How "Essential" is HDR?

[optimus]

Looking for a new TV at present, currently got a 40" on a stand, but think can get away with either 43" or at a push 49" wall mounted.

43" 4K UDR sets are either hard come by, or cost a fortune - and to be honest the options at 49" are not great.

So, thus the question - how essential is HDR?

Given the fact that there is very little HDR content kicking around as well?

 

[welshboy]

little HDR content at the minute, but give it a year or so and it will be few more titles

Plus true hdr sets (10bit etc etc) still costly at the minute.

Im looking at the same, but thinking non-hdr for now, then hdr in few years time = same as a true hdr now.

 

[DataVampire]

myself coming from a 60 inch led 1080p tv, which got broke, i replace dit with a 60 inch 4k ultra hd via household insurance.

Wow what a difference, it need not be that expensive there are quite a few bargians to be had, and a lot of retialers now price match inc vouchers and sales.

As for the amount of content, im new to this but there is sky q, netflix and amazon. and the amount of 4k ultra hd blurays is increasing quite a bit.
Plus not to mention a kind of future proofing your ready when there is more content ect.

I guess its like most things do you get now or wait for newer ones later on, i find that doing that you could end up potentialy never buying it, and just waiting.

Btw i have no idea if it just me or the placebo effect but omg is 1080p movies a lot bette ron 4k ultra hd tvs lol. more crisp/vibrant. they jsut seem to pop.(most prob jsut me jutifying the new tv lol)

 

[jpaul]

my 2c -
The requirements for an hdr led and oled are different
so although many 4k leds are hdr, I think hdr technology maybe more worthwhile (additional cost versus perceived quality improvement) on a oled set, so I would not pay a premium for it with Led.
with the higher contrast ratio on oled and ability to show blacks (like plasma could) I think the hdr experience is going to be better.
The viewing angles on the led versus oled would also limit the benefit of hdr. (I would priortize an IPS wide viewing angle LED over an hdr led set)

There do not seem to be any oled's in the 43" domain (what I would also personally be interested in) so that leaves just led, where (as I say) I would take hdr if it was a zero cost option and not compromising something else.

To qualify, a TV must have a display resolution of at least 3840×2160 (that’s 4K), support 10-bit color, be able to handle sources that use the Rec. 2020 color space, and be able to display at least 90 percent of the DCI-P3 color space. In terms of dynamic range, the Ultra HD Premium badge accommodates both LCD and OLED displays. For an LCD, a qualifying TV must have a peak brightness level higher than 1,000 nits and a black level less than 0.05 nits. For an OLED to qualify, it must have a peak brightness of at least 540 nits (remember, OLEDs cannot get super bright) and a black level less than 0.0005 nits (remember, OLEDs can get super dark).

 

[Minstadave]

myself coming from a 60 inch led 1080p tv, which got broke, i replace dit with a 60 inch 4k ultra hd via household insurance.

Wow what a difference, it need not be that expensive there are quite a few bargians to be had, and a lot of retialers now price match inc vouchers and sales.

As for the amount of content, im new to this but there is sky q, netflix and amazon. and the amount of 4k ultra hd blurays is increasing quite a bit.
Plus not to mention a kind of future proofing your ready when there is more content ect.

I guess its like most things do you get now or wait for newer ones later on, i find that doing that you could end up potentialy never buying it, and just waiting.

Btw i have no idea if it just me or the placebo effect but omg is 1080p movies a lot bette ron 4k ultra hd tvs lol. more crisp/vibrant. they jsut seem to pop.(most prob jsut me jutifying the new tv lol)

Are you getting confused between 4K and HDR?

 

[DataVampire]

Are you getting confused between 4K and HDR?

No lol why ?

 

[FrankJH]

Personally dont see any point in HDR (or 4k for that matter) in a set less than 55" unless you are sitting very close (ie at the desk the tv is sitting on).

From a sofa /comfy chair range, absolutely no point in going 4k/ HDR

imo its irrelevant if its OLED or LCD, once you are getting a 55"+ size (and preferably 65" at least) there is no point NOT getting 4k and HDR at this point unless for some reason the set is only going to last you a year or so until a bigger upgrade. If you want the set to last 3 or more years, its silly (imo) at this point to ignore 4k & HDR

 

[DataVampire]

Personally dont see any point in HDR (or 4k for that matter) in a set less than 55" unless you are sitting very close (ie at the desk the tv is sitting on).

From a sofa /comfy chair range, absolutely no point in going 4k/ HDR

imo its irrelevant if its OLED or LCD, once you are getting a 55"+ size (and preferably 65" at least) there is no point NOT getting 4k and HDR at this point unless for some reason the set is only going to last you a year or so until a bigger upgrade. If you want the set to last 3 or more years, its silly (imo) at this point to ignore 4k & HDR

Well i got mine essentialy free as it was a insurance upgrade, mine is a 60 inchm and we sit aprox 4 and half feet, i wear glases and i can see the diff tbh. ofc ther eis a ceritan amount of placebo effect becuase the amount of money it was ie mine was £1499, was £600 of it already and a bonus of £100 for the olympics. so i do understand to a point, but once i had it here and set up you can genuinly see the diff, and as i siad even 1080p looks better, whcih could be down to a higher much better tv than we previously had with newer tech if yo know what i mean.

 

[FrankJH]

Well i got mine essentialy free as it was a insurance upgrade, mine is a 60 inchm and we sit aprox 4 and half feet, i wear glases and i can see the diff tbh. ofc ther eis a ceritan amount of placebo effect becuase the amount of money it was ie mine was £1499, was £600 of it already and a bonus of £100 for the olympics. so i do understand to a point, but once i had it here and set up you can genuinly see the diff, and as i siad even 1080p looks better, whcih could be down to a higher much better tv than we previously had with newer tech if yo know what i mean.

Bare in mind I said 55" + as the minimum a couple of times, so your 60" would fit in with that

(of course being an insurance claim also comes into it as its not all your money as such)

 

[TALON1973]

Really don't know where the idea hdr costs a fortune. My samsung 40" does hdr and that was £408

 

[jpaul]

DataVampire I was confused (like Minstadave) I did not know sky q has hdr content yet ?
do you see benefit in hdr ?

Here was another interesting article on hdr benefits

Why HDR might not be the right tech for you

It's worth bearing in mind that once you have an HDR capable TV in hand, expectations should be managed in terms of the kind of upgrade on offer with many displays. For example, entry-level sets are unable to really show off the full capabilities of tech owning to LCD backlight limitations and lack of direct local dimming. You simply cannot make dark areas appear darker when there is mixed content on-screen with edge-based dimming, partially limiting higher dynamic range to brighter scenes. FALD (full array local dimming) does a much more convincing job and the results can look excellent. However, occasional halos or banding can be an issue with more difficult content, and this something only a self-emitting pixel display - like OLED - can avoid.

Outside of gaming, there's the issue of how HDR content is actually authored, and how this effects the experience across various viewing environments. HDR material itself is mastered to be displayed in a low light environment, making it unsuitable for viewing in bright daytime conditions. When HDR content is displayed, the backlight needs to be maxed out in order to display the increased brightness range for specular highlights, while the baseline white level is capped at a much lower 120 nits.

This is fine when viewing in a dark room, but in bright environments it's impossible to bump up the backlight any further in order to raise the baseline light output for normal details - essentially, all the headroom available during standard range content is being used to display highlights, so cannot be used to create an overall brighter image. As such, outside of bright highlights, HDR content with look dimmer than a standard range presentation when viewed in daytime conditions. To cut a long story short - if you game a lot in the day-time, the chances are that HDR will actually produce a worse image based on the technology currently available.

 

[DataVampire]

DataVampire I was confused (like Minstadave) I did not know sky q has hdr content yet ?
do you see benefit in hdr ?

Here was another interesting article on hdr benefits

Tbh my tv is pretty new(a few days old) i am sure i read sky q silver now does indeed include hdr content(i myself have not got it as yet, still thinking if the price is worth it, although the wife is thinking about the "record 4 programs while watching one".

Hdr10 i have not seen any content yet to see if there is a diff. one thing for sure i wish there was a button you push to go into hdr10/dolby hd mode a bit like a 3d button lol.

Also bare in mind i am coming from a prety cheap lcd tv which was lower down the specs list, so perhaps any newer tv i would see a diff ?


As with all new technologies, it can only improve and get cheaper as time goes by.

I do not possess a 4k ultra hd bluray player, for to much money as yet, the only content i have seen is on netflix, which uses dolby hd, ye si know its most proberly no where near as good as a 4k ultra hd bluray but yes you can notice the difference, at my viewing distance at least, even the wife commented on it how it looked a lot better.

Also bare in mind i am still messing around with settings trying to manualy calibrate/tweak my screen which in itself is a pain in the backside, there are a few sets of settings to try and each set you try can take a good while to input .

Do i think 4k and ultra hd is any good, defiantly, there is quite a few blyrays now, but from reading you stil have to be careful what you are buying as some are advertised as 4k ultra hd but there not true ones, ie they have been re sampled. so you have to be careful in what you buy.

Also bare in mind there is a lot of placebo effect going on, especialy i think the more you pay the more you expect from it, so if your mates say" i cannot see the diff" you would swear they was blind anyhow even if there was no diff lol

 

[theone8181]

Really don't know where the idea hdr costs a fortune. My samsung 40" does hdr and that was £408

Its maybe due to the big boy sets as the cost of the bigger screen size in combination with hdr makes them expensive. Plus i guess your tv is 8 bit so HDR lite compared to the 10 bit higher models (whether or not there is a visible difference im not sure).

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Really don't know where the idea hdr costs a fortune. My samsung 40" does hdr and that was £408

it most likely accepts hdr but cannot show it.

much like a 720p or 1080i tv accepting a 1080p signal then converting it into what it can show.

if you want a HDR tv that can accept a signal and display it, it costs a fortune. I'm talking around £1000 for a 43" samsung.

the cheapest one they do is

http://www.johnlewis.com/samsung-ue...d-playstation-now-branch-feet-design/p2611376

which is a 7 series. bare in mind they have 8 series and a 9 series for the top end sets. i believe the 9 series 43" set is around £1300-£1400.

your tv will be an 8 bit panel, meaning not a true HDR set.

 

[ov_sjo]

Bare in mind I said 55" + as the minimum a couple of times, so your 60" would fit in with that

(of course being an insurance claim also comes into it as its not all your money as such)

A 100" TV with a viewing distance of 6 metres still has no perceivable benefit of UHD resolutions. It's not about how big your TV is, it's the relative viewing position AND the size of the screen.

 

[rolypolyman]

Well I watched the Revenant 4K Blu-Ray HDR on my Panasonic 4K HDR TV (8bit) though my Xbox One S recognised my tv as 10bit and stated it fulfilled all the criteria required. I then sat about seven feet from my 50" tv and watched the best picture I have ever seen, it was stunning, I did watch in approx. 5 candles of light (recommended level) and I have to say the blacks looked very dark (my tv is LED not oled) the whites were bright and fires or flames looked great and the scenery was beautiful. I was well impressed with the 4K Blu-Ray player on the xbox, played it perfectly and everything in sync, all in all a brilliant experience and a brilliant film. Love revenge films. Oh and my tv cost £640 (admittedly with 20% off retail) and I feel very strongly I had a very worthwhile experience. Looking forward to more HDR stuff and also I recommend Marco Polo 4K HDR on Netflix, also well worth it. Given the 500Gb Xbox One S will be out soon (22nd Sept) and it will retail at £249.99 I suspect a lot more folks will be getting into 4K HDR movies.

 

[roadie]

My opinion is that it's another marketing led spec booster that will make a negligible difference in real world viewing. Furthermore, a lot of current sets will 'process' an HDR signal, but don't have the hardware to exploit it.

 

[jpaul]

I tend to agree that after the less successful 3d initiative (**disaster?) the marketting folks are playing it clever, providing hdr product differentiation in the led and oled market.
The manufacturers (probably as much as the film companies) decided what the requirements for hdr would be for led and oled (surprisingly within their respective capabilities).
Even if it 'only' 8 bit, I do not believe it means it cannot meet the hdr contrast range and colour gamut and look really good, just a bit less granularity of detail,
plus, personally, I am never watching tv in total darkness (unlike cinema) and, see earlier article, hdr is compromised in higher ambient light for both oled and led.

I believe the dolby vision step up from hdr10 although supported by a few LG oleds, is itself a spec booster too, since the oleds do not yet (never?) able to give the brightness levels (burn your retinas) it requires .. the marketting folks are clever.

It would be interesting to know how rapidly oled manufacturing capability is growing/coming on line and at whether they might have to reduce prices as supply might outstrip demand (is there a massive profit margin on oled vs led ?)


[**the 3d drive did drive the cpu processing power so had the side benefit of improving motion resolution which was good]

 

[h4rm0ny]

Personally dont see any point in HDR (or 4k for that matter) in a set less than 55" unless you are sitting very close (ie at the desk the tv is sitting on).

From a sofa /comfy chair range, absolutely no point in going 4k/ HDR

imo its irrelevant if its OLED or LCD, once you are getting a 55"+ size (and preferably 65" at least) there is no point NOT getting 4k and HDR at this point unless for some reason the set is only going to last you a year or so until a bigger upgrade. If you want the set to last 3 or more years, its silly (imo) at this point to ignore 4k & HDR

This seems a very odd post to me with its repeated references to "4K/HDR" and size / distance. 4K and HDR offer very different things in terms of picture quality and HDR is not a factor of size or resolution and its value not to do with how far away you sit. Your post reads like you are treating 4K and HDR as inter-related. They just happen to have emerged around the same time and are therefore both appearing in the new ranges of TVs together.

To the OP, I would rate the importance of HDR as very high. So much so that I would hold off getting a new TV until a decent HDR set is within your budget.

 

[Pottsey]

A 100" TV with a viewing distance of 6 metres still has no perceivable benefit of UHD resolutions. It's not about how big your TV is, it's the relative viewing position AND the size of the screen.

That doesn't sound right to me UHD is much improved over 1080p at 6 meters on a 100" screen. Saying there is no perceivable benefit is incorrect.