AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,623 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just curious as to the real benefit of having multiple HDR formats that have to be supported when the idea behind them is the same thing? I’m getting tired of worrying about what TV and player supports which HDR formats and who’s getting firmware updates for what HDR formats and everything else. Why hasn’t the industry settled on one HDR flavor and just go with it. Make it the best it’s can be. It reminds me of HD DVD and bluray. Sure, from a nerd perspective it was cool having two formats with red and blue cases on our media shelves. But ultimately it was a pain in the ass.

I feel the same way about this HDR thing. And, how the hell do you explain this to the average joe? Good luck.

I don’t care which one "wins", Dolby or HDR. But just get behind one and let the others fizzle out. Sorry, you lose. Ya know? Unless I’m missing a viable reason of why we benefit from having HDR, HDR10, HLG, DV and whatever else.

Rant over.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
982 Posts
They want their slice of the pie.



As the industry is unable to reach a consensus on HDR, consumers should take over and push for universal HDR TV which shall be compatible with all HDR formats in the same way AVRs have universal support for audio formats (Dolby Digital, DTS, Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, ...).
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/465-h...2627409-universal-hdr-compliant-displays.html

Facing inherently incompatible formats like Blu-ray vs HD DVD, consumers have to choose a side.
It is not the case with HDR formats.
Consumers can just require TV makers to just add a piece of HDR software in order to be compatible with the other HDR format. This upgraded TV will remain the same: same panel, same electronic parts, same mechanical parts!
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/465-h...al-hdr-compliant-displays-4.html#post50302361

For example, the Sony Z9D doesn’t support Dolby Vision at launch.

Sony already made the announcement - no Dolby Vision support.
Someone mentioned that Samsung's dynamic metadata HDR10 proposal passed with the competent authorities and perhaps we will see something like a dynamic HDR update on the Z in the future, but this is pure speculation.
Nobody should buy this set expecting a DV upgrade in the future - it simply ain't happening.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...ead-no-price-talk-please-60.html#post46372345

Now, the Sony Z9D will get Dolby Vision with a free software upgrade.


Apparently, they are moving in the right direction.



Consumers should keep pushing for universal HDR TV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
709 Posts
Just curious as to the real benefit of having multiple HDR formats that have to be supported when the idea behind them is the same thing? I’m getting tired of worrying about what TV and player supports which HDR formats and who’s getting firmware updates for what HDR formats and everything else. Why hasn’t the industry settled on one HDR flavor and just go with it. Make it the best it’s can be. It reminds me of HD DVD and bluray. Sure, from a nerd perspective it was cool having two formats with red and blue cases on our media shelves. But ultimately it was a pain in the ass.

I feel the same way about this HDR thing. And, how the hell do you explain this to the average joe? Good luck.

I don’t care which one "wins", Dolby or HDR. But just get behind one and let the others fizzle out. Sorry, you lose. Ya know? Unless I’m missing a viable reason of why we benefit from having HDR, HDR10, HLG, DV and whatever else.

Rant over.
The fundamental reason this happens whenever there is a new format is because there is a lot of money and influence at stake, and the parties involved would rather fight it out than compromise on common ground. The HDR10 vs HLG rift was born out of a disagreement over whether there should be an entirely new encoding that would require investing in a lot of new equipment (PQ) or a more backward compatible format that could (sort of) work with legacy equipment (HLG). The studios wanted a full HDR system designed with future proofing in mind, the broadcasters wanted backwards compatibility even if it was technically more limited. So PQ was introduced first for standardization, but then stalled by broadcasters as well as certain companies that did not want Dolby and the early adopters to get too far ahead. During that time HLG was created as an alternative by the BBC and NHK. Dolby basically realized that to keep their foot in the door they would allow the base HDR encoding (HDR10, which is PQ without dynamic metadata) be open, but kept the dynamic metadata extension to it (specifically DV) proprietary. So HDR became standardized in a piecemeal fashion. That resulted in the other split within HDR with metadata, where you have DV vs HDR10+ (Samsung's metadata) and Technicolor (if that ever really gets used). Since Dolby has no interest in making their processing open (they are primarily a licensing company and need to get money somehow) it spurred other companies to develop competing metadata proposals.

That's why. As for your other question, no… none of this really helps the average Joe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,623 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
The fundamental reason this happens whenever there is a new format is because there is a lot of money and influence at stake, and the parties involved would rather fight it out than compromise on common ground. The HDR10 vs HLG rift was born out of a disagreement over whether there should be an entirely new encoding that would require investing in a lot of new equipment (PQ) or a more backward compatible format that could (sort of) work with legacy equipment (HLG). The studios wanted a full HDR system designed with future proofing in mind, the broadcasters wanted backwards compatibility even if it was technically more limited. So PQ was introduced first for standardization, but then stalled by broadcasters as well as certain companies that did not want Dolby and the early adopters to get too far ahead. During that time HLG was created as an alternative by the BBC and NHK. Dolby basically realized that to keep their foot in the door they would allow the base HDR encoding (HDR10, which is PQ without dynamic metadata) be open, but kept the dynamic metadata extension to it (specifically DV) proprietary. So HDR became standardized in a piecemeal fashion. That resulted in the other split within HDR with metadata, where you have DV vs HDR10+ (Samsung's metadata) and Technicolor (if that ever really gets used). Since Dolby has no interest in making their processing open (they are primarily a licensing company and need to get money somehow) it spurred other companies to develop competing metadata proposals.

That's why. As for your other question, no… none of this really helps the average Joe.
Nice post. Yeah, it’s about the cash in the end....isn’t it? I guess I kind of knew that but wanted to express my "bleh" feelings towards this maze of HDR madness that we have right now. It’s just a fuster cluck. That’s why I’m not buying a new player that supports DV or whatever else until this stuff gets truly sorted out. Way too risky. Players that allegedly will support DV via firmware updates might never actually get them. Other players that support it now have issues playing it back correctly. The Oppos are nice but cost too much for what they do, IMO. Even then, they have issues too. Then, what if they do settle on one standard? If you’ve spent a good buck on a player that supports what ends up being a dead HDR format then you’ve just thrown money away and may have to buy another player. No way. Not getting sucked into this. I’ll, stick with my lowly BDK-8500 until this stuff gets figured out. For real!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archibald1

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
They are it's called HDR10 and future version of it in hdmi 2.1(HDR10+).

It's just dolby throwing their weight around trying to be a defacto standard in the face of open standards. Creating confusion among consumers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
864 Posts
That's why. As for your other question, no… none of this really helps the average Joe.
It doesn't help the studios either. They could have been selling HDR movies --with no hassle for the consumers-- had they adopted from the start a simple system that provided just more bits and better highlights, say HLG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,623 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
They are it's called HDR10 and future version of it in hdmi 2.1(HDR10+).

It's just dolby throwing their weight around trying to be a defacto standard in the face of open standards. Creating confusion among consumers.
It doesn't help the studios either. They could have been selling HDR movies --with no hassle for the consumers-- had they adopted from the start a simple system that provided just more bits and better highlights, say HLG.
Its confusing for video hobbyists so I cant imagine what people that work at Best Buy or whatever have to say to Joe Blow so he understands. What a mess. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
414 Posts
They want their slice of the pie.



As the industry is unable to reach a consensus on HDR, consumers should take over and push for universal HDR TV which shall be compatible with all HDR formats in the same way AVRs have universal support for audio formats (Dolby Digital, DTS, Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, ...).
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/465-h...2627409-universal-hdr-compliant-displays.html

Facing inherently incompatible formats like Blu-ray vs HD DVD, consumers have to choose a side.
It is not the case with HDR formats.
Consumers can just require TV makers to just add a piece of HDR software in order to be compatible with the other HDR format. This upgraded TV will remain the same: same panel, same electronic parts, same mechanical parts!
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/465-h...al-hdr-compliant-displays-4.html#post50302361

For example, the Sony Z9D doesn’t support Dolby Vision at launch.


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...ead-no-price-talk-please-60.html#post46372345

Now, the Sony Z9D will get Dolby Vision with a free software upgrade.


Apparently, they are moving in the right direction.



Consumers should keep pushing for universal HDR TV.
This approach raises the prices of the end user equipment because of all the license fees piled on top. Audioholics has been pretty vocal about AVRs losing wattage in order to add more features and badges of support. Nobody except Dolby wins in this scenario since they stand to make money through licensing their tech.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
982 Posts
This approach raises the prices of the end user equipment because of all the license fees piled on top. Audioholics has been pretty vocal about AVRs losing wattage in order to add more features and badges of support. Nobody except Dolby wins in this scenario since they stand to make money through licensing their tech.
Consumers only want one HDR format, but the industry has decided otherwise.


HDR10 = PQ + static metadata
Dolby Vision = PQ + Dolby Vision dynamic metadata
HDR10plus = PQ + HDR10plus dynamic metadata

And Perceptual Quantizer transfer function for HDR signals (PQ) is created by Dolby.

No Dolby, no PQ!
And Dolby people need some income for their living costs.


"The royalty cost to add Dolby Vision ranges from less than $3 per TV to lower than $2 per TV."
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/465-h...rsal-hdr-compliant-displays.html#post47830961

A streaming 4K film is sold for much more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
Consumers only want one HDR format, but the industry has decided otherwise.


HDR10 = PQ + static metadata
Dolby Vision = PQ + Dolby Vision dynamic metadata
HDR10plus = PQ + HDR10plus dynamic metadata

And Perceptual Quantizer transfer function for HDR signals (PQ) is created by Dolby.

No Dolby, no PQ!
And Dolby people need some income for their living costs.


"The royalty cost to add Dolby Vision ranges from less than $3 per TV to lower than $2 per TV."
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/465-h...rsal-hdr-compliant-displays.html#post47830961

A streaming 4K film is sold for much more.
I think you give Dolby too much credit.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...33447-smpte-webinar-dolby-vision-pq-eotf.html

https://www.smpte.org/sites/default/files/23-1615-TS7-2-IProc02-Miller.pdf

The PQ function is derived from the Barten Ramp perceptual function, it's really an optimization of that function for 10/12bit.

There is a reason why Dolby gave it away for free, it's just math based on a model they could never patent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
982 Posts
I think you give Dolby too much credit.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...33447-smpte-webinar-dolby-vision-pq-eotf.html

https://www.smpte.org/sites/default/files/23-1615-TS7-2-IProc02-Miller.pdf

The PQ function is derived from the Barten Ramp perceptual function, it's really an optimization of that function for 10/12bit.

There is a reason why Dolby gave it away for free, it's just math based on a model they could never patent.
The Dolby patents on PQ are:

https://www.google.ch/patents/WO2013086169A1?cl=en

https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014160705A1?cl=en

https://www.google.ch/patents/WO2016140954A1?cl=en

https://www.google.ch/patents/WO2017003525A1?cl=en

https://www.google.ch/patents/WO2017053350A1?cl=en

https://www.google.ch/patents/US9720231

… [more]


"MOVIELABS/DOLBY MEETING JUNE 19, 2013
PQ is not standardized, it is Dolby IP. Dolby said that ITU was starting a standards effort. However, PQ would be licensed and not given free of IP. Howard Lukk [Director of Standards at SMPTE] was not happy with that."
https://wikileaks.org/sony/docs/05/docs/4k/Studio/Movielabs Dolby meeting notes 6-19-13.4.doc.pdf


Luckily, Dolby people have changed their mind, and PQ became free.

"So Dolby came up with the Perceptual Quantizer EOTF, subsequently adopted and formally ratified as ST2084 by SMPTE for all manner of HDR! I wonder… did anyone send Dolby a “Thank You” card?"
https://hometheaterhifi.com/technic...mic-range-hdr-explanation-dolby-vision-hdr10/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
864 Posts
The PQ function is derived from the Barten Ramp perceptual function, it's really an optimization of that function for 10/12bit.
I would dare to say that if you have enough bits you don't need the EOTF to be optimized. Theoretically it is better, but the supposed advantages may not translate to real production workflows/the real world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
709 Posts
I would dare to say that if you have enough bits you don't need the EOTF to be optimized. Theoretically it is better, but the supposed advantages may not translate to real production workflows/the real world.
It's not just theoretical. The various HDR EOTFs have all been demonstrated in practice and evaluated with both real world content as well as test patterns to find the best performance and any shortcoming. There are differences between them. We've also previously had 16 bit workflows in post production and with the wrong encoding (a linear EOTF for example) even that many bits won't work for HDR. You can't just throw more bits at the problem.

You also need to optimize the usage of bits because manufacturers are not able to make their video pipelines arbitrarily deep. The PQ EOTF was designed to be visually free of banding at 12 bits (technically 11.x bits), but manufacturers weren't able to feed a full 12 bits through their current (at the time) or next upcoming generation of hardware. That is why HDR10 (PQ at 10 bits rather than 12) was standardized as a compromise since it would deliver at least equivalent or slightly better performance than the existing 8 bit gamma encoding without delaying the rollout of HDR by several years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
The Dolby patents on PQ are:

https://www.google.ch/patents/WO2013086169A1?cl=en

https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014160705A1?cl=en

https://www.google.ch/patents/WO2016140954A1?cl=en

https://www.google.ch/patents/WO2017003525A1?cl=en

https://www.google.ch/patents/WO2017053350A1?cl=en

https://www.google.ch/patents/US9720231

… [more]


"MOVIELABS/DOLBY MEETING JUNE 19, 2013
PQ is not standardized, it is Dolby IP. Dolby said that ITU was starting a standards effort. However, PQ would be licensed and not given free of IP. Howard Lukk [Director of Standards at SMPTE] was not happy with that."
https://wikileaks.org/sony/docs/05/docs/4k/Studio/Movielabs Dolby meeting notes 6-19-13.4.doc.pdf


Luckily, Dolby people have changed their mind, and PQ became free.

"So Dolby came up with the Perceptual Quantizer EOTF, subsequently adopted and formally ratified as ST2084 by SMPTE for all manner of HDR! I wonder… did anyone send Dolby a “Thank You” card?"
https://hometheaterhifi.com/technic...mic-range-hdr-explanation-dolby-vision-hdr10/
All of those patents revolve around the implementation of the dolby vision delivery system, the PQ EOTF itself doesn't appear to be patented and these patents even refer to the SMPTE ST 2084 standard.

HDR10 and DV are encoded/packed differently even though they use the same EOTF.

No one needs to give them a thank you card, because someone else would have developed a similar EOTF based on the same barton model. The advantage of having HDR10 use the same EOTF as DV makes is easier for Dolby to slide their "premium" solution on top and charge for it.

If we used HLG for instance, dolby vision would require a whole separate encode and could not coexist say on a bluray disc, that in itself would mean studios wouldn't bother with the cost of a separate encode and disc, rendering DV dead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
982 Posts
SMPTE ST 2084 PQ is based on the Dolby patent "WO 2013/086169 - Device and method of improving the perceptual luminance nonlinearity - based image data exchange across different display capabilities"
https://www.google.ch/patents/WO2013086169A1?cl=en

Dolby granted a free of charge license to its essential patent claims on ST 2084 PQ.
https://kws.smpte.org/higherlogic/ws/public/download/36377/Dolby 2084 Patent Statement.pdf


Origins:
https://www.displaydaily.com/article/display-daily/hdr10-vs-dolby-vision

"Dolby purchased Brightside Technologies in 2007 and has developed Dolby Vision from the basic HDR technology it got from Brightside.

BrightSide Technologies Inc. (formerly Sunnybrook Technologies) was a firm spun-out from the Structured Surface Physics Laboratory of the University of British Columbia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrightSide_Technologies

SMPTE has adopted the Dolby-developed PQ EOTF and designated it ST-2084. BT.2100 also uses the PQ EOTF."



Dolby Vision is optional for Ultra HD Blu-ray.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
864 Posts
We've also previously had 16 bit workflows in post production and with the wrong encoding (a linear EOTF for example) even that many bits won't work for HDR. You can't just throw more bits at the problem.
16 bits for how many stops?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,966 Posts
The Oppos are nice but cost too much for what they do, IMO. Even then, they have issues too. Then, what if they do settle on one standard? If you’ve spent a good buck on a player that supports what ends up being a dead HDR format then you’ve just thrown money away and may have to buy another player. No way. Not getting sucked into this. I’ll, stick with my lowly BDK-8500 until this stuff gets figured out. For real!
You've really gotta' break down and try out Oppo, friend. After you see how many years of (mostly) trouble-free playback and firmware updates well into ownership (along with an excellent resell value) are provided (and let's not even get started on the high-resolution audio playback), you'll wonder what took you so long. When a single manufacturer (Samdung) ventures into pushing a format without a consortium behind them, they are historically not long for this world. Check out the cluster with Amazon and HDR10+ right now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,966 Posts
They are it's called HDR10 and future version of it in hdmi 2.1(HDR10+).

It's just dolby throwing their weight around trying to be a defacto standard in the face of open standards. Creating confusion among consumers.
They formalized it in at least 2015 well before the dynamic metadata solution for HDR10 was available. As a 2016 OLED (which demands a dynamic solution due to lower light output) owner who loves 3D, Dolby Vision was the only answer. What you describe as "creating confusion," I describe as providing solutions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,623 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
You've really gotta' break down and try out Oppo, friend. After you see how many years of (mostly) trouble-free playback and firmware updates well into ownership (along with an excellent resell value) are provided (and let's not even get started on the high-resolution audio playback), you'll wonder what took you so long. When a single manufacturer (Samdung) ventures into pushing a format without a consortium behind them, they are historically not long for this world. Check out the cluster with Amazon and HDR10+ right now.
Yeah, their user base does seem pretty happy with them. I’m sure they are good players and all. I dunno, just not ready right yet to commit. I have a perfectly good working player right now and discs look great when I play them. At some point I have other upgrading to do like my AVR and adding more speakers for Atmos and DTS-X support. Maybe at that point since I’ll be in that "mode"? Right? :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: video_analysis

·
Registered
Joined
·
801 Posts
Just curious as to the real benefit of having multiple HDR formats that have to be supported when the idea behind them is the same thing? I’m getting tired of worrying about what TV and player supports which HDR formats and who’s getting firmware updates for what HDR formats and everything else. Why hasn’t the industry settled on one HDR flavor and just go with it.
There's a lot of possible interpretations of the same idea.
Right now, from a practical standpoint, HDR is broken. Not completely, it kinda works - in perfect conditions, with special provisions.

For it to actually work, a few things need to happen:

* Everything to everything compatibility. Doesn't have to be just one standard - just like how VC-1, h264, h265 keep coexisting, and there's been even more formats in the SD age. Just as long as it's transparent to the user.

* Complete SDR compatibility. TVs shouldn't even have a HDR "mode", they need to map all content at processing and display SDR and HDR content without any switching, including simultaneously, without any fuss.

* Full image customization options for HDR content. There has been some notion that HDR is "perfect" and just needs to be displayed at the recorded brightness. Nothing can be more wrong; content is often filmed with very different lighting from how it's meant to look, and bright rooms need different EOTF than dark rooms. The lack of effective gamma correction for HDR isn't a feature, it's a shortcoming from using what's essentially a technological beta..
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top