DaveF

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
23,498
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
Maybe it’s all a thing of the past, but my impression of Dolby Vision from reading many discussions on various displays over the last year or so is that it can be somewhat problematic.

As HDR displays continue to get brighter and, more importantly, HDR tone mapping gets better and better the “improvement” of Dolby Vision over regular HDR-10 becomes meaningless anyway.

Dolby Vision seems most relevant when looking at displays that do a poor job of tone mapping HDR-10. But tone mapping has improved significantly compared to when UHD TVs first launched.
Similarly: Projectors don't support Dolby Vision, so I don't care about it being on a disc.
 

Sean Bryan

Sean Bryan
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
4,944
Real Name
Sean
Similarly: Projectors don't support Dolby Vision, so I don't care about it being on a disc.
Right. I currently use the Panasonic UB820 to handle the HDR tone mapping for my projector.

I’m waiting to see the price range of the madVR Envy when that becomes available and then I’ll decide if I’m going to shell out for that or build a HTPC with madVR. The benefit of either solution (as well as for those who have the Lumagen Radiance Pro) is dynamic frame by frame tone mapping. So that’ll pretty much be doing what Dolby Vision does, but any display and HDR10 software can take advantage.

As you said, projectors don’t have Dolby Vision and the chances of it coming to them any time soon seem very small. So DV is irrelevant to projector owners. And most new UHD TVs have good tone mapping now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveF

John Dirk

Cinematographer
Premium
Joined
May 7, 2000
Messages
3,582
Location
ATL
Real Name
JOHN
I’m waiting to see the price range of the madVR Envy when that becomes available and then I’ll decide if I’m going to shell out for that or build a HTPC with madVR. The benefit of either solution (as well as for those who have the Lumagen Radiance Pro) is dynamic frame by frame tone mapping. So that’ll pretty much be doing what Dolby Vision does, but any display and HDR10 software can take advantage.
The MadVR solution sounds interesting [some day, right] but why the decided preference for Dolby Vision over HDR10+ or HLG? The former will never be an acceptable solution for projector owners and the latter offers similar specs.
 

Sean Bryan

Sean Bryan
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
4,944
Real Name
Sean
The MadVR solution sounds interesting [some day, right] but why the decided preference for Dolby Vision over HDR10+ or HLG? The former will never be an acceptable solution for projector owners and the latter offers similar specs.
Sorry, not sure I follow your question. I have no preference for Dobly Vision. Frame by frame dynamic tone mapping, however, should provide the best results on low luminance displays like projectors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Dirk

Todd Erwin

Producer
Reviewer
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
6,026
Location
Hawthorne, NV
Real Name
Todd Erwin
I've pretty much stopped reading the Forbes author's articles on home video. This article that Martin refers to says the same thing about just about every 4k release from Disney.
Rephrasing: The author of the Forbes article has said the same thing about just about every 4k release from Disney released after Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
 

John Dirk

Cinematographer
Premium
Joined
May 7, 2000
Messages
3,582
Location
ATL
Real Name
JOHN
Frame by frame dynamic tone mapping, however, should provide the best results on low luminance displays like projectors.
Agreed. I was only pointing out the fact that HDR 10+ and DV should offer similar performance, only HDR10+ promises to do it without licencing fees.
 

Scott Jentsch

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Sep 2, 2001
Messages
53
Real Name
Scott
I just looked, and my most recent E-Mail with questions about a home video release was Mary Poppins Returns 4K.

That release is HDR10 only, no dynamic formats.

So is Captain Marvel. And Dumbo. And every other home video release I checked going back about a year.

Is there some history that I'm not seeing that would indicate that Disney would implement dynamic HDR on their new releases?
 

Scott Jentsch

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Sep 2, 2001
Messages
53
Real Name
Scott
I think "attack" is a little hyperbolic. The release is facing some criticism, with good reason.

Studios have had the ability to use seamless branching on Blu-ray for years, but few use it. Studios had the ability to use BD-Live, but couldn't figure out how to do something that was truly useful (they seemed stuck in the idea that they needed to create a "portal" which was just a confusing jumble of corporate worthlessness). Even Atmos seems a challenge for them.

The one thing they really got right was implementing lossless soundtracks. (Although Disney has had an issue with their levels, so there's that)

The media *should* be encouraging, coercing, and pressuring the studios to do the best possible at every turn. That's their role. They are the voice of the customer; because individuals have no voice that will be heeded. We should always be looking for the best possible outcome, or all we'll get is mediocrity.

The marketing trailer for the home video release does give away most of the plot of the movie. While that's regrettable, it's certainly not surprising or shocking in any way. The studio is probably making the pretty safe assumption that everyone remotely interested in the movie has seen it at least once, and if they haven't, they've heard about what happens. It would be downright impossible not to know what happens unless one is *very* diligent about avoiding spoilers.

It's odd that the release should be HDR10 only, and not one of the dynamic formats. That might be an error in the specs that will flesh itself out once the actual release gets in people's hands. I've seen this happen with some of Disney's other releases, where the initial press release didn't even mention HDR (the same applies here, there is no mention of HDR at all), but a quick E-Mail to some people got that straightened out. Maybe they're trying out just using HDR to see if anyone cares? I could see them wanting to step away from Dolby Vision to save money, but who knows??

The lack of aspect ratio switching is actually good news to me, as I dislike them. My projector doesn't have the ability to mask off the top and bottom, so when I zoom to fill my 2.35:1 screen, the IMAX stuff just looks goofy being projected onto the wall and masking. That's a problem I can fix and I don't expect all the flat-screeners to have any pity on me, but feel free to contribute to my projector upgrade account... :)

If seamless branching isn't an option for some reason, then they could do an extra disc. That is an extra cost, so they have to deal with that, but the studios seem willing to toss in DVD's in many of these releases for some unknown reason so I don't know that that's a big issue. Usability might be an issue, because confused consumers are rampant, and anything that adds to that confusion just isn't worth the hassle. The extra disc weighs more as well, so there are likely shipping issues.

On top of all this is a definite tendency toward streaming. I hate the thought of a world where I cannot buy movies on physical media any longer, so the further out that future is, the happier I'm going to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: George_W_K

Ronald Epstein

Founder
Owner
Joined
Jul 3, 1997
Messages
56,208
Real Name
Ronald Epstein
I was asked to add this article to this thread. Enjoy this read from John Archer...


https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarcher/2019/06/26/avengers-endgame-4k-blu-ray-set-to-frustrate-av-fans/amp/
 

StayReady

Auditioning
Joined
Jul 4, 2019
Messages
1
Real Name
Quincy Sloan
Maybe it’s all a thing of the past, but my impression of Dolby Vision from reading many discussions on various displays over the last year or so is that it can be somewhat problematic.

As HDR displays continue to get brighter and, more importantly, HDR tone mapping gets better and better the “improvement” of Dolby Vision over regular HDR-10 becomes meaningless anyway.

Dolby Vision seems most relevant when looking at displays that do a poor job of tone mapping HDR-10. But tone mapping has improved significantly compared to when UHD TVs first launched.
Thats one perspective to have, if you want to narrow down the capabilities of Dolby Vision to just being dynamic tone mapping. Dolby is more than its dynamic tone mapping, 10 bit panels benefit from the 12 bit masters, primarily if the disc has the full enhancement layer, that also carries data from the original master. Some displays are not properly set out of the box, with a contrast setting improperly set crushing white above 1000 nits or the display peak of 2000 nits. The ZD9/Z9D clips white in the 4000 nit range. The Z9F clips white above 7000 nits although its peak brightness 1500 nits. The Z9F has a properly set contrast setting.

Dolby Vision streamed content doesn't use YCbCr color space, high brightness colors exhibit cross talk and posterization, it has Dolby IPT(ICtCp color space), a constant luminance color space specifically designed for HDR.

Disc content go through a conversion process to take advantage of IPT(Dolby ICtCp color space, not as good as a pure DV stream.
 

Dave Moritz

Lead Actor
Premium
Joined
Jul 7, 2001
Messages
7,953
Location
California
Real Name
Dave Moritz
I will be picking up the Avengers: Endgame on 4K UHD Blu-ray but I do wish that Disney had used Dolby Vision instead of standard HDR! My plan is to have Avengers, Iron Man, Captain America, Black Panther, Hulk and Captain Marvel all on 4K UHD Blu-ray. As far as Avengers: Endgame goes I will get the digital DV version via digital code when I buy the disc. Since I own a Sony 4K OLED I would have preferred to have Dolby Vision and would hope someone at Disney is seeing this thread.



Avengers End Game.jpg


And since there would not be the expense of duplication I wonder if it would be impossible for Disney and other studios to make films available in Auro 3D on digital platforms? Heck this would be a nice option for those with higher end home theaters and there would not be a cost of cranking out physical discs.
 
Last edited:

TJPC

Cinematographer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2016
Messages
3,841
Location
Hamilton Ontario
Real Name
Terry Carroll
My plan is to have every Marvel movie that was available in 3D on 3D Blu ray. Thanks to A.uk, so far, I am successful. Today I got the notice that Captain Marvel 3D is dispatched. Endgame 3D is on pre-order and Spider-Man FFH is pre-ordered from Amazon Germany. Remember only 5 or so years ago when you just strolled over to Best Buy?
 

AcesHighStudios

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
236
Real Name
Mike Williams
I just read a review of Avengers: Endgame on 4K Blu-ray, and was extremely disappointed to discover that the film, while it was shot entirely with IMAX cameras, was finished at only 2K. I understand all the computer CGI that takes time, but this is the biggest-selling movie of all time, and they knew going in that it was going to be among the top, and yet they cheaped out on both money and quality by going 2K.

I know there will be those who say 4K is just a gimmick and not really noticeable, but that simply isn't true. I know there are those who will say 2K upscaled to 4K is fine and the 4K really isn't necessary, and that not only isn't true, but it's that attitude that allows the studios to continue with this terrible practice, even with their very biggest films.

I'm sick of the studios continually giving us 2K upscales to 4K, and I'm tired of the reviewers and so-called film buffs continuing to give them a pass.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
13,084
Real Name
Robert Harris
I just read a review of Avengers: Endgame on 4K Blu-ray, and was extremely disappointed to discover that the film, while it was shot entirely with IMAX cameras, was finished at only 2K. I understand all the computer CGI that takes time, but this is the biggest-selling movie of all time, and they knew going in that it was going to be among the top, and yet they cheaped out on both money and quality by going 2K.

I know there will be those who say 4K is just a gimmick and not really noticeable, but that simply isn't true. I know there are those who will say 2K upscaled to 4K is fine and the 4K really isn't necessary, and that not only isn't true, but it's that attitude that allows the studios to continue with this terrible practice, even with their very biggest films.

I'm sick of the studios continually giving us 2K upscales to 4K, and I'm tired of the reviewers and so-called film buffs continuing to give them a pass.
If a project is finished in 2k, it doesn’t need a 4k release. Nice, mit HDR / Atmos, but not essential.

The Blu has 7.1, I believe, while Atmos is only on the 4k.

No rationale for this, except to push 4k.

Which leaves non-adopters, who have invested in Atmos out in the cold.
 

Michel_Hafner

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 28, 2002
Messages
1,301
I'm sick of the studios continually giving us 2K upscales to 4K, and I'm tired of the reviewers and so-called film buffs continuing to give them a pass.
I agree for the initial master. Once the film is finished in 2K the 4K upscale is the only way to see the 2K at home in "+-full" quality (beyong BD quality). So UHD is the way to go with 2K or 4K originals if best quality at home is one's goal.
 

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
344,472
Messages
4,710,959
Members
141,275
Latest member
Wadeheat3