Better Mid Gen HW Approach: Sony or MS?

[Anteaus]

I think MS has the upper hand here. Many see the delay of Scorpio being a problem but I see it as the reverse since Sony has shown their hand with the PS4 Pro. The PS4 Pro is locked in, which means all Microsoft needs to do is ensure that Scorpio is more powerful and contain all the functionality of the XB1S (4k Bluray, BC, etc) to claim the lead for awhile. The number of first party games on both consoles has been weak, so library won't be enough to elevate weaker hardware into the lead.

In a rush to claim 4k gaming, Sony has decided that scaling to 4k is the same thing as actually gaming in 4k. This is after spending the last couple years bashing the XB1 for using scaling to get to 1080P and claiming that it wasn't the same. I think it's the worst kind of hypocrisy from a marketing standpoint. This means that Sony can't use that against MS for the Scorpio. It is unlikely, but in the event Scorpio is actually capable of native 4k (even marginally) AND have 4k bluray, it will be a huge blow to Sony.

A year is a long time for hardware to mature, and with Pascal tech hitting mobile GPUs, it is quite possible for MS to get super lucky and acquire recent GPU tech to shove into the Scorpio which could add legitimate native 4k game play. Unlikely, but possible Since the XB1, XB1S, and Scorpio will all use DirectX, I believe MS has more flexibility with changing tech midstream while maintaining backwards compatibility.

I was definitely on the PS4>XB1 bandwagon for awhile, but the XB1S is a really nice piece of hardware "for the money". I'm looking forward to seeing what MS does with Scorpio.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I think MS has the upper hand here. Many see the delay of Scorpio being a problem but I see it as the reverse since Sony has shown their hand with the PS4 Pro. The PS4 Pro is locked in, which means all Microsoft needs to do is ensure that Scorpio is more powerful and contain all the functionality of the XB1S (4k Bluray, BC, etc) to claim the lead for awhile. The number of first party games on both consoles has been weak, so library won't be enough to elevate weaker hardware into the lead.

In a rush to claim 4k gaming, Sony has decided that scaling to 4k is the same thing as actually gaming in 4k. This is after spending the last couple years bashing the XB1 for using scaling to get to 1080P and claiming that it wasn't the same. I think it's the worst kind of hypocrisy from a marketing standpoint. This means that Sony can't use that against MS for the Scorpio. It is unlikely, but in the event Scorpio is actually capable of native 4k (even marginally) AND have 4k bluray, it will be a huge blow to Sony.

A year is a long time for hardware to mature, and with Pascal tech hitting mobile GPUs, it is quite possible for MS to get super lucky and acquire recent GPU tech to shove into the Scorpio which could add legitimate native 4k game play. Unlikely, but possible Since the XB1, XB1S, and Scorpio will all use DirectX, I believe MS has more flexibility with changing tech midstream while maintaining backwards compatibility.

I was definitely on the PS4>XB1 bandwagon for awhile, but the XB1S is a really nice piece of hardware "for the money". I'm looking forward to seeing what MS does with Scorpio.

The Xbox's Project Scorpio specs have been announced and it's not enough for native 4k. Second, the games will matter. Exclusives sell hardware and always has. Why did people buy the XB1 originally? For Forza and Halo etc. Now many of those games aren't exclusive if you have a PC. It doesn't mean everyone will buy them for PC, it just means you don't need an xbox to play them anymore. So really the only thing they have to sell people on is playing with friends, or from the couch. Both could be potential reasons to stay on Xbox for many.

I think you overestimate how much 4k really matters right now. It's entirely too niche, too new, and too expensive for most consumers who may have just purchased a giant 1080p set last year. Even into next holiday season I don't expect 4k to be anywhere near the market penetration of 1080p, especially not for gaming demographics. The number of people who could actually use a UHD player is far too small to make a dent. Not to mention there are a ton of hurdles and hoops to jump through to get it working. Just browse some of the threads on AVSForum. UHD HDR is a huge mess with many people not knowing how to set it up, things not working, HDCP errors, people with old AVRs not able to pass the new HDMI signal through (the xbox one only has a single HDMI cable unlike all the stand alone UHD players which can split the video and audio for this reason). Even the people who really know what they are doing with A/V stuff are having problems with everything from HDMI cables that aren't really 18Gbps cables to random picture issues, and being unable to figure out if HDR is indeed working and when it is, some Tvs have issues with tone mapping on HDR10 content (all UHD BDs are HDR10 right now, Dolby Vision is coming second half of next year to the format). It's still needs some time to settle. Sony doesn't have anything to fear with big name titles in the works for their console that you don't get anywhere else. There have been twice as many PS4s sold than XB1s and I highly doubt those gamers are going to dump their library to jump ship. What you may have is a bunch of people who never got an xbox but have a PS4 buying one for a secondary console though.

 

[zerocool84]

I just think that a year wait for Microsoft that's already lagging behind is too far away to make an overall difference. The average gamer is where most of the sales come from. Unless they follow gaming sites they won't even know to wait a year for a faster Xbox console. They should have released something already.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I just think that a year wait for Microsoft that's already lagging behind is too far away to make an overall difference. The average gamer is where most of the sales come from. Unless they follow gaming sites they won't even know to wait a year for a faster Xbox console. They should have released something already.

I can see some people dropping cash on an Xbox One S this holiday and then next year finding out for a bit more cash they could have gotten the newer, faster, better console if they had waited. It will be especially bad if there are any Scorpio exclusives. The Trusted Reviews article seemed to indicate that this may be a possibility depending on what a developer wants to do. When asked, MS was kind of coy on it saying they didn't know right now. Meanwhile Sony is telling everyone there will be no exclusives at all. I don't know which is better. Making people buy the new one for a few select titles that might be very compelling releases while angering some people who have the S or the original model with no way to play them, or garnering some goodwill among consumers by allowing all games to play on every console potentially taking away some sales from people who might have upgraded to the PS4 Pro to play the new God of War for example.

To be perfectly honest this is all a cluster...with as few real system selling exclusives as we have seen on the XB1 and PS4, and as short a time as they have been out, you are confusing consumers a bit with the newer models with additional features and performance specs. Now there are going to be 3 tiers of Xbox. One with no UHD and no HDR, one with UHD and HDR, and one with UHD and HDR and higher specs. This has not happened before in the console space so for a lot of long time console gamers who aren't active on forums and the like it can be a bit overwhelming to figure it all out. I can see a lot of parents in the local Toys R US, BestBuy, Gamestop etc asking about the new console and how come the one they just bought 3 months ago is obsolete and someone having to explain that all the games are the same except the new one has such and such feature you don't get on the old model. Having worked in retail before I can say with confidence that there will be people who simply won't understand it and will make it your fault because you didn't tell them it was coming before they bought the old one etc. I can see it now lol

 

[purbeast0]

You know console gaming is going downhill when you have people more excited about "upgraded" consoles instead of being excited about games. Cause you know, more pixels means better games.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I'm pretty excited about quite a few titles coming up. World of Final Fantasy, Last Guardian, Persona 5, Horizon Zero Dawn, Days Gone, Gravity Rush 2, God of War. Though you're right, there is a lot of focus on hardware rather than the software.

 

[Sonikku]

Microsoft may offer 4k gaming but the Neo not so much. The neo seems more about offering a 60fps 1080p experience than a 4k experience. It only has twice the gpu power after all, it would need four times that for true 4k.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Microsoft may offer 4k gaming but the Neo not so much. The neo seems more about offering a 60fps 1080p experience than a 4k experience. It only has twice the gpu power after all, it would need four times that for true 4k.

They already said it can render the games at 1440p and use a special method for upscaling to 4K from there. I don't know the details on how it's done but I saw some side by side shots and the upscale was nearly impossible to tell from the native 4K in the same scene.

Even so I still think everyone worrying about 4K is a bit premature right now. I can use 4K hdr but I am far from the average consumer who will be buying video games. It's nice to be able to use new tech but the market for 4K is still very small among gamers. Especially true for parents who buy one of these for the kids. I doubt the kids have a 4K hdr tv in their room. Maybe in a couple years when 4K hdr is standard or something.

 

[Anteaus]

I'm pretty excited about quite a few titles coming up. World of Final Fantasy, Last Guardian, Persona 5, Horizon Zero Dawn, Days Gone, Gravity Rush 2, God of War. Though you're right, there is a lot of focus on hardware rather than the software.

I'm very excited about Horizon Zero Dawn. I'm trying so hard not to buy into the hype train in order to manage expectations. That game oozes awesome.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I'm very excited about Horizon Zero Dawn. I'm trying so hard not to buy into the hype train in order to manage expectations. That game oozes awesome.

Same for me. Though I am pretty confident it will be pretty good I'm not going into it thinking perfect 10.

 

[Lil Frier]

I honestly don't think of Scorpio as a Pro competitor. I think the Pro just sits in a weird limbo that didn't need to even happen because the PS4 Slim is enough to fight the One S, which is just a minor tweak covered in hideous plastics with dumb circles.

Scorpio, I think of it as burying the One and moving on towards the future. The One might support software on it, but only because of the OneCore approach MS has started to take with everything. Scorpio looks like a plan to get away from console generations and just turn the Xbox brand into a SFF gaming PC or something. The Pro looks like a high-end thing for people who get it up for pixels to buy, or non-PS4 people with extra cash to spend to buy with some future proofing. If I had a PS4 now, I would stick with it. Since I don't, there's a real question about whether I'd rather save $100 for the Slim or get the potential long-term solution with the Pro. I'd probably take the Slim, just because I question if the PS4 Pro lasts long. I'd be concerned Sony dumps it in short order to top Scorpio, or because Scorpio smashes it and makes the PS5 happen sooner than Sony would like.

Then again, I've 100% lost faith in Microsoft on the hardware side. My Lumia 950's build quality is trash. 4 of my 5 XB1 controllers have major hardware problems, including my Elite Controller, and Microsoft refuses to address it or improve a pitiful warranty of 90 days. Their Band 2 has had major quality issues as the...uhh...band on it keeps breaking (my sister's second Band 2 is having that issue now). It's hard to trust MS between their horrendous build quality of their products and how underwhelming the Xbox One was.

 

[cmdrdredd]

A buddy of mine made a good point that I kind of find some truth in. If VR wasn't a thing, would we even be talking about new console hardware right now? He claims the whole reason this is happening is because what they had was too weak for a good VR experience and they needed more power and if VR wasn't a hot topic right now we wouldn't be talking about "upgrading" our consoles at all. According to him selling them as 4k boxes is a side effect of the hardware because the market isn't there and they are really trying to sell VR. I guess it makes sense in some ways.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

PS4 lack of 4K blu ray with HDR is keeping me away from a needless upgrade. I'll stick with my old PS4. Awaiting the PS5.

I wonder what will happen when the PS5 and XBoxTwo come out with only mild improvements in hardware relative to these new overclocked models? Could be console crash 2.

 

[Lil Frier]

A buddy of mine made a good point that I kind of find some truth in. If VR wasn't a thing, would we even be talking about new console hardware right now? He claims the whole reason this is happening is because what they had was too weak for a good VR experience and they needed more power and if VR wasn't a hot topic right now we wouldn't be talking about "upgrading" our consoles at all. According to him selling them as 4k boxes is a side effect of the hardware because the market isn't there and they are really trying to sell VR. I guess it makes sense in some ways.

I honestly still don't feel much different about VR than 3D. Neither interests me. Not buying the hardware for either. No one around me has mad the slightest fuss about either. The exception is that my Dad got a 3D-capable TV a few years back. He was waiting to get an upgraded one for his living room, a curved one with 3-D functionality. Now, I see Best Buy doesn't even bother with those anymore, and 3-D seems to be totally dead. I can't help but wonder how much shelf life VR really has.

I guess it's more popular than 3-D, I just don't see people tending to care. It leaves me wondering if the platform is a talking point for major games in 2 years, as opposed to just dying with WiiMotion and Kinect, as the gimmick wears off and people keep preferring to slouch on a sofa or recliner for games.

PS4 lack of 4K blu ray with HDR is keeping me away from a needless upgrade. I'll stick with my old PS4. Awaiting the PS5.

I wonder what will happen when the PS5 and XBoxTwo come out with only mild improvements in hardware relative to these new overclocked models? Could be console crash 2.

I don't know, I guess I'm not that concerned with that stuff on the whole. I don't watch movies, don't have a 4K TV (the one I have is only 720p, though I'll hopefully replace it someday soon), and therefore wont' bother with watching 4K Blu-Ray discs. I don't have a PS4, and thought I'd get one sometime. Sony kept dragging its feet though, so now baseball season is over. The main thing I'd want to play, MLB The Show, is essentially on the way out, and I'd rather just wait for the next one to release (when I have a better idea of my long-term job situation, which is decided in May). The PS4 Pro doesn't do anything for me, as I don't have a 4K TV, so the extra $100 doesn't make sense to me.

That now leaves me on the fence between a regular PS4 or waiting for the successor, as I find it hard to believe the PS4 Pro lasts for very long on the market. The One S already does 4K playback, no? Scorpio will blow it out of the water and probably force a new console to hit the market within 2 years. If they can get the PS4 base to $250 for me next spring, I'll probably snag it for baseball, but even $300 seems iffy. Pushing Horizon: Zero Dawnback just made it even harder to justify now, so I'll hold off on it.

 

[purbeast0]

PS4 lack of 4K blu ray with HDR is keeping me away from a needless upgrade. I'll stick with my old PS4. Awaiting the PS5.

I wonder what will happen when the PS5 and XBoxTwo come out with only mild improvements in hardware relative to these new overclocked models? Could be console crash 2.

I think the console crash part deux is definitely on the horizon.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I think the console crash part deux is definitely on the horizon.

I hope not but in some ways I think it may be good for the industry to purge some of the publishers who are sucking the life out of it with yearly releases and franchises that are now ruined because they didn't know when to leave it alone and call it quits.

 

[Brandon Huff]

I am personally pumped for project scorpio, but i feel like the costs of 4k televisions will be a downfall. Until 4k tvs become cheaper, I feel like most people will skip on the next gen consoles. Or would it be possible for microsoft to somehow make the system compatible with 1080 tvs even though the games will be rendered in 4k?

 

[cmdrdredd]

I am personally pumped for project scorpio, but i feel like the costs of 4k televisions will be a downfall. Until 4k tvs become cheaper, I feel like most people will skip on the next gen consoles. Or would it be possible for microsoft to somehow make the system compatible with 1080 tvs even though the games will be rendered in 4k?

It'll probably be the same as Sony is doing. It will just downscale to 1080p if necessary. This should be a better picture for 1080p users with less aliasing. They just don't have any HDR. It could also have better frame rates than the regular consoles if the devs want to do that for 1080p users. From my reading these consoles won't really get games with better graphics(no extra draw distance, polygon counts etc) it's just a resolution support and frame rate bump.

 

[Anteaus]

I am personally pumped for project scorpio, but i feel like the costs of 4k televisions will be a downfall. Until 4k tvs become cheaper, I feel like most people will skip on the next gen consoles. Or would it be possible for microsoft to somehow make the system compatible with 1080 tvs even though the games will be rendered in 4k?

The average price for 55" 4K TVs is $750, with smaller screens much cheaper than that. LG has a 43" 4K panel for $450. 4K televisions are cheaper than 1080P was a few years ago. The premise that 4K is too expensive to adopt is false. HDMI 2.0 tvs will be slightly more expensive in the short term, but 6-12 months from now it will be in practically all models.

I don't think price has anything to do with adoption because the prices are well within the justification rage of enthusiasts. I think its more that many people have purchased perfectly good 1080P tvs and are hesitant to replace them. I purchased a nice 27" 4K panel for my PC for less than $400 and do all my PC gaming on that now.

There is another also another false premise going around that GPU tech isn't there yet for 4K. There are claims that the GTX 1070/1080 struggle, but that is false. The reduced FPS comes when you try to play every game at ultra (or equivalent) with AA/AF, and even then . I use a 1070 and can play 95% of my games maxed at 60 FPS as long as I turn off AA, which is less necessary at those resolutions. Admittedly that is a higher end GPU, but a lesser GPU based on the same tech could easily do 30 FPS 4K with consistency. It all depends on how much money MS/Sony is willing to invest in modern tech. Console GPU tech tends to be 2-4 years old before it gets released to the public. If MS is willing to pony up in the short term, I think they can make a serious attempt at native 4K next year.

The ultimate question is whether MS has the balls to pony up for a solid GPU that can do native 4K at 30 FPS. That is a question that no one can answer yet. If they don't, then I can't see them taking pole position over Sony. Either way, they will be much more competitive than they were at the beginning of this gen.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Those bargain bin 4K tvs don't do HDR and have some pretty high input lag.

Speaking of hdr and input lag. Sony tvs have almost 100ms of input lag when playing games in hdr(the 850D is about 94ms and the 930D is 110ms yikes), LG LCD is above 60ms, lg oled is 54ms, Samsung is 21ms in hdr mode and 37ms when using 4:4:4 chroma subsampling in hdr. Vizio can't display hdr10 properly from games on their tvs. They are working on a firmware update to fix it.

So basically hdr is either really laggy or unplayable unless you have a Samsung tv. Kind of sad because hdr is a much bigger visual upgrade than resolution.

 

[Lil Frier]

So, what's the general consensus on HDR? I went to Best Buy to look at TVs last night. I am using a 720p LG that I got at the start of 2008, and the burn-in on it has been a problem for a couple of years now. As such, I figure it's about time to get something new.

If HDR is a big source of delay, why would it even be promoted for gaming? I don't want something using HDR if it's going to get me killed in games, that's stupid.

In looking at TVs last night, I still feel like LG is where I want to go. I can't stand the colors of Samsung TVs, they're so badly saturated that natural environments look radioactive (grass is a big example where it's so green it's bothersome). Looking at HDR displays, and the split-image demos with HDR on and off didn't sell me on it at all. I mean, if you like super-colorful stuff, OK. I'm sure Sunset Overdrive looks phenomenal on a Samsung TV with HDR. However, I just thought it looked less natural than typical video output, and on a Samsung TV that's already trying to drown me in color, it's just not appealing. On the Sony/Vizio/LG stuff, the HDR looked better than a non-HDR Samsung (in terms of color reproduction), but I still preferred the non-HDR when viewing a natural scene. As someone whose primary TV watching is baseball, the way the grass looks on-screen means something, so I'm probably the oddball in how I view this stuff.

I'll probably be slow with picking a TV regardless. Going from 720p in 2008 to anything in 2016 will be a big step up. I don't need HDR or 4K, though I'll consider it at the right price. Black Friday's only 2 months out, so I'll probably look at a purchase then, especially since I might move by then (screw buying a TV, setting it up, then moving).

 

[cmdrdredd]

You cannot really judge the TVs based on the in store demos. I can say with confidence that unless you're buying an OLED that LG TVs are not worth it. They use IPS panels in their LCDs which have very bad contrast and that means black levels are bad. Samsung TVs are set to a demo mode for store viewing which increases the colors and such to be overly vibrant so as to stand out among bright showroom lighting kind of like a dynamic mode. When you take it out of the box it will be in home viewing mode and this will be turned off. Samsung and Sony use VA panels in their HDR TVs while Vizio has some models with IPS still.

HDR allows more stops in levels of contrast to bring out more shadow detail in the image. It also allows highlights to be brighter and not wash out the surrounding picture as well as supporting more colors and more shades of color. The result is a picture that is more realistic and more vibrant. For example in a typical outdoor scene a reflection off a window would leave a splotch of white and obscure some fine detail and the shadows would block some details as well. In HDR the reflection can be brighter but will also not block the surrounding detail and won't wash out the image, the shadows will also have more detail inside them and bring the picture towards something more akin to how you view things in real life. Sometimes movies and shows are graded to be really vibrant and others are graded so that they have a more muted look and use lots of natural light. A movie like The Revenant was filmed 100% in natural light for this reason. The movie did not use any artificial lighting for any scene and when the HDR grading was done for it the result was chillingly real because all the detail that is lost on an SDR TV is brought out and it makes you feel as if you are there. None of this is active when watching normal SDR material and you can switch between the rec.2020 expanded color space or rec.709. The problem you describe is that you are used to a washed out image with low detail and low brightness levels. That's how TV has always been for us until just very recently with HDR. It might appear strange at first but when compared directly to the same picture in SDR the difference is striking.

As for gaming, I believe it's mostly going to be a big deal in single player campaigns where you have time to admire the visuals. Just as in movies it allows a wider range of contrast to bring out extra detail that would be missing before. It also increases the color range from 16million to 1billion with 10bit capabilities using wide color gamut. The input lag is a byproduct of the extra processing required for the metadata being passed through and will be reduced in time. Right now I think Samsung is the only viable TV for HDR gaming without huge amounts of input lag.

In the following picture notice how the sun shining through the pine trees obscures the detail of the tree in the picture on the left while on the right the detail is visible and not washed out. Also notice how the colors are better and more vibrant with visible reflections off the snow that is lost in the SDR picture. The result is a cleaner and better picture overall. I haven't found any good examples of HDR in games since it's still too new there.

More reading for you if you're interested in how studios are using HDR. This is from Sony Pictures.
https://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/files/cat/mondisp/articles/HDR_X300_explained.pdf

 

[Lil Frier]

I probably wasn't quite clear on this, re: Samsung displays. It's not something I was looking at from a "my TV" perspective initially, or even now (since my TV is mostly used for computer stuff and falling asleep to a show; there isn't a cable box in my room because there's no need with a PC and an XB1).

The first place I noticed my dislike of Samsung displays was actually at Busch stadium, some years ago. I had my Lumia 920 with my ,my brother-in-law had a Galaxy S III. We were both taking pictures, just to see how they compared. The GS III had a greater ability to zoom in on an image, but the coloring was way off. The grass was this nasty green that didn't represent the field AT ALL, where as my 920 had pretty good color accuracy with the scene. Looking at TVs at Best Buy a few months back (my sister and her husband were looking for one), I again noticed how overly saturated Samsung TVs are. The Asian employee on the Best Buy demo video looked horribly orange. Every surrounding TV looked about the same, but the Samsung stood WAY out by having a strikingly bad skin tone. I spent probably 20 minutes adjusting anything and everything I could (turning it off the dynamic mode, dropping the contrast and saturation WAY down, anything I could touch in the menus, I tried).

We even went into the Magnolia section, and I had the same experience. They have a scene in a rainforest going on the Samsung TVs. In it, the leaves are an extremely bright green that looks unnatural. The red parrot in the image didn't really catch my eye at first, just because I don't look at parrots all the time. As I looked at it more, it seemed excessively red as well. All told, my issue isn't that I like the color palette of an LG or a Vizio or a Sony. It's that when I look at a Samsung display, it doesn't make natural scenes look good to me. They seem fake. Now, like I said, this is kind of great for fake images (like I said, Sunset Overdrive would be phenomenal with the super-rich colors), but I wouldn't like it for watching live sports.

With regards to HDR, I get what you're saying, and I can see it. I'm just not sure I like it as a trade-off for what (again) seemed like overly bright coloring. Given that we're talking a TV that I'd primarily play games on, the input lag problems would certainly be relevant to my choice. All the panel comparisons you spoke of were mentioning their HDR models, but what about a non-HDR one? I can say I've noticed some of what you said about the black levels on the living room LG, but I still think I prefer the inferior black levels of the IPS displays to the excessive saturation of a Samsung, if I had to pick my poison

 

[cmdrdredd]

I bet I could walk into a best buy and set a Samsung HDR TV to look fine, but you have to know what the settings do. They are probably all running in native color space which is forcing rec.2020 and will oversaturate all SDR sources. If you set them to auto then you will be in rec.709 for SDR content and rec.2020 for HDR. If you aren't playing HDR content, rec.2020 color space will look too bold for sure. Everything can be fixed. Just like people who first saw unnatural motion when TVs first came out with motion interpolation settings and were on by default. So many people thought the TVs just looked like that forever until they learned how to turn it off. Everything can be adjusted and their phone screens have nothing to do with their TVs.

 

[Lil Frier]

You keep just talking about HDR TVs, even as I say they don't fit my interests (having high input lag isn't a worthwhile trade-off on a TV primarily used for gaming). I don't care how good you can make a TV I don't intend to buy look, I care about what I'm looking at buying. Just as you said "don't go LG if it isn't OLED," I'm not going to get a non-HDR Samsung TV because of what the HDR sets look like.

End of the day, I don't like the colors of Samsung TVs, I've never seen an exception to that rule, when speaking of reproducing a natural environment. My sister doesn't see the problem. My dad's got a couple of Samsung TVs and likes them. My brother-in-law saw the same thing I did, but lives with having the TV and doesn't mind. No amount of "I can make an HDR TV look fine" is going to make the non-HDR TV stop making an Asian woman look orange, nor is it going to make an unnaturally green rainforest look normal.

I don't know the difference between their HDR and non-HDR displays, but I can say that I know what the settings on a TV do. I spent forever trying to adjust them on the non-HDR TVs (this was actually before the latest wave of HDR TVs), and certain things on those TVS just look off-grass, Asian people, etc. T hey had HDR and non-HDR displays stacked at Best Buy (running the same scene to compare HDR and non-HDR), and even though the HDR ones had superior image quality, it didn't change my distaste for the coloring of the scenes on both. LGs did better, though that section of the LG display is mostly OLED stuff I wasn't spending $4,500 on. I didn't stay looking long enough to form an opinion between LG, Sony, and Vizio for sure, but I could almost immediately tell Samsung wasn't doing it for me.

Maybe their higher-end stuff can get things closer to natural, but $3,000+ to get a respectably good-looking baseball field isn't worth it to me.