Next-Iteration Gaming: Scorpio, Neo, and NX

[Intellivision]

I think the colour gamut on existing TVs is perfectly fine. Watching something like Planet Earth which has fantastic visuals shows existing TVs can churn out clear pics with bold colours. Planet Earth can do it on existing TVs, so other shows should be able to too.

Every HDR vs SDR pic is marketing.

The pics you just posted above show a plane and women in a field in a sunny day, yet somehow the SDR side is grey-ish... which it is not on an everyday basis. I can take pics on my 4 year old cellphone that has better colours and brightness.

A more representative comparison would be to show normal clear sunny pics for SDR, and the HDR side would be the same, since most people don't have HDR. The HDR side would have an asterisk saying colours would be better if you got an HDR.

Instead, they fake the SDR side to look foggy because if they showed the SDR side having normal bright colours, I don't think most people would care about a bolder HDR side.

For typical promo loops in electronic sections, they do the opposite as I said. SDR is normal looking, HDR is faked and pronounced.

Just to show how HDR is faked, the video's example of how HDR cameras take photos fakes a pic that is different than what we see. Our own eyes will see something in the dark, but HDR will take numerous pics at different brightness and do it's own magic math and combine them into some kind of middle ground..... a middle ground which may be totally different than what is actually seen with people's eyes.

 

[Flynn]

Intellivision - have you seen side by side two TV's, one with HDR content and the other with the same, but non HDR content?

 

[Andy]

I think the colour gamut on existing TVs is perfectly fine. Watching something like Planet Earth which has fantastic visuals shows existing TVs can churn out clear pics with bold colours. Planet Earth can do it on existing TVs, so other shows should be able to too.

Every HDR vs SDR pic is marketing.

The pics you just posted above show a plane and women in a field in a sunny day, yet somehow the SDR side is grey-ish... which it is not on an everyday basis. I can take pics on my 4 year old cellphone that has better colours and brightness.

A more representative comparison would be to show normal clear sunny pics for SDR, and the HDR side would be the same, since most people don't have HDR. The HDR side would have an asterisk saying colours would be better if you got an HDR.

Instead, they fake the SDR side to look foggy because if they showed the SDR side having normal bright colours, I don't think most people would care about a bolder HDR side.

For typical promo loops in electronic sections, they do the opposite as I said. SDR is normal looking, HDR is faked and pronounced.

Just to show how HDR is faked, the video's example of how HDR cameras take photos fakes a pic that is different than what we see. Our own eyes will see something in the dark, but HDR will take numerous pics at different brightness and do it's own magic math and combine them into some kind of middle ground..... a middle ground which may be totally different than what is actually seen with people's eyes.

You're getting hung up on the photos and are taking them literally despite the disclaimer. Never mind the pictures, then. They're not helping. Just read the text.

If you need to hear it from someone on the Xbox "side," listen to Flynn. He obviously knows what he's talking about in this area, and he's made the same point multiple times.

 

[Intellivision]

Intellivision - have you seen side by side two TV's, one with HDR content and the other with the same, but non HDR content?

I've seen demo loops at stores. Whether it's my own TV, a SDR TV at a store, or an HDR TV promoting HDR colours vs SDR colours (they will do side by side, or one screen HDR, next screen SDR), I find the SDR colours fine.

I find the HDR promo vids showing visuals with oversaturated colours like the video is trying to hard to make a point about expanded colour spectrum. Some of these HDR clips look so fake.

 

[Intellivision]

You're getting hung up on the photos. You missed the disclaimer, I guess. Disregard the photos. Just pay attention to what they're saying in the the text.

I get that.

I'm just saying the HDR pic (which is in fact an SDR pic) looks fine to me. So whatever the HDR mode pic would look like might make it too fake-ish.

In fact, even the pic used for HDR is a touch muted. Anyone's cellphone or a TV show can produce more vibrant colours than that.

 

[Andy]

I get that.

I'm just saying the HDR pic (which is in fact an SDR pic) looks fine to me. So whatever the HDR mode pic would look like might make it too fake-ish.

In fact, even the pic used for HDR is a touch muted. Anyone's cellphone or a TV show can produce more vibrant colours than that.

I don't want to get into trying to defend the pics. They are meant for illustrative purposes. They aren't going to capture the actual difference, because they can't; we're viewing them through SDR; both are SDR images. Just ignore the pictures. I wish now I hadn't included them, because it seems like a red herring.

Here's another quote that may help:

"If you put two TVs side by side, and one has a better contrast ratio and more accurate color, and the other just has higher resolution (more pixels), the one with greater contrast ratio will be picked by pretty much every viewer. It will look more natural, "pop" more, and just seem more "real," despite having lower resolution. In other words, a 1080p resolution TV with excellent contrast and color beats a 4K resolution TV with average contrast and color every time."

[So, contrast and color are more important than resolution. And then, here's the benefit of HDR:]

"HDR expands the range of both contrast and color significantly. Bright parts of the image can get much brighter, so the image seems to have more "depth." Colors get expanded to show more bright blues, greens, reds and everything in between."

http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-hdr-for-tvs-and-why-should-you-care/

So, HDR provides a big improvement in the area that matters most.

 

[Intellivision]

"If you put two TVs side by side, and one has a better contrast ratio and more accurate color, and the other just has higher resolution (more pixels), the one with greater contrast ratio will be picked by pretty much every viewer. It will look more natural, "pop" more, and just seem more "real," despite having lower resolution. In other words, a 1080p resolution TV with excellent contrast and color beats a 4K resolution TV with average contrast and color every time."

That's the part that will be subjective.

More colour and contrast, and more pop, doesn't necessarily mean more accurate. Some people may be choosing the HDR side because the colours are bolder, but in reality may not be realistic. It's like turning the various colour setting dials. Anyone can make it look bolder. I'm watching the Jays/Indians game right now and I could make the colours more vibrant by upping all the settings +10. But is that real?

It's like the HDR camera shots in the vid. The real life visual in the dark may very well be a dark gloomy pic. But with HDR on, it takes a slew of pics and the end result is a brighter one nobody's eyes would see, since it adds in flash to help make it brighter. So it can be said, that is faked.

If someone took a boring pic of a back alley (lots of grey concrete, brick and shadows), and then took the same pic but put on a fancy filter to make it stand out, some people might pick the fancy filter one because the colours are amped up and look snazzier.

I believe SDR TVs have a fine colour spectrum. Watch any nature show and the colours pop like crazy compared to let's say Seinfeld. Same SDR functionality everyone has, but the bold colours are there in nature shows.

 

[Entreri804]

I think the colour gamut on existing TVs is perfectly fine. Watching something like Planet Earth which has fantastic visuals shows existing TVs can churn out clear pics with bold colours. Planet Earth can do it on existing TVs, so other shows should be able to too.

Every HDR vs SDR pic is marketing.

The pics you just posted above show a plane and women in a field in a sunny day, yet somehow the SDR side is grey-ish... which it is not on an everyday basis. I can take pics on my 4 year old cellphone that has better colours and brightness.

A more representative comparison would be to show normal clear sunny pics for SDR, and the HDR side would be the same, since most people don't have HDR. The HDR side would have an asterisk saying colours would be better if you got an HDR.

Instead, they fake the SDR side to look foggy because if they showed the SDR side having normal bright colours, I don't think most people would care about a bolder HDR side.

For typical promo loops in electronic sections, they do the opposite as I said. SDR is normal looking, HDR is faked and pronounced.

Just to show how HDR is faked, the video's example of how HDR cameras take photos fakes a pic that is different than what we see. Our own eyes will see something in the dark, but HDR will take numerous pics at different brightness and do it's own magic math and combine them into some kind of middle ground..... a middle ground which may be totally different than what is actually seen with people's eyes.

No marketing gimmick . as an owner of an HDR /Dobly vision TV there is a huge difference in color Output with HDR or doubly vision.... Huge .

 

[Entreri804]

I've been reading a little about HDR this morning. I'm convinced this is a bigger deal, image-wise, than 4K resolution itself. HDR would be the reason I'd buy a 4K TV, rather than for the resolution bump itself. Indeed, it seems like that's why it is there in the first place -- the industry realized they needed more than 4K to stand out. I believe this is what most people are responding to when they see a 4K TV at Best Buy and go "wow."

This is marketing, but:

I was also encouraged to hear (and hope it's true) that it doesn't cost the devs anything to implement, because images are already rendered in HDR.

I wasn't sold on getting a 4K TV based on resolution alone (marginal benefits for most people; see earlier discussion), but having HDR wrapped in is making it much more appealing. I will probably upgrade in a couple of years. I like my current 1080p set just fine, but apparently HDR is a tech that only comes with newer TVs.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/08/16/should-buy-hdr-tv/88830816/

 

[Entreri804]

Disagree, based on what I'm reading in multiple places. I understand what you're saying about in-store TV displays being set to maximum effect and being misleading at times. But you should look into HDR more before dismissing it.

For instance, here are a few excerpts:


"I am pretty jaded when it comes to new TV tech, and I'm really excited about HDR. And I'm not the only one."

"Bottom line: Most experts I've spoken to, on both the content side and the TV side, are excited about HDR and WCG. 4K itself didn't have anyone in those camps that excited. The common refrain was "More pixels are cool, but better pixels would be amazing."

"Though breathlessly claimed as the next-generation TV evolution, 4K was anything but. Now, with HDR and WCG, we're looking at the promised evolution, and it should be a brighter and more colorful one."

http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-hdr-for-tvs-and-why-should-you-care/


Here's a more in-depth discussion:

"Unlike the move from standard definition to high definition, where the increase in resolution was quite pronounced, broadcasters and manufacturers felt the increased resolution of 4K Ultra HD wouldn't be enough on its own to convince people to upgrade from HD to 4K. So the decision was made to look at other ways of improving the image, aside from simply increasing the resolution. [...] HDR was seen as an option that could prove popular with consumers because it would have a far greater and more obvious impact on perceived image quality and could thus be an effective way of differentiating 4K Ultra HD from HD."

"Until recently the standard for creating video transfers has largely remained unchanged for decades and it is based upon the capabilities off the old CRT (cathode ray tube) monitors that were used in the mastering studios. As a result of the historical limitations of the display technology, all high definition transfers are created using an 8-bit video depth, the Rec.709 colour space and at a peak brightness of 100 Nits (which is a measure of luminance).

"This has been frustrating for colourists working in the film industry because the actual colour and luminance detail in the original footage captured (be it on film or digitally) is far greater than the current standards are able to convey. In addition display technology has moved on and is now able to handle standards far in excess of what is currently being used. Therefore as part of the move towards 4K Ultra HD, the standards are being changed to reflect the capabilities of modern displays."

"By combining all these elements, film colourists will be able to create transfers that can take full advantage of the luminance and colour detail inherent in the original content. In particular, HDR will allow them to distinguish bright details in highlights that are often compressed in traditional video transfers as well as more perceptible details in shadows. In addition there will be greater separation of colour details in diffuse near-white colours and in strongly saturated parts of the image."

[Disclaimer: this pic is not to be taken at face value; it is just an illustration. Obviously we are viewing both images through SDR, so both images are SDR. It's just an illustration, not meant to be taken literally.]

https://www.avforums.com/article/what-is-hdr.11039


And a simple intro video for good measure, plus a bad pun:




Quote at 1:30: "In fact, people have said that the jump from 1080 resolution to 4K resolution wasn't really that noticeable until HDR technology started to get rolled into it."

Also one of the biggest factors of HDR is the amount of colors they can display which is right at 1 billion versus 16 million for non-HDR content. that's a big difference and if you look at the article I sent you before this post you'll see why you can actually see the real red in the Coca-Cola formula. Pretty neat stuff .

 

[Intellivision]

No marketing gimmick . as an owner of an HDR /Dobly vision TV there is a huge difference in color Output with HDR or doubly vision.... Huge .

Fair enough.

I'll be getting a new TV in a year or two and it looks like almost all TVs now are 4k by default. At that time, HDR might be standard too. So at that time the TV I buy will probably be 4k/HDR no matter what.

As for marketing gimmick, it all comes down to what is successful or not successful. Success doesn't mean accurate.

For example, all the TVs that have clear motion plus (or whatever it's called) is actually more realistic. Nobody in real life moves at cinema quality 24 fps. Real life is super smooth, yet a lot of people don't like that on a TV even though it's more representative of reality.

TV companies will push new features every once in a while to ensure sales. A long time ago, PIP was a snazzy feature. But nobody cares about it anymore. Clear motion plus 120 or 240 was promoted shoing people there's no more blur with extra frames. Nobody cares about it. 3D TV came and went in about 12 months.

The only thing in the past few decades that really pushed people to buy a new tv is: flat panel design and HD res.

4k seems like it's not getting traction by itself, so HDR is the new push.

 

[Andy]

That's the part that will be subjective.

More colour and contrast, and more pop, doesn't necessarily mean more accurate. Some people may be choosing the HDR side because the colours are bolder, but in reality may not be realistic. It's like turning the various colour setting dials. Anyone can make it look bolder. I'm watching the Jays/Indians game right now and I could make the colours more vibrant by upping all the settings +10. But is that real?

It's like the HDR camera shots in the vid. The real life visual in the dark may very well be a dark gloomy pic. But with HDR on, it takes a slew of pics and the end result is a brighter one nobody's eyes would see, since it adds in flash to help make it brighter. So it can be said, that is faked.

If someone took a boring pic of a back alley (lots of grey concrete, brick and shadows), and then took the same pic but put on a fancy filter to make it stand out, some people might pick the fancy filter one because the colours are amped up and look snazzier.

I believe SDR TVs have a fine colour spectrum. Watch any nature show and the colours pop like crazy compared to let's say Seinfeld. Same SDR functionality everyone has, but the bold colours are there in nature shows.

Ok, well stick to SDR, then, I guess. To me, the examples you're using suggest a misunderstanding of HDR. It isn't like fussing with color settings, turning up color levels; it's about having a dramatically improved palette, pixel by pixel.

 

[JinCA]

Quality of colors does stand out more than resolution to me, I know when I first saw the LG 1080p OLED at best buy a year or so ago it was next to a 4K LED and the 1080p set looked much better just because the colors were so vivid, not even sure if that set was HDR but even at 1080p it was able to look far superior than 4K thanks to the display technology. Honestly 1080p already looks really good, it's kind of too bad that so many tv manufacturers decided that they needed to move on to 4K when most HD broadcasts aren't even in 1080p yet. I still don't know how ISP's are going to respond when more people own 4K TV's and streaming services start offering more and more 4K content, they already complain about bandwidth issues as it is. Anyway I'm getting off track lol, I think more colors at an already high resolution is something you'd notice more than fewer colors in an even higher res but that's just my opinion not a fact.

 

[Andy]

Also one of the biggest factors of HDR is the amount of colors they can display which is right at 1 billion versus 16 million for non-HDR content. that's a big difference and if you look at the article I sent you before this post you'll see why you can actually see the real red in the Coca-Cola formula. Pretty neat stuff .

Very cool! Thanks. I'll use this article to help motivate me to write the check for a 4K TV, when the time comes.

I need those prices to come down, though. The ones Flynn is talking about run 4 or 5K. That's a lot of cash for some prettier videogames.

 

[Intellivision]

Ok, well stick to SDR, then, I guess. To me, the examples you're using suggest a misunderstanding of HDR. It isn't like fussing with color settings, turning up color levels; it's about having a dramatically improved palette, pixel by pixel.

Fair enough.

I'm not going to buy a $2,000 tv for supposedly better colours.

Next time you are at a store, check out the tvs looping HDR vs SDR. What you will notice is this:

- The SDR screen is muted
- The HDR screen is super bold colours, bordering on fake

In other words, the manufacturers don't even want to use normal looking SDR images because they know if they did the difference will be small or fake-ish. When current HD tvs were promoted, they showed the usual stuff like colourful waterfalls, grand canyon type stuff. Nice looking stuff at HD res. Technically, they could use this footage as the comparison to base HDR against, but they won't.

If HDR is so much better, then an HDR version of nature walks and grand canyon footage should be even better making the SDR side look weak.

With HDR tvs, the loop they show won't be that. They will purposely gimp the SDR side so the HDR side stands out.

 

[JinCA]

Very cool! Thanks. I'll use this article to help motivate me to write the check for a 4K TV, when the time comes.

I need those prices to come down, though. The ones Flynn is talking about run 4 or 5K. That's a lot of cash for some prettier videogames.

Also be careful and do your research when buying a 4K HDR set if you intend to use it for games, input lag can be a big issue for many of the sets if you want to use HDR. Some of the newer 4K sets that get high marks for gaming are tested in gaming mode which for many of them disables HDR all together. If you play outside of gaming mode that ups the input lag quite a bit on most of those sets and I'm not talking just twice as bad, it's more like 4 or more times as much.

 

[TeKPhaN]

The 4k Resolution increases in fidelity over 1080p are much more apparent than the SDR vs HDR differences.
I don't care how many articles are posted as I have this witnessed 1st hand.
I am comparing 10bit 4K SDR content vs 10/12bit 4K HDR content.

 

[Intellivision]

Just to show that current SDR TVs have a broad range colour spectrum that is fine, find a stream of the Cubs/Rockies baseball game. After the Jays game ended, they are now showing this game. I think it's the Rockies telecast because the commentator kept talking about ex-Rockie Brad Hawpe. The colours are so bold and bright it's insane. Never seen a baseball game this neon green.

So the bold colours are in an SDR set. Just a matter of whether telecasts want to show it, or tinker with their video feed to show it like this.

 

[Almighty_bob]

I'm curious how plasmas played into colors. I have a Panasonic plasma and the colors are very bright and beautiful. Much better than my old LCD 1080p tv. Did plasmas have a broader color gamut, ir would that have even have mattered as the original stuff I was watching was authored in SDR?

 

[Flynn]

That's the part that will be subjective.

True, but the data (both anecdotal and researched) all say the same thing - the vast, vast, vast majority of people will say the TV with better color, saturation, brightness, and contrast beats the higher resolution one (once past diminishing returns of around 900p) nearly every time.

It's kind of like saying, ask 100 straight guys who's hotter - a late 20's early 30's Cindy Crawford, or a 50's+ Rosanne Barr. Sure beauty is subjective and in the eye of the beholder, but one is definitely going to win in a beauty contest FAR more than the other.

 

[hrudey]

Mexican

And they'll pay for it!

 

[Flynn]

The 4k Resolution increases in fidelity over 1080p are much more apparent than the SDR vs HDR differences.

That's patently false.

 

[TeKPhaN]

That's patently false.

I know what I see.

 

[Flynn]

Quality of colors does stand out more than resolution to me, I know when I first saw the LG 1080p OLED at best buy a year or so ago it was next to a 4K LED and the 1080p set looked much better just because the colors were so vivid, not even sure if that set was HDR but even at 1080p it was able to look far superior than 4K thanks to the display technology. Honestly 1080p already looks really good, it's kind of too bad that so many tv manufacturers decided that they needed to move on to 4K when most HD broadcasts aren't even in 1080p yet. I still don't know how ISP's are going to respond when more people own 4K TV's and streaming services start offering more and more 4K content, they already complain about bandwidth issues as it is. Anyway I'm getting off track lol, I think more colors at an already high resolution is something you'd notice more than fewer colors in an even higher res but that's just my opinion not a fact.

100% agree. Contrast ratio, color accuracy, etc. does *FAR, FAR* more than resolution beyond a certain point (900p or so). That's not to say 4k doesn't make a difference over 1080p, of course, but it's FAR, FAR less a difference.

The difference between OLED and standard plasma/LED/LCD TV's is nearly as dramatic a difference as HDR to SDR... so with LG's HDR OLED 4k display, you're getting the best of all things - and it's just staggeringly stunning. If I'm going to spend a pretty penny on a new TV, that's what I'm going to get. Maybe black Friday, there will be a good deal on one...

 

[Flynn]

I know what I see.

But you're wrong. Your senses are misleading.

I guarantee you I could set up a scenario with a 1080p picture source on an OLED/HDR display and compare it to a 4k source on a 4k non-HDR/non-OLED display, and you'd think the OLED/HDR picture was better. Everyone does. I've personally run such tests with unsuspecting folks, and it's always the same. They say, "oh - that one looks so much better! It's so crisp, bright, and beautiful!"

 

[Flynn]

I'm curious how plasmas played into colors. I have a Panasonic plasma and the colors are very bright and beautiful. Much better than my old LCD 1080p tv. Did plasmas have a broader color gamut, ir would that have even have mattered as the original stuff I was watching was authored in SDR?

Plasma's next to OLED look dull, dreary, and outdated.

Plasma's next to any HDR-certified display will look even worse than when compared to an OLED.

 

[JinCA]

100% agree. Contrast ratio, color accuracy, etc. does *FAR, FAR* more than resolution beyond a certain point (900p or so). That's not to say 4k doesn't make a difference over 1080p, of course, but it's FAR, FAR less a difference.

The difference between OLED and standard plasma/LED/LCD TV's is nearly as dramatic a difference as HDR to SDR... so with LG's HDR OLED 4k display, you're getting the best of all things - and it's just staggeringly stunning. If I'm going to spend a pretty penny on a new TV, that's what I'm going to get. Maybe black Friday, there will be a good deal on one...

I'm still worried about burn in on OLED's, there is no doubt that it does make for a beautiful viewing experience though. I think I'd wait another year or two just to see what improvements can be made to it and also just to get more feedback from people who already own them.

 

[Entreri804]

Fair enough.

I'm not going to buy a $2,000 tv for supposedly better colours.

Next time you are at a store, check out the tvs looping HDR vs SDR. What you will notice is this:

- The SDR screen is muted
- The HDR screen is super bold colours, bordering on fake

In other words, the manufacturers don't even want to use normal looking SDR images because they know if they did the difference will be small or fake-ish. When current HD tvs were promoted, they showed the usual stuff like colourful waterfalls, grand canyon type stuff. Nice looking stuff at HD res. Technically, they could use this footage as the comparison to base HDR against, but they won't.

If HDR is so much better, then an HDR version of nature walks and grand canyon footage should be even better making the SDR side look weak.

With HDR tvs, the loop they show won't be that. They will purposely gimp the SDR side so the HDR side stands out.

You cannot go by store displays bud . I based my review of HDR based on watching actual movies at my own home with a properly calibrated set . Prior to this TV I had a top-of-the-line Panasonic plasma 1080 P calibrated perfectly and there's absolutely zero comparison. it blows my plasma away in every single aspect. And you can immediately noticed the difference across the board .

 

[Flynn]

I'm still worried about burn in on OLED's, there is no doubt that it does make for a beautiful viewing experience though. I think I'd wait another year or two just to see what improvements can be made to it and also just to get more feedback from people who already own them.

That's a valid concern. I've been working with a guy at "Video Only" for the last year and half, watching and testing out their display model of last year's LG OLED's.

This baby runs for hours and hours a day. We calibrated it in their 'show room', and made sure it wasn't set to the typical in-store show-room ridiculous brights/contrasts - but it was set how it should be set for optimal viewing. That TV's been used every day since then, running hours and hours of samples - some with logos that sit on the screen for a pretty long time.

Over a year now, and no burn-in.

Plus, some do offer an "anti-burn-in" feature which can help get rid of any trace burn-in. It's not perfect, but it helps.

Bottom line - if you calibrate it right, you'll probably never see burn in at all, especially if you are careful to not leave it on some static image for too long... but I get the concern. I've felt the same way... but I think LG has mostly dealt with that problem.

 

[Entreri804]

Very cool! Thanks. I'll use this article to help motivate me to write the check for a 4K TV, when the time comes.

I need those prices to come down, though. The ones Flynn is talking about run 4 or 5K. That's a lot of cash for some prettier videogames.

when you do purchase one and I cannot stress this enough make sure it supports both formats, Dolby vision , and HDR. It's hard to say which one will win the format war but you you'll be selling yourself short and taking a major gamble by not investing in a set that supports both . In my opinion doubly vision is the better of the two based off my own test watching the same movie (mad max)in both formats .