There's more to '4K' UHD Blu-ray than the resolution.

Extra resolution is the headline feature of a UHD Blu-ray...but this may not be the thing you notice.
NOTE - THE EFFECT OF HDR ...IS.....NOT...VISIBLE...ON...KZbin
WHAT I AM DEMONSTRATING IN THIS VIDEO IS THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE...HOWEVER YOU CAN ONLY SEE HOW THIS LOOKS IN PERSON ....ON KZbin IT JUST LOOKS DARKER
The TV used in this video is an LG 65EF950V (aka 65EF9500) - a 65" 4K HDR capable OLED with a 10 bit panel, HDCP 2.2, HDMI 2.0a.
Notice when I said that I couldn't see a MASSIVE difference in resolution on a 65" TV when sat 10 ft away.....this is not the same as not being able to see ANY difference - It is of course noticeably sharper, but not MASSIVELY so. What makes a BIG difference though is the HDR..but this can only be appreciated IN PERSON.
The intention of this video is to suggest that you don't just think of a UHD blu-ray as being a blu-ray with more resolution - because that's just one of the features and frankly quite probably the least interesting one.
You can subscribe to this channel by clicking here: kzbin.info?...
The Techmoan channel can be supported via / techmoan
UHD Blu-ray on Amazon UK: amzn.to/1VWnm8N
UHD Blu-ray on Amazon US: amzn.to/1Ul4Nta
-----AFFLIATED LINKS/ADVERTISING NOTICE------
All links are Affiliated where possible.
When you click on links to various merchants posted here and make a purchase, this can result in me earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network & Amazon.
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to AMAZON Sites (including, but not limited to Amazon US/UK/DE/ES/FR/NL/IT/CAN)

[@Techmoan]

A few people have missed the onscreen warning(s) and commented that the HDR side looks darker, so just to clarify. *THE EFFECT OF HDR IS.....NOT...VISIBLE...ON...KZbin* You can only appreciate how HDR looks in person. On youtube it just looks darker - but in the real world with your eyes (not a camera) - the light parts are lighter, the dark parts are darker - the colours have more shades - you can see more detail in areas with shadows. E.G. In the Revenant - in scenes in the woods with a campfire - the fire looks real and lights up that part of the screen brightly - but you can still make out all the details in the unlit parts of the screen with the trees in shades of gray and blue. On a standard blu-ray the whole scene has to be a lot lighter. You are watching a recording of a HDR video taken with a non HDR camera, encoded into a non-hdr video file, displayed in a non-hdr video player on a non-hdr screen.

[@crenshawyeo]

+Techmoan as usual, some people seem to disregard anything you annotate, and say, and seem be watching your videos with fingers in their ears singing mary had a little lamb. You did an excellent job of explaining your video, dont sweat the idiots.

[@Techmoan]

+Crenshaw Yeo I feel I've really tried my best to get the info across now....I'll leave it now.

[@Peekayismad]

+Techmoan I wouldn't worry about it too much, the people capable of intelligent thought understood the distinction you made.

[@MaZe741]

+Techmoan it doesnt look darker, it looks red

[@queenofyeay]

+Techmoan "I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT... LOUD NOISES!"

[@goodbeans]

You have the most amazing ability of being able to make a 5 minute video feel like 15 seconds. Your content just flows so seamlessly!

[@FinalBaton]

+Ryan Davis Agreed! His writing is brilliant. It has a good flow and is always interesting.

[@Techmoan]

+FinalBaton there's nothing written down (on all but perhaps a couple of sections of two of the longer videos)....it's all freestyle...albeit with dozens of takes until the words fit the video.

[@FinalBaton]

Techmoan It's even more impressive then! Great work, and keep doing kick-ass videos. This is a super enjoyable channel

[@voidinteractive9308]

@@Techmoan you just speaking gibberish most of the time? 🤣

[@ShapeyFiend]

When I saw Blu Ray for the first time (being used to DVD) it was the colour more than the resolution impressed me as well.

[@AltafAnwarAli]

Big fan of dynamic range, unfortunately mass public is not very aware about it. Very good video. I prefer Disc over streaming anytime. The difference between 4k streaming vs 4k Disc is MORE prominent when there is fast moving action scenes. The streaming loose detail and pixelates. While fast action remains clear on the 4k Disc. You should do segment to compare that. Thx.

[@GacMan47]

I've noticed it when I saw Batman. It's streaming in 4k, but when I looked closer it was really pixely. Like, isn't 4k supposed to look more clearer up close? It definitely feels like some sort of cheating is going on with 4k steaming.

[@murrtubereal]

@@GacMan47 Late reply, but the bitrate is always going to be higher on a disc over streaming.

[@BlackXxScopez]

well I sit 2.5 feet away and I require 16K

[@realmichaud]

i've got you beat...I sit 1.249999999 feet away and require 128k with Superduper D-HDR (Double the colors any current TV can display at this point in time current year ect ect) 16X D -UHD 32k with Dolby 14.2 I-Surround (I=immersive) :)

[@JonnyInfinite]

I find it ironic that there's so much push for better colours, higher dynamics etc in visual tech, while popular music is compressed to hell and sounds awful...DR 5 stuff abounds. It seems in the 70s and 80s it was all about improving audio. Today audio is the poor cousin to visuals...

[@StarmanDX]

I mean, FLAC and WAV exist and 90% of audio devices play it without a problem...

[@adimifus]

+Blazei Masteru he's talking about audio compression, not data compression. Look up "loudness war." It's a major problem with a lot of music these days, in my opinion. Newer technology allows for so much more potential dynamic range (CD vs vinyl, as an example) it's a shame music gets compressed (again, audio, NOT data) to all hell and doesn't take advantage of one of the biggest selling points if the CD to begin with.

[@JonnyInfinite]

+adimifus Yes, the potential of CD is amazing especially in classical music, with a -96 dB noise floor. In the Rock, Metal, R&B and Pop genres these days you get brickwalled masters with virtually no headroom....the most obvious examples being 'Death Magnetic' (although the Guitar Hero version is great), 'Stadium Arcadium' and almost anything by Imagine Dragons. It is a supreme irony that Vinyl is mastered with much more dynamic range these days due to its own technical limitations (anything below DR 8 will compress the grooves so much that the stylus will potentially bounce out of the record surface).

[@adimifus]

+JonnyInfinite Californication is another good example. If you can find the unmastered version online, it sounds a lot better, despite being compressed (data) mp3s. It seems the only time you ever notice dynamic range is in the trailing edge of fade out/one, unless the sound is compressed beforehand. it's ridiculous how poorly a lot of music is produced...

[@adimifus]

+adimifus *fade out/ins

[@ichemnutcracker]

I'm glad you made this video. I'd say the best way to describe how HDR looks on a non-HDR screen is "more contrasty". Although, it's taken my 7 years since this video came out to buy my first HDR TV, so only now do I have a proper frame of reference.

[@MegaBobsel]

How I love this channel. Keep up the good work, very informative again!

[@randypullman1155]

Another cutting edge episode! well done! hilarious as well Matt! Thank you yet again...Cheers

[@Movie_Games]

People have no idea what they are talking about. I have a 40" 4K TV and I use it as a computer monitor. So i'm close to the TV and it's "under 60 inches" and I can see a HUGE difference between 1080p and 4K.

[@ArcanePath360]

Because you are close to it for one. It's also dependent on the content and format. If you are playing games without good FSAA then you will notice a big difference. If you are watching a 4k movie which was originally shot on film, not so much.

[@realmichaud]

but if its Bernie Sanders watching it it would be YUGE

[@badreality2]

@@chrisw5742 Thank God there's another person out there that knows that film has this much resolution! There are people out there that think watching a cinemascope film on a DVD is perfectly acceptable! 70mm is solvable to 16K! Cinerama is something like 24K! All they've known is the blurriness... 😒

[@bryanp4827]

Talk when you are watching it on something decent! Unless you are watching on a projector, it is YOU who doesn't know what you are talking about!

[@bryanp4827]

@Matt Vinci soooo you're judging this on a tv or projector...? My guess is tv, so therefore you have NO CLUE!

[@ashykhan01]

Thanx for that, i find this the best and most relevant video comparison you have done by far!

[@snath9974]

Dunno if it's just me.. but the 1080p looked actually nicer

[@saraha180]

He explains like four times that you can't use the video to compare the experience. At all. Period. It's only an illustration that there is a difference beyond resolution. It's as if you're hearing only the left ear of a stereo album and saying "it sounds worse than the mono version": lots of the detail is lost in his recording, because KZbin cannot render HDR video. If you want to compare the two, you must do it in person. No KZbin video can show you how it looks.

[@TheJasonaut]

I just want to say thank you for the rational and simple explanation of the content here. Thumbs way up even if only for the presentation :). Also, really appreciate the look at 4K/UHD in a slightly different angle.

[@Techmoan]

+TheJasonaut Thanks.

[@AlanLifeson]

How many different formats will I have to buy my films on before I die. I've gone through betamax, VHS, VCD, DVD, HD-DVD, Blu-Ray and now UHD and I still have time to go, 4k, Virtual Reality, 8k, 16k, holocube, quantum nano graphic implants. And those are just the ones I've tried. Are all these different ways not more about how much the company's can fleece out of the punters over how much that normal people want these changes. In an average lifetime you could spend a small fortune trying to keep up with it all.

[@ncunico]

+Alan Lifeson Sorry, but all I hear here is "Man, they make better stuff for us and they expect us to buy it..." No, you don't have to buy anything. If you were around when TV's were only black and white and have since upgraded, then I'm calling hypocrisy.

[@TheMysteriousKnight]

Hanniffy Dinn, the sound was also perfected on Blu ray. Nice and uncompressed Now we half both halves to the equation :D

[@timramich]

Hanniffy Dinn In reality, it's only been in the last decade that movie footage even warranted anything more than 720p. 35mm film doesn't even need 1080p. Grain is even visible on DVD. This UHD thing is going to fail if they don't start putting 4K masters on it and if someone doesn't crack the encryption scheme soon.

[@XenonExplosion]

Exactly. Even in May of 2017, most major studio releases (Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2, Fate of the Furious) are still shot, edited and mastered in 2K. The only true sources of higher resolution are films actually shot in 4K digital, or on 35mm or 70mm (65mm negative) film, and scanned properly.

[@Knowbody42]

We now have a new audio codec called Opus, which is an amazing codec. It gives better sound quality than mp3 at like half the bitrate, and it's open and completely royalty free. I just really hope we get a great new royalty free video codec to replace h.264 and h.265

[@paksallion]

you're really good at explaining things bro 👍🏽 subbed

[@Kashif314]

I have an ailment called "Keratoconus" which means my left eye's cornia became conned shape and hence it affected my vision but even then I can see the difference between a standard blu ray and a 4k blu ray even without the hdr or dolby vision. The blacks and very deep blacks. Skin tones and textures are very detailed and clear so I don't understand when people say they don't see any difference between 4k and 1080p.

[@CreatiVastARTS]

I'm getting in the habit of Liking your videos that I ended up liking it before even watching it lol.

[@jippalippa]

i think the revenant (lots of detail in the shadows) would be the best example to showcase the difference.

[@dreyn7780]

Your future with the object is your future NOT mine.

[@peterlv68]

Man, I love your audio/video videos.

[@LiamGoodison]

love this channel, always interesting and informative

[@germinationwide4life]

Some of my friends laughed at me when I bought a 4k tv. They thought it was a gimmick too, until they saw it in person. 4k tv's are beautiful to watch.

[@stevenlupanko2983]

It is gimmicky. Your friends were people pleasing in case you threw a tantrum. The only difference between 4k and blu ray is you wallet is emptied. I am a car saleman I have a 2k car I will sell you for 4k :-)

[@Dreyz-pg2zz]

@@stevenlupanko2983 that's a pretty bad analogy

[@stevenlupanko2983]

@@Dreyz-pg2zz You can't even remember your surname.

[@Dreyz-pg2zz]

@@stevenlupanko2983 is that a attempt at a comeback

[@AMDX1325]

how many stop of dynamic range does UHD offer over HD?

[@pacmanseven2544]

Thank you for taking time out to make this video and all the videos that you have made. I always look forward to your next video and I might not always agree with you on sone points, but that is why everyone on the earth has their own opinions. keep up the great work.

[@MrXavierRose]

Always a pleasure to watch this bloke's videos :)

[@macinman]

Hi Techmoan, I've been doing UHD / HDR for about two years now. My experience has been, it is content dependent how much you see a difference between HDR vs SDR. Some are a more noticeable difference while others is subtle to none. I deal with low vision, however, my limitations are more distance and reading related. I have a 43" TV that I sit between 4 and 6ft from. I've also learned how to tweak a few extra settings over standard calibration to bring out HDR details as well. So my conclusions have been at this point: While I've had a good experience, if I did it over I may have waited longer to upgrade from HD, since most of my library is DVD, and Blu-ray quality.

[@SelfIndulgentGamer]

I'm glad there's more to it than resolution. I learnt something new :)

[@darkempire6050]

This is such a great video, and you explained it perfectly

[@axelsejor1401]

The power of making a 5 minutes vid about that subject or more. The key to success. KZbinrs gotta understand that we have no TIME. Y'all want more money, we want less time. That's also what makes a youtube channel attractive.

[@RandyLott]

I've only watched the first minute, so please forgive me if I speak too soon. Watching 4K content on a 1080p monitor still looks better, depending on how the down-scaling works. I'm an electronics engineer, but I don't specialize in image processing. The image tends to be sharper, since there is more image data to use. It all comes down to how the image processor uses this extra information. Think about HDR. HDR captures more color information than a monitor can display. "Bloom" takes advantage of this additional information and has wonderful effects for games. For those of you who claim streaming or rips are the "same" as the disk, how can you not tell?! Yes, modern compression/encoding schemes can yield impressive results. However, you will tend to have these issues: aliasing/blur due to inadequate sample rate quantisation noise can yield motion issues using a discrete cosine transform can cause the Gibbs effect dynamic range reduction overloading

[@RandyLott]

+Randy Lott Now that I've watched the video, I had no idea UHD video could utilize HDR! Damn, that's a huge selling point for me. Thanks!

[@a64738]

KZbin compresses the video so much that you get a LOT better picture with lot more small details if you watch it in 4k in 1080p...

[@mark_r49]

You are right. You spoke too soon.

[@FinalBaton]

HDR is indeed more important than the increase in pixels 4k offers. And as a side note : HDR is not tied to 4k. It can be used on 1080p and be just as efficient. Though right now only 4k sets offer HDR, we might see, in a little while, 1080p sets with HDR.

[@cup_and_cone]

"just as efficient" - Nope, not true at all. Because UHD inherently has more pixels, this means it can deliver more varying levels of color depth since more of lights are mixing. It's just simple science.

[@Blink_____]

+thechosendude ahahahahahah thanks for the laugh

[@EarendilStar]

+thechosendude That's not true at all. Computer displays can display HDR just fine.

[@MrOpenGL]

+EarendilStar HDR on PCs has been around since the demo of Half-Life 2 (don't remember the exact name of the demo, it was the one with the small village and church at the top). Half-Life 2: Episode II (2009) has HDR built-in. At the time, most screens were 1280x1024.

[@Wasmachineman]

+MrOpenGL HL2: Lost Coast.

[@bananachild1936]

That intro is the most fantastic practical FX intro I have ever seen on KZbin

[@23names]

GREAT JOB ON THE VIDEOS YOU CREATE, VERY INFORMATIVE

[@Liofa73]

I guess it comes down to how much money and indeed time someone is willing to spend messing around trying to get the best possible picture they can, as seen by their own eyes. For me, I'd rather watch and be lost in the movie rather than constantly worrying about the way the picture looks. It's also extremely subjective, especially when the editing and colouring of the movie is done to the movie makers direction. Increased colour depth and HDR should be used to make the image look more natural to the eye and equalise the exposure, but they are more frequently used to make image stand out and look more... well... dynamic. HDR photos rarely look like the naked eye would see a subject or landscape. I see a lot of KZbin videos marked as 4K, but many people watch YT on iPads or PC's without a 4K screen. This is coupled with the fact that most of the so-called 4K videos really is just a higher resolution, with barely any attempt to post processing, so levels are all blown out anyway.

[@dorfschmidt4833]

+Liofa You are so right, if one is lost in the movie, one will not try to read the number plate from a car in the background passing the screen.

[@dirty_dan75158]

Same thing with audio, too many headphones to try and see which one is the best for the price range and for the type of music you listen to without muddy bass or super high ear ringing treble...

[@legendp2011]

You can't see the difference over youtube. a standard tv or monitor displays 16.7 million colours. HDR can display a billion colours

[@8aba_Yaga]

+legendp2011 lol sure. too bad no one uses 10 bit color for anything.

[@legendp2011]

+maroonoasis movies are recorded in 14bit colour and mastered in 10 bit colour. so yes they do use it

[@JohnDoe-gm5qr]

I don't know about a billion colors but when used for still photos it helps a lot. HDR makes photos look nicer and they appear to have more color but I doubt it is anything out of the ordinary. HDR usually takes two photos but the end result is one. Some smartphone camera apps will display a message telling you to hold still while taking a photo with HDR for best results and the reason is that it does something with two photos (one taken very quickly after the other). That is the reason why some smartphones don't record at their full frame rate with HDR. That is because HDR is twice the image processing.

[@legendp2011]

John Doe that is how smartphones classify it. but that is not true hdr. true hdr is achieved by having a camera that can capture a large dynamic range (like 15 stops) in 1 single image and using a high bitrate capable of displaying as much of that as possible.

[@baladar1353]

A perfect human eye can sense no more than 16.7 million slightly different colours. That's the light spectrum humans can sense. Therefore i can't see the need for billions of colours. Anyways, no tv or monitor can display the whole sensible light spectrum, the screen technologies ain't let it happen. These new things like HDR or whatever - are made only to suffice the snobism of the people, not to provide cheaper and smarter things to us. Yes, you can see true-like colours on a tv now, but it's just an illusion with a high price, plus you'll enjoy the picture on the screen more than the reality, just because the flickering, even if you don't notice it's flickering.

[@vasundarasanthanam1925]

congrats on 250k subs

[@LILGHETTI]

For people who think 4k is red and orange. It isn't the HDR and dolby vision really makes 4k colors and detail much more natural if the transfer is done right! Some examples would be leon the professional, blade runner final cut, blade runner 2049, mad max fury road, last action hero, the suicide squad, raiders of the lost ark, dark knight and Tenet. These are top tier 4k discs I recommend.

[@PoletBally]

One of the world's most respected film restorers Robert A. Harris, who most notably restored The Godfather films, criticized the use of HDR for older movies. So overall there's a flip side to the HDR coin. It can make newer movies look great, but it can also ruin the intended look of older movies.

[@Photoandcargeek]

Totally agree and that is what I have observed with my 4k HDR TV although the difference between your HDR and non-HDR movies is very surprising. Some TVs can have two sets of settings: one for 4k and one for non-4k sources. Each of these settings can have their own adjustable colour profiles and it is possible that your 4K setting is on normal or warm while your non UK colour profile is on cool which would explain the very different colours.

[@Photoandcargeek]

+Jason Zakrajsek I did get that, thank you! I am an engineer and a semi pro photographer so I understand that I can't see his HDR on my side but I can see the difference in color temperature and that difference was surprisingly huge hence my comment. can't wait to get 4K Blu-ray to experiment although I might wait for generation 2 or 3 players... or the PS4 Neo if it has a 4k Blu-ray player.

[@gameoverwehaveeverypixelco1258]

I think your right, but if the colors are so drastic it means they changed the original color scheme from movie release, giving false expectation by bumping up saturation etc. the movie did look cold at the cinema, not warm as in left side so I think there is a bit of con work in this all.

[@stefankoopmans2200]

+Photoandcargeek I agree with you, here is something else going on than just HDR or 4K format. I also don't really accept the term HDR. The format could use a higher bit depth, but that doesn't make the source instantly HDR material since it's probably not. I understand we make HDR images out of multiple images shot at different light intensities and then combine them to simulate a higher range. The final product might still be a 24bit bitmap file, it's the process what it's all about. So if the source was shot in HDR, every format it get's copied to will show that final HDR movie. There are absolutely differences between UHD and blu-ray, but not like this. I think this is just a preset somewhere. Both movies should look pretty similar in general when it comes to colour temperature and there will be slight differences in colour precision in favor of UHD. And when images of the TV are shot with DSLR and then crushed by youtube, we would actually see no difference anymore on our end...

[@cb1671]

I love the Maxell poster you included in the diagram. Very nice.

[@methlokaijufan9729]

If I have a 4k screen with no hdr ,with a 4k hdr bluray disk work ?

[@TheSweetDuuude]

I'm really asking myself if the filmmakers are happy with the HDR Image. Because, to me, it looks like they just boosted up the vibrance and saturation and changed some of the hightlights and dark areas. Like when I develop a RAW-File (Photo) in Adobe Lightroom. The thing is, if it's the case that they are just boosting up images, it is very likely that the tone of films change, because some images are meant to look more flat and non-vibrant or colorful than others, to create a certain feeling or mood. When everything looks just more vibrant and brighter, it could really fuck up the intended look of a movie.

[@anthonyj810]

TheSweetDuuude That is all it does dude hdr is over rated 4k is far more important.

[@dreyn7780]

Humans who see a red object CANNOT IMAGING IT BEING GREEN. Humans have the fault of always trying to minimise everything so they can comprehend the situation. If you see an apple on the table, you can't imagine it as being a banana. So that should indicate to you there's 5000 different versions of Star Wars the last Jedi for you to find and experience. Each TV brand makes a completely different experience of the program being watched.

[@gwernette5971]

all of the 4K TV sets that I have seen, have so much contrast that they give the picture and overall cartoonish look

[@gwernette5971]

+Hanniffy Dinn please do not make assumptions about these high-end showrooms selling 4K TV sets. I have not yet seen a 4K set in someone's living room. I have only seen them in the high-end showroom floor. And every single one of them had a contrast so high that definition lines resemble what you see in a cartoon drawing. it is very unnatural looking. I am not disputing the image quality and Clarity, these were superb. I'm only saying that the image looked cartoony, Whether or not ALL of these showrooms 'got it wrong' on the install, I can't say, but they all look like someone turned the 'contrast' control up all the way.

[@gwernette5971]

+Hanniffy Dinn you started the insults first, so here'is a Fuck You! for you

[@gwernette5971]

+Hanniffy Dinn Okay Halima. OK Nabiel. I noticed that you don't actually have any photos or videos from your Deen Squad even though you promised to produce them in short time. Additionally, your fundraising talks about many sponsors but does not actually mention any specific donations or amounts which your efforts have contributed towards this project. what are you hiding? you're like a Barbie doll with all the accessories, all the costumes, all the adventures, but you're not actually real. You think that you're giving Sage advice on technology? all you've done is show what a jerk you are, Barbie!

[@gwernette5971]

+Hanniffy Dinn so it goes from "I" to "my parents". time for you to stop living in their basement. Grow up Barbie doll loser

[@flameshana9]

INTERNET TOUGH GUYS

[@bsgtrekfan88]

as someone who works in electronics , is a film buff , AND a technology guru...my job is to impart information to customers to get them the right system/tv for there needs. Thank You for pointing out "4k" and its capabilities to your subscribers sir! Qapla! Once again you have made it fun, interesting and easy to understand. Now if only I could get every customer that still thinks DVD is fine and dandy for their 65" UHD TV .... ;)

[@deadfreightwest5956]

Cheers for using that old (70s?) Maxell ad photo with the charts. "It's good for your heads."

[@David25522]

I told agree with you 100%! I can’t tell the difference sitting 10 feet away from my 75” display between 1080P and 4K. I do see a dramatic difference with HDR plus the sound quality.

[@SmoothEmJay]

Expertly explained as always. The colours really are massively different between San Andreas BluRay and the UHD (4K) release. What I have always wanted to know about the 4K TV's is how well they upscale standard definition content, do they look absolutely god awful?

[@Techmoan]

+SmoothEmJay It depends on the TV and the source. One reason I got the new Sky Q - is because the old Sky box output 1080i - the new one does 1080p. Interlaced video looks pretty ropey on my TV, (I don't think the built in de-interlacer is good with some SD broadcasts). Things are fine now. HD TV looks fine - really pretty good when it's upscaled from 1080p.

[@SmoothEmJay]

What about DVDs? reason I ask is because a lot of older TV shows have not even been given a 1080p release.

[@morphinglight]

+Techmoan what about standard 480p videos, for example dvds? When I watch a dvd on my 1080p tv, it still looks acceptable, but I'm afraid it will look terrible on a 4K tv. That's the only thing keeping me from buying a 4K tv right now.

[@randomworld1]

+SmoothEmJay I have an LG 4k TV and 1080p Netflix & Bluray content looks fantastic on it.

[@SmoothEmJay]

I would expect 1080p to look good, but it's the regular definition content that worries me (DVD resolution).

[@DaveBoxBG]

As always great video!

[@Speedkomodo]

very cool video. thanks for the info. I didn't know that yet.

[@TheEatmorDininghall]

If 4kTVs have HDR, can't they just make 1080p HDR TVs. I'm sure it won't look as good at 4K HDR, but it should look better than standard 1080p.

[@anthonyj810]

TheEatmorDininghall Nah all hdr does is over saturates the colors and changes the contrast and brightness. It's just a gimmick to get you to spend hundreds of dollars extra on a hdr tv. I can change the settings on any 4k tv to make it match a 4k hdr tv. Trust me I've seen 4k hdr10 content on samsung and vizio and it did not impress me. My 4k vizio which has no hdr looks just as good with the settings i have.

[@robetclo2516]

Go there and see this www.darbeevision.com/. It increase the contrast of an existing video signal without artifacts. My OPPO BDP-103D has it included and it is amazint the differences.

[@mightyfinejonboy]

Waiting for 8k, 4k is so grainy ;-)

[@theskeletonboi]

+mightyfinejonboy I know you are joking, but 8k already exists. www.gottabemobile.com/2016/01/08/8k-tv-from-samsung-lg-show-off-the-future-of-tv/

[@dedpxl]

+theskeletonboi not commercially.

[@theskeletonboi]

dedpxl You don't say? lol

[@WR3ND]

I sometimes game at 16K on my computer but down convert it to 1080p on my TV using DSR. The screenshots are nice. But for general Windows desktop view, I only use 1366x768 so I can see what I'm doing and because Windows scales (if you can call it that) like a load of rubbish.

[@robindp]

+mightyfinejonboy Ha ha! I hear NHK is testing 8K broadcasting in Japan...one shudders to think how much an 8K display would cost...

[@darek4488]

Very informative. Thank you sir.

[@teddybeddy123]

Fantastic video, as always.

[@googleboughtmee]

Can 4K computer monitors show this HDR too? What about photos? Is there a new type of jpg format and new cameras that can create the photos? I've never heard about this higher dynamic range until right now.

[@John_Ridley]

+googleboughtmee If you're doing photo editing directly from the camera, you may very well be using 24 bit RAW, in which case you would absolutely be able to see that level of color depth. Really I think you almost need to have one of the new OLED monitors. LG's new one is one of the few that can display the full gamut of colors in all Adobe palette types.

[@googleboughtmee]

Just went on a massive wikipedia binge... I'm used to only having 256 shades of brightness, eg 8-bits per channel. (at least for viewing the content, obviously RAW format out of a DSLR has a lot more). So you have 256 levels of Red, 256 of Green, 256 of Blue. This is 24-bit color, 16.8 million possible colours, we've had it forever. In Photoshop or anything else this is what your colour-picker shows. The colour space used for UHDTV en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._2020 can have 10 or 12 bits per channel. 10-bits per channel gives you 1024 levels of each sub colour (R,G,B), or 1,073,741,824 total colours.

[@BLY99]

+googleboughtmee HDR requires a lot of processing power and time, something that is quite contrary to gaming monitors because it increases response times. But there are now professional studio monitors coming out with HDR, but they are mostly ridiculously expensive.

[@googleboughtmee]

+John Ridley the RAW file contains the extra data but you're not seeing that on screen all at once.

[@Empty-ov3on]

googleboughtmee i think acer is making one

[@chrissdas]

came here for ps4 too!!

[@TiredOldDad1]

I really like this video. I now understand why UHD looks so much better to "my eye". Fantastic!

[@kylek29]

I recently watched an OLED 4k TV running HDR at the store and I can say that it was a completely different experience than the usual store 4k TV's I've seen. First time in many years where I said "that's an upgrade to what I currently have". If only this particular TV wasn't $8k (US).

[@jmalmsten]

I just wish they didn't try to push the resolution part... because yeah... you need a viewing position like in a 4:3 IMAX in order to notice the difference in resolution. just slap the HDR colors on the 2K discs and we're good. Less costs for projector and TV manufacturers having to cram in all those vibrant colors on pixels a quarter as big as 2K... and more space on the discs for supplemental materials... we still need new machines to get it to our retinas so manufacturers should be happy... People get UHD in netflix (though I think that is 8bpc) and are happy about that. So if resolution is what the physical media distributors want to hook us on it's misguided... but yeah... I might have answered my own complaint there. I can just picture the board room. "Hey, mr Engineer. What can we sell them when they already have blurays?" "Well. We have a new system that gives higher fidelity in colors." "What resolution is it?" "2K... why?" "what is that? is it half of 4K?" "Actually, technically it is a quarter of 4K... but again why..." "A quarter?! I can get 4K on Netflifx! You want me to sell something that is a quarter of netflix?!" "Now, look. You cannot see the resolution of 4K vs 2K. Besides... Netflix has only a fraction of colors... " "How do I sell colors?" "Well... we have these color gamut diagrams" "I cannot read those. I can read resolution. Make it 4K and we have a product" "But it is a waste of bandwidth!... " "Who's paying you?" "It's not about that, it is..." "who?!" "You" "And?" "..." "..." "... 4k it is... (sigh)"

[@brickman409]

+jmalmsten Is 2K 1440p or 1080p? And for the love of God can we all please drop this "K" bullshit and go back to properly naming resolutions. Like is it really that fucking hard to say 3840x2160? Oh is 2160p not good enough either? you got to bring it all the way down to 4K so that nobody will know what the fuck you are talking about? Fuck this shit(by the way, this comment is *not* aimed at you, just the marketing bullshit that TV manufacturers have been pulling off)

[@brickman409]

***** Ah okay, I see. But I still think the K thing is stupid. If you have to specify the aspect ratio, then you might as well just spell out the full resolution. And it is super confusing to switch over from width to height.

[@Ass_Burgers_Syndrome]

+brickman409 Totally agree. I hate this marketing bullshit buzzword crap. All it does is confuse normal people. Techheads might get it but most people are not techheads.

[@MrOpenGL]

+jmalmsten Just like people saying "OH YOU HAVE A CRT IT'S SOOOO LOW RESOLUTION, SOOOO SD, LOOK MY MONITOR IS 1080P FULL HD!!!" and then they shut right up when I do right click -> properties -> screen and they see "2048x1536" :D

[@jmalmsten]

+Anton Zuykov If I'm not mistaken, regular BluRay specs already permit 10bit colors... in some sense... but what I'm getting at is that they could have kept it 1080p or 2K and upped the bits to 10 or 12 per channel (I doubt that it is fruitul to go further than 12bpc in a distribution format) and still get us movie collectors to buy the equipment needed. Unless you're building your own private home IMAX screen that goes to both peripheral edges of your vision, the boost in spatial resolution is just a waste of good data bandwidth... and therefore also a waste of both their and our money. I predict that when the dust settles around UHD HDR they will have to gear up to sell us on High Frame Rate instead. Not the smeary "smoothvision" of today. But real 60 fps per eye in sequential stereoscopic 3D... aka Trumbulls "Magicam" system... Or just move onto VR completely... 4K VR in 96fps per eye in HDR HFR without screendoors and full head tracking while simulating the cinema venue of your choice and recreating your pals presence for the social aspect...

[@Federico84]

Probably 2017 will be the year of 4K

[@killerkarrit2]

+Tecnovlog 4k will be what 720p was to 1080p, 8k will probably be the next big standard.

[@dedpxl]

+killerkarrit2 what makes you say that? I believe 4k is standard for movie theatres so it makes sense for people to want the same quality. is there even 8k content out there? We have 4k streaming already and 4k blu ray.

[@Federico84]

killerkarrit2 8k will be the next standard but not before 2023-2025

[@killerkarrit2]

I call 2019 or 2020 at the latest.

[@killerkarrit2]

ssukkandroid I see your 32k and raise you 64k.

[@wittsdream]

I've been an avid movie collector for over 40 years (VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, Blu-Ray, and now 4K), but I've also been a landscape photographer for over two decades (along with part-time videomaker), utilizing everything from 35mm film to medium format film, to now exclusively using 30+ megapixel digital cameras (resolving power greater than 6.5K on still photos). And from what I saw just looking at those two brief, side by side clips of San Andreas is that the 4K HDR remastering radically altered the chroma and luma science........to the detriment of retaining some fidelity to the filmmakers' original vision. This would be quite apparent if one were to view the comparisons on a simple histogram reading. Again, take a look at the exaggerated high contrast of the cityscape, with details being lost in darker areas of the scene. But, an even more egregious example occurs when looking at the sky in those shots. The 4K HDR produced blown out details in the sky, to the point where you can barely see any delineation in the clouds, and whatever blue skies were in the original film now appear a blank slate of overexposed highlights. Contrast that to the Blu-Ray, which actually produces better overall dynamic range, not to mention color. That is NOT what "High Dynamic Range" is supposed to achieve in the science of digital photography, and using something like DaVinci Resolve in post. Now, there are far better examples of 4K HDR that CAN demonstrate its superiority to Blu-Ray (Blade Runner, The Revenant, Nolan films, etc.), but this particular comparison was a poor choice in expounding on the virtues and superiority of 4K HDR over Blu-Ray. JMO. Good channel, otherwise!

[@Chrissy4605]

Great clarification about what 4K is about!!! Both resolution and high dynamic range are what make these images so well done on the 4K devices!!!

[@GordonMiller]

I have to admit that while the sharpness of the higher resolution is obvious at 4k, I was not happy with how artificial the color looked at 4k. The problem I have is just as with HDR mode on photos on my iPhone, everything is equally bright both at the low end and the high end. That lack of "real" range seems artificial to me. It makes for an impressive image, but it just doesn't seem realistic to me.

[@Empty-ov3on]

Gordon Miller youtube dosnt support hdr

[@GordonMiller]

I never said it did. I said that my issue that I have with 4K is similar to my issue I have with HDR photos. Completely different issued, but same problem relative to their respective media.

[@fastica]

Totally agree. We reached a point where images looks "better" than real life and that's not always good.

[@budthecyborg4575]

It's extremely unfortunate that even with a decade between the launch of Bluray and UHD Bluray, the implementation of HDR-10 still leaves so much to be desired. Dolbyvision is 12 bit and dynamic metadata. The combination of both static metadata and the video being limited to 10-bit color in HDR-10 means that there is still potential to have scenes with no improvement in color depth at all. And then you have the severe limitations on per-pixel contrast with FALD LCD TV's, and OLED's are still a developing technology. Even now HDR is not something I would invest in. 2018 OLED TV's should hit the mid-range price bracket and provide better quality at the same time, and we'll have HDMI 2.1 coming in with high framerate support.

[@ArcanePath360]

HDR photos that are viewed on an 8 bit monitor look like crap, they always will, since it has to crunch the levels to fit into a tighter dynamic range. You can only have 17 millons colours which sounds a lot but is nowhere near close to real life and what your eyes perceive. The HDR is being miss-sold on many TVs and they only simulate it the way HDR photos do, but taking the signal and condensing it. This is a criminal selling trick IMO and I nearly fell for it. When buying HDR, you have to make sure you are getting HDR 10, Dolby Vision or just look at the specs to make sure it is a 10 bit panel, which can display billions of colours. This will show true to life dynamic range that you can't see on a normal screen. You will have really dark blacks, retaining their detail, and bright whites, which aren't blown out and also retain detail. Imagine taking a lanscape photo. Usually the sky comes out white or the trees look silhouetted when looked at on your screen. On a 10-bit screen they will look more like when you saw it with your eyes and could see all the detail.

[@holnrew]

Do you need OLED for HDR? I can't imagine a backlit screen is good for simultaneously displaying light and dark

[@abhimuk1331]

It helps a very good bit, but is not necessary

[@whoees3953]

+holnrew Do not get oled if you use your TV for your computer. Burn in is real. I personally just bought an M43-C1 and it's amazing. They use adaptive backlighting to keep the blacks black.

[@SASenglish]

+holnrew most samsung TV's have excellent black levels, my 65JS9500 has very very deep black levels and far better quality than my 55" oled that broke after 6 months. Plus HDR is not just about Black levels its about Brightness and Colour as well. But LCD's are really good at HDR, if you want pure blacks get a tv with a Full array dimming backlight, not the edge light crap on the cheaper models, those leave white patches on the screen.

[@guily6669]

+SASenglish I guess for HDR a must have is probably a Full color range capable TV and not a limited color or BT709 or whatever...

[@SASenglish]

yes but Full range colour is just the beginning, Many tvs can do full range colour, But it doesn't mean they actually look good or have good contrast ratios ect.

[@Antidoxy]

I understand that HDR has more color depth, but honestly I like the color of bluray better.

[@techninefan90]

Thank you for this information :)

[@presterjohn71]

The thing is though which is the truer representation of the actual colour? The UHD looks lush but it reminds me of the old MGM musicals films that were always over rich in colour but of course looked lovely. They were not an accurate representation of reality though.

[@cornoc]

+presterjohn71 i don't think that's how the colors actually look in person. i think it's the result of taking a higher range of color/brightness values and jamming them into youtube's lower capacity.

[@Rtong98]

+presterjohn71 This IS the stupidest comment I've seen all week, bravo.

[@presterjohn71]

Ryan Tongs Maybe you weren't bright enough to understand the point I was making? either way you are not civil enough to engage in conversation with.

[@cornoc]

presterjohn71 yeah not sure what this guy's problem is lol

[@iLikeTheUDK]

What UHD offers in terms of colour is nothing more than an increase in the possible range of colours that can be used. As a matter of fact it's more apparently in _duller_ and darker footage, which will then no longer suddenly look like it's playing on an old VGA computer screen...

[@vinigretzky97]

For me the reason for a 4K would be 1080p passive 3D.

[@Techmoan]

+Vin that's one of the main reasons I bought a 4K OLED TV...and I can confirm the passive 3D performance is excellent.

[@vinigretzky97]

+Techmoan How are the viewing angles for 3D? At which point does the 3D stop working (properly)?

[@Techmoan]

+Vin it's fine side to side (on my three seater couch) ...but you need to be level with the screen...stand up and the effect goes.

[@vinigretzky97]

Thanks, good to know!

[@Octamed]

+Techmoan I find it incredible that the UHD bluray standard doesn't have 3d?! Especially considering it can do 60fps, so it shouldn't have any trouble with 24p 3d. What are they playing at?

[@szabolcsmate5254]

Finally. The best demonstration of HDR on youtube, with a good explanation of that you can't actually demonstrate HDR here. This video sold HDR to me. Thanks. I am going to buy a new, HDR TV, once my current 8 year old 42" dies. Actually, I'm more likely to get a 4k, HDR monitor, perhaps with a higher then 60Hz refresh rate long before that. I mean within 5 years haha. :) Thanks again, quality video as usual.

[@Dowent]

Thank you for explaining this. I have noticed things looked slightly different and didn´t know why. Frankly, I was too lazy to find out myself, so thank you for this explanation :) . I also quite sure, that different kinds of scaling would be better on a 4K screen, which is the biggest advantage for me.

[@bighands69]

All modern films are shot in 4K as a minimum and older movies are more than likely at about 8k. 70mm film is about 18K,

[@IsaiahOdhner]

I read that as "70's film is about 18K"... you know, "50's film was shot on at least 25K, and by the 40s all video was 360 degrees in 360K"

[@1wibble2]

70mm film is 18K? LOL, funniest thing I've read all year.

[@sdjklsdjksdjklf]

I disagree. I think that at 8K you finally have a format that can actually capture EVERYTHING in a source, regardless of whether it's 16/35/70mm.

[@1wibble2]

Have to say after watching The Martian in 3D at the incredible Dolby Vision room using the Christies laser projector at the cinema in Hilversum Holland, I will never want to watch a movie shot with traditional film ever again, the picture quality was INSANE. Digital all the way, its really the only way to guarantee a 100% perfect copy reaching the cinema. With the old negatives, every copy made after the master was worse, and everytime it was played it got even worse. Add to that the noises blemishes, the fact the image moved around a bit, how much depending on the quality of the negative and the projector mechanics. I'm done with film. As much as I love Nolans movies I simply do not agree with him, Digital cameras have come of age now.

[@Entanon]

The answer is complicated, and hard for non-movie-tech to get to grips with, but this is the best I could find, which makes your figures a bit high, but the point is still valid: that the old media already contains enough info to support a 4K re-release. www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?59036-Resolution-of-35mm-film-and-70mm-IMAX-film "It's easier to just talk about the resolution on the original negative and avoid bringing in the resolution of various printing and projection methods, etc. Red has tested Super-35 and generally found it to be, I forgot, 3.2K or 3.5K, something like that. You could therefore say that if a 24mm wide piece of film negative resolves 3.2K, for example, a 36mm wide piece of film (VistaVision) would resolve 4.8K, and a 52mm wide piece of film (5-perf 65mm Super Panavision / Todd-AO) would resolve 6.9K, and a 70mm wide piece of film (15-perf 65mm IMAX) would resolve 9.3K. "

[@AutoAddictuk]

I still stick with my trusty old CRT, love the picture. plus its 75kg so really dont wanna move it lol.

[@OtakuUnitedStudio]

You got one of those console TV's? 75 kilos sounds about how much the one my parents had when I was a kid weighed.

[@tolipwen1487]

I have had a UHD TV for 16 months. I use it primarily as a workstation monitor. I also have 4k cameras. Typically I move the memory from the camera to the PC for viewing. (you advocate similar procedures) One day a few months ago, I plugged the memory/USB3.0 adapter into the USB3.0 port on the TV instead. That was the day I had the "WOW" moment. The set was a windy fall day and the action was a tree being cut down. The detail on the trees and leaves blowing in the wind STILL amazes me. That it was my own content that produced the moment was huge too. Next I tested putting some free 4k animations made with Blender(Elephants Dream, Sintel, and Tears of Steel) on class 10 cards in USB3.0 adapters plugged straight into the TV. The codecs in the TV outperform all of my PCs. (I have video cards that can play games at UHD so I thought I had it covered on the PC end) So now I keep a USB extender plugged into the TV to avoid having to reach for the slot on the back. NOTE: my TV has 2 USB ports and only one is the necessary USB3.0 flavor. Everybodys mileage will vary but I am happy with Panasonic cameras and Samsung display. For me these codecs play very well together. I based my purchase decision on resolution alone and got the expected results in that department. Little did I know there was secret amazing fun hidden in there for me to discover. :)

[@GinjiVitis]

Hey Techmoan, Love the channel but I have to say I'm really quite surprised that you couldn't tell a significant difference with your 4k setup. I bought my first 4k screen a few weeks ago, 65 inch and I sit probably about 6-8 feet away and I found the difference in image quality to be striking. We haven't picked up a UHD blu ray player yet but while standard blu rays looked quite nice on the screen, 4k Streams and files made me curse as a reflex. "oh sht...look at that". I had never gotten that kind of wow reaction from a 1080p image. I hope you have everything properly calibrated is all. Everyone deserves that wow-factor.

[@Techmoan]

+GinjiVitis It's probably my eyesight - and I'm 10ft away.

[@bobbypaycheque]

Annoys me to no end the people who throw the whole 'retina' argument around and claim you can't see a difference unless you are x number of inches from the screen. If that were true we would never have upgraded from 720p. UHD looks incredible. Must be seen to be believed.

[@EQINOX187]

+bobbypaycheque Did you even watch the video? Even he clearly states that as far as resolution goes you can't tell the difference when sitting at the same distance, This is not some myth this is a tried and tested verified fact that is not only stated by manufacturers but has also been independently tested multiple times by many a place, The reason you think it looks incredible is partly down the physiological placebo factor where by your brain knows what it is thus automatically thinks its better and this play's out in the testing that has been done. In one test video people got told one is 4k the other is 1080p they had to pick what they though was the 4k at the end it was something like 12% correctly identified the 4k tv and when questioned most of them said it was down to a 50/50 guess. The reason we upgraded from 720p to 1080p is the same reason people are buying into 4k because consumers are dumb and smart marketing works wonders on stupid people.

[@bobbypaycheque]

EQUINOX I am complaining about people who only think resolution matters when it comes to picture quality. Although I have better vision than most and I can definitely see a difference in the store without a placebo effect when it comes to pixel density, particularly concerning skin tones. But again, 4K UHD isn't just more pixels, it's more everything. Color accuracy, saturation and sharpness are what make 4K truly stand out. Everybody is different but they honestly must have tested blind people if they showed a 4K source through a large 4K UHD TV and people couldn't tell the difference. It's possible I couldn't tell on a smaller screen, but the 70 inch TV in my bedroom was an obvious upgrade, as was the home cinema projector that is 135 inches diagonal. Unfortunately, the issue now is finding more 4K content.

[@MrOpenGL]

+bobbypaycheque Resolution matters up to a point. Then, it's all about color depths and bandwidth, and also having the correct settings on the TV or monitor, because I see many people having TVs set up for colors that are so vivid and bright that they look extremely unrealistic.

[@barebarekun161]

+bobbypaycheque 4K really is amazing after I watched some Sony 4K HDR demo. But I'll probably wait for few more years,the 4K content push are just not as aggressive or as smooth as HD content was. Until Japanese released 8K yeah that's when 4K gets really affordable,being late to the party is now actually a good thing...

[@ArcanePath360]

I sit 20 feet from my 32" TV but I use binoculars to make it bigger.

[@RobertK1993]

Blu ray disc and 4K Ultra HD Blu ray should replace DVD now.

[@Nickwilde2295]

Dvd needs to go

[@bokaboi]

Great video mate :)

[@juanolivares2429]

The explanation I needed. Regards .

[@mikenewbold1699]

I still watch dvd's but i understand what you are saying it is a lot better but when i can buy a dvd for 50p or stream a good quality video or download. It makes me wonder why i would spend 500 on a player and then 25 per film. It's good that people like you take the brunt early on so we can have it cheap later on

[@fantom5894]

In the USA you can buy a 4k player (not upscaler but real 4K player) for equivalent of 110 pounds and a feature 4K disc for 11 pounds or so, So I guess it has gotten cheaper.

[@ryans413]

I find 4K too dark like why’s it so dark it’s okay in bright scenes but dark scenes I feel it’s crushing the detail. I like the sharpness and the colour accuracy but why’s it so dark.

[@quarterburnt]

I think you have something set up wrong because it’s completely the opposite for me. Instead of getting color banding or wash out in dark scenes, I can see details and actually notice compression between streaming services vs blu rays.

[@slowanddeliberate6893]

This effect is also true with standard HDTVs because some HDTVs support Full Range video signals through HDMI. In the regular color range, the image on a standard HDTV has significantly lower color depth, causing the television to appear to have a lower contrast ratio than it appears to have when receiving a Full Range video signal. The result is a more vibrant image with darker blacks and brighter whites

[@DaNiElBoYd100]

For me going from 1080p to UHD with HDR is like taking a good looking image and bringing it further into focus. I've always been eagle eyed for these kind of things though, and HDR only accentuates this with the added colour and contrast. Contrast is key to getting a good image, 4 times the pixels isn't going to help much at all if the contrast is poor on a screen (I know, I got a 4K tv with poor contrast a while back and my 1080p plasma ran circles around it for picture quality).

[@Theninjagecko]

From your comparison the normal blu ray is closer to what I saw at the cinema than the UHD disc.

[@Tinfoilpain]

+Techmoan I think they ignored it because you didn't explain it very well. Do you have any information rather than anecdotes?

[@Theninjagecko]

+Techmoan I have an HDR screen.

[@Techmoan]

+Tinfoilpain This is one of those things you can really only see in person - the intention of this video was to get people to go and see an HDR capable TV rather than just writing off UHD as blu-ray with more resolution. It's like someone making a video describing the feeling you get when you look off the top of the Empire State building and then showing a video from the observation deck. The viewer doesn't get that feeling by watching the video - they will only experience it by visiting the location themselves.

[@Empty-ov3on]

Theninjagecko but youtube dont support hdr and thats why it looked weird, he litreally said in the video

[@mememe84]

But how do we know which version the director intended for the movie to look like?

[@relateonthebeat]

lol that's actually a pretty good question ...

[@stephenstrange529]

And that's the key question. I saw San Andreas theatrically. It was a 2K DCP, so presumably approved by the director and cinematographer, and from what I recall (it was over a year ago) the film was bright and sharp but not quite as pink as the 4K disc. The memory cheats, and all that, but there's a significant difference between the two. At least one of them has to be wrong.

[@alexl6820]

That is a good question, although I'd bet that many directors now make certain their movies look correct in 4k as well as HD. Especially considering most major movie theaters now run their movies at 4k, and the theater is where their movies will first be seen.

[@flameshana9]

That's incredibly easy for them to solve, but they won't do it because it would harm sales. The director would just print off (on paper) a shot from the original film. He would compare it and if it looks right, distribute it as a reference. A consumer holds it up beside his TV. Voila. Either reddish or blue would be correct. Really. This isn't magic. There's no guessing anymore when we've had paper for like forever.

[@susanneruthstrom3006]

@@alexl6820 Just because they make their movies 'correct' doesn't mean that's what I consider to be correct or how I want to watch them.

[@Jikangire957]

The information you provide here is great, but please take a breath and pause every now and then!

[@DevonFlair]

Makes sense, thank you! I'm only just coming round to realising the full potential of UHD these past few months tbh. I've been guilty of looking purely at resolution before. But no longer!! Ha!

[@EQINOX187]

+Techmoan Personally when I have seen 4k movie's they always look way over saturated and that makes me think this HDR is just rubbish to try and add extra justification to 4k and all they have done is over saturate the colours and mess with the brightness and contrast and so on during the editing process, So this makes me think you could make the BluRay look exactly the same as the 4k movie simply by making a custom colour profile on your tv or player and then messing with all the colour / contrast / brightness settings etc and perhaps a challenge for you to try.

[@ncunico]

+EQUINOX So I take it your viewing uncalibrated TV's in store. The ones where they turn everything up to max to try and sell it to the uneducated masses..

[@EQINOX187]

ncunico Nope incorrect, Standard out the box calibrated where TV looks fine BluRays look fine but 4k movies over saturate, Its nothing to do with the TV and everything to do with how the colour settings where done during the editing of the film for 4k. In any case my point stands that if I can mess with my TV colour and make 4k over saturated colour look like Bluray then you can make BluRay look like 4k colours by messing with the settings.

[@ncunico]

Not on a TV that doesn't have HDR.

[@EQINOX187]

Jani You clearly can't read ......

[@EQINOX187]

Jani Lmao you clearly can't read but that's ok this is KZbin comments after all and saying 4k is better with out any explanation or facts is the kind of comment a 5 year old would make, Yes 4k is better but only in certain situations, If you are running a PC monitor and sitting 1.5 foot from it then yes a 4k screen is better than 1080p but sit 6 foot from that screen and the difference is hardly noticeable and the same applies to TVs the main noticeable thing is just the colours and this has nothing to do with 4k and just with how the colour was managed during editing and you can quite easily make BluRays have the same colour look at 4k content. Also since you are incapable of reading and understanding other comments and have assumed that i do not have 4k well in my main TV room I have a 4 week old £4700 4k setup and in my computer room my PC has 3 27" 4k monitors and a 27" 1080p monitor powered by 3 costume water cooled GTX980Ti cards and all calibrated with an X-Rite Display calibrator. So yes have intimate experience with 4k tech

[@Nostalgianerd]

#BringBackBetaMax

[@realmichaud]

rebrand as AlphaMax and the first release is Mad Max in UHD HDR Dolby 7.1 Surround ....yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

[@jeffkardosjr.3825]

It got improved as the many Betacam formats.

[@JamesSalmons]

I think that improving panels and calibration are a better solution than HDR since every panel will display it differently anyway. You can quite easily get good LCD & OLED panels to look the same as one with UHD support, and from my experience you lose quite a bit of detail in the shadows when viewing HDR content in bright daylight conditions. Another great upload BTW (it's humbling to see that more of us brits are making successful and entertaining KZbin content :)

[@scottwallace1]

Thank God. Someone who understands that color information (i.e. - more of it) and dynamic range are more meaningful to perceived improvement in quality than simple resolution. And kudos for not going too far the other way and saying something stupid like 'resolution doesn't matter'. Because of course it matters. Until you walk up to a tv and try to step through it because you thought it was real, resolution can get better. But indeed it is color depth and dynamic range that are where we most easily perceive improvement.

[@thugg4lif]

Techmoan i've bought 6 4k UHD movies and based on avforum they were all shot with 2k digital intermediate :( No wonder when I compared to blu-ray version i saw no improvement. In my opinion this is false advertising, they need to include these details on the back of the box. Ex. "filmed in 3.5k, 2k digital intermediate" Filmed at 4k & 4k digital intermediate = Spider-man 2, Chappie, Expendables 3, Revenant, Salt, Smurfs 2

[@Techmoan]

+thugg4lif I agree, there should be more info about the source material on the box.

[@thugg4lif]

+Techmoan love your challenge keep up the good word!

[@TheMysteriousKnight]

Yeah, I feel like with this format you have to do much more research before you just go out and buy it like you could with Blu ray

[@RickP2012]

480i VCD for me all the way!

[@DarkKnight-gi5vd]

Isn't 480 DVD?

[@starstudio8402]

@@DarkKnight-gi5vd dvd is 480p

[@TimTVOfficial]

Good video, I haven't thought about that

[@gleispilot7346]

You are just about to have 250k subcribers. Nice :)

[@Techmoan]

+voidFFM after this one... I wouldn't be surprised to see it drop.

[@nakedflames]

well this HDR stuff is a load of rubbish on my laptop screen it just looks a bit darker and a bit red as well

[@antonsukhorukov3648]

lol

[@andrewparke1764]

What you basically just said is that your laptop is a load of rubbish.

[@guily6669]

lol, thats because your screen doesnt have HDR... And most TVs also have fake HDR trough software... The ones with good HDR support you can get bright and more colors, good contrast, good blacks and you can still see good detail on shadow parts without getting the dull blackish effect like full dynamic contrast... And you cant also see the difference here on youtube either. Just like sound quality of speakers, its the kind of thing that you really need to have in real life to get the difference...

[@Scar1920]

You're an idiot...

[@Empty-ov3on]

naked flames youtube dosnt support hdr

[@VincentVanGamer]

Okay, Mr. ....moan. Hope you catch and can answer this fairly soon. I very much need to know what 4K Native player you are using. I've suffered the agonizing realization that my hardware was not going to play the disc TWICE. a combination of anticipation, loss of funds, and remorse PLUS repetition is EEXXCCRRUUUUTIATING and I want to avoid it a third time. I really didn't expect Sony to have deceptive advertising but it made no mention of their BDPS6700 not playing 4K Blu Rays natively and only upscales. it's labeled as upscale, but I thought that was a feature, not its limit. A second question, Oh I just realized KZbin's comment section won't let me enter to a second line or indent for the next paragraph. The fucking ignoramus. Does the player in question need special hardware on top of the special drive to display HDR, or is that entirely up to the TV? I know it has something to do with the HDMI I/O type. so it has to have that compatibility.

[@Techmoan]

There are only two 4K UHD blu Ray players on the market as I type this. The Samsung UBD-K8500 and the Panasonic DMP-UB900EBK. Both players can send the HDR to the TV, but your TV needs HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0a for the signal to get there. Up until seven months ago there were a total of zero TVs with this capability. I'd recommend reading up on it a bit more before jumping in and buying anything.

[@VincentVanGamer]

Thanks for the reply. I already got the Sony XBR65X850C months ago which I'm happy with and, while materials and documents on it say it's HDR compatible all over the place, some comments say it's not and only the new D series is which is a worry I'm wary of, but even if it can't it has Triluminos Display phoshors on its LED array as well as Live Color so I can at least be close to it. I'll probably just hold out for the release of the Sony PS4 Neo with 4K playback at this rate. thanks again.

[@imdannymartins]

+Techmoan on back of my TV says:HDMI STB/DV1. It's a Samsung 60' Ju6400. I don't think I have HDR. 😞

[@VincentVanGamer]

Daniel Silveira go ahead and check input options and see if you can select enhanced for higher color depth. Thanks to Reddit that's how I found out my XBR65X850C actually displays HDR. Keep in mind that's thanks to a firmware update from Android TV. so do some updating and looking.

[@imdannymartins]

+Vincent Van Gamer I go to source and I C: TV, HDMI3, SCREEN MIRRORING, HDMI/DVI, HDMI2, AV, COMPONENT,RVU😞

[@WeeWeeJumbo]

Fantastic. Why hadn't I subscribed already? Never was a quick study, I guess

[@wilhobbs207]

Thanks. Very helpful. I have a 55 inch TV and a blu-ray. I was wondering about 4k ultra.

[@JacGoudsmit]

I've seen HDR UHD in person and I won't be buying it because I think it's exactly what's kept me from buying Bluray movies lately: They filter the crap out of the colors and make everything green or blue if things are gloomy in the story (the entire last two Harry Potter movies might as well have been in black-and-white for that reason) and everywhere else, they accentuate the Teal and Orange to make the colors "pop". Hardly anything has natural colors anymore and I much prefer to see those. Maybe it's because I worked at a local TV station in the Netherlands for a while and now I see TV and movies in a different way: I'm much more aware of how things are made, how things are framed in the picture, how directors stick to rules like "don't go over the axis" (aka 180 degree rule), why movies look the way they do etc.

[@Techmoan]

+Jac Goudsmit I'm with you on that stylised look. I'm really not a fan either. Like Friedkin did to the Blu-Ray of the French Connection.

[@altern8ive]

+Jac Goudsmit the teal/green/blue/orange colour grading is not just limited to bluray though, it's a trend the movie industry has been using the last few years, try and find a tv drama that doesn't use it either. it's like how you couldn't watch a decent movie that didnt have a vignette effect, everything has to be dark now and poorly lit for stylistic ego stroking or to mask poor and cheap CGI

[@defamatt]

2:30 does the disc on the right come from Italy? There is "vietato il noleggio" - which is a sentence in Italian :)

[@LMacNeill]

Well that was definitely informative -- I was under the impression that the only difference was the resolution. I didn't realize that the entire gamut of colors was changing. That makes a big difference.

[@rockerseven]

Which is upsetting that so many people who are buying TVs now are just opting to go with the cheapest 4Ks they can find, thinking that it will be the same as a premium set. It also doesn't help that some brands (like Samsung) come up with their own words to describe something, which confuses the average TV shopper into buying inferior products. As an example, the UHD bluray cases will say "HDR Premium" on them, and to get the most out of it you need a TV that can also display it, also known as HDR 10. Unfortunately, Samsung decided that standard HDR to them will be called "HDR Premium" and to get the higher end HDR, they will call it "HDR 1000." It's just highly confusing for the average TV shopper who knows they need to get HDR Premium to get the most out of their UHD discs, then end up buying the cheapest Samsung TV that will NOT take advantage of that color, because Samsung felt the need to call their TV "HDR Premium"

[@jlebrech]

wow, it looks GREAT!!! ;)