When looking at a new tv is Dolby Vision a must have? Sometimes I think it looks great and sometimes I think it looks too dark or I think it looks worse than HDR10. I am going to pull the trigger on a new tv this black Friday most likely. I keep hearing great things about the Samsung S95B, it's a QD OLED that has really dropped in price but no Dolby Vision. I like the LG G2 because it has a heat sink but I want a 65" and during my research they seem to have a pink tint on the sides during bright scenes, I can't handle that. The Sony A95K seems awesome and has Dolby Vision and a heatsink but is like $1500 more than the Samsung and doesn't get as bright. The LG C2 is slightly cheaper than the Samsung but is not near the tv when I see the comparisons. The A95K is rated the best but for the price difference I can get a real nice Dolby Atmos system to go with the Samsung. So school me on if Dolby Vision is a must have.
Dolby Vision and HDR10 is mostly a scam unless your TV has the necessary brightness to actually drive the dynamic range advertised - otherwise it just looks like fake colors and grey lighting. There's not much difference between the two systems and it really depends on how the content you are viewing was originally filmed.
HDR is not any good unless your TV can drive at least 1000+ nits of HDR brightness (not SDR brightness) This is made better by having real blacks for the other end of the dynamic range and there's where OLED comes into play or something with full local dimming.
HDR10 is going to have way more content available for maximum compatibility since it's a free standard and doesn't have to be licensed unlike Dolby Vision. I've yet to see anything that makes me care about either.
The short answer is no, I don't think Dolby Vision compatibility is a must have because like Betamax and HD-DVD, it's of higher technical merit yet it's one of those standards that is not highly adopted and you are always going to be relegated to whatever your content can provide.
Last edited by Hack&Lube; 09-26-2022 at 10:48 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hack&Lube For This Useful Post:
Dolby Vision and HDR10 is mostly a scam unless your TV has the necessary brightness to actually drive the dynamic range advertised - otherwise it just looks like fake colors and grey lighting. There's not much difference between the two systems and it really depends on how the content you are viewing was originally filmed.
HDR is not any good unless your TV can drive at least 1000+ nits of HDR brightness (not SDR brightness) This is made better by having real blacks for the other end of the dynamic range and there's where OLED comes into play or something with full local dimming.
HDR10 is going to have way more content available for maximum compatibility since it's a free standard and doesn't have to be licensed unlike Dolby Vision. I've yet to see anything that makes me care about either.
The short answer is no, I don't think Dolby Vision compatibility is a must have because like Betamax and HD-DVD, it's of higher technical merit yet it's one of those standards that is not highly adopted and you are always going to be relegated to whatever your content can provide.
While most of this post is correct, Dolby Vision has massive adoption. Netflix, AppleTV and Disney+ use Dolby Vision to drive their HDR content, with all services using HDR10 as the fallback for unsupported displays.
On OLED and Quantum Dot (QLED) TVs, Dolby Vision tends to have slightly better HDR depth than HDR10, but the difference is mostly negligible.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
For any HDR TV you look at buying, check the RTINGS.com guide on it. The Samsung S95B only hits 1,000 nits of peak brightness in the 2% and 10% windows, and sustained 1,000 nits in the 2% and 10% windows, which isn't very much. The brightness drops off very dramatically outside of those. The Sony A95K never hits 1,000 nits, nor does the LG G2.
This is the reality of OLED. Amazing colour reproduction, the blackest of blacks, but they do not have the brightness of a VA panel so HDR is nowhere near as impressive as it should be.
My Samsung Neo QLED (QN85A but it's the 85" so it's the QN90A's VA panel) will hit well beyond 1,200 nits for all but the 100% peak and sustained windows. The last TV I bought before that was the KS8500, which also had really good peak brightness in HDR, though the tech was quite new, so sustained was never greater than ~540 nits.
My take is that HDR10 is awesome (and good enough, frankly). I haven't seen anything that makes me think Dolby Vision is worth the extra money it costs to get a TV capable of reproducing it faithfully.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
Dolby Vision and HDR10+ are very similar, HDR10 however i notice is not near as good on my particular TV's. For example HDR10 uses the same tone mapping and brightness for the entire content. Dolby Vision adjusts by scene's so that is a huge plus for movies that have varying outdoor to indoor scene's. You will notice this greatly in a movie that has bright outdoors and then dark indoors as the dark indoors will appear washed out and too bright.
But like mentioned above by Torque, Dolby vision just to have Dolby vision means nothing if the TV has terrible brightness and a crap panel.
__________________
PSN: Diemenz
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Diemenz For This Useful Post:
This video was helpful for me. It's about Blu-ray players but they go into detail about the various HDR standards and the importance of the source material.
The Following User Says Thank You to Burninator For This Useful Post:
I hate HDR, Dolby or otherwise. I think it’s a fad similar to 3D and will quietly fade away.
When we master a HDR show it is always done in Dolby and then a basic trim pass for HDR10 and then sometimes not even that. There are flags in the signal to turn on Dolby or HDR10 so sometimes we just pass it through monitors to see how it looks and say good enough.
We also master at 1000nits full field which most if not all consumer monitors cannot handle. Most are in the 600 range at 20%. You might get lucky and get 800 nits. I think you are better off just getting the best panel and HDR be damned. For my money nothing beats the LG OLED line. Nothing comes closer to representing a true image. CRT was the best but that tech is long gone.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Galakanokis For This Useful Post:
I hate HDR, Dolby or otherwise. I think it’s a fad similar to 3D and will quietly fade away.
When we master a HDR show it is always done in Dolby and then a basic trim pass for HDR10 and then sometimes not even that. There are flags in the signal to turn on Dolby or HDR10 so sometimes we just pass it through monitors to see how it looks and say good enough.
We also master at 1000nits full field which most if not all consumer monitors cannot handle. Most are in the 600 range at 20%. You might get lucky and get 800 nits. I think you are better off just getting the best panel and HDR be damned. For my money nothing beats the LG OLED line. Nothing comes closer to representing a true image. CRT was the best but that tech is long gone.
And I should have mentioned that I say this as a twice certified Dolby Vision tech. It's all bul####. They change the standard to match low end TVs constantly which I think is stupid.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Galakanokis For This Useful Post:
I hate HDR, Dolby or otherwise. I think it’s a fad similar to 3D and will quietly fade away.
Lowest Common Denominator decisions aside, I don't think this will happen.
Anything that's "built-in" is unlikely to fade away (and we're even seeing greater adoption for Atmos, which takes considerably more gear and effort than Vision). 3D died because no one wants to wear stupid glasses at home while they talk to their family or get up to take a piss or check their phone. 3D literally got in the way of what makes watching a movie/TV at home enjoyable.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
3D did have one killer feature, but sadly only worked on passive 3D TVs: if you wore a set of glasses with two left lenses and your buddy wore a set of glasses with two right lenses, and you set a split-screen game to manual top-and-bottom 3D mode, you could both play in full screen. No more screen-hacking.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
The Following User Says Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
Lowest Common Denominator decisions aside, I don't think this will happen.
Anything that's "built-in" is unlikely to fade away (and we're even seeing greater adoption for Atmos, which takes considerably more gear and effort than Vision). 3D died because no one wants to wear stupid glasses at home while they talk to their family or get up to take a piss or check their phone. 3D literally got in the way of what makes watching a movie/TV at home enjoyable.
I can see the licensing costs being an issue moving forward. The Dolby license to master movies is not cheap and that has to perpetuate on down the line with every piece of gear to the home TV. We are debating it here as HDR may end up being more of a big feature thing just due to costs.
Not helpful at all, but I can’t stop myself from mentioning that the OP asked if he should get a TV with DolbyVision, and some of the replies are saying no because DolbyVision only works if you have a TV with DolbyVision.
The Following User Says Thank You to FanIn80 For This Useful Post:
Not helpful at all, but I can’t stop myself from mentioning that the OP asked if he should get a TV with DolbyVision, and some of the replies are saying no because DolbyVision only works if you have a TV with DolbyVision.
Not exactly, those replies are saying "even TVs with Dolby Vision don't meet what the Dolby Vision spec actually calls for which makes it little more than a gimmick unless you're spending top-tier money on a set".
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
The Following User Says Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
Not exactly, those replies are saying "even TVs with Dolby Vision don't meet what the Dolby Vision spec actually calls for which makes it little more than a gimmick unless you're spending top-tier money on a set".
Thanks, I see what you (and they) mean now. Wild. So it’s kinda like there’s a “minimum requirements” for DolbyVision certification? Kinda like with PC gaming, where just because you meet the minimum requirements for running a game, it doesn’t mean you’ll be able to play it or enjoy all the features etc?
This probably sounds ridiculous, but I always thought of certifications like DolbyVision as being a hard set of reqs. Like, “DolbyVision looks like X, and we require Y for that to happen.” Today I’ve learned that it’s more like, “DolbyVision can look like somewhere between A and D, and we require at minimum X, but recommend from Y to at least Z”
The Following User Says Thank You to FanIn80 For This Useful Post:
Thanks for the responses guys. Looks like Google is now going to push their own version of Dolby Vision and Atmos using Samsung's HDR10+ for the HDR part. Unlike Dolby Vision it will be free to use for all developers. https://www.sammobile.com/news/googl...ng-hdr10-plus/
Thanks, I see what you (and they) mean now. Wild. So it’s kinda like there’s a “minimum requirements” for DolbyVision certification? Kinda like with PC gaming, where just because you meet the minimum requirements for running a game, it doesn’t mean you’ll be able to play it or enjoy all the features etc?
This probably sounds ridiculous, but I always thought of certifications like DolbyVision as being a hard set of reqs. Like, “DolbyVision looks like X, and we require Y for that to happen.” Today I’ve learned that it’s more like, “DolbyVision can look like somewhere between A and D, and we require at minimum X, but recommend from Y to at least Z”
That's not ridiculous; that's what it was originally intended to be. All these 'standards' were.
Something saying it supported HDR meant a minimum brightness of 1,000 nits, but somewhere along the way that got bastardized too. So now there's DisplayHDR 400 (what my gaming monitor has), DisplayHDR 600, and HDR1000, etc. Then there's HDR (1,000+ nits) and HDR10+ (up to 4,000 nits -- of which no TV is actually capable of hitting yet).
All of these standards were supposed to make it easy for consumers to understand the performance expectations of what they were getting, but in reality it has just become another way to hoodwink consumers by making it confusing and difficult for anyone who isn't diving into technical reviews to get what they think they're paying for. Dolby Vision on a mid-tier TV and Dolby Vision on a top-tier TV are going to be wildly different experiences, as HDR on a mid versus top-tier TV will also be very different. And the performance of the lower and mid-tier displays hasn't actually been getting a whole lot better year-over-year, either. Hell, some even got worse -- just look at how Samsung watered down their 8-Series TVs after the KS8x00 was 'too good' and cannibalized the KS9x00's sales.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
Is Dolby Vision a must have for you?
No more screen-hacking.
