High Dynamic-Range Displays at NAB 2015 - Page 13 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 241Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #361 of 403 Old 04-27-2015, 12:41 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 4771
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post
Thanks.

I wonder how high OLED can go for average light level or how high they will be able to go in sets that try to handle HDR encodings well.

I also wonder whether that is just a BDA guideline, or a guideline that is likely to apply to HDR in general.

That mentions 1000 nit peaks, but Dolby has displays that go way beyond that and my post was partially about what people want without technological limits (partially thinking about the future as technological limits tend to decrease). It feels to me like 1000 nits was chosen largely due to current display limitations, but maybe it would have been chosen even if it was easy for consumer displays to go to 10000 nits or more.

--Darin
Actually, that is not correct - the footnote says: "Over 1000 Nits should be limited to specular highlights." There is no mention of an upper limit.

APL of 400 Nits is incredibly bright. My Vizio P70 puts out a max of 400 Nits on an all-white screen set on max brightness. I use that setting occasionally for bright-room viewing when I have direct sunlight flooding the room and it makes the TV pretty watchable (compared to the 65VT60 plasma which was not). But even in that mode, the APL is far below 400 Nits on content -probably more like 200 or perhaps 267 Nits APL.

For dark-room viewing, I am calibrated to 100 Nits peak meaning an APL of 50 - 67 Nits on content.

Whatever constitutes 'small specular highlights', it is almost a certainty that these HDR TV will have separate 'HDR Contrast' controls that allow you to crank them up or crank them down independently of APL (which will continue to be controlled by Backlight and Contrast).

All this bitching and moaning about HDR being a gimmick really leaves me stumped. We are getting 10 (or even 12) bit-depth, standardized WCG colorspace control and an improved EOTF for rendering shadow detail.

Anyone here on AVS should be cheering those changes and welcoming the opportunity to purchase a new TV that can exploit them.

The bitching and moaning should be reserved for fears that the entire initiative may dry on the vine before taking hold and content capitalizing on this increased capability never materializes.

Since Cinema is already encoded in DCI-P3, I'm pretty optimistic that the HDR train is leaving the station and we are moving to streaming content being offered in this improved cinema-like format. Whether UHD Bluray disks take hold is a different question entirely and I share the general consensus that a new generation of physical media gets the necessary support from the studios...

The upgraded HDR/UHD video format has far fewer barriers to widespread adoption than 3D ever did. 3D required filming in a different (and more expensive) way while the HDR/UHD format amounts to allowing the studios to share the Cinema-level encoding they have already done for Cinemas with the consumers which ultimately will translate into even lower cost than they face in delivering a Rec.709 master today (or at least no greater cost).

I really couldn't give a rat's *ss about what ends up happening with the brightness of small specular highlights. It is inevitable that the end user will have the control to crank them down or crank them up (assuming they have a TV with the required peak brightness ).

I have no concerns about the peak brightness of LGs current WOLEDs -what is important to me is they have the ability to interpret HDR format and can exploit the color gamut, increased bit-depth, and SMTPE EOTF gamma function...
THX1720 and Dhalmo like this.
fafrd is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #362 of 403 Old 04-27-2015, 01:04 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,188
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1135 Post(s)
Liked: 1767
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
Actually, that is not correct - the footnote says: "Over 1000 Nits should be limited to specular highlights." There is no mention of an upper limit.
Thanks. I missed that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
APL of 400 Nits is incredibly bright. My Vizio P70 puts out a max of 400 Nits on an all-white screen set on max brightness. I use that setting occasionally for bright-room viewing when I have direct sunlight flooding the room and it makes the TV pretty watchable (compared to the 65VT60 plasma which was not). But even in that mode, the APL is far below 400 Nits on content -probably more like 200 or perhaps 267 Nits APL.
Depends on content, but for movies probably more like 40 nits average. Maybe 80 or a little less for video. Here is how the 2.35:1 portion of The Dark Knight measured after gamma with the percentages being the percentage of scenes with that Average Display Luminance or less):

Range Number Percent
100.00% 2035 0.95%
50.00% 1364 0.64%
40.00% 4535 2.12%
30.00% 10350 4.85%
20.00% 27719 12.98%
10.00% 36877 17.27%
5.00% 56623 26.51%
2.00% 31345 14.68%
1.00% 18099 8.47%
0.50% 17529 8.21%
0.20% 7084 3.32%
0.10% 6787 3.18%

Even only considering the 2.35:1 area (averages would be lower considering the whole 16:9 area with black bars) if all white is 400 nits and no gamma manipulation was done then less than 1% of the images in TDK should average 200 nits or more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
For dark-room viewing, I am calibrated to 100 Nits peak meaning an APL of 50 - 67 Nits on content.
How did you come up with the average nits on content?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
All this bitching and moaning about HDR being a gimmick really leaves me stumped. We are getting 10 (or even 12) bit-depth ...
Why are you giving HDR credit for 10 bit depths? At least for the next display format, do you think we weren't already getting that separate from HDR? You also seem to give it credit for P3 (or greater) when that is also a largely separate item for the next disc format. For other content (like Netflix) maybe HDR was an extra push needed to get other things, but I don't see that for the next disc format where I think those things were pretty much in place before HDR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
... and an improved EOTF for rendering shadow detail.
I am curious how it compares to BT.1886 for real world displays and how this new EOTF adapts (or doesn't) for different conditions.

--Darin
David Mathews likes this.

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Last edited by darinp2; 04-27-2015 at 01:10 PM.
darinp2 is offline  
post #363 of 403 Old 04-27-2015, 01:32 PM
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maybe ⅓ of the way from here to there.
Posts: 10,026
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2589 Post(s)
Liked: 2312
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post
Why are you giving HDR credit for 10 bit depths? At least for the next display format, do you think we weren't already getting that separate from HDR?
Whether we were getting it or not, I do think it's important to separate out the concepts no matter what bit depth the HDR proposals specify. The folks that are holding HDR at arms length are not feeling that way about the number of levels available. It's the range that worries them.
mo949 likes this.
tgm1024 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #364 of 403 Old 04-27-2015, 01:48 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 4771
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post
Thanks. I missed that.
Depends on content, but for movies probably more like 40 nits average. Maybe 80 or a little less for video. Here is how the 2.35:1 portion of The Dark Knight measured after gamma with the percentages being the percentage of scenes with that Average Display Luminance or less):

Range Number Percent
100.00% 2035 0.95%
50.00% 1364 0.64%
40.00% 4535 2.12%
30.00% 10350 4.85%
20.00% 27719 12.98%
10.00% 36877 17.27%
5.00% 56623 26.51%
2.00% 31345 14.68%
1.00% 18099 8.47%
0.50% 17529 8.21%
0.20% 7084 3.32%
0.10% 6787 3.18%

Even only considering the 2.35:1 area (averages would be lower considering the whole 16:9 area with black bars) if all white is 400 nits and no gamma manipulation was done then less than 1% of the images in TDK should average 200 nits or more.

How did you come up with the average nits on content?
Pure hand-waving and guesswork on my part (not nearly as scientific as your analysis of Dark Knight ).

How did you make that measurement? If it is not too involved and can be done with my i1DisplayPro meter, I might give it a try sometime...

But in any case, your measurements support the point I was attempting to make. On typical Bluray content, APL is far, far lower than peak output...

Quote:
Why are you giving HDR credit for 10 bit depths? At least for the next display format, do you think we weren't already getting that separate from HDR?
Bluray is encoded to 8-bit depth (Rec.709), so I'm not sure where you think the additional bits are coming from.

Quote:
You also seem to give it credit for P3 (or greater) when that is also a largely separate item for the next disc format.
Also confused by this statement. BluRays are encoded in Rec.709 color space. Sure you can 'upsample' to WCG 'native' color space on WCG TVs from Sony and Samsung, but that is completely bogus, has nothing to do with DCI-P3 Cinema format and absolutely nothing to do with 'Director's intent.'

From where do you think we are going to be getting content encoded in wider colorspace than Rec.709

Quote:
For other content (like Netflix) maybe HDR was an extra push needed to get other things, but I don't see that for the next disc format where I think those things were pretty much in place before HDR.
I am curious how it compares to BT.1886 for real world displays and how this new EOTF adapts (or doesn't) for different conditions.

--Darin
I guess the source of confusion is that you seem to think that there is some new disc format on the way other than the recently-announced (and still being finalized) UHD Bluray spec. What better disc standard is out there other than the hoped-for UHD Blu-ray discs we hope will launch by this Holiday Season???
fafrd is offline  
post #365 of 403 Old 04-27-2015, 02:47 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,188
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1135 Post(s)
Liked: 1767
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
How did you make that measurement? If it is not too involved and can be done with my i1DisplayPro meter, I might give it a try sometime...
A meter can be used for some estimates, but that was done on a computer and you can thank stanger89 for running it. I haven't tried it myself yet, but am curious about how a movie like Gravity would turn out. The thread with results for that and some other movies is here:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-dig...t-project.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
Bluray is encoded to 8-bit depth (Rec.709), so I'm not sure where you think the additional bits are coming from.
The UHD disc format isn't Blu-ray, so the extra bits come just from defining higher bit depth for the new disc format. My impression is that higher bit depth and bigger color space were decided a while ago, although with some debate about how far to take it (like P3 vs Rec.2020), with HDR support decided later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
From where do you think we are going to be getting content encoded in wider colorspace than Rec.709
Same place content for the UHD format was going to come from if HDR wasn't approved. They won't come from Blu-ray (at least not in any case we want). Should come from studio masters and with 10 bit and P3 should be even easier if they want to use some of what they did for the digital cinema release. UHD requires something other than the Blu-ray version, HDR or not, so the Blu-ray version being Rec.709 never meant the next disc format had to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
I guess the source of confusion is that you seem to think that there is some new disc format on the way other than the recently-announced (and still being finalized) UHD Bluray spec.
No, I just think that a voter for that standard could vote to not include HDR even though they had already voted for higher bit depth and bigger colorspace and a person doesn't have to be a fan of HDR to be a fan of those other things. Digital cinema isn't HDR, but that doesn't mean it is 8 bit or REC.709. When people say they aren't fans of HDR that doesn't mean they didn't want things that were likely to be included for UHD discs anyway.

For that disc format I don't believe HDR is what brought 10 bit or P3. Higher than 10 bit or further than P3 then I think it is possible that HDR might be the thing that tips things in the favor of those enough to be included in the format.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Last edited by darinp2; 04-27-2015 at 02:51 PM.
darinp2 is offline  
post #366 of 403 Old 04-27-2015, 04:42 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mo949's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,955
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 1193
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post

All this bitching and moaning about HDR being a gimmick really leaves me stumped. We are getting 10 (or even 12) bit-depth, standardized WCG colorspace control and an improved EOTF for rendering shadow detail.
You will continue to be stumped as long as you continue to confuse bit depth and WCG as HDR benefits rather than UHD benefits. You are probably confused by the fact that HDR UHD benefits need the bit depth and WCG benefit in order not to appear awful. UHD bit depth and WCG do not need HDR in order to be an immediate visual upgrade. No one has ever said the WCG and bit depth of UHD is a gimmick as far as I know.
mo949 is offline  
post #367 of 403 Old 04-27-2015, 04:54 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 4771
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post
You will continue to be stumped as long as you continue to confuse bit depth and WCG as HDR benefits rather than UHD benefits. You are probably confused by the fact that HDR UHD benefits need the bit depth and WCG benefit in order not to appear awful. UHD bit depth and WCG do not need HDR in order to be an immediate visual upgrade. No one has ever said the WCG and bit depth of UHD is a gimmick as far as I know.
What both of you guys seem to be implying is that there is some new UHD Bluray spec on the way that includes 2160p, Rec.2020, and 10-bits of precision independently of HDR.

Could be, but that is the first I have heard of it and I seriously doubt there is going to be more than a single new UHD Bluray format supported (if we even end up getting content a single UHD Bluray format actually launched into the marketplace in any kind of meaningful numbers).

Could 'HDR' be an optional feature on UHD Bluray (the way 3D is on standard Bluray)? Absolutely.

But that is all the more reason I don't get the bitching and moaning - if you are going to get UHD Bluray content supporting Rec.2020, 10-bits of pixel depth, HFR, and SMTPE EOTF with HDR metadata than can either be utilized to display in HDR on an HDR-capable TV or in SDR on either an HDR-capable or an HDR-incapable TV, what the heck is there to be complaining about
fafrd is offline  
post #368 of 403 Old 04-27-2015, 05:07 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,188
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1135 Post(s)
Liked: 1767
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
What both of you guys seem to be implying is that there is some new UHD Bluray spec on the way that includes 2160p, Rec.2020, and 10-bits of precision independently of HDR.

Could be, but that is the first I have heard of it and I seriously doubt there is going to be more than a single new UHD Bluray format supported (if we even end up getting content a single UHD Bluray format actually launched into the marketplace in any kind of meaningful numbers).
It seems to me that by that logic if the UHD format includes some new wizzy menu feature then anybody who puts down that new wizzy menu feature is putting down 10-bit precision, since there will only be one new disc format and it includes both. At the least I would say that 2160p, P3, and 10-bits of precision were coming before including HDR support or not for UHD discs was even decided (I'm assuming the decision to include HDR has been made at this point, but not sure if that is the case).

Whether a feature is optional or not doesn't change whether it gets credit for things that were going to be there without it.

Just because a basket of features comes with a new format doesn't mean that putting down one feature means putting down other features (even if the questioned feature needs them, but they would have been there whether the questioned feature made the cut or not).

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #369 of 403 Old 04-27-2015, 05:09 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 33,064
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7280 Post(s)
Liked: 8051
Fafrd, I think the major point here is that in no way is HDR required to bring about 10-bits or WCG. Two totally unrelated issues.
mo949 likes this.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #370 of 403 Old 04-27-2015, 05:17 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mo949's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,955
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 1193
Fafrd - UHD has been promising: increased resolution, increased bit depth, wider color, better compression, potential HDR, potential HFR.

Of those both HDR and HFR are features that require new ways of filming/converting. The other attributes listed (eg WCG, bit depth) just get us images that are higher fidelity to the sources we already have

This is why both HDR and HFR are rather contentious, just like with 3d - they have great potential to be gimmicks unlike the other UHD improvements.


Edit: to make matters worse all the comparisons with HDR in them today include many of those other UHD benefits when demoed next to sets that are plain old HD bit depth and color gamut, which won't have all the extra shadow detail and WTW detail as a result - some mistakenly attribute this detail to a wider dynamic range.

Last edited by mo949; 04-27-2015 at 05:25 PM.
mo949 is offline  
post #371 of 403 Old 04-27-2015, 08:00 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 4771
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post
Fafrd - UHD has been promising: increased resolution, increased bit depth, wider color, better compression, potential HDR, potential HFR.

Of those both HDR and HFR are features that require new ways of filming/converting. The other attributes listed (eg WCG, bit depth) just get us images that are higher fidelity to the sources we already have

This is why both HDR and HFR are rather contentious, just like with 3d - they have great potential to be gimmicks unlike the other UHD improvements.


Edit: to make matters worse all the comparisons with HDR in them today include many of those other UHD benefits when demoed next to sets that are plain old HD bit depth and color gamut, which won't have all the extra shadow detail and WTW detail as a result - some mistakenly attribute this detail to a wider dynamic range.
OK, so I think I finally understand where several of you are coming from:

a new UHD Bluray standard that optionally supports HFR, optionally supports 1080p 3D, and optionally supports HDR wouldrovide yhe best of all worlds.

Everyone who wanted to capitalize on Rec.2020/DCI-P3, 4K resolution, 10-bit pixel depth, and SMTPE EOTF would be able to get that, while those that want to capitalize on HFR or 1080x3840 3D or HDR would be able to play around with those features on TVs that support them.

In a model where the basic capability of UHD HDR is delivering the majority of the benefits that most will agree is the bulk of the increased PQ value, the existance of a few extended capabilities such as HFR, 3D, and HDR just does not seem like that big of a deal to me.

As they say. let the market decide...
Dhalmo and mo949 like this.
fafrd is offline  
post #372 of 403 Old 04-27-2015, 08:06 PM
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,901
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked: 1406
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
Whether we were getting it or not, I do think it's important to separate out the concepts no matter what bit depth the HDR proposals specify. The folks that are holding HDR at arms length are not feeling that way about the number of levels available. It's the range that worries them.
Irrational fears should not be encouraged.

400 nits APL is nowhere near the limit of what the human eye can absorb.

Again, people should go outside their theaters once in a while. There is a whole bright world out there. With a sun in the sky SO bright, it can blind you.

I ask those afraid of HDR standards if they are dealthy afraid of the sun. Or of their own shadows. Entertaining such notions is laughable and no serious person should accommodate such utter and complete foolishness. Anyone giving such absurdities the veneer of respectability is both ignoring science, and enabling hysterics. The HDR-phobes are all much ado about nothing. They are not using reason or science to form a basis for their opinions, but rather fear and cynicism. It's quite sad to see on a forum supposedly devoted to science, really. Science doesn't care about people's irrational fears or unfounded biases. Such things are irrelevant.
Dhalmo likes this.

Last edited by RLBURNSIDE; 04-27-2015 at 08:10 PM.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #373 of 403 Old 04-27-2015, 10:38 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mo949's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,955
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 1193
My opthamologist would disagree with you on both the concept of bright images causing eye strain from a small area of a dark room as well as your ignorant assertion that his profession isn't scientific based on his recommendations. My wife's retinal scar tissue causes pain to watch bright images in a room with no lights on. The doctor gave her the solution: turn the lights on to reduce the strain....that floods her eyes with more light and works. That's extreme and Most (including me) can handle more brightness from a point source in a dark room than her, but the point remains, in the dark how we see bright colorful images that shift in dynamic range rapidly on a small field of view is much different to being outside your house in the moonlight with our eyes flooded in light.

But that greatly reduces my enjoyment and the ability for my eyes to discern fine details on my display when I have to turn the lights on to avoid the strain from watching my tv brighter. That's a fact.
rogo, Ken Ross, Desk. and 2 others like this.
mo949 is offline  
post #374 of 403 Old 04-28-2015, 04:22 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 33,064
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7280 Post(s)
Liked: 8051
^ And a few here will never understand this...or refuse to.
rogo likes this.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #375 of 403 Old 04-28-2015, 04:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 4,514
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1094 Post(s)
Liked: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post
... but the point remains, in the dark how we see bright colorful images that shift in dynamic range rapidly on a small field of view is much different to being outside your house in the moonlight with our eyes flooded in light.
Then don't look at those things. Arguing that TVs should be kept incapable of showing images that you don't care for is like prohibiting ocean swimming unless swimmers have precautionary amputations to make sure that sharks don't bite off their legs.

Greg Lee
GregLee is online now  
post #376 of 403 Old 04-28-2015, 05:19 AM
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maybe ⅓ of the way from here to there.
Posts: 10,026
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2589 Post(s)
Liked: 2312
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
Then don't look at those things. Arguing that TVs should be kept incapable of showing images that you don't care for is like prohibiting ocean swimming unless swimmers have precautionary amputations to make sure that sharks don't bite off their legs.
LOL. That's gotta be the worst analogy I've ever seen here at AVS.
rogo, Turrican4D and mo949 like this.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #377 of 403 Old 04-28-2015, 06:06 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
greenland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,590
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 344 Post(s)
Liked: 694
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
Then don't look at those things. Arguing that TVs should be kept incapable of showing images that you don't care for is like prohibiting ocean swimming unless swimmers have precautionary amputations to make sure that sharks don't bite off their legs.
Or perhaps BB Guns or real guns should not be on the market because:"Ralphy, you'll shoot your eye out".

FUDget about it!

As for me, I will wait and see how the HDR looks when fully implemented. Keep an open mind folks, rather than jumping to negative conclusions, before the infant has even learned to walk.
dsinger likes this.
greenland is offline  
post #378 of 403 Old 04-28-2015, 09:25 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tvted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 3,612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
These last several posts remind me of the discussions we used to have on AVS many years ago. It was not unusual for industry & network guys to join in on the conversation. Great conversations.

I miss those days.
It's a different world now, most source is viewed via multiple PIPs arranged on a large video monitor that is usually organized per the Director's wishes. Only the Video Engineer has what I would consider quality monitoring.

In the years I've been doing this, I've seen the industry go through the descriptions above to automated systems that now take the place of multiple individuals who once performed in concert.

As a "Vision Mixer" in American parlance who now works with Studio Production only, I've watched as quality control has fallen irretrievably into a pit, pressured by falling budgets and shrinking audiences. Live Production is the last holdout for the style of production that I miss dearly.

td
tvted is offline  
post #379 of 403 Old 04-28-2015, 12:14 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 33,064
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7280 Post(s)
Liked: 8051
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
Then don't look at those things. Arguing that TVs should be kept incapable of showing images that you don't care for is like prohibiting ocean swimming unless swimmers have precautionary amputations to make sure that sharks don't bite off their legs.
Wow, just wow...speechless.
losservatore and mo949 like this.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #380 of 403 Old 04-28-2015, 01:09 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Cleveland,Ohio
Posts: 7,042
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2987 Post(s)
Liked: 2826
I really don't get why people want the light of a tv to hit the retinas like the sun,lights,glare do in real life.

Last edited by losservatore; 04-28-2015 at 02:49 PM.
losservatore is offline  
post #381 of 403 Old 04-28-2015, 02:54 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
6athome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,536
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 643 Post(s)
Liked: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post
It seems that HDMI 2.0a is required to transmit HDR data, though I haven't done exhaustive research into this yet. However, virtually no currently available TVs have HDR capabilities, and they can't be upgraded to have those capabilities, so it doesn't matter if they don't have HDMI 2.0a. The exceptions are Samsung SUHD and Vizio Reference, and I imagine they don't have HDMI 2.0a, since the spec was just released last week. (I suppose the Reference might get 2.0a since it's not available yet.) I don't know if the path from HDMI 2.0 to 2.0a is a firmware update or if it requires new HDMI hardware; I've sent a query to HDMI Licensing. Even if an HDR display doesn't have HDMI 2.0a, it can still receive streamed HDR content from Vudu, Amazon, etc. via onboard apps. Still, HDMI 2.0a will be required for future HDR source devices, such as Ultra HD Blu-ray players and HDR-capable set-top boxes.
Scott did you find out from HDMI Licensing if you need a hardware upgrade for HDMI 2.0 to 2.0a?
6athome is offline  
post #382 of 403 Old 04-28-2015, 03:12 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 4,514
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1094 Post(s)
Liked: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6athome View Post
Scott did you find out from HDMI Licensing if you need a hardware upgrade for HDMI 2.0 to 2.0a?
Geoffrey Morrison for CNET writes (on 4/27):
Quote:
The main thing to know is that HDMI 2.0a is only relevant to new, high-end 2015 TVs that can accept and display HDR content.

They include models like Samsung's SUHD line, Vizio's Reference series, Panasonic's CX850 and two of Sony's most-expensive XBR models. Since other TVs -- including most of the 4K TVs and non-4K announced in 2015 -- don't handle HDR, they don't need HDMI 2.0a and have no use for HDR signals, via HDMI or otherwise.
CNET contacted those four manufacturers to determine whether their sets would be compatible with HDMI 2.0a. Sony told us the XBR-75X940C and XBR-65X930C (its only 2015 HDR TVs) will be compatible, but none of the other makers have yet provided a definitive answer. We'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they will be compatible too, and we'll update this article when we hear something one way or the other.
http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-hdmi-2-0a/

Greg Lee

Last edited by GregLee; 04-28-2015 at 03:17 PM.
GregLee is online now  
post #383 of 403 Old 04-28-2015, 03:57 PM
Advanced Member
 
Csbooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 495 Post(s)
Liked: 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
Geoffrey Morrison for CNET writes (on 4/27):
http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-hdmi-2-0a/
Exactly, there's no reason to suspect that the SUHD/R series will be incapable of passing HDR metadata from the HDMI 2.0a revision,... Seeing as how you know,... they're HDR sets.

Yes, you could argue that it could only display HDR through streaming, but the only real requirement for HDR metadata is 18Gbps pipelines. Also, it would be pretty dumb for there to be another hardware revision in 3 years, or is it just 2?
Csbooth is offline  
post #384 of 403 Old 04-28-2015, 05:56 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
6athome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,536
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 643 Post(s)
Liked: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
Geoffrey Morrison for CNET writes (on 4/27):
http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-hdmi-2-0a/
HDMI 2.0 a is a chip change for HDR in TV'S to play HDR From 4K Blu- ray!
QUOTE: Each of these changes has to do with the chips inside the TVs and source devices like Blu-ray players!
All 2015 TV'S (except the few you mention) are obsolete as far as 4K HDR Blu-ray.
My next question is if the 4K OLED TV'S coming out will have the 2.0 a ?
6athome is offline  
post #385 of 403 Old 04-28-2015, 06:05 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 4,514
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1094 Post(s)
Liked: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6athome View Post
HDMI 2.0 a is a chip change for HDR in TV'S to play HDR From 4K Blu- ray!
I doubt it. HDMI 2.0 was a chip change. The opinion among tech writers seems to be that the change from 2.0 to 2.0a can be done in software. We haven't yet heard officially, though, from the manufacturers other than Sony, according to Morrison.

Greg Lee
GregLee is online now  
post #386 of 403 Old 04-28-2015, 06:21 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
6athome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,536
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 643 Post(s)
Liked: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
I doubt it. HDMI 2.0 was a chip change. The opinion among tech writers seems to be that the change from 2.0 to 2.0a can be done in software. We haven't yet heard officially, though, from the manufacturers other than Sony, according to Morrison.
I guess your CNET article was wrong
Quote: Each of these changes has to do with the chips inside the TVs and source devices like Blu-ray players!
The main thing to know is that HDMI 2.0a is only relevant to new, high-end 2015 TVs that can accept and display HDR content

Last edited by 6athome; 04-28-2015 at 06:26 PM.
6athome is offline  
post #387 of 403 Old 04-28-2015, 06:33 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 4,514
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1094 Post(s)
Liked: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6athome View Post
I guess your CNET article was wrong
Quote: Each of these changes has to do with the chips inside the TVs and source devices like Blu-ray players!
Well, it does have to do with the chips, of course. But Samsung knew when it designed the hardware for its SUHD models that the HDR changes were coming, so it may have put in chips that are already capable on the hardware side. (I think there may be an issue about whether the interface chips are available yet, however.)

Greg Lee
GregLee is online now  
post #388 of 403 Old 04-28-2015, 07:35 PM
Senior Member
 
remush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 181 Post(s)
Liked: 185
Here is a video of the Sony oled sdr vs hdr demo, the camera obviously can't capture the dynamic range so all the highlights are overexposed on the hdr oled

https://player.vimeo.com/video/125166699
remush is offline  
post #389 of 403 Old 04-28-2015, 08:29 PM
Member
 
turbineseaplane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by remush View Post
Here is a video of the Sony oled sdr vs hdr demo, the camera obviously can't capture the dynamic range so all the highlights are overexposed on the hdr oled

https://player.vimeo.com/video/125166699

I'll definitely have to see one in person.
Not one thing in that video even remotely peaked my interest, especially given how many years and years we are from HDR being truly mainstream (if it happens at all)
turbineseaplane is offline  
post #390 of 403 Old 04-28-2015, 09:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mo949's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,955
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 1193
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
LOL. That's gotta be the worst analogy I've ever seen here at AVS.
It manages to be so much more than that even. He's Completely clueless as usual. I even argued for HDR as a daytime medium when our eyes have all the light flooding in. I still want to see the bolts in HDR. I like 3d too...

But this from a guy who thinks directors are trying to capture real life color at all times, and then rails against calibrators all because they made a TV show the colors the colorist actually put into post. Totally clueless.
mo949 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Tags
frontpage , nab 2015

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