AVS Forum banner

18941 - 18960 of 28761 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,555 Posts
The industry grade on beast TV LCD too to achieve great black performance, you can't compare that to normal LCD. The new one from SIM2 have 2200 local zone on a 47" for 6000 nits. This is crazy.... But the price is also crazy.

Give me an LCD with that many zone for the price of an OLED, and I'll be on the LED bandwagon too.

Maybe quantum self emissive will give us nits monster for an affordable Price.
My LG LV 9500 was a Nano led with 2200 LED'S and FALD on a 55inch.
It cost 1500 on HSN.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,296 Posts
Great explanation why "super bright LCD" is just a bunch of hogwash. The true blacks of OLED is what makes the image pure. LCD is awful at blacks so will never be a good picture, no matter how much people try to justify it.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
I don't agree with that. You seem to be thinking of it in the sense of an overall bright image, and I never once suggested that, quite the opposite actually. HDR is all about specular highlights, and super bright LEDs do a much better job with that. Like I said, what stands out to me when viewing an HDR image is the difference in brightness between the main subject (like a person) and the brightest highlights in an image, like reflections, the sun, bright clouds, fire, neon signs at night, etc. The difference between the main subject and the brightest highlights is what gives the image the HDR look in my opinion, so the brighter and more consistent the highlights are, the better a set is at displaying HDR content imo.

Like I said before, the way I see it is OLED gives you the better picture, but LED gives you the better HDR.

The industry grade on beast TV LCD too to achieve great black performance, you can't compare that to normal LCD. The new one from SIM2 have 2200 local zone on a 47" for 6000 nits. This is crazy.... But the price is also crazy.

Give me an LCD with that many zone for the price of an OLED, and I'll be on the LED bandwagon too.

Maybe quantum self emissive will give us nits monster for an affordable Price.
The thing about the local dimming of most LEDs, to me, is while they do give you that blooming, to me it actually feels kind of natural. Think about lens flares. Lens flares do represent an effect our eyes naturally perceive when objects are too bright. So when we see blooming in an image, it tricks our eyes into feeling like something is even brighter than it is. Even Dolby Vision includes blooming as part of their tonemapping algorithm, which allows you to get the sense that the highlights are brighter than they actually are, which certainly helps with darker nit sets like this for sure, but ultimately nothing compares to having those natural bright highlights. I just haven't been blown away by the brightness of any highlights on my C6 the way I have on my 930d. Yeah the bloom is there, but blacks still get plenty dark. Not perfect, but dark enough to not distract the image or ruin the HDR in any way imo. You have to think, even with the 930d's weak contrast ratio, the absolute worst black level you can get with 1000nit highlights would be 0.35nits. That's still pretty dark, and that's with local dimming off. I'd say with local dimming at high, the contrast ratio typically feels about 5-10x as good. While Sony didn't bother with certification, the set does technically pass the Ultra HD Premium requirements, being able to display 1000nit highlights at the same time as less than 0.05 nit black levels. It may not be perfect, but to me, the blacks are good enough, and the highlights are mind blowing so often that for what I want from HDR, it far surpasses the C6. For overall picture quality, of course the C6 beats it, but that's not what I'm talking about here. There's more to HDR than just picture quality.

That being said, I appreciate having HDR on the C6, as being in my room it makes HDR viewing much more convenient. HDR Games I will almost exclusively play on the C6, because of the better input lag. Any late night HDR viewing will happen on my C6. Any movies or shows that aren't exactly family friendly will be watched on the C6. I also plan to get an Oppo for DV Blu-rays, so it will get some use for that as well, so this TV will get plenty of HDR usage, and the HDR here is obviously still an upgrade from SDR, but ultimately I prefer the experience my 930d gives me for HDR, because it does literally have a greater dynamic range. This set just doesn't really touch the feeling I get when I see those really bright highlights on my 930d. That's what HDR is all about in my opinion. Not an overall bright image*, but really bright highlights.

Like I said, it's all about priorities. These are mine, and that should be okay. You don't have to agree and that's okay too.

But really I bought this TV mostly because of the 3D, and this set is easily the best 3D image I've seen.

*the main subject should be the same brightness in SDR and HDR, although sometimes there are scenarios where the HDR highlights do fill a large portion of the screen, because they represent a backdrop behind the main subject, such as the bridge fight scene in Deadpool, or the bright windows behind the characters in Iron Fist. But the main subject itself should stay the same brightness when the TV is calibrated properly and the content is graded properly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
"HDR is all about specular highlights."

No, no it's not.

It's hilarious how this fool always forgets about everything else besides peak brightness that goes into HDR. This dude just makes up **** on the fly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,296 Posts
"HDR is all about specular highlights."

No, no it's not.

It's hilarious how this fool always forgets about everything else besides peak brightness that goes into HDR. This dude just makes up **** on the fly.
That's literally what "high dynamic range" means, that it's a greater range of values from the lowest to the highest number of nits.

Of course there's the larger bit depth, but that's mostly so that you can have those highlights without banding.

Then you have Wide Color Gamut, but that's not part of HDR technically, but a separate thing.

HDR doesn't give you "darker blacks" if that's what you're getting at, because both SDR and HDR are calibrated so that black on both hits the same level on the same TV. I always cringe whenever I see a comparison that shows the blacks getting darker, because that's not what HDR is about at all.

HDR is basically taking what you have in SDR, and raising the "ceiling" of the content so it's no longer 100nits. It's "uncapping" that SDR image to allow it to naturally display the highlights that normally get clipped out in SDR, and the detail and colors that also get clipped and washed out because of that SDR ceiling.

Within the first ~75 nits or so, the image between SDR and HDR should be almost identical.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,958 Posts
That's literally what "high dynamic range" means, that it's a greater range of values from the lowest to the highest number of nits.

Of course there's the larger bit depth, but that's mostly so that you can have those highlights without banding.

Then you have Wide Color Gamut, but that's not part of HDR technically, but a separate thing.

HDR doesn't give you "darker blacks" if that's what you're getting at, because both SDR and HDR are calibrated so that black on both hits the same level on the same TV. I always cringe whenever I see a comparison that shows the blacks getting darker, because that's not what HDR is about at all.

HDR is basically taking what you have in SDR, and raising the "ceiling" of the content so it's no longer 100nits. It's "uncapping" that SDR image to allow it to naturally display the highlights that normally get clipped out in SDR, and the detail and colors that also get clipped and washed out because of that SDR ceiling.

Within the first ~75 nits or so, the image between SDR and HDR should be almost identical.
Not darker blacks per se, no. But HDR does allow for more detail to be revealed in low light/dark scenes compared to SDR. As has been evidenced in plenty of "professional" reviews of numerous content over the last year.

Your priority is more nits. Nothing wrong with that. But there is more to HDR then just higher dynamic range. That's not an opinion.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
HDR isn't just about nits.

You sound like a damn fool.

It's also a tool for filmmakers and content creators to show detail that is otherwise not available in SDR content. Detail that is not just magically revealed exclusively because of "high nits"

DURR HURR
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,958 Posts
For the sake of others who might be interested, a simple breakdown of HDR and what all it brings with it besides higher nits:

To put it more simply, HDR content on HDR-compatible TVs can get brighter and darker at the same time, and show more shades of gray in between. Similarly, they can produce deeper and more vivid reds, greens, and blues, and show more shades in between. Deep shadows aren't simply black voids; more details can be seen in the darkness, while the picture stays very dark. Bright shots aren't simply sunny, vivid pictures; fine details in the brightest surfaces remain clear. Vivid objects aren't simply saturated; more shades of colors can be seen.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
People just need to accept that LCD sucks and is outdated...this thread is just getting silly anymore. Shouldnt be allowed to talk about LCD in here imo.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,958 Posts
People just need to accept that LCD sucks and is outdated...this thread is just getting silly anymore. Shouldnt be allowed to talk about LCD in here imo.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
I wish they would finally give OLED its own dedicated forum subsection.

Back when I was considering the Sony Z9 during early speculation in the anticipation thread, any talk of comparing LCD to OLED in that particular thread was eventually discouraged as off topic.

It is what it is I suppose.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
Title of thread is C6-B6 owners thread, and all anyone does is post pages and pages of "nit brightness" and how they love their LCD's. It seams like a bunch of people with buyers remorse trying tp justify dropping heaps on their Sony LCD's.
Can we get back to real talk about real OLED tvs like the thread title suggests?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,296 Posts
Not darker blacks per se, no. But HDR does allow for more detail to be revealed in low light/dark scenes compared to SDR. As has been evidenced in plenty of "professional" reviews of numerous content over the last year.

Your priority is more nits. Nothing wrong with that. But there is more to HDR then just higher dynamic range. That's not an opinion.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
That has more to do with the way people grade the movie than the format itself, imo. The detail you're seeing is pretty much the same detail you see in SDR, it's just pushed down into darker levels "because we can". I personally don't like that practice. When I grade for HDR I like the first 100 nits to look pretty much identical between SDR and HDR, because HDR was designed as an expansion above what SDR provides. Something shouldn't be darker just because there are more bits there. Yeah sure it makes a greater contrast between shadows and highlights, but cranking up saturation also makes brighter colors, but that doesn't mean it's what's best for the grade. The gradient from shadows to highlights should feel natural, not overly crushed. Most SDR grades I've found have a solid natural gradient there, so if you just push that shadow detail darker, it's going to look less natural. Again, yeah that'll make it pop more, but at the expense of a less natural looking image.

HDR isn't just about nits.

You sound like a damn fool.

It's also a tool for filmmakers and content creators to show detail that is otherwise not available in SDR content. Detail that is not just magically revealed exclusively because of "high nits"

DURR HURR
That detail isn't there in SDR because it's literally in the higher nit areas that got clipped off. The only other detail you're getting is because of 4K, not HDR. Higher bit depths above 8 bit don't really give you more detail, they just give you more color precision, for a smoother transition between darker and lighter colors.

People just need to accept that LCD sucks and is outdated...this thread is just getting silly anymore. Shouldnt be allowed to talk about LCD in here imo.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
That's an opinion not everybody shares. Both technologies have pros and cons. I'm discussing them in relation to my experiences with this specific set, so it's on topic.

Title of thread is C6-B6 owners thread, and all anyone does is post pages and pages of "nit brightness" and how they love their LCD's. It seams like a bunch of people with buyers remorse trying tp justify dropping heaps on their Sony LCD's.
Can we get back to real talk about real OLED tvs like the thread title suggests?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
I love both of my TVs for different reasons. Both technologies have their pros and cons. Seeing as this is a thread about the TV I purchased, I'm discussing my experiences with it. I absolutely don't regret buying it. It's a beautiful TV, and does many things better than my LED. And my LED does some things better than the OLED. Both TVs are great, and I love getting to realize what's good and bad about every piece of technology I own, to better utilize that tech. I'm simply discussing my personal experiences and opinions about the TV and the way it utilizes HDR, and how that relates to the purpose of HDR to begin with. Let me reiterate what I said earlier:

Like I said, it's all about priorities. These are mine, and that should be okay. You don't have to agree and that's okay too.
You don't have to insult my opinions just because you don't agree. I'm not insulting anybody else's. We can all be respectful here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,958 Posts
That has more to do with the way people grade the movie than the format itself, imo. The detail you're seeing is pretty much the same detail you see in SDR, it's just pushed down into darker levels "because we can". I personally don't like that practice. When I grade for HDR I like the first 100 nits to look pretty much identical between SDR and HDR, because HDR was designed as an expansion above what SDR provides. Something shouldn't be darker just because there are more bits there. Yeah sure it makes a greater contrast between shadows and highlights, but cranking up saturation also makes brighter colors, but that doesn't mean it's what's best for the grade. The gradient from shadows to highlights should feel natural, not overly crushed. Most SDR grades I've found have a solid natural gradient there, so if you just push that shadow detail darker, it's going to look less natural. Again, yeah that'll make it pop more, but at the expense of a less natural looking image.
Again. That's your preference. But compared to the professional reviews of HDR material, it's a known fact that darker scenes/content benefit greatly from HDR remastering for reasons quoted, and past links provided.

Honestly man, you need to seriously look past just the nits. That isn't all HDR is confined to improving upon over SDR. Or don't. That's on you. I'm done beating a dead horse.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Again. That's your preference. But compared to the professional reviews of HDR material, it's a known fact that darker scenes/content benefit greatly from HDR remastering for reasons quoted, and past links provided.

Honestly man, you need to seriously look past just the nits. That isn't all HDR is confined to improving upon over SDR. Or don't. That's on you. I'm done beating a dead horse.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
He just said the new detail in HDR content is only revealed because of highlights.

I can't... I just can't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,958 Posts
Relating to our OLED's:

One thing I found immediately apparent when I purchased Masciolas HDR test patterns was how the out of the box HDR Standard picture settings (with Dynamic Contrast off) showed better near black detail vs. the standard SDR test images on the OLED.

When I first got my C6 I had tried some of the tweaks in the "OLED Near Black" thread in order to get fully visible shadow detail down to 0.5% black clipping pattern but I abandoned that attempt due to the extra noise it revealed in some near black material. I ended up settling on settings that give me 1% and up fully visible from my seat and 0.5% barely visible if I let my eyes adjust for about 5 minutes in pitch black (essentially I chose to crush black a tad).

With the HDR black clipping pattern, 0.5% black is fully visible from my seat without needing to let my eyes adjust and without raising the black floor or changing any settings. Shadow detail down to near black is clean and has no issues.

I love HDR on my OLED ☺

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,296 Posts
Again. That's your preference. But compared to the professional reviews of HDR material, it's a known fact that darker scenes/content benefit greatly from HDR remastering for reasons quoted, and past links provided.

Honestly man, you need to seriously look past just the nits. That isn't all HDR is confined to improving upon over SDR. Or don't. That's on you. I'm done beating a dead horse.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
It's just something I inherently disagree with, based on the way the format works, and the way our eyes work. I just don't think our eyes are sensitive enough to tell the difference in the theoretical detail added added between 8 and 10bit. In fact, it's less than that in the sub 100 nit range. More like 9bit, since the last bit is essentially the HDR highlights.

We're able to subconsciously see the more precise reproduction of color, but I feel like our sensitivity to what I'd describe as actual detail is less than 8bit.

So yeah, I think the reason that perception of additional detail in darker shades is more a result of the grading practices of some studios (not all) pushing the shadows into darker values.

So for me, I view it more as the way studios have been grading movies, more than the actual capabilities of the format.

Once again, this is the way I view it. You don't have to agree, and that's fine.

But here's the thing, even if it were objectively a fact that HDR added detail in shadows, I still would consider the highlight reproduction the far more important aspect of what separates HDR from SDR. Anything added in that 0-100 range is ultimately going to be pretty subtle compared to the stuff above 100nits which was literally completely cut out of SDR.

Sent from my OnePlus One using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
996 Posts
You guys can all say what you want, at least @morphinapg explains why he thinks something and doesn't resort to the name-calling and other immature comments that some others do. I don't always agree with what he says, but there is no reason to be so disrespectful and start calling him a "fool".

He has both an LCD set and an OLED set - and see pros and cons of both (which I *do* tend to agree with). I also have LCD and OLED and IMO, there *are* things that my LCD sets are better at. OLED is great, but it's still a relatively young technology and there is still room for improvement.

Sent from my Hi10 pro using Tapatalk
 
18941 - 18960 of 28761 Posts
Top