5 Reasons Why HDR Kinda SUCKS | What you need to know about the current TV market

I go over my top 5 reasons why HDR is not the breakthrough many hail it to be. Sometimes it's great but most of the time, it's a pain in butt. Before HDR, the playing field was a little more level. You could buy a top-of-the-line TV and the picture may have been nicer than a budget model, but the quality improvement wasn't as dramatic as it is today. This is just my opinion and if you love HDR, I totally respect your opinion. My opinion does not stop me from embracing the newest technology but I feel we have already reached the peak of picture quality and it's all downhill from here.
My TV recommendations:
TCL 65-inch 6-Series 4K
amzn.to/3Bfe6pJ
Hisense 65-Inch Class H8 Quantum Series
amzn.to/3usMkSO
Tone Mapping:
Panasonic 4K Blu Ray Player DP-UB420 ( • Panasonic DP-UB420 4K ... )
amzn.to/3Bsd1uW
Panasonic Streaming 4K Blu Ray Player with Dolby Vision DP-UB820
amzn.to/3Hp9YqW
Info on madVR
madvr.com/
• Video
Chapters:
00:00 Reason 1 - You have to pay to play
1:09 Reason 2 - It's too complicated
2:40 Reason 3 - Not backwards compatible
4:36 Reason 4 - Is it really better?
6:06 Reason 5 - It can be worse than SDR
6:37 HDR vs SDR comparison
7:48 The evolution of TVs
10:07 My recommendations

[@1981AdamGs]

I just bought a Samsung G8 OLED monitor. I love it. But I don't use HDR. Like you said, it makes it way too complicated. Especially on a Windows PC. Its just not worth it. I don't want to have to mess with HDR calibration on every game I play for a (in my opinion) slightly better experience. I spent days messing with the HDR settings on my 65" Samsung QLED TV when I bought it 6 years ago. I eventually just got fed up with having to adjust settings constantly for different content and just stopped using HDR. Everyone told me HDR would blow me away. But all it has done is irritate me. What has blown me away is switching from an IPS monitor to an OLED monitor. Once I decided to stop using HDR and just use it, it has been absolutely incredible.

[@sophieedel6324]

If they increase the brightness of those TV any further, people are going to need sunglasses to watch their "HDR" TV. "bUt iT's ReaLisTiC!!"

[@tac6044]

I actually just bought a firestick max and completely disabled HDR and DV on my A80k OLED. Its the first firestick to allow this. SDR produces a far superior picture quality It's consistent and looks good 100% of the time. Now I am no longer forced to watch these poorly implimented formats. I'll stick with beautiful 4k SDR!

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

It definitely boils down to what you prefer as a viewer.

[@shaunhw]

I've actually recently done that on my almost eight year old 55" LG EFxx950v series OLED tv, which only supports HDR 10, and rather badly with incorrect colours all over the place. For example the Marvel startup screen on Jessica Jones on Disney plus which is red bordering on orange, is instead a very bright orange on the old TV and skin tones are awful in HDR. There seems to be a lack of pure reds of any significant brightness anywhere on anything HDR on this older set. So I've been looking for something which will disable it, and have now got a Firestick 4k Max on it with HDR disabled. So, why don't I just get a new one? Well upstairs I already have a 65" C9 series as well, and HDR on that isn't anything to be really proud of in my ooinion, but my older LG's picture in normal SDR is still as stunning as the day I bought it, even slightly better that the newer C9 IMO, which is just three years old. The old 950EV is also brilliant with 3D and passive glasses, now largely abandoned on more modern sets. So I will run it into the ground with SDR.

[@Roberto-nj5yr]

Same case here. Watching HDR on my Sony X90L gives me eye strain. Have to set it to max brightness otherwise its dark. I guess it has to do with increased contrast. So I prefer SDR movies. With SDR, I can watch comfortably at medium brightness. I download 1080p SDR movies ranging in file size 15-20GB and they look awesome. Hard to find 4K SDR movies. All 4K now comes with HDR or DV.

[@ChrisMoviedood]

Awesome points and I couldn't agree more. An issue not mentioned here that I encounter is that the HDR causes eye strain and headaches to many of my friends and family that are not used to these super bright TVs. My GF hates HDR with passion and refuses to buy any 4ks that include it.

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

It’s really not as good as people hail it to be. In your case, it makes sense to buy cheaper hdr tvs because they’re not that bright. Like entry level.

[@JD-wm4uv]

The best way to fix issue is probally this if you buy a 4k tv just add a roku 4k streaming device to the hdmi ports. Then any content you watch just disable the hdr but you can keepnthe high resolution. Even 4k disc players you can turn the hdr off and still enjoy the high resolution.

[@ChrisMoviedood]

@@JD-wm4uv Awesome! Thank you so much for the tip. I'll give it a shot.

[@JohnDoe-pc9qf]

If you are using streaming platforms the SDR version of content will almost always look better than the HDR version. It doesn't matter if you have the best QD OLED or a flagship QLED. SDR mastering is almost always a higher quality than it's HDR counterpart. People have a hard time believing this but it's true. When you buy a new TV you are stuck using HDR so you really don't have an option to directly compare the two. This is why you need to buy an Amazon Fire Stick 4k Max has it allows you to completely disable HDR. Then you can directly compare HDR versus SDR and you will immediately see the SDR absolutely kicks HDR's ass. It sounds counterintuitive but it is 100% fact.

[@TheCrucialQ]

A lot of what you said is not true, physical media or streaming does not affect the quality of HDR. Physical media has a bit rate advantage, so content will look sharper and you don't get compression artifacts. I have a 600 nit 2016 Vizio P Series, HDR and DV looks amazing. The Matrix, and many show all you expect from HDR. I currently have my display, connected to my AVR, HDR/ DV pass through using a certified HDMI 2.1 cable to (ARC-ARC), then a certified Active HDMI 2.0b cable to a ATV4K and my UHD Blu-ray disc player. Images jump off the screen with depth and amazing detail, color and deep blacks. Everyone that watches any HDR content on my display, is impressed.

[@JohnDoe-pc9qf]

@@TheCrucialQ Here's the thing, you've never compared the exact same content in both SDR and HDR. I know this because modern TVs do not even give you the option to disable HDR. Your Vizio P series is not very HDR capable, 600 nits is well below the 1000 nit threshold, which is required to properly display HDR without using a lot of processing tricks. I can promise you, SDR would look vastly superior to HDR on your Vizio. It won't even be close. Buy a Amazon Fire Stick 4K Max, It allows you to permanently disable HDR. Don't bother to argue against me until you actually try it.

[@TheCrucialQ]

@@JohnDoe-pc9qf Most content is either graded at or below 1000 nits despite the mastering monitor they were color graded on. There are a lot movies today that don't exceed 700 nits. Then add the fact that most movies include trim targets, so a film graded on the Dolby Pulsar 4000 nit monitor. Can have 2000-600 nit trim targets, so Dolby Vision will have accurate dynamic tone mapping, with proper gamut mapping and use a far better color space for HDR physical media and streaming. On comparisons, each UHD Blu-ray comes with a SDR copy and still have my standard blurays of the same films. HDR wins out every time. Majority of the films done by Christopher Nolan barely exceed 300 nits on UHD Bluray and format HDR10.

[@Roberto-nj5yr]

Watching HDR in my Sony X90L gives me eye strain. Have to set the brightness to Max to watch HDR, otherwise its dark. With SDR, I can comfortably watch at medium brightness. So I download 1080p SDR movies ranging in file size 15-20GB and its hands down better than Netflix and other streaming site's HDR.

[@TheCrucialQ]

@@Roberto-nj5yr How do you understand about HDR?

[@crashban4t.f.s.b783]

I agree. Watching TV should be relaxing. It shouldn’t be complicated and HDR sucks. We don’t need HDR to be so confusing.

[@ramsaybolton9151]

so don't use it and let people with the desire to do it. A proper HDR setup is much better than SDR.

[@dperr338]

It’s really not THAT confusing. It also should be viewed at night and the backlight should NOT be maxed out on your tv in HDR. Too many people believe brighter is better in HDR and it’s just wrong. You want to buy a tv that is capable of getting brighter but you do not want to max it out in the settings. When you do that you ruin the image quality. Nothing performs at its best when pushed to its max.

[@carlosalejandroalvarenga4913]

With all due respect. If you don’t want a complicated tv experience then buy a tv that is not complicated. But there are people who lie this hobby and technology.

[@goldenultra]

You have to watch HDR at night because it darkens the picture so much, because it is about brightness or nits. This is what people focus on and viewers perception of watching changes ...but all at the expense of the integrity of the picture which is what SDR is about. These nits will raise your electric bill and also shorten the life of the TV...like a turbo car with 2 exhausts. You can watch hdr stuff very easily on vlc or pot player using sdr monitor.

[@outofline9999]

I have a Optoma UHD60 projector on a 132" screen and have been struggling with the darkness of HDR. I bought the Panasonic UB40 4K player and was able to find a HDR setting of Bright and that has made my picture so much more watchable. I find black level is a tab better with HDR on then it is with it off. I kinda felt this was a HT taboo subject and if you didn't sing praises to HDR you were not a true HT guy! Thanks for coming out! ;)

[@xenozillarex1518]

I watched the 4K disc of the 2014 Godzilla with HDR off and again with it on and it looks so much better off and now I’m rewatching all my 4K discs with it off and it’s been a much more enjoyable experience, I hate the warnings on main stream releases but I’ll take that over crappy visuals

[@randallwells5617]

Thanks for the information. I've been looking at TV's for the past two years using KZbin as well as reviews on Amazon and Best Buy. We are in our 70's and disables so we have never seen a 4k TV. Our present TV is a Sony KDL-52W3000 that we bought in 2007 and it is still great. We are looking for a 75 inch tv due to my wife's AMD (partial blindness) hoping that she can see more details in a larger image. What makes it difficult in selecting an affordable TV is that I could probably see HDR affects. After hearing your discussion, I think that perhaps I should focus on a large and affordable TV, and only consider HDR as a secondary feature. Thanks for taking the time to express your viewpoint.

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

I’m glad I was able to help you out. I would recommend a mid range TV if you’re going for an LED based TV. If you start watching programming in HDR and you find the picture too dark, try adjusting the gamma setting in the TV picture menu. I also recommend setting your TV into the movie, calibrated, or filmmaker picture mode presets. Those are the most accurate picture settings out of the box that sacrifice some brightness for a more accurate picture. Most TVs are shipped already set the brightest picture preset.

[@randallwells5617]

Thanks again. Enjoy the Holidays.

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

You as well.

[@trauma50disaster1]

backlight bleed in from lcd made me spend up to oled a few years ago and that one consideration is the only thing that mattered for me. I think now lcd backlight bleed in is less based on reviews so I would have to sample again.

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

I’m going to be getting an OLED for the new house but it’s actually less for the picture quality and more for the fact that they the lightest TVs you can buy. I want to use a specialty tv mount that has a pretty low weight limit.

[@AFryingPan]

I really wish that 4K Blurays had SDR metadata to tone map. I love using a projector but I can never dial in my 4K image. I want that 4K crispy but always hard to dial in the image. It's an older projector but it still looks great in SDR 4K (Epsonm HC 4000) I just found out that the Shield pro 2019 does tone mapping. I have a 2017 shield and now im wondering if its worth to upgrade to the new shield for the tone mapping. I cant find any tests on the shield pro tone mapping vs bluray 1080p vs madVR vs plex. (would be a great video btw :P ) Do you think the shield pro is worth it just for the tone mapping and 4K upscaling? Just wish they would release a new one already Edit: also we have that same brown and white blanket in our theater haha

[@goldenultra]

If you play it through a laptop or desktop u can play HDR using VLC or potplayer on a sdr projector.

[@estebanmedaglia4506]

Fully agree. HDR is hugely overrated. In a 2000+ disc collection, I have about 100 UHD releases. Out of that number, I would say less than 10 are truly superior than their SDR 1080p counterpart. 5 are great looking. Most look worse than the blu-ray, SDR counterpart, and the rest are just a real mess where it is more than apparent that something is truly "off". And I know it is not user error, since the display is calibrated and I have 7 Oppo players in total [including the 95, the 105, two 103's (one for Region B discs), and one 203 that I use for UHD] and a Panasonic 820 player as well. I have tried every possible setting and calibration scenario. I stick (and am perfectly happy) with SDR and 1080p. Not only does it look better. It, too, as you said, is less of a headache when it comes to settings. UHD and HDR have way too many variables. And I have been in this hobby since the late 80's and the days of LaserDisc, so I am not afraid of tinkering, but there comes a point where I just want to watch a movie, and not worry about all these different settings.... I have a 77' Sony A80J Oled (UHD) and in many ways my good old 1080p 65" Panasonic VT60 plasma still looks significantly better. The biggest jump in quality was from 480p to 1080p, and from composite/component video to HDMI. The rest are pure gimmicks. I was hugely underwhelmed with 4K and to this day I am not 100% happy with the Oled. And the sad truth is that there are no standards to HDR and nobody seems to know what the hell to do with it.

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

Good to know there are others out there.

[@PabloB888]

HDR is not a gimmick or trick, it's simply higher dynamic range (more details). SDR can display details between 0-100 nits, and HDR between 0-4000 nits, so obviously the latter is objectively far supperior. What you can say is that you do not like the interpretation of the HDR by the artist or the director of the film, because most of the time they like to make their SDR images brighter and more popping in HDR container rather than keep the original look. But it still doesnt mean that SDR is supperior jest because of the artist interpretation. HDR can display more details therefore it's supperior. True HDR content can display true-to-life images because of this much higher dynamic range, whereas SDR will always look flat and there's nothing you can do about it because of the 100 nits cap. My GT60 plasma has the same panel as VT60, so I know very well what this TV can or cant do. GT60 is much brigher than my previous VT30 plasma, but compared to modern TVs even GT60 is depressingly dim. Normal picture mode is somewhat bright enough even in daylight, but my GT60 uses a gamma trick to pump up this higher brightness in this picture mode, so shadow accuracy is all over the place and also dithering / noise becomes way more apparent. In other picture modes accuracy is superb even out of the box in THX mode (my GT60 my calibrated on top of that), but this brightness is just enough for watching bluray movies in completely dark room. Plasma TVs (and especially GT60/VT60) still has one big strenght compared to modern TVs and that's motion quality (even without motion interpolation theres very little blur), but in general modern TVs are much better in every other aspect. I tried watching UHD content on my GT60, but HDR to SDR conversion isnt very good (especially skin tones look fake), so I prefer to watch standard Blurays and UHD content on UHD TV. My GT60 is also showing it's age after 17000 hours of use, because I can see red sparkles sometimes, so one way or another I can't use it forever, although I still think Bluray movies amazing on it (way better than on cheap LCD for sure).

[@estebanmedaglia4506]

@@PabloB888 Your comments are well taken. Essentially, what you are saying is that the problem is not HDR as a format/medium/carrier (it *is* objectively and technically and theoretically superior to SDR, true), but the way it is *implemented* more often that not. I basically agree with this. I find that most new editions of any given film tend to exaggerate or oversaturate colors, boost brightness to levels that are either excessive or simply too painful for my eyes, and offer an overall distorted or misrepresented version of the source elements, all in the name of "HDR". Similar to what happened when the fad was 3D and all movies were being converted to 3D with things being thrown at your face for the sake of style over substance. There are also way too many new settings and variables that need to be accounted for and optimized, which means I am constantly second-guessing my settings and my eyes instead of actually enjoying the movie. I would say that, in 75% of the cases I have seen, new 4K HDR transfers are akin to plastic surgery gone wild, and in most cases I tend to prefer the SDR blu ray variant. I feel that 1080p SDR blu ray is at its peak today, with better film scanning techniques and much better compression. So, all in all, I find myself not really wanting for more when I watch a quality SDR transfer.

[@PabloB888]

@@estebanmedaglia4506 That's exactly what I'm trying to say, that the interpretation of the artist is what puts off video enthusiasts like you. Some UHD releases respect the original look of legacy SDR BD releases and the dynamic range/colours look exactly the same. More often than not, however, movie studios like to enhance their UHD releases to varying degrees. People need to realise that old movies were shot on Film, so the dynamic range is very limited to begin with, and there's not much extra detail that can be represented in the HDR (container). However, movie studios can artificially boost highlights and contrast to make certain details pop in HDR (container). There are even PC programs that can automatically convert SDR to HDR content. Unfortunately this conversion cannot add detail that does not exist, so it looks more like an automatic contrast boost pass, which can look artificial. HDR (container) makes sense if your source material already has a much wider dynamic range, because then the HDR container can reproduce real details (for example, more shadows or more highlights) rather than faking highlights and colours. Based on UHD videos I have seen, it seems to me that studios are not increasing the average picture level (APL) that much in their old movies (shot on Film), so we get an APL of around 100-150 nits with artificially boosted highlights into 600-4000 nits territory only in certain scenes (for example fire or the sun). Of course the results of this new "vision" may or may not be to the liking of some people. New films or games are being created with HDR in mind from the outset, so it makes sense to use HDR container, because otherwise you need to clip details. Of course, some artists (film studios/developers) can still screw things up (for example, increased black level or some ugly colour grading), but generally I like what HDR brings to the table, as long as I watch HDR content on a really good display, because the truth is that the vast majority of modern televisions are not up to the task, so you end up with either a picture that is too dim, or with crushed shadows and highlights detail (that was my experience when I bought M27QP HDR400 monitor). Even modern smartphones, such as my S21 Ultra for example, have more capable display than the average HDR monitor / TV. My S21U has very bright (1500 nits) display with contrast (light) control at the pixel level because it's OLED (it also has RGB pixel structure, so colours are warm unlike WOLEDs). The average HDR TV is simply much less capable of displaying HDR content, as poor LED backlighting (halos around bright objects, light leaks, dull highlights in dark scenes) ruins the contrast and when display cant reach 1000 nits if brightness it also needs to tonemap HDR10 content to much lower baseline making the image too dim. Despite the small screen size, YT videos in HDR look absolutely amazing on my S21U, far better than HDR picture on average TV.

[@drunkhusband6257]

@@PabloB888 HDR has literally nothing to do with brightness, you've been lied to. HDR is purely software tech to grade the lighting in specific parts of a scene. SDR is hands down superior due to being standardized and mastered correctly, both in brightness levels and in colors.

[@PabloB888]

My first experience with HDR wasnt good either, because I bought 400 nits monitor with very poor tone mapping, so HDR content was either too dim, or blown out. For example, I could see a lot more clouds detail in the sky with SDR content, while the same clouds were totally blown out with HDR. Also colors looked ugly despite wider color gamut support. If I were to base my opinion of HDR on this first bad experience, I would agree with you. I however saw how good HDR can look on better display and now I'm extremely impressed. It's important to note that SDR content can display up to 100 nits of detail, while HDR can display up to 4000 nits of detail. With such big dynamic range in HDR container, a film director or artist does not need to clip details to the extreme, as was the case with SDR, because HDR can show more detail without clipping, or gimmicks like it was before. Although HDR is far superior to SDR from a technical point of view, it's still possible for HDR content to look worse. This however has nothing to do with the HDR itself, but with the vision of the artist. For example, a film director can alter his vision in HDR in very different ways when he has far more colours and dynamic range to play with, and sometimes the end result can be ugly to the average person's eyes. For example one of the Game Of Thrones episodes was criticised because it was too dark. It came down to a mixture of the filmmaker’s creative vision and the limitations of television, because TV with limited brightness and poor tone mapping will dim the image even more. Unfortunately HDR content can look rrally bad if your display has limited brightness and poor tone mapping on top of that, but again, this has nothing to do with HDR itself, but with a not so good TV that is not up to the task of displaying HDR content. It's like watching a BD film on a 480p plasma and then saying: 1080p makes no difference. It's important to note that some TVs have better tone mapping. My sister bought some cheap Sony LCD TV with only 400 nits of brightness (that's similar brightness as on my monitor), yet HDR content on her TV looks way better compared to my PC monitor. Dark movies look dark and without black crush, and there's very little highlight detail that I can see. Even colours are far more saturated, more vibrant and more nuanced. Of course, if you want to experience HDR in all its glory, you'll need an HDR10-capable TV (1000 nits display and preferably with pixel-level contrast control). I saw how HDR content can look on good oled and I was amazed. I used to think my Panasonic GT60 plasma had a realistic picture, but HDR content on OLED is clearly on a different level. There are a few HDR standards, but 99% of UHD content support at least HDR10, so if yout TV is HDR10 cappable your experience will be amazing anyway and you dont need to worry about other HDR standards.

[@JohnDoe-pc9qf]

Everything you said is moot because the SDR mastering of content is almost always better than its HDR counterpart. It doesn't matter what TV you have, be it a flagship LCD or QD OLED. SDR almost always looks better. There are a lot of reasons for this, one of them being that most HDR content is mastered from SDR. Another factor is colorists are not very experienced working with HDR. They are being told to whip out HDR content just for the sake of being able to call it HDR content. Additionally SDR content has a higher average luminosity level. This means most of the time SDR content will be brighter and more vibrant. The difference is typically substantial, HDR will look duller, dimmer and softer. This nets you the occasional impressive specular highlight but you sacrifice a lot for it. A lot of this sounds counterintuitive but it is true, if you want the most out of your TV you should be feeding it SDR.

[@TheCrucialQ]

@@JohnDoe-pc9qf That was accurate in the early life of HDR color grades. Now almost all the content is graded in HDR first, then followed up with Dolby Vision version. The HDR10 and SDR versions are then exported from the Dolby Vision version. Colorist are now working with Dolby Vision 4.0 that gives them way options with primary and secondary color control. For both formats and both HDR and SDR. It was changed, because colorist were doing double the work.

[@ramueller11]

I bought my first 4k HDR disc and was also underwhelmed with the improvement over the 2k render. I think the technology is a bit too early to bring it to it's full potential. I think the 10+ bit luminosity channel could be a good step up from a lot of the dark aliasing seen in dark scenes of 8 bit luminosity but it seems that it might be wasted in practice, with the emphasis of super bright - which doesn't seem to be used all that often. This is kinda ironic, since Hollywood is also known to waste 16+ bits of dynamic range available on audio albums by squashing the shit out of the waveform with compression (e.g. the Loudness War). Where HDR really shines and is standard practice already is in content production - especially in digital photography - allowing extra headroom to properly expose dark and bright regions of an image.

[@MarCuseus]

*2160p *1080p 🤦‍♂

[@cmoneytheman]

@@MarCuseus 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[@PeterFraser-hp3rs]

6:36 Similar to my experience. I only use my LG TV for surfing the net, watching KZbin and for video gaming, and Windows 11 kept bragging (for want of a better word) that my game's HDR setting was on and good to go whenever I fired up a game to play -- and I remember thinking "LUL, okay, great -- can I get to play my game now, please, thanks?" whenever Windows stuck that message up on screen. But in the end I had to turn HDR off because 1) I couldn't notice much/any difference in the quality of the picture I was getting when playing video games and 2) (and much more importantly) when I Alt-Tabbed out of the game, more often than not the picture for the desktop (or whatever program I Alt-Tabbed into) went really dark. I mean, I'm all for bells and whistles in tech software and hardware -- the more the merrier -- but HDR definitely needs work. I just can't use it.

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

Hdr in windows is especially messy. It makes the hdr in like tvs and media players look good. For computers I turn hdr off because most content is in sdr and the conversion to hdr is very hit or miss. Mostly miss.

[@GoodleanTV]

I have had my LG C2 for a couple months now, and I must say it solves most the issues you talk about. Its not a perfect TV because peak brightness and motion handling could be better, but its tone mapping is freaking amazing. In windows 11 over hdmi 2.1 I just leave HDR on and everything just works. To talk about HDR and not mention OLED is criminal! Next year will be a crazy for oled monitors too!

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

I have a C2 as well now and it's the TV that handles HDR the best in my opinion regardless of its peak brightness level.

[@Prettytony0627]

Agreed. OLED is where it’s at. There’s no way SDR looks better than HDR on my C2 or even my C9. I do understand, however, that most people aren’t an enthusiast like me or are willing to spend what I’ve spent in order to achieve the best PQ possible.

[@MarquezDaniel]

older movies benefit from HDR but modern movies it doesn't matter as much.

[@andycrystal]

Agree. Found on a paper that: 'The retina of human eye has a static contrast ratio of around 100:1 (about 6.5 f-stops). As soon as the eye moves, it re-adjusts its exposure, both chemically and geometrically, by adjusting the iris (which regulates the size of the pupil ). Initial dark adaptation takes place in approximately four seconds of profound, uninterrupted darkness; full adaptation, through adjustments in retinal chemistry, is mostly complete in thirty minutes. Hence, a dynamic contrast ratio of about 1,000,000:1 (about 20 f-stops) is possible Hence staring at an image with an inherent static contrast ratio higher than what the eye perceives in real life feels weird. In fact in darker environments when a strong light comes in you naturally look away from it. Not so much on a screen where deep shadows and strong point lights can coexist. To some that might feel hyper-real. To me if just feels wrong.

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

Great write up. I’ll have to check out that paper.

[@markclancy5714]

its more difficult with a tv because they have so many menus that are different, on windows or a pc for eg there are more available tutorials and methods, icc profiles, hdr mode built in to windows that have the option to switch. for eg only on full screen viewing or for specific programs for eg photo editing.

[@juancarlosrodriguez5022]

Well I didn't know about HDR until last night, when I bought the PS5 version of "Ys 8 Lacrimosa of Dana" and felt scamed because it looked worse than the PS4 version that I also have in my library. I started a refund process and suddenly the HDR question manifested itself... so I went and disabled it and voila, my PS5 version of the game suddenly looked with amazing colors. What I learned is the HDR can compromise the quality of the original work from the creators of videogames, and that if we want to exoerience this art in the true form it was created, HDR needs to be turned off.

[@TheCrucialQ]

So the content creator has no input, that sounds odd.

[@studioopinions5870]

I Agree With You Whole Heartedly! I bet the older SDR tvs can do the same thing by just pushing a bit on the color Level ( gradually ) And the same way with Contrast and brightness control from the old tube TVs to the newest Present day TVs. ( It's all a sales gimmick!! ) Color is Color! Brightness is Brightness! Contrast is Contrast! Like this guy says, don't be afraid to tweak your TV! That's why it's built for adjustments. Even Projectors! Laser or not! Same thing! Terry P.S. If the companies didn't allow for menu color or brightness contrast changes, Yikes! Then I would be concerned.

[@ONESIXTHCAVE]

I had a high end samsung 1080p 3D tv up until 2 years ago. The colours (especially the greens) were better than my current 4k HDR panasonic TV. Bit gutted I got rid of it now!

[@Mjaybird]

My sister and brother-in-law just got a 65 Sony x90k and don’t know what 4k content is. I need to go over and help her with settings

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

That’s exactly my point.

[@Mjaybird]

@@Upscaled_Reviews they had my old Samsung 48 inch and thought 1080p was good

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

I have some 1080p tvs still and they work great. Granted, they’re 50” tvs.

[@josephmcdermott4739]

off topic but what is your opinion on pairing a A/v reciever for 2 channel music listening?

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

I think it’s great given that it’s powerful enough to power a decent set of speakers. I use it sometimes. I think its a great feature. For most people i would recommend just buying an AVR because it provides more flexibility. Although, I do have a dedicated 2 channel setup.

[@josephmcdermott4739]

@@Upscaled_Reviews that's what I gathered from surfing the internet. I ordered the Rz50 and I'm pretty excited to check it out.. Just beginning my home theatre journey but also love music so hopefully it tides me over for a little while. thanks for the reply, cheers.

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

I think the Rz50 is an excellent choice. Andrew Robinson has a rave review on it.

[@TheRealJohnHooper]

If you put your old sdr tv to a darker gamma and increase light output you almost get what hdr is doing.. 😊

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

That’s basically it.

[@Virtualis_Laposborton]

So far, I've only seen bright HDR content in demo videos from Samsung and LG, HDR for movies is simply pathetic, it's simply self-sucking to watch HDR content. What's sad is that they put an HDR track in every 4K movie. So that's why I stick with full hd movies. Even with Good HDR TVs, SDR content is much better. I only regret the larger color range from HDR, but that doesn't make it worth watching dark crap.

[@jakedennis7606]

I agree that HDR is overrated. That being said, I often find it preferable to buy the 4K UHD + 1080P combo packs as long as the 4K has Dolby Vision. As long as your TV/projector supports Dolby Vision, a Dolby Vision 4K will probably look okay. It is less about experiencing HDR and more that Dolby Vision metadata can converted the colors to play nice with SDR displays that are Dolby Vision Certified. These combo packs help cover your bases more because you usually get to choose between two different transfers/remasters of the movie. You would be surprised how often one version of the movie has noticeable technical problems that force you to watch the other version. For example, Raiders of the Lost Ark looks better on 4K because the old 2009 SDR blu ray is too bright and it makes the sets look fake. Conversely, T2 looks best on the 2016 blu ray and the 4K is a hot mess with excessive DNR because some moron used the master for the 3D conversion on the 4K disc. When in doubt, choose the SDR 1080p blu ray. If that version has a bad transfer, hopefully the 4K will be in Dolby Vision.

[@ONESIXTHCAVE]

I bought a panasonic tv that was around $650. Had 4K, HDR, Dolby vision, HLG, reasonable speakers, reputable name 4 hdmi 2.0 ports etc Thought if I spend a bit more to get a mid range it would be better. Sadly the HDR is awful. At the time the “nits” level wasn’t really a thing. I tried turning on HDR for my PS5 and calibrated it but it’s actually duller than SDR. I’m now convinced the HDR thing really is a gimmick i. The same vein as HDReady vs FullHD. Wxcept this time it’s a bot more insidious because now the jargon is so confusing you have no idea what you are buying even with “high end” TV’s.

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

I hear you. When I buy a TV, I usually go to rtings.com and see they score it with hdr, contrast etc. This will give me at least an idea of what to expect. You never really know until you have though.

[@shueibdahir]

HDR is not HDR unless it reaches the mastering brightness of 1000 nits. 900 nits would be MINIMUM. Anything less than that cannot reproduce the high dynamic range or tonal range. Also I've noticed a lot of HDR Masters are actually SDR content upscaled to HDR and that means anything below 100 IRE (1000 IRE being the peak white) looks like absolute garbage. No tonal range from the midtones to the shadows. So yeah any tv that isn't mini-led or qd-oled cannot produce true hdr. Also make sure the tv is color calibrated since HDR looks worse if the tv cannot reproduce the colors accurately

[@BENJB220]

Why do people want that though ? I find this high brightness very uncomfortable to look at. I mean yes it looks more realistic, but is that even what the cinematic experience is about? I'm not commenting to upset anyone, I'm honestly wondering. I can't be the only person that thinks that way? Also I absolutely hate HDR on my phone, I scroll Instagram at night, and then I get blasted with light from a HDR reel, with some shitty phone recording of something. I mean was that really necessary that I experienced the full brightness of that recording at that time 😅😅

[@shueibdahir]

@@BENJB220 HDR is not about brightness. It's about DYNAMIC RANGE. The the tonal range or the differences between pure darkness and the brightest part of the image. It is the levels between these two that are known as dynamic range. SDR is sdr because it has standard levels of dynamic range which is 6 stops. It's quite low considering HDR can display the full dynamic range of a camera. Each stop above SDR requires double the amount of brightness to display it peoperly

[@BENJB220]

@@shueibdahir Yes I actually understand that, I meant to say dynamic range in the last sentence. But that doesn't change the fact that I find it uncomfortable to look at, because of the brightness level required to show the full dynamic range.

[@roquea.deleon6175]

I’m just starting to collect 4K Blu Rays and noticed how much darker HDR content is, spent a few hours testing between the Blu Ray (Non HDR) and the 4K. As well as turning off HDR on the 4K. The standard Blu Ray just looks better out of the box seeing all the colors without things getting too dark and still having good contrast. HDR does have some bolder colors and saturation but is a bit darker, will need to watch an entire movie still but I’m afraid that night/dark scenes will just be un watchable.

[@daysofgrace2934]

The biggest problem with HDR is that it does not look 'cinematic'. I have 2018 4K QLED QE55Q9FNA (DisplayCal) for computer monitor and 1080P Panasonic plasma TX-P65-VT65 and much prefer the Pany for the cinematic look.

[@makdrumz]

i hate HDR. I have an lg c3 42'' and all HDR does, is crank brightness to maximum and this honestly burns my eyes (and the tv :P). I also DO NOT like how it looks. I prefer the toned down (normal) viewing experience.

[@giosant5327]

Yea and people say just buy a better tv I've seen the same issues on good tvs and bad tvs some movies look good some grainy and dark no matter what tv they all seem to struggle more or less from hdr

[@TheRealJohnHooper]

When ever I watch older movies (early 2000s) they have more contrast. Meaning: Blacks are mostly very strong and dark is dark. Modern movies look completely different. Because of the super sensitive cameras there is tons of shadow detail visible, no matter if the scene is very bright or very dark. Lots of movies have this modern cinematic washed out look, where everything is liftet. The new Batman is a great example of that. A candle light and everything is visible.. That is HDR.. However in movie theatre they use a 2.6 Gamma, for SDR it is supposed to be watched on a calibrated 2.4 Gamma TV.. And that way it looks just stunning..

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

Great information!

[@shedrickjohnson8473]

I totally agree when I had to replace my Samsung pnf8500 plasma tv because it died 2 months ago. I got the Samsung s95b 65 and i still prefer my plasma over it. Don't get me wrong the s95b show a good picture but i prefer the plasma picture better.

[@Prettytony0627]

You should try OLED. Nothing beats it.

[@craigst6755]

The S95b mentioned is an quantum dot oled TV.

[@JohnDoe-pc9qf]

Plasma TV incandescent light output is a much higher quality light output than OLED which is just LED light output. Plasma pixels are tiny glass capsules filled with noble gases that glow when excited with electricity. This is why LCD TVs and OLED TVs look almost exactly the same, OLED is LCD with perfect blacks. Plasma on the other hand has a very unique characteristic. Colors are very rich and savory. You can imagine the difference by thinking about an old school incandescent light bulb and a modern LED light bulb. Which one do you think puts out the more pleasing light?

[@matthewrichardson2533]

I bought an HDR1000 Monitor because I was curious about TRUE HDR. But yea SDR is wayyy more consistent, and although some HDR content looks good with bright glowing swords and deep blacks in games, some stuff Is just dark crushed. I think I'll stick with SDR mode until they can figure it out.

[@kane7777]

Coming from an OLED user I couldn't disagree more lol

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

I covered that in my first point. You have to pay to get a great experience. OLED tvs are expensive.

[@CameronKiesser]

@@Upscaled_Reviews Some OLEDs are within your sweet spot like you said. The Vizio H1 is my planned upgrade and it has all the bells and whistles I want and at around a grand.

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

@@CameronKiesser The Vizio is the exception. I’m probably going to buy an OLED some time next year. I’m thinking the C2. I know it’s pricey but I have a practical reason.

[@craigst6755]

The C2 is a great TV but be aware you may encounter some issues with ASBL and possibly ABL. Dolby vision content in particular has made the ASBL kick in with prolonged dark scenes dimming the TV which means the algorithm could be improved. I know you can turn the TPC (Temporal peak luminance control) off which can prevent this occurring in the service menu via a special service remote but it may void the warranty. I'm in this situation at the moment having not to decide what to do. I almost wish I'd paid the extra for a heat sink oled which some say have less aggressive ASBL. I don't wish to put anyone off as not everyone has this problem but it did come out of nowhere 1 month into owning the TV. I was considering sending it back but a family member left the box outside in the rain so it won't be in original condition. Regarding HDR I do agree with a lot of what you said. It winds me up a bit reading HDR is so much brighter when it is actually dimmer. Highlights are brighter but not the average picture level as you demonstrated in the video. I like some HDR titles but others are not implemented well hence looking at videos getting others opinions on it. Is it a gimmick? Yes and no maybe. I can see it holds some value and the idea is sound but it certainly doesn't diminish great looking SDR content. Resolution is another subject, as there are great looking 1080p content out there, even 720p in my opinion. I do find myself looking for the highest available resolution but possibly the cameras used impact the quality a lot too. Thanks for the video :)

[@1506Jimbob]

You need to change your settings. Does you tv max brightness and contrast automatically?

[@garfunkle37]

Also hurts my eyes.

[@neky684]

Just came here because I googled if HDR causes some kind of motion sickness or relatable. Every time I give it a try again, I start feeling sick like 10 minutes in. It's the same feeling I got when I started with VR games. I don't have a damn idea how the fuck HDR causes it but it happens.

[@mauriciob8260]

I now they want to push us 8K TVs and no any content for this kind of resolution

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

That’s a whole different issue. I think it’ll be a while before 8k is embraced. It’s just takes too much bandwidth to be viable now.

[@EspenSGX]

​@@Upscaled_Reviews It's not just bandwidth, a lot of modern movies are filmed in 2K and upscaled to 4K. Others are natively filmed in 4K. Basically nobody is filming stuff in 8K. Ironically the only 8K native footage you could get is from rescans of celluloid film, meaning old movies. At least, that's how I understand is the case.

[@irinikollcinaku4855]

Hi! this does not have anything to do w this vid but i’m looking for some help, i have a home speaker set up in my house and i bought a AVR reviver but i cannot seem to get it to work? do u have any social media i can dm u on for some questions, i understand if not!

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

Yo can email me at [e-mail].

[@marvinabugov4579]

Yes madvr in of itself is expensive. Madvr is like owning a rolls royce?

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

You can build can install Madvr on to any computer. I have video explaining how.kzbin.info/www/bejne/g3jVnnh6ZZZnaqM

[@mobspeak]

There's always going to be a gimmick. This new cable, that new resolution etc..

[@soundmetalblaster]

☝☝☝

[@Neonmirrorblack]

I heard driving a nice car is just a gimmick. Like, the more money you put into a vehicle, you're usually going to have a better experience. Don't blame HDR for the performance from a junk ass TV. The problem isn't HDR, it's that most modern TVs don't produce enough nits yet for it to really shine. If you get an OLED, you need to watch it in a completely dark room as well. The G3 is getting closer, and MicroLED can already do it, but they are too expensive right now for even an enthusiast consumer.

[@MarCuseus]

HDR is not a gimmick. This type of "HDR" is not HDR, and it's marketing bullshit.

[@cmoneytheman]

🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[@TheRealJohnHooper]

Imagine a world without hdr. They could hardly sell new tvs. We would have perfectioned sdr tvs today instead 😊

[@MrCREWCRUSHIN95]

Lol. All USER ERROR. Learn, or get used to crappy tv. You will never experience true HDR OR DOLBY VISION without 1000 Nits. Yes, if you have an OLED- you have never experienced Dolby Vision. OLED is about perfect black- the tradeoff is that OLED luminance sucks. And HDR only works with high luminance.

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

All valid points. I’m probably going to buy my first OLED next year. I’ll probably never go back.

[@CameronKiesser]

TBH I can't stand brightness, makes me dizzy if too bright. Blacks are what I prefer.

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

@@CameronKiesser deep blacks can make the brighter parts of the image look brighter due to the contrast difference.

[@CameronKiesser]

@@Upscaled_Reviews Which is a win-win for me.

[@drunkhusband6257]

HDR is trash get over it

[@John-Is-My-Name]

I mean it being dark is kinda the point. HDR is meant to make the dark more dark and the bright more bright. I havent actually watched any HDR content on any HDR compatible TV/monitor so I cant say anything about how it looks really. You are probably right that its just a gimmick

[@dperr338]

I disagree with you opinion. HDR should be viewed at night in the dark and the higher end tvs will do HDR a lot better since they are capable of getting brighter.

[@dperr338]

For HDR you want a tv capable to getting brighter but you only want the backlight setting at around 50% or so or whatever the equivalent is for that tv. Raise it too high and it clips the whites. Backlight raises the APL brightness and clips the brighter areas details. Making the image less dynamic and impactful overall. Sometimes less is more. Buy a brighter tv and turn the brightness down. Same thing goes for your audio system. Buy the bigger speakers and more powerful amplifiers and don’t exceed 80 db. Nothing performs good at its max.

[@CameronKiesser]

I disagree. I love watching HDR and it's so immersive and I don't even have an OLED (yet). I bought my current 48 inch LED TV for 200 dollars. lol. (I will upgrade for the Vizio H1 OLED next month or so) It's about immersive content, like movies or gaming and getting true darks and brighter colors. HDR is not for average junk videos people like to binge, like KZbin. There is "content" and then there is "cinema". If you watch alone with proper set up and in darkness, HDR is great. I think the motion interpolation set by default on TVs is the thing that is overrated, as it makes animation and movies into a soap opera. Unnecessary processing power.

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

I like hdr as well and I have embraced it. It just hasn’t blown me away. I knew this would be a controversial topic.

[@CameronKiesser]

@@Upscaled_Reviews Yeah you triggered me. lol

[@drunkhusband6257]

It's not immersive it looks worse than SDR. You don't get brighter colors, you get more washed out colors I've never even once seen HDR being brighter.

[@CameronKiesser]

@@drunkhusband6257 >>Drunk Husband

[@drunkhusband6257]

@@CameronKiesser If you think HDR looks better than good sdr, you need a serious vision check because it looks worse in almost every way.

[@bigben9056]

damn,a lot of dumb things you say ,but its ok bc your american.i would say that not the hdr is a scam,only tvs that are sold as hdr tvs when they are not.and people need to fix their eyes

[@RaphFLC]

You just don't know how set up your tv correctly that's all. You keep saying that HDR sucks, but you need to face the truth that your tv sucks too. That's why you can't get a good HDR. Just buy an OLED tv. You will change your mind quickly trust me. HDR is calibrated, it respect a certain amount of nits. If the content is at 50nits in HDR then your screen is going to put an image in 50nits. SDR don't do this. It's not accurate. But if you change your settings to have accurate SDR. Trust me it look way worse than HDR.

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

Your solution is buy a new TV. I think you’re proving my point. I actually own a LG C2 now and it’s great. However, it’s an almost $3000 TV. I’m aware that hdr can look great. I have seen it. My point is that most people aren’t going to bother messing with the picture settings at all if they have a cheaper hdr tv, which might lead them to believe that hdr sucks.

[@RaphFLC]

@@user-qf5gg5kq5q we are not in 2010 anymore

[@dennyhiett6271]

You have to know how to calibrate your settings on your tv. I follow value tech cents KZbin channel for how to get the best picture quality. He has vizio tv because he wants the best value for the money

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

Thank you. I agree with you. Calibration is recommended for the best HDR experience but most people aren’t going to bother with that. I just set my tv to the movie mode equivalent and 9/10 times the picture looks good. House of the dragon was an anomaly, which required me to adjust the gamma in hdr mode.

[@Mjaybird]

I agree most TVs out of the box don’t make HDR pop, I calibrated my tv and changed settings for SDR and HDR

[@Upscaled_Reviews]

I usually do that when I stay at Airbnb. I fix the tv picture picture for the next person.

[@shaunhw]

On my LG 65" C9 series OLED television, you can't calibrate ANYTHING important once Dolby Vision or HDR are running the show. In these modes, for greyscale tracking/white balance adustment, there is just the colour temperature slider adjustment which in my case is all the way to C20. Even then I'm left with a bit of a sepia tint. How do I know this? Because you can still turn the colour intensity down to zero to produce a black and white HDR picture which is anything but that. With the defaults, it is horrible yellowish brown colour, and this is something I should be satisfied with is it? In SDR mode one has proper control of the grey scale, and mine is correct, with a black and white picture not black and very bright yellow. In HDR in default mode you can see the yellow tint on areas of the picture that are clearly supposed to be grey or white. If they want HDR fine. But don't take away the ability for people to adust certain parameters of the set, such as the full grey scale tracking in the Expert picture modes. HDR is a con, and a sales gimmick. One minute you are looking at a scene which is so low contrast it's hard to see what on earth is going on and in an instant, it is trying to blind you with a scene so bright and contrasted that your eyes don't have time to adjust, with the poor OLED television being thrashed with overdrive. Even on an OLED tv the defaults will dazzle you too much when watching in low light with your pupils fully dialated with the dark dingy scenes of HDR, and an ultra bright scene suddenly switches into view. I cannot help but look away at such a point, which rather defeats the object of it all really. Human vision is good, but it does not really have fixed high dynamic range, because the eye's iris gradually closes under brighter conditions. It compresses the brightness range therefore. On a TV or projector screen, you don't have to make it SO bright, that your iris would want to close up a bit, but it would still appear just as bright as you really need for the effect required and far more comfortable to view. I find even SDR on some sets by default to have too much contrast, so why do I need more. A good properly set up screen in SDR should be perfectly adequate. But, on the other hand I don't think 8 bits per pixel is really good enough. For example a correctly set neutrally tinted black and white picture would have only 256 levels of brightness, and that can be seen as mild banding on a test image gradually going from 0 to 255 in brightness. So we should be using more bits, in an SDR system for finer control of brightness, which can be perhaps ignored by displays or sources with less. But HDR trying to produce the full range of brightnesses the eye can be presented with in normal life is unnecessary because as said, the eye itself reduces the light input with the iris to protect itself, to avoid damage to the retina.