1080p HDR image better than 4k non HDR ?

[DuckThor Evil]

I honestly don't believe my KS9000 loses that much to the 9500 in HDR performance even with its edge lit tech. The measured performance figures are pretty close. In practice I'm also quite impressed with it. It's not perfect though. There definitely is some backlight bleeding and FALD would be a good way to get rid of that. But it really is quite bright and the bleeding isn't a big problem with full screen content, but it is clearly visible in black bars when the backlight is at full power.(not really an issue with games or SDR content.) The general black performance is still very good. I personally prefer the extra inches I got for the same money as a 65" KS9500 FALD would have been, but I do understand other view points as well.

 

[ultragpu]

Well, you still need dimmable zones to fully realize your peak brightness, otherwise even though you're outputting the maximum lumens, it would still make the black more grey thus giving the illusion that it's not so bright. Generally speaking in bright scenes it's pretty good but in dark scenes it suffers quite a bit. I'd rather take some extra time to save up for a FALD, it would pay great dividend for sure.

Not intentionally pouring cold water on your set obviously Dr Evil, I'm just expressing my take on it.

 

[mrcorbo]

Sure you can view it in the dark but that doesn't mean you're getting the intended minimum 1000 nits brightness that's mastered in all 4k HDR blu rays, Oled would clip highlights at 700 nits and over so you loose details. You also don't get that HDR trademark pop from the highlights so to me it's kinda pointless to go Oled if HDR expeience is what you're after.

The grail for UHD HDR experience is pretty much 4000 nits and 100% Rec 2020. No way in hell Oled could reach that brightness any time soon, they're still rocking on 600-700 nits. Sony's Z9D is half way there and its prototype has already reached that brightness. Both would take awhile to reach 100% Rec 2020 tho. Qled is promising by combining both the high brightness of Quantum Dot Led and the self immersive nature of Oled, but it's a new untested tech and could potentially bring forth a slew of issues, not to mention the premium price. At this rate it's gonna take at least 2-3 years to actually find an affordable and near grail quality HDR set. But when you do get one, the next best thing is only a year away anyway. So what are you going to do?

I'm going to wait a CES or two. It's not just raw HDR performance but also HDR10 dynamic metadata and/or Dolby Vision support, low input lag in 4k60 + HDR mode, support for accepting and displaying a 120hz signal from PC, etc. I want it all and I am willing to wait for someone to deliver it at a reasonable price (my definition of this being $2,000 for 65").

Nope, HDR content automatically force maxing out the light output.

This is not true. The whole reason why the metadata exists is that it is then up to the TV manufacturer to tone-map the content to the capabilities of the display. The lack of dynamic metadata in HDR10 just means that there is only one map. Dynamic metadata, as present in Dolby Vision and potentially to be added to HDR10, would allow for different mapping on a scene by scene (DV allows frame by frame even) basis optimizing the TVs capabilities to represent the content.

That having been said, I do personally believe brighter is better as it allows the TV to perform better in a wider range of environments and if the object is conveying a realistic image, well, in the real world it gets pretty damn bright sometimes.

 

[milk]

Anybody knows what is the highest resolution FALD ever used in a commercially avaliable display? By res, I mean that of the individual dimming areas, not simply the LEDs themselves.

 

[DieH@rd]

My understanding is that HDR means 10-bit panel. But to be honest, there's so many contradicting stories online that it's hard to know what's real and what's not.

HDR is metadata that accompanies the regular video feed that says TV how to enhance each pixel to the state the film/game was "mastered" to. The metadata does not say "this pixel MUST reach XXXX/XXXX/XXXX RGB color and brightness", but it says "it would be really nice if you could go to XXXX/XXXX/XXXX RGB color and brightness". If the TV is good enough, it will manage to hit that goal, but it TV is bad it would manage to hit only some [or maybe none] of those metadata tasks. For example, entry US Samsung 4K HDR model KU6300 [EU KU6000] can reach only totally regular 8bit color range [so no additional colors :-/] and reach 425nits of light. Because of the lack of the Wide Color Gamut, other TVs such as Sony's US entry model X800D [XD80xx in EU] are much more desirable because it supports really wide color range [even though it is not as bright as that Samsung].

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Well, you still need dimmable zones to fully realize your peak brightness, otherwise even though you're outputting the maximum lumens, it would still make the black more grey thus giving the illusion that it's not so bright. Generally speaking in bright scenes it's pretty good but in dark scenes it suffers quite a bit. I'd rather take some extra time to save up for a FALD, it would pay great dividend for sure.

Not intentionally pouring cold water on your set obviously Dr Evil, I'm just expressing my take on it.

But the KS9000 does a have a pretty good way to dim the zones and the native black performance of the VA panel is very good. The edge lit + VA and with good algorithms works very well. The black levels are very good even in challenging scenarios. It is possible to kind of defeat the system with some test images and video, but those aren't very typical material in movies or games. General dark scenes are pretty good especially with some bias lighting in the room. I'm planning on installing some led strips behind the TV.

And no problems with pooring the water. I know what I'm up against with my edge lit defense Plus I'm first to admit that FALD is clearly still better. For me however saving for FALD at around 75" is not really realistic. Those are way too expensive. I'm happy with the price I paid for this also it's performance, now the price is back up at €5000 and FALD is around €8000.

Anybody knows what is the highest resolution FALD ever used in a commercially avaliable display? By res, I mean that of the individual dimming areas, not simply the LEDs themselves.

Well the Sony ZD9 65" has more than 600 dimming zones. I haven't heard more than that, but I'm not sure.

 

[DieH@rd]

Self-emitting quantum dots are the future.

 

[Cyan]

Well, you still need dimmable zones to fully realize your peak brightness, otherwise even though you're outputting the maximum lumens, it would still make the black more grey thus giving the illusion that it's not so bright. Generally speaking in bright scenes it's pretty good but in dark scenes it suffers quite a bit. I'd rather take some extra time to save up for a FALD, it would pay great dividend for sure.

Not intentionally pouring cold water on your set obviously Dr Evil, I'm just expressing my take on it.

I just found this TV and I am very interested in it. It is a 4K HDR Pro TV, for 539€!! The thing is that I don't know the particular amount of Nits of this TV, but HDR Pro sounds like a real deal.

It's the LG lg-49uh650v model.

http://www.elcorteingles.es/electro...5062514&utm_campaign=afiliados&aff_id=2118094

 

[orangpelupa]

I just found this TV and I am very interested in it. It is a 4K HDR Pro TV, for 539€!! The thing is that I don't know the particular amount of Nits of this TV, but HDR Pro sounds like a real deal.

It's the LG lg-49uh650v model.

http://www.elcorteingles.es/electro...5062514&utm_campaign=afiliados&aff_id=2118094

according to Rtings, its not worth it compared to uh6100 (cheaper, but have a bit worse contrast ratio, uniformity, and color gamut). http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/uh6500

according to me, when in the showroom showing the demo video, uh6100 (uh610t in my country) and uh6500 (uh 650t in my country) looks almost the same. But uh650t have better uniformity (uh610t have stronger vignetting). I can't see the difference in black with that demo video they are showing. Looks the same with 6100.

personally i disagree with rtings, and thinks uh6500 is worth it, even only for the less vignetting (it was out of stock on the store, thus i got uh610t).

but if you are critical with picture quality, please dont buy it. Just wait next year for better TV. 2016 models have too much compromises. I'm still annoyed by the fact that my samsung eh6030 from 2012 (1080p, 8 bit panel) looks muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch better than LG UH610T.

 

[Allandor]

I just found this TV and I am very interested in it. It is a 4K HDR Pro TV, for 539€!! The thing is that I don't know the particular amount of Nits of this TV, but HDR Pro sounds like a real deal.

It's the LG lg-49uh650v model.

http://www.elcorteingles.es/electro...5062514&utm_campaign=afiliados&aff_id=2118094

as far as I know, it has a 10-bit panel and supports 10-bit HDR, but it doesn't support wide color gamut, so, if you want to watch HDR-content, you shouldn't buy this tv.

I really really dislike how TV manufacturers handle those features. Those things aren't even in the specs most times. HDR should really get more standardized, so at least the customer knows what he/she buys.

 

[orangpelupa]

as far as I know, it has a 10-bit panel and supports 10-bit HDR, but it doesn't support wide color gamut, so, if you want to watch HDR-content, you shouldn't buy this tv.

I really really dislike how TV manufacturers handle those features. Those things aren't even in the specs most times. HDR should really get more standardized, so at least the customer knows what he/she buys.

And until they do that, they won't educate the sales people with HDR.

Currently the sales people barely know contrast ratio, colors, and know nothing about HDR. They do know a lot about 4k and sells you lots of marketing bullshits of 4K.

They need to start to compete with bulshitting about true HDR. So at least we can easily browse TVs in real life, compare one bullshits to another, and then says "thank you, I'll read a review for a sec" to get the final confirmation of quality.

 

[BRiT]

Sales people for Audio/Video equipment are worthless. That entire realm can and should be entirely researched by the consumer before hand.

 

[orangpelupa]

Sales people for Audio/Video equipment are worthless. That entire realm can and should be entirely researched by the consumer before hand.

unfortunately not all consumer can understand the stuff they read when they go researching on the internet, many even doesnt know how to start researching it.

but then again, to my dad, LG UH610T already looks marvelous....

and the sales people also didn't help by throwing lots of marketing speaks

 

[BRiT]

One should also mostly discard what they see in person at typical brick and mortar stores because they run all the equipment in "torch mode". If one needs to see things in person they should inspect items at local specialty stores ( similar to Cleveland AV https://www.clevelandav.com ) and completely avoid looking at picture quality at stores like best buy, hh gregg, sams club, walmart, target and the like. The large retail chauns will not have the sets properly calibrated nor will they have a realistic home environment setup in terms of lighting (brightness and darkness) for their display room floors.

 

[milk]

Well the Sony ZD9 65" has more than 600 dimming zones. I haven't heard more than that, but I'm not sure.

Well that's still pathetically low isn't it. The resolution is something along 30x20... Maybe that's something that will inevitably start increasing to improve HDR...

 

[DieH@rd]

Well that's still pathetically low isn't it. The resolution is something along 30x20... Maybe that's something that will inevitably start increasing to improve HDR...

That may be low on paper, but that TV produces awesome picture quality. 1500+ nits, awesome color gamut, good blacks.

 

[milk]

That may be low on paper, but that TV produces awesome picture quality. 1500+ nits, awesome color gamut, good blacks.

It may, but I think that is among the areaa of the tech with the most room for improvement.

 

[Cyan]

according to Rtings, its not worth it compared to uh6100 (cheaper, but have a bit worse contrast ratio, uniformity, and color gamut). http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/uh6500

according to me, when in the showroom showing the demo video, uh6100 (uh610t in my country) and uh6500 (uh 650t in my country) looks almost the same. But uh650t have better uniformity (uh610t have stronger vignetting). I can't see the difference in black with that demo video they are showing. Looks the same with 6100.

personally i disagree with rtings, and thinks uh6500 is worth it, even only for the less vignetting (it was out of stock on the store, thus i got uh610t).

but if you are critical with picture quality, please dont buy it. Just wait next year for better TV. 2016 models have too much compromises. I'm still annoyed by the fact that my samsung eh6030 from 2012 (1080p, 8 bit panel) looks muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch better than LG UH610T.

as far as I know, it has a 10-bit panel and supports 10-bit HDR, but it doesn't support wide color gamut, so, if you want to watch HDR-content, you shouldn't buy this tv.

I really really dislike how TV manufacturers handle those features. Those things aren't even in the specs most times. HDR should really get more standardized, so at least the customer knows what he/she buys.

thanks for the clarification guys.

I just read this article yesterday and there are some very interesting tidbits in there. I guess one can only buy a Ultra HD Premium TV if you don't want to miss a good HDR TV.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/ultra-hd-premium

This got my attention:

"Minimum of 90% of P3 colours – 'P3' is what's known as a 'colour space', a standard that defines the colour information in a video stream. Colour spaces exist to ensure that the picture you see at home looks right. Think of it as the language of colour in the same way English is a language with rules people agree on.

To qualify as an Ultra HD Premium TV, a TV must be able to display 90% of the colours defined by the P3 colour space. This number is what's referred to as the colour gamut."

"Minimum dynamic range – If your head is hurting now then things are only getting worse from here on in. Sorry. To qualify, TVs have to meet a minimum standard for the maximum brightness they can reach and the lowest brightness – known as black level – they can achieve.

Sounds simple right? Wrong. That's because there are two different standards. They are:

OPTION 1: More than 1,000 nits peak brightness and less than 0.05nits black level

OPTION 2: More than 540 nits brightness and less than 0.0005 nits black level

The observant among you will notice that one demands higher peak brightness and accepts a higher (and therefore inferior) black level, while the other accepts a lower peak brightness but demands much lower (and therefore better) black level.

This is to accommodate the pros and cons of different TV technologies. LED TVs, which form the majority of TVs sold, support higher brightness but inferior black levels. OLED, meanwhile, can produce stunningly deep blacks, but aren't as bright.

In other words, the alliance has found a way to make everyone happy. Hurrah!".

Man, and I have been with a CRT TV most of the time in my life. Now you need to have a master degree to buy a TV. Those were the days...

 

[fehu]

Now you need to have a master degree to buy a TV.

How I'm feeling now XD

 

[orangpelupa]

Job opportunity : TV salesperson
Requirement: master degree
Experience needed: have sold TV to professors "