bit-tech.net

BrightSide DR37-P HDR display

Comments 1 to 25 of 135

Reply
hitman012 3rd October 2005, 15:52 Quote
Superb article - very good explanations as well, it cleared a lot up for me about HDR in general :)

It really does look like they're onto a winner here with that display - I can only hope it's affordable sooner rather than later.
Shadowed_fury 3rd October 2005, 15:57 Quote
Brilliant read, and just wow. How nice is that for a display.
(also, pitch black rocks, can't imagine how good it'd be on one of those ;))
atanum141 3rd October 2005, 16:06 Quote
good article...got abit lost in it tho...but i sure enjoyed the pics
Hustler 3rd October 2005, 16:10 Quote
Oh for gods sake.....yet another new display technology, just as im about to take the HD plunge, this comes along....ARRRGGGHHHH!!!!!

I'm no rich boy, if i buy HD Tv set now its gonna have to last at least 3yrs...probably 5.

The only way im ever going to get to try all this new stuff is to change career and become a technology journalist.... :D
Da Dego 3rd October 2005, 16:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
The only way im ever going to get to try all this new stuff is to change career and become a technology journalist.... :D
The key word there is TRY. ;) The display is almost $50,000USD. A bit out of the average budget...and no, Geoff did not get one to take home with him (though I think he should've begged more).
Tim S 3rd October 2005, 16:34 Quote
I want one of these to go next to my PS3 and Xbox 360. :D
kickarse 3rd October 2005, 16:56 Quote
One word can't describe how cool that is!
Firehed 3rd October 2005, 16:57 Quote
TBH I think the HD/LDTV example was a bad one but that's just because I really can't see ANY difference in picture quality. However the HDR/LDR of this is more than clearly visible in the article. Too bad it goes all bloomey (???) in the videos for the super-brights, but the darks at least couldn't be more obvious. I've personally had no inclination to go HD just because I don't find picture quality much better (and don't get me started on the DRM stuff they're working on implementing, etc, etc), but once these things are affordable it could certainly change my mind.

However if it can go "truly" black, why didn't they use "undefined" to their advantage and not just call it 200,000:1 or whatever? Surely 100,000,000,000:1 would be just as accurate?
GigantoR 3rd October 2005, 17:18 Quote
What shocks me about this is the simple idea behind the design. Are you telling me that nobody had considered dynamic backlighting? Seems to be one of those things where nobody thinks of it for some reason, then somebody comes out of the blue with it and everybody goes "D'oh!" and smacks their forehead.

The concept of a tv having to be watercooled is also pretty wild.
woodshop 3rd October 2005, 17:19 Quote
cant remember if mentioned but how big were the test displayes??
Tim S 3rd October 2005, 17:20 Quote
37"
The_Pope 3rd October 2005, 17:23 Quote
Quote:
However if it can go "truly" black, why didn't they use "undefined" to their advantage and not just call it 200,000:1 or whatever? Surely 100,000,000,000:1 would be just as accurate?

Technically yes, but by "normal" industry measures, 200,000:1 was the number they decided was meaningful. Of course, this was before Toshiba came out with 100,000:1, and don't even get me started on Sharp's antics.

What those two have is a range of very dark to moderately bright. Brightside have PITCH BLACK all the way up to VERY, VERY, VERY BRIGHT. The science is all in the article. I'm sorry that atanum141 got a bit lost - I don't blame you mate - but I tried as hard as I could to boil some tricky science down to a level that most people would understand.

The blooming was unfortunate, but unavoidable with an LDR camera. Incidentally, BrightSide have patents on true HDR camera technology too :D

All I can say is that whenever it blooms, the picture is really bright. Which is normally what you'd expect for whatever is going on on-screen, but you never get with an LDR display. I wish there was some way I could show you guys just how l33t this is: people can still be skeptical even after 10 pages, yet plonk them in front of this thing for 30 seconds, and they'd understand it instantly.
LoneArchon 3rd October 2005, 17:24 Quote
i think they don't do that is becuase there is not a led per pixel so it is possible for light to leak around the area creating light levels above 0. I want one now. Well at least for me a new TV isn't coming may way for a few years.
The_Pope 3rd October 2005, 17:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GigantoR
What shocks me about this is the simple idea behind the design. Are you telling me that nobody had considered dynamic backlighting? Seems to be one of those things where nobody thinks of it for some reason, then somebody comes out of the blue with it and everybody goes "D'oh!" and smacks their forehead.

The concept of a tv having to be watercooled is also pretty wild.

BrightSide have been working on it since 1999 (from memory) so much of the initial work was taking place at a time when many people were still getting used to LCDs taking over from CRTs. They started with some 18" LCD prototypes before moving on to the jumbo 37" widescreen.

Unfortunately, building an 18" PC display isn't *that* much cheaper than the 37" LCDTV - when we're talking $49k a piece - and there are techie reasons why they can't really go any smaller than 18", so don't count on these hitting your desktops just yet.

Once they sign up the big boys like Samsung, NEC, BenQ etc, we may see it trickle down from Home Theatre applications to 19" desktop displays. It's all down to demand: write to your congressman, err, manufacturer today!!
The_Pope 3rd October 2005, 17:32 Quote
Oh, that's a good point too: remember that it is NOT one LED per pixel - that would be over 2m LEDs, and size contraints would make manufacture impossible. The display is performing significant calculations at 60Hz to adjust the picture & backlight dynamically. It's that Veiling Luminance stuff that allows them to use a relatively low backlight grid (1400 LEDs) to power a 2 megapixel display.
Hamish 3rd October 2005, 17:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firehed
TBH I think the HD/LDTV example was a bad one but that's just because I really can't see ANY difference in picture quality.
no it is a good example for normal people, you're just blind or something :p :D
that pic of the 2 screens showing a 'pure black' image showed the difference the best i thought :)
NovaBurn 3rd October 2005, 18:27 Quote
Wow that article was amazing. even from the low res of the pictures and video one could definitely see the difference in the picture quality. I had to take a double take to see that the basic on test showed nothing for the brightside. WOW

So it was mentioned that the display is able to extrapolate HDR from an LDR source, This is done on the display itself? Is there no special dvd player/other connection needed then I take it?

Now sure that the display is omgwtfbbq at displaying blacks and whites at extremely good contrast and brightness, was there any issues with the colors being oversaturated to the point it looked overkill or anything of the like?
kiljoi 3rd October 2005, 18:31 Quote
Holy true-black Batman! I so want one. That first side-by-side image really blew me away. Hard to believe the other monitor is actually turned on. This looks to be quite amazing. Especially for someone who's still on a 15' CRT. :|
r3Q 3rd October 2005, 18:46 Quote
that is incredible. good thing i have not bought an LCD or HDTV, lol - im still running my 21" CRT -_-

in another few years this technology should get out and be a bit more affordable. but by then we will have all kinds of new crap :(

i want it now :(
RotoSequence 3rd October 2005, 18:55 Quote
In all honesty, I dont see why it shouldnt be affordable NOW; a bunch of LEDs working in tandem with the LCD panel should only add a couple hundred dollars to the cost of the display NOW. I want one of these. I want it BAD. :D
Asphix 3rd October 2005, 19:01 Quote
Awesome! I just bought a DLP TV.. and I'm still happy with my purchase. I dont see this being mainstream till 2010 the earliest as it will take a bit for cameras to come around to create content that will be stored on media to be displayed on displays that have been out long enough for production techniques to have been perfected resulting in affordable prices.

I expect sometime between 2009 and 2012 we will see them hit mainstream.. So i woudlnt necessarily halt all purchasing plans for TV's in the near future.. but do keep in mind that there is this technology.

I cant wait.. I'll start saving up now :-D
woodshop 3rd October 2005, 19:04 Quote
I wana see talk on real gaming preformance AKA possable ghosting..

Also 50K for a new tech 37" display @ RES..(?) it good but possably fair for a short time
Firehed 3rd October 2005, 19:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamish
no it is a good example for normal people, you're just blind or something :p :D
that pic of the 2 screens showing a 'pure black' image showed the difference the best i thought :)
Dunno, people keep telling me that but I still don't see it any differently. Maybe I'm just refusing to see it because I know all the bad things that will come out of it as well and want to avoid them. But yes, the black screens definately makes the best point. It must be even better in real life, because the backlight bleeding on my 15" Dell LCD from '02 or so, though definately present, has never really bothered me. I only tend to notice THAT if I only have a black screen in a very dark room.

That, or blame WMVHD content samples.

And the display was stated to run at 1080p (1920x1080 60Hz)

I've got mixed feelings on their dynamic backlight adjustment intellectual property. I mean, yeah, they should get credit and money for the novel idea, but them monopolizing the tech just irritates me to no end.
mclean007 3rd October 2005, 19:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firehed
I've got mixed feelings on their dynamic backlight adjustment intellectual property. I mean, yeah, they should get credit and money for the novel idea, but them monopolizing the tech just irritates me to no end.
They're not monopolising it - they are actively pursuing licensing deals with the major manufacturers. That is the way these things always work - the inventor comes up with some new tech and patents it, then licenses it to be used by manufacturers. What do you expect? They spend 6 years perfecting this then just give it away to Toshiba, Sharp etc. to make their own displays without paying them a cent?!??! :)
DarkReaper 3rd October 2005, 19:46 Quote
Well, they have invested 6 years of work into it... At least they are aggressively licensing it rather than going exclusive with one manufacturer - they really want this to be everywhere.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums