So what's the word on HDR tv?

[desura]

HDR is probably the one tech which will get me to upgrade my tv. It's an older plasma which has been highly unreliable.

What's the word on HDR? Availability? Anyone seen one in person?

 

[boomhower]

I'll be picking one up sometime next month. Short answer is it's complicated. Many TV's advertise HDR but what it can with it is another story. Some lower end stuff can't display the HDR but can read it. More expensive stuff can display but it's effectiveness in doing so corresponds pretty well with the price tag. Second issue is content as their isn't much out there. The new blue ray's will be out pretty soon so it should pick up but likely will be pretty dry for a while. General consencious is if you can wait you'd be better off doing so. 2016 models will be much improved in this aspect as it is still very bleeding edge. If I didn't need to buy now I would wait until 2017, not going to miss much content wise and the tech will be better then, likely cheaper too.

 

[poofyhairguy]

It will be awesome, but in 2016 if you aren't dropping $3000+ on the TV you are fooling yourself that you will get to experience it properly.

Right now I would much rather have OLED blacks on all content until HDR shakes out.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I have been using HDR for almost 2 months and I can't say in words how excellent it is in every way. The colors are more realistic, the shadow detail is better, the bright highlights pop more(things like flashlights in a dark room, sun gleaming through the trees and reflecting off a river etc). Everything is more vibrant.

We met with Vanja Cernjul, the director of photography of the Netflix series Marco Polo, and he said that he was able to light the second season in ways that he never had before and for the first time could shoot interiors using natural light. He was amazed at the detail he could get in shadows, whilst also picking out the highlights in a fire or the moonlight. He described it as like having all his restrictions removed and now he wanted to discover ways of using this freedom in a creative manner. We heard that some directors of photography are so impressed that they only oversee the HDR master, delegating the SDR master because they don't want to see how restricted it is in comparison.

However it isn't just new content that benefits, older films shot on 35mm or 65mm can also have a lot of latitude, allowing HDR to take full advantage of it. That doesn't mean every film will benefit, some were only lit for 50 or 100 nits and thus offer no real opportunity for an HDR master but many older films will be mastered in HDR. The studios are keen to stress that no HDR master will be created without the consent of the filmmakers or their estates and in fact some directors have simply refused to have their films remastered in HDR because the original version is exactly what they wanted. However other directors, such as Francis Ford Coppola, have embraced the possibilities and we saw HDR remastered clips of both The Cotton Club and Apocalypse Now on an LG OLED TVs. To say the results were spectacular would be an understatement and Apocalypse Now looked like it was made yesterday, rather than in 1976. In fact when looking at HDR masters, directors often comment that the last time they saw some details was on the set with their own eyes. As long as the technology is used in a creative way and as long as remasters are done carefully, then HDR has enormous potential.

The 2016 lineup will have better specs and better pricing. They will get brighter with better black levels and support more of the P3 DCI color space.

Sharp is supposed to have some FALD HDR LCD(with UHD ultra premium certification) TVs with 93% of the P3 DCI colorspace in the 70-80" range starting under $3k. We don't have reviews but if they turn out to be good sets it could really put pressure on Samsung and Sony in the high end LCD market to drive prices down hopefully. LG has a new OLED lineup coming down the pipe that have Dolby Vision support.


UHD Blu-Ray disks will start arriving next month along with players from Samsung. Phillips and Panasonic are not far behind with their own players. They will support HDR and wide color gamut. Amazon streams HDR to some TVs now, Netflix will begin streaming HDR this summer, Google has announced a new video format for youtube to handle HDR, Comcast and Dish are readying new boxes that support HDR and there is a new broadcast standard that was shown at CES that offers live TV in HDR.

As for standards there is HDR10 which is the baseline accepted standard by the industry and Dolby Vision which is a competing format. Samsung, Sony, and Panasonic support HDR10 while LG, Sharp, Phillips and some chinese manufacturers have announced support for Dolby Vision. Basically every UHD Blu-Ray with HDR will work on every HDR tv(exception being Vizio Reference series TVs because they do not have HDMI 2.0a hardware required). Dolby Vision TVs will also read HDR10 metadata(except Vizio Reference series TVs because they do not have the required HDMI hardware) but a TV that only supports HDR10 cannot read the DV metadata. This isn't a big deal in practice because Dolby can send HDR10 data in a compatibility layer as well and all HDR UHD Blu-Ray disks must have HDR10. Dolby has said that their HDR method basically rides on top of HDR10 to provide extra data for compatible TVs. Insiders say that DV and HDR10 look identical on consumer TVs, but we don't have a side by side comparison yet. Netflix will support both HDR10 and Dolby Vision, Amazon uses HDR10, VUDU uses Dolby Vision(currently only supported on Vizio Reference series TVs and nobody is sure if their movies have the HDR10 compatibility layer in the DV stream).

So my best advice is to give it a few months for new sets to start arriving and we get more information on them in terms of street price and real world testing. Then you can decide with more information and better TVs to choose from. Not that the current HDR TVs are bad, but the newer sets will make HDR pop just that much more and unless you need a TV now and cannot wait at all, it's better to wait for those new models which should start arriving by summer if not before. Don't be discouraged by the HDR10 vs Dolby Vision thing as all Dolby Vision movies will have HDR10 streams as well so you don't necessarily have to worry about a HDR10 TV like the upcoming Sony x940D not supporting Dolby Vision.

You can read more about it here https://www.avforums.com/article/ultra-hd-alliance-hdr-and-4k-blu-ray-at-ces-2016.12295

 

[hawtdawg]

Won't be worth getting without FALD or OLED

 

[cmdrdredd]

Won't be worth getting without FALD or OLED

This is false statement often repeated. HDR makes a huge difference on any TV that has the ability to display it. Is it better on FALD? Sure, but to basically say it doesn't do anything otherwise shows you don't understand HDR and haven't seen it.

There are huge threads on other AV forums about HDR and the massive difference it makes to picture quality even on edge lit sets.

 

[hawtdawg]

This is false statement often repeated. HDR makes a huge difference on any TV that has the ability to display it. Is it better on FALD? Sure, but to basically say it doesn't do anything otherwise shows you don't understand HDR and haven't seen it.

There are huge threads on other AV forums about HDR and the massive difference it makes to picture quality even on edge lit sets.

Yes, I have read plenty of those huge threads, perhaps you should do the same instead of just cherry picking the posts that make you feel better about your purchase.

I'm not arguing that it doesn't make a difference, im arguing that it's nothing close to what it should be. An edge-lit provides the very minimum needed to do HDR in its current form, but it certainly is not ideal, and you won't see any edge-lit sets getting an Ultra HD premium cert. No edge-lit display is going to be outputting 1000 nits for speculars without seriously washing out the surrounding image. Just knowing what HDR is and what kind of contrast it wants should tell you everything you need to know about why an edge-lit is not going to cut it going forward.

Just imagine an Edgelit trying to do 1000nit stars in a star field. This is why.

 

[cmdrdredd]

That is not correct there are TVs announced at CES that are edge-lit and Ultra premium certified. Samsung for example, their entire 2016 line is certified. So yeah they do hold those black levels you say cannot be possible. To be certified you need 1000nit brightness and .05 on black level.

https://news.samsung.com/global/sam...ce-premium-certification-for-its-2016-suhd-tv

Not only that but I have used HDR for about 2 months on an edge lit js9000 and there is no problem with washing out the image nor the black levels when HDR is in use. Like I said fald will be better but that doesn't mean edge lit is worthless.

 

[razel]

Your primary concern should be standards support. As others have stated HDR10 (10 meaning 10 bits, I assume, of color) appears to be the accepted standard. You can buy a TV and manufacturers can certainly release firmwares to support it, BUT even if you did that TV may not be capable for displaying it. The other issue is content. There isn't much and content must be re-graded in HDR.

There's also Dolby Vision. The good news, it is an add-on top of HDR10. Thank god. Dolby was doing some silly sht with speaker reflecting Atmos speakers.

So even if you are lucky enough to buy an available 4K HDR capable TV like the 65" LG OLED that's $5k on sale, you just bought a TV for it's potential. There isn't much content to recommend outside of 4k 60fps gaming. I'd wait until next year after super bowl to buy that LG OLED on clearance.

 

[desura]

Won't be worth getting without FALD or OLED

I actually think the biggest beneficiaries will be lcd screens, because it will finally get some standardization for their contrast and black levels.

 

[hawtdawg]

I actually think the biggest beneficiaries will be lcd screens, because it will finally get some standardization for their contrast and black levels.

which they won't be able to do legitimately without FALD. Cmdrdredd over here seems to think an edgelit TV is doing .05 blacks in the same zone as a 1000 nit white. It isn't.

Like I said, try to imagine an edgelit trying to do 1000 nit stars in a starfield. The black levels on the TV would be .5nits or worse, which would literally be 100 times brighter than what a ZT60's black levels are. Dredd is just trying to defend his purchase, and thinks throwing the name "AVSforum" around somehow legitimizes anything he says. Don't touch HDR without FALD or OLED. It will be "HDR" in the same way that an LCD has a "1,000,000:1 contrast ratio"

 

[poofyhairguy]

So even if you are lucky enough to buy an available 4K HDR capable TV like the 65" LG OLED that's $5k on sale, you just bought a TV for it's potential.

Sure, but unlike every other HDR TV you get to enjoy OLED black levels on the content you do have until HDR is a big thing.

That is why personally in 2016 I would rather have a OLED Tv (even at 1080p) than HDR anything. It makes everything better. The only bad thing about OLED is LG's reasons for making them (basically to bait and switch Joe Consumer).

 

[cmdrdredd]

which they won't be able to do legitimately without FALD. Cmdrdredd over here seems to think an edgelit TV is doing .05 blacks in the same zone as a 1000 nit white. It isn't.

Like I said, try to imagine an edgelit trying to do 1000 nit stars in a starfield. The black levels on the TV would be .5nits or worse, which would literally be 100 times brighter than what a ZT60's black levels are. Dredd is just trying to defend his purchase, and thinks throwing the name "AVSforum" around somehow legitimizes anything he says. Don't touch HDR without FALD or OLED. It will be "HDR" in the same way that an LCD has a "1,000,000:1 contrast ratio"

I said it's certified to reach those specifications. It has to be if it carries the Ultra HD Premium label. Period.

You're just bring outright obtuse about the entire HDR conversation. Stop wasting people's time with your ignorance.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I actually think the biggest beneficiaries will be lcd screens, because it will finally get some standardization for their contrast and black levels.

It's a minimum spec. Some will be brighter or have deeper blacks than required, but every TV that is certified will reach at least those specs. The other factors like motion handling, upscaling quality, input lag etc will differentiate models from eachother.

So even if you are lucky enough to buy an available 4K HDR capable TV like the 65" LG OLED that's $5k on sale, you just bought a TV for it's potential. There isn't much content to recommend outside of 4k 60fps gaming. I'd wait until next year after super bowl to buy that LG OLED on clearance.

I think anyone considering it should at the very least wait for new models to appear and go from there. Prices are going down on HDR sets and the quality is going up(2015 models will go down in cost as well). Phillips announced a 65" HDR TV that carries an estimated price of $1700. That could cause a shakeup in pricing overall, at least I hope so. Sony and Samsung are pricing themselves out of competition I think. I fully expect the Samsung KS9500 which is edge-lit only to retail north of $3000. People are probably going to look at the Phillips and other models and see a comparable picture (provided the phillips TV is UHD Premium certified and I haven't heard one way or the other). DO remember too that major manufacturers have dropped 1080p to the curb and that 4k TVs will display 1080p content better than most 1080p TVs can. Blu-Ray at 1080p or even 3D looks fantastic on 4k sets. Plus I think most buyers are hoping they can keep their new TV more than just a couple years so buying something that can do 4k and HDR isn't necessarily a bad buy in itself.

 

[hawtdawg]

I said it's certified to reach those specifications. It has to be if it carries the Ultra HD Premium label. Period.

You're just bring outright obtuse about the entire HDR conversation. Stop wasting people's time with your ignorance.

No, what it says is that they're letting manufactures fudge those numbers ala dynamic contrast, which is extremely disappointing. If you knew a thing at all about an LCD television you'd know good and well that no edgelit TV is doing a static 20,000:1 contrast ratio.

Gotta love the irony of someone who doesn't even understand the basics of how an LCD tv works telling someone to stop "spreading ignorance".

 

[hawtdawg]

It's a minimum spec. Some will be brighter or have deeper blacks than required, but every TV that is certified will reach at least those specs. The other factors like motion handling, upscaling quality, input lag etc will differentiate models from eachother.

Clearly they're going to "reach those specs" in the same way that an LCD TV "reaches" a 5,000,000:1 contrast ratio.

Extremely disappointing.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Clearly they're going to "reach those specs" in the same way that an LCD TV "reaches" a 5,000,000:1 contrast ratio.

Extremely disappointing.

Exactly. Manufacturer numbers are useless. You learn the real contrast ratio from a professional review on AVS Forums or CNET (I trust David at least).

Edge lit is just bad technology for a TV. It was developed for consumer vanity (aka how nice the TV looks in the home) and not picture quality. No matter the lies on the box the technology can't match OLED or a FALD with a lot of zones. 0.05 is not very impressive anyway. 2010 non Kuro plasmas could beat that.

But with that said, it is depressing how little black levels really matter. Videophiles judge tvs in the dark and in optimal conditions. Real high-end consumers judge them on how well they play the Golf Channel in their open concept house with a ton of natural sunlight. In this situation only brightness matters.

I think the brightness of HDR will attract more consumers than anything else. At the end of day we are animals. We like the shiny object.

 

[hawtdawg]

Exactly. Manufacturer numbers are useless. You learn the real contrast ratio from a professional review on AVS Forums or CNET (I trust David at least).

Edge lit is just bad technology for a TV. It was developed for consumer vanity (aka how nice the TV looks in the home) and not picture quality. No matter the lies on the box the technology can't match OLED or a FALD with a lot of zones. 0.05 is not very impressive anyway. 2010 non Kuro plasmas could beat that.

But with that said, it is depressing how little black levels really matter. Videophiles judge tvs in the dark and in optimal conditions. Real high-end consumers judge them on how well they play the Golf Channel in their open concept house with a ton of natural sunlight. In this situation only brightness matters.

I think the brightness of HDR will attract more consumers than anything else. At the end of day we are animals. We like the shiny object.

and even though .05 nits isn't that great, the fact that they are not holding the set to be able to do that in a real world scenario is what is so bad about it. on an IPS TV, if you're pushing 1000 nits on some specular in a scene, it means any blacks in that zone (which would be a large portion of the screen on an edgelit) is going to be 1 nit. On a good VA set, it's still going to be .25. That is going to fall flat on its face in certain situations.

 

[JackBurton]

Won't be worth getting without FALD or OLED

Exactly, however I wouldn't even settle for FALD. It's OLED or bust.

 

[hawtdawg]

Exactly, however I wouldn't even settle for FALD. It's OLED or bust.

These are my feelings also, but I'm unsure about getting one this soon.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Exactly. Manufacturer numbers are useless. You learn the real contrast ratio from a professional review on AVS Forums or CNET (I trust David at least).

Edge lit is just bad technology for a TV. It was developed for consumer vanity (aka how nice the TV looks in the home) and not picture quality. No matter the lies on the box the technology can't match OLED or a FALD with a lot of zones. 0.05 is not very impressive anyway. 2010 non Kuro plasmas could beat that.

But with that said, it is depressing how little black levels really matter. Videophiles judge tvs in the dark and in optimal conditions. Real high-end consumers judge them on how well they play the Golf Channel in their open concept house with a ton of natural sunlight. In this situation only brightness matters.

I think the brightness of HDR will attract more consumers than anything else. At the end of day we are animals. We like the shiny object.

To be certified they need to be tested by a third party. It is not manufacturer specs.

 

[poofyhairguy]

To be certified they need to be tested by a third party. It is not manufacturer specs.

Oh, I get that for a standard like HDR and Dolby they have to be independently verified. I was just saying in general manufacturer specs on TVs are useless- way more useless than in other technology fields.

I still say it is depressing that 0.05 is the standard for HDR though. I looked it up- the Panasonic TC-P42S1 (a entry level 2011 plasma set) has that black level. My 2012 midrange plasma has a 0.011 black level. The LG OLEDs have a 0.0008 black level. That is a world a difference compared to 0.05.

Hell, 0.05 was something the 2010 UE46C8000 LCD tv could do. Which is probably why that is the standard, you don't need FALD to get to just 0.05. Normal LCD technology has been there for half a decade.

 

[hawtdawg]

To be certified they need to be tested by a third party. It is not manufacturer specs.

And they are letting numbers be fudged. An edge-lit set cannot do 1000 nits and .05 nits in the same 1/4 of the television at the same time. Arguing with this says that you don't understand an LCD panel.

 

[Eug]

OK, fast forward to April 2016... What TVs would you recommend now? I don't want to break the bank, but I don't want to go cheap either.

I have just bought two receivers for two rooms.

One is a living room with a 3.0 setup and a 42" 720p plasma. I want to replace this eventually with a 46-48" TV. 48" is the max since the interior width of the cabinet is 43". (Note that some 48" TVs are wider than 43", and an LG 49" TV definitely won't fit.)

My second room is a home theatre with a 5.1 setup and a 90" projector image. I'm thinking to replace the projector with a 70-75" TV. Or maybe even 65" if absolutely necessary. I'd like to spend well under $2000, and can wait a year if necessary but would prefer not to.

Needs to have a wide viewing angle and I do NOT want curved.

 

[s44]

Ditch the cabinet. Seriously. Restricting your panel size by the furniture ideas of a pre-flatscreen world is just insane. It's painful but necessary.