PM
Senior Member
 
ToonMasterTim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gillietalls View Post
It's here to stay but I don't share the same thoughts on it being revolutionary and seeing it as some huge improvement as others do. It's a bump in image quality only some of the time and definitely not enough to get regular (non videophiles) tv viewers to jump onboard and start buying all new expensive equipment. Most will think HD is "good enough." Heck some people still watch DVDs.
The first response sums up my feelings. A lot of consumers aren't ready to ditch their 1080p setups just yet. Plus, doesn't the content have to be remastered, in the case of old content, or mastered, in the case of new content, to the HDR standard (and there are now four)? That will take some time, and I wonder if many studios will see any real profit margin in doing that when disc sales are down and the 'good enough' options seem to be appeasing consumer demand. I see HDR/4K/UHD/WCG as simply a progression, particularly the improved color and brighter displays. But also, the support for HEVC.
ToonMasterTim is offline  
post #78 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 01:45 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
VideoGrabber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: SW Michigan
Posts: 2,645
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxman View Post
I still have no idea why the studios include the blu ray version with UHD version. Drop the price on the UHD movies and not include the blu ray version.
You answered your own question. They'd rather keep the price up, and sell you something again you already have. With no option available.

Quote:
The majority of us already have the blu ray version.
And of course, they know that. See above.

[added]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnAV
...not everyone buying a UHD title owns a UHD source or UDTV. So you can buy it now, play it on your HD setup and move up later. Second is that the BD might include extras that are not available on the UHD release...
Those are actually legitimate reasons, John. Especially during a transitional period. Thanks!

Last edited by VideoGrabber; 01-31-2017 at 01:50 PM.
VideoGrabber is offline  
post #79 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 01:56 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
VideoGrabber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: SW Michigan
Posts: 2,645
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by gkdiamond View Post
I do not have the math and I have not seen anything on screen size vs. distance for 8K but at 10 feet it would be a very large screen. It is also dependent on eye sight and the pixel size of the particular TV being watched. For me, I doubt I would ever need an 8K TV.
That's silly and irrelevant. Of course, we will all "need" 8K-TV eventually.

When we buy our displays off the roll, by the linear foot (and 8' high) to cover our walls, 4K simply isn't gonna cut it.
VideoGrabber is offline  
post #80 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 02:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
Kamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 766
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gillietalls View Post
"Those people" just happen to be the masses. And trust, the masses don't care.
Yes, I agree, and why the hell should they care? They're not in the market for a new television.

And for people in the market for a new TV all that matters, is that even if they don't know what 4k or HDR is. They will get it because it's being offered in new televisions.

Or are you suggesting that because "people don't care", manufacturers should simply still market 720p sets and not offer any new features that have been made available as the years go by?
Kamus is offline  
post #81 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 02:52 PM
Advanced Member
 
Larry Rosenberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 548
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 451 Post(s)
Liked: 314
Cool It's a fad

I look for HDR to be replaced with another acronym for another technology - not to mention Dolby Vision - within a year. Unless the TV is very bright, at least 1000 nits, and more is better, HDR renders too dark such that I have actually put a 4K, but non-HDR, Amazon Fire on my 2014 Samsung UN65HU9000/SEK 3500 to watch non-HDR whenever possible. HDR, as far as I am concerned, is only a slight improvement, or even watchable, on newer sets.

And on my 2016, 1000 nit sets it looks great, but hardly greater than 4K and sometimes no better than HD. In short, I've been saying "where's the beef" with HDR since day one and nothing, including the latest screens, has convinced me that this is anything more than a brief stopping point on the way to likely much better TV in the future as the technology continues to improve. But for now, I advise people to soak up the bargains on non-HDR 4K sets and maybe put the money saved into a 4K BD and a 5.1 surround or 5.1.4 Dolby Atmos setup.

-----
2016 Samsung UN65KS9800, UN55KS8500, UN49KS8000
2016 Samsung K8500 UHD BD Player x 2
2016 Samsung HW-K550/SWA-8000S 5.1
2016 Pioneer SC-LX701- AudioSource AMP100VS Atmos/DTS:X 7.1.4
Larry Rosenberg is offline  
post #82 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 02:56 PM
Advanced Member
 
Kamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 766
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post
I expect that once it gains momentum, videogames will displace movies as the HDR leader. Even the most vibrant and spectacular movies still generally pale in comparison to the obscenely dynamic levels of on-screen effects and colors found in games. On the flip side, the number of dark-themed games, dungeon crawlers, etc. that can utilize the black levels beyond the constraints of most movies.

To put it another way, it takes a movie perfectly filmed, perfectly lit, perfectly graded, and perfectly encoded in order to pass muster as HDR "demo content". We might see a handful of those every year and some might by spectacles and some might be subtle. Every HDR game will try to push the limits of the what is possible and offer the eye-candy that people crave. Love it or hate it, I think this will be the reality.
I have to agree. Games have been going with "physically based rendering" for a few years now. And have been rendered in HDR for years now. (only to be down-sampled to SDR)

And what a lot of people at AVS don't seem to realize. Is that the "movie" industry pales in comparison to the gaming one.

Basically, if you have an HDR TV there will be no reason to play games that support it any other way.

I'm sure that movies and TV shows will eventually be made with HDR in mind from the start too. But we're not there yet. Games on the other hand, are in a very different position. Where in some titles they don't need to change anything significant to get the full benefits of HDR.
Kamus is offline  
post #83 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 03:14 PM
Newbie
 
gauchau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Research Triangle Park, NC
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Send a message via Skype™ to gauchau
Insufficient Data at This Time

If one goes from 240 lines of resolution to 480, it is a 100% improvement. If one goes from 480 to 720 lines we have a 66% improvement and so on to infinity. Just as with digital cameras, going to ever higher number of pixels that result in a picture(s) that the human eye cannot resolve the difference in..."unless"...one wants to blow it up and up and up. At some point, other than using ever higher resolutions as a sales gimmick, aka product discrimination, no useful information is transmitted other than to clean your wallet.
gauchau is offline  
post #84 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 03:22 PM
Member
 
Lurker123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 64
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by gauchau View Post
If one goes from 240 lines of resolution to 480, it is a 100% improvement. If one goes from 480 to 720 lines we have a 66% improvement and so on to infinity. Just as with digital cameras, going to ever higher number of pixels that result in a picture(s) that the human eye cannot resolve the difference in..."unless"...one wants to blow it up and up and up. At some point, other than using ever higher resolutions as a sales gimmick, aka product discrimination, no useful information is transmitted other than to clean your wallet.
(Un?)Fortunately at this time, 1080P and 4K sets don't come close to reaching the limits of our vision. HDR gets us a little closer, but you can still see blockiness, at least in the LED (LCD) sets. And no, that's not from 2" away from the screen either.
Lurker123 is offline  
post #85 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 03:30 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by TT135i View Post
I don't have any 4K content so why do I need a 4K TV? I don't. Some say that there is 4K content on Netflix or other places, but the truth is that that content is 2K HD content that has been upconverted and then sent out, which just increases the amount of data with no resulting increase in quality.
You have some valid points about how 4K doesn't magically make a home theater better, but this statement is just false. Netflix films all of their new shows in 4K, masters them in 4K, and even does the CGI in 4K. So you think you're not missing out on anything, but yes, yes you are. The detail levels on Netflix shows is perceptibly better than a Bluray movie.

Also, you are all about the 4K shows using 4x the bandwidth, but this is not true either because 4K media uses H.265 or VP9, which retain the same quality at half the size. So a 4K show will use twice the bandwidth as H.264 1080p.

Lastly, your comment about banding on 4K is laughable as well since this is the whole reason HDR exists. With the 10 bit color, you aren't going to get banding like you would with low bitrate 8 bit movies, and the 4K stream isn't going to be bit-starved either since UHD blurays are 100 GB and most 4K streaming is 20 Mbits or better.

You have some valid points, but don't just make stuff up if you don't understand the technology. 4K is here, it looks great, and I'm sorry you are missing out.
KidHorn likes this.
Daniel LaRoche is offline  
post #86 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 04:02 PM
Newbie
 
new guy1a's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Cool UHD 2b or not 2b

Hi All,


I feel U.H.D. is not unlike the Beta/VHS, HD DVD/Super Bit DVD, and now Blue Ray and UHD debacles. What we have plain and simply is tech that is moving to fast for the movie industry to fully integrate. Sure it may be good but then when the customer has to wait ages for movie offerings to even use it well.....by then newer tech is coming out. And Hopefully by then TV services have caught up just a little but barely. And then the offerings you get are mediocre at best with a few titles just to keep us mesmerized in the hopes...Finally more will be on the way, it is a sad let down though.


This is an awesome tech, but to really make it worth while all avenues of the industry have to get on the same page, while at the same time making it affordable to all walks of life, not just the privileged few who...in this day and age have good paying jobs which affords them the opportunity to get the newer gear needed to take part in this new experience. Everyone deserves to come home after a hard days work and relax


And although I am sure others will agree it is nice to experience a movie via the new tech, For me personally I really don't care if I am able to watch a sitcom, world news, a fix it show, cooking show, etc in UHD, I watch to experience programming that really takes advantage of this tech, And those would be the nature shows, diving, animals, insects, volcanoes etc. Who the Hell cares if The Price Is Right is available in UHD or 1080p????? I don't.


Is UHD here to stay......... Ahhhhh....Yeah I guess, Everyone, has to get on the same page though and make this a more exciting experience for people, from all walks of life, with programming and movies of not just of " Good " quality, but, Awesome quality that reflects the tech being offered to us.


Cheers, New Guy


P.S.


It's hard not to feel like an Azz with a carrot dangled in front of me to get me to move along.
new guy1a is offline  
post #87 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 04:07 PM
Member
 
2channellover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Metro ATL
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I voted fad.

I see that the fad vote is clearly the minority here, but this is an enthusiast site I would imagine. I enjoy music and don't mind spending more than the avg Joe for higher quality sound, but I think for video, I might be closer to the avg Joe consumer. I have two 4k TVs, one was for a new TV area in the house. It's a higher end set on a great closeout price that most people dissed because of light bleed issues. The other is an outgoing 2016 model that replaced a tube TV that finally gave out.

Here's why I voted fad. To keep the TV segment on the uptick or at least flat, the TV manufacturers basically jammed 4k down our throats. Depending on the source, I gather that US market penetration is for HDTVs is probably no more than 80%. But maybe 40% of those people even have HD service. The networks seemed to be dragged kicking and screaming to support the full HD and still many do not so 4k programming is at least a decade away from becoming anything close to mainstream.

So what does that mean for HDR? Imo the leading edge consumer and that's about it.
2channellover is offline  
post #88 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 04:50 PM
Advanced Member
 
Kamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 766
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxman View Post
I would much rather watch 4K SDR2020, than 4K HDR2020.
To each their own. I would much rather watch HDR with a Rec.709 color space than SDR BT.2020.

Even using a Rec.709 color space, HDR has colors that I had never seen in any SDR display.

Using SDR + 709 color space. the brightest a pure blue can get is 7 nits.
Kamus is offline  
post #89 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 05:03 PM
Member
 
tbonetommygun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by heffeque View Post
Nobody will really answer the question about screen size needed for a 10 feet viewing distance to notice 8K because deep down they already know that even 4K in reality is overkill for anything under 70" (unless sight better than 20/20).

Use this: referencehometheater DOT com/2013/commentary/4k-calculator/ (sorry can't post links yet)

If 4K is already overkill for 99% of people, imagine how overkill 8K is.

It's just ridiculous.

What needs to be perfected is color accuracy, WCG, black levels and "refresh rate" (as in no ghosting, etc., not referring to fps, which I enjoy keeping at 24/25 for movies. I really hate the soap opera effect).
I mostly agree, I think what TV manufacturers really need to focus on is black levels (which OLEDS already do...), viewing angles, refresh rate/pixel response times ( what happened to 240hz? it would make sense for 24fps content, and weren't old plasmas 600hz? and pixel response times are really bad on most TVs) and input lag (17ms still isn't good enough, it needs to be much lower for gaming). I would love to see something like gsync or freesync for televisions as well for gaming, as well as use with PCs.
tbonetommygun is offline  
post #90 of 150 Old 01-31-2017, 05:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
adrummingdude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 1,071
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 629 Post(s)
Liked: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2channellover View Post
...so 4k programming is at least a decade away from becoming anything close to mainstream.


Lets hope not.

HT: B&W 802 D2 - Martin Logan Focus - DefTech XTR-20BP - Dual SVS SB16 Ultra - Parasound Halo A21 and A31 - Anthem AVM 60 - Samsung UN65JS8500

Office 2CH: Martin Logan Motion 60Xt - Crown XLI 800 - Bluesound Node 2
WAF is currently at DEFCON ORANGE
adrummingdude is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Community News & Polls

Tags
hdr , poll

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