Originally Posted by Dominic Chan
I agree that no one calls Dolby Version “Dynamic Tone Mapping”, but terminology aside, I don’t see in what way HDR10 DTM is inherently superior to DV, which seems to be what you were implying by the comment “What turned me off of the similar thread in the other forum was the continuous claiming that this LLDV workaround is actually DTM. I see no proof of that.”
There are excellent implementations of DTM (MadVR) and there are not so good implementations of DTM (my LG B7A). Dolby Vision on my LG does look better than its DTM of HDR10 content. Dolby Vision on my LG looks better than HDR10 with LG tone mapping turned off as well.
All I am saying it that it seems misleading to me to refer to Dolby Vision with its Dynamic Metadata as DTM. We would then need to refer to HDR10+ processing as DTM as well.
My objection is only that to me DTM inherently means that processing is "real time" analysis of each frame and making decisions on tone mapping based on that. Dolby Vision processing is using dynamic metadata and other Dolby proprietary information encoded in a content layer to determine its tone mapping.
My opinion is that Dynamic Metadata (Dolby Vision and HDR10+) are not the same as DTM in the sense that each frame is not analyzed in real time. When the Dolby Vision metadata was encoded in the content, there may have been an automated process that examined each frame. But that is not tone mapping.
On the other hand I can agree that LLDV to my JVC projector from ATV4K Dolby Vision content is superior to HDR10 from my ATV4K. I just can't refer to it as DTM.
So I have no issue with claims that Dolby Vision and it LLDV variant are inherently better than HDR10 due to the botched implementation of HDR10 static metadata. But I would not agree with claims that LLDV means you have the equivalent of Lumagen DTM processing for just the cost of an HDFury device.