Axelpowa
Miembro habitual
- Mensajes
- 394
- Reacciones
- 350
Si, en Rango completo 0-255 y luego en madvr a 16-235 y en el J elijo Estandar. Esto ya cada cual como mejor lo vea.
Saludos!
HDR 4K: EN TV vs PROYECTOR
- Autor calibrador
- Fecha de inicio
-
- Etiquetas
- dolby vision hdr uhd
Si, en Rango completo 0-255 y luego en madvr a 16-235 y en el J elijo Estandar. Esto ya cada cual como mejor lo vea.
Saludos!
A punto de hacer 10 años y con segunda lámpara. Tuvo una avería en el ¿balasto? a los 6 años, lo mandé a reparar y perfecto.Yo aquí con los dólares en la mano queriendo dar el salto del Infocus in83 y no hay manera
¿Pero ese proyector todavía funciona? Pues creo que te ibas a llevar una más que notable desilusión, pero a gustos, colores.
Ah, sufrió también una caída de 2 metros al suelo ENCENDIDO y no le pasó nada ni a la lámpara.
calibrador
Borinot sense trellat
A punto de hacer 10 años y con segunda lámpara. Tuvo una avería en el ¿balasto? a los 6 años, lo mandé a reparar y perfecto.Yo aquí con los dólares en la mano queriendo dar el salto del Infocus in83 y no hay manera
¿Pero ese proyector todavía funciona? Pues creo que te ibas a llevar una más que notable desilusión, pero a gustos, colores.
Ah, sufrió también una caída de 2 metros al suelo ENCENDIDO y no le pasó nada ni a la lámpara.
Madre mía, ese Infocus es incombustible además de tener más vidas que un gato, aunque mucho me temo que no deberá quedarle mucho más recorrido, así que dentro de poco te veo inmerso en la pesadilla que supone el HDR10 para vídeo proyección.
Por cierto, muy buenos estos últimos aportes del bueno de axelpowa
- Mensajes
- 30.199
- Reacciones
- 15.442
@Axelpowa Pues colega con estos ajustes con la nueva versión ahora sí que se está un paso adelante con respecto a lo que había visto ahora en conversiones.
¿Más o menos los ajustes son así verdad?
Ahora sí que consigo un color potente y un "efecto" HDR similar a las gammas de Arve. Esto tiene muy buena pinta!
¿Más o menos los ajustes son así verdad?
Ahora sí que consigo un color potente y un "efecto" HDR similar a las gammas de Arve. Esto tiene muy buena pinta!
Axelpowa
Miembro habitual
- Mensajes
- 394
- Reacciones
- 350
@Axelpowa Pues colega con estos ajustes con la nueva versión ahora sí que se está un paso adelante con respecto a lo que había visto ahora en conversiones.
¿Más o menos los ajustes son así verdad?
Ahora sí que consigo un color potente y un "efecto" HDR similar a las gammas de Arve. Esto tiene muy buena pinta!
Si, yo tengo exactamente esos ajustes, solo que en difuse white a 23.
Realmente es ir ajustando a tu gusto y dejarlo con un valor que valga para todo.
Me alegro de que te guste! Poco a poco lo iran mejorando pero esta versión ya está muy bien en mi opinión.
Saludos!
- Mensajes
- 30.199
- Reacciones
- 15.442
Recuerda ir poniendo novedades por aquí, te lo agradezco un montón.
Un saludo!
Un saludo!
calibrador
Borinot sense trellat
Uno de los mejores ejemplo, y de más fácil entendimiento que he encontrado respecto al tema HDR10 en TV y proyectores, es el siguiente:
...Con EOTF para HDR, es más fácil. Bueno, no es exactamente fácil, pero sí que es mejor de lo que era. En la etapa de masterización, los creadores de contenido pueden decir "OK, quiero que la parte más brillante de mi programa sea a 1.000 nits". Eso se refiere al momento visual más brillante, como podría ser el destello de una ventana o la luz de una linterna en la oscuridad. Luego, el equipo de masterización realizará el resto de los niveles de brillo en torno a eso, o sea, esta sombra será de 50 nits, ese cielo nublado de 600 nits, y así sucesivamente...
Cuando reproduzca este contenido en su casa, su televisor producirá el brillo físico exacto que vieron los creadores del contenido cuando crearon la película o programa. El resultado debería proporcionarle una representación visual mucho más precisa.
Esa es la idea, aunque no es tan simple como parece debido en gran parte a que no todos los televisores pueden llegar aproducir esos 1.000 nits, y además, en algunos casos se habría de llegar hasta los 4.000 requeridos por el contenido. Si un televisor no puede producir la cantidad de luz requerida, volverá a mapearlo (comprimiendo, esencialmente) o lo recortará por completo (clipping). Para decirlo de otra manera, el televisor actuaría como si fuera una puerta bajita, y cualquier persona más alta que pretendiera cruzarla sería aplastada para poder pasar a través de ella, o simplemente se les cortaría la cabeza. Ninguno de los dos procesos es bueno, ya que ambos son son de consecuencias en la imagen permanentes.
EJEMPLO:
Observe cómo hay tres luces individuales en la imagen de la parte izquierda de la foto de arriba, pero una sola mancha de luz en la de la derecha (1mapeo vs 2clipping). Este es un ejemplo de los diferentes enfoques para el procesamiento de señales HDR. Ninguno de los dos proyectores puede producir los NITS requeridos, pero la imagen de la izquierda le muestra todos los detalles de las altas luces mientras sacrifica el brillo de la imagen. El otro enfoque lo que hace es recortar los detalles, corta de manera efectiva pero creando un punto culminante más brillante que en la imagen 1
Aunque no sea perfecta, la EOTF para HDR es una manera mejor de producir contenidos para televisores...
La imagen de arriba, con los dos proyectores uno al lado del otro, es un buen ejemplo. Ninguno de los dos puede producir completamente el brillo requerido del contenido HDR, pero uno está haciendo un trabajo mucho mejor, engañándote y haciéndote creer que puede hacerlo.
Here's why shades of gray mean so much to TV image quality
...Con EOTF para HDR, es más fácil. Bueno, no es exactamente fácil, pero sí que es mejor de lo que era. En la etapa de masterización, los creadores de contenido pueden decir "OK, quiero que la parte más brillante de mi programa sea a 1.000 nits". Eso se refiere al momento visual más brillante, como podría ser el destello de una ventana o la luz de una linterna en la oscuridad. Luego, el equipo de masterización realizará el resto de los niveles de brillo en torno a eso, o sea, esta sombra será de 50 nits, ese cielo nublado de 600 nits, y así sucesivamente...
Cuando reproduzca este contenido en su casa, su televisor producirá el brillo físico exacto que vieron los creadores del contenido cuando crearon la película o programa. El resultado debería proporcionarle una representación visual mucho más precisa.
Esa es la idea, aunque no es tan simple como parece debido en gran parte a que no todos los televisores pueden llegar aproducir esos 1.000 nits, y además, en algunos casos se habría de llegar hasta los 4.000 requeridos por el contenido. Si un televisor no puede producir la cantidad de luz requerida, volverá a mapearlo (comprimiendo, esencialmente) o lo recortará por completo (clipping). Para decirlo de otra manera, el televisor actuaría como si fuera una puerta bajita, y cualquier persona más alta que pretendiera cruzarla sería aplastada para poder pasar a través de ella, o simplemente se les cortaría la cabeza. Ninguno de los dos procesos es bueno, ya que ambos son son de consecuencias en la imagen permanentes.
EJEMPLO:
Observe cómo hay tres luces individuales en la imagen de la parte izquierda de la foto de arriba, pero una sola mancha de luz en la de la derecha (1mapeo vs 2clipping). Este es un ejemplo de los diferentes enfoques para el procesamiento de señales HDR. Ninguno de los dos proyectores puede producir los NITS requeridos, pero la imagen de la izquierda le muestra todos los detalles de las altas luces mientras sacrifica el brillo de la imagen. El otro enfoque lo que hace es recortar los detalles, corta de manera efectiva pero creando un punto culminante más brillante que en la imagen 1
Aunque no sea perfecta, la EOTF para HDR es una manera mejor de producir contenidos para televisores...
La imagen de arriba, con los dos proyectores uno al lado del otro, es un buen ejemplo. Ninguno de los dos puede producir completamente el brillo requerido del contenido HDR, pero uno está haciendo un trabajo mucho mejor, engañándote y haciéndote creer que puede hacerlo.
Here's why shades of gray mean so much to TV image quality
calibrador
Borinot sense trellat
UNEXPECTED
- Mensajes
- 30.199
- Reacciones
- 15.442
Sinceramente parece un movimiento facilón para vender algo cómodo sobre una plataforma y chip que montan otras marcas que por cierto está siendo duramente criticado por muchos usuarios.
El 4K vende, pero yo creo que así no.
El 4K vende, pero yo creo que así no.
Por lo que hablan del chip de 0.47" es un DLP flojillo, no aporta nada ( o casi) en HDR en comparación con 1080p y encima tienen un "marco" de luz bastante acusado (y no se puede arreglar al parecer) alrededor de la imagen:
Muy bien lo tienen que hacer para vender a 2500 € (más o menos), el Benq w1700 está por 1500 € y hay DLP con chip 0.66" por unos 2.000 € o incluso algo menos.
Muy bien lo tienen que hacer para vender a 2500 € (más o menos), el Benq w1700 está por 1500 € y hay DLP con chip 0.66" por unos 2.000 € o incluso algo menos.
calibrador
Borinot sense trellat
Este excelente artículo ha sido recientemente publicado (02/04/2018) por GEOFF, alguien de total confianza y que habla largo y tendido sobre el "HDR" en proyectores de todas las tecnologías.
Why you shouldn't expect great HDR from a projector
(Por qué no debes esperar un buen HDR en un proyector)
High dynamic range is the latest tech trend in the TV world, with its brighter highlights and lavish colors. It produces a more dramatic improvement in image quality than 4K resolution, especially on a high-end TV. But if you consider TVs too small and prefer the huge images produced by projectors, I have some bad news.
A bunch of new 4K projectors are touting HDR compatibility too, but they've got issues. Limited brightness, the impossibility of local dimming, low contrast ratios, and often, limited color reproduction, largely means that HDR on projectors won't look nearly as good as it does on TVs. It's often barely HDR at all, and on some projectors, for example the Optoma UHD60 and BenQ HT2550 recently reviewed by CNET, it actually looks worse than the standard dynamic range (SDR) TV shows and movies that have been available for years.
Here's why.
Projectors have limited dynamic range:
Since HDR stands for high dynamic range, an HDR display needs, well, high dynamic range. This is easy for certain technologies, like OLED, which has a near-infinite contrast ratio and lots of brightness. It's also a cinch for many LCDs with local dimming, which gives them a better contrast ratio and therefore a wider dynamic range.
It's a lot tougher for projectors.
All projectors use one of three technologies: DLP, LCD, and LCOS. LCoS, available in projectors made by Sony and JVC, has the best contrast ratio of any of the projector techs, but even it falls far short of what OLED and local dimming LCDs can do. DLP and LCD, which together make up the bulk of the home projector market, don't have anything close to the contrast ratio of even D-ILA. Lacking the area-dimming contrast ratio enhancement of local dimming of LCD TVs, there just isn't the dynamic range available to make any use of HDR content.
That's because the light source -- a lamp, or in some projectors, a laser-- shines light on the entirety of the tiny image chip(s). The only way to dim the light is to dim the entire image. That's true even on projectors with irises.
In other words, with a projector it's not possible to dim specific pixels (as it is with OLED) or even larger areas of the image (like LCD local dimming). So a section of the image can only be as bright or dark as the image chip can make it, and in all projectors, that's far less than what flat panel TVs can do.
Casio's laser/LED/phosphor hybrid light system in a DLP projector. A traditional lamp-based DLP would have a single "light bulb" and a color wheel to supply the colors. Regardless, there's no way to adjust the brightness on a per-pixel level beyond what the DLP chip can do, only the entire image at once.
Another big issue: brightness. HDR video tells a display to create specific, actual brightness levels. The sun's reflection off a chrome bumper might be 1,000 nits, for example. No home projector has anywhere close to 1,000 nits. The HDR content is effectively a drill sergeant screaming "Jump 10 feet in the air!" at a little fluffy bunny. That bunny may have hops, but it's not getting 10 feet in the air. Well, unless you throw it. Don't throw bunnies. Or projectors.
We'll get to what happens when you try to display HDR on a projector in the "Mapping" section below.
Color:
In addition to dynamic range, HDR also allows a wide color gamut, or WCG. This is a more solvable problem, but it's still an issue. When you increase how deep you can make colors, the amount of light you're able to produce drops. WCG means much deeper colors, which means a dimmer projector. In the projector business, light output is everything. In many cases, projectors are bought or not based on their lumen ratings (brightness) alone. That is a really bad idea in general, but that's a different topic.
Eventually we'll see new light sources for projectors, like laser, and laser/phosphor hybrids, hit the mainstream market with acceptable brightness levels. Maybe even enough for WCG. But right now these techs are either dim, expensive or inaccurate. The projector market moves way slower than the TV market, so it might be a while before we see $1,000 projectors with laser light sources and full-gamut WCG. This is far more likely to happen than some new technology that gives projectors the contrast ratios of OLED and local-dimming LCDs, however. which isn't even on the horizon.
The Optoma UHD60 is compatible with HDR, but HDR actually looks worse on it than standard dynamic range.
Mapping:
No, I'm not talking about cartography. Matching the source material to the display's capabilities, a process called mapping, is more esoteric than color and dynamic range. But it could be the most crucial aspect to good-looking HDR on any display.
As mentioned above, HDR video works a bit differently than traditional video. To oversimplify a bit, HDR video tells a display to create a certain, actual level of brightness. Traditional video doesn't do this. Traditional video just tells your TV "create 80 percent of your max brightness." With HDR, it's "create 1,000 nits."
The problem is that most displays can't reproduce all the brightness required by the most-demanding HDR content. So they "map" the video to what they can produce. For example, the content may say "create 1,000 nits" but the TV can only do 500 nits. What does it do with the other 500 nits?
This is where it gets dicey. The TV or projector is basically guessing what works. So the image could be too dark, or more likely, the bright highlights, like details in clouds for example, will be blown out blobs.
Two projector images, side by side. Notice how there are three individual lights in the left image, but a single blob of light on the right. Neither projector can produce all the light required by the content, but the left projector is more accurately mapping what's in the content so you can see it.
Since no projector is capable of the brightness potential of even a midrange TV, this tone mapping becomes all the more crucial. If it's done right, you probably won't notice anything is happening. Done wrong, and you could lose highlights, color saturation and so on. Or to put it another way, the projector could look worseshowing HDR content than regular content.
That's what CNET reviewer David Katzmaier saw when he reviewed the Optoma and BenQ projectors mentioned above.
Although BenQ claims HDR compatibility and the HT2550 can display an HDR image, it isn't the real thing. For Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, for example, the image looked relatively washed-out and lifeless, without the punch I expected. Colors appeared less saturated, and as a whole there just wasn't as much impact to the image [as with SDR]. The Optoma's HDR looked even worse in most scenes, for what it's worth, with blown-out highlights and an even flatter look.
The good news is this is something that could largely be fixed with a firmware update. Not "fixed so it looks like HDR" fixed, but "fixed so it doesn't look worse than SDR" fixed. That doesn't mean a projector manufacturer will offer such an update, however, so it's something to keep in mind when you're reading reviews.
High-ish dynamic range:
This shouldn't turn you off getting a projector. A 100-inch image, even without HDR, is a magnificent thing. I've been using a projector as my main TV for over 15 years, and while I think HDR, especially OLED HDR, looks absolutely incredible, not once have I considered downgrading to even a 77-inch TV.
Will projectors ever get "true" HDR? Well… I won't hold my breath. None of the current technologies, DLP, LCOS or LCD, are capable of the pinpoint brightness like OLED or even the "area brightness" like local dimming flat-panel LCDs. Without one of these two things, they just can't create the dynamic range that's required and implied by the very name HDR.
Wider color gamut is a challenge too, as the deeper you make the colors, the harder it is to create brightness. Since projectors aren't all that bright to begin with, most manufacturers aren't thrilled with the idea of making a dimmer projector just for deeper colors. That's not to say it can't or won't happen, it's certainly possible. It will just be harder to find in the lower price ranges where lumen specs still seem to sell above all.
Laser and LED light sources hold some promise that light output and colors will improve, but they're still a long way away from mainstream pricing (or acceptable brightness, take your pick). And even still, the contrast ratios will still be lacking, since it's the image chips themselves that in a large degree determine the contrast ratio.
But like I said, a massive image goes a long way into making you forget about any trendy abbreviations. This is just one aspect of performance, but it's important to keep in mind HDR's mediocre performance on projectors, since it's likely said compatibility will be touted in every piece of marketing you read.
At best HDR on an HDR-compatible projector will look a little better, typically as a result of wider color -- the Epson HC4000 is a good example. At worst, it will look at lot worse. The specs won't tell you which, though. Good thing there are reviews.
But then, you're probably used to being a step behind in the tech and trends department. After all, it was only recently 4K projectors became readily available at reasonable prices.
Why can't home projectors do good HDR?
Why you shouldn't expect great HDR from a projector
(Por qué no debes esperar un buen HDR en un proyector)
High dynamic range is the latest tech trend in the TV world, with its brighter highlights and lavish colors. It produces a more dramatic improvement in image quality than 4K resolution, especially on a high-end TV. But if you consider TVs too small and prefer the huge images produced by projectors, I have some bad news.
A bunch of new 4K projectors are touting HDR compatibility too, but they've got issues. Limited brightness, the impossibility of local dimming, low contrast ratios, and often, limited color reproduction, largely means that HDR on projectors won't look nearly as good as it does on TVs. It's often barely HDR at all, and on some projectors, for example the Optoma UHD60 and BenQ HT2550 recently reviewed by CNET, it actually looks worse than the standard dynamic range (SDR) TV shows and movies that have been available for years.
Here's why.
Projectors have limited dynamic range:
Since HDR stands for high dynamic range, an HDR display needs, well, high dynamic range. This is easy for certain technologies, like OLED, which has a near-infinite contrast ratio and lots of brightness. It's also a cinch for many LCDs with local dimming, which gives them a better contrast ratio and therefore a wider dynamic range.
It's a lot tougher for projectors.
All projectors use one of three technologies: DLP, LCD, and LCOS. LCoS, available in projectors made by Sony and JVC, has the best contrast ratio of any of the projector techs, but even it falls far short of what OLED and local dimming LCDs can do. DLP and LCD, which together make up the bulk of the home projector market, don't have anything close to the contrast ratio of even D-ILA. Lacking the area-dimming contrast ratio enhancement of local dimming of LCD TVs, there just isn't the dynamic range available to make any use of HDR content.
That's because the light source -- a lamp, or in some projectors, a laser-- shines light on the entirety of the tiny image chip(s). The only way to dim the light is to dim the entire image. That's true even on projectors with irises.
In other words, with a projector it's not possible to dim specific pixels (as it is with OLED) or even larger areas of the image (like LCD local dimming). So a section of the image can only be as bright or dark as the image chip can make it, and in all projectors, that's far less than what flat panel TVs can do.
Casio's laser/LED/phosphor hybrid light system in a DLP projector. A traditional lamp-based DLP would have a single "light bulb" and a color wheel to supply the colors. Regardless, there's no way to adjust the brightness on a per-pixel level beyond what the DLP chip can do, only the entire image at once.
Another big issue: brightness. HDR video tells a display to create specific, actual brightness levels. The sun's reflection off a chrome bumper might be 1,000 nits, for example. No home projector has anywhere close to 1,000 nits. The HDR content is effectively a drill sergeant screaming "Jump 10 feet in the air!" at a little fluffy bunny. That bunny may have hops, but it's not getting 10 feet in the air. Well, unless you throw it. Don't throw bunnies. Or projectors.
We'll get to what happens when you try to display HDR on a projector in the "Mapping" section below.
Color:
In addition to dynamic range, HDR also allows a wide color gamut, or WCG. This is a more solvable problem, but it's still an issue. When you increase how deep you can make colors, the amount of light you're able to produce drops. WCG means much deeper colors, which means a dimmer projector. In the projector business, light output is everything. In many cases, projectors are bought or not based on their lumen ratings (brightness) alone. That is a really bad idea in general, but that's a different topic.
Eventually we'll see new light sources for projectors, like laser, and laser/phosphor hybrids, hit the mainstream market with acceptable brightness levels. Maybe even enough for WCG. But right now these techs are either dim, expensive or inaccurate. The projector market moves way slower than the TV market, so it might be a while before we see $1,000 projectors with laser light sources and full-gamut WCG. This is far more likely to happen than some new technology that gives projectors the contrast ratios of OLED and local-dimming LCDs, however. which isn't even on the horizon.
The Optoma UHD60 is compatible with HDR, but HDR actually looks worse on it than standard dynamic range.
Mapping:
No, I'm not talking about cartography. Matching the source material to the display's capabilities, a process called mapping, is more esoteric than color and dynamic range. But it could be the most crucial aspect to good-looking HDR on any display.
As mentioned above, HDR video works a bit differently than traditional video. To oversimplify a bit, HDR video tells a display to create a certain, actual level of brightness. Traditional video doesn't do this. Traditional video just tells your TV "create 80 percent of your max brightness." With HDR, it's "create 1,000 nits."
The problem is that most displays can't reproduce all the brightness required by the most-demanding HDR content. So they "map" the video to what they can produce. For example, the content may say "create 1,000 nits" but the TV can only do 500 nits. What does it do with the other 500 nits?
This is where it gets dicey. The TV or projector is basically guessing what works. So the image could be too dark, or more likely, the bright highlights, like details in clouds for example, will be blown out blobs.
Two projector images, side by side. Notice how there are three individual lights in the left image, but a single blob of light on the right. Neither projector can produce all the light required by the content, but the left projector is more accurately mapping what's in the content so you can see it.
Since no projector is capable of the brightness potential of even a midrange TV, this tone mapping becomes all the more crucial. If it's done right, you probably won't notice anything is happening. Done wrong, and you could lose highlights, color saturation and so on. Or to put it another way, the projector could look worseshowing HDR content than regular content.
That's what CNET reviewer David Katzmaier saw when he reviewed the Optoma and BenQ projectors mentioned above.
Although BenQ claims HDR compatibility and the HT2550 can display an HDR image, it isn't the real thing. For Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, for example, the image looked relatively washed-out and lifeless, without the punch I expected. Colors appeared less saturated, and as a whole there just wasn't as much impact to the image [as with SDR]. The Optoma's HDR looked even worse in most scenes, for what it's worth, with blown-out highlights and an even flatter look.
The good news is this is something that could largely be fixed with a firmware update. Not "fixed so it looks like HDR" fixed, but "fixed so it doesn't look worse than SDR" fixed. That doesn't mean a projector manufacturer will offer such an update, however, so it's something to keep in mind when you're reading reviews.
High-ish dynamic range:
This shouldn't turn you off getting a projector. A 100-inch image, even without HDR, is a magnificent thing. I've been using a projector as my main TV for over 15 years, and while I think HDR, especially OLED HDR, looks absolutely incredible, not once have I considered downgrading to even a 77-inch TV.
Will projectors ever get "true" HDR? Well… I won't hold my breath. None of the current technologies, DLP, LCOS or LCD, are capable of the pinpoint brightness like OLED or even the "area brightness" like local dimming flat-panel LCDs. Without one of these two things, they just can't create the dynamic range that's required and implied by the very name HDR.
Wider color gamut is a challenge too, as the deeper you make the colors, the harder it is to create brightness. Since projectors aren't all that bright to begin with, most manufacturers aren't thrilled with the idea of making a dimmer projector just for deeper colors. That's not to say it can't or won't happen, it's certainly possible. It will just be harder to find in the lower price ranges where lumen specs still seem to sell above all.
Laser and LED light sources hold some promise that light output and colors will improve, but they're still a long way away from mainstream pricing (or acceptable brightness, take your pick). And even still, the contrast ratios will still be lacking, since it's the image chips themselves that in a large degree determine the contrast ratio.
But like I said, a massive image goes a long way into making you forget about any trendy abbreviations. This is just one aspect of performance, but it's important to keep in mind HDR's mediocre performance on projectors, since it's likely said compatibility will be touted in every piece of marketing you read.
At best HDR on an HDR-compatible projector will look a little better, typically as a result of wider color -- the Epson HC4000 is a good example. At worst, it will look at lot worse. The specs won't tell you which, though. Good thing there are reviews.
But then, you're probably used to being a step behind in the tech and trends department. After all, it was only recently 4K projectors became readily available at reasonable prices.
Why can't home projectors do good HDR?
- Mensajes
- 30.199
- Reacciones
- 15.442
Ni puta idea ese señor.
No menciona ni un sólo proyector de gama alta ni tiene la menor idea como manipular el HDR.
En fin, si necesitas reafirmar tu convencimiento lo entiendo. A mí no me impresiona ninguna tele por muchos nits que tengan. Será que soy raro de cojones. Lo más probable, supongo.
Un abrazo ronda.
No menciona ni un sólo proyector de gama alta ni tiene la menor idea como manipular el HDR.
En fin, si necesitas reafirmar tu convencimiento lo entiendo. A mí no me impresiona ninguna tele por muchos nits que tengan. Será que soy raro de cojones. Lo más probable, supongo.
Un abrazo ronda.
Última edición:
Efectivamente el artículo mezcla verdades y suposiciones. Pero lo peor es que no tiene en cuenta que una proyección de muchos menos nits se puede percibir por el ojo como idéntica en niveles lumínicos a la de un televisor por cuestiones de sala y tamaño.
Que proyección y televisión son dos animales diferentes está claro. Pero que haya una necesidad obligatoria de algún tipo de local dimming en proyección no me parece desde luego acertado.
Que proyección y televisión son dos animales diferentes está claro. Pero que haya una necesidad obligatoria de algún tipo de local dimming en proyección no me parece desde luego acertado.
calibrador
Borinot sense trellat
Yo creo que es algo que se tiene presente y que todo el mundo conoce. De hecho para SDR se recomienda calibrar las TVs a 100 nits y los proyectores a 48, atendiendo precisamente a esa premisa de que una proyección de muchos menos nits se puede percibir por el ojo como equivalente en niveles de brillo a la de un televisor. El problema, es lo que expone el artículo, que HDR exige mucho más rango dinámico y volumen de color que SDR.
- Mensajes
- 30.199
- Reacciones
- 15.442
Claro, pero lo que no sabe ese tipo es que hay soluciones para esas dificultades. Y no consisten en decir que los proyectores son KK.
Por lo tanto es un artículo lleno de desinformación y desidia.
Por lo tanto es un artículo lleno de desinformación y desidia.
calibrador
Borinot sense trellat
Bueno, de la solución mediante la conversión HDR > SDR/BT2020, no habla porque creo que él aborda el tema desde la única perspectiva de reproducir HDR tal cual, ya que al fin y al cabo a ti el fabricante te vende el proyector como producto HDR, y no te dice en ningún momento que previamente desde un reproductor específico vas a tener que lidiar con conversiones de HDR a SDR para ver los UHD correctamente.
Que podía haber enriquecido el artículo añadiendo que no todo es negro en este tema y que existe alguna que otra solución como la conversión a SDR, eso, yo, hasta te lo compro, así que, en parte, estamos de acuerdo...y es que hablando se entiende la gente
Que podía haber enriquecido el artículo añadiendo que no todo es negro en este tema y que existe alguna que otra solución como la conversión a SDR, eso, yo, hasta te lo compro, así que, en parte, estamos de acuerdo...y es que hablando se entiende la gente
Axelpowa
Miembro habitual
- Mensajes
- 394
- Reacciones
- 350
Si el problema no es que se necesite una conversión, el proyector por mucho que se diga que es hdr ya está mapeando internamente a sdr.
El problema venía por la incapacidad de los fabricantes para implementar una gamma adecuada que hiciera la conversión correctamente.
La última hornada de jvc ya parece que lo hace muy bien, los Epson con el último firmware parece que también, los optoma uhd51 eso he oído por lo que se va viendo ya mejores interpretaciones del hdr en proyección y los reproductores también están dando facilidades.
Saludos
El problema venía por la incapacidad de los fabricantes para implementar una gamma adecuada que hiciera la conversión correctamente.
La última hornada de jvc ya parece que lo hace muy bien, los Epson con el último firmware parece que también, los optoma uhd51 eso he oído por lo que se va viendo ya mejores interpretaciones del hdr en proyección y los reproductores también están dando facilidades.
Saludos
calibrador
Borinot sense trellat
Al menos la conversión a SDR que te hacen estos últimos, los reproductores, es hacia un estándar conocido que permite la calibración de la curva de gamma.
Pues caballeros, ayer vi una peli en sdr bt2020 y hoy la misma en hdr bt2020, (cosas de niños de 5 años), y me quedo con la conversión sdr, imagen mas natural, como menos digital, he notado que alivia el ruido digital o grano, y el efecto hdr de luces dinámicas lo hace también muy bien, y sin quemar nada, amen de que en mi caso (jvc x5000)le puedo meter el iris dinámico (en hdr no).
Sinceramente lo que me tiene enamorado del hdr es el color expandido,vengo de un Rs46 (x35), para mi lo que merece más la pena del 4k hdr.
Saludos.
Sinceramente lo que me tiene enamorado del hdr es el color expandido,vengo de un Rs46 (x35), para mi lo que merece más la pena del 4k hdr.
Saludos.
jvcayuela
Miembro habitual
- Mensajes
- 68
- Reacciones
- 25
Con que aparato lo probaste, ¿con el panasonic o el oppo?
calibrador
Borinot sense trellat
fuente
Hi,
The reality from current HDR calibration status is that having some correctly encoded patterns (or a reference external HDR pattern generator) is not capable to provide you the level of color fidelity you can have with SDR calibration. So even if you calibrate that HDR Grayscale, if you use different Metadata for the patterns (Mastering Metadata/Content medata settings also) it will affect final results, also calibrating perfectly that Grayscale; it doesn't guarantee to you an acceptable final result; if you start watching HDR movies the results will not reflect to your calibration accuracy adjustment. If you calibrate 5 different models the image will look so different, there many issues about calibration, the industry has started slowly to understand these problems but they don't know how to solve that.
There limited operations you can do, only Grayscale adjustments, but even doing this, there un-alighment of calibration controls with patterns.
Contrast/Brightness settings in HDR are not working like we know in SDR, Brightness/Contrast should left untouched, because the display gamut/tone mapping is based to these default settings.
3D LUT for consumer HDR displays is not possible also.
The reason I created that calibration disk it was because I wanted to have 3D LUT calibration for the entire video signal chain, something it was not possible before, since all were using only external pattern generators for 3D LUT.
It's very important always to count the source to the calibration, currently since authoring of an UHD disk is possible, test patterns are used as media files, but menu players are not reproducing them, you can say that you can load them to the TV's USB but I don't trust (if it's not tested) that the TV can handle the same media files from USB vs. HDR signal from HDMI Input.
For these reasons and many others I don't see currently that a release of a super-calibration disk for HDR will solve the color reproduction issues appear in HDR consumer world. I have watched about 50 HDR titles in calibrated TV's, sure it's excited stuff, entertaining, but when I want color fidelity I went back to 3D LUT correction with eeColor and SDR for accurate colors.
I don't want to give promises, release dates etc, if something it will be ready for release, it will be come out when It will be make sense to be available
Hi,
The reality from current HDR calibration status is that having some correctly encoded patterns (or a reference external HDR pattern generator) is not capable to provide you the level of color fidelity you can have with SDR calibration. So even if you calibrate that HDR Grayscale, if you use different Metadata for the patterns (Mastering Metadata/Content medata settings also) it will affect final results, also calibrating perfectly that Grayscale; it doesn't guarantee to you an acceptable final result; if you start watching HDR movies the results will not reflect to your calibration accuracy adjustment. If you calibrate 5 different models the image will look so different, there many issues about calibration, the industry has started slowly to understand these problems but they don't know how to solve that.
There limited operations you can do, only Grayscale adjustments, but even doing this, there un-alighment of calibration controls with patterns.
Contrast/Brightness settings in HDR are not working like we know in SDR, Brightness/Contrast should left untouched, because the display gamut/tone mapping is based to these default settings.
3D LUT for consumer HDR displays is not possible also.
The reason I created that calibration disk it was because I wanted to have 3D LUT calibration for the entire video signal chain, something it was not possible before, since all were using only external pattern generators for 3D LUT.
It's very important always to count the source to the calibration, currently since authoring of an UHD disk is possible, test patterns are used as media files, but menu players are not reproducing them, you can say that you can load them to the TV's USB but I don't trust (if it's not tested) that the TV can handle the same media files from USB vs. HDR signal from HDMI Input.
For these reasons and many others I don't see currently that a release of a super-calibration disk for HDR will solve the color reproduction issues appear in HDR consumer world. I have watched about 50 HDR titles in calibrated TV's, sure it's excited stuff, entertaining, but when I want color fidelity I went back to 3D LUT correction with eeColor and SDR for accurate colors.
I don't want to give promises, release dates etc, if something it will be ready for release, it will be come out when It will be make sense to be available
calibrador
Borinot sense trellat
15. What is display mapping?
For HDR TV in particular we will have a wide range of displays and viewing environments; from home cinemas to TVs in living rooms, and desktops, laptops, tablets and mobiles in all sorts of environments. We have shown in industry demonstrations that HLG can be displayed at several brightness levels with negligible mid-tone mapping errors.
HLG has natural correction for different brightness displays; the formula is part of the ITU-R BT.2100 standard [3] and is applied by the display manufacturer as appropriate. So HLG can be graded on a monitor of one brightness (say 600 cd/m2), and shown on a brighter monitor with essentially the same perceptual look. Alternatively HLG may be graded on a bright monitor (say 4000 cd/m2), and shown on a dimmer monitor with essentially the same perceptual look. In this way the signal is independent of the display.
PQ requires display mapping, which may change the creative intent of highlights if the picture is shown on a display that is dimmer than the grading monitor. Static display mapping for this case is defined in Report ITU-R BT.2390 [8], but this can change the creative intent of the image. The display mapping for showing PQ pictures on brighter displays or in brighter environments than the grading environment (which should change lowlights, mid-tones and highlights) is not defined. By using metadata the creative intent of the PQ image can be better retained after display mapping, but it is unclear how this could be implemented in practical television production.
Lo siento
For HDR TV in particular we will have a wide range of displays and viewing environments; from home cinemas to TVs in living rooms, and desktops, laptops, tablets and mobiles in all sorts of environments. We have shown in industry demonstrations that HLG can be displayed at several brightness levels with negligible mid-tone mapping errors.
HLG has natural correction for different brightness displays; the formula is part of the ITU-R BT.2100 standard [3] and is applied by the display manufacturer as appropriate. So HLG can be graded on a monitor of one brightness (say 600 cd/m2), and shown on a brighter monitor with essentially the same perceptual look. Alternatively HLG may be graded on a bright monitor (say 4000 cd/m2), and shown on a dimmer monitor with essentially the same perceptual look. In this way the signal is independent of the display.
PQ requires display mapping, which may change the creative intent of highlights if the picture is shown on a display that is dimmer than the grading monitor. Static display mapping for this case is defined in Report ITU-R BT.2390 [8], but this can change the creative intent of the image. The display mapping for showing PQ pictures on brighter displays or in brighter environments than the grading environment (which should change lowlights, mid-tones and highlights) is not defined. By using metadata the creative intent of the PQ image can be better retained after display mapping, but it is unclear how this could be implemented in practical television production.
Lo siento