|
|
Post by Bridger on May 8, 2015 7:49:38 GMT -5
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs 
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,204
|
Post by geebo on May 8, 2015 7:58:40 GMT -5
But the UN65JS9500 is not OLED... But I love the Samsung UHD I have. We looked at curved sets but as much as we tried, we could find no good reason to pay extra for it. |
|
|
|
Post by pop on May 8, 2015 8:27:39 GMT -5
The new LG OLED has serious motion issues. Worse than last years led tvs. The Samsung JS9000 looks pretty good but is still a bit boring for the price. The new Sony 850c (successor to the 850b) looks great and the price point is stellar. 75" for $5,000 is the opening price. I am very impressed with this set so far. Good blacks, color etc. I will do a motion test on it today.
I will keep everyone updated on the new HDR sets as they roll out.
The OLED is not worth it at all IMPO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bridger on May 8, 2015 8:30:23 GMT -5
]But the UN65JS9500 is not OLED...
But I love the Samsung UHD I have. We looked at curved sets but as much as we tried, we could find no good reason to pay extra for it.
Ah! You are correct, my mistake!
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on May 8, 2015 9:03:48 GMT -5
Is this the quantum dot set?
|
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on May 8, 2015 9:19:39 GMT -5
Is this the quantum dot set? Yes, it is...and HDR is THE feature that will distinguish UHD from HD. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 9,967
|
Post by KeithL on May 8, 2015 9:42:46 GMT -5
So far, from the demos I've seen, unless you literally count one or two really nicely done demos, I haven't seen much to distinguish them at all. HDR is a fancy buzzword for "has lots of dynamic range". And, as you might guess, in order to get any benefit from this, you need content with lots of dynamic range, a display that has a really good dynamic contrast range, and a room dark enough that you can see it without all the dark scenes washing out. (But, yes, with the right material, sets with good dynamic contrast and plenty of brightness do look very good.) Do you really want natural dynamic range in your audio equipment? (If your home theater was accurate, you'd never get to watch the end of that scene in Interstellar where the rocket takes off, because a real rocket taking off is so loud you'd already be on the way to the hospital, permanently deaf, with blown eardrums.) And, do you really want accurate dynamic brightness range in your movies? (When the hero of some movie goes from the cave into the desert, do you really want the sun to be so bright you can't see for five minutes - just like would happen if you went from a real cave to a real desert? And, do you really want to have to wear sunglasses in your livingroom so you can see what's happening in those snow chase scenes?) HDR was sort of a fad in still pictures a few years ago. Now it's sort of deteriorated into a special effect (when you see photos with really blue skies, and exaggerated white clouds, with way too much detail in the sky, or pictures of old rusty cars with way too much contrast between the rust and the paint, they've been processed to "look HDR" - the psych boys can explain why people who do these pictures like blue skies, green lawns, dark caves, and rusty cars way too much  ). Now, I'm not knocking the idea.... A TV with better dynamic range, and better brightness capabilities, is a good thing... and it's progress. Just like the extra pixels you get with 4k couldn't hurt (as long as they don't actually use so much compression to fit those extra pixels onto the same disc that the end result is actually a worse quality picture). Just don't fall for the "it's HDR so it must be better" schtick. A cheap "HDR TV" with poor dynamic range isn't going to look any better than an equally bad HD TV. (And you just know they'll be sticking that tag on both really good and really bad sets soon enough... with predictable results... just as a really crappy 4k TV actually can look worse than a good HD TV.) Is this the quantum dot set? Yes, it is...and HDR is THE feature that will distinguish UHD from HD. |
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on May 8, 2015 9:57:08 GMT -5
You missed the boat, Keith: www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-vision.htmlIt’s not just the sheer brightness range that impresses, though; in fact, it’s the stuff in between the deepest blacks and brightest whites that really makes HDR exciting. For starters, dark scenes look hugely more convincing in HDR than they do on normal LCD TVs because of the stunning amount of extra greyscale and shadow detail information HDR makes possible. Colors, too, look vastly improved as richer, punchier saturations combine with more nuanced tonal shifts and blends – especially in darker areas of the image. What’s more, during the best HDR demos I saw at CES, these colors don’t look at all overblown or unnatural – on the contrary, they look much more lifelike than those of today’s LCD TVs. Netflix and Amazon will be doing HDR streaming by this Fall. The new UHD BD will incorporate it as well. |
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,204
|
Post by geebo on May 8, 2015 10:02:19 GMT -5
You missed the boat, Keith: www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-vision.htmlIt’s not just the sheer brightness range that impresses, though; in fact, it’s the stuff in between the deepest blacks and brightest whites that really makes HDR exciting. For starters, dark scenes look hugely more convincing in HDR than they do on normal LCD TVs because of the stunning amount of extra greyscale and shadow detail information HDR makes possible. Colors, too, look vastly improved as richer, punchier saturations combine with more nuanced tonal shifts and blends – especially in darker areas of the image. What’s more, during the best HDR demos I saw at CES, these colors don’t look at all overblown or unnatural – on the contrary, they look much more lifelike than those of today’s LCD TVs. Just curious: How can you show an HDR demo on a non-HDR monitor?  |
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on May 8, 2015 10:07:50 GMT -5
You wont be able too. If you are buying an early UHDTV you may not have the ability. It is unclear to me if OLED will be able to do HDR because of the limited light output of those panels. All of the Sammy SUHD will be capable (and any other Q dot panels). Movies will have the HDR encoded and the signal will be decoded by the UHDTV. Rec. 2020: hometheaterreview.com/high-hopes-for-high-dynamic-range-hdr-video/_________________________________________ I saw the particular panel mentioned above at Costco yesterday.  |
|
|
|
Post by pop on May 8, 2015 10:53:40 GMT -5
Samsung is Nano Crystal btw. |
|
|
|
Post by Nodscene on May 8, 2015 11:04:55 GMT -5
I have to jump in about the HDR comment regarding photo's. What Keith is describing is the overuse and abuse of HDR in photo's by people who either didn't know what they were doing or were going for an exaggerated effect. I'll admit that I haven't seen an HDR set myself but there have been more than a few people who have seen the demo's and have been impressed a lot more with HDR than 4k and I tend to believe them.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,967
|
Post by KeithL on May 8, 2015 11:57:02 GMT -5
I've also heard several favorable reports about the demos... but, again, it's hard to tell what's going on. And I don't doubt that some of the new sets can produce better looking pictures in typical viewing conditions - especially since "typical viewing conditions" seem to often include enough background light to give many TVs trouble maintaining a good contrast ratio. (And I'm all for actual improvements in technology - like a TV that doesn't wash out in a bright room.) What sort of bugs me is when buzz words like "HDR" end up being used as a marketing gimmick because they sound cooler than "we've made a new TV that looks better than last year's model because it gets brighter and has a better contrast ratio". I also find this particular gimmick a little bit more annoying than usual - because I've played around a bit with actual HDR still images. A true HDR still image stores a truly amazing amount of dynamic range: on a demo picture of a cave in a sunny desert hillside, you can see all the detail in the bright white rocks, and you can see all the detail in the shadows inside the cave - all at once. The catch is that, since no monitor currently in existence has the dynamic range your eyes are capable of, you can't actually view them on any monitor available. Because of this, you have two choices when viewing them. The viewer can allow you to point to a particular spot, and then adjust everything else so that one spot is viewable (so you can see the bright rocks OR the dark cave clearly, but not both at the same time; when the rocks look right, the cave is dead black; when the cave looks detailed, the rocks are blown out white), or it can do what's called "tone mapping" (which is sort of like the optical equivalent of dynamic range compression - only with lots more options). When you take an actual HDR still picture and tone map it, you end up with one of those shots where the sky is too blue, the grass is too green, and the clouds have too much detail. It looks cool, but it's actually rather unnatural looking, and not at all accurate. In short, other than as a gimmicky special effects shot, which may be what you're after, it really doesn't look very good. And I sure DON'T want a TV that looks like that. So, to me, this creates a "perceptual problem"...... I'm all in favor of a new TV that has better contrast, blacker blacks, and brighter whites, than my old one. However, I don't want a TV that makes everything look like the exaggerated color and contrast you get in HDR pictures. (I guess you could say that, to me, saying that a TV is "HDR" has me expecting that it won't look very good at all.... sort of like them new "gut-puncher headphones" and "super cheesy flavored Cheesy Poofs".) In short, they've taken an improvement in technology that may well actually be an improvement, and made it sound like a silly gimmick, which it may or may not end up being - and this leads me to worry that the actual improvements that are there will be buried in gimmicky oversaturated colors and exaggerated contrast, and the gimmicky and exaggerated marketing hype that goes with them. For a little more information on HDR PHOTOGRAPHY, check out these guys...... (as art I rather like it - but not so much as TV). www.hdrsoft.com/I really do hope I'm wrong...... but......  I have to jump in about the HDR comment regarding photo's. What Keith is describing is the overuse and abuse of HDR in photo's by people who either didn't know what they were doing or were going for an exaggerated effect. I'll admit that I haven't seen an HDR set myself but there have been more than a few people who have seen the demo's and have been impressed a lot more with HDR than 4k and I tend to believe them. |
|
|
|
Post by Bridger on May 8, 2015 14:01:30 GMT -5
I've also heard several favorable reports about the demos... but, again, it's hard to tell what's going on. And I don't doubt that some of the new sets can produce better looking pictures in typical viewing conditions - especially since "typical viewing conditions" seem to often include enough background light to give many TVs trouble maintaining a good contrast ratio. (And I'm all for actual improvements in technology - like a TV that doesn't wash out in a bright room.) What sort of bugs me is when buzz words like "HDR" end up being used as a marketing gimmick because they sound cooler than "we've made a new TV that looks better than last year's model because it gets brighter and has a better contrast ratio". I also find this particular gimmick a little bit more annoying than usual - because I've played around a bit with actual HDR still images. A true HDR still image stores a truly amazing amount of dynamic range: on a demo picture of a cave in a sunny desert hillside, you can see all the detail in the bright white rocks, and you can see all the detail in the shadows inside the cave - all at once. The catch is that, since no monitor currently in existence has the dynamic range your eyes are capable of, you can't actually view them on any monitor available. Because of this, you have two choices when viewing them. The viewer can allow you to point to a particular spot, and then adjust everything else so that one spot is viewable (so you can see the bright rocks OR the dark cave clearly, but not both at the same time; when the rocks look right, the cave is dead black; when the cave looks detailed, the rocks are blown out white), or it can do what's called "tone mapping" (which is sort of like the optical equivalent of dynamic range compression - only with lots more options). When you take an actual HDR still picture and tone map it, you end up with one of those shots where the sky is too blue, the grass is too green, and the clouds have too much detail. It looks cool, but it's actually rather unnatural looking, and not at all accurate. In short, other than as a gimmicky special effects shot, which may be what you're after, it really doesn't look very good. And I sure DON'T want a TV that looks like that. So, to me, this creates a "perceptual problem"...... I'm all in favor of a new TV that has better contrast, blacker blacks, and brighter whites, than my old one. However, I don't want a TV that makes everything look like the exaggerated color and contrast you get in HDR pictures. (I guess you could say that, to me, saying that a TV is "HDR" has me expecting that it won't look very good at all.... sort of like them new "gut-puncher headphones" and "super cheesy flavored Cheesy Poofs".) In short, they've taken an improvement in technology that may well actually be an improvement, and made it sound like a silly gimmick, which it may or may not end up being - and this leads me to worry that the actual improvements that are there will be buried in gimmicky oversaturated colors and exaggerated contrast, and the gimmicky and exaggerated marketing hype that goes with them. For a little more information on HDR PHOTOGRAPHY, check out these guys...... (as art I rather like it - but not so much as TV). www.hdrsoft.com/I really do hope I'm wrong...... but...... I have to jump in about the HDR comment regarding photo's. What Keith is describing is the overuse and abuse of HDR in photo's by people who either didn't know what they were doing or were going for an exaggerated effect. I'll admit that I haven't seen an HDR set myself but there have been more than a few people who have seen the demo's and have been impressed a lot more with HDR than 4k and I tend to believe them. Interesting comments, Keith! I appreciate the input! |
|
).
