UHD and HDR in General

[EddieLarkin]

What player and TV models do you have?

[movielocke]

What player and TV models do you have?

Player: Sony UBP-X700

TV: Sony XBR-X900E

[Michael Kerpan]

If I will mainly be relying on DVDs for a LONG time (not replacing much of my back catalog any time soon, if ever) -- should I pray for my (repaired following lightning strike) plasma TV lasts for as long as possible?

[EddieLarkin]

What player and TV models do you have?

Player: Sony UBP-X700

TV: Sony XBR-X900E

First of all I would check that your HDMI ports are set to Enhanced and not Standard, as they will have been out of the box. You'll find this in the main TV setup options, not the Picture options. If they are set to Standard you won't be able to display HDR properly and perhaps it could have led to your player defaulting to SDR conversion.

You don't have Dolby Vision on your TV so forget that but I'd still make sure it's turned to Off on the player, just incase that's doing something.

As for calibrating, this is acheived using a colorimeter. Fiddling with the settings and deciding what looks best can not remotely be called calibration. Indeed, most TVs these days come with their Brightness (called Black Level on Sony sets) and Contrast set to where they should always be, in the case of Sony TVs that's 90 Contrast and 50 Black Level, so if you've moved them from there the picture will be more inaccurate not less.

If I will mainly be relying on DVDs for a LONG time (not replacing much of my back catalog any time soon, if ever) -- should I pray for my (repaired following lightning strike) plasma TV lasts for as long as possible?

I choose to watch DVDs on my OLED over my Plasma in most cases, so I'm not sure what you mean. The only times I don't is when I'm watching DVDs that have been sourced from video masters rather than film based ones, as their inadequacies do seem to stand out a bit worse on the OLED. But high quality film based stuff will look lovely on an OLED, assuming you take viewing distance into account.

[Feiereisel]

What player and TV models do you have?

Player: Sony UBP-X700

TV: Sony XBR-X900E

[...]

You don't have Dolby Vision on your TV so forget that but I'd still make sure it's turned to Off on the player, just incase that's doing something.

As for calibrating, this is acheived using a colorimeter. Fiddling with the settings and deciding what looks best can not remotely be called calibration. Indeed, most TVs these days come with their Brightness (called Black Level on Sony sets) and Contrast set to where they should always be, in the case of Sony TVs that's 90 Contrast and 50 Black Level, so if you've moved them from there the picture will be more inaccurate not less.

[...]

I have the same UHD player, and if the TV (or disc) does not support Dolby Vision, be sure to turn off the Dolby Vision output setting in the player's screen settings menu. If the setting is left on, the player will force Dolby Vision on everything you play. Additionally, use the remote options menu to make sure A/V playback is set to "Direct."

Also, while calibrating by eye is not recommended, a couple of settings that can be adjusted to help solidify picture quality are the TV's backlighting and gamma settings. The backlighting on all of my Vizio's "calibrated" presets, for example, was much too high by default, and taking the time to fine tune it to match the ambient light level of the room for each setting (even SDR!) has been worthwhile.

[EddieLarkin]

I knew that the X700 forced everything into Dolby Vision (both HDR10 only discs and even plain SDR Blu-rays, very stupidly) when the DV option on the player is turned On, but didn't think it'd be that stupid a feature to force Dolby Vision to TVs that aren't even compatable with the format. If that's the case then it very well could be the problem movielocke is experiencing.

Re the backlight level, whilst it's certainly the case all TVs will be much too bright out of the box for SDR, are you saying you've reduced it in HDR/DV too?

[Feiereisel]

I knew that the X700 forced everything into Dolby Vision (both HDR10 only discs and even plain SDR Blu-rays, very stupidly) when the DV option on the player is turned On, but didn't think it'd be that stupid a feature to force Dolby Vision to TVs that aren't even compatable with the format. If that's the case then it very well could be the problem movielocke is experiencing.

Re the backlight level, whilst it's certainly the case all TVs will be much too bright out of the box for SDR, are you saying you've reduced it in HDR/DV too?

Seemed like a good thing to double check given how aggressively it is imposed by the player. I love that Sony includes it, but because it must be actively managed, I suspect that “On” is meant in the most literal sense.

With the backlight—yes. Significantly for SDR, but also (and to a much lesser extent) for each of the HDR settings. The default was simply way too high for my dimmed-but-not-dark living room.

Now, it could very well be that other TVs, especially of different brands and more recent (and higher-end) makes, are more consistently balanced by default. Definitely no replacement for proper calibration, either, but it’s worth experimenting with and fairly low-stakes, especially if professional calibration is not in one’s budget.

[EddieLarkin]

I would be concerned about how that is affecting low light scenes. HDR is not a relative luminance system like SDR is, meaning when you have the backlight on maximum in HDR, you are going to be seeing low light scenes at the luminance intended during grading. In other words, whereas maximum backlight in SDR will make all scenes, dim or bright, be brighter than they should be, that's not the case with HDR. With max backlight in HDR, bright scenes will be bright yes but dim scenes will still be dim. If you start reducing the backlight then dim scenes are going to become even dimmer too.

[Feiereisel]

I would be concerned about how that is affecting low light scenes. HDR is not a relative luminance system like SDR is, meaning when you have the backlight on maximum in HDR, you are going to be seeing low light scenes at the luminance intended during grading. In other words, whereas maximum backlight in SDR will make all scenes, dim or bright, be brighter than they should be, that's not the case with HDR. With max backlight in HDR, bright scenes will be bright yes but dim scenes will still be dim. If you start reducing the backlight then dim scenes are going to become even dimmer too.

Right, exactly—but even with with the HDR backlight dialed back from the default, nothing appears to be too dim. I was kind of surprised at first, because I was aware of the differences between HDR and SDR you’re describing here. And thank you for taking the time—learning about how HDR works as I lurk this topic has helped me appreciate it more as a display technology.

To be clear, my adjusted HDR backlight settings are much, much higher than my SDR one. I’m certainly willing to futz, though. Should I dial it all the way up to max, or reset it to default? Again, nothing in anything I’m watching seems dim, let alone too dim.

[EddieLarkin]

As far as I know, backlight is always at max by default for HDR viewing modes, which is where it should be. It would be worth checking out UHDs that have SDR level max frame average brightness, like Donnie Darko or Goodfellas, or most catalog titles that Universal have released (Rear Window for instance), or The Red Shoes from Criterion. All of these titles only use "HDR" for the highlights (if at all in some cases) and leave everything else at a brightness level you'd expect in SDR. Meaning, even with the backlight at max in HDR, low light scenes will appear quite dim in anything but a fully dark room, so if you reduce the backlight that may make them even dimmer.

[Feiereisel]

As far as I know, backlight is always at max by default for HDR viewing modes, which is where it should be. It would be worth checking out UHDs that have SDR level max frame average brightness, like Donnie Darko or Goodfellas, or most catalog titles that Universal have released (Rear Window for instance), or The Red Shoes from Criterion. All of these titles only use "HDR" for the highlights (if at all in some cases) and leave everything else at a brightness level you'd expect in SDR. Meaning, even with the backlight at max in HDR, low light scenes will appear quite dim in anything but a fully dark room, so if you reduce the backlight that may make them even dimmer.

Interesting then that Vizio's "calibrated" presets are set at 50 by default...although I suppose that is consistent with understood wisdom that the factory settings are inherently incorrect.

Anyway, I'm experimenting right now with a few discs (Rear Window and No Time to Die for DV), and while there doesn't seem to be a vast difference between the default and maximum backlight levels, raising the backlight does indeed look better. The only level where it looked too dim to me was when I cranked it all the way down to the lowest possible setting. Fully engaged, it seems bright, but not inordinately so. Wild.

Thank you for the guidance! (And patience!)

And, movielocke, please disregard my previous backlight suggestion!

[movielocke]

What player and TV models do you have?

Player: Sony UBP-X700

TV: Sony XBR-X900E

First of all I would check that your HDMI ports are set to Enhanced and not Standard, as they will have been out of the box. You'll find this in the main TV setup options, not the Picture options. If they are set to Standard you won't be able to display HDR properly and perhaps it could have led to your player defaulting to SDR conversion.

You don't have Dolby Vision on your TV so forget that but I'd still make sure it's turned to Off on the player, just incase that's doing something.

As for calibrating, this is acheived using a colorimeter. Fiddling with the settings and deciding what looks best can not remotely be called calibration. Indeed, most TVs these days come with their Brightness (called Black Level on Sony sets) and Contrast set to where they should always be, in the case of Sony TVs that's 90 Contrast and 50 Black Level, so if you've moved them from there the picture will be more inaccurate not less.

Thank you, I will check the HDMI settings.

edit: HDMI settings are all set to Auto, I didn't see anything for "enhanced" as an option.

I also just replaced the HDMI cord with a new 48Gbps HDMI cord just to be on the safe side.

Black Level at 50 contrast at 90, there is no setting called 'backlight' on the tv.

by calibration I've not done much with the sony, since it looked so good out of the box. with my 2011 plasma, I checked it with smpte color bars for a first pass at brightness and contrast, and then used digital video essentials blu ray disc test patterns to dial in the remaining settings.

so since the TV doesn't have dolby vision, there's really no benefit to buying UHD discs is there? all it displays is extra resolution rather than WCG?

[EddieLarkin]

There is every benefit to buying UHD discs, as the TV still does HDR10. Dolby Vision is merely a slightly enhanced HDR metadata system, you're still getting 95% of the HDR experience with simple old HDR10. Indeed, a great many UHDs (probably over 50%) don't even have Dolby Vision anyway, so with those discs you're getting 100% of what they're offering.

Just make sure to set DV to off on your player.

WCG is separate from both HDR and 4K resolution, and has nothing to with DV. It merely describes the expanded colour spaces that UHD uses that Blu-ray doesn't (DCI-P3 and Rec.2020 vs BD's Rec.709), just as Blu-ray used a wider colour space that DVD couldn't (Rec.709 vs DVDs Rec.601).

[Finch]

On top of what Eddie said, be aware that some titles have been poorly encoded in HDR10 but look good in Dolby Vision, like many of Studio Canal's early UHDs. And other titles have been so badly encoded that even Dolby Vision doesn't save them (Shout's Halloween discs). As far as I know, the titles that are only good looking in Dolby Vision are just a handful. I've listed them in the UHD titles worth/not worth upgrading thread.

[EddieLarkin]

edit: HDMI settings are all set to Auto, I didn't see anything for "enhanced" as an option.

I also just replaced the HDMI cord with a new 48Gbps HDMI cord just to be on the safe side.

Black Level at 50 contrast at 90, there is no setting called 'backlight' on the tv.

Just replying to your edits, backlight on Sony TVs is called Brightness (whereas Brightness on all other manufacturer's sets is what Sony are calling Black Level). This should be at Max for HDR and is dependent on your room conditions for SDR (the darker the room the lower you can go)

The enhanced option screen is pictured here on a X900:

https://i.rtings.com/assets/pages/GRzkk ... medium.jpg

I'm not sure how to reach it on a Sony but it should definitely be somewhere, again usually in the TVs general settings not the picture settings.

[WolframvonEschenbach]

Hello, I just joined the forum, today, so please forgive me if I am writing a post in the wrong place. I just watched my Criterion "Citizen Kane" UHD disk. I have seen Kane projected in a fine 35mm print in an arthouse theatre in Los Angeles. I have also read quite a bit about how the great depth of field was achieved by Gregg Toland. The main factors were the use of very fast lenses, Technicolor lights and the use of Eastman XX film which was the fastest negative stock available at the time of the film's production. The down side of XX was that it was a course grain film. Looking at the UHD disk, shown on my LG 60" UHD TV from a Sony UHD disk player, I was shocked by how grainy the film is and even more shocked by how soft the image is. I do not recall those artifacts when I saw the film projected from a 35mm print. Does anyone have any insight into what I am seeing? Is it simply a matter of the image coming from a flat screen as posed to that of a projected image where lite is reflected from a needed or lenticular screen. Also, FYI, yes, the UHD disk has more resolution than the regular Blue-ray.

[MichaelB]

What you're seeing is a generation removed from the original camera negative (which no longer survives), which is why I was quite surprised that Citizen Kane was singled out for the UHD treatment when there was clearly no way that it would ever be able to match the quality of a 4K restoration from the most optimal materials. So you're not just seeing the grain of the original film, but also the side-effects of it being unavoidably duped onto film with its own grain structure.

In 35mm, you most likely watched something further removed from what you're seeing in the Blu-ray, so grain would have been less apparent.

[hearthesilence]

FWIW, it's been noted that grain can seem less noticeable on a 35mm print than a DCP. A reference to this can be seen in this Film Comment article, which reports on Sony's demonstration of 35mm vs DCP at Film Forum some years ago. (This was done with 35mm clips and a DCP of their 4K restoration of Dr. Strangelove, and like Citizen Kane, the OCN is either lost or no longer usable, so the restoration was sourced from elements one further generation removed.) I don't have the explanation for why, but it seems to be something that's commonly observed with any digital scan of a film element. Anecdotally, it feels that way to me too, and if I had to guess as to why based on what I'm seeing, it's probably something inherent in the exhibition of that format, where the texture of the grain somehow looks softer or smoothed out when the projector's light hits it. Regardless, if it's a difference inherent in a digital scan vs. the creation of a photochemical print, I'm guessing this observed difference would be applicable to UHD.

[mhofmann]

I don't have the explanation for why, but it seems to be something that's commonly observed with any digital scan of a film element. Anecdotally, it feels that way to me too, and if I had to guess as to why based on what I'm seeing, it's probably something inherent in the exhibition of that format, where the texture of the grain somehow looks softer or smoothed out when the projector's light hits it.

Although contact printing does not involve optical elements, I'm guessing that any transfer across film emulsions acts as some kind of (highly non-Gaussian?) blur kernel due to the randomness of the halide particles on the two emulsions and the resulting re-sampling process - and hence the grain inherent in the negative is smoothed out and at the same time enlarged as it passes the print generations. An expert in film processing may be able to confirm or deny.

[tenia]

I was told that digital projectors can also have a projection system acting as undefeatable dither, so grain will automatically look less visible because of that. A DCP projection might thus actually look less grainy than its 35mm equivalent.

As for DCP vs 35mm, my experience is that indeed, DCPs have a even-ness, a lack of anything random (specks, wobble, grain patterns, flicker) that can be detected if you're used to see stuff in theaters. I also recall being extremely surprised at how obviously digital Heaven's Gate restoration's grain and texture looked in theater. It looks very good on BD, it's by no means a bad restoration, on the contrary, but in theater, there was something problematically digital-looking about it.

[Roger Ryan]

It could be pointed out as well that there is remarkably little footage in Kane that was not duped to create dissolves (quite a few single shot scenes) or ran through an optical printer to create a matte or some other special effect. Even if the original negative still existed, the majority of it would not have come directly from the film that ran through the camera. Add to this Welles' request to optically zoom in to emphasize just a portion of the original framing for certain shots and you're going to get graininess baked into much of it (note that the snow effect was superimposed over the close-up of the snowglobe because the unadorned shot was deemed unacceptably grainy and the snow effect was an attempt to disguise the flaw).

[MichaelB]

Gregg Toland actually created a great many dissolves in camera because he wanted the image quality to be as optimal as possible, especially given the nature of the film stock that he was using.

It's certainly true that an optical printer was used for some sequences, but I think you're significantly exaggerating how many.

[Roger Ryan]

Gregg Toland actually created a great many dissolves in camera because he wanted the image quality to be as optimal as possible, especially given the nature of the film stock that he was using.

It's certainly true that an optical printer was used for some sequences, but I think you're significantly exaggerating how many.

I probably did let hyperbole get the better of me as I haven't gone through and identified the total number of effect shots, but I don't know how many dissolves could have been done "in camera" given that many, if not most, of the shots on either side of the dissolve would have been shot on different sets on different days. It is true that Toland achieved the effect shot of the "medicine bottle in the foreground/Kane entering Susan's bedroom in the background" composite "in camera".

My point was more to suggest that a viewer complaining about graininess in a film needs to be qualified by identifying the specific shots that might have caused this reaction. Kane has significantly more effects shots where the original footage was duped than, say, Ambersons or The Stranger, so any given viewer might have more chances to notice graininess that would have been inherent in the original negative. Personally, I think this most recent restoration of Kane looks phenomenal and is surprisingly crisp given the loss of the negative (especially after those truly heartbreakingly awful prints struck for the 50th Anniversary in 1991 that made me think I would never see the film in good condition again).

[movielocke]

edit: HDMI settings are all set to Auto, I didn't see anything for "enhanced" as an option.

I also just replaced the HDMI cord with a new 48Gbps HDMI cord just to be on the safe side.

Black Level at 50 contrast at 90, there is no setting called 'backlight' on the tv.

Just replying to your edits, backlight on Sony TVs is called Brightness (whereas Brightness on all other manufacturer's sets is what Sony are calling Black Level). This should be at Max for HDR and is dependent on your room conditions for SDR (the darker the room the lower you can go)

The enhanced option screen is pictured here on a X900:

https://i.rtings.com/assets/pages/GRzkk ... medium.jpg

I'm not sure how to reach it on a Sony but it should definitely be somewhere, again usually in the TVs general settings not the picture settings.

Bingo clarifying that setting name helped (but it makes commercials painfully bright, Olympics snow isn’t, stupid commercials)

I also eventually found the enhanced hdmi setting based on that screenshot and some googling it was not turned on. Popped in dune hdr after toggling it and could immediately seen a stunning difference just on the WB logo. Thanks so much for your patience in helping with this!

[EddieLarkin]

Great to hear it! I find it perplexing that every TV these days still have the HDMI ports set to Standard out of the box, as it means anyone who doesn't realise they need changing to Enhanced is going to have a terrible HDR experience with external devices.

Whereas the chances of someone hooking up a device that only works with a port set to Standard is becoming increasingly insignificant.