HDR?
I must have slept, what is HDR?
Will 2015 be the year that upstart OLED TVs finally catch on with the TV buying public? LG, long time advocate of the futuristic panels, believes so. At its recent annual trade preview held at Mercedes-Benz World in Surrey, the company declared it was revving up OLED panel production and spread-betting on 4K UHD across the …
>High dynamic range. This makes recording in the dark clearer to see, although not sure how this translates on Tele?
Imagine a photograph of a white car on a sunny day. With a traditional camera, you have use an exposure appropriate to the environment, and your 'output' is a piece of paper, with white being the brightest and black being the darkest. In your printed photograph, the car would appear to be just as bright as the sun - the dynamic range is constrained by the paper.
Now, imagine if your output was formed of pixels, each of which could either be as bright as the sun or as dark as a coal mine. The white car would appear white, but your eyes would now perceive the sun - and highlights on the car - as being far brighter. This display would be far closer to how we perceive the everyday world around us than a paper print - or traditional LED TV - could be.
For this to work, the whole workflow - from camera, through editing and onto the display - must contain extra information per pixel.
Your car dashcam is probably capturing a HDR information, but its output is a conventional LED screen. Because its purpose is to capture evidence (a license plate on a sunny day, or at night) rather than to give you a realistic image, it will massage its raw sensor data into a JPG.
DSLR cameras can dump their sensor data to a RAW file, allowing the photographer a little bit of margin over exposure at the post-processing stage.
This post has been deleted by its author
"I must have slept, what is HDR?"
High Dynamic Range.
Along with the other responses, in this particular context(*) however, it means the difference in brightness level between Full Off (black), and Full On (white) of the display technology - the wider the difference, the better.
Raw screen brightness is only half the equation, how black the blacks are, also factor in. It's kinda like the LCD vs Plasma debate all over again. Plasma has a darker black, but LCD overall is better in other areas. OLED has the technogical potential of doing better.
(*) HDR in the context of photography is a "different" thing. In Real Life(TM), dynamic range is just extraordinary, in space it's as wide as the physics can make it, on earth, atmosphere tends to make it fall short a bit, but it's still Holy Crap(TM) wide. Even though the human eye can't compete - it still rates as bloody good. Present day technology however, be it Film, CMOS, CCD, Plasma, LCD, OLED, etc, are just terribly narrow in comparison.
To address this, HDR photography involves taking a range of photos of different brightness of the same scene, and picking the best of the darks, middles and brights, and manipulating the images in software to make it narrower overall.
It does NOT magically give you a higher dynamic range, it just takes Real Life, and makes it fit within today's technology, so it looks nice.
So while HDR in future technology would most certainly be a good thing, I think we're a long, long way away.
>HDR photography involves taking a range of photos of different brightness of the same scene, and picking the best of the darks, middles and brights, and manipulating the images in software to make it narrower overall.
'Exposure bracketing' (taking several photos with different shutter speeds) is one way of generating a HDR file, but some modern DSLRs are already capable of capturing a higher dynamic range than a LCD or print can convey. Regardless of how it is generated, this file can be 'squashed' down to a final image that can either look tacky, or can look more realistic than a normal photograph.
Of course the issue is that our eyes are pretty darned good, continually adjusting to the lighting environment, and our brains do a lot of 'post processing' to give us the illusion of a wide, sharp field of view. If we look to a bright sky our pupils narrow, and if we look into the shadows our pupils dilate - our eyes don't take in all the dynamic range they are capable of simultaneously, but our brains make us think that we do. Of course our eyes have limits - hence welding masks and light vision goggles.
>So while HDR in future technology would most certainly be a good thing, I think we're a long, long way away.
Some of the pieces are falling into place: provision for the extra data (depth) per pixel is a part of Rec. 2020, which defines various aspects of UHD video.
"Lost all faith..." is correct, a few other TV vendors, including Sony, will occasionally or exclusively use LG-made panels.
LG sell a wide range of televisions, some said to be very very good, some said to be mediocre. This is usually reflected in the price, where one 1080p LG set can cost twice as much as another 1080 LG set of the same size.
"Good brand - investing in new TV tech instead of trying to flog the dying horse of LED/LCD. Proper innovation."
Some people are never happy (yes, I mean you AC).
LCD sells to a different market, where you get reasonable performance, for a more reasonable price.
If you were to ban everything except 4K OLED, you would entirely obliterate the TV sales industry overnight - because no-one could afford it. The next thing the engineers would get to work on, is a super-cheap version of 4K OLED, but because YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR, it will match the performance of traditional LCD.
And I bet you would still complain.
I think you miss my point - especially as no one talked about banning anything.
OLED technology is superior for display than LED/LCD - so if more companies were to invest in it then we would all get better quality televisions.
Unfortunately some of the big names in the industry have basically bottled it because it's too difficult for them and have decided to start boosting the colour on LED/LCD to the point where it is oversaturated and exceptionally bright.
Oh and guess what - they are trying to charge you as much for one of these quantum dot / SUHD TVs as you can buy a 4K OLED for.
Don't be fooled - OLED is the future - which could be here a lot sooner with more companies involved / investing.
"Oh and guess what - they are trying to charge you as much for one of these quantum dot / SUHD TVs as you can buy a 4K OLED for."
That's because a backlight high density array of blue leds plus the quantum dots costs about the same as oled and is brighter.
Quantum dots won't colour-shift over time though. OLEDs might do (the longevity debate is still running)
This is not only about brightness but about blown out highlights. Ever taken a photo of a building in shadow and had the cloudy sky turn into a blown out white that you cannot recover in post editing? With HDR you can have your sky the same cloudy colour whilst still being able to see the details in the dark building without introducing noise by trying to lighten the dark areas.
HDR displays have a wider colour gamut and require at least 10bit (some experts say we actually need 16bit upwards to make full use of it). You guys should really watch the Value Eelectronics HDTV shootout that industry experts attend each year.
http://valueelectronics.com/
That was my immediate reaction as well. What we want for our living room is a good upgrade to the display for our home cinema system, our living room pc and occasional channel hopping when using it as a telly. For my part the TV producers can take the rest of the "added value" (smart tv, 3D and the rest of it) and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
The 55in and 65in LG LA9700 made for an excellent 4K panel for use as a monitor, forget all the Netfix rubbish and codec, your PC can handle all of this - price of units now cheap if can find them, and then there's the EA top-end curved panel, again can be found at reasonable cost point - sad thing is, all manufacturers have abandoned full array backlit in favour of edge technology - cheaper, but not great on overall picture quality.
LG have made some excellent top-end TV's of late and increased their warranty to three years, at least here in Asia - I'll get an OLED LG TV when price point comes down, but helps as in B2B space, so my cost is usually quite low - currently on the last decent Philips to hit the market here in Asia, love the lights, but would love a good OLED as a monitor for both my computer - Mac Pro, and media centre - mac mini.
The fine detail of 4K, combined with OLED’s perfect blacks and vibrant hues make virtually anything compelling viewing
Shitty content is still shit no matter what the reproduction quality is and vice-versa (within reason). Of course, like audio-phools, many home cinema enthusiasts like buying and/or tinkering with hardware and content delivery systems as an end in itself (which is fine if that is what you like to do) in which case content is less important (unless you similarly fetishise content aquisition too)
>Of course, like audio-phools, many home cinema enthusiasts like buying and/or tinkering with hardware
Anyone can tell the difference between looking through a window and looking at a TV displaying the same scene. This should tell you that there is clearly room for improvement, especially in the area of dynamic range.
Most people couldn't tell the difference between a reasonably good stereo system and a stupidly expensive one with cables made from the fleece that Jason and the Argonauts retrieved.
Yeah, some content is shit, and Tommy Cooper isn't going to be any funnier in 4K, but some people do enjoy beautiful cinematography and natural history.
>That would certainly explain the runaway success of 3DTV
For sure, the lack of depth perception is one way we can distinguish an image from reality. However, it is most noticeable with foreground objects against distant background objects. In addition, a lot of our depth perception doesn't require two eyes because our brains still perceive the same parallax from small movement of our heads - something that 3D specs can't replicate, but a moving camera can infer.
3D TV? There's as yet no such thing. You probably mean *stereoscopic* TV, which is not quite the same thing. It hasn't caught on as much as many thought because of several drawbacks of current implementations. I have a "3D" TV set (from LG) where the passive glasses are light and cost only a few pounds each so I have enough for everyone likely to be watching the TV (including clip-ons for glasses). I enjoy the occasional stereoscopic program (especially nature documentaries), but because the depth illusion is not complete, I think it looks less realistic than a 2D image. With a 2D image you expect it to stay the same when you move your head, but with a stereoscopic image you have an expectation of the relative position of objects changing as you move - e.g. being able to look around the back of an object. If you keep your head perfectly still you can get a great illusion of it being 3D, almost like looking through a window, but move even slightly and the brain subconsciously notices that the relative positions of near and far objects do not change and the illusion is shattered, giving a disquieting feeling of falseness, which may well be what causes some people to get headaches. The stereoscopic effect is also superb over a small range of angles and distances from the TV, but when there are several people watching the same TV set in the room, most are getting a second-rate stereoscopic experience because they are not at the optimum angle / distance.
That would certainly explain the runaway success of 3DTV
That will probably be because there was very little content that actually benefitted from being in 3D. From the nauseating "enhanced 3D" that sky sports shat out to the gratuitous throwing of things at the viewer for no apparent reason in films, there was obviously a serious shortage of experienced, or good, 3D directors and content producers. This situation wasn't helped because much TV / file content is a summary of vision filmed from further away than a human would naturally be and the further things are away the less the 3D effect. While having stuff in 3D is nice, it rarely added to the experience and then there were the problems with actually viewing it in 3D...
"Anyone can tell the difference between looking through a window and looking at a TV displaying the same scene. This should tell you that there is clearly room for improvement, especially in the area of dynamic range.
Most people couldn't tell the difference between a reasonably good stereo system and a stupidly expensive one with cables made from the fleece that Jason and the Argonauts retrieved."
I think you're being a little unfair there. I could equally say,
"Anyone can tell the difference between sitting in an auditorium listening to a concert and listening to the same concert on their home stereo. This should tell you that there is clearly room for improvement, especially in the area of dynamic range.
Most people couldn't tell the difference between a reasonably good TV and a stupidly expensive one with cables made from the fleece that Jason and the Argonauts retrieved."
Why's it always audio that gets the bashing?
You do realize that they are now filming porn using 4K cameras now, don't you? How's that for content. :-P
Seriously... a 4K screen that has enough clarity that if the incoming signal / image wasn't compressed to shit, it would be like looking out a window... and sips power when compared to a plasma or even an LED tv of the same size?
What's not to love?
LG OLEDs are already priced in the same bracket as the best Sony and Samsung LCD, so LG is already there ( although Samsung gives you more inches ).
If you're expecting them to attack the "Excellent Picture Quality at a reasonable price" segment, Panasonic's roaring success with their plasma line will discourage that market strategy.
I still have a "professional class" (whatever that really means) panasonic 42" display running as a TV. I'd replace it with something that natively had HDMI if I could find a display that was genuinely as good: the plasma has fantastic viewing angles, a nice glass screen which is pretty much child slobber proof and isn't easily scratched like a plastic display and the pixel accuracy and colour / black-to-white range is superb as well. The downside is that it's not HD but with the quality of the display few people actually notice that.
Currently I'm patiently waiting on OLED tech to see what comes out at a sane price.