HDR TV

>>59527480
A useless meme, just like 4k so the industry can shove "new" shit down our throats

>>59527509
I know OLED is superior in contrast ratio, brightness and deeper blacks by nature. so what's the deal with non-OLED ""HDR""?

>>59527480
>>59527521

Hdr in tvs seems to be a food dynamic contrast ratio + 10 bit color.

Ideally when you take a photo of these two displays, you are unable to see the difference.

However a bunch of media or manufactures are putting in unturn offable contrast enhancing and saturation effects, to the point that a youtube video shows you a clear difference in displays on a shit tn panel monitor.

Good hdr is just 10bit with good contrast
shit hdr adds post effects to make it look like you got your money's worth because lets be honest and not kid ourselves, every aspect of a display is something you can get use to besides contrast, contrast is the only factor that you can see with your eyes the difference on any non shit monitor without a direct side by side, followed by refresh rate, but this is something you get use to even if the difference is clear.

>>59527480
More contrast and a wider color gamut with 1024 steps (or more) per RGB channel instead of only 256.

Could have figured that out in less than a minute of googling and reading, you dumb fuck.

>>59527889
>Could have figured that out in less than a minute of googling and reading, you dumb fuck.
hey retard, read it again.
>How is it made possible? New Panel technology?

>>59527480
HDR is a contrast/black level/peak brightness specification combined with 10b color.

AFAIK there are 2 different specs, on is basically very low black level, meh peak brightness (for OLED TVs since they don't get very bright) and one that's meh black level and very high peak brightness (for LCD TVs which have meh blacks but can go very bright).

>>59527943
>there are 2 different specs
3, 4th one on the way

>>59527938
Hey retard, that can also be found by googling.

It requires better pigments that allow a higher range of pigments to be displayed (like quantum dot), and either OLED or better backlighting to display more contrast.
It also requires different video formats and software.

OLED panels yellow after a couple years, if they fix that, then I'll buy one. I'll pay $2,000 I don't even care they're gorgeously made

>>59528008
>have plasma tv
>black is blacker than nigger rap
>white is bright

>>59527480
Basically Faux-HDR.glsl

It's not the tv that is doing the HDR. Sure it needs to support it.

But it's the material, the movie etc.

Imagine an un-edited raw photo. You can't really see anything in the highlights(clouds) or the shadows(dark forest).
So you edit the photo to bring out the details in the lows and highs, clouds and forest.

The result is an image you can see more stuff on, but it will look off in some way because it's so flat.

You intentionally make things darker or brighter to give an atmosphere. So HDR isn't necessarily good thing for everything you watch.

A horror movie where everything is dark, it just wouldn't be the same.
While a nature documentary, it would be real neat.

>>59528021

>OLED backlighting

that actually sounds like an interesting idea...
use a black/white maximum brightness oled panel as backlighting and a long-living 10bit IPS LCD for image - get perfect blacks and a long life for the image.

has anyone done this or am i an idiot?

>>59527480

TLDR: HDR is meme format that might never be widespread. Maybe in 10 years if we are lucky.

>>59528298
>It's not the tv that is doing the HDR. Sure it needs to support it.
>But it's the material, the movie etc.
you're implying I can watch HDR footage on a normal HD TV and see the benefits. which is wrong

>>59528303
>has anyone done this or am i an idiot?
both.

Only HDR content I have is Gears of War 4 and Forza Horizon 3 on Xbox One but it looks pretty sweet.

>>59528553
I didn't say that.

And yes, you can't see HDR material the way it's meant to be seen on a tv without HDR.

I'm just saying that it isn't the tv that just magically make things HDR. If it does, it's gonna be shit.

>>59528721
>I'm just saying that it isn't the tv that just magically make things HDR.
no one is saying that. everyone knows you need HDR content or a game that supports that shit.

>>59528061
>two minute input latency

File: 1484084903457.jpg (42KB, 500x557px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x557px

>>59528812

>>59527480
It's bith plus more colour depth, 10 bits per pixel instead of 8. Also LCD and OLED have different max brightnesses to qualify as HFR, LCD is much brighter at it's brightness.

But down at like BestBuy, price asidevI like the inky bkacks and contrast of oled HDR. Next wouod be quantom dot lcd, bright and colors are jnsane. After that the hdr kinda all looks tge same (but still great).

>>59528844
Are you having a stroke

Do you need assistance

>>59527509
Hdr is more noticeable than 4k itself. Its fucking nice man

>>59527521
>I know OLED is superior in contrast ratio, brightness and deeper blacks by nature.


See:

>Currently, the “ideal” HDR standard that key players are pushing for would involve a dynamic range of 0 to 10,000 nits, which would really bring 4K TVs close to what real life looks like (the sky on a sunny day offers about 30,000 nits of brightness to the naked eye). However, in practical reality, even the latest HDR standards for premium 4K ultra HD TVs cover only 0.05 to 1100 nits, with a standard of 0.0005 nits to 540 nits of brightness in the dimmer technology of OLED 4K TVs.

http://4k.com/high-dynamic-range-4k-tvs-everything-need-know-hdr-contrast-wide-color-gamut-tvs-content-offer/

Oled is not brighter. It looks better but not worth cost.

>>59528784
Yeah nobody is saying that. Nice observation fuck head.

>>59528298
>>59528553
There is a difference between HDR photography (what >>59528298 described) and HDR displays.

And in photography HDR is often achieved by combining multiple photos (under- and over-exposed to catch the details of bright and dark areas).

>>59529000
HDR photography is something entirely different.

>take loads of data
>throw is all away
>end up with 8bit jpeg

>>59529000
Yes in hdr photographey a singke image or ecposure is only able to have so many "stops" between lightest and darjest part of the frame. Ecpose for bright whaite clouds and shadows appear black.
No detail.
Ecpose for shadows and sky is white blankness of overecposure but with hdr processing you combine those twoexpodures and can see both shadows and clouds (or highlights). Often lookening garish but with light touch can be very nice.

>>59528855


Also why you making fun? Do I not offer up proodable point worthy of yourcobsiration??

I as just at bestbuy yesterday comparing and contrasting. My 1080 set died and im stoked about hdr 4k. It shoukd be meaning cheaper 10bit colour on pc for photo)video editing and allowing more 10bit colour in general in high enddslrs, i know video is getting there unaware of photo tho. Im not a gear pusher. Also adobergb monitor s are expensive this coukd push bettter colour to us all!

So as I said oled very nice hdr, very expensive.

Led/lcs/whatever with quantum dot great, still pricy biright colourful image tho

Regular lcd hdr. Looks good ips can be nice no match for quantum. Im just going to maybe get a cheao hisense cuz i dobt care judt youtube and xbxox on my screens


Still very excited! You should too!

>>59527480
dynamic range.
anyway, went to take a look at demos in the store.
i'm not seeing what's the fuss about.
the digital foundry guys made it like their mind was blown.

>>59527509
fbbp

>>59528061
>white is whiter than cis scum
ftfy

>>59527480
quantum dot pixel made with toxic cadmium.

Sadly the only way to realize that difference between the two is to have them side by side.
I managed to have such a run-in at a shop. I could initially not tell the difference when the monitors were further away from eachother, but if you put them side by side there is a difference.
But it's so small it's absurd, sure colors are more vivid but in my opinion they seem to be an eyesore for an extended period of time.
I don't recommend this for anyone staying more than 2 hours at a PC without breaks. Overall you shouldn't even care about it. It looks a wee bit nicer, but it's not even practical in the least, and this is a time you really can't see the difference between having it and not having it if you don't have a comparison to work with.
On the other hand I managed to see differences in 144hz from 60hz from the get go. Everything is responsive and smooth, but it still could be difficult to say "YEAH THIS IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE WOW PAY DOUBLE FOR IT"

If you actually want to see the difference the best way is to check a retailer that could have such shit, and be disappointed even bothering to look.

>>59530483
>in my opinion they seem to be an eyesore for an extended period of time.

Shop displays are notoriously overblown and miscalibrated

>>59527480
There are a few things that are intertwined here:
1: range of tones that can be displayed
2: range of colors that can be displayed
3: having sufficient data density to make the above two points work

What they're pushing is not just increased contrast ratio, but a wider color gamut as well. None of these things change the nature of how data is stored, an 8-bit signal will still provide 256 levels of shade, even if "pure red" may be defined as being a more intense shade using a wider gamut, however this means that all shades in between get drawn further apart, since what you use to see as "red" at 255 is now at 235.

8-bit is generally sufficient for about 8 stops of dynamic range, which in most cases is fine because the static DR of the human eye is only 7 stops, even though our total dynamic range is 20+.
Unlike nature, when we focus on paper, a screen or some other flat media, we can't make use of the full DR of our eyes, and pushing beyond this range actually puts a strain on out visual system, something that makes these claims of really high brightness dubious. There's a practical reason why displays have been locked to specific brightness levels for so long, and why black levels are the main way of attaining a higher contrast ratio.

Either way, stretching out the data to represent a wider range of color and tone would start to make the image break apart, as having just 256 steps is no longer adequate, which is why this needs to be backed up with at least 10-bit color. None of this is made possible with new tech, it's been available to photographers and cinematographers for many years now, the tech has simply "trickled down" and no longer requires a loan on the equipment needed to make it happen.

>>59528887
Bright displays are overrated, who need have its eyes ripped by light in a dark room?
>not having your TV in a dark room

1. Go into photoshop
2. Open a picture
3. Image > Adjustments > Vibrance
4. Fiddle with Vibrance and Saturation
5. Get the same shit as in that picture

That's about it.

A cheapfag friend of mine had am irresistible urge to buy a 500€ Hisense 4k TV with HDR. I tried my best to talk him out of it only to find out he bought it anyway. It looks atrocious. I'm still unsure what hdr is supposed to to, but I'm sure this TV does not go beyond supporting the bare hdmi standard. Any possible increase in picture quality is killed by the shit panel. A good panel always trumps specs that only exist on paper.

I will stop doing tech research for friends now.

Yes, this is a blog post, but I'm still pissed and the hdr meme triggers me

File: fug.jpg (6KB, 250x202px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 250x202px

>>59529209
>first bost besd post