Having the ability to view Ultra HD 4k movies with HDR on a mobile phone is pretty amazing.
Link: http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_Note7_ShootOut_1.htm
Link: http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_Note7_ShootOut_1.htm
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Note 7: Greatest display ever made according to Displaymate
- Thread starter Lloydbm41
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No surprise there. Samsung will have an even better device with the S8 and Note 8 panels in 2017.
Requirement for hdr is a peak brightness of 1000 nits.
When Automatic Brightness is turned On, the Galaxy Note7 produces up to an impressive 1,048 cd/m2 (nits) in High Ambient Light, where high Brightness is really needed – it is the brightest Smartphone display that we have ever tested.
Awesome
When Automatic Brightness is turned On, the Galaxy Note7 produces up to an impressive 1,048 cd/m2 (nits) in High Ambient Light, where high Brightness is really needed – it is the brightest Smartphone display that we have ever tested.
Awesome
Last edited:
Samsung always has the best displays!
But .... But .... The human eye can't tell the difference. 
It has also a second ambilight sensor on the back for better automatic brightness 
That is great news! As expected. Since the Galaxy S5, Samsung has owned the display arena.
As expected. Since the Galaxy S5, Samsung has owned the display arena.That is awesome! Making me even more patient to get my Black Onyx Exynos beast!It has also a second ambilight sensor on the back for better automatic brightness
But .... But .... The human eye can't tell the difference.
Yeah and it's oversaturated and curved and eats battery and have burn in and oh not Retina.
Have any of you actually got a HDR 4K TV and viewed HDR content?
I simply ask because as I purchased one only a few weeks ago and there are only a very few handful of 4k blu-ray that even support it, I'll be frank - after watching both deadpool and batman vs superman in 4k blu-ray with HDR on my shiny new 2016 10bit HDR TV - the difference wasn't really that different to watching the regular 1080p blu-ray on my regular 1080p LG TV in old fashioned 8bit FHD.
HDR is definetly nice to have, but the difference that the manufacturers are claiming it has on the end result and the difference all these artificial 'side by side' demos things show online - when actually in practice the real difference isn't anywhere near as clear cut. It's a modicum better, it's not like the leap from SD to FHD. I was expecting more, and whilst you do get 'more' its not the giant leap they are claiming.
Indeed I would wager the majority of users watching side by side between HDR and non HDR with displays calibrated to same - would not notice any difference at all.
I even paid more for a 2016 4K TV with 10 bit HDR because I bought into the HDR is the next big thing. But after now watching 4k blu-ray and 4k HDR netflix, i have a real suspicion it was just another 'tagline' that they can use to sell more TV's rather than this major tangible difference. It's almost like the new 3D.
I simply ask because as I purchased one only a few weeks ago and there are only a very few handful of 4k blu-ray that even support it, I'll be frank - after watching both deadpool and batman vs superman in 4k blu-ray with HDR on my shiny new 2016 10bit HDR TV - the difference wasn't really that different to watching the regular 1080p blu-ray on my regular 1080p LG TV in old fashioned 8bit FHD.
HDR is definetly nice to have, but the difference that the manufacturers are claiming it has on the end result and the difference all these artificial 'side by side' demos things show online - when actually in practice the real difference isn't anywhere near as clear cut. It's a modicum better, it's not like the leap from SD to FHD. I was expecting more, and whilst you do get 'more' its not the giant leap they are claiming.
Indeed I would wager the majority of users watching side by side between HDR and non HDR with displays calibrated to same - would not notice any difference at all.
I even paid more for a 2016 4K TV with 10 bit HDR because I bought into the HDR is the next big thing. But after now watching 4k blu-ray and 4k HDR netflix, i have a real suspicion it was just another 'tagline' that they can use to sell more TV's rather than this major tangible difference. It's almost like the new 3D.
Last edited:
Yeah it is noticeable, but more like someone has adjusted saturation and gamma than anything else. It just wasn't the 'leap' that the HDR crowd are really making it out to be. I spent ages researching before purchasing and made sure I picked up a TV with both recognised HDR standards including official Dolby HDR certification, so it was fully supported and as I say - I feel at the moment in all honesty that I paid 'a lot' more cash for 'a little' more benefit.
At least with it being on the Note 7 it's not being charged as an additional extra (you are not paying a premium for a HDR version and a non HDR version).
I still wonder if there is really any tangible benefit of watching decent 4k movie content downscaled to 2k on a 5.7" screen and has it been really confirmed that its a true 10 bit panel, as there are a number of manufacturers including Samsung who are claiming a lot of their 2016 HDR ready TV's that are actually just 8 bit panels with an ability to interpret 10 bit HDR - though it still technically not proper 10 bit. Also I don't believe Samsung's panels are dolby HDR certified either.
The whole HDR landscape is a bit of a mess for consumers at the moment and even someone who is tech savvy like ourselves would get bogged down in a mire when you looking through actual specifications for it.
I think the HDR label is just marketing, not the technology itself, but the fact that it should have been just a natural evolution of UHD without trying to sell the HDR aspect.
IMO, HDR is a great step forward. It gives back that feeling of watching a tube but with the resolution of today.
It is dependent on the source, least we not forget all Blurays were not the greatest thing sliced bread especially right of the bat with the earliest ones.
So it will take some time and hopefully there is effort put into the production process whereby the new disc is worthy of the format and our bucks. But if the original master is garbage to begin with, ...
They're reaching for that high segment of users who will care about HDR. Everyone else will just enjoy the screen as is.
If Samsung can, why not? The battery should be fine. It covers more bases; appeals to power users who might enjoy HDR, and harms no one else.
PS. Not necessarily disagreeing with you. Just not seeing a problem.
Edit: Also, isn't there a way to change the resolution? So if you don't want the impact on the battery, you have the choice. Right?
Last edited:
Oh I don't see it as a problem either, but i was just genuinely reflecting that as someone who just spent a lot of money getting into the whole HDR movie section - the reality after doing so was a little underwhelming compared to the 'perceived' benefit that manufacturers and content providers were asserting about HDR epxeically in their promo / marketing material.
[doublepost=1470838229][/doublepost]
48". I can see benefit of 4k over 1080p in that there is definitely a little extra sharpness, however in most films what you also end up seeing is simply more of the film 'grain' which doesn't necessarily make the impact better. No what I meant was the difference between HDR and non HDR. I've seen now content between HDR & non HDR and the difference in colour / contrast / gamma / definition is not as big as many of the HDR promoters are making out. You look at some of the manufacturers websites and they will show a slider of supposedly HDR and non HDR image - but its been artificially altered in these instances and the reality is whilst HDR does offer a little wider colour gamut and enhanced saturation - the difference is not the leap they are trying to make it out to be.
Last edited:
48" isn't that large to see a difference IMO, but that's entirely subjective and everyone sees a bit differently. As to your other comment, I think that's endemic to the industry and where they make their profits. Audiophiles, videophiles, etc all go nuts and spend thousands and thousands of dollars on perceived upgrades which at best make minimal differences.
Yeah that's my point really. That the perceived upgrade in actuality ends up being minimal. Nice to have, and a step in the right direction, but minimal in real usage. It's like an artificial construct to have a new 'tag' to shift newer products, over emphasised my manufacturers and retailers just so they can shift higher priced hardware.
But they'll be even better in 2018, but I'm personally holding out for the displays in 2020. They'll really blow your socks off.
