Hi Dylan,There is at least one other reason I can think of, which is to make sure that it’s always possible to cover 100% of P3 for all units at all times. Some units have an undersaturated gamut from day one (most often due to a wrong hue for a too yellow green, which makes all the points between green and blue (including cyan) undersaturated at 100% sat. I think this is why THX uses the filter even for rec709. Other units are fine when new, but can get undersaturated at 100% sat over time. Nothing that a good calibration can’t take care of for the most part (as there is little to no actual content between 90% and 100% sat), but still annoying if you are after absolute color accuracy.So yes, getting 100% with the filter and 90% without is fine if all units can achieve this and if that remains the case over time, but it’s not really okay if you end up with 80% without the filter and only 90% with it. Some can’t even reach 100% of rec-709 without the filter after a few thousand hours!So I know this isn’t a popular stance but I for one applaud JVC’s decision to extend gamut cover with the filter enabled, if a stronger brightness loss with the filter translates into a proportional increase in gamut cover. If we lose 30% to get 103% of gamut cover instead of a 10% loss to get 97% (as in the current eshift models), then of course I agree it doesn’t make much sense. We’ll see!According to Ricky, the native gamut on the new models doesn’t reach P3 red anymore without the filter, so that might explain some of the additional light loss if it’s not only a green filter.Another reason is that there are more and more UHD Bluray titles reported as being mastered to BT2020 (including films, possibly because they were mastered to be shown in Dolby Vision for the cinema which is BT2020, not DCI-P3), so if there is indeed content above P3 in these titles (which remains to be seen), then it makes sense to slowly get towards the actual standard, which is BT2020... by 2020.
I remember reading an article a few years back stating that there is next to nothing out there in the natural world that has saturation past the P3 gamut. This is why the P3 gamut coverage was chosen for the DCI standard. Most things that are greater than P3 are artificial. Think neon lights in Vegas. Sometimes animated films will also grade the color to go past P3 too. But as you insinuate this content is few and far between.
Yes, I'm aware of all this. Again, the important thing to take away is that, while the color points are encoded for REC2020, it doesn't mean the content is taking full advantage of the saturation potential. And again, the titles that do this are not numerous.I also think it's important to note that while there are commercial Dolby Vision graded titles out there it doesn't mean much in the way for UHD blu-ray titles. I say this because of the drastic difference in grading that needs to be done for the UHD bluray. Much different EOTF/gamma and as such I have a hard time believing the two grades look anything similar when finished. Color more than likely will look different between the two grades as well.
Yes, that's exactly what I stated. Re quantity, it was about one obscure documentary over the last two years, and it's up to 10-20 in just a few months (including film titles such as Blade Runner 2049 US, Ready Player One, Game of Thrones, The Incredibles, etc), so the trend is going up and we're talking mainstream titles.In any case, the content point is not the most important reason I was stating, at least for the next couple of years. The gamut cover when new and over time is a far more important reason - in my opinion - to have some "headroom" re P3 cover, provided it doesn't come at the cost of too much brightness drop for too little cover gained.
Even if it's 10-20 now that still doesn't mean much. How many pixels in all the frames of these films have saturation beyond P3? That's what matters. It's a matter of usefulness in how often that >100% P3 saturation will be utilized and at what cost getting that saturation means. This is like arguing you have a subwoofer that can go flat down to 5hz outputting at 110+dB and that it's important that your system needs this performance metric. How many films have sub-bass that requires a system to go that low? I'm sure there are some films out there, but not many. The same thing applies here. I would rather have a sub that sounds better (tighter, more articulate, ect) down to 10 or 15hz than a sub that sounds worse which is flat down to 5hz. I would rather get 97-100% P3 coverage with minimal light loss rather than 103% if it's going to take away image brightness, which ultimately means image quality as far as HDR is concerned.
I read the 'one obscure, now 10-20' statement as you trying to argue it's catching on more and more so >P3 saturation will start to matter more. I guess I just misunderstood your intentions.
The odd thing is that I thought JVC's engineers understood that given the eshift models got to about 99-100% of the P3 gamut. It seems they were doing just that; more saturation with minimal light loss. A 10-15% loss of lumen output is/was acceptable to most to gain color saturation. I doubt most people will use the filter if a 25-30% drop in brightness happens. After all, HDR is about specular highlights and cutting off 25%+ of your usable brightness doesn't make much sense to me whereas the ~10% light loss seemed like an acceptable trade off. So I don't know if this is about bragging rights (so on paper it's better than what Sony offers) or if they're doing it for some other reason.
JVC DLA-RS1000 = 17,000:1 native contrast at max zoom/iris openJVC DLA-RS2000 = 25,000:1 native contrast at max zoom/iris openJVC DLA-RS3000 = 32,000:1 native contrast at max zoom/iris open
309 Replies
107472 Views