What's new

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
62,050
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
I have no problem spending to upgrade, but not to constantly replace high-end hardware.

The question that remains on the table relevant to HDR+, is whether no nor all current players, processors and viewing devices can run it, with nothing more than a download and upgrade
.
I'm with you there as I stated in my previous post to this one. Furthermore, that is a question that needs to be answer for all concern.
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
62,050
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
However, there must be a rational upgrade route.

Even if it’s not firmware/software, once a consumer has invested in a new 4k device, there must be compatibility, and the ability to, at worst case, change out a board or other upgradable part.


I have no problem spending to upgrade, but not to constantly replace high-end hardware.

The question that remains on the table relevant to HDR+, is whether no nor all current players, processors and viewing devices can run it, with nothing more than a download and upgrade.
I'm in agreement with those points too.
 

Ronald Epstein

Founder
Owner
Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 1997
Messages
62,820
Real Name
Ronald Epstein
The only difference here, if my memory serves me correct is that once Blu-ray won the format war (in 2008), we had a good 8-9 years of steady compatibility. The only bump in the road was 3D. Those who wanted 3D had to do further upgrades.

However, there was a huge push for 4k as of two years ago. Hardware was rushed out. Sloppy 2k masters were put on 4k discs. The only reason the format had a rather promising adoption was due to the fact that displays were cheap and 4k was standard on them.

However, now two years into the format, it's still not solidified. That wasn't the case with Blu-ray. Now it's a question on which of the two extended color technologies will ultimately get the most support from the studios. Pick the wrong one and you wasted a lot of money on your investment.

If I am going to spend $8k on a projector -- and that's probably dealer cost -- I am going to make certain that I have something that is going to last me a few years without worrying that I picked the wrong format, either HDR10+ or Dolby Vision.

Really, I have spent too much time debating this issue. There is no right answer globally --- only the right answer for those willing to or not willing to play the upgrade game. I would rather retire and invest $8k in a safe stock.
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
62,050
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
The only difference here, if my memory serves me correct is that once Blu-ray won the format war (in 2008), we had a good 8-9 years of steady compatibility. The only bump in the road was 3D. Those who wanted 3D had to do further upgrades.

However, there was a huge push for 4k as of two years ago. Hardware was rushed out. Sloppy 2k masters were put on 4k discs. The only reason the format had a rather promising adoption was due to the fact that displays were cheap and 4k was standard on them.

However, now two years into the format, it's still not solidified. That wasn't the case with Blu-ray. Now it's a question on which of the two extended color technologies will ultimately get the most support from the studios. Pick the wrong one and you wasted a lot of money on your investment.

If I am going to spend $8k on a projector -- and that's probably dealer cost -- I am going to make certain that I have something that is going to last me a few years without worrying that I picked the wrong format, either HDR10+ or Dolby Vision.

Really, I have spent too much time debating this issue. There is no right answer globally --- only the right answer for those willing to or not willing to play the upgrade game. I would rather retire and invest $8k in a safe stock.
Ron,

I will say that I think the industry has done a disservice to their consumer base by not releasing 4K initially with both HDR and Dolby Vision formats. However, I do have difficulty telling them to stop perfecting those formats with more advanced versions. With that said and back to RAH's point, there should have been a process developed to upgrade equipment already out in the market place.

Good discussion and I'm sure others will join it with their point of views.:thumbsup:
 
Last edited:

Scott Merryfield

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
17,951
Location
Mich. & S. Carolina
Real Name
Scott Merryfield
The only difference here, if my memory serves me correct is that once Blu-ray won the format war (in 2008), we had a good 8-9 years of steady compatibility. The only bump in the road was 3D. Those who wanted 3D had to do further upgrades.

However, there was a huge push for 4k as of two years ago. Hardware was rushed out. Sloppy 2k masters were put on 4k discs. The only reason the format had a rather promising adoption was due to the fact that displays were cheap and 4k was standard on them.

However, now two years into the format, it's still not solidified. That wasn't the case with Blu-ray. Now it's a question on which of the two extended color technologies will ultimately get the most support from the studios. Pick the wrong one and you wasted a lot of money on your investment.

If I am going to spend $8k on a projector -- and that's probably dealer cost -- I am going to make certain that I have something that is going to last me a few years without worrying that I picked the wrong format, either HDR10+ or Dolby Vision.

Really, I have spent too much time debating this issue. There is no right answer globally --- only the right answer for those willing to or not willing to play the upgrade game. I would rather retire and invest $8k in a safe stock.

During the BD era, the same thing happened with sloppy early transfers. I think we have all purchased multiple versions of the same film on BD, just as we did on DVD.

While I understand why people are upset, as someone who invested in 4K technology in 2017 this announcement doesn't bother me. Even if HDR10+ takes off as a format, it will not affect the image quality I am getting today with my equipment -- and I am happy with that quality. If anything, the appearance of HDR10+ may force Dolby to reduce their licensing fees for Dolby Vision, which may result in a greater adoption of that format.

I do agree that the industry has not handled the 4K rollout well. The nuances of different color spaces, HDMI versions, HDMI cable certifications, HDR formats, etc are confusing for us tech geeks who call this a hobby. How can the average consumer be expected to figure this all out when we have problems doing so?
 

dpippel

Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2000
Messages
11,372
Location
Sonora Norte
Real Name
Doug
The question that remains on the table relevant to HDR+, is whether no nor all current players, processors and viewing devices can run it, with nothing more than a download and upgrade.

Knowing the consumer electronics industry, I think it's a pretty easy bet that HDR10+ will in most cases require new hardware. In other words, more money spent by the consumer if they want to take advantage of this technology.
 

Ronald Epstein

Founder
Owner
Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 1997
Messages
62,820
Real Name
Ronald Epstein
Knowing the consumer electronics industry, I think it's a pretty easy bet that HDR10+ will in most cases require new hardware. In other words, more money spent by the consumer if they want to take advantage of this technology.


Doug,

No doubt. None of this will be a simple software upgrade.

So, in two short years, 4k is already somewhat outdated by these new technologies.

However, I understand there are those who are very happy with what they already have.
 

RichMurphy

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
769
Location
Somewhere, VA
Real Name
Rich
I do agree that the industry has not handled the 4K rollout well.

I think most home video fans would agree that historically, no rollout has been handled well.

As someone whose has gone from 16mm to Kloss Novabeam to the latest and greatest digital projectors regularly, my philosophy now is just to upgrade when I have the resources available, and at that time will see what the state of the art in my price range is. The day when video displays become a commodity (as PCs and DVD players eventually did) is a long way off.
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
62,050
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
I think most home video fans would agree that historically, no rollout has been handled well.

As someone whose has gone from 16mm to Kloss Novabeam to the latest and greatest digital projectors regularly, my philosophy now is just to upgrade when I have the resources available, and at that time will see what the state of the art in my price range is. The day when video displays become a commodity (as PCs and DVD players eventually did) is a long way off.
Right, even DVD rollout had its issues like non-progressive players and then progressive players. Pan & Scan and non-anamorphic wide screen video presentations.
 

Ronald Epstein

Founder
Owner
Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 1997
Messages
62,820
Real Name
Ronald Epstein
Rich,

I think with one exception, the DVD rollout went perfectly.

There were no competing formats. The difference over laserdisc and VHS was night and day. It wasn't difficult to sell customers on the format once they saw it in person.

Warren Lieberfarb was the big winner. He held the license for the format. Everyone that used it had to pay him. It was a hard lesson that all the other studios and manufacturers took note of and moving forward, everyone tried to get their own piece of the pie in any new format that came along.

The one exception to the perfect DVD rollout? Transfers. Outside of new releases, a lot of classic fare was being thrown on the discs without any kind of digital cleanup.


EDIT: Responding to Robert's comment about progressive and non-progressive players. I don't quite remember that. My memory is that all the initial players, prior to upscaling players coming at the dawn of Blu-ray, were all the same. I could be wrong, but I am working on a memory going about 20 years back.
 

sleroi

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
1,180
Real Name
Gavin Kopp
The despicable me uhd discs have a Dolby vision encode that defaults to hdr if your player or display is not dv capable.

As long as hdr10+ discs do the same ill be fine. Sure hdr10+ probably will look better, but the difference between blu ray and UHD is worth upgrading to. The difference between hdr10 and hdr10+ is only worth upgrading to if your in the market for a new display or player, its not night and day.

Ill enjoy my current setup, and in a few years when I either upgrade again or add a second tv ill take advantage of whatever is available.

Appollo 13 is one of my favorite films. And the 4k scan of the original camera negative is simply breathtaking. In plain old hdr10.
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
62,050
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
EDIT: Responding to Robert's comment about progressive and non-progressive players. I don't quite remember that. My memory is that all the initial players, prior to upscaling players coming at the dawn of Blu-ray, were all the same. I could be wrong, but I am working on a memory going about 20 years back.
I remembered it because it cost me a bunch of money. I was one of the first 50,000 people to buy a DVD player. That very expensive Sony player that first came out on the DVD market in 1997, was non-progressive. My first progressive player was a Toshiba that came out 6-9 months or so later after my Sony purchase in the summer of 1997. Both players cost around $1000 each.
 

Dave Moritz

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2001
Messages
8,939
Location
California
Real Name
Dave Moritz
We no longer have formats that are done when they first come out like in the old days. Like in the old days with turntables, cassette decks, laser disc players and vcr's where there where no changes in the formats themselves and your records and tapes would work no matter what. Even with movies on the new formats there seems to eventually be a new software upgrade so a new feature on the disc will work and the movie will play. We did not have this problem many years ago! Sure a manufacture might have some different marketing tweek to get you to buy there product but it is not like it is now. And companies where more into increasing quality and performance to separate themselves from there competitors. But we have HDR which is nice but TV's came out without HDR then they added Dolby Vision and now for HDR to compete with Dolby Vision HDR or HDR-10 has to come out with HDR-10+ and one has to wonder will Dolby Vision come out with a premium Dolby Vision next?

I have been involved in the hobby a long time and I understand that new gear and technology comes out in cycles all the time. I have gone from stereo sources like turntables and cassette decks which where stereo only audio formats to including audio and video. From laserdisc to VHS video tape to dvd video to hd-dvd and blu-ray and now 4K blu-ray. But I can understand why lately people are getting turned off and why they might put off jumping on board with a new technology because it seems like it is never actually finished anymore. Granted I chose to be a first adopter and I do not have Dolby Vision and it will be awhile before I can afford to upgrade my display. But I am going to not focus on what features I do not have and choose to enjoy the features and capability I do have. But at the same time I see what some are getting tired and choose to not join in on new technologies like 4K. Moving forward how ever the equipment manufactures are going to have a very hard time selling someone on whey they need yet another new format TV or video format for movies or that next change in audio format with possible more speakers. In my honest opinion we have hit that spot where we have both video and audio quality that is more than good enough for the home environment. And it is going to be very difficult to see the consumer on why they need to replace what they have for that next new shinny item to go in there home. Other than a display that literally looks like reality and so real you couldn't tell the difference between a display and looking out your window. What can they sell us that we can justify spending more money on and do we need to to look that real? And I know many people out there do not have the available finances they use to have so it is so much more difficult to run out and replace things every time they change formats and features.

So personally this is a good reason to put off buying a new 4K display or 4K projector till things settle and prices come down on 4K projectors. Right now my focus is on upgrading to yet another new AVR! But unlike any other time in the past my current upgrades will be my last! I do not need or want anything better than what is out right now. Other than maybe including Dolby Vision and the HDR-10+ there is nothing else they can sell me moving forward. Lossless audio and Dobly Atmos with DTS-X is more than I need or want. Part of my plan is to upgrade component quality and for example upgrading to better quality rear channel speakers and match the center channel that I have now. Other than a few upgrades here and there depending on the availability of funds and the realization that my age is catching up with me the upgrade train is coming slowly to an end. And I will be content to enjoy what I have! The only thing I will do is add movies as long as there is physical media and once that goes away I am done buying movies as well. So again I can see the points a number of people have brought up in this thread! I can see major change coming to the industry in the future and wouldn't be surprise if competition gets so tough between manufactures that we see many of the brands that are less known to the average consumer just go out of business and we are left with a much smaller choice of companies. Especially with technology moving forward to the point where people can not tell the difference and see no reason to upgrade what they have. There are so many more companies out there the average consumer never hears about and lets face it many consumers just want something cheap just so they can have it and because finances doesn't allow them to buy more expensive things! And sometimes you just have to get what you can afford.

I forsee HDR-10+ working something similar to how packet extensions work with Dolby Atmos and DTS-X. Where if you do not have Atmos or X the avr just sees the Dolby True HD or Master Audio part of the audio stream. So the way I see it HDR-10+ should basically be an extension to HDR-10 and if your gear can deal with it then you will get the full HDR-10+ experience if not then you will only see HDR-10. I don't think people should worry to much about it. But again I still see why people are having issues moving forward buying new gear when many feel this all should have been worked out in the beginning. Those days are long gone unfortunately! Players have updates as do avr's occasionally have updates as do our tv's and smart phones seem to always have updates available. Hardware today always has an update for a number of reasons.
 
Last edited:

RichMurphy

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
769
Location
Somewhere, VA
Real Name
Rich
Rich,

I think with one exception, the DVD rollout went perfectly.

There were no competing formats.

The one exception to the perfect DVD rollout? Transfers. Outside of new releases, a lot of classic fare was being thrown on the discs without any kind of digital cleanup.

One more exception: Let's not forget Circuit City's "brilliant" DIVX - the DVD player system that required a dedicated phone line and limited the time period during which you could play the disc. For a mercifully brief moment, some films were only available in that format.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
16,535
Real Name
Robert Harris
In response to Dave Moritz's comments. I concur, but will go a step further.

The marketing side of home video has been working extremely hard to make it appear that HDR is an inherent part of the 4k environment, and it simply is not.

Many HDR releases have been created so dark that they're unviewable in any rational projection environment.

While a properly created extension of HDR can allow an upgraded image, in most cases, all that one gets is pushed color and higher gamma levels.

In its creation, there is a major difference between HDR at $1,500, with the push of a button, and HDR inclusive of 40 hours of color room time.

But it's all HDR, and akin to the creation of a martini, with the veritable waving of vermouth over the glass.

It all goes back to the wide-eyes looks one might see on a kid's face during a visit to a big box store, while viewing clown fish swimming in coral.

Is HDR a necessity for an enjoyable home theater experience?

In my opinion, it is not.

It allows bragging rights, and for those with less keen eyes, the ability to discern a bigger difference between an image with and without the functionality of HDR.

A visit to any of Shout Factory's series of large format documentaries, which all seem to have content with and without HDR might be instructive.

While the increased contrast ratios of HDR lend an appearance of a more highly resolved image, especially from lower than 4k data, it all becomes a matter of perception, and not reality.

True 4k data, whether created with or without HDR, is the stuff that home theater dreams are made of.

All the rest is window-dressing, licensing, and grabs at ownership of IP.

RAH
 
Last edited:

Scott Merryfield

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
17,951
Location
Mich. & S. Carolina
Real Name
Scott Merryfield
One more exception: Let's not forget Circuit City's "brilliant" DIVX - the DVD player system that required a dedicated phone line and limited the time period during which you could play the disc. For a mercifully brief moment, some films were only available in that format.

...and don't forget that early DVD players did not support DTS audio output, either. As for DIVX, I remember my next door neighbor knocking on my door and proudly informing me he had purchased a DVD player after watching a film at our home the night before. My smile turned to a frown when he told me he bought the player at Circuit City and it was a DIVX player. Fortunately, it played regular DVDs without any issues.
 

Edwin-S

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Messages
9,427
If HDR10+ was a simple extension or software upgrade to the present HDR10 standard then it would make sense. It doesn't make sense to anyone who has already purchased an HDR equipped UHD TV if a hardware purchase is required to get a marginal upgrade to a technology that, as Robert Harris has pointed out, is an unnecessary requirement for good 4K home theatre quality.

I would upgrade to HDR10+ if I could do a software upgrade. I'm not about to spend x-thousands of dollars to replace a 1 or 2-year-old set for an incremental upgrade to a standard. I can live with HDR10 if it means spending yet more money for very little return.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
353,167
Messages
5,009,886
Members
143,409
Latest member
Daryubel
Recent bookmarks
0
Top