NEWS: Samsung announces new QLED TVs to support HDR10+ Adaptive

dante01

Distinguished Member
So I am genuinely interested in why the furore over not having it if our TVs support HDR10+ instead? 🙂

Because there's currently no studio who technically supports it. Fox were originally supporting it, but they now belong to Disney who don't. Where are you expecting all this HDR10+ content to be coming from or are you happy to watch nothing but Amazon Prime?

Even if it were in fact superior to Dolby Vision, this is pointless because what is the point of having a device able to exploit it if there's nothing worth playing using it? The number of mainstream devices that don't support it is also far higher than those that support Dolby Vision, this is depite the higher costs associated with a manufacturer including DV support compared to the costs associated with HDR10+. You really have to ask yourself as to why some of the major players don't appear to want to touch it with a barge pole?

HDR10+ is on the decline and isn't growing in popularity or encroaching upon Dolby's dominance.
 

Jay53

Active Member
Because almost everything has Dolby Vision. And punters want their new TV to be compatible with the main HDR standard when they pay out thousands of their hard earned money.

You should really ask why Samsung are NOT making this simple and easy and ‘being screaming for’ change

The main HDR standard is still HDR10. And I would disagree that almost everything has DV. There is still very little UHD bluray content mastered in DV compared to HDR10.

As to samsing not adding it, some one else commented that DV inhibits mfrs from applying their own dynamic tone mapping so I guess Samsung don't want that?

Rtings summed it up by saying that there is very little difference between the two standards and the TV itself plays a much bigger part
 

dr no

Moderator
The main HDR standard is still HDR10. And I would disagree that almost everything has DV. There is still very little UHD bluray content mastered in DV compared to HDR10.

As to samsing not adding it, some one else commented that DV inhibits mfrs from applying their own dynamic tone mapping so I guess Samsung don't want that?

Rtings summed it up by saying that there is very little difference between the two standards and the TV itself plays a much bigger part
HDR10 is like your bare minimum for HDR. Not quite the standard bearer.
Whereas almost all the content I have or stream is DV. It is looking likely to be main HDR staple
 

Sir QD oled

Well-known Member

jdevil

Distinguished Member
If it is in a dark room they got punished by oleds in a bright room different story then the Qled takes the upper hand but it is still close and just the top tier Qleds even a q80t is no match for an oled in DV. Samsung marketing machine has no equivalent but selling numbers is one thing PQ is another. Where were they on the shootouts the past years worldwide ?
Yes but unfortunately as a family man we watch TV day/night and the Q90T imo is better than the current crop of OLED. Too much reflection, low brightness and low HDR brightness cannot compete with the Samsungs Q90T.

I would have went for an OLED if it was mainly just me watching films all the time but as an all rounder for the family and changing environment, the top tier QLED's cannot be beaten.

I'm also curious if Samsung will accept DV if Dolby reduces their fees, I hear they can be pricy...
 

THX1138UK

Well-known Member
It’s very often the case that companies make decisions based upon the bottom line (costs) rather than any technical superiority.

Samsung know that a certain percentage of people want Dolby Vision, but their economic forecasts will tell them that the extra costs in licensing doesn’t yield the extra sales necessary for them do it.

Their data could be wrong, they may be asking the wrong people (ie Not AVForum members!), but I’m sure they’ve done the maths and looked at lots of stats. If not having Dolby Vision really hurt their sales - they’d have it.

Think about all your friends who are not into AV and ask them if they know what Dolby Vision is... Most people associate Dolby with audio.

There’s been lots more publicity around (generic) HDR than Dolby Vision. Most consumers will see ‘HDR compatible’ and the Dolby logo (sound) on the features list in Currys, and will consider it to be good enough.

I think it’s a shame, but that’s just business. Sony, Panasonic and LG are your major brands if you want Dolby Vision.

Regards,
James.
 

THX1138UK

Well-known Member
Because almost everything has Dolby Vision. And punters want their new TV to be compatible with the main HDR standard when they pay out thousands of their hard earned money.

You should really ask why Samsung are NOT making this simple and easy and ‘being screaming for’ change

Sales figures are clearly telling Samsung that most people (not AVForum members) considering purchasing Samsung TVs, don't care enough about Dolby Vision for Samsung to consider it necessary to licence and implement. It's a completive market - vote with your feet and purchase a brand that does feature Dolby Vision.

They are not doing it, because it costs them money, and they would have to pass these costs onto their costumers (or take a hit in profits), and their figures tell them that most consumers would rather have a less expensive product.

Regards,
James.
 
Last edited:

dr no

Moderator
Yes but unfortunately as a family man we watch TV day/night and the Q90T imo is better than the current crop of OLED. Too much reflection, low brightness and low HDR brightness cannot compete with the Samsungs Q90T.

I would have went for an OLED if it was mainly just me watching films all the time but as an all rounder for the family and changing environment, the top tier QLED's cannot be beaten.

I'm also curious if Samsung will accept DV if Dolby reduces their fees, I hear they can be pricy...
Until recently our TVs were 100-200nits. And we were all happy with that.
Now you’re saying a 800-1000nits OLED is too dark?

And as for costs for DV licensing? This is Samsung we’re talking about right? Full of riches, one of the leaders in the market?

And not to troll but Samsung overprice everything so hardly thinking about the consumer?
 
Last edited:

dr no

Moderator
Sales figures are clearly telling Samsung that most people (not AVForum members) considering purchasing Samsung TVs, don't care enough about Dolby Vision for Samsung to consider it necessary to licence and implement. It's a completive market - vote with your feet and purchase a brand that does feature Dolby Vision.

They are not doing it, because it costs them money, which they would have to pass onto their consumers (or take a hit in profits), and their figures tell them that most consumers would rather have a less expensive product.

Regards,
James.
Again see my response above about money grabbing Samsung and overpriced TVs.
I don’t think the licensing fees are what’s stopping them giving people an option.
 

mreg376

Standard Member
That isn't actually substantiated by the facts:


HDR10+ isn't superior to Dolby Vision.


My LG OLED can actually emulate what HDR10+ does by simply applying dynamic tone mapping to static HDR10.

Well, Dolby Vision in a QLED might be an improvement over HDR10+ in a QLED, but I'd rather have HDR10+ in a QLED than ANYTHING in the current crop of OLED's, as QLED's brightness blow current OLED's away, unless you're watching TV inside a black box. Seems to me that current basic OLED technology has a long way to go, aside from any features they layer on that they can then plaster on the outside of the box, as the panels in operation have to auto-dim themselves, further below their already low maximum brightness, just to make the panel last and avoid burn-in. Right now OLED's are expensive, disposable devices.
 

whitehart

Well-known Member
im going to go against many in here on DV, i dislike the yellowish tinge it gives to the picture. im rather meh with it, ATMOS now yes thats fantasic
 

THX1138UK

Well-known Member
Again see my response above about money grabbing Samsung and overpriced TVs.
I don’t think the licensing fees are what’s stopping them giving people an option.

The TV market is highly competitive and profit margins are often tiny. Major brands are seeing their slice of the market shrink as TCL and Hisense become the new kids on the block...

Companies exist to make a profit for their shareholders. I don’t think Samsung are money grabbing. They just don’t consider it worth the investment for the projected sales it would generate.

Again, I’d personally like to see Samsung adopt Dolby Vision, but I’m just explaining the realities of why it’s not going to happen (at least in the short term).

You and I are not their target demographic.

Regards,
James.
 
Last edited:

connect

Active Member
I would say I’m an average consumer. I wouldn’t buy a Samsung TV. The reason is because they don’t support Dolby Vision. Whether that’s a sensible mindset or not that’s how it is. If they turned around and said they supported it, they would go back on my list of choices. This is mainly down to Apple TV shows and Movies, Disney+ and Netflix are my main sources of viewing. All of which support Dolby Vision.
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
Anyway, isn't this simply Samsung's response to Dolby's Dolby Vision iQ?

With the latest Dolby Vision IQ technology enhancing the way that Dolby Vision is shown onscreen, too – by using brightness sensors in high-end televisions to auto-calibrate picture settings depending on the level of light in the room – it's a format that continues to give more the longer its on the market.


 

THX1138UK

Well-known Member
Dolby Vision Videos, Don't look that great on Netflix, most are too Dark

I don't agree that NetFlix Dolby Vision content looks too dark. I always use Dolby Vision Dark Mode. But I have a calibrated OLED and watch HDR content in near black-out conditions. I can see how HDR shows can look too dark if there's too much daylight or ambient light, but Dolby Vision Bright Mode should help in those situations.

Regards,
James.
 
Last edited:

THX1138UK

Well-known Member
I would say I’m an average consumer. I wouldn’t buy a Samsung TV. The reason is because they don’t support Dolby Vision. Whether that’s a sensible mindset or not that’s how it is. If they turned around and said they supported it, they would go back on my list of choices. This is mainly down to Apple TV shows and Movies, Disney+ and Netflix are my main sources of viewing. All of which support Dolby Vision.

You're on AVForums with a passion for Dolby Vision writ large.
You're not at all an average consumer ;)

It's a perfectly reasonable decision for you not to buy a Samsung TV because they don't have a feature you want (Dolby Vision). I'm in the same boat. But the numbers of people knowledgeable enough to make that informed choice is so small, that it isn't damaging to Samsung's potential market share.

Anyway, I think we've done this to death now, so I'll bow-out with good wishes for 2021.

Regards,
James.
 
Last edited:

Sir QD oled

Well-known Member
I don’t think Samsung are money grabbing.
Well they have a very aggressive marketing campaign. Bucks have to earn back so with the oleds from Lg and other companies as arch-rival they price their products just above that price range with technology. That is for 2020 lesser then 2019. Lesser dimming zones - lower peak brightness yes lower prices but the prices of oled did drop too. It's all about profit and pleasing shareholders so if they can grab money anywhere they just do it. That's why i call them money grabbers:D
 

Bobo666

Member
Well they have a very aggressive marketing campaign. Bucks have to earn back so with the oleds from Lg and other companies as arch-rival they price their products just above that price range with technology. That is for 2020 lesser then 2019. Lesser dimming zones - lower peak brightness yes lower prices but the prices of oled did drop too. It's all about profit and pleasing shareholders so if they can grab money anywhere they just do it. That's why i call them money grabbers:D

If they didn't sell tvs then their shareholders would NOT be pleased. So, they obviously are selling well, despite what you think of them.

Just like any company, they are in it to make money. Not sure why you perceive that to be a problem.
 

mtenga

Distinguished Member
I would think so, but I don't think the DV/hdr10 "issue" is a deal breaker for many, perhaps most.
Fully agree. Two colleagues of mine recently came to me for advice on buying new TVs and neither knew anything about Dolby Vision or HDR10+. I imagine the average consumer who does not hang around forums such as this is similar. Price, size and “4K” seem to be the key drivers of purchase decisions for consumers not too fussed with AV as a hobby.
 

Sir QD oled

Well-known Member
If they didn't sell tvs then their shareholders would NOT be pleased. So, they obviously are selling well, despite what you think of them.

Just like any company, they are in it to make money. Not sure why you perceive that to be a problem.
Don't have a problem with earning honest money and it's handy of you to take my words out of context. Overpricing their products with lesser technology and surrounding it with thin air that's selling bun's as caviar.
 

Bobo666

Member
Don't have a problem with earning honest money and it's handy of you to take my words out of context. Overpricing their products with lesser technology and surrounding it with thin air that's selling bun's as caviar.

Handy perhaps, but that is just your opinion, nothing else. :)
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Samsung TV Launch & QN95A Neo QLED Review, plus Film & TV news & Reviews
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Tidal streaming service acquired by Twitter/Square's Jack Dorsey
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Netflix adds support for reduced theatrical release window
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Paradigm launches Founder speaker series
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 3rd March 2021
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Music revenue in U.S. sees vinyl sales overtake CD
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom