But at 540.00, perhaps some will be OK with it since you'd normally watch from further back.
My 2 cents.
Nov 16th, 2017 9:09 pm
Nov 16th, 2017 9:43 pm
My post was more referring to horrible advertising practices and lack of oversight. Not this thread title.aasoror wrote: ↑Nov 16th, 2017 6:17 pmThats why not speaking about it (omitting) serves no real purpose, as the misleading info is out there right in the manufacturer and retailer product pages, instead debunking it should be the way to go, most useful posts in this thread are posts saying why this TV isn't HDR, non of them would have been posted if the OP simply chose "not to mention it".
It can't fake it. Literally all it does is allow the signal to play but it appears in SDR. There's no faking.jackass_ca wrote: ↑Nov 16th, 2017 7:15 pmI know that I would have to spend a lot more to get true HDR, I am not deceived. I am curious, if people say stay away from Sharp, but in other threads speak praises about Hisense... In the range we are discussing for a $500 to $600 I am looking for my best value 4K LED, don't really care if it's SMART but why not take it if it's there at a comparable price. Was considering the 55" 4K Haier but then started reading how people said the 55" Hisense for $650 or $699 is a better deal because of better panel and less bleed. WHen people on here are posting about $500 to $600 sale TV's, they are not, myself included, looking for the top of the top, but the best value in that price range, and hence where the confusion starts... then people say get TCL, can't get it here, it's $600 US, so $800 CAN or so...
I am fully aware that these TV's do not do HDR Premium, but from what I have read, isn't more of the importance also on the source, rather than the display, if the display can "fake" it somewhat to the NAKED eye and the average consumer, this is what people on these forums are talking about... The AV forums can get into more detail or higher end stuff I guess.
Nov 16th, 2017 9:50 pm
I was in BB and took a look at this TV and the picture was pretty damn nice, bright, crisp...VanceMendoza wrote: ↑Nov 16th, 2017 9:43 pmMy post was more referring to horrible advertising practices and lack of oversight. Not this thread title.
It can't fake it. Literally all it does is allow the signal to play but it appears in SDR. There's no faking.
Trust me when you see a true HDR display you will see a huge difference. This has nothing to do with savvy AV people. Go into Best Buy and look at all the different TVs. It's immediately obvious and that's why they put on these fancy displays to show it off to sell the more expensive models.
Of you just have $500 and that's what you want to spend, that's fine. We were mostly posting to note that this advertising is misleading and so people know they're not getting some out of this world deal for HDR which normally costs at least $800.
Nov 16th, 2017 10:11 pm
HDR Pro is just marketing speak. Check out rtings.com to see how they rate the model rather than bother combing through features and technical specs listed on the website. From what I gather it's standard colour coverage if I got the model number right (MU6100). It's better than average SDR TVs apparently but not great.jackass_ca wrote: ↑Nov 16th, 2017 9:50 pmI was in BB and took a look at this TV and the picture was pretty damn nice, bright, crisp...
Now I see that Leons has some HDR or so they advertise TV's, Samsung 58" for $999 this weekend
https://leons.ca/product/item/elect ... zc/2076590
This ones says HDR pro... so would that be? And what i was getting at, it's not about budget, but more so about whether the difference between the 4K TV's and HDR tv's is really that different, I'm asking, not challenging
Nov 16th, 2017 11:02 pm
Nov 17th, 2017 9:53 am
Nov 17th, 2017 10:46 am
Lets say the panel is 10 bit capable (whether native 10 bit or simulated on 8 bit) that means you can now represent far more colors in each pixel compared to 8 bit panels (1 Billion vs 16 millions), SDR video is 8 bit encoded so can't really make use for that extended color range. Now comes a TV with a 10 bit panel that can read HDR metadata, it can drive all the 1 billion different shades for each pixels, now there is a good chance that such push in color range might be overshadowed by crappy brightness/contrast yet that doesn't mean its not there.jackass_ca wrote: ↑Nov 16th, 2017 7:17 pmSo understanding that this is not True HDR, what does it mean to say it supports, does it mean that it can play the signal? I never heard of HDR or cared until last week when my simple 1080P LED LG died... And understand that apparently my PS4 can play HDR? What else can? If this TV could not display or upscale it, would it still not play the PS4 signal in it's highest possible setting?
Nov 17th, 2017 6:27 pm
Nov 19th, 2017 5:57 pm
Nov 21st, 2017 1:06 pm
Nov 21st, 2017 1:19 pm
Dec 11th, 2017 11:23 pm
Dec 12th, 2017 9:23 am
It would depend on what receiver you have. Btw the Vizio M55-E0 also has Dolby Vision support in addition to HDR10jackass_ca wrote: ↑Nov 21st, 2017 1:06 pmOK, so one quick question for the HDR gurus here. I was thinking this TV but after lots of reading have decided to try the Vizio from Costco with HDR10, low dimming, etc... However, I run all of my devices through my receiver (HDMI in and out), then to the TV, so as long as I am using proper HDMI cables, will the HDR signal transfer through, for things like BR and my PS4? For me, it's the easiest solutions, rather than having to switch input on the TV, to switch for the receiver.
Or... since these units have so many HDMI inputs now, is the smarter move to go into the TV, then run optical etc out to the receiver for sound? I understand from reading that only HDMI 1 on the Vizio can do the HDR anyhow... thoughts?
Dec 12th, 2017 11:53 am
I don't believe that it has either.
I ended up going with the Vizio, got it for $749, so a couple hundred more, but from all the reading I did, it was more future proof for me, plus Costco warranty for the win.
Dec 12th, 2017 6:53 pm