Color Volume: Why it Matters for HDR TVs - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 136Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 110 Old 11-29-2016, 02:10 PM - Thread Starter
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 16,085
Mentioned: 441 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9166 Post(s)
Liked: 16164
Color Volume: Why it Matters for HDR TVs

The role of high contrast in producing a compelling image is well known to cinephiles and AV enthusiasts, as is color accuracy and resolution. But what is "color volume," and how does it relate to these picture-quality attributes?

Click here to read the article.
skoolpsyk, KidHorn, 10k and 9 others like this.

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum
imagic is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 110 Old 11-29-2016, 03:50 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Tom Roper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 4,549
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 430
Nice op-ed Mark. In my opinion, there is trouble ahead for HDR. And it's not just a format war between Dolby Vision and HDR10 but a licensing/royalty with the HEVC patent pools, MPEG-LA and HEVC Alliance. Google/YouTube fired off the first major blow by throwing its support for HDR behind the VP9 codec. Perhaps others don't see this as a problem but we're nearly 2 years into HDR and still introducing new unsupported specs for HLG and VP9. Our smart tvs can't keep up with the changes. And for the content producers who would like to bring you more HDR entertainment, expecting them to encode all these codecs and containers including also scene by scene dynamic metadata, SDR cube luts and the never ending HDMI revisions is creating a mess of non-compatibility and confusion. The answer is to not buy this stuff. For once I wish Sony/Samsung/Google would partner together to end this madness.
skoolpsyk, DAB, dougri and 4 others like this.
Tom Roper is offline  
post #3 of 110 Old 11-29-2016, 03:51 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dougri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,034
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Good article... will be nice when all the UHD metrics settle to meaningful attributes that help consumers choose the best display for their viewing environment. Look forward to seeing metrics that capture the benefits of each technology so we can compare the relative progress each tech makes toward faithful reproduction of UHD content. For example, peak brightness measurements (even at 2% window) cover multiple FALD zones and many thousands of pixels... while I don't expect pixel-level measurements on brightness and contrast, I do expect that it should not be too difficult to quantify the differences between displays that have orders of magnitude differences in local contrast control... why must we rely on subjective assessments such as observing 'starfields look better on OLED and high average luminance scenes look better on FALD'? Not a criticism of the discussion in the article, just an observation that proper metrics are really lacking.
dougri is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 110 Old 11-29-2016, 04:52 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 568
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 407 Post(s)
Liked: 293
Overall it was a good read, but I do wish people would stop using side by side comparisons between OLED and LED. We get it the LED is brighter, BUT, if the LED was not in the same dark room, the colors and saturation to the human eye would look the same or better on the OLED. It is only because of the dynamic nature of the human eye and the way it adjusts to overall brightness that the OLED display looks less vibrant.

Obviously this starts to shift as you increase the room brightness, but up until the room brightness matches/exceeds that of the OLED tv, there is no advantage EXCEPT in side by side. Obviously past that LED undoubtedly wins bright room image PQ.
ttnuagmada likes this.
amnesia0287 is offline  
post #5 of 110 Old 11-29-2016, 05:04 PM - Thread Starter
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 16,085
Mentioned: 441 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9166 Post(s)
Liked: 16164
Quote:
Originally Posted by amnesia0287 View Post
Overall it was a good read, but I do wish people would stop using side by side comparisons between OLED and LED. We get it the LED is brighter, BUT, if the LED was not in the same dark room, the colors and saturation to the human eye would look the same or better on the OLED. It is only because of the dynamic nature of the human eye and the way it adjusts to overall brightness that the OLED display looks less vibrant.

Obviously this starts to shift as you increase the room brightness, but up until the room brightness matches/exceeds that of the OLED tv, there is no advantage EXCEPT in side by side. Obviously past that LED undoubtedly wins bright room image PQ.
Actually, the underlying issue when it comes to color volume is that W-OLED uses a white pixel to achieve its peak brightness, and that's why the gamut it can achieve at higher brightness levels starts to drop. Since LCDs are using RGB sub-pixels, colors can be more fully saturated at peak luminance levels. When you rely on a white sub-pixel to achieve that HDR-friendly peak luminance, what gets lost is the ability to render wide color gamut at those high luminance levels—it's only logical. This limitation is essentially irrelevant for viewing BT.709 content, but with HDR content it can lead to clipping, which is visible and is not relative i.e. dependent on the adaptation of the human eye.

The image with the candy, that's actually two crops from one photo. My camera is not dynamic, it captured the same limitation I described in the article.

What is absolutely true is that if you have nothing to compare a display to (a reference), your eyes and brain adapt to make the most of what they are looking at.

Here's the original photo (cropped)...

skoolpsyk, KidHorn, 10k and 10 others like this.

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum

Last edited by imagic; 11-29-2016 at 05:19 PM.
imagic is offline  
post #6 of 110 Old 11-29-2016, 05:46 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 568
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 407 Post(s)
Liked: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Actually, the underlying issue when it comes to color volume is that W-OLED uses a white pixel to achieve its peak brightness, and that's why the gamut it can achieve at higher brightness levels starts to drop. Since LCDs are using RGB sub-pixels, colors can be more fully saturated at peak luminance levels. When you rely on a white sub-pixel to achieve that HDR-friendly peak luminance, what gets lost is the ability to render wide color gamut at high luminance levels. This limitation is irrelevant for BT.709 content,but with HDR content it can lead to clipping, which is visible and is not relative i.e. dependent on the adaptation of the human eye. The image with the candy, that's just one photo. My camera is not dynamic, it captured the same limitation I described in my article.

What is true is that if you have nothing to compare a display to (a reference), your eyes and brain adapt.

Here's the original photo (cropped)...

Not exactly what I mean. Perhaps OLED have less color volume at peak luminance, but where you calibrate peak luminance can vary. Our eyes never measure anything in absolutes, so if the OLED display is the brightest thing in the room, then to your brain, that is peak brightness, that is the reference point. Because OLED displays can do true black, the overall dynamic range is still greater.

The point is, if you calibrate an OLED correctly, and are in a dark room, then then the display is what controls your eyes dialation. You can control light output so that you get the same volume of increase over baseline brightness and the same amount of dialation from a much lower amount of luminance. .001 nit vs 1nit is the same as 1nit vs 1000nit (i cant remember if the scale is linear or log, but who cares, the specific numbers are irrelevant). This is true as long as the oled display is what is controlling the Eye's dilation. There are still flaws and limitations no doubt, but it is not a simple A is better than B scenario, and it doesn't make side by side tests any more valid.

Also you are incorrect. Your camera is dynamic, that is what the FStop and Shutter speed are for. If you manually set aperture then you could be best targeting either display or neither. If you set aperture manually, then the camera just like your eye adjusted to the total light input it was seeing which means it calibrated to the brighter display in the room. To accurately photograph both displays with a fair comparison for low light viewing, you would need to use a LUX meter to measure each display and then mathematically determine the appropriate Fstop.

Also, you are ignoring things like localized contrast. Because of the way backlights work, there is no way to accurately control the contrast of light and dark objects that are near eachother. LED in this instance would have TOO MUCH color volume. ie, if there is a bright highlight of a color near a normal brightness object of the same color, the backlight cannot magically make it both bright and dark. You can use a few different tricks such as oversaturating the brightness of the highlight rather than increasing actual brightness to simulate an increase in brightness due to the way the brain perceives saturation, but what you cannot do is make both the highlight AND the normal brightness object accurate at once.

This gets a bit ironic as even the best LED lose most of their brightness when the entire image is bright (when the backlight is more uniform). It's only for highlights that they can achieve the extreme brightness figures. I find it hard to believe you could drive any SMALL part of the display at 1400nits without causing some degree of blooming/haloing no matter how good your panel and processing are. Yes, it is only really visible when whats around it is black, but that doesn't mean the effect isn't happening even when its not over black. The processing engine ends up with a choice, make the highlight accurate, make the lowlight accurate, or meet in the middle. But this means that you always have compromised panel uniformity.

I'd be very interested in the measurements you would see if you used multiple meters on these displays and took multiple readings in both the light and dark sections (that are close to eachother) at once. I suspect, (and could be wrong) that you would see a pretty significant difference in that the OLED would better maintain it's accuracy regardless of where the readings where taken.
amnesia0287 is offline  
post #7 of 110 Old 11-29-2016, 05:51 PM - Thread Starter
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 16,085
Mentioned: 441 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9166 Post(s)
Liked: 16164
Quote:
Originally Posted by amnesia0287 View Post
Not exactly what I mean. Perhaps OLED have less color volume at peak luminance, but where you calibrate peak luminance can vary. Our eyes never measure anything in absolutes, so if the OLED display is the brightest thing in the room, then to your brain, that is peak brightness, that is the reference point. Because OLED displays can do true black, the overall dynamic range is still greater.

The point is, if you calibrate an OLED correctly, and are in a dark room, then then the display is what controls your eyes dialation. You can control light output so that you get the same volume of increase over baseline brightness and the same amount of dialation from a much lower amount of luminance. .001 nit vs 1nit is the same as 1nit vs 1000nit (i cant remember if the scale is linear or log, but who cares, the specific numbers are irrelevant). This is true as long as the oled display is what is controlling the Eye's dilation. There are still flaws and limitations no doubt, but it is not a simple A is better than B scenario, and it doesn't make side by side tests any more valid.

Also you are incorrect. Your camera is dynamic, that is what the FStop and Shutter speed are for. If you manually set aperture then you could be best targeting either display or neither. If you set aperture manually, then the camera just like your eye adjusted to the total light input it was seeing which means it calibrated to the brighter display in the room. To accurately photograph both displays with a fair comparison for low light viewing, you would need to use a LUX meter to measure each display and then mathematically determine the appropriate Fstop.

Also, you are ignoring things like localized contrast. Because of the way backlights work, there is no way to accurately control the contrast of light and dark objects that are near eachother. LED in this instance would have TOO MUCH color volume. ie, if there is a bright highlight of a color near a normal brightness object of the same color, the backlight cannot magically make it both bright and dark. You can use a few different tricks such as oversaturating the brightness of the highlight rather than increasing actual brightness to simulate an increase in brightness due to the way the brain perceives saturation, but what you cannot do is make both the highlight AND the normal brightness object accurate at once.

This gets a bit ironic as even the best LED lose most of their brightness when the entire image is bright (when the backlight is more uniform). It's only for highlights that they can achieve the extreme brightness figures. I find it hard to believe you could drive any SMALL part of the display at 1400nits without causing some degree of blooming/haloing no matter how good your panel and processing are. Yes, it is only really visible when whats around it is black, but that doesn't mean the effect isn't happening even when its not over black. The processing engine ends up with a choice, make the highlight accurate, make the lowlight accurate, or meet in the middle. But this means that you always have compromised panel uniformity.

I'd be very interested in the measurements you would see if you used multiple meters on these displays and took multiple readings in both the light and dark sections (that are close to eachother) at once. I suspect, (and could be wrong) that you would see a pretty significant difference in that the OLED would better maintain it's accuracy regardless of where the readings where taken.
For first-generation HDR you want to calibrate peak luminance for 1000 nits or more, but sure... I get how OLED contrast can make up for some of that in a dark room. If OLEDs had no problem coming out of black, I'd say that would be enough. As it stands, you have to sacrifice some shadow detail for the ultra contrast. I certainly understand there are folks who prioritize this over other PQ aspects, but in the end it reminds me of how I get blank stares when I try to get guests to acknowledge how well dialed-in my subwoofer are. They are wrapped up in the total experience.

You can't really explain away something that is as obvious, and measurable with meters, and photographable, and visible with the naked eye (all at the same time) as this.

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum

Last edited by imagic; 11-29-2016 at 06:00 PM.
imagic is offline  
post #8 of 110 Old 11-29-2016, 06:11 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 568
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 407 Post(s)
Liked: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
For first-generation HDR you want to calibrate peak luminance for 1000 nits. You can't really explain away something that is as obvious, and measurable with meters, and photographable, and visible with the naked eye (all at the same time) as this.
You are trying to define perception.

There are also 2 different standards for Ultra HD certification. Because of the lower black levels the target is 500 not 1000, but given the black level requirement is 100x lower, you still get more dynamic contrast.

It is obvious and measurable that LED tvs are brighter than OLED. You cannot just take that data and decide what it means to perception. It is absolutely possible to make an Angus Filet taste better than an A5 filet, that doesn't mean the A5 is not in every measurable way better meat.

All you are showing is that when your eye or camera is using a narrower aperture the LED display looks better. Cameras are not magic light capture machines. Most modern SLR have a dynamic range of about 15-18 stops. So when you adjust the camera, normally you try and get min and max luminance as close to 0 and 18 as possible, but you must always pick. If your camera was in auto mode, it set the aperture so that the highlights of the LED were at the top end of the cameras dynamic range, this is because, if you were to calibrate the OLED highlights to the peak dynamic range level, then the LED would be clipping.

In a side by side comparison you are showing 1 display at proper exposure and the other always over or under exposed. This is not a fair test as it ONLY happens side by side.

You as a human cannot identify 1000 nits, no matter how hard you try. If I gave you a magic light that emitted exactly 1000 nits, and told you as such, you could match the brightness, but I could give you a magic light that emitted 500 nits, and unless you had another light to compare it with, you would never know, it would look the EXACT SAME to you.
Jess Sayin likes this.
amnesia0287 is offline  
post #9 of 110 Old 11-29-2016, 06:15 PM - Thread Starter
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 16,085
Mentioned: 441 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9166 Post(s)
Liked: 16164
Quote:
Originally Posted by amnesia0287 View Post
You are trying to define perception.

There are also 2 different standards for Ultra HD certification. Because of the lower black levels the target is 500 not 1000, but given the black level requirement is 100x lower, you still get more dynamic contrast.

It is obvious and measurable that LED tvs are brighter than OLED. You cannot just take that data and decide what it means to perception. It is absolutely possible to make an Angus Filet taste better than an A5 filet, that doesn't mean the A5 is not in every measurable way better meat.

All you are showing is that when your eye or camera is using a narrower aperture the LED display looks better. Cameras are not magic light capture machines. Most modern SLR have a dynamic range of about 15-18 stops. So when you adjust the camera, normally you try and get min and max luminance as close to 0 and 18 as possible, but you must always pick. If your camera was in auto mode, it set the aperture so that the highlights of the LED were at the top end of the cameras dynamic range, this is because, if you were to calibrate the OLED highlights to the peak dynamic range level, then the LED would be clipping.

In a side by side comparison you are showing 1 display at proper exposure and the other always over or under exposed. This is not a fair test as it ONLY happens side by side.

You as a human cannot identify 1000 nits, no matter how hard you try. If I gave you a magic light that emitted exactly 1000 nits, and told you as such, you could match the brightness, but I could give you a magic light that emitted 500 nits, and unless you had another light to compare it with, you would never know, it would look the EXACT SAME to you.
Seems you feel you've got this whole topic all wrapped up. Steak analogies are the best because steaks are yummy. Congratulations.
Muza, fatuglyguy and vman8126 like this.

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum

Last edited by imagic; 11-29-2016 at 06:18 PM.
imagic is offline  
post #10 of 110 Old 11-29-2016, 06:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 568
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 407 Post(s)
Liked: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Seems you feel you've got this whole topic all wrapped up. Steak analogies are the best because steaks are yummy. Congratulations.
Since you are such an expert. Please describe to me what 1000 nits looks like.
amnesia0287 is offline  
post #11 of 110 Old 11-29-2016, 06:20 PM - Thread Starter
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 16,085
Mentioned: 441 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9166 Post(s)
Liked: 16164
Quote:
Originally Posted by amnesia0287 View Post
Since you are such an expert. Please describe to me what 1000 nits looks like.
You know that sublime beauty can't really be described with words, why bother. Use your imagination, and smile.

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum

Last edited by imagic; 11-30-2016 at 02:30 AM.
imagic is offline  
post #12 of 110 Old 11-29-2016, 06:21 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 568
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 407 Post(s)
Liked: 293
Or a better or more relevant example.

If you had 2 displays. You took measurements and conclusively showed that it was the better display.

Then you did a blind testing with 1000 people, both displays separate dark rooms, they can go back and forth as many times as they like.

Do you truly believe the display that measured better would always win? That there is no scenario that even though the specs of 1 display exceed those of another, the lower spec'd display still LOOKS better... to people.
amnesia0287 is offline  
post #13 of 110 Old 11-29-2016, 06:24 PM - Thread Starter
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 16,085
Mentioned: 441 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9166 Post(s)
Liked: 16164
Quote:
Originally Posted by amnesia0287 View Post
Or a better or more relevant example.

If you had 2 displays. You took measurements and conclusively showed that it was the better display.

Then you did a blind testing with 1000 people, both displays separate dark rooms, they can go back and forth as many times as they like.

Do you truly believe the display that measured better would always win? That there is no scenario that even though the specs of 1 display exceed those of another, the lower spec'd display still LOOKS better... to people.
Nope, I believe with actual humans, subjective perception does beat measurements. I mean, that's a fact, not a theory. Same goes for speakers, not limited to sight.
vman8126, frank xbe and Rf13 like this.

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum
imagic is offline  
post #14 of 110 Old 11-29-2016, 06:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 568
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 407 Post(s)
Liked: 293
So agreeing that perception beats measurements. Do you deny that your perception of light changes depending on how bright a room is? Do you deny that having a brighter tv in the same room might change your perception of the less bright display?
amnesia0287 is offline  
post #15 of 110 Old 11-29-2016, 06:31 PM - Thread Starter
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 16,085
Mentioned: 441 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9166 Post(s)
Liked: 16164
Quote:
Originally Posted by amnesia0287 View Post
So agreeing that perception beats measurements. Do you deny that your perception of light changes depending on how bright a room is? Do you deny that having a brighter tv in the same room might change your perception of the less bright display?
I neither confirm or deny anything you have asserted. I go with my experience as a TV reviewer, HDR photographer, and certified calibrator who gets to play with lots of state-of-the-art TVs and correlate what I see with measurements and all that jazz. I don't have the time to satisfy the particular demands of a persistent and clever commenter like you, just goin' with the ole' "I'm experienced, like Jimi" thang.
KidHorn, vman8126, Rf13 and 2 others like this.

Last edited by imagic; 11-29-2016 at 07:06 PM.
imagic is offline  
post #16 of 110 Old 11-29-2016, 07:03 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 568
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 407 Post(s)
Liked: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by amnesia0287 View Post
So agreeing that perception beats measurements. Do you deny that your perception of light changes depending on how bright a room is? Do you deny that having a brighter tv in the same room might change your perception of the less bright display?
I neither confirm or deny anything you have asserted. I go with my experience as a TV reviewer, HDR photographer, and certified calibrator who gets to play with lots of state-of-the-art TVs and correlate what I see with measurements and all that jazz. I don't have the time to satisfy the particular demands of a persistent and clever commenter like you, just goin' with the ole' "I'm experienced, like Jimmy" thang.
I apologize. I was under the impression this was a discussion forum for the purposes of constructive discourse. If I am wrong I would love to know. I'm not just trying to fight for the **** of it.

But it's good to know a TV reviewer, HDR Photographer and certified calibrator is capable of showing the maturity of a 12 year old. Screw discourse. Let's just insult eachother.

I'm not sure why you posted a discussion thread to a public forum if your sole purpose was to chastise those who disagree with you.

Blind and double blind testing exist for a reason.

Your contention is that the increased brightness and color volume of modern HDR led tvs results in a better HDR image.

I do not argue that the LEDs are brighter and produce more color Volume. I do disagree that you can take this information and interpret it to mean that the image LOOKS better based solely on a side by side comparison. This ignores that your eye like a camera has a dynamic aperature.

You very well may be correct that the LED tv does look better, but nothing you have presented proves as much.

When comparing audio gear in A/B testing, the first step is to level match the gear as anything else massively slants perception. What would make you think this does not apply with video gear?

All you have proven is that in a dark room side by side with an HDR LED an OLED tv potentially doesn't look as good. But that is not much of a real world scenario. The closest applicable inference would be that in daylight the LED would look better.

What I would love to know is all other things being equal, which tv would look better in my dark room. I could assume that your side by side test is valid, but that's not very scientific. What would be nice, would be an unbiased comparison of how the displays would look when they are not side by side.

Perhaps each display calibrated and then photos taken targeting the same spot of each display in a seperate dark room. Then take another set at -2 or 3ev and another that is +2-3ev. The end result would be a set of level matched photos of the tv under exposed, properly exposed and over exposed. Combined you could make a very fair and unbiased comparison.

Nothing you have presented thus far gives and credence to you doing anything other than interpreting the data you see biased by your own perception.
amnesia0287 is offline  
post #17 of 110 Old 11-29-2016, 07:11 PM - Thread Starter
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 16,085
Mentioned: 441 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9166 Post(s)
Liked: 16164
Quote:
Originally Posted by amnesia0287 View Post
I apologize. I was under the impression this was a discussion forum for the purposes of constructive discourse. If I am wrong I would love to know. I'm not just trying to fight for the **** of it.

But it's good to know a TV reviewer, HDR Photographer and certified calibrator is capable of showing the maturity of a 12 year old. Screw discourse. Let's just insult eachother.

I'm not sure why you posted a discussion thread to a public forum if your sole purpose was to chastise those who disagree with you.

Blind and double blind testing exist for a reason.

Your contention is that the increased brightness and color volume of modern HDR led tvs results in a better HDR image.

I do not argue that the LEDs are brighter and produce more color Volume. I do disagree that you can take this information and interpret it to mean that the image LOOKS better based solely on a side by side comparison. This ignores that your eye like a camera has a dynamic aperature.

You very well may be correct that the LED tv does look better, but nothing you have presented proves as much.

When comparing audio gear in A/B testing, the first step is to level match the gear as anything else massively slants perception. What would make you think this does not apply with video gear?

All you have proven is that in a dark room side by side with an HDR LED an OLED tv potentially doesn't look as good. But that is not much of a real world scenario. The closest applicable inference would be that in daylight the LED would look better.

What I would love to know is all other things being equal, which tv would look better in my dark room. I could assume that your side by side test is valid, but that's not very scientific. What would be nice, would be an unbiased comparison of how the displays would look when they are not side by side.

Perhaps each display calibrated and then photos taken targeting the same spot of each display in a seperate dark room. Then take another set at -2 or 3ev and another that is +2-3ev. The end result would be a set of level matched photos of the tv under exposed, properly exposed and over exposed. Combined you could make a very fair and unbiased comparison.

Nothing you have presented thus far gives and credence to you doing anything other than interpreting the data you see biased by your own perception.
I'm very familiar with the rhetoric of Internet comment debate, and I am not interested in having one with you.
KidHorn, vman8126, EvLee and 5 others like this.
imagic is offline  
post #18 of 110 Old 11-29-2016, 07:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Rf13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: North Dallas
Posts: 1,066
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 467 Post(s)
Liked: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by amnesia0287 View Post
I apologize. I was under the impression this was a discussion forum for the purposes of constructive discourse. If I am wrong I would love to know. I'm not just trying to fight for the **** of it.

But it's good to know a TV reviewer, HDR Photographer and certified calibrator is capable of showing the maturity of a 12 year old. Screw discourse. Let's just insult eachother.

I'm not sure why you posted a discussion thread to a public forum if your sole purpose was to chastise those who disagree with you.

Blind and double blind testing exist for a reason.

Your contention is that the increased brightness and color volume of modern HDR led tvs results in a better HDR image.

I do not argue that the LEDs are brighter and produce more color Volume. I do disagree that you can take this information and interpret it to mean that the image LOOKS better based solely on a side by side comparison. This ignores that your eye like a camera has a dynamic aperature.

You very well may be correct that the LED tv does look better, but nothing you have presented proves as much.

When comparing audio gear in A/B testing, the first step is to level match the gear as anything else massively slants perception. What would make you think this does not apply with video gear?

All you have proven is that in a dark room side by side with an HDR LED an OLED tv potentially doesn't look as good. But that is not much of a real world scenario. The closest applicable inference would be that in daylight the LED would look better.

What I would love to know is all other things being equal, which tv would look better in my dark room. I could assume that your side by side test is valid, but that's not very scientific. What would be nice, would be an unbiased comparison of how the displays would look when they are not side by side.

Perhaps each display calibrated and then photos taken targeting the same spot of each display in a seperate dark room. Then take another set at -2 or 3ev and another that is +2-3ev. The end result would be a set of level matched photos of the tv under exposed, properly exposed and over exposed. Combined you could make a very fair and unbiased comparison.

Nothing you have presented thus far gives and credence to you doing anything other than interpreting the data you see biased by your own perception.
so your basically saying that your eyes cant detect varying color saturation. That's pretty much what I got from what you said.... IMO It deosn't matter if a set is side by side, different rooms etc. You will still notice the difference in color saturation. i suspect he can easily spot this as he actually calibrates and knows what to look for. I can also see this on my Js9500 when I look at it from different angles. This article was meant to show an obvious flaw and I'm not sure why people are on the defense about it. Don't we want them to improve? Are they all perfect? My guess is they aren't and we should look for more ways to improve the standard.
King Richard likes this.

Samsung-UN65JS9500
LG-55UB8500
LG-65C7P
Samsung-65Q9FN
Rf13 is offline  
post #19 of 110 Old 11-29-2016, 07:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 568
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 407 Post(s)
Liked: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
I'm very familiar with the rhetoric of Internet comment debate, and I am not interested in having one with you.
And there is that perception of yours again. I'm not sure why you are calling anything I say rhetoric, none of it is innacurate or remotely outlandish.

My hope was that as a member of this community, who clearly shares some of the same interests as me, and as a professional who does have access to all kinds of toys and does have a lot of experience with these things, that you could run a few more tests, see how the displays compare when they aren't next to eachother.

I wish I could perform such tests myself, but I am a software developer so I have no such access and I cannot justify buying a second tv knowing I would return it.

I genuinely am interested in your subject, whether or not you choose to believe me. If you ever do change your mind and have a chance to try taking some more photos, let me know, I would love to hear what you find. Even if it's just by PM. I had effectively ruled out buying an LED tv ever again, but if your assertation is in fact correct then I will have to reconsider this determination.

I won't reply to this thread any further unless someone directly posits a question for me as you have made it abundantly clear you aren't interested in what I have to say. I can only hope that you might change your mind as I do believe your insights and knowledge and experience are invaluable. It is only your methodology I am at odds with.

If I offended you I apologize, that was never my intention. I will readily admit I can get a bit heated in debate, but if I went too far I'm sorry.
greenland likes this.
amnesia0287 is offline  
post #20 of 110 Old 11-29-2016, 08:45 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: 2829
Quote:
Originally Posted by amnesia0287 View Post
.

Great info. Im hoping that he gets an Oled ,He have the KS9800 and it will be more exciting if he owns both.

Last edited by losservatore; 11-29-2016 at 09:07 PM.
losservatore is offline  
post #21 of 110 Old 11-29-2016, 09:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dougri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,034
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Mark... one question regarding the color volume plots... what is the vertical dimension and scale? If it is indeed brightness, what is the scale? If not logarithmic as brightness is perceived, any chance you could reproduce the comparative plots with log brightness?
dougri is offline  
post #22 of 110 Old 11-29-2016, 10:47 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
ray0414's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: michigan
Posts: 16,843
Mentioned: 260 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12690 Post(s)
Liked: 11944
It's kind of funny.

The only people who don't think oled needs to be brighter for hdr is oled owners on AVSFORUM. Everyone else in the world, on the professional side seems to think oled needs to perform better in this area for a multitude of reasons, including LG. LG will be increasing their brightness for the 3rd straight year in 2017, presumably up to 1000 nits. And 2017 owners, like 2016 owners, will all tell us how much more I impactful HDR is with the brighter highlights. I've read many oled reviews this year, where the reviewer did not have an LCD on hand, mention the the oled didn't have the wow of the lcds with bright hdr (imagine that, according to poster above this shouldn't be the case).

If LG thought 500-700 nits was perfect for their hdr displays, they wouldn't be increasing brightness by 30-40% every year now would they?


And just to be fair, the same professionals also say thag lcd needs to improve black levels (which is obviously true).


I'm personally not happy with either technology at the moment and am hoping for a 2019 QLED with 100%rec2020 and 2000 nits with perfect blacks and viewing angles.

There are many others perfectly happy with their current oleds and it's brightness and I suggest to those people to hang onto their current tvs because they will get brighter which for some can be unpleasant but that is more personal preference rather than the evolution of the technology.

Last edited by ray0414; 11-29-2016 at 11:53 PM.
ray0414 is offline  
post #23 of 110 Old 11-30-2016, 12:29 AM
Member
 
derreckla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sacramento Area
Posts: 183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 63
This On-Axis vs. Off-Axis is the biggest sales gimic just as bad as "dual Subwoofers". look I watch TV in ONE location. If I have a buddy over or my wife sits 1 foot from me on my left, he/she (and especially me and my wallet) are not going to care that they are losing 10% picture quality. WE CRAZY people on here are only into this my wife could care less between our Top of the line Sony and the Element that we bought at Wallys black friday special. When I am dropping over $4K for a TV I want it to look amazing TO ME!!!, not the occasional guest or wife who doesn't care.
King Richard likes this.

Sony XBR-75Z9D
Klipsch Original RF-7s LCR & Surrounds, RS-7 Ceiling Atmos YES!! [/SIZE])
SVS PB13 Ultra
Samsung UBD-K8500 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray Player
Denon AVR-X3300
derreckla is offline  
post #24 of 110 Old 11-30-2016, 12:56 AM
Advanced Member
 
EvLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 689
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
Liked: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougri View Post
Mark... one question regarding the color volume plots... what is the vertical dimension and scale? If it is indeed brightness, what is the scale? If not logarithmic as brightness is perceived, any chance you could reproduce the comparative plots with log brightness?
The plots are in CIELAB. The vertical axis is L*, which is a perceptually uniform lightness scale. It is worth noting that L* is calculated relative to a reference diffuse white. Furthermore, the way CIELAB was derived was from experimental trials using reflective materials. It was not intended for colors that are brighter than diffuse white. Extending CIELAB to HDR images remains an area of active research.
EvLee is offline  
post #25 of 110 Old 11-30-2016, 02:13 AM - Thread Starter
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 16,085
Mentioned: 441 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9166 Post(s)
Liked: 16164
Quote:
Originally Posted by amnesia0287 View Post
And there is that perception of yours again. I'm not sure why you are calling anything I say rhetoric, none of it is innacurate or remotely outlandish.

My hope was that as a member of this community, who clearly shares some of the same interests as me, and as a professional who does have access to all kinds of toys and does have a lot of experience with these things, that you could run a few more tests, see how the displays compare when they aren't next to eachother.

I wish I could perform such tests myself, but I am a software developer so I have no such access and I cannot justify buying a second tv knowing I would return it.

I genuinely am interested in your subject, whether or not you choose to believe me. If you ever do change your mind and have a chance to try taking some more photos, let me know, I would love to hear what you find. Even if it's just by PM. I had effectively ruled out buying an LED tv ever again, but if your assertation is in fact correct then I will have to reconsider this determination.

I won't reply to this thread any further unless someone directly posits a question for me as you have made it abundantly clear you aren't interested in what I have to say. I can only hope that you might change your mind as I do believe your insights and knowledge and experience are invaluable. It is only your methodology I am at odds with.

If I offended you I apologize, that was never my intention. I will readily admit I can get a bit heated in debate, but if I went too far I'm sorry.
This quote from your post is inaccurate: "But it's good to know a TV reviewer, HDR Photographer and certified calibrator is capable of showing the maturity of a 12 year old. Screw discourse. Let's just insult each other. I'm not sure why you posted a discussion thread to a public forum if your sole purpose was to chastise those who disagree with you."

Specifically and notably, I have not insulted you.

No offense taken, and thank you for the feedback plus suggestions. I am not exaggerating in saying that I do not have the time to hash this out now; if an opportunity presents itself to take a deep dive into this topic, I most certainly will. I don't have these displays in my studio, so there are limits to what I can do at the moment.

I'm looking forward to getting my hands on the software tools needed to measure color volume; photos are good but meters are science. 2017 is shaping up to be an interesting year for videophiles.
vman8126, mc_avs and mrtickleuk like this.

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum

Last edited by imagic; 11-30-2016 at 02:52 AM.
imagic is offline  
post #26 of 110 Old 11-30-2016, 02:18 AM - Thread Starter
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 16,085
Mentioned: 441 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9166 Post(s)
Liked: 16164
Quote:
Originally Posted by derreckla View Post
This On-Axis vs. Off-Axis is the biggest sales gimic just as bad as "dual Subwoofers". look I watch TV in ONE location. If I have a buddy over or my wife sits 1 foot from me on my left, he/she (and especially me and my wallet) are not going to care that they are losing 10% picture quality. WE CRAZY people on here are only into this my wife could care less between our Top of the line Sony and the Element that we bought at Wallys black friday special. When I am dropping over $4K for a TV I want it to look amazing TO ME!!!, not the occasional guest or wife who doesn't care.
Whatever led you to think dual subwoofers is a sales gimmick, years of dealing with many subs and taking measurements, in different rooms, plus the collective experience of so many AVS Forum members, create a strong argument to the contrary. The proper deployment of dual (or more) subs reduce room modes, resulting in smoother bass response. This is measurable and audible. Importantly, you can't EQ away a null.

The rest of what you said.... I generally agree. If someone watches TV sitting off to the side, their primary concern is not reference-quality color accuracy. As someone who appreciates great visuals, I have never willingly sat next to the wall in a movie theater. Getting as close to centered as you can is a perfectly rational way to appreciate cinematic content.
KidHorn, vman8126 and frank xbe like this.

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum

Last edited by imagic; 11-30-2016 at 02:51 AM.
imagic is offline  
post #27 of 110 Old 11-30-2016, 07:35 AM
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: 2829
I think amnesia0287 have good points ,a picture IMHO doesn't say much and many time measurements tools doesn't always translate to what we see.


At the VE shootout the Oled didn't looked that dim and many rated the Oled higher in some categories that we expected LCD to win.






I think it have to do on how we perceive things. Yes on papers the LCD have more color volume but how that translate to our vision?

I personaly prefer Sony colors IMO the image look more Cinematic and colors are richer. I always go for the image depth and perceptual contrast as an important key for a visual impact.also for which picture to my eyes gives a more cinematic experience.

I tried some LCDs like JS9500,8500,Sony 930C and Vizio P but when I tried the Oled it was definetly a keeper and what I see at home definetly doesn't look like the pictures.

I compare this to music ,not always a flat frequency translate to a good sound.


PS. Im here because I always read the articles on the front page.
IMHO it depends on the viewing habits and enviroment.
jrref likes this.

Last edited by losservatore; 11-30-2016 at 08:06 AM.
losservatore is offline  
post #28 of 110 Old 11-30-2016, 08:04 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
KidHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Derwood, Maryland
Posts: 5,426
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1849 Post(s)
Liked: 1281
Mark,

That was an awesome article. OLED and LCD both have their strengths and weaknesses. No technology is clearly better than another. I prefer LCD mainly because you can buy a huge screen at a reasonable cost and I watch a lot of sports, head on, which I think looks better on LCD. If I wanted a smaller screen to watch sci-fi, I would go with OLED.
imagic and King Richard like this.
KidHorn is offline  
post #29 of 110 Old 11-30-2016, 08:06 AM - Thread Starter
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 16,085
Mentioned: 441 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9166 Post(s)
Liked: 16164
Quote:
Originally Posted by losservatore View Post
I think amnesia0287 have good points ,a picture IMHO doesn't say much and many time measurements tools doesn't always translate to what we see.


At the VE shootout the Oled didn't looked that dim and many rated the Oled higher in some categories that we expected LCD to win.






I think it have to do on how we perceive things. Yes on papers the LCD have more color volume but how that translate to our vision?

I personaly prefer Sony colors IMO the image look more Cinematic and colors are richer. I always go for the image depth and perceptual contrast as an important key for a visual impact.

I tried some LCDs like JS9500,8500,Sony 930C and Vizio P but when I tried the Oled it was definetly a keeper and what I see at home definetly doesn't look like the pictures.

I compare this to music ,not always a flat frequency translate to a good sound.


PS. Im here because I always read the articles on the front page. IMHO it depends on the viewing habits and enviroment.

Color volume is simply something that I'm going to be looking at in 2017. It is only part of the image quality equation, obviously contrast that's the result of extra-deep blacks remains a power player in this game.

It's worth mentioning that the loss of color volume near peak luminance is always going to manifest with WOLED, where a white sub-pixel is explicitly used to make those displays brighter. Of course, there is always a question of how much real-life content that will affect. As I see it, we're just dealing with trade-offs here, there is no one right answer.

Ah, I see your edit. Your last point, that's the crux of it.

Mark Henninger
Editor, AVS Forum
imagic is offline  
post #30 of 110 Old 11-30-2016, 08:12 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 33,192
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7370 Post(s)
Liked: 8247
As always, these threads devolve into the 'OLED vs LCD' argument. Mark prefers LCD, that's obvious in most of his posts and that's fine. Others prefer OLED (count me among those) and that's fine too.

IMO you don't have to be a reviewer or an HDR photographer to know what looks best to you. Many of us, without either of these 'qualifications', knows what looks best to them, based on years and years of experience owning CRTs (both direct view & rear projection), plasmas, LCDs & OLEDs. That experience, especially with these aforementioned displays in a calibrated state, gives us the experience to know what looks best and most accurate to us.

The ability to create the unparalleled black levels of OLED, always known, at least previously , as the 'holy grail' of display technology, will trump the greater brightness of LCD every time...at least for me and many others. When one considers that today's OLEDs are brighter than virtually any LCD from prior years, I don't think brightness is an 'issue'.

As for HDR, having seen HDR on both my Sony 940c & B6 OLED, I prefer HDR on the OLED...particularly DV HDR which my Sony can't do.
Rf13, jrref, King Richard and 1 others like this.
Ken Ross is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply High Dynamic Range (HDR) & Wide Color Gamut (WCG)

Tags
color volume , dci/p3 , oled , quantum dots

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