• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

I hate HDR - what am I doing wrong?

From what I read about his tv, it's likely because edge lit washes out the contrast, flashlighting and blooming from the sides. Especially true because HDR (High Range) ramps up the brightness of those flashlight edge lights to 500 or 900+ nit on current tvs (vs traditional backlights being around 350 nit for comparison). This makes FALD (or of course OLED) critical for HDR. An inadequately engineered FALD implementation will make things glow and bloom outside of the bright areas however, even though full array local dimmed. Glow and bloom means compromise into the saturation and black depth of other parts of the screen, or the entire screen depending on what's going on vs the brightness blasted.

Of course they'll market anything they slap the HDR label on as being much better than sdr but if not implemented correctly HDR can be worse on a particular display due to shortcomings. This is due to limitations of LCD tech. OLED turns on/off per pixel rather than a fald backlight, even if LG uses all white OLED similar to a backlight in some respects as I understand it, it is per pixel so the black depth remains inky black vs bright areas of the screen and is like .0005 nit, crazy.
 
Last edited:
jaguax said:
It's funny though because they advertise HDR as giving you a super bright and vibrant picture compared to SDR. But you're saying it's the opposite.

e.g.

781403996520989610-1.jpg
Click to expand...


That is the misconception of HDR. HDR does increase the size of gamut to DCI-P3 and eventually to Rec2020, which practically covers the full range of colors human eyes can see. So in some sense you do get more vibrancy, but not in a way you think. There is no oversaturation. The TV is simply capable of showing more colors and content is mastered to make use of the bigger gamut. Old sRGB gamut that we have been using cannot, for example, do real neon colors and real "Ferrari red". DCI-P3 can.

And regarding brightness, old SDR is mastered to static range of brightness (peaking at 100 nits although thats up to you where you set the backlight at) and that does not change no matter what is on the screen. If you turn backlight up to make picture brighter, everything gets brighter to uncomfortable levels. In SDR if you try to simulate that something is very bright like blaring sun, the picture gets tonemapped up and covered in bloom and details are lost in shadows. But its still not any brighter than a white shirt someone may be wearing in same picture. This is not how real life looks like, real life lighting is not static like that. With HDR however a bigger range of brightness can be used, from dark shadow details to blaring sun at the same time and without clipping details from either. Much closer to what real life looks like.
 
Well, you have one of the best reviewed TV's for 2016 and I think the top contender for the best over-all HDR experience, consoles and content wise. At least that's what the internet and review sites have led me to believe for 2016.

BTW, I have the same set. Not the KS8500 but the non-curved KS8000 and I absolutely adore it. If there was a built in penis sleeve or something on the side of the set .... who knows?

I've played around with HDR viewing Amazon HDR content. I didn't spend a lot of time with it. I do believe I could tell the difference and thought it was pretty cool. I am actually going to make a mental note to play with it again tonight or tomorrow.

Here's my personal problem with HDR right now that's holding me back. One, there isn't a lot of HDR content so it would be pointless for me to get too excited at this point in time. Second, HDR really needs to be an automatic thing. I feel like I have to go in and play around with the settings to get the right viewing conditions.

This is only going to improve over the next few years. Anyone expecting a seamless HDR experience right now might have their expectations set a little too high. I was an early adopter for 1080(i) as in interlace ... not the P that came out afterwards. I can tell you this, I bought a Sony 36" Flat screen CRT tube 1080i for about $1500 at Circuit City in the early 2000's. That TV weighed a shit-ton as in 3 grown whoop your ass big boys had to carry it when I moved. And you know what? I had that set 4 years and never once got any real measurable if any in fact 1080i content.

HDR is going to be fair a little better but will still take a while to get right. So, prepare yourself.

I am not surprised your having issues and complaints.
 
MaZa said:
In SDR if you try to simulate that something is very bright like blaring sun, the picture gets tonemapped up and covered in bloom and details are lost in shadows. But its still not any brighter than a white shirt someone may be wearing in same picture. This is not how real life looks like, real life lighting is not static like that. With HDR however a bigger range of brightness can be used, from dark shadow details to blaring sun at the same time and without clipping details from either. Much closer to what real life looks like.
Click to expand...

That's only if it's engineered and implemented properly on any given display. If the display is edge lit, it has to blast large areas of the screen with the "backlight" (edge-light) flashlights in order to hit the highest nit ranges any HDR content scenes have, exacerbating the weakness of edge lit displays. Poorly implemented FALD will glow outside of the brightest areas of the screen and bloom. In both cases, washing out the contrast, black depth and saturation of the screen.

A large (#) array of properly engineered and implemented local dimming backlights could do HDR well enough on a LCD screen with a high enough peak brightness, high enough contrast ratio, and deep enough black depth (+ P3 color). OLED is really the most capable tech for HDR though, even if it's max brightness is currently 500 or so.
.
 
ziocomposite said:
Panel said:
elvn is there any 50" (or smaller) 4K TV that currently has great FALD? Not HDR, but FALD. Any older models, perhaps?
Click to expand...
Last time I checked the Vizio P-series but it's been a while. It's probably the best option that has Local Dimming/HDR combo for cheaper price than most.

http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/vizio/p-series-2016
Click to expand...
It does look like a good combo option, with a decent price to match. But I was more or less talking about past models with FALD. As in, TVs that used full array local dimming to get fabulous contrast with deep blacks etc, but did not necessarily have HDR.

I'm asking because I'm leaning towards going with something that essentially has no HDR capabilities. I either want to have true HDR with FALD/oled (currently only exist in super expensive models) OR I want to have the best contrast and quality I can get (presumably in older models that didn't compensate to try and squeeze in HDR). I don't like the idea of these interim TVs (KS8000) that offer only tastes of both worlds (not true HDR and not the best contrast/blacks). I'd rather go one way or the other, not stand in between.

The only way I think I'd see this differently is if it turns out older models with FALD didn't have superior PQ and contrast as compared to the KS8000 line.

All in all, any tips on older TVs with FALD and superior contrast would be appreciated.
 
Pertaining to Full Array, the P series seems to be the highest rated on Rtings lol, Note that the 55" variant may not perform the same due to having an IPS panel. Other sizes are VA.
http://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/picture-quality/local-dimming

Panel said:
It does look like a good combo option, with a decent price to match. But I was more or less talking about past models with FALD. As in, TVs that used full array local dimming to get fabulous contrast with deep blacks etc, but did not necessarily have HDR.

I'm asking because I'm leaning towards going with something that essentially has no HDR capabilities. I either want to have true HDR with FALD/oled (currently only exist in super expensive models) OR I want to have the best contrast and quality I can get (presumably in older models that didn't compensate to try and squeeze in HDR). I don't like the idea of these interim TVs (KS8000) that offer only tastes of both worlds (not true HDR and not the best contrast/blacks). I'd rather go one way or the other, not stand in between.

The only way I think I'd see this differently is if it turns out older models with FALD didn't have superior PQ and contrast as compared to the KS8000 line.

All in all, any tips on older TVs with FALD and superior contrast would be appreciated.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not saying the ks8000 is a bad TV just that most HDR implementations are inadequate so if you have a tv that is, you'd be better off running it in standard mode imo.

Panel said:
It does look like a good combo option, with a decent price to match. But I was more or less talking about past models with FALD. As in, TVs that used full array local dimming to get fabulous contrast with deep blacks etc, but did not necessarily have HDR.

I'm asking because I'm leaning towards going with something that essentially has no HDR capabilities. I either want to have true HDR with FALD/oled (currently only exist in super expensive models) OR I want to have the best contrast and quality I can get (presumably in older models that didn't compensate to try and squeeze in HDR). I don't like the idea of these interim TVs (KS8000) that offer only tastes of both worlds (not true HDR and not the best contrast/blacks). I'd rather go one way or the other, not stand in between.

The only way I think I'd see this differently is if it turns out older models with FALD didn't have superior PQ and contrast as compared to the KS8000 line.

All in all, any tips on older TVs with FALD and superior contrast would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

That's essentially what I decided on when I got my tv. I got the non hdr vizio M series at the time because it was the best price and performance combo I could find in a 70" (at around 1600 or so plus tax, then some Sam's Club credit discount). The 60" has been on sale for a lot less. The P series is a little better. I check CNET, trustedreviews, rtings, 4ktv and AVSforum on tvs.


So like you are thinking, I went for a high contrast FALD for now to carry me through until things mature more. That was for my living room tv though. The 60"+ VA models are not suitable for desktop distances imo. I'm saving up for the 1000nit, 384 zone FALD gaming monitor in Q4 but it's contrast and black depth when reviewed will either sell it or be a deal breaker to me. Otherwise some non FALD VA 1440p and 4k 144hz gaming panels due out from Samsung and AUO this year at 31.5" 1440p and I think 35" 4k, 34" 21:9 144hz va.
 
Last edited:
elvn said:
The 60"+ VA models are not suitable for desktop distancesupport imo.
Click to expand...
I quite agree. I want something for use as a PC monitor. Is there any TV with FALD and a 50" or smaller size? That's what I want to do. Exactly like you, but for the PC instead of the living room.
elvn said:
I'm not saying the ks8000 is a bad TV just that most HDR implementations are inadequate so if you have a tv that is, you'd be better off running it in standard mode imo.
Click to expand...
Do you think that running a KS8000 without HDR would result in a better picture than that offered by FALD Tvs? I'm beginning to really question this now, seeing as how someone mentioned the Vizio P series has the best FALD at rtings. When I went to check, I found this to be true. Still, it seemed that the Samsung had scored better in many area's related to overall PQ, including contrast. All of this is making me question whether or not this TV will actually perform any better than the KS8000
 
So after doing some more research what I've found is that enabling "HDR+" inside of "Special viewing mode" is for non-HDR related content.

When you have real HDR content, the tv automatically detects it and configures the tv accordingly.

It's been described that "HDR+" setting is like adding an additional, un-needed filter and that's why it looks a lot dimmer.

So I am no longer running HDR+ and still keeping it on Dynamic mode because I love colors as bright & vivid as possible. The reason I bought Suicide Squad & now Pacific Rim in 4k w/HDR

I'm only interested in buying 4k movies that are so visually mind blowing it's like your on acid (I also want to watch these movies in 4k on acid ;P''' )
 
No point in buying UHD HDR movies then. Just buy regular 1080p movies and put your display in Store/vivid mode.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top