Steve Yedlin - Debunking HDR

[Modren]

https://www.yedlin.net/DebunkingHDR/
Just started watching so I can't comment on the overall point yet, but Yedlin is a talented cinematographer who's done a lot of research into camera and display technology, though the transfers he's supervised have not utilized HDR very much. I'm curious to see what he says.

[Geoff D]

Bless him

[Modren]

About 50 minutes in, so far his main point is that "SDR" and "HDR" are just terms for describing different color spaces. You can create a look for a film in one space and make it look the same in another, or change it, and neither is a better approach than the other.

[suspiciouscoffee]

I’m impressed how clear he was able to make this. I didn’t understand all his charts and numbers but enough of it makes sense for a relative layman (me) to get the idea.

[jess1581]

[Mierzwiak]

Debunking?

Is HDR some conspiracy theory now?

[EddieLarkin]

He seems to believe that HDR is just marketing and that any and all HDR grades can be faithfully and accurately recreated in SDR space.

Maybe it's true that the typical modern cinema grade is heavily SDR based since it is graded for cinema projection, and that HDR is not necessary (and even a detriment when a "HDR look" is bolted onto a film for the sake of it, see Looper), but it's surely nonsense that the full dynamic range of a film OCN can be represented in SDR whilst maintaining sufficient light levels?

I think what Universal did to Looper has completely twisted his thinking here.

[jess1581]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

He seems to believe that HDR is just marketing and that any and all HDR grades can be faithfully and accurately recreated in SDR space.

Maybe it's true that the typical modern cinema grade is heavily SDR based since it is graded for cinema projection, and that HDR is not necessary (and even a detriment when a "HDR look" is bolted onto a film for the sake of it, see Looper), but it's surely nonsense that the full dynamic range of a film OCN can be represented in SDR whilst maintaining sufficient light levels?

I think what Universal did to Looper has completely twisted his thinking here.

Um... Does Universal have Looper in foreign territories? The Sony Looper 4K is fantastic.

[aladdin123]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Bless him

The world needs an in-depth analysis and reply to his video, and no person is better for that task than you. Please.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

Debunking?

Is HDR some conspiracy theory now?

Those crazy HDRfers

[bga84]

Originally Posted by jess1581

Um... Does Universal have Looper in foreign territories? The Sony Looper 4K is fantastic.

Yes and the UK Universal disc is hilariously overbaked and over sharpened.

I think Yedlin is a great cinematographer. I've liked how his films have looked but he does seem to be on a mission to prove that any format other than standard super 35-sized digital in 2K SDR is nothing but a marketing gimmick

[cheez avenger]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

He seems to believe that HDR is just marketing and that any and all HDR grades can be faithfully and accurately recreated in SDR space.

Maybe it's true that the typical modern cinema grade is heavily SDR based since it is graded for cinema projection, and that HDR is not necessary (and even a detriment when a "HDR look" is bolted onto a film for the sake of it, see Looper), but it's surely nonsense that the full dynamic range of a film OCN can be represented in SDR whilst maintaining sufficient light levels?

I think what Universal did to Looper has completely twisted his thinking here.

Jean-Pierre Jeunet doesn't care for it. He's gone on record saying the same -- that it's all marketing and the studios are gonna do what they want to do.

[spanky87]

[frozenhamster]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

He seems to believe that HDR is just marketing and that any and all HDR grades can be faithfully and accurately recreated in SDR space.

Maybe it's true that the typical modern cinema grade is heavily SDR based since it is graded for cinema projection, and that HDR is not necessary (and even a detriment when a "HDR look" is bolted onto a film for the sake of it, see Looper), but it's surely nonsense that the full dynamic range of a film OCN can be represented in SDR whilst maintaining sufficient light levels?

I think what Universal did to Looper has completely twisted his thinking here.

The dynamic range of the camera negative really is not at issue here, since that is not the deliverable. The better question would be, is there something about the dynamic range of film projection that, depending on the film and how it's been shot and color timed/graded, creates a similar perceptual effect as that "punching through the ceiling" that he acknowledged only HDR can currently do? Because if so, then yeah, HDR will have that advantage.

His goal here isn't to get rid of the one very clear benefit HDR has. Rather, he wants it to be implemented in a smarter way, and he wants filmmakers to understand that pressure to get an "HDR look" has more to do with marketing than anything HDR is actually capable of vs SDR. That in fact, almost everything they've been told that only HDR can do, SDR can as well. Except that specific effect, which at the end of the video he reveals he's even devised a simple, more efficient solution for.

[Nocheduro]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

Jean-Pierre Jeunet doesn't care for it. He's gone on record saying the same -- that it's all marketing and the studios are gonna do what they want to do.

And he’s most definitely wrong, except for the releases that are SDR in an HDR container.

[chip75]

Next "Debunking multi-channel sound", then we go after that evil widescreen.

Debunking, thought we'd Bunk'd HDR already.

Will watch later.

[Warm Gun]

Does it matter? Couldn't watch it. Boring. The professional colorists and cinematographers he talked about mostly suck at their jobs anyway, for going for the bland, muted look almost every time. Naturalistic, my ass.

[dorian]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

but it's surely nonsense that the full dynamic range of a film OCN can be represented in SDR whilst maintaining sufficient light levels?

Huh? Negatives are essentially log encoded. They are not intended for direct viewing. A creative transfer function, in the form of a print LUT or a manual curve derived from reference material, is usually applied. This compresses the range and looks perfectly fine on SDR with plenty of output.

I really don't get the fixation with seeing absolutely every detail captured, regardless of intention. How important is it the filament of every bulb in a scene.

Clipped highlights in an old master are not specific to SDR. They are either intentional or are technical mistakes.

I actually agree with most of what Yedlin said. The majority of people are after "sizzly highlights" with HDR... But you can do that with SDR too. Artificially changing the grade for a HDR pass is not representative of SDR/HDR differences. My only gripe is this: while it is true that you can get 1000cd/m^2 highlights in SDR, no consumer panel/TV can do 1000cd/m^2 full screen. The SDR peak is limited by the full screen peak. The HDR peak is not.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

Jean-Pierre Jeunet doesn't care for it. He's gone on record saying the same -- that it's all marketing and the studios are gonna do what they want to do.

Jeunet was referring to 4K in general in the interview I saw.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

I may break up my viewing of this over the course of a week or so, but I do intend to watch it all.

I've described a lot of HDR grades we've been seeing on the format as "consumer-style HDR" because I can't think of any other way to describe it. It seems a lot of people seem to want to see the full dynamic range (or as close to it as possible) of an OCN with qualities that aren't seen or even possible to accomplish on film that is intended to be viewed by an actual audience. That's fine and people are allowed to have their preferences, but it's a far cry from how HDR is used in film archives which is more of a subtle refinement than a noticeably different grade.

I believe some SDR grades for Blu-ray tried to preserve all highlight and shadow detail they could, and I think those presentations looked flat, unappealing and inauthentic. I wouldn't want to see something like that in SDR or even HDR as it would never have been the intent of the filmmakers. Some of my favorite HDR grades resemble "SDR" more than consumer-style HDR. The latter sometimes distracts me because it can look too flashy or draw attention to certain parts of the image which may not have been the filmmaker's intention anyway.

In an ideal world and in accordance with my own personal tastes: an HDR grade would retain the color, exposure, etc. intended by the filmmakers, using HDR simply to allow for a more film-like curve and roll off in highlights/shadows. I don't care if not every detail on the OCN is shown if it wasn't intended. I find that often what you gain isn't worth what is lost, which is the "feel" or "mood" of a film or scene. I've used Suspira as an example before; some of the old presentations clearly showed far too much in the shadows ruining one of the creepiest scenes in the film as what appears to be two seemingly bodiless bright eyes in the darkness becomes a person wearing a catsuit or something. The illusion and the creepiness factor takes a hit.