New Dell Ultrasharp up3017q 30 inch OLED display does 85.8% rec2020 in off topic

[Wayne Morellini]

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread...p3017q-30-inch-OLED-display-does-85-8-rec2020

 

[Marc Wielage]

$3500 is not exactly reasonable.

The problem with a lot of the displays is that the panel consistency is not great, and you might literally have to go through 10 or 12 of them to find one that's the same corner-to-corner, top-to-bottom, and left-to-right. This is one of many things you pay for in a real Grade-1 display.

It also explains why a 30" Sony BVM-X300 is $30,000.

You can already buy a 55" LG B6 or B7 for under $3000, and that's a much bigger display. Sure, you still have the potential for panel consistency issues, but it's a lot more useful as a client display.

Josh Petok did a good podcast this week with monitor calibration expert Dave Abrams, and in it they specifically talk about why HDR and Rec2020 (or Rec2100) are really hard to reproduce, why monitor accuracy is tough to achieve, and why computer displays generally can't reproduce accurate color and brightness very well:

http://coloristpodcast.com/episode-011-dave-abrams

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Thanks for that useful information. I think they are trying harder on the uniformity issue in this bracket. They turned down the 120fps version over display quality issues. OLED is supposed to have better uniform!city over smaller areas, isn't that right, so maybe these are better than the LG. So this could be viewed as a smaller OLED that they put extra effort into.

I personally don't much care for HDR over 500-1000 brightness except as small areas/light points on screen, and as for accuracy at more SDR it would be easier to reproduce wouldn't it? So as possibly a more expansive unit then the BMV-X300 for doing SDR, wouldn't it be worth it to someone?

I think it is not exactly cheap from r what it offers, but compared to the x300 it is Marc. :smiley:

 

[Wayne Morellini]

So, that podcast was not to informative, it pretty much talked about the hard clipping, expansion, tone mapping, gamut remapping, mostly cheaper displays needed, and personally if I graded to a 700nit display I would normally only be looking at up to a compatible 700 nit target, sort of stuff that I was talking about last year and you were disagreeing with Marc, what gives?

 

[Marc Wielage]

So, that podcast was not to informative, it pretty much talked about the hard clipping, expansion, tone mapping, gamut remapping, mostly cheaper displays needed, and personally if I graded to a 700nit display I would normally only be looking at up to a compatible 700 nit target, sort of stuff that I was talking about last year and you were disagreeing with Marc, what gives?

The podcast tells you that in order to do serious HDR grading, all that's available right now that actually works are the Sony BVM-X300 and the Dolby Pulsar. For Netflix, they actually require the Pulsar for all HDR mastering. Dave Abrams is a bright guy and provides good reasons why Grade-1 displays are not cheap.

As I often note around here, the thing a lot of people constantly crow about is "but why does it cost so much?" Too many people want champagne on a beer budget, or (more accurately) they want the performance of a Ferrari at the cost of a Prius. That's not the way life works. Even Sony can't make a 55" client display -- not exactly a grading display, a client viewing display -- for less than $27,000:

https://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/mkt-nab2016/mkt-nab2016displays/product-PVMX550/

And they're quick to tell you it's not as good as the X300, particularly for HDR. But it is 4K and it can be calibrated to a point.

You can choose to disagree all you want, but it doesn't make the facts any less true. As Neil DeGrasse-Tyson likes to say, "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." This also holds for grading displays.

I look forward to seeing the new Dell and will look for it if I'm able to get to NAB in a week.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

The podcast tells you that in order to do serious HDR grading, all that's available right now that actually works are the Sony BVM-X300 and the Dolby Pulsar. For Netflix, they actually require the Pulsar for all HDR mastering. Dave Abrams is a bright guy and provides good reasons why Grade-1 displays are not cheap.

As I often note around here, the thing a lot of people constantly crow about is "but why does it cost so much?" Too many people want champagne on a beer budget, or (more accurately) they want the performance of a Ferrari at the cost of a Prius. That's not the way life works. Even Sony can't make a 55" client display -- not exactly a grading display, a client viewing display -- for less than $27,000:

https://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/mkt-nab2016/mkt-nab2016displays/product-PVMX550/

And they're quick to tell you it's not as good as the X300, particularly for HDR. But it is 4K and it can be calibrated to a point.

You can choose to disagree all you want, but it doesn't make the facts any less true. As Neil DeGrasse-Tyson likes to say, "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." This also holds for grading displays.

I look forward to seeing the new Dell and will look for it if I'm able to get to NAB in a week.

Lol. We had a situation here where you could buy sparkling white wine probably cheaper than beer at one stage. Don't be fooled by what they say, if its not!cutting edge it really depends on what you are trying to reach target on. A side lit LCD or a fine grained rear led array are going to be more expensive to produce to hit those targets, but they could produce a 100 not nearly completely rec2020 pled today if they really wanted to. The color filter at the extreme gamut primaries is very low brightness, but so is 100 nits, just won't be the most economical oled. The issue is, will become reach minimum HDR uhd premium specs, ams that is all I'm interested in (is that still 540?). I was previously inking of contacting you about a method I wanted to try to convert displays to larger color gamut primaries as a sales venture.

Yet Panasonic has made a half descent P3 OLED this year with the grading industry. And even with the improve!ends in black levels and uniformity of LG displays this year, you don't normally require perfection for!a lot of work, as is the current case in the industry that we can see on the podcast (I said see, that most don't use a x300 for work). Anyway, the HDR -SDR Netflix stuff on my old calibrated viewsonic TV looks amazing anyway, they must do some amazing stuff on those Pulsars.

Now, you notice what he said that the majority of people are using cheap, and how even color studios want something cheap to fill the ranks, and how you can do it on lesser displays, exactly the sort of stuff I was saying last year you disagreed with. These are the actual facts "you" disagree with.

Although you actually really did just help me on another thread, rather than answer anything but the actual question, I'll say this about before. What gives is that you answer like a game that rewards with a rise, wherever you are doing so or not. It is not needed. I like people, I like helping them, despite how painful it might be with some of them. I like being straight with answers to their questions. I like to widen the possibilities for them to what is goodly possible despite what any bone head says based on the poor schoolmaster of experience and convention.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Now, you notice what he said that the majority of people are using cheap, and how even color studios want something cheap to fill the ranks, and how you can do it on lesser displays, exactly the sort of stuff I was saying last year you disagreed with. These are the actual facts "you" disagree with.

Well, I'm using a Panasonic Broadcast BT-300 plasma display, and (having just walked through Technicolor/Hollywood last week) I can tell you they're still using those in some of the episodic TV grading rooms there. They work fine provided you're only doing Rec709 HD, and they're nominally under $3K. 4K and HDR... nope. There's no way to master HDR cheap yet. I'm grateful that it's possible to do acceptable HD work at a (relatively) affordable cost, given that a decade ago, a 32" CRT HD grading display like the Sony BVM-32E was $40,000, and a $400,000 8-GPU Resolve system is now under $80,000. To me, that's real progress. (One can also point to a Sony F35 camera costing $200,000 at a time when Jim Jannard released the Red One for $17,000, ten years ago. So things do eventually get more affordable.)

I like to widen the possibilities for them to what is goodly possible despite what any bone head says based on the poor schoolmaster of experience and convention.

I like to tell people the truth and not give them a pie-in-the-sky answer that just perpetuates misconceptions and myths. I don't think full P3 or Rec2020 is possible in a display yet, I think HDR (even at 1000 nits) is massively difficult to reproduce and calibrate accurately, and there are good reasons not to color-correct a theatrical release on anything but a large projection display, since that's how theatrical people will see it. This is the way things are right now in 2017. I live in the real world we have right now and just accept the reality, not hope for what might be here in five years. This doesn't help with projects I have to deliver in 2 weeks.

When it comes to HDR, there are so many potentials for disaster, it's a real concern. Baselight & Dolby are having a demo and discussion this week in Dolby's experimental theater in Hollywood, and I would bet all these questions will be asked there.

 

[Stacey Spears]

I don't think full P3 or Rec2020 is possible in a display yet, I think HDR (even at 1000 nits) is massively difficult to reproduce and calibrate accurately

Even the X300 is only 99% of P3. I hope we see some alternatives to the X300 and Pulsar at NAB. Sony does have a smaller version of the X300, which they showed at HPA. I want bigger, not smaller. The consumer OLEDs, and LCDs, should not be used to grade HDR footage. The Z9D has a mode that turns off tone mapping and hard clips at 1,000 nits like the X300. It was designed to work next to the X300 to view on a larger display. Though, I think more people are using the LG OLED for that purpose.

I have the 32" Dell UHD (LCD) display in the office right now. I have the QUHD version on order. It looks like even though it requires two DP 1.4 cables, it still may use Display Stream Compression, which may impact my plans. Assuming the electronics and images they produce, other than resolution, are close, it will work. I plan to use the two displays to tune my down scaling algorithm. I will run the native 7680x4320 image on the QUHD and then my scaled down images on the UHD. This way I can tune the anti-ringing and sharpening aspect of the algorithm so that they match, perceptually. What I am not sure yet is if I should put one display further away from me than the other, for this experiment.

As to the original point of thread. It is a computer monitor. I am not sure I would want an OLED for a computer monitor due to image retention. I am sure it will produce a fantastic image. I just worry about image retention. After one year of Xbox One development, we had basically destroyed a Panasonic plasma. The command windows are permanently burned into that display. We try and not leave static images up on the LGs that long. They auto dim after so much time of no motion to prevent burn in.

There is no perfect display technology today. They are also still using gamma based panels. They have to undo gamma to produce PQ. DLP is a true linear device, but the others have some type of native transfer function. OLEDs have no halo and can turn on/off at the pixel level. They also have an instant rise time from off to on. LCDs have halo's from the zones, they have slower rise time from off to on. They can go brighter than OLED. OLEDs can produce colors near black that LCDs cannot. LCDs can produce colors at much higher nits than OLED. When the OLED has to use the white subpixel to hit the high brightness, it loses color. Few have true 10-bit panels, or 10-bit processing all the way through. Many are using 8+2 FRC vs. true 10-bit. DLP has perfect uniformity while LCOS sucks at uniformity. The first UHD OLED from LG had really poor uniformity. The 2016 LG was a major leap forward. They are getting better every year. LCDs have their uniformity problems too. Then there is tone mapping. Dolby has the best tone mapping. ColorFront is similar, but not available in TV. Sony has the second best tone mapping in a consumer TV. Panasonic is 3rd. Everyone else has some work to do.

If you afford it, buy something today and enjoy it. Then replace it in a few years when things are much better. If you don't have the money to buy something now and in a few year, then wait.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Well, I'm using a Panasonic Broadcast BT-300 plasma display, and (having just walked through Technicolor/Hollywood last week) I can tell you they're still using those in some of the episodic TV grading rooms there. They work fine provided you're only doing Rec709 HD, and they're nominally under $3K. 4K and HDR... nope. There's no way to master HDR cheap yet. I'm grateful that it's possible to do acceptable HD work at a (relatively) affordable cost, given that a decade ago, a 32" CRT HD grading display like the Sony BVM-32E was $40,000, and a $400,000 8-GPU Resolve system is now under $80,000. To me, that's real progress. (One can also point to a Sony F35 camera costing $200,000 at a time when Jim Jannard released the Red One for $17,000, ten years ago. So things do eventually get more affordable.)


I like to tell people the truth and not give them a pie-in-the-sky answer that just perpetuates misconceptions and myths. I don't think full P3 or Rec2020 is possible in a display yet, I think HDR (even at 1000 nits) is massively difficult to reproduce and calibrate accurately, and there are good reasons not to color-correct a theatrical release on anything but a large projection display, since that's how theatrical people will see it. This is the way things are right now in 2017. I live in the real world we have right now and just accept the reality, not hope for what might be here in five years. This doesn't help with projects I have to deliver in 2 weeks.

When it comes to HDR, there are so many potentials for disaster, it's a real concern. Baselight & Dolby are having a demo and discussion this week in Dolby's experimental theater in Hollywood, and I would bet all these questions will be asked there.

I was involved in the low end cinema camera developments before Red, and the real cost was $5k when Sony wanted something like $250k. The industry still tries to sell you cheap stuff for many times the price it is exploitative business.

What you stated is a fantasy world where you divert the question rather than admit the truth. Admit it, I talked about the low and, you say it is wrong, then that they still do episodic on cheap displays, but then divert the conversation again to the high end to prove things not even in question. Technically you are not correct, a lot more than what we are given is possible in an industry that wants to charge 10x more for 10% more which is really less than cutting edge science technology previously. So, be grudgingly admit that the oled is probably a god non HDR replacement fr a lot of cheap displays used in the industry, even the previous Panasonic plasmas, and the the current higher end Panasonic OLED is a God replacement!ent for most of the rest of the low end?

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Stacey. HDR is still an issue, and basically you can only trust it over the ranges it works in on a display. The podcast showed it could be done. To me it is only something to get an idea in the limited range it works in. I'm still looking to non HDR stuff normally.

I would not trust the Sony, it suffers in reduced color gamut with HDR (predictable, trying to put 1600 nits for a consumer panel type built for less. Notice, people have told me the Sony and I looked at the spec and said no because it doesn't reach it and you are paying a lot extra for not much. But I should ave considered what the podcast pointed out, having a target up to 540 nits, and how much coverage it might have under 1000 or less nits. I don't give much about point lifts that can metaphorically burn your retinas out, the eat, or no, HDR standard is fine with me, and 1000 enough under normal usage. Same with this 300 nit Dell OLED, can it be tuned for sdr. I think that is sufficient for most low end use.

Maybe I'll relook the 900 in regards of this.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

P.S. Stacey.I think I've een fairly consistent with my desire for something is good P3 and reasonable rec2020 coverage, hdr being the odd one out in this generation. I've desired rough give taste of HDR, but along the lines of the podcast, maybe I should look at minimal coverage instead, meaning this monitor is of more use to others than me.