HDR? Why is everyone going completely bonkers for this?

sharknice said:
Experiencing HDR on an LCD is like losing your virginity to your hand.
Click to expand...
I'd have to disagree. The 2018 Samsung Q7F (which I have here) as well as the Sony X900F, both LCD VA panels, have excellent picture quality and come pretty close to OLED at times.
 
one guy went blind and another is experiencing eye strain already

sounds pretty shit to me
 
ZeqOBpf6 said:
one guy went blind and another is experiencing eye strain already

sounds pretty shit to me
Click to expand...
This. Maybe TV is pretty far away although still would be too bright to me.
I always use monitors at about 100cd. More than that and my head will hurt after some time
 
to get the best HDR is to have it very bright the way it was meant to be, but TV's with HDR in future will get more brighter, I read that Sony prototype 8K will have 10,000 nits;)
 
elvn said:
The same types of things were said about 16:9 screens by 4:3 users, about 1080p HD, blurays, surround sound, 1440p, 4k, 120hz, g-sync,, FALD, soon hdmi 2.1 w/VRR, OLED, HDR, etc., etc. If you don't want to adopt newer tech right away, don't. Many of us will pick our battles and buy in in time (and as content becomes more ubiquitous) even if we aren't all day 1 early adopters. Some of us have been waiting for big display advancements for years and aren't going to wait forever until a display is cheaper than an xbox. I'm personally very interested in hdmi 2.1 VRR HDR 120hz 4k LGs in 2019.
Click to expand...
they will be coming at a premium price. the 2017 OLED 55" for around $1200 is a great bargain that comes up often. For me I view my main workstation screen as a 2-3 year option and then pass that set down the line to either living room or a bedroom or someplace else in the house. Staying about a year or so behind on present tech helps me stick to a decent upgrade schedule. While it is tempting to hold out for those 2019's it would also mean spending twice as much and having to use that screen for like 5 years. I'd also end up having to buy some other tvs in other parts of the house in that span. There are generally enough improvements over the course of two years to make even a high end display not so great anymore. I think the real OLED price drops are about 3 years away. The jump up that LCD did in the past year gives me up the none OLED displays will improve a lot in these next two years.
 
AORUS said:
to get the best HDR is to have it very bright the way it was meant to be, but TV's with HDR in future will get more brighter, I read that Sony prototype 8K will have 10,000 nits;)
Click to expand...
LG destroyed Samsung’s Q9F on the HDTVTEST Shootout in HDR category despite having lesser NITs. :p
 
realworld said:
LG destroyed Samsung’s Q9F on the HDTVTEST Shootout in HDR category despite having lesser NITs. :p
Click to expand...
I have seen comments from AVforums.com that say that HDR on the Samsung Q9FN were even better then he has seen on Oled.

https://www.avforums.com/review/samsung-qe65q9fn-review.14868#sectionAnchor54920
I could go on, describing the lovely images that this TV produced with other favourite discs like Lifeand Passengers but you get the idea. The Q9FN is the best HDR display I've seen to date and really demonstrates the full potential of the format.
Click to expand...


Besides this sponsored link:
https://www.avforums.com/news/promoted-samsung-q9fn-voted-best-tv-in-independent-test.15125

You can have your own preferences but to claim things that simple is the perspective of 1 person to be true can be weary if your test area is a dark room you will never get the same experience in a living room where there is a good amount of light. Some of the tests clearly show that LCD is not capable doing the same in hardware because of the self emitting technology Oled is.

But what it comes down to is that HDR is worth it on the Samsung Q9FN and as an owner I would say it certainly is.
To end it with this about gaming :
HDR Gaming Performance: All the factors that applied to SDR gaming, apply just as much to HDR gaming whether that's in 1080p or 4K. Obviously the best experience is with 4K HDR games where the increased resolution and wider dynamic range result in images that are often breathtaking. Horizon Zero Dawn looked stunning on the Q9FN, with game play that often felt almost photorealistic and thus made the experience more immersive. If you're a big gamer, the Q9FN has to be at the top of your TV short list.
Click to expand...

I have to admit that the reviewer in question is not an avid gamer :) .
 
When I went to Best Buy to look at TVs, I was pretty convinced that the LG OLED was it and just wanted to confirm. To my surprise, I actually found the Samsung Q9F to have a better picture. Granted, this was in a brightly lit storeroom floor, with different demo content and settings, etc. But I'm pretty sure the Samsung line looked as good or better. I did visit 2 different stores before I ended up buying the Q7F, and I think I made the right call. Granted, I'm sure OLED is great and is better for some situations. However, LCD panels have come a long way in recent years, and the performance is competitive.
 
The Q9FN is deliberately designed in its out of the box state to make everything brighter than it's supposed to be, and it's difficult to reconfigure without messing up the curve. HDTVTest talked about this in their review. When you compare a brighter TV to a less bright one it's not surprising to me some people will prefer the brighter... however it comes at a cost of inaccuracy, and in the Q9FN's case, the excellent local dimming comes at a cost of literally editing things out of the video footage. It deletes stars from starfields to keep black levels low. To me these compromises disqualify it from being the best at anything, but people are free to buy whatever they want.

Also, 1000+ nit brightness is something that's only used for very small highlights, the 2018 LGs hit 944 nits in 2% windows and 907 for 10%. That's pretty close. It is likely that the 2019s will exceed 1000 nits. Sure they still won't be as bright as the Q9FN, but how much HDR10 content is even mastered in 4k nits? The Q9FN doesn't support dolby vision. And the precision of that brightness is important, that's the reason the Q9FN is doing things like crushing blacks and deleting stars. It's because it can't display small amounts of bright pixels next to dark ones because of the size of its local dimming zones. So it errs on the side of just not displaying anything to get "better blacks". That's not the type of "feature" I want to have.

Anyway, idk what this thread even is. If you think HDR is not important, watch Netflix's Altered Carbon on an LG OLED and then come back and tell me it's no better than SDR...hell there are even lots of really awesome examples on youtube.
 
Sancus said:
The Q9FN is deliberately designed in its out of the box state to make everything brighter than it's supposed to be, and it's difficult to reconfigure without messing up the curve. HDTVTest talked about this in their review. When you compare a brighter TV to a less bright one it's not surprising to me some people will prefer the brighter... however it comes at a cost of inaccuracy, and in the Q9FN's case, the excellent local dimming comes at a cost of literally editing things out of the video footage. It deletes stars from starfields to keep black levels low. To me these compromises disqualify it from being the best at anything, but people are free to buy whatever they want.

Also, 1000+ nit brightness is something that's only used for very small highlights, the 2018 LGs hit 944 nits in 2% windows and 907 for 10%. That's pretty close. It is likely that the 2019s will exceed 1000 nits. Sure they still won't be as bright as the Q9FN, but how much HDR10 content is even mastered in 4k nits? The Q9FN doesn't support dolby vision. And the precision of that brightness is important, that's the reason the Q9FN is doing things like crushing blacks and deleting stars. It's because it can't display small amounts of bright pixels next to dark ones because of the size of its local dimming zones. So it errs on the side of just not displaying anything to get "better blacks". That's not the type of "feature" I want to have.

Anyway, idk what this thread even is. If you think HDR is not important, watch Netflix's Altered Carbon on an LG OLED and then come back and tell me it's no better than SDR...hell there are even lots of really awesome examples on youtube.
Click to expand...

Here is the thing with the stars in the background I saw that as well but that is a small part of what the TV is used for unless you are going to claim you need an ambient mode cluster of stars in your background. If you knew how that piece was mastered and could explain the omission then I would gladly agree with the statement you made but if not it is just an anomaly. Seeing less stars or being oblivious towards the scene in total does not change the other experience with the Q9FN.

Claiming that it is a defining experience with this TV is a problem because of one scene is rather silly because the next time Oled panels from whichever brand using them gets reviewed on that basis is just easy picking to see what they can not cope with (try baseball my friend :) ).

Be a little bit more open minded about it...
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Claiming that it is a defining experience with this TV is a problem because of one scene is rather silly because the next time Oled panels from whichever brand using them gets reviewed on that basis is just easy picking to see what they can not cope with (try baseball my friend :) ).

Be a little bit more open minded about it...
Click to expand...

It's not one scene though, it changes the look of any scene with a starfield. Which is a lot of scenes if you watch space shows and movies, which I do. And if you think that behaviour doesn't bleed into other types of dark scenes with small bright areas, I dunno what to tell you. The Q9FN is known for black crush in general.

I don't watch or care about baseball or any other sports. Some people do and that's fine. If fast motion is your priority, none of these high-end TVs are even the best, the best are the midrange LCDs like Sony XF90/X900F. So... it depends on your priorities. If 90% of your TV watching is sports, I agree that OLED is not the best, but in that case neither is the Q9FN.

I think the Q9FN is a perfectly adequate TV, that most buyers are probably happy with. But as someone who is picky about the image quality and technical issues, the intentionally inaccurate brightness curve on it is a major turn off for me, and it's also unique to Samsung, no other manufacturer pulls that kind of crap.
 
doesn't everybody here watch a lot of space shows/movies? the real question is how does it handle lens flare?
 
HDR first came out in cameras in 1990 then in 1991 on commercial video camera, then in 2016 HDR conversion of SDR was release to the market as Samsung HDR+ and HDMI2.0a was release in 2015 and HDMI2.1 was officially announced on January 2017 also the display port 1.4 was released in 2016 and HDR10 media profile was commonly known as HDR10 was announced on August 2015, then HDR10+ known as HDR10 Plus was announced on April 2017 by Samsung and Amazon video. It's around 10 years since the world went to HD, TV.

So HDR is 18 years old from 1990 to 2018 not new technology but HDR10 is three year old And HDR Plus is only one year old.

MicroLED it will spell the death of OLED. And Samsung will launch one next year 2019 Q3
 
AORUS said:
HDR first came out in cameras in 1990 then in 1991 on commercial video camera, then in 2016 HDR conversion of SDR was release to the market as Samsung HDR+ and HDMI2.0a was release in 2015 and HDMI2.1 was officially announced on January 2017 also the display port 1.4 was released in 2016 and HDR10 media profile was commonly known as HDR10 was announced on August 2015, then HDR10+ known as HDR10 Plus was announced on April 2017 by Samsung and Amazon video. It's around 10 years since the world went to HD, TV.

So HDR is 18 years old from 1990 to 2018 not new technology but HDR10 is three year old And HDR Plus is only one year old.

MicroLED it will spell the death of OLED. And Samsung will launch one next year 2019 Q3
Click to expand...
No it won't it has in this incarnation severe power issues. Micro LED is far from a consumer product.
 
AORUS said:
https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/samsung-to-begin-mass-producing-microled-displays/

https://www.zdnet.com/article/samsung-to-launch-30-millimetre-thick-luxury-microled-tv-next-year/
Click to expand...
It wont be considered a threat for quite a while after that. It'll stay on the way high end while OLED has already started to transfer into some quite affordable tvs. I'd predict about 3-4 years before micro LED is actual competition. OLED has a lot of upside it hasn't tapped into yet. All we can say for sure is todays tech will be yesterdays tech tomorrow. OLED is the king right now and there's not much debate. The debate focuses around specific niche's. 2018 is a year many vendors stepped up their game a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top