Disney+ Adding Support for HDR10+

[orbital~debris]

watch Loki on the iPhone and tell me thats how they wanted it to look, if you like dark images then good for you, its not how it should be

OK then.
I watched Loki (S2,E5 to be specific) on my 16 Pro series iPhone yesterday.
That's how "they" – Disney – wanted it to look.

 

[Marshall73]

Actually, it isn’t. According to studies people actually prefer the look of HDR 10+ as it appears more accurate than oversaturated Dolby Vision.

Studies of the folk who bought Samsung TV’s that dont support DV.

 

[zombierunner]

that's cool, btw the paramount+ app in the UK at least is terrible, you can't zoom in to fill the screen on iPhone, it stays 16:9 with black bars and it's just a terrible app with terrible UI.

 

[john123]

You need HDMI 2.0a cables for the HDR10+ and Dolby Vision functionality to work, from what I've read.

Usually correct. DV will work with many (albeit not all) 2.0a / 18Gpbs rated cables. “High Speed” is what’s printed on those cables. “Premium High Speed” is also 18Gbps but they officially support HDR, DV, etc.

However, the cost premium to jump to 48Gbps (“Ultra High Speed”) is negligible and keeps you out of the “maybe it’ll work but maybe it won’t” situation. Ultra High Speed cables support 8K@60, which almost nothing is in despite TV manufacturers selling 8K TVs for a few years now. And they support 4K@120. Notably, despite using HDMI 2.1, the current Apple TV boxes don’t support either resolution / refresh rate combo. Some game consoles like the PS5 do though.

eARC is officially supported with HDMI 2.1 but not HDMI 2.0 — although here again, your 18Gbps cables probably will work.

Monoprice or Zeskit Maya cables are very reasonably priced and are the two brands videophiles seem to recommend the most. You can get a basic, not-wall-rated Ultra High Speed cable for under $9.

There’s enough guesswork coming from the confusion over all of this stuff. And it’s made worse due to varying cable qualities and the technical semantics (pedantic people will remind you that there’s no such thing as an “HDMI 2.1” cable).

Going with Ultra High Speed is a good way to eliminate — or at least reduce, since any cable can have issues — the chances of you wondering if the cable is the culprit when scratching your head over getting content in an inferior format versus what you expect, such as getting HDR when you know the content is available in DV.

 

[nathansz]

Usually correct. DV will work with many (albeit not all) 2.0a / 18Gpbs rated cables. “High Speed” is what’s printed on those cables. “Premium High Speed” is also 18Gbps but they officially support HDR, DV, etc.

However, the cost premium to jump to 48Gbps (“Ultra High Speed”) is negligible and keeps you out of the “maybe it’ll work but maybe it won’t” situation. Ultra High Speed cables support 8K@60, which almost nothing is in despite TV manufacturers selling 8K TVs for a few years now. And they support 4K@120. Notably, despite using HDMI 2.1, the current Apple TV boxes don’t support either resolution / refresh rate combo. Some game consoles like the PS5 do though.

eARC is officially supported with HDMI 2.1 but not HDMI 2.0 — although here again, your 18Gbps cables probably will work.

Monoprice or Zeskit Maya cables are very reasonably priced and are the two brands videophiles seem to recommend the most. You can get a basic, not-wall-rated Ultra High Speed cable for under $9.

There’s enough guesswork coming from the confusion over all of this stuff. And it’s made worse due to varying cable qualities and the technical semantics (pedantic people will remind you that there’s no such thing as an “HDMI 2.1” cable).

Going with Ultra High Speed is a good way to eliminate — or at least reduce, since any cable can have issues — the chances of you wondering if the cable is the culprit when scratching your head over getting content in an inferior format versus what you expect, such as getting HDR when you know the content is available in DV.

This is all summed up but what I was thinking but didn’t quite say

When it comes to video, get the highest speed cable and then if something doesn’t work as expected you can eliminate the cable as the cause

 

[SFjohn]

I wonder how much Samsung is paying Disney to add their format. 🤔

 

[lkrupp]

Continued blathering from non-experts with unsupported, biased opinions. That’s tech blogs in a nutshell.

 

[aaronhead14]

Why? HDR10+ is just a generic, inferior imitation of Dolby Vision.

Also, Samsung should just start offering Dolby Vision on their TVs. It's insane that they refuse to pay the licensing fee. It's only like $3 per unit, which any reasonable customer would be willing to pay. It's a shame because Samsung's TVs are otherwise quite good. But their lack of Dolby Vision support is a massive dealbreaker. I, and many other potential customers, refuse to buy Samsung TVs due to their lack of Dolby Vision.

All the downvotes are from people who don't even know what HDR10+ or Dolby Vision actually are. They just understand these formats as "flavors of HDR" but don't actually know what their purpose is or what they do. Lmao.

 

[aaronhead14]

watch Loki on the iPhone and tell me thats how they wanted it to look, if you like dark images then good for you, its not how it should be

Loki looks exactly like it's supposed to look on the iPhone.

When watching HDR content, you need to have your phone at max brightness, and you should be in a dark room.

If you're trying to watch HDR content in a bright room, don't. That's not how it's intended to be viewed.

If you're trying to make HDR content brighter than it's supposed to be, then you're the problem, not the content itself.

Dolby Vision actually ensures films and TV shows look they way they're supposed to look. Samsung, on the other hand, likes to completely wreck the artistic intent and overcrank brightness on behalf of brainless consumers who just want it to be bright for no reason.

 

[kalafalas]

It's important not to confuse implementations and settings with the underlying technology. Experts and purists will tell you to take a good TV, start with Dolby Vision Dark, and tweak from there. If you do those three things, it's beautiful and not oversaturated at all. And as a side note, the Dolby Vision implementation on an older Hisense U6G I bought for my parents a few years back was actually dark and undersaturated, no matter what settings tweaks I made. I literally disabled DV for that reason, and so did lots of other people. Shockingly, even plain SDR was better on that TV.


This. My A95L is stunning. Does it cost a lot more than the S90D QD-OLED from Samsung? Yeah. But if you can afford it, it's amazing. If you watch any SDR content, Sony's image processing and SDR peak brightness make a big difference. The Sony is also significantly better at motion handling, although whether that matters to someone and where they stand on the motion handling holy war is a personal preference.

FWIW, I bought an LG C4 for my parents for Christmas instead of an S90D when the difference was only a few hundred bucks.

I may sound like a Sony hack, but I'm not. The A95L is just hands-down the best. And I may sound anti-Samsung, but I'm not. I have the Q990C soundbar and a Samsung range. (I despise the range, but that's another topic altogether!)

Also, keep in mind that sure, Disney+ is adding HDR10+ support, but there is a TON of other content that isn't in HDR10+.

It still befuddles me that Samsung won't pony up to add Dolby Vision. The S90D is a great TV, but I have to imagine that the people who have read up on QD-OLED technology certainly know what Dolby Vision is.

I totally agree with everything you said. I’m still rocking my C2 and probably will for a while, but wooooowie was I tempted when I saw the A95L. QD is obviously light years ahead of woled and Sony doesn’t ruin it with an anti-glare coating and terrible software like Samsung does

 

[Getabeard80]

Studies of the folk who bought Samsung TV’s that dont support DV.

Wrong