I really don't know enough, but I thought that when it was done right, HDR was supposed to be really good...isn't this article about "fake" or poorly done HDR?
Correct. They risk creating doubt in the product. It could fall apart like SACD. Once TV's can have the same DR as a film projector, we won't need this kind of technology.
Probably only true if you have e a real theatre digital projector. TV's still have limited dynamic range, but HDR is a much better way of controlling the peak brightness and ensure the highlights are not blown out and still have amazing shadow detail. But what the TV can do has to rely on good HDR mapping.
I don’t really know what you’re trying to say. Hdr isn’t really about dynamic range at all, it’s all about extending the peak luminance things are mastered and displayed at. Whereas for SDR content TVs/projectors are supposed to be somewhere around 100-200 nits at peak white, in hdr that goes much higher. Projectors can’t hit peak brightness numbers like TVs can at all, even the newest laser ones.
But where real dynamic range comes from is deep blacks which only OLED and plasma can do. Film projectors have not the best blacks, and neither do the typical modern theater digital projectors. Some of the newest laser ones do ok though.
One last comment, home projectors can do a lot better with blacks, cause they can use lcos tech to get there and dynamic irises. But they still don’t get very bright as compared to a high end hdr lcd or even an OLED. This where all the tonemapping comes in to get the mastered dynamic range down to what the display can support
Read these "rules" AND introduce
yourself before your first post
Being true to what the artists intended
(opinion / entertainment piece)
Comments on Profile Post by Azimuth