rick19011
Ex Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2009
- Messages
- 169
- Reaction score
- 61
- Points
- 67
All you will see is grey not white due to ABL low nitsLook at a full peak white on an OLED........brings a grown man to tears I tell ya.....
All you will see is grey not white due to ABL low nitsLook at a full peak white on an OLED........brings a grown man to tears I tell ya.....
Most mot intrested in poor view angels n light bleeds of few "zones"
View attachment 868659 View attachment 868660
That's what my bad boy zones can do haha, note the same detail in the dimming zones off pic to on.....hopefully you're not viewing on an iPhone.
OLED tech just isn't there yet, but when it is I'll be there, but as of now, I get the best from both worlds.
Thank you for proving my points
Not much shadow details there so black crushing needed to try to make it look black?
Loads of DV content on netflix and it looks Fantastic
Yes I suppose it will look pretty decent if you have a DV capable TV but less impressive perhaps if you don't.
Hmm? think you need to see it...
I couldn't disagree with your post more. At the end of the day, video content is mastered in controlled lighting conditions just like audio is mixed in controlled studio conditions. It is those conditions that we are trying to match. The problem with daylight viewing is that you generally lose a substantial amount of shadow detail and can be affected by screen reflections. Dark conditions allow the visual distractions and unwanted ambient lighting to be removed. HDR is about dynamic range and trying to replicate what the director intended when watching his or her studio monitor in controlled lighting conditions.A great bluray,Planet Earth 2 - a reference hdr source to launch the nits debate.
I actually on another thread mentioned this very disc in response to a thread when some one said I exaggerated in claiming 700 nits was not sufficient in Oled for bright scenes in daylight viewing.
However, the Samsung Q9 has been demoed recently with this 4k disc by some UK journalists- who knows the ZD9 -and is the brighter with hdr highlights than the Sony.
I think the Samsung now is on balance the reference set for testing out hdr to the max till the other reference 4,000 nits ZD9 is released.
As far as I am concern a fab hdr capable TV needs to match the human eyes operating limits.
My optometrist tells me that the human eyes like to operate with 2k nits so it make senses for your TV to get to that range. Samsung's own analysis talks alot about colour volume they released a paper on their site on how lcd trumps WRGB Oled.In principle I agreed with 2 and qualified 1.
To display say bright vibrant colors perfectly a TV needs to juice out high brightness - but a more contentious point leveled is that the W pixel in Oled means they aren't true RGB display and can not show the superior image of bright objects.I agree with that and on my Samsung witnessed this over my C6 Oled in daylight.
When viewing the glowing scenes of Planet Earth 2 bluray it should really be in daylight because it is how the cameraman captures it.To see the scene In a darkroom this introduces a false viewing condition.In real life you don't see the scene in a dark tunnel and feel uncomfortable.
In conclusion, Oled needs to be brighter to allow the eyes to operate optimally and see colour and brightness as from the lense.1 to 1.
Oled does excel with the infinity contrast on less bright scenes and delight with SDR pops as the eyes can see those steps (15 SLR equivalent f stops, in contrast 8,000 static with dimming ON measured on the best lcd Sony XE940), concerts with 70/30 bright to dark sources are Oled perfect viewed in the dark as the lense sees it.
We need a two TV solution and I adopted this idea as some others have.
Peak brightness levels are a part of HDR but only a Part. Would I rather have a 1000nit full REC2020 TV or a 4000nit 75% REC2020 TV? In truth I would rather have a 4000nit Full REC2020 TV so it accurately maps colour and luminescence with all (current) HDR Content but if I had to choose between the two cases above, I think it would very much depend on the content.
As for finding content painfully bright, I have had that experience with SDR too whilst watching some movie or TV show and that's with the TV set at recommended SDR levels. Yet I have watched some HDR which is significantly brighter with less pain.
The difference though was often what was on screen before. In the SDR example that I found painful, the scene was dark - a guy wandering through a forest with a torch illuminating his path. The diffused light of the torch bouncing off the trees wasn't that intense and the overall APL was very low, then all of sudden the guy spun round and shone the torch at the camera so the overall APL suddenly jumped from low to 'high' - well high for SDR which I found quite painful and caused me to squint. Dark scenes cause the pupil to open up to let more light in so a sudden brightness increase doesn't give the pupil time to contract.
Its like sitting in a dark room and then someone suddenly turning the light on - even a 40w bulb can be painful but if you are in a room with a 60w bulb and someone turns on a 100w bulb, the extra brightness is not an issue. Its this principal that HDR Content makers need to be aware of. You don't want to go from 0 to 1000nits (or more) instantly.
I still find it odd that anything 'white' has to be at the maximum brightness. Since when was a white shirt as bright as a arc welders torch or as bright as the sun? They can still be 'bright' but not necessarily 1000 or 4000nits bright!
This is where I think mastering gets it wrong. I don't see why White text has to be so bright - like 'end credits' just because they are white.