HDR: A good "article"

https://www.cnet.com/how-to/can-i-upgrade-my-tv-to-hdr/?ftag=COS-05-10-aa0a&linkId=29165629

Its a good read and the video is interesting to watch if you have a spare 9 mins 

Thanks for the article.  I find it interesting that author describes HDR as something worth considering as opposed to a must have feature in a new TV.

 

I agree Raz, and also that the specs aren't fully locked down

And that it is noticeable difference but not really :-) 

You might also be interested in:

 Archimago's 'Thoughts on video technology and the consumer.'

http://archimago.blogspot.de/2016/09/musings-4k-uhd-tv-hfr-3d-hdr-etc.html

MM

If I was Micheal and I owned an Avant, I'd just get on and enjoy it. But if I was buying a UHD today it would have to have HDR. Hence why I'm waiting to see what the LG OLED TVs will look like next year

So far, the demos used for HDR look atrocious, at least to me. They are scenes that are designed just to show the difference, much as early stereo demo records were all L and R channel and nothing in between, they showed the difference but would never be acceptable to listen to music that way. Same with HDR demos. They take a scene that the regular standard is worst at, and amp it up for the HDR to maximize the difference to sell the tech. Granted, HDR has the "potential" to improve video, as limited dynamic range has been an issue ever since the advent of photography. Whether it will or not be an improvement remains to be seen and will be dependent on how it's implemented and how the studios who make movies and TV shows shoot with it in mind.

Remember that the majority of good movies these days are still shot on film, which has a quite limited dynamic range, hence the things Saint Ansel Adams did to compress dynamic range through exposure and development, and which a talented cinematographer still does. I'll go even further and state that to the human eye, this compressed range is actually preferable to look at than a full dynamic range photo. It allows all the detail in the bright spots to be seen and appreciated without losing detail in the dark or shadow areas by talented compression of the dynamic range, and is easy to look at while still appreciating the spread of lights and darks in the image.The same is true for audio, listening to a system/recording that takes full advantage of even a 16 bit word length's dynamic range is very hard to live with, especially with normal background noise. If you turn the thing up enough to clearly hear low passages the loud ones blow your ears off, of course with the loudness/compression wars it's only good classical recordings that even come close to doing that, but the fact remains, a compression of dynamic range is often easier and more pleasant to listen to.

I get the impression that electronics companies are desperate to find something that will stick to the wall and make people willing to part with their money, especially in these challenging economic times. They are rolling things out that may well offer few if any true improvements to try and churn the market, just remember the debacle of 3D televisions. Certainly I believe 4K falls into that description, as does hi res audio. The only part that might be beneficial is HDR as it addresses some true weaknesses in video, but once again, the devil will be in the details of the implementation and how studios and filmmakers use it.

And I agree with the author, going to a theater these days only offers a slightly larger screen, most digital theater projectors I've seen at "normal" theaters are dreadful compared with my home setup. My popcorn's cheaper too, and tastier! And I can have too!

 

Chris Townsend:

Hence why I'm waiting to see what the LG OLED TVs will look like next year

I was looking at them yesterday 😂

Minus the B&O logo of course.

Cynically I wonder if next year's B&O will contain this year's LG OLED ...

In which case is worth waiting?

And yesterday's models already had a 15% off sticker !

Jeff:

I'll go even further and state that to the human eye, this compressed range is actually preferable to look at than a full dynamic range photo.

As noted in my post to Chris I did a browse of LG OLEDs yesterday (and LG LCD and Samsung and Sony). And I agree with much you said in your post.

I wanted to comment on the LG "slideshow" comparison demo:

A) the "conventional" Hal the screen had photos labelled "simulated effect" ... so a la Volkswagen deliberately over or under played ?

B) the HDR colours seemed harsh (but not washed out like the conventional-- women's skin tones seemed false, however the greenery of landscapes rang true whereas the conventional greens seemed washed out-- as if they were parboiled veggies 😊

Interestingly enough elephant, green is one of the colors many sets struggle to get right in the color gamut, however most sets historically had problems with green being too neon like and artificial looking, not washed out. Part of this is due to the color temp the set is operating at, and a lot more due to the color decoder, many are quite inaccurate. First time I saw a good Proton tube set that was ISF calibrated I was floored by how real the greens looked, as well as flesh tones. Same for the B&O tube sets of the past.

My Panasonic set to THX Cinema setting does greens very well, they are either dark, bright, or muted depending on the kind of foliage type and how well filmed the scene is. But I've seen greens on inexpensive LCDs that looked awful, artificial and weirdly bright, not a correct shade at all.