Talk:High-dynamic-range television

Help: Expand the draft about HDR adoption
I have created a draft about HDR adoption and formats compatibilty. For now, it's too much incompleted and doesn't provide enough sources. Please help to expand it. Any help is highly welcomed! Thanks. — SH4ever (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Please substantiate the claim that HDR10+ only supports 1000/4000 nits?
This article repeats claims (taken from a Dolby source) that Dolby Vision is superior to HDR10+ because the former supports 10k while the latter allegedly only supports 4k nits. Can we either get a primary source for this that is not "a claim made by Dolby or an article repeating a claim made by Dolby", or remove it? I could not find any such reference in the standards HDR10+ is based on (e.g. SMPTE ST2094-40), which in fact mention that the coded metadata's mastering display brightness also has an upper bound of 10k nits. (And, of course, the PQ function HDR10+ is based on supports the exact same range as Dolby Vision, so arguing this sort of doesn't make sense to begin with).


 * If I do not receive an answer to this question, and after some further research, I would edit the article to remove this passage in order to avoid misrepresenting HDR10+ as a result of Dolby marketing (which is known to consist mostly of blatant lies for pretty much as long as Dolby has been around). 85.216.96.210 (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I initially added some citation-needed tags on this claim, but after seeing this discussion I've decided to WP:BOLD and remove it. --Rcombs (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * All HDR formats that use PQ support 10,000 nits. This include HDR10, HDR10+ and most Dolby Vision profiles. Content could however be graded on a more limited mastering display. Today, Dolby Vision require at least 1000 nits for the mastering display. Content are commonly graded at 4000 nits. There are no minimal requirement for HDR10, HDR10+ ans HLG10. Today content are commonly mastered from 1000 to 4000 nits. See the new comparison table and this source: https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/hdr10-vs-dolby-vision - SH4ever (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Similarly Dolby Vision is listed as supporting 12 bits, but it doesn't. The input base layer can't be higher than main10 4:2:0 with any current profile and at 4k the enhancement layer is 1920x1080 which means the already subsampled chroma information is getting upscaled into near oblivion and the luma (which is pretty much all HDR seems to care about or we'd have 4:4:4 as the UHD bluray standard and correspondingly larger media or at least the LCD-based displays would be 10bpc panels) still only contains 1/4 of the information needed for a full 12 bit luma reconstruction, so it's kinda smoke and mirrors. HDR10+ has its own problems but they don't list any particular limit to the input video, so main12 would be fine and 4:2:0 which is the highest chroma anyone would be likely to distribute would still be far superior to Dolby's 10bpc hybrid. I read somewhere that this was done entirely because decoder ASICs were all 32 bit and decoding 12bpc HEVC in hardware requires at least 36, so it was much easier to require two 10bpc HEVC decoder chips in a bluray player with full support than get a whole new line of chips created. The other side effect of this is that the second decoder chip was (and still might be) entirely optional and the player just falls back to metadata-only presentation (or MEL as Dolby calls it, the dummy EL stream version with a blank video EL) of the data without warning the user. Since no display on the planet can show 12 bits of chroma anyway and probably won't any time soon (and most people can only see 10 vs. 8 with specific test images) and consumer-level displays don't really go upwards of 1000 nits or anywhere near it without array-based backlighting that makes seeing any block-artifacting as a result of the upscale impossible, dolby is pretty safe for the near future on making the 12 bit claim, even if it only applies to some UHD-BD disks and not any other DV content I'm aware of. A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I should add that the fact that HEVC seems to upscale very well with current hardware probably makes the blocking practically invisble, especially since we're talking about mapping into the very highest and lowest light levels a device can output using the extra data. I don't know because my blindingly bright monitor isn't HDR certified and my far less bright HDR TV is only 8bpc + FRC anyway. A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 08:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

HDR does not mean deeper blacks
The first paragraph statement that HDR means deeper blacks is false. The only limiting factor as to how dark the blacks are is the minimum black level of the display itself. HDR only increases the maximum nit value contained in the image encoding it does nothing to lower the intrinsic black levels of the source content. See the following article for a technical description of HDR and a lot of the misconceptions being spread about it (including by wikipedia it would seem): https://www.lightillusion.com/uhdtv.html 94.175.102.211 (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Since this article is not only about content/encoding, I've edited the opening paragraph to be more specific. --Ajul1987 (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Mmm. No. The standard sRGB, in violet, shows that when light intensity reaches less than 0.1 nit or greater than 100 nit, there is no more differentiation in the color value. While with HDR (ST.2084 PQ) https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/direct3ddxgi/images/hdr-bright-and-dark.png it is 0.001 to 10000. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/direct3ddxgi/high-dynamic-range-and-wide-color-gamut — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZBalling (talk • contribs) 01:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Cite for "deeper blacks" added ZBalling (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think that particular graph is an accurate literal representation. For example, if you read the paragraph above the graph:


 * "Paper white defines how bright white should be, for example in a controlled dark environment like a movie theater, 80 nits is typically used, in contrast to a PC monitor which could be 220 nits (one "nit" is short for one candela per square meter, and is a unit of light intensity)."


 * Indeed, most SDR transfer functions practically operate in terms of the display's "native" white rather than an absolute luminance like PQ defines. Technically sRGB does define a white of 80 nits, but in practice few people use it this way, and even the graph is not set to this level. Furthermore, sRGB does not define a non-zero black point, and a zero black point was not a reasonable representation of what consumer displays could do until the relatively recent advent of OLEDs. Though some other SDR standards do define or take into account a display black point, such as BT. 1886 which to my understanding is the most popular current display standard for SDR video. Perhaps display black point is where the "0.1 nits" of the graph came from. Either that or they took the value of the first 8-bit code point above zero for a white level equal to a typical-ish PC monitor. But "0.1 nits" is not in the sRGB definition itself.


 * Ultimately it's not possible to strictly say whether "HDR" involves "deeper blacks" or not unless you specify whether you are referring to capture, production, encoding, display, etc. and which specific standards, products, etc. you are comparing. That said, if I were forced to pick either "yes" or "no" with no elaboration, I would say "yes, HDR means deeper blacks". Otherwise, you could just as easily argue that, since in theory you could display a SDR image on a display with a native white point of 10,000 nits, or that you can't get more than 400 nits out of a 400-nit "HDR" display, HDR doesn't mean brighter whites either! --Ajul1987 (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The CONSENSUS is as follows. 80 nits were redefined to be 100 nits for sRGB SDR in black body ambient light and other ambient lights have other nits value (I know only about standard illuminants but in UV light, e.g., there also should be the correct transfer). Every display that does not conform to this is broken and it is most of them unless you combine LG CX TV in Filmmaker mode + True Tone mode of Apple. That still did not happen. Shameful, if you ask me. The black point should also be different in those two cases (HDR vs SDR). But here the CONSENSUS is the opposite, display black in SDR can be as black in HDR as this does not really matter! It can matter only on (AM)OLED display. Deeper blacks has nothing to do with black point itself. The deeper blacks are just the consequence of PQ function standard, that is how it works. 2A00:1370:812C:DA6:1B2:6C07:3ECD:310D (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * They did not redefine anything. BT.470, BT.601, BT.709 and BT.2020 (BT.2020 without BT.2100, that is SDR) all are scene differed. While sRGB is display reffered. 80 nits for sRGB is just by defintion of the EOTF, while scene differed video uses BT.1886 as an EOTF and 100 nits is also not really defined, BT.1886 depends on black point and white point. 2A00:1370:812D:F205:C0A5:95D7:D09C:EE8C (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Some paragraphs are not related to this article. Should be moved to the "HDR imaging" article
The paragraphs under the sub-heading "Capture" and the paragraph under the sub-heading "Production" are not related to this article. This article talk about the HDR formats allowing to store and distribute HDR videos and images such as HDR10 and Dolby Vision. This should not be confused with the photography technique also called "HDR" allowing to expanse the dynamic range captured by digital camera. The paragraphs should be moved to the article "HDR imaging". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SH4ever (talk • contribs) 15:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that you already did not move that info to HDR imaging, I think that it is important to not move it there since that article is not that visited as this one and since it is more about HDR inside SDR conatiner, which is not about range, but about faking range on monitors that do not limit SDR stuff to 80 nits for sRGB and to 100 (or 203) nits for BT.709 stuff (which is as you should be aware most of 'em, except LG in filmmaker mode). 109.252.90.92 (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Color primaries illustration needed
An illustration of the three color primaries sets related to HDR is needed for the section about chromaticity. There are already individual illustrations for Rec.2020/Rec.2100, DCI-P3 and Rec.709/sRGB. An illustration showing both three in the same picture is needed. SH4ever (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * That DCI-P3 is actually DCI-D65. 2A00:1370:812D:F205:B475:A8D:A0FA:9539 (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Technical details
So that is to prevent edit warring with you know who. 2A00:1370:812D:EB35:380D:2268:F7CE:5D8 (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. There is no need for a war my friend. All we need is talking. We all have the same goal and can help each other by mutually improving our knowledge. SH4ever (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

8 bit HDR
First of all: 8 bit HDR in AVC is possible and is supported by LG C9, it triggers HDR. One just have to tag the file as PQ transfer and 8 bit to 10 bit is defined by BT.709 even. Sample is here: https://disk.yandex.ru/i/ZKd0INUrpHtoDg I will also point out that 10 bit is not required by DisplayHDR (but accepting HDR10 is) and I wrote about it in this very article. Nvidia and Windows HD color menu does support 8 bit HDR, see screenshot here. https://www.avsforum.com/threads/2020-lg-cx%E2%80%93gx-dedicated-gaming-thread-consoles-and-pc.3138274/post-60688621 2A00:1370:812D:EB35:380D:2268:F7CE:5D8 (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We should distinguish HDR signals (format) and HDR displays capabilities. Displays can have whatever brightness, black level, gamut and bit depth manufacturer want. HDR displays do only need to be compatible with at least one kind of HDR signal / format. Rec.2100 and all HDR formats require at least 10 bit. It might be technically possible to achieve HDR by using PQ or HLG with 8 bit and even lower, maybe it will be enough to trigger display's HDR mode but this is not a standard way to do HDR. For both consumers and professionals, HDR will always mean "at least 10 bit". You also can see that DisplayHDR requires playback compatibility with 10-bit signals. https://displayhdr.org/performance-criteria-cts1-1/
 * SH4ever (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is required to accept HDR10 and process it in 10 bits, but display may be 8 bit. You can read the standard itself. https://app.box.com/s/vcocw3z73ta09txiskj7cnk6289j356b "might be technically possible to achieve HDR by using PQ or HLG with 8 bit" It was used by Dolby and SMPTE to test banding. "will be enough to trigger display's HDR mode" you deleted my info that PQ function is the only thing that must trigger HDR, it has nothing to do with bitness and color. It is a common mistake, even chrome made such a mistake, but it will be fixed. 194.154.66.163 (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

HDR and WCG
Next. Netflix does not use BT.2020 container for production. It uses Display P3 mxf with JPEG 2000 instead with PQ transfer and converts for BT.2020 container for streaming. There are even reliable sources in DCI-P3 article. See sample here: https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/9145 and full here https://opencontent.netflix.com/ (Sol Levante). Also, there are not too many movies that support outside DCI-P3. That is Planet Earth II and latest Star wars. 2A00:1370:812D:EB35:380D:2268:F7CE:5D8 (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We should also distinguish HDR formats and HDR contents (i.e. contents that are encoded in an HDR format). HDR content can have lower brightness than SDR and can be black and white far from WCG. In the HDR formats comparison table you can see the distinction. HDR have different meaning. Technical meaning of HDR might exclude WCG but common meaning of HDR include WCG. Rec.2020 was developed for SDR UHD-TV but SDR/BT.2020 is absolutely not a frequent combination. As you can see in multiple sections in the page, it's already written that DCI P3 is the most common for contents, but contents that are limited to DCI P3 are still encoded with Rec.2020 color primaries. I'm not familiar with professional mastering formats but from the Netflix link it seems that they use PQ and P3 primaries. As you say, it's then converted to a consumer HDR format. This page is about formats such HDR10 that can be used by displays. Such master formats are similar to raw formats and log formats. We don't talk about them here. It's possible to discuss them in the more general page about HDR.
 * SH4ever (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "SDR UHD-TV but SDR/BT.2020 is absolutely not a frequent combination" Maybe for you. It was the only format from Turskat 8K satellites. Rec. BT.2020 is indeed only SDR. It is also supported by LG TVs, i.e. it does trigger full BT.2020 pipeline (in info menu), but does not trigger HDR. Sample is here: https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/9092 194.154.66.163 (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

HDR film
Next. HDR/WCG tech is very old. For example, film always supported HDR, an example is 1968 (!) movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, it was filmed in film that supports HDR and now is presented as such on Dolby Vision Blu-ray. 2A00:1370:812D:EB35:380D:2268:F7CE:5D8 (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The HDR topic discussed in this page should not be confused with other uses of the term "high dynamic range". See High dynamic range main page and High dynamic range (disambiguation). "High dynamic range film" is like "high dynamic range sensors" or "high dynamic range cameras". This would then need to be delivered in SDR or HDR formats such as HDR10 or Dolby Vision. There might also be confusion with the HDR photography and videography capture technique (multi exposure capture and merging). This page is about the technology that delivers HDR to displays. SH4ever (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "There might also be confusion with the HDR photography" There is none. Cameras ware always capable of much more than displays. Remember about infrared radiation? Cameras can see it, we cannot. Same about HDR and WCG. 194.154.66.163 (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

xvYCC and sYCC
xvYCC supported WCG too, as it is mandatory limited range, it used Cb, Cr outside 16-240 to encode WCG (that is outside BT.709). The same can be done for sRGB and is called sYCC. 2A00:1370:812D:EB35:380D:2268:F7CE:5D8 (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Photo CD
Next: Photo CD also supported HDR, not only WCG. WCG was supported by the same means as xvYCC, i.e. the very same extended transfer function. But it also used different quantization to preserve highlights for HDR, Superwhite was used to show it on TV. Superwhite is still supported, even by LG C9. I will quote from Photo CD article: "However, in practice the color space of Photo CD images varies significantly from Rec. 709. Firstly, the Photo CD encoding scheme allows greater than 100% values for color components, thus allowing Photo CD images to display colors outside of the nominal Rec. 709 gamut". 2A00:1370:812D:EB35:380D:2268:F7CE:5D8 (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is intersting. You can read more here. This not the technology people refer to when they say HDR todays but the technology achieved something similar to the modern HDR (as it's also used by the old displays in the same than modern HDR). The performance is however far less (between 200 nits and 0,6 nits in practical conditions according the paper I linked). PhotoCD can be cited in this article. It's far more appropriate than the things present in the "begore HDR video" section. I wasn't aware of PhotoCD. Thanks. — SH4ever (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We need source if we want to say in the article that it's still by some TV. How do you know that? — SH4ever (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

PQ origin
Now, there was a lot of theoretical work to create PQ function. It is mostly Barten Ramp function, i.e. ITU-R Report BT.2246. All of this should be mentioned in the article(s), if we do not want to be some 2nd level BS source. See https://www.avsforum.com/attachments/smpte-2014-05-06-eotf-miller-1-2-handout-pdf.1347114/ and docs from Wikileaks Sony. 2A00:1370:812D:EB35:380D:2268:F7CE:5D8 (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have already read this for a long time but it might be interesting for those who didn't. It's possible to write about it on Perceptual Quantizer page. By the way, the video presentation of the pdf you gave is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLBPUN_S-ms --- SH4ever (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Article title
What should be the title of this article?

The ambiguity around the term HDR and "High Dynamic Range" is an issue. Page name should follow Wikipedia criterias, solve ambiguity, be recognizable and accurate.

This page is about the HDR term related to HDR displays and HDR formats and technologies such PQ, HLG, HDR10, HDR10+, Dolby Vision. It emerged since around 2014.

Proposition
I changed the page title to "High Dynamic Range (display and formats)". I think this might meet Wikipedia criterias, even if it's a little long. What do you think? Do you have any better proposition? - SH4ever (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Previous titles
"High-dynamic-range video"

I do not like this very much. While this name is good in term of recognizability, it's not very accurate. This same technology is also used for still pictures (adoption is currently low but it's increasing, why should we be able to see HDR videos but not HDR pictures?). The HDR photography technique (multi-frames capture and merging) is now also used videography (for example: Qualcomp Snapdragon 888 and Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra). - SH4ever (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

"High Dynamic Range (color representation)"

While this might be accurate, I think it's not enough recognizabile. - SH4ever (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * High-dynamic-range imaging would be better, if the scope if video plus stills, including capture and display and formats. Dicklyon (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see that one was in use for stills already, and you've over-capitalized that, too. I think you've really made a mess of things, and need to work on unwinding, or at least getting back to titles within Wikipedia style (that is, without over-capitalization, and preferring natural disambiguation). Dicklyon (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

"High Dynamic Range" or "HDR" ?
Should we use the abbreviation ? The topic of this page is known primarily by its "HDR" abbreviation. The photography technique is also known primarily by its "HDR" abbreviation. When speaking about the dynamic range capability of a camera, a sensor, raw formats or log formats, the use of the term "high dynamic range" without abbreviation and without capitalization is more frequent. All of this increase disambiguation. - SH4ever (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Neither. I have asked that the title from a week month ago, High-dynamic-range video be restored.  Certainly none of the over-capitalized proposals are OK, per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have asked for your technical request to be reverted. Your request didn't meet the criteria for a "request to revert undiscussed moves" as it was discussed right here. The title "High-dynamic-range video" has stopped to be used for more than a month ago and no one objected in that time and no one responded to the discussion I opened. SH4ever (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is what this talk page looked like when you first moved it on April 29 to an over-capitalized title; no discussion. I apologize that it took me over a month to notice the move and the discussion.  It's still "recent" as WP goes. It seems I'm the first one to notice, and I objected, and so far nobody has supported your move(s). Dicklyon (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And your attempt to ask for my move to be reverted is just going to confuse the people who try to act on WP:RMTR requests, as it's malformed (not in a form or section that they can act on in the normal way). If you think the mover did bad in executing my request, it would be better to tell him so on his talk page.  But probably the status quo ante will prevail pending a good RM discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Other propositions
Feel free to add your proposition.
 * HDR displays and related formats
 * HDR displays (and related formats)
 * HDR displays and related HDR formats
 * HDR displays and related technologies
 * High Dynamic Range (formats)
 * High Dynamic Range (display)
 * High Dynamic Range (display signal)
 * High Dynamic Range (video signal)
 * High Dynamic Range (visual signal)
 * High Dynamic Range (color space)
 * High Dynamic Range (color volume)

General opinion about the article
Substantial changes have been made to this article. What is your opinion about it now? Is the page enough easy to understand? Is it accurate enough? Do you find the answer you were looking for? (Previously there was a lot of issues. Archived discussions states about some of them.) — SH4ever (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For example, no mention that Nvidia supports HDR in 8 bit YCbCr 444 and RGB, but not in YCbCr 420 or 422. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:High dynamic range which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 18 December 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move after relist  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

High-dynamic-range video → High-dynamic-range television

— SH4ever (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Reasons for the move request
In short:
 * To improve readers' understanding of the topic
 * Easier explanations of all HDR topics
 * More accurate title
 * More disambiguation

Issues I have with the current naming:
 * 1) The common name of this page's topic is "HDR" ("High Dynamic Range"). The issue is that this term is also used for other meanings, see High dynamic range (disambiguation).
 * 2) "High-dynamic-range video" is not the topic of this page as the topic of this page also covers still images.
 * 3) The term "High-dynamic-range video" might refers to multiple topics: one related to the topic of this page but also one other related to the general meaning of high dynamic range. This page "HDR video" naming makes difficult to explain other HDR video technologies.
 * 4) A lot of confusion exist about the topic of this page (even among sources usually considered as reliable). This ITU report comfirms. The title should not contribute to them. I believe "High-dynamic-range video" does for the above reasons.

More details


 * 1) The topic of this article is HDR10, HDR10+, Dolby Vision, PQ, HLG, Rec.2100 and related technologies.
 * 2) The article's lead and one of its section already explains that it is not limited to video and can also be used for still images.
 * 3) HDR video capture via the multi-exposure HDR capture technique is one of the HDR video topics that are not part of this page's topic.

In my opinion, "High-dynamic-range television":
 * is a better description of the topic of the article.
 * follows Wikipedia naming conventions and stay recognizable.
 * terminology used by ITU :
 * terminology similar to Wikipedia pages about SDTV, HDTV, UHDTV.

— SH4ever (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC) — Edited by SH4ever (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Initial discussions
What are your opinion? Pinging @ and @. — SH4ever (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. At first glance I disagree. But it's hard to see what your argument actually is, it seems to hop around just refer us to a zillion links and external references without really presenting an argument. Also, one of your arguments is actually an argument against your proposed move: "The term "HDR video" has multiple meanings with some of them not related to HDR-TV." In essence that says that your proposed "HDR-TV" title is not suitable for this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I will clarify my argument. By the way, the argument is not against my proposed move. In its current state, the article only talks about HDR-TV and not about the other meanings of HDR video, therefore "HDR-TV" title is already more suitable. SH4ever (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @: I rewritten my argument. I hope it makes it more clear. SH4ever (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Further discussions

 *  Oppose  for now. If there's a broader topic that should be covered under the current title, let's expand to cover that, and then we'll be in good position to do what nom wants via a Split if that looks appropriate.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @: The broader topic is already covered in High dynamic range. This article is already a split focusing on HDR-TV. It needs to be named same as the content it covers. SH4ever (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll be Neutral for now until I have team to see other remarks and study it more. Must pack for a trip now... Dicklyon (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Have a nice trip! ;) SH4ever (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This 2016 book develops the multiple topics covered by the broader "HDR video". In the book, HDR video is clearly treated as nothing else than HDR imaging technologies for video, with many of its fundamentals and technologies shared with HDR imaging for still images. (Maybe even nearly all of them). The HDR imaging topic is very vast, we cannot treat it in this page as this page, which is about HDR-TV, is already large enough. Moreover, I think most readers are only interested by the topics of HDR-TV and HDR capture from multiple exposures. For all this reasons, the current articles splitting makes sense. We only need to name the topics in a more appropriate manner. We also needs to expand the broader topic of HDR imaging, currently covered in High dynamic range (this also requires proper article naming). (Pinging @ and @.) — SH4ever (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure I'm following. You seem to be saying that HDR video is a broader topic and that HDR-TV is a subset of that / narrower topic and that the current content is actually HDR-TV content?  North8000 (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @: The following should clarify. SH4ever (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose, obviously, because there is no longer any difference between TV and PC as it was when BT.709/1886 transfer was fighting sRGB transfer. Also, the whole story about TV vs monitor makes no sense too, I use 55" LG C9 OLED as my monitor and it has actually working in 48 gbit mode HDMI 2.1 with perfect 3DLUT. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your valuable comment. The short answer is that everything you said can also be said about the Ultra-high-definition television article (and also the SDTV and HDTV articles). We can act the same for HDR. The longer answer is that here the term "television" means "telecommunication of visual information" and doesn't mean a TV set.
 * The title I'm proposing is not perfect but it's not a wrong title, it's recognizable and it allows disambiguation while "high-dynamic-range video" do not depict the subject correctly, convey wrong understanding of it and creates major troubles for disambiguation. The potential confusion about "television" is not a huge drawback as readers (both general audience and specialists) can easily understand we are not speaking only about TV sets. "High-dynamic-range television" respects all Wikipedia criteria about article titles. "High-dynamic-range video" doesn't respect accuracy and disambiguation criteria. SH4ever (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * BT.2020 is SDR, it is still using BT.709 transfer that was just renamed to BT.2020-10 transfer. So, no, you are wrong. All those articles are only about TVs. Full stop. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. I never said BT.2020 is HDR. UHDTV is not only about TV sets. SH4ever (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: WikiProject Television has been notified of this discussion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Media has been notified of this discussion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Electronics has been notified of this discussion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. So this whole distinction between "television" and "video" is mostly irrelevant in the modern context. These terms are essentially interchangeable at this point, and I don't really think it matters. So I think we should default to using whatever term is most common term is for this topic. Doing a quick Google search, it looks like the "video" term is much more common than the "television" term for this topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: As best I understand it at this point, the primary current difference between "television" and "video" is that "television" explicitly includes audio as well as video (and synchronization of the media elements and possibly captioning, etc.). This topic has nothing to do with audio, captioning or synchronization, so using the word "video" instead of "television" here seems more precise. The reason the ITU-R uses the word "television" for a video-specific topic may just be a matter of the traditional terminology used in the ITU rather than any real difference in the current widely understood meaning of the terms. Mulligatawny (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @ and : The only widely used term for the topic of this page is "HDR" / "high dynamic range". The problem is that this term is also used for the Multi-exposure HDR capture technique and for High dynamic range. So we need to use something else to disambiguate. SH4ever (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose (until a more coherent proposal is made): I think the issue here is that "television" is an ambiguous word that we maybe shouldn't be using in an encyclopedia without clarifying its sense. :I'm sorry if this sounds personal, but from my reading of, the nominator seems to be making a few arguments that actually contraindicate moving. I'm going to paraphrase some of their points (possibly wrongly) so they can explain if it's me getting the wrong end of the stick.
 * In a previous nomination, the nominator partly relied on an argument that "HDTV" would better fulfill the accuracy criterion. I don't see that it would unless "HDTV" is per se the name of a specific video standard document (I don't know that it is) and so is a term of art.
 * One of the nom's arguments is that the word "television" has a clear denotation distinct from "video" (without explicating how) whilst also conceding that it might encompass a PC and that it doesn't just refer to either TV sets or broadcast TV.
 * So my possibly naive question is: Since my few-year-old smartphone has HD10+, does that also make it a television? In that case what sort of video display isn't a television (in the sense of HDTV)?
 * Llew Mawr (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm glad of all participation. I do not take anything personal and hope no one take my comments as something personal.
 * HDTV is actualy the name of a standard (Rec. 709 — ) so are UHDTV (Rec. 2020 — ) and HDR-TV (Rec. 2100 — ). The basis of my proposal was the following of terminology used by ITU and the other Wikipedia pages to solve the issues the current naming has. Despite being named "television", these standards are mostly (and maybe only) about the requirements of displays and are not television broadcast standards, rather defined in the following standards: Template:Table Digital video broadcast standards.
 * Even if your smartphone display respects the Rec.709 standard (HDTV) (and it sure does), your smartphone would not be "a television", as a device to be qualified "a television" means to be qualified as "a TV set" and requires to be able to receive TV broadcast. If your camera can record video in "HD" it means it can record a video respecting Rec.709 standard (HDTV).
 * Basically we can say that in the context of the terms "high definition television", "high dynamic range television" and others, the word "television" has a specific meaning different from TV set and TV broadcast.
 * (By the way, your smartphone probably has HDR10+, not "HD10+". Basically it is Rec. 2100 (HDR-TV) with some additional features.)
 * SH4ever (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: I reformulated and expanded the beginning section about the reasons I proposed the move. SH4ever (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Further further discussions
In June 2022 moved the page to match lead, disregarding the not-done consensus. Personally: --Artoria2e5 🌉 13:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to see a title that doesn't say "television", because the computer display I want is not a TV set.
 * I fail to understand how "television" covers still images better than "video" does.
 * UHDTV page is much more TV-focused than this one. Here we have VESA standards. There they have list of channels offering 4K and 8K. And this site has separate pages for 4K resolution and 8K resolution without the TV focus.


 * Yeah, I presumably didn't notice this discussion when I did the move. Television was introduced when the lead was reworked by on 11 November 2021. We already have a more general High dynamic range article so the title does need a qualifier. At the time of the discussion the qualifier in the title was video and the qualifier in the lead was television. I doubt we want to revert to that. Originally the page was created as High-dynamic-range video in both title and lead. The qualifier was absent for a while before 's work. If we still don't think we can get consensus on this, the title and lead should probably revert to High-dynamic-range video. ~Kvng (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

DTS:X has 2 LFE
https://www.google.com/search?q=dts%3Ax+%222+lfe%22 I also added info about MMR, we now have mpv player that support MMR and polinomial reshaping and also we have CRI stuff apparently defined in hevc spec. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I first heard about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMxpEVgTLec Valery Zapolodov (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)