I want to get my parents into buying a HDR tv but they seem to

HDR is a meme

>HDR

Dumb normie meme, just turn up the color saturation.

>>58484306
redpill me on this as well

>>58484339
thats fake HDR

>>58484334
HDR is a physical characteristic of the panel.

A normal panel displays between ~6-11 stops of brightness. an HDR panel displays a minimum of 12 stops, and up to 18+ (only in labs basically right now) stops for the highest end panels.

It literally allows the panel to display a much wider range of brightness in the same frame without colors blending, without light bleeding through and causing weird looking colors.

HDR really is fantastic when done properly.

>>58485018
so its like staring into the sun and giving yourself a headache?

>>58484306
Buy your own HDR TV you leeching scum.

>>58484306
Its more bits of color. Standard we have 24 bits with 8 bits for each channel of RGB. HDR is 10 bits per channel making the color per pixel 30 bits.

>>58485069
...no but it would allow scenes in a movie where there is very bright sun in the top corner with very dark detailed foreground and both would be clearly visible because of the highly enhanced contrast ratio.

File: HDR_comparison.jpg (594KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

594KB, 1920x1080px

>>58485018
this

>>58485069
High end 4000nits displays do give headaches. It may be because of bad electro optical transfer function that makes for an unnatural exposure. Mainstream displays are targetting 1000nits compared to usual 400nits.

>>58485321
soo whats the need for a 10 bit hdr display if you can fake it like this with post processing 2 or more images?

>>58485321
Here's a leaked HDR proposal, since its all I can find when looking up the HDR-10 standard
https://wikileaks.org/sony/docs/05/docs/HDR/HDR_Sony%E6%8F%90%E6%A1%88_140717_Body.pptx.pdf
It explains it pretty well.

>>58484306
Why do you want your parents to get it if you don't even know what it is?

>>58485359
For static images sure, now do it for a movie with fast action sequences.

>>58485215
That's misconception. Higher bit depth is necessary to reduce banding because of more levels of physical brightness emitted. 8bits per pixel get overstretched making banding more visible.

Higher bit depth is also useful for higher color gamut of Rec2020.

>>58485359
>if you can fake it like this with post processing
You can't.

>>58485372
>For static images sure, now do it for a movie with fast action sequences.
wouldnt the movie makers do this beforehand before pressing it to dvd?

>>58485378
I see now, thanks. Its about brightness, not color.

When are we going to get ultraviolet displays?
I want to actually get a tan from watching a video of a beach.

File: rec2020-vs-rec709-001[1].png (442KB, 1168x1400px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 1168x1400px

>>58485457
Well it's about the color too as I said about the color gamut. It's color space is also getting stretched but maybe not as extreme.

>>58485477
were can I get a good understanding of gamuts? I kind of get the idea of colorspaces, but I never formally understood them.

>>58485446
No because that image is just an approximation of what HDR would look like, since you dont have an HDR display, you can't actually see what HDR would look like.


I'd recommend seeing a Movie in IMAX w/ laser if there is such a theater near you (only like 10 in the US though so good luck). As the new IMAX w/ laser system is HDR capable.

You can also try out some HDR TVs and shit at best buy, but I wouldnt trust them to actually be running HDR content through it properly for display purposes.


A normal TV is simply not capable of playing back HDR content. It looks just how it always looks, but play the HDR content on an HDR display, and you get MUCH wider contrast ratio and way reduced color banding.

hdr video is just a meme. there's nothing special about it.
It's just a better screen (Contrast and colors) + 10bit (to reduce banding) + metadata to make it a gimmick/selling point.

>>58485528
>better contrast
>better colors
>10Bit to reduce banding

...so its not a meme?

>>58485500
>A normal TV is simply not capable of playing back HDR content. It looks just how it always looks, but play the HDR content on an HDR display, and you get MUCH wider contrast ratio and way reduced color banding.
Linus tested this and he says you're lying,

>>58485537
The HDR term and the metadata is.
Better screens and 10 bit isnt.

>>58485569
Marketing needs language that normies can understand. They have no idea what bits even are.

>>58485569
Its a marketing term, whats the issue?

Do you expect normies to know the technical shit you're describing?

>>58485499
Can't recommend any concrete sources but for me the understanding was furthered by reading up color management in software (like Photoshop), getting the difference between color space and color model (do not mix up both), trying out color profile comparison software - helps to visualize it.

>>58485599
>>58485608
>marketing term
No I dont expect normies to understand that. But I expect /g/ to, and hopefully those who set the hdmi standard.

>>58485599
>They have no idea what bits even are.

Are those computer viruses? Am I not getting more viruses by buying 10 bits instead of only 8?

>>58485561
If you're talking about this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtzEKmiqU7A)

Linus specifically talks about how HDR is far better than without.

File: 1462356672278.png (135KB, 680x678px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 680x678px

>>58485675
>who set the hdmi standard

now you're sweating.

>>58485766
These are quite bad representations. It's best to show a tv set in a living room in bright daylight. Then people will understand what's happening because I don't think anyone likes looking at low output screens in daylight.

>>58485798
The example was just to show the contrast level difference in skin tone and and the shadow inside the boat, etc.

>>58484306
>I barely understand it myself. I just want to watch HDR netflix and play xboxone HDR etc

This might help you understand.

http://mediasmarts.ca/digital-media-literacy/media-issues/marketing-consumerism/how-marketers-target-kids

>>58484306
What the fuck is this shit?
Sounds like a shitty gimmick.

If a movie looks good, it just does, no matter if your TV has this feature or not.

>>58484306
>barely understands a technology
>wants mommy to buy it
Come the fuck on. Beyond the stupidity of your post, if you want anyone to buy anything to / from you, you must know that something inside out so you can convince others of its features and advantages.

TL; DR: Do your motherfucking homework before pretending to convince anyone of anything

>>58485877
lolol

why are you on /g/ if you're this retarded?

>>58485905
Why wouldn't a retarded person enjoy technology?

I'm more of a luddite that a retard anyway.

File: 1478628915280.jpg (56KB, 588x585px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 588x585px

>>58485945
>I'm more of a luddite that a retard anyway.

I'm shocked

>>58485964
Listen, why wouldn't I think that this is a cheap gimmick when 90% of selling points of technology is exactly that?
And why would I, as someone who is quite interested in photography, not be put off by the term "HDR" being used on TVs?
Who the fuck uses pictures like these as a demonstration?>>58485321

>>58486015
Why shouldnt it be used on TVs? It's literally High dynamic range capable panel.

It already has an easy to use marketing term HDR.

HDR photography is obviously a different category from HDR TV sets, so you dont need to get your panties in a bunch, it's not like the HDR term was ever the domain of photographers and NO one else is allowed to use it.


Fuck off, if it's a meme tech explain your problems with it and how it's a meme.
However you can't deny 12+ stops is going to be better than ~8 stops on a normal panel.

>>58486061
>High dynamic range capable panel
Yeah, but it's not gonna turn a fucking homevideo into a HDR timelapse of a galaxy or something. That's what normies seem to believe.
The truth is the average person won't be able to tell a difference, and so will most non-average persons (/g/)
>12+ stops is going to be better than ~8 stops on a normal panel
I don't get this. Are those panels capable of having different brightness levels in different areas of the screen? How would that be achievable via backlight? I don't know anything about this shit 2bh

File: the_goyims_guide_to_HDR.png (4MB, 2400x1237px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2400x1237px

>4K

Can you see the black space between pixels on your screen at normal viewing distance?

If not, then 4K is pointless. All it does is reduce that black space.

>60fps+

Can be useful in some situations (i.e. high speed car chase), but also detrimental and therefore not even applicable to others (i.e. don't want to see every still frame of an apple being thrown up into the air).

>4:4:4 or 4:2:2 Chroma subsampling

Effects text, but has no real effect on images. Even if you stare and compare a 4:2:0 still with a 4:4:4 still, while zoomed in, it'll take a few seconds before you can detect the 1% or less of slight color variation. It's also less distinguishable as resolution increases.

>10-bit/12-bit color/Rec. 2020

No display in existence can cover the Rec. 2020 color space. A monitor is considered good if it can cover Adobe sRGB, which is ~2/3rds of Rec. 2020.

Only a few $1000+ monitors are actually capable of displaying 10-bit color, and that's with the hardware (i.e. Nvidia 900 series GPU or newer) to match. These TVs claiming to be 'HDR' don't actually cover a significant amount of the color space that Rec. 2020 requires (perhaps no more than your average 8-bit IPS display).

True 10-bit/12-bit color per channel makes little difference beyond some banding situations that rarely come up anyway (i.e. a blue sky). See the image for a comparison of 24-bit to 8-bit. The difference between 24-bit and 30-bit is much less than that.

Bitrate matters more than any of this crap, and streaming means a bitstarved encode (yes, even those '4K' ones).

>>58486130
A large array of locally dimming LEDs, or in the best case scenario Oragnic LEDs that can be fully turned off for complete blackness.

OLED is too expensive right now for consumer panels however, so large locally dimming LED arrays are currently being used with VA panels to provide 3000:1 static contrast ratio.

>>58486153
So is that what causes the "HDR" effect?

Otherwise I'm lost again.

>>58486135
anyone who works in the industry however can almost instantly spot things normies never would though.

Even that picture you posted has a clear difference in the per pixel color difference from the first image to the 2nd.

>>58486180
Being able to display super bright spots AND very dark spots on the same frame without color banding.

>>58486194
That's pretty cool.

>>58486135
Wrong.

4K is far from pointless. I can tell the difference between every resolution. Period.

There are plenty of monitors capable of displaying 10 bit color that aren't anywhere near $1000. HELL Sony's flagship studio monitor only costs $4,000 and it covers the entire Rec. 2020 color space.

>>58486212
Yeah, but the current selection of HDR capable displays is pretty shitty, so i am personally waiting for a decent priced OLED panel before diving into the HDR hardware myself.

>>58486185

Yes, that's because the second image only has 256 colours, and it still only looks like a minor difference to me

I would do a 18-bit to 24-bit comparison, but it's not so easy to create

Also let's not forget we're looking at stills, not video where you only see each image for a split second and have it subject to a bitrate that is less than pixel-perfect

File: 2017-01-14 15_26_57-Sony Product Detail Page PVMX550.png (92KB, 828x551px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 828x551px

>>58486216
>Sony's flagship studio monitor only costs $4,000 and it covers the entire Rec. 2020 color space.
lol source on this?

The $25,000+ 55" OLED mastering monitor they sell doesn't even cover the full Rec.2020 colorspace.

>>58486216

>4K is far from pointless. I can tell the difference between every resolution. Period.

Resolution is simply the number of pixels on a screen. If you don't notice the black space between pixels, increasing the resolution won't make the image look any better.

>There are plenty of monitors capable of displaying 10 bit color that aren't anywhere near $1000.

Name one

>Sony's flagship studio monitor only costs $4,000 and it covers the entire Rec. 2020 color space.

I'll believe it when I see it. What's the model number?

Maybe there's a $4000 monitor by now that covers Rec. 2020, but there wouldn't be one at a price range for the average consumer.

>>58486316
>Maybe there's a $4000 monitor by now that covers Rec. 2020, but there wouldn't be one at a price range for the average consumer.
I'm not aware of any.

I think there are some dual laser projector systems that can do it, but those are $50,000+ setups.