AVS Forum banner

11501 - 11520 of 11613 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
Yes, your display will be capable to go up to 10'000 nits with this.
But madVR won't let you apply this setting. It's a vast conspiracy to sell new displays and tone mapping softwares. Don't tell anyone 🤫
For my interest - what is your DPL?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
@Neo-XP:
Thank you very much for the settings. Just two short questions:

1. The settings are for beta 120, right?
2. Contrast recovery should be disabled? with beta 113 I was using the „Neo-XP 1.0 High“ setting for contrast recovery, and it looked really good.

Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
For my interest - what is your DPL?
150 nits.

@Neo-XP:
1. The settings are for beta 120, right?
Yes.

2. Contrast recovery should be disabled? with beta 113 I was using the „Neo-XP 1.0 High“ setting for contrast recovery, and it looked really good.
Yes, any preset can lead to a better or worse result depending on the scene. Generally, the strongest presets will widen this gap even more.
Unfortunately, there is so "safe" preset and it is quite random, so it should be disabled IMO for an "all purpose" configuration not to get any bad surprise.

If you want more information about my settings, please ask me in PM so as not to interfere with current tests.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,451 Posts
So one thing I've thought about, and now having "don't add peak nits" makes it very easy to test apples-to-apples, is the conventional wisdom about DPL, and no compression limit, and not lying to madVR about DPL. And I know this has already been discussed in the past, but please be open-minded, and hear me out. :)

So I understand the reasoning behind not lying to madVR about DPL, and how the no compression limit is intended to address concerns about "protecting" a critical range while allowing frames with peak < DPL to map 1:1. But I think there are some important considerations:

1. madVR essentially lies to itself all the time, in the form of DTN and any resulting target > DPL, and also when NCL is used.
2. When using SDR output, due to the relative nature, it actually does not make any difference what DPL is actually set to, the target is what dictates what the frame will look like.

And to prove this, I did some testing.
Profile 1: DPL 65, DTN 60, NCL 103 - Resulting FALL multiplier of 2.175
Profile 2: DPL 103, DTN 54, NCL 103 (I don't believe this NCL matters in this case) - Resulting FALL multiplier of 2.174

I intentionally used the formulas I posted recently to find a DPL/DTN combo that resulted in the same multiplier and thus the same targets, and this is what I meant above when I said "don't add peak nits" helps test this apples-to-apples. I've theorized about this previously, but finally took the time and was able to actually test it.

Here are some examples of what happens with these two profiles with different peaks/FALLs...

Peak 400, FALL 75 - Target of 163 nits in both cases, end result is identical
Peak 300, FALL 20 - Target of 103 nits in both cases, end result is identical
Peak 120, FALL 10 - Target of 103 nits in both cases, end result in identical
Peak 80, FALL 7 - Target of 80 nits for Profile 1, Target of 103 nits for Profile 2
Peak 50, FALL 5 - Target of 50 nits for Profile 1, Target of 103 nits for Profile 2

So the only difference between these two different approaches is in the case where peak is less than the 103 NCL/altDPL. In this scenario, Profile 1 maps 1:1 (or to peak if in between DPL and NCL), while Profile 2 maps to 103 nits. And in a vacuum, mapping 1:1 when possible seems like a reasonable goal. But let's consider how this is really working in practice.

So I ran through a scene in Valerian which has a mix of frames with peaks <65, between 65 and 103, and >103. And within this same scene, Profile 1 is jumping around between 1:1 mapping for the <65 frames, mapping to 103 for the >103 frames, and in between on the frames between 65 and 103. Profile 2 is consistently mapping to 103 for the whole scene. FALL is never high enough to kick in a higher target via DTN.

Keep in mind this is all within the same scene. The only major difference between the <65 frames and the higher frames is whether something semi-bright is in the frame or not. And so in the case of Profile 1, the scene is mapped inconsistently, while with Profile 2, it is mapped consistently. So I think we need to take a step back and ask ourselves, do we only want to "protect" the critical range (however one wants to define that, 75 nits, 100 nits, 106 nits, 200 nits?) which NCL does, or do we also want to ensure consistent TMing within that critical range as well (which NCL does not do)? Do we really want frames within the same scene to be mapped inconsistently through this critical range? This is importantly different from inconsistent mapping above the critical range, which is a necessary evil of TMing and not too detrimental with good target smoothing. As you ask yourself these questions and answer them, keep in mind that this is the only difference in the end result of these two profiles due to the relative nature of SDR and that it really does not matter whatsoever what DPL is set to otherwise.

This is easy to test now with "don't add peak nits". You just have to create a second profile with DPL equal to your current NCL and then use the formulas I posted to find a DTN that results in the same multiplier as your current DPL/DTN combo. I'm happy to help anyone with this if they need it. Cheers!

Edit to add: This really only applies to those with DPL which is less than the "critical range", i.e. those who are (or maybe should have considered) using NCL to protect this critical range. But that does seem to be most PJ users here. See, we high-nit users do care about low-nit users! ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,142 Posts
I believe you set the license / public use to expire next month. Is that the case with all builds or only since v113? Have your latest test builds extended this date?
I'm constantly updating the expiration date in new builds. The latest builds expire at the end of March, with a small warning message showing up at the end of February.

So one thing I've thought about, and now having "don't add peak nits" makes it very easy to test apples-to-apples, is the conventional wisdom about DPL, and no compression limit, and not lying to madVR about DPL. And I know this has already been discussed in the past, but please be open-minded, and hear me out. :)

So I understand the reasoning behind not lying to madVR about DPL, and how the no compression limit is intended to address concerns about "protecting" a critical range while allowing frames with peak < DPL to map 1:1. But I think there are some important considerations:

1. madVR essentially lies to itself all the time, in the form of DTN and any resulting target > DPL, and also when NCL is used.
2. When using SDR output, due to the relative nature, it actually does not make any difference what DPL is actually set to, the target is what dictates what the frame will look like.

And to prove this, I did some testing.
Profile 1: DPL 65, DTN 60, NCL 103 - Resulting FALL multiplier of 2.175
Profile 2: DPL 103, DTN 54, NCL 103 (I don't believe this NCL matters in this case) - Resulting FALL multiplier of 2.174

I intentionally used the formulas I posted recently to find a DPL/DTN combo that resulted in the same multiplier and thus the same targets, and this is what I meant above when I said "don't add peak nits" helps test this apples-to-apples. I've theorized about this previously, but finally took the time and was able to actually test it.

Here are some examples of what happens with these two profiles with different peaks/FALLs...

Peak 400, FALL 75 - Target of 163 nits in both cases, end result is identical
Peak 300, FALL 20 - Target of 103 nits in both cases, end result is identical
Peak 120, FALL 10 - Target of 103 nits in both cases, end result in identical
Peak 80, FALL 7 - Target of 80 nits for Profile 1, Target of 103 nits for Profile 2
Peak 50, FALL 5 - Target of 50 nits for Profile 1, Target of 103 nits for Profile 2

So the only difference between these two different approaches is in the case where peak is less than the 103 NCL/altDPL. In this scenario, Profile 1 maps 1:1 (or to peak if in between DPL and NCL), while Profile 2 maps to 103 nits. And in a vacuum, mapping 1:1 when possible seems like a reasonable goal. But let's consider how this is really working in practice.

So I ran through a scene in Valerian which has a mix of frames with peaks <65, between 65 and 103, and >103. And within this same scene, Profile 1 is jumping around between 1:1 mapping for the <65 frames, mapping to 103 for the >103 frames, and in between on the frames between 65 and 103. Profile 2 is consistently mapping to 103 for the whole scene. FALL is never high enough to kick in a higher target via DTN.

Keep in mind this is all within the same scene. The only major difference between the <65 frames and the higher frames is whether something semi-bright is in the frame or not. And so in the case of Profile 1, the scene is mapped inconsistently, while with Profile 2, it is mapped consistently. So I think we need to take a step back and ask ourselves, do we only want to "protect" the critical range (however one wants to define that, 75 nits, 100 nits, 106 nits, 200 nits?) which NCL does, or do we also want to ensure consistent TMing within that critical range as well (which NCL does not do)? Do we really want frames within the same scene to be mapped inconsistently through this critical range? This is importantly different from inconsistent mapping above the critical range, which is a necessary evil of TMing and not too detrimental with good target smoothing. As you ask yourself these questions and answer them, keep in mind that this is the only difference in the end result of these two profiles due to the relative nature of SDR and that it really does not matter whatsoever what DPL is set to otherwise.

This is easy to test now with "don't add peak nits". You just have to create a second profile with DPL equal to your current NCL and then use the formulas I posted to find a DTN that results in the same multiplier as your current DPL/DTN combo. I'm happy to help anyone with this if they need it. Cheers!

Edit to add: This really only applies to those with DPL which is less than the "critical range", i.e. those who are (or maybe should have considered) using NCL to protect this critical range. But that does seem to be most PJ users here. See, we high-nit users do care about low-nit users! ;)
Good post. But let's talk about an example here:

Let's say you have a projector which can only do 40 nits. And you're watching a horror / sci-fi movie, which has lots of scenes in it which top out at a peak much lower than 40 nits. Now you've decided to lie to madVR and claim that your display can actually do 120 nits. What will happen? All these dark scenes will be rendered 3x darker than intended. These are scenes where almost everything happens in the shadow detail. And our projectors do not have perfect black levels. Isn't it important to not waste any light for these scenes?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,451 Posts
Good post. But let's talk about an example here:

Let's say you have a projector which can only do 40 nits. And you're watching a horror / sci-fi movie, which has lots of scenes in it which top out at a peak much lower than 40 nits. Now you've decided to lie to madVR and claim that your display can actually do 120 nits. What will happen? All these dark scenes will be rendered 3x darker than intended. These are scenes where almost everything happens in the shadow detail. And our projectors do not have perfect black levels. Isn't it important to not waste any light for these scenes?
Right, and that's the reasoning one might use for not using NCL at all, if they decide that is most important to them, accepting the drawbacks of doing so. But NCL also exists for some compelling reasons, and using it has its own benefits and drawbacks. And so I feel that especially for someone who decides to use NCL for its benefits, we should also consider this third approach, which retains those benefits and also keeps consistency through that critical range, and of course has it own drawbacks.

So I'm certainly not suggesting that everyone should take this approach, or even that everyone who uses NCL should take this approach. But at the same time, I feel like "don't lie to madVR about DPL" has sort of been accepted as a hard rule around here, and I wanted to point out that doing so is not a bad thing as it may sound, and that it is a third approach which is certainly valid. My intent was to encourage everyone to be open-minded to each of the three approaches and make an informed decision while being aware of each approach's pros and cons.

I think I would sort of summarize the 3 approaches as:
1. Real DPL, don't use NCL - Don't "waste" light, often roll through the "critical range"
2. Real DPL, use NCL - Don't "waste" light (or should we consider NCL as intentionally "wasting" light sometimes, or perhaps better called "trading" light for not rolling through the "critical range"?), don't roll through the "critical range", sometimes inconsistently map the "critical range"
3. Use NCL instead as DPL - Sometimes "waste" light, don't roll through the "critical range", consistently map the "critical range"

I am using the term "roll through" rather than "compress" in this context, only because technically one may say anything other than 1:1 mapping could be called compression, which occurs in all 3 approaches when target > real DPL, even when No Compression Limit is used. And so I just wanted to be very specific here.

Edit to add: Using 40 DPL and 120 NCL, just to use a similar example to the values you used in yours, is to me essentially like saying it's okay to potentially render some frames within a single scene 3x darker (within this "critical range") and others 2.5x or 2x or 1.5x darker or whatever, and others 1:1. And so then my logical next question to ask myself at that point is, if I think it's okay to render some frames in this scene 3x darker, why is it not okay for me to render others that way, even if the only difference between these frames is something brighter entering/leaving the scene? Perhaps there is a scene detection based solution that does the best of all worlds?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,677 Posts
So one thing I've thought about, and now having "don't add peak nits" makes it very easy to test apples-to-apples, is the conventional wisdom about DPL, and no compression limit, and not lying to madVR about DPL. And I know this has already been discussed in the past, but please be open-minded, and hear me out. :)

So I understand the reasoning behind not lying to madVR about DPL, and how the no compression limit is intended to address concerns about "protecting" a critical range while allowing frames with peak < DPL to map 1:1. But I think there are some important considerations:

1. madVR essentially lies to itself all the time, in the form of DTN and any resulting target > DPL, and also when NCL is used.
2. When using SDR output, due to the relative nature, it actually does not make any difference what DPL is actually set to, the target is what dictates what the frame will look like.

And to prove this, I did some testing.
Profile 1: DPL 65, DTN 60, NCL 103 - Resulting FALL multiplier of 2.175
Profile 2: DPL 103, DTN 54, NCL 103 (I don't believe this NCL matters in this case) - Resulting FALL multiplier of 2.174

I intentionally used the formulas I posted recently to find a DPL/DTN combo that resulted in the same multiplier and thus the same targets, and this is what I meant above when I said "don't add peak nits" helps test this apples-to-apples. I've theorized about this previously, but finally took the time and was able to actually test it.

Here are some examples of what happens with these two profiles with different peaks/FALLs...

Peak 400, FALL 75 - Target of 163 nits in both cases, end result is identical
Peak 300, FALL 20 - Target of 103 nits in both cases, end result is identical
Peak 120, FALL 10 - Target of 103 nits in both cases, end result in identical
Peak 80, FALL 7 - Target of 80 nits for Profile 1, Target of 103 nits for Profile 2
Peak 50, FALL 5 - Target of 50 nits for Profile 1, Target of 103 nits for Profile 2

So the only difference between these two different approaches is in the case where peak is less than the 103 NCL/altDPL. In this scenario, Profile 1 maps 1:1 (or to peak if in between DPL and NCL), while Profile 2 maps to 103 nits. And in a vacuum, mapping 1:1 when possible seems like a reasonable goal. But let's consider how this is really working in practice.

So I ran through a scene in Valerian which has a mix of frames with peaks <65, between 65 and 103, and >103. And within this same scene, Profile 1 is jumping around between 1:1 mapping for the <65 frames, mapping to 103 for the >103 frames, and in between on the frames between 65 and 103. Profile 2 is consistently mapping to 103 for the whole scene. FALL is never high enough to kick in a higher target via DTN.

Keep in mind this is all within the same scene. The only major difference between the <65 frames and the higher frames is whether something semi-bright is in the frame or not. And so in the case of Profile 1, the scene is mapped inconsistently, while with Profile 2, it is mapped consistently. So I think we need to take a step back and ask ourselves, do we only want to "protect" the critical range (however one wants to define that, 75 nits, 100 nits, 106 nits, 200 nits?) which NCL does, or do we also want to ensure consistent TMing within that critical range as well (which NCL does not do)? Do we really want frames within the same scene to be mapped inconsistently through this critical range? This is importantly different from inconsistent mapping above the critical range, which is a necessary evil of TMing and not too detrimental with good target smoothing. As you ask yourself these questions and answer them, keep in mind that this is the only difference in the end result of these two profiles due to the relative nature of SDR and that it really does not matter whatsoever what DPL is set to otherwise.

This is easy to test now with "don't add peak nits". You just have to create a second profile with DPL equal to your current NCL and then use the formulas I posted to find a DTN that results in the same multiplier as your current DPL/DTN combo. I'm happy to help anyone with this if they need it. Cheers!

Edit to add: This really only applies to those with DPL which is less than the "critical range", i.e. those who are (or maybe should have considered) using NCL to protect this critical range. But that does seem to be most PJ users here. See, we high-nit users do care about low-nit users! ;)
Let's say you have a projector which can only do 40 nits. And you're watching a horror / sci-fi movie, which has lots of scenes in it which top out at a peak much lower than 40 nits. Now you've decided to lie to madVR and claim that your display can actually do 120 nits. What will happen? All these dark scenes will be rendered 3x darker than intended. These are scenes where almost everything happens in the shadow detail. And our projectors do not have perfect black levels. Isn't it important to not waste any light for these scenes?
ya in practice it didnt work, maybe for movies like Starship Troopers, but for everything else it was much too dark. to the point where im trying a number below whats measured at the screen off the lens now xD the idea was simply sdr is graded at 100-120nits gamma 2.4, and reference/diffuse white is sometimes defined for HDR grading at 100 nits, or now more recently at 200 nits, if the standard for sdr on projection is lower match that. throwing all that out and setting dpl at a brightness you're seeing works better...

going back to sep also im turning contrast recovery off again, and without contrast recovery the oversaturation is less offensive. i.e. comparing desat100/100 + contrast recovery to no2-4+nocontrast recovery. and often p3/bt2020 red gets way too heavily desaturated with higher strengths, reds you know should be pure red turn orange

aside from saturation though getting general shading to look right has been tricky, for instance skin doesnt sit naturally within the frame.(harry potter prisoner of azkhaban89761 scene), that's primarily what ive been trying to find the balance for in adjusting dpl. i had thought i felt like highlight recovery wasnt needed, but ive been finding myself using it now, and comparing some scenes in batman begins to the sdr bluray it looked like it was necessary, frame 121338 scene.

gonna use this for a bit and try different desat combos, this is with 45nits measured at the screen off the lens
1r1r.png
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,677 Posts
@aron7awol i did try 45dpl/60-65dtn but with 45dpl and dont add i find prefer dtn closer to 100. /shrug there are alot of frames where 25 dpl adjusts the image but dtn does not, so its a matter of do those frames look compressed or too bright at the lower dpl? but i dont think im finding that to be the case.
 

·
Registered
JVC NX5 at 140", Denon X4200W (5.1.2) with Axiom Audio speakers + Bass Shakers
Joined
·
2,310 Posts
It's an interesting topic.

I have found that I prefer setting my DPL to 50, even though my projector has 75.

And instead, raising my dynamic tuning higher. I feel this gives my images more pop for some reason.

Also I then use the no compression and set that to 75 as if I leave it at 0 (50 in reality) it raises my near black too much.


Like with my projector having 75 real nits and I compare these 3 configurations:

DPL: 75 DTN: 50
DPL: 75 DTN: 75
DPL: 50 DTN: 75 (no compression 75)

Of those 3 I subjectively prefer the last.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,677 Posts
Like with my projector having 75 real nits and I compare these 3 configurations:

DPL: 75 DTN: 50
DPL: 75 DTN: 75
DPL: 50 DTN: 75 (no compression 75)

Of those 3 I subjectively prefer the last.
ill try that too thanks i hadnt tried using ncl with the lower dpl yet i dont think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,451 Posts
It's an interesting topic.

I have found that I prefer setting my DPL to 50, even though my projector has 75.
It certainly is interesting! :) And this setting DPL < real nits (lying to madVR in the other direction) is a 4th approach. So let's think about the differences there...

And instead, raising my dynamic tuning higher. I feel this gives my images more pop for some reason.
So I think first we have to always consider a given DPL/DTN combo together, since that's what determines targets. And so if you use a different combo that results in different targets, that's really apples-to-oranges, and is the difference you're seeing due to the different DPL, or different DTN, or the combo? Do you use "don't add peak nits"?

Also I then use the no compression and set that to 75 as if I leave it at 0 (50 in reality) it raises my near black too much.
Okay, so ignoring DTN for the moment due to what I mention above, with 75 real nits, and just comparing (DPL 75) vs (DPL 50 + NCL 75), this is very similar to approaches 2 and 3 I listed, except the 1:1 mapping instances in that DPL 50 scenario actually become 1:1.5 mapping, or brighter than even originally coded! Sounds like what you describe as raising your near blacks, except it only happens sometimes, even in the second scenario. I won't judge you or try to tell you what you should do, but that sounds kind of wonky to me! :)

Like with my projector having 75 real nits and I compare these 3 configurations:

DPL: 75 DTN: 50
DPL: 75 DTN: 75
DPL: 50 DTN: 75 (no compression 75)

Of those 3 I subjectively prefer the last.
I feel strongly that what you subjectively prefer should certainly trump everything else. :) Just as a side question that may be somewhat related, do you use gamma processing to change 2.2 gamma to 2.4? That would potentially make the side effects of this approach, the "expansion" of near blacks, potentially less offensive. Just a random thought, I just thought I may have remembered that you used gamma processing.
 

·
Registered
JVC NX5 at 140", Denon X4200W (5.1.2) with Axiom Audio speakers + Bass Shakers
Joined
·
2,310 Posts
It certainly is interesting! :) And this setting DPL < real nits (lying to madVR in the other direction) is a 4th approach. So let's think about the differences there...


So I think first we have to always consider a given DPL/DTN combo together, since that's what determines targets. And so if you use a different combo that results in different targets, that's really apples-to-oranges, and is the difference you're seeing due to the different DPL, or different DTN, or the combo? Do you use "don't add peak nits"?


Okay, so ignoring DTN for the moment due to what I mention above, with 75 real nits, and comparing (DPL 75) vs (DPL 50 + NCL 75), this is very similar to approaches 2 and 3 I listed, except the 1:1 mapping instances in that DPL 50 scenario actually become 1:1.5 mapping, or brighter than even originally coded! Sounds like what you describe as raising your near blacks, except it only happens sometimes. I won't judge you or try to tell you what you should do, but that sounds kind of wonky! :)


I feel strongly that what you subjectively prefer should certainly trump everything else. :) Just as a side question that may be somewhat related, do you use gamma processing to change 2.2 gamma to 2.4? That would potentially make the side effects of this approach, the "expansion" of near blacks, potentially less offensive. Just a random thought, I just thought I may have remembered that you used gamma processing.
Right, so with my preferred setting I am getting 1:1 up to my DPL. Above 75 I am mapping to brighter than coded, but then I am using a higher DTN which brings the brightness down somewhat (sat least compared to 50 DTN which is what I prefer when trying to use 75 DPL).

Current I don't use any special gamma, just a flat 2.2.

But I do have a custom gamma curve in my projector that I might sometimes use which curves the gamma up towards 2.35 or so under 15% input in order to darken the near black if I feel the content I am watching seems to have its near black raised too high for my liking.

I used to use that a lot more when we didn't have NCL for awhile, but NCL has solved it for me for HDR content.

I still find that on some older SDR content that looks more washed out, that I can usually use my custom gamma curve without crushing blacks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,451 Posts
ya in practice it didnt work, maybe for movies like Starship Troopers, but for everything else it was much too dark. to the point where im trying a number below whats measured at the screen off the lens now xD the idea was simply sdr is graded at 100-120nits gamma 2.4, and reference/diffuse white is sometimes defined for HDR grading at 100 nits, or now more recently at 200 nits, if the standard for sdr on projection is lower match that. throwing all that out and setting dpl at a brightness you're seeing works better...
Just to be clear, what I posted about today is not the same thing as what I posted to you about a few days ago or whenever that was. Or at least, it wasn't intended to be, I hadn't even tested this stuff yet. I was under the impression then that your real nits was ~50 and that you were setting DPL to 25. I even mentioned an assumed real nits of 50 in my reply to you:
So say your real DPL is 50 nits, it gives you a DTN of 61.7. We can't use decimal DTNs, but 50/62 combo gives a multiplier of 2.107, which is very close, and if you wanted to be really anal and get it even closer, you could run 49/62 combo, which gives a multiplier of 2.096.

@aron7awol i did try 45dpl/60-65dtn but with 45dpl and dont add i find prefer dtn closer to 100. /shrug there are alot of frames where 25 dpl adjusts the image but dtn does not, so its a matter of do those frames look compressed or too bright at the lower dpl? but i dont think im finding that to be the case.
What I had suggested you try then (assuming your real nits was 50) was comparing the 25/75 combo you were running with specifically a 49/62 combo while leaving everything else the same. This should have resulted in the same exact targets whenever DTN kicked in. And so the only difference you should have seen should have been on frames with peaks <49 nits. But I was thinking at the time that the change you would see is instead of an "expansion" mapping of 1:2 you'd be getting 1:1 mapping, while keeping the targets you loved. Now I'm not so sure you actually have 50 real nits. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,451 Posts
Right, so with my preferred setting I am getting 1:1 up to my DPL. Above 75 I am mapping to brighter than coded, but then I am using a higher DTN which brings the brightness down somewhat (sat least compared to 50 DTN which is what I prefer when trying to use 75 DPL).
I actually think you are getting 1:1.5 expansion mapping <= 50 (where madVR thinks it is mapping 1:1 but then your PJ outputs it 50% brighter?), then that shifts more and more toward 1:1 as we go up in target toward your real nits of 75, at which point madVR thinks it is compressing 1.5:1 but then your PJ outputs it brighter and results in 1:1? Or something like that, my brain is tired! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,451 Posts
Just one more thought on the choice of not "wasting" light when we can map 1:1 vs still compressing those frames to some extent, I think at least some of the reasoning behind being okay compressing them to some extent and/or using NCL is looking at the regular SDR scenario, we are essentially doing this for the entire film, right? If our DPL is 40 nits and we are playing a 100-nit graded source, we are perfectly fine rendering that entire film 2.5x darker, and if we set NCL to 100 or DPL to 100 we are doing just that either sometimes or always within the "critical range".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,677 Posts
Now I'm not so sure you actually have 50 real nits.
no i dont think so either;] i re-measured 70nits at the screen(meter facing the projector), and my screens gain i measured at ~0.65 compared to a st100 sample. which would be about 45nits. if you factor in half gain i think 40 nits is more appropriate.

if you take the measurement off the screen though, that figure is much lower.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,113 Posts
OLED - HDR "pass-through" added to above post
So your OLED image is an actual photograph, but the other two are just screencaps in Windows?

They cannot really be compared like that, clearly the colour is substantially different due to having the screencaps in BT2020 mode?
 
11501 - 11520 of 11613 Posts
Top