The 980 can at least, not sure about the others
I think this is good place to point out that UHD version of Fury Road is kinda terrible, as it's completely changes color pallette of the movie.
Top shot is HD bluray, bottom is UHD bluray tonemapped to SDR
This answer is 100% accurate.This is the problem right here.
The issue with SDR is that modern displays have capabilities which can far exceed the SDR spec in terms of brightness and color gamut.
Setting color space to "native" stretches out the film's BT.709 color to the display's native color space; i.e. as vivid and saturated as it can possibly make it, disregarding all color accuracy.
Since it's an HDR display, that means it can make things very vivid. Selecting the native color space option would not be nearly as vivid on a non-HDR display.
So you've taken content designed for a small color space and stretched it out to a much larger color space.
HDR on the other-hand is designed to use that large color space. It gives artists a larger palette to work with, rather than automatically making everything more vivid.
And in fact, the HDR color space is so large that none of the displays available today have full coverage. Your KS8500 has 63% coverage, and their QLED displays still only have 73% coverage.
HDR is about extending the range of brightness and saturation available.
Here's a good comparison of Mad Max: Fury Road on two properly calibrated displays:
Overall scene brightness is the same, and if anything, the HDR image is somewhat muted compared to the SDR image. However there is a lot more range.
The sky in the SDR image is flat and uniform because there's a limit on how bright things can get. In HDR, the sun and lens flare are very distinct against the sky due to the increased brightness range - and far more obvious in person.
The color of the sand is richer in HDR, rather than being more vivid, with deeper reds than you would get in SDR.
Now HDR content can get more vivid than SDR content is supposed to, but only where appropriate. It doesn't automatically make the picture more vivid than SDR.
Even if you wanted to, you don't have the option of oversaturating the image with HDR like you do with SDR.
Now it would appear that most manufacturers are giving people full control over picture settings in newer HDR displays, which really goes against a lot of what the spec intended to fix, so you are able to increase the color control to 100 and oversaturate the image that way.
But increasing the color control does not increase saturation the same way that increasing the color gamut does.
Increasing the color control will clip colors, so anything which is supposed to be bright and saturated loses all detail and turns into a solid mass of that color. Increasing saturation by expanding the color space does not do this.
It's a similar story with the backlight and dynamic contrast. SDR is intended to be viewed at 100 nits, but most displays can push that to 400 nits or higher. So you can push the brightness to 4x higher than intended.
The HDR spec for brightness is far beyond the capabilities of today's displays, so you don't have the option of using a display which is 4x brighter than the content is designed for.
Since you can't push the brightness as high, you can end up with SDR content that is much brighter on average than HDR content.
It's completely inaccurate and not how it is meant to look at all, but the option is there.
So if you're looking for the brightest, most saturated, and most vivid picture that you can get, you probably want to stick to SDR sources on an HDR display.
Only an HDR display will let you push these things to ludicrous levels without running into issues like clipping, so you are still getting value out of having an HDR display. It's just not what was intended.
No, the 43in is a 10-bit VA panel with a very wide color gamut. It's main issues are sub-1k nit peak brightness and no local dimming.
This is true. However,it was useful to post as OP SDR images were mega-oversaturated. The truth then came out that he prefers color at 100.
Lol the truth? Do you know how to read? Read the same sentence again. This time try to read the whole thing.
OMG. This did it. Setting Color to 100 brought back all the colors and now it has this great reddish hue i saw in the hdr test comparison. i cannot believe that worked. there is definitely something wrong with my tv because even a tv noob like me knows you cannot set color to 100. Maybe i will bring the color down to 75 or something because i can tell i am losing detail but i am so shocked to see the color come back.
vs. what i had before at color 50.
This is very informative. Do you have a suggestion for settings on the PS4 and Xbox one X so hdr looks correct?This is the problem right here.
The issue with SDR is that modern displays have capabilities which can far exceed the SDR spec in terms of brightness and color gamut.
Setting color space to "native" stretches out the film's BT.709 color to the display's native color space; i.e. as vivid and saturated as it can possibly make it, disregarding all color accuracy.
Since it's an HDR display, that means it can make things very vivid. Selecting the native color space option would not be nearly as vivid on a non-HDR display.
So you've taken content designed for a small color space and stretched it out to a much larger color space.
HDR on the other-hand is designed to use that large color space. It gives artists a larger palette to work with, rather than automatically making everything more vivid.
And in fact, the HDR color space is so large that none of the displays available today have full coverage. Your KS8500 has 63% coverage, and their QLED displays still only have 73% coverage.
HDR is about extending the range of brightness and saturation available.
Here's a good comparison of Mad Max: Fury Road on two properly calibrated displays:
Overall scene brightness is the same, and if anything, the HDR image is somewhat muted compared to the SDR image. However there is a lot more range.
The sky in the SDR image is flat and uniform because there's a limit on how bright things can get. In HDR, the sun and lens flare are very distinct against the sky due to the increased brightness range - and far more obvious in person.
The color of the sand is richer in HDR, rather than being more vivid, with deeper reds than you would get in SDR.
Now HDR content can get more vivid than SDR content is supposed to, but only where appropriate. It doesn't automatically make the picture more vivid than SDR.
Even if you wanted to, you don't have the option of oversaturating the image with HDR like you do with SDR.
Now it would appear that most manufacturers are giving people full control over picture settings in newer HDR displays, which really goes against a lot of what the spec intended to fix, so you are able to increase the color control to 100 and oversaturate the image that way.
But increasing the color control does not increase saturation the same way that increasing the color gamut does.
Increasing the color control will clip colors, so anything which is supposed to be bright and saturated loses all detail and turns into a solid mass of that color. Increasing saturation by expanding the color space does not do this.
It's a similar story with the backlight and dynamic contrast. SDR is intended to be viewed at 100 nits, but most displays can push that to 400 nits or higher. So you can push the brightness to 4x higher than intended.
The HDR spec for brightness is far beyond the capabilities of today's displays, so you don't have the option of using a display which is 4x brighter than the content is designed for.
Since you can't push the brightness as high, you can end up with SDR content that is much brighter on average than HDR content.
It's completely inaccurate and not how it is meant to look at all, but the option is there.
So if you're looking for the brightest, most saturated, and most vivid picture that you can get, you probably want to stick to SDR sources on an HDR display.
Only an HDR display will let you push these things to ludicrous levels without running into issues like clipping, so you are still getting value out of having an HDR display. It's just not what was intended.
I strongly disagree. HDR is the reason I kept my 4K TV after taking one for a test run. 4K was nice, but HDR was the feature that made me feel I could never go back to my old TV. For gaming in particular, HDR performance should be the main focus of any new TV purchase.
I apologize. It was a joke at your expense. If you are interested, we can work on getting your monitor set up properly at little or no cost - unless you prefer the saturated look.
OMG. This did it. Setting Color to 100 brought back all the colors and now it has this great reddish hue i saw in the hdr test comparison.
It already does? HDR is just higher gamut displays.
HDR doesn't have 'a' standard. There's HDR10, HDR10+, Dolby Vision, HLG, and probably more.
That's not really the case at all.
High DYNAMIC not, DEFINITION. Luminosity, not colour, or fidelity.
In general, you should always leave any post-processing off. The contrast should be as good as it can get if calibrated correctly. However, if you want a bit of 'pop!' I'd say leave it on Low. It's really up to you but anything higher than Low is going to cause a bunch of issues (crushed blacks/loss of detail, for starters) that make the scenes look much less natural. I personally calibrate my display to look like a film or as close to as the director or whoever is in charge of the final mix. If it's for games, I completely understand leaving Dynamic Contrast on anything other than Off; it helps to make things feel more 3D and crisp.
I have a KS8000 UK model, which is the KS9000 in the US, I believe. Are there any good/trusted sites that can be used for best settings? I used Rtings, but the image doesn't pop as much as I'd want or expect it to with HDR.
For gaming, hell yeah. This is a gaming forum but not everyone buys TVs to game on. I don't care about the ms or hz because I only use mine to watch film. It is great to have the option to disable all frills and end up with an incredible response time. Options, options, options! The more, the merrier.
Yeah. I gotchu. Just give me a moment.
The biggest improvement for me is seeing the range of colors and illumination that were present in the theater. While theatrical presentations are 12-bit and UHD only 10-bit, it's a hell of a lot closer to showing us the full range of color than the old 8-bit Blu-rays and DVDs are. Billions of color variations instead of millions. The key word there being "variations".
While HDR can display true colors beyond the ability of 8-bit TVs (brighter reds/greens/blues), it's really the range of colors (hence the name, HDR) that makes the biggest difference. Let's take an example of a scene shot at dusk:
Yes, this shot is at dusk... it's supposed to be dark as hell. This is what SDR does to movies... this shot is not supposed to look like this. But because it would look washed out, too dark, and with almost no remaining detail, they have no choice for the home release but to fuck with the levels and crank it up to the point where it's visible on an 8-bit display. It's something I came to call the "home video look" when comparing how things looked in theaters versus what they look like on DVD and Blu-ray. It just looks too artificial. Even in a scene like this, where I'm pretty sure they just used the natural light at the location, it ends up looking like it's been lit in a studio.
Now, bear in mind that what I'm posting below is still an SDR image that I tweaked in Photoshop, but the scene is actually supposed to look more like this:
But, with HDR, you'd still be able to make out of all of the detail that's present in the original, you don't get any of the black crush that you see here in SDR. That's why they have to adjust it the way they do. This looks artificially dark because it's SDR, but in HDR, it just looks natural... it looks like they just shot the scene right after sunset when it's starting to get dark (which is exactly what they did).
Way too many movies that I've seen, with shots at dawn/dusk/nighttime, where a scene is supposed to be dark and gloomy, where I've said to myself in the theater that it's too bad the home video is going to lose all that, and confirmed when I get it home and those dim and gloomy shots don't look right. But with UHD and HDR, they do. And it's so nice to have that back on home video, that's been missing for so long that people didn't even realize it was gone.
That's the biggest improvement in HDR for me. It's not about vibrant colors, brighter whites, or darker blacks... it's about getting the natural lighting back that 8-bit home video has stolen from us for the last twenty years.
There isn't an argument. It's not an opinion. HDR refers to luminosity, and there is no standard, as the poster you attempted to correct stated.
HDR10 is pretty standard. HDR10+ will soon be out and will be a firmware update. But if you wanna be future proof, you probably wanna wait for the next hdmi spec next year that has built in freesync.
That's what the manufacturers were trying to do with 'Ultra HD Premium', roll 4k, HDR, and WCG into a single term, but it's a mouthful.
I think the problem was that only LG and Samsung really used that badge. Its a pretty silly badge too when Samsung has Ultra HD premium while they call their weak HDR displays something like 'HDR Pro.'
