Support

Open search

Samsung, you have to introduce dolby vision

Highlighted
Apprentice

@Suad wrote:

 

@DrGravity Its not that we are stupid, its that we want the best when your paying the top price. 

We know that HDR10+ is as good as Dolby Vision, but the problem is most popular streaming platfroms dont support HDR10+, so we are being downgraded to HDR10. 

We also know that the difference between HDR10, and Dolby Vision is only noticable when you put 2 TVs next to eachother. So you might think, then I dont need Dolby Vision cause I will never have 2 TVs next to eachother. But then no one would buy expensive TVs.

Samsung is thinking in long run, and they are calculating how much money they would lose in 10 years if they keep paying for Dolby Vision. 

But they could make a deal with Netflix and Disney, and pay them to add HDR10+. 

In that case no one would complain. 


I never said anyone is stupid

 

What I actually said is a displays peak brightness and colour volume performance are WAY more important to HDR quality than whether it supports DV or not and DV support would have less impact on a Samsung QLED because it already excels in those areas versus many other TV's.

 

It's ultimately not down to Samsung to "pay" Netflix etc to support HDR10+ which is an open source format overseen by multiple companies. Netflix or anyone else could add support for minimal cost because it isn't a proprietary format

 

My post was in response to the number of people going on about DV as though not having it makes HDR on a QLED look worse than on DV supporting TV's when in fact the reverse is true - the higher peak brightness and superior colour volume make HDR, regardless of static or dynamic metadata, look better than on pretty much any TV that supports DV.

Highlighted
Apprentice

The bottom line I guess is: Will a set, say Samsung, with DV present a better picture than one without it? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that.

If Soul is right about the cost of addind DV, Samsung's stand is just ridiculous. And I don't see QLEDS with open source HDR10 being cheaper than OLEDS with the not free DV so, where's the real benefit to the customer who's in the shop now?  

Highlighted
Apprentice

 


@Soul_ wrote:

Way to fabricate things.

 

No one said that we wouldnt buy QLED, all we said is to not buy QLED from Samsung. As a technology QLED is great, but as a brand, Samsung seems to be extremely stubborn. I would happily buy any QLED TV with DV from anyone, if it had a good track record and features I need. Right now, I will be forced to buy OLED because of a major QLED vendor's demeanour.

 

Open ears are always better than an open mouth.


I'm not fabricating anything - the thread is full of posts that say they won't buy a Sansung and Samsung are literally the only game on town with QLED. You yourself in the same post say you'll buy an OLED instead of QLED which is why I'm trying to educate here:

 

You want DV because presumably you believe you'll get better HDR right?

 

So your solution is to buy a set that probably tops out at 800nits and around 80% colour volume (of DCI-P3) instead of a set that does 2000nits and 100% colour volume.

 

What's more important - better HDR or a Dolby Vision logo on the info display when watching DV content?

 

I'm not saying Samsung should never support DV (though I've expressed my concerns around a closed proprietary system becoming dominant) I'm saying people are assigning way too much importance to it versus what actually matters in HDR quality

Highlighted
Explorer

I want DV because it is the only widely supported Dynamic HDR format. I am not tying myself to an unsupported dynamic HDR format or a fallback static HDR format in 2019 for 5k. End of story.

Highlighted
Explorer

You say "I'm saying people are assigning way too much importance to it versus what actually matters in HDR quality"

You are playing with words again:

How much importance is "too much importance"? It's meaningless except as a way to derogate DV. I.e. a way to suggest that it isn't important at all.

"what  actually matters" suggests that DV doesnt matter.

Your attempt at tech-splaining to us lesser intelligences just consist of giving your opinion which just seems to be an attempt to support Samsung's choice.

The title of the thread is "Samsung, you have to introduce dolby vision" It's difficult to see why you would choose to oppose that request?

If you watch DV streams why would you buy a set that doesnt support DV?

 

Highlighted
Apprentice

2000 nits is overkill, its way too bright for comfortable viewing and a number used to sell sets rather than improve viewing. Qled uniformity and motion handling is terrible compared to other tech, not having DV is just the icing in the cake. There is zero reason to buy Samsung qled other than very low gaming latency (game mode pq is terrible BTW) now oled tech is improving. I'd ditch my q9 tomorrow if possible. 

Highlighted
Apprentice

@100pat wrote:

You say "I'm saying people are assigning way too much importance to it versus what actually matters in HDR quality"

You are playing with words again:

How much importance is "too much importance"? It's meaningless except as a way to derogate DV. I.e. a way to suggest that it isn't important at all.

"what  actually matters" suggests that DV doesnt matter.

Your attempt at tech-splaining to us lesser intelligences just consist of giving your opinion which just seems to be an attempt to support Samsung's choice.

The title of the thread is "Samsung, you have to introduce dolby vision" It's difficult to see why you would choose to oppose that request?

If you watch DV streams why would you buy a set that doesnt support DV?

 


At no point have I used the term "lesser intelligences" or anything similar - I'd suggest YOU not play with words in an effort to try and elevate yourself to the moral high ground here. 

 

As for what I have said I've been really explicit and clear. I have no issue if Samsung want to support Dolby Vision in the future (except perhaps from some concerns around closed vs open ecosystems but whatever). My argument has been purely with the number of posts in this thread effectively on the lines of "will not buy Samsung because DV is really important!". I've offered an alternative view backed up by facts that no one has actually rebutted. If you choose to see that as me tech-splaining that's not my problem. I have no control over how you choose to interpret what I say.

 

In answer to your question, I chose to buy a set that doesn't support Dolby Vision because I consider other factors more important in regards to quality of HDR content. That's as clear as I can be and I'm not playing around with words.

Highlighted
Apprentice

@Benrc wrote:

2000 nits is overkill, its way too bright for comfortable viewing and a number used to sell sets rather than improve viewing. Qled uniformity and motion handling is terrible compared to other tech, not having DV is just the icing in the cake. There is zero reason to buy Samsung qled other than very low gaming latency (game mode pq is terrible BTW) now oled tech is improving. I'd ditch my q9 tomorrow if possible. 


Except your set doesn't operate at 2000nits all the time. That is the measured peak brightness for HDR and it's actually less than that in "movie" picture mode which is probably the preferable setting to use. I'd say if you find the set too bright, adjust your picture settings until you find it more comfortable. 

 

Peak brightness is not just a number used to sell TV's, it's how HDR content is mastered and since it's already being mastered at 4000nits and even higher, a set that has a 2000nit peak output is most certainly not "too bright"

 

Each to there own in terms of what product they want and I'm sorry you're unhappy with your Q9. Uniformity will be better on OLED's due to pixel level dimming but the flip side is neutered peak brightness, less than ideal colour volume, far worse reflections and risk of screen burn. There's no perfect display it just comes down to which strengths and weaknesses are most important to you.

Highlighted
Explorer

No matter what anyone says, we all know that Samsung TVs would perform better with Dolby Vision, vs HDR10+.

 

Movie studios know this, Streaming service providers know this, console and PC component manufacturers know this, cell phone manufacturers know this, hence why they all adopted Dolby Vision over HDR10+. The only two corporations supporting HDR10+ are, Samsung and Amazon prime video. Why? Because they created it together, and they want to sell it together.

 

It is not a technical decision, it is a financial choice. But this decision has massive implications. It renders a TV fully capable of supporting Dynamic HDR stuck with static HDR, or no HDR at all (if static HDR is not available). How is this, in any-way-shape-or-form, a consumer centric decision?

 

Since Prime video is not where I consume my content, I don't see why I or any of us needs to support this DOA HDR10+ standard.

 

I bet DrGravity will jump in to make sure that he has the last message on this thread. But what is true, is true. No one can change that.

 

So long Samsung, I am buying LG OLED 77" in January, pretty much final at this point.

Highlighted
New Member

Good luck Samsung! I am already tired of the nonsense bixby button on my phone. If there will not be any Dolby Vision in CES 2020, I WILL DITCH THE ENTIRE SAMSUNG ECHO SYSTEM.

Top Liked Authors