SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
3D and 4K were nothing! It's all about HDR now!
Netflix has confirmed it has begun its rollout of high dynamic range content on its TV and film streaming service. HDR videos display millions more shades of colour and extra levels of brightness than normal ones, allowing images to look more realistic.
However, to view them members will need a new type of TV or monitor and a premium-priced Netflix subscription. Some HDR content had already been available via Amazon's rival Instant Video service. Ultra-high-definition 4K Blu-ray discs - which launched in the UK earlier this week - also include HDR data.
Netflix's support follows January's creation of a scheme defining the HDR standards a television set must meet to be marketed with an "Ultra HD Premium" sticker. [...] The US firm recommends its members have at least a 25 megabits per second connection to view them.
High-dynamic-range imaging at Wikipedia.
Related:
A Look at AMD's GPU Plans for 2016
LG to Demo an 8K Resolution TV at the Consumer Electronics Show
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @02:57AM
Indeed. It is curious to me that they keep ratcheting up 3D, 4K, and now HDR when most of us won't be able to notice any "enhancement" in anything but the bandwidth and download time to get at their content. Who will actually benefit from this, other than the ISPs expecting to rake in lots of money on overage fees?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday April 17 2016, @03:22AM
Video equipment manufacturers.
And garbage disposal/recycling operators - even if the latter may not be much healthy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday April 17 2016, @04:13AM
Who will beneift? TV manufacturers struggling to find any means to get you to buy a new TV.
3D didn't seduce me. 4K still not enough. This HDR is unlikely to work either.
I'm running a 9 year old Plasma and I see nothing I need from newer displays.
And even if I did want a new TV, a built in microphone and camera is definitely on my interdict list.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @04:18AM
The only benefit the newer TVs would have for me over a plasma television would be the reduced power cost. Although, I'm not sure how big of a difference that would be, especially as TVs get bigger and require more processing power and power for the pixels and what not.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday April 17 2016, @04:51AM
I haven't shopped for a newer unit wither, but with the power we save switching just about every light in the house to LED, we've already saved more than we would have saved with replacing that Plasma.
This page suggests LED uses a quarter the power that Plasma does:
http://www.cnet.com/news/what-you-need-to-know-about-tv-power-consumption/ [cnet.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Sunday April 17 2016, @09:41AM
Frojack: I am very impressed with the VISIO's I bought. LED backlights. And they do not get hot in the back.
There are many brands out there... I really can't tell you if one is any better than the rest... I just stated the one I ended up with. It had all the things I wanted - 1080p, LED backlight, TV, VGA in, and would run from 12 volts DC.
They also have a lot higher resolution letting me use them as computer monitors as well as TV.
You might wanna go check some out.
( The heat not much of concern in the winter, but really expensive to aircondition it back out in the summer ).
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by anubi on Sunday April 17 2016, @09:32AM
Everything I had a couple of years ago was NEC Multisync. I ended up donating them to Goodwill after I purchased several VISIO Full HD TV's ( 1080p ) at WalMart, and convinced myself that they were reliable enough to use. Not only that, the VISIO's had VGA inputs, which were very important to me.
I still have not got a warm comfy feeling for HDMI, as I still think of it as a DRM mechanism, that may one day arbitrarily begin enforcing someone's else's wish in me. I KNOW the analog VGA is reliable, I do not have near that much confidence that if I plug in a HDMI device, that it will work. For a while there, I has lost confidence that even NTSC could be counted on to work, until I found out how macrovision worked and saw how to regenerate the sync. So I have not acquired anything that demands HDMI streams. My laptop will deliver HDMI, but before I plunked money down for it, I made sure it would also put out VGA just in case some rightsholder gets the hots for messing my stuff up after I have paid for it - thinking I could use it.
I see the new stuff, and it sure looks tempting, but I am also very concerned about giving up my control of it. I would much rather watch a movie in black and white, NTSC, than to have the latest ultra-high-definition presentation forcing ads on me every three minutes. I feel the ad-men have told me loud and clear just how they feel about my enjoyment of a presentation every time I watch OTA TV. Its a game with them - just how far can they push me with relentless ads before I simply give up.
So, while even 4K looks good, I am afraid of HDMI and too ignorant at this time to know how to work around the irritants rightsholders may force onto me.
When I know how to undo what the handshaking businessmen have done to force me to waste time with unwanted ads - then I may get on board, but as for now, I feel I am only being manipulated to spend MY money to put THEIR noose on my neck. I see their setup, and I have other things I would rather spend my dollars on.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @11:05AM
And this is exactly the reason.
The transition from SDTV to HDTV provided a very noticeable improvement in picture quality. That and the forced shutdown of SDTV broadcasting in favor of HDTV broadcasting helped generate a huge sales increase for the TV makers for a few years.
Since then, well, for the majority of TV watchers, they just do not see the same striking difference between HDTV and 4k or 3d or HDR to justify replacing the TV that they just purchased not too many years ago. So from the TV makers perspective, they see a depression in sales of new TV sets.
And because of that depression, they are desperate to find something, anything, that will convince people to buy like they did during the SD to HD transition. But no one's falling for the tricks. Hense the quick succession of successor tech: 3d, 4K, smart TV, and now HDR.
(Score: 2) by Celestial on Sunday April 17 2016, @05:20AM
I agree that the difference with 4K resolution is negligible. However, I do notice a difference with HDR and the 10 bit color-gamut. Those are what make the upgrade to new HDR sets and 4K Ultra HD Blu-Ray worthwhile, IMO.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Monday April 18 2016, @03:30AM
Unlike 4K and probably 3D, HDR is something that people will notice. The human eye can handle a rather large range of values from very dark to very bright and often times at the same time. Having a TV that can be very dark during night scenes without losing detail is great for movies that are shot at night, especially horror movies.
Considering how far digital imaging techniques have come over the last 15 years, it only makes sense that TVs and monitors be able to make more use of them than in the past. For films where having the typical dynamic range makes sense, you can still do that, but for most films that extra dynamic range is a god send.
Same goes for the high frame rate movies. When you pan around at the standard frame rate, it tends to look jittery, but at double the frame rate, the movement is much more smooth and natural. People often times don't like it, but that's mainly because they aren't used to it.