MStar delivers way more than 70% of digital TV chips....
Dolby Laboratories seems to be one step closer to pushing its version of High Dynamic Range into the TV ecosystem, with a collaboration announced this week with mega smart TV player MStar Semiconductor, which said it would deliver a Dolby Vision 4K Ultra HD SoC to go into TVs next year. This fits in with our assertions at …
> Does anyone really care that much about high-dynamic range?
Apparently HDR really is the mutts nuts, offering far more noticeable picture quality improvements than even the jump from 1080p to 4K. From all that I've read about HDR, written by people that have seen HDR content with their own eyes, it really is going to be a major step-change, and far more so than regular 4K.
Yes, HDR really does make an amazing difference. I've seen quite a few demos of it at IBC this year and last, and it really is very impressive.
For a lot of people it is a much more noticeable change than increased resolution. In fact, one of the things that Netflix is considering is using 2K with HDR. Their view is that that will be a much more noticeable improvement for many people than 4K (not to mention, much easier to do given the bandwidth constraints).
Eventually broadcasters will agree on the HDR format they want to use. But then there's the specs for HFR (High Frame Rate) to come, and a lot of people think the silicon needed to do that (essntially, decode twice as many images a second) won't be ready until 2019.
In my view, if you have a TV that works fine for you at the moment, you would be an absolute fool to buy a 4K set now, when standards are not yet settled, but it's clear that the roadmap will include things like HDR and HFR well within the lifetime of anything you buy now.
Save your money for now; treat yourself to a new AVR or something like that. Don't buy a 4K telly.
I'm on the verge of upgrading my PC into a 4K rig, but instead of a monitor I'm going to be using a TV - I recently moved to gaming on a TV and after a while I no longer noticed the fidelity loss from coming from a high end monitor. So I'm going to get a 4K TV, as 4K really needs to be big screen to properly enjoy it.
But the reason is also because 4K TVs are cheap as chips, Costco has some cracking sets in the 600 quid range. Will this HDR palaver really make that much of a difference, or is it more for films ? This'll be mostly used for gaming, and any films displayed on it will be er...downloaded.
I would say do not do it.
I have not seen the 4k monitors to compare, but the 4k tv equivalent just does not often have the quality in the screen manufacturing etc at anything under 50 inch.
Where as you can find good quality monitors for a reasonable price. A good 4k tv at just 40 inch, with above average brightness, response time, refresh rate and colour range is going to set you back close to £1000.
PS, this may differ for prices in the US and sizes above 49 inch. Sony and Samsung have some nice sets, but no idea on their refresh rate as most struggle for 30fps.
2K resolution is more than enough for games and video. HDR, wide gamut (wide spectrum backlight), wide viewing angle, and high refresh rate (in games that can do 100+ fps) will all deliver better visuals than 4K. *Unless you're obsessed with aliasing.
I have a wide-gamut IPS panel for artsy stuff and a "3D" 144hz TN panel more for gaming etc (but not 3D). Both head and shoulders above cheaper 2K monitors.
at any local DIGITAL Movie Theatre over the last 8-10 years at least. All of Regal Cinemas in the US for instance. Film is pretty much dead as almost no distribution is able to compete with digital projection. If it is the same 4K resolution as a projector filling a 50Ft wide screen and you shrink that down to 50 inches for TV and have the same number of pixels, what's the point of doubling it to 8K?
Be honest, isn't that really quite enough resolution? Beside some insane need to always be on the bleeding edge of technology and have more and better stuff than your neighbors?
They are pushing HDR, so OF COURSE they say it is a bigger improvement than 4K.
We bought a 4K TV last year, we didnt go out to buy one, but it had the Smart specs we wanted, looked good, and the picture was what we considered to be the best on SD, HD and UHD imagery. The upscaling of MASH is so good, you would think they had digitally remastered it.
Yeah, there isnt much 4K content about, but it upscales the SD channels so well, it is difficult to tell the difference between BB1 and BB1 HD.
Really, it's not a matter of what's being pushed. It is a stunning improvement.
HDR and the wider colour gamut really do transform the quality of material, far more so than resolution. It has always been the intention to include these (and high frame rate) in standards, but in this case I think the panel makers have rather run ahead of the game. They've got their kit ready, and they want to get a return on that, so they're selling the panels.
Fair enough from a business point of view, but there are going to be a lot of people disappointed a few years down the line when they see that a newer 4K set is producing a much more impressive image than the one they bought before HDR was standardised. So, longer term, it's going to reduce people's trust in the makers.
For myself, I'm not pushing anything - as I've said before, you won't catch me buying a new 4k set until 2019 (unless my current telly catches fire and I don't have any choice). But having seen HDR, I do believe it's worth the wait, and it really is a massive improvement.
Frankly, if there were a way to do HDR with 1080p, I reckon that would satisfy a huge number of people - but that would involve tinkering with well established standards. Safer by far to introduce it with 4K
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019