Ultra HD Blu-ray (4K) Disks and High Dynamic Range (HDR) for Dummies

[Geoff D]

Pac Rim is about as fake as it gets when it comes to expanding the highlight range BUT as it alleviates the incredibly dense blacks of the BD versions then I'm happy to own it for that. Not that an SDR grade couldn't have lifted the blacks like that, it's just a choice they've made for the HDR grade and I appreciate it nonetheless.

[eddievanhalen]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Pac Rim is about as fake as it gets when it comes to expanding the highlight range BUT as it alleviates the incredibly dense blacks of the BD versions then I'm happy to own it for that. Not that an SDR grade couldn't have lifted the blacks like that, it's just a choice they've made for the HDR grade and I appreciate it nonetheless.

I haven't watched the BD, I'll give it a quick watched during the weekend.
I bought this because I found it quite entertaining at the cinema and I read it was reference material regarding HDR grading, it happens I don't like this kind of overly bright and aggressive HDR grading, I prefer stuff like Doctor Strange, Star Trek Into Darkness, Prometheus & Alien Covenant or the John Wick saga.
I like how Aquaman looks despite its aggressive use of HDR, but, have they raised white levels to make it have more "pop"? You don't I don't know much about video technology, audio has been my thing since I was a kid and I've done crazy "experiments in the past you wouldn't imagine... And some of them worked.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Staying Salty

Comments from a respected calibrator on Dolby Vision and HDR (FAQ)

“Right” is a matter of opinion -

Guidance for operational practices in HDR television production as per -
https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/op...2019-PDF-E.pdf

see p.3, Table 1 – specifically 203 nits (both PQ and HLG)
seems broadcasters are becoming inclined to follow this

in fact, with regards movies and such, Arri (whose cameras are used on a lot of motion pictures) now offer a choice of 3D LUTs that render diffuse white to either ~100 or 200 nits

[Staying Salty]

https://www.experienceuhd.com/glossary

Much information on HDTVs are rather technical. Unless you are familiar with the technology, many terms can be hard to understand. Our glossary provides the definition of basic terms you will probably encounter when researching and shopping for a new HDTV.

This site is very informative. Highly recommend you click on "MENU" and explore the site.

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

“Right” is a matter of opinion -

Guidance for operational practices in HDR television production as per -
https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/op...2019-PDF-E.pdf

see p.3, Table 1 – specifically 203 nits (both PQ and HLG)
seems broadcasters are becoming inclined to follow this

in fact, with regards movies and such, Arri (whose cameras are used on a lot of motion pictures) now offer a choice of 3D LUTs that render diffuse white to either ~100 or 200 nits

Stacey and I were talking about that table a year or so ago. This is obviously a new approach as the standard for SDR and before that table was 100 nits. Nothing wrong with a new approach for HDR though, it would help with displays that do have to tone map because the standard range won't get pushed down as much with bad tone mapping so the likelihood of getting a "dark" image goes down as well.

I agree with D-Nice's comments that HDR was designed to be viewed in a controlled dark environment. It is actually a complaint I talked to Stacey about in the very beginning. The format takes a "all or leave it" approach by mastering for a very specific viewing environment and absolute luminance values that are not achievable by a wide range of displays and then gives you no guidance on what to do for anything outside that. Poorly implemented is an understatement.

I also saw Vincent's comments on his YouTube video about SW and its HDR levels. I don't see how he can say they are not HDR simply because it doesn't hit the peak luminance he wants (brighter). He also mentions that he thinks it is just a boosted SDR signal, but that would only be the case if the SDR ranges were significantly higher than the previous versions. A movie doesn't have to have 1000 or 4000 nit highlights to be HDR. And comparing to Ep7 doesn't make sense because that was a film that was shot with HDR in mind and was sourced from a Dolby original grading. So I could understand maybe being disappointed with the lack of high peaks, but that doesn't mean the content is NOT HDR. I've already talked to some mastering folks about it and they felt the exact same way.

[Geoff D]

Yeah, but unfortunately people will now take that video of his as gospel forever more. I like the dude a hell of a lot but he's way off base here.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

Stacey and I were talking about that table a year or so ago. This is obviously a new approach as the standard for SDR and before that table was 100 nits. Nothing wrong with a new approach for HDR though, it would help with displays that do have to tone map because the standard range won't get pushed down as much with bad tone mapping so the likelihood of getting a "dark" image goes down as well.

I agree with D-Nice's comments that HDR was designed to be viewed in a controlled dark environment. It is actually a complaint I talked to Stacey about in the very beginning. The format takes a "all or leave it" approach by mastering for a very specific viewing environment and absolute luminance values that are not achievable by a wide range of displays and then gives you no guidance on what to do for anything outside that. Poorly implemented is an understatement.

I also saw Vincent's comments on his YouTube video about SW and its HDR levels. I don't see how he can say they are not HDR simply because it doesn't hit the peak luminance he wants (brighter). He also mentions that he thinks it is just a boosted SDR signal, but that would only be the case if the SDR ranges were significantly higher than the previous versions. A movie doesn't have to have 1000 or 4000 nit highlights to be HDR. And comparing to Ep7 doesn't make sense because that was a film that was shot with HDR in mind and was sourced from a Dolby original grading. So I could understand maybe being disappointed with the lack of high peaks, but that doesn't mean the content is NOT HDR. I've already talked to some mastering folks about it and they felt the exact same way.

Putting Vincent aside, you make an excellent point re: the "darkness" that HDR is perceived to have. It's easily been the #1 complaint about HDR that I've seen around the interweb and I can't help but feel that the studios/manufacturers missed a trick here. It's an oft-lamented point that an absolute luminance format launched without any kind of dynamic mapping as standard, something that we've talked about before, but that gigantic miscalculation aside they could've alleviated some of the "it's too dark!" complaints if they'd mandated a higher APL for HDR content.

NOT the kind of stupidly bright luminance that Sony pushes through their grades - which isn't an issue for clean modern digital content but makes the grain scream on older 35mm shows - but something that was at least, say, double that of SDR e.g. 240 nits. We were all concentrating on the mapping of them thar highlights so much that the average brightness of the images and how they are affected by tone mapping was almost completely overlooked. (Yes Penton, I know you've been mentioning diffuse white for years but I mean the wider blogosphere in general.)

Sure, we can't always legislate for how people are viewing their content w/ref to ambient light levels and/or how juiced up their SDR settings are, both of which can drastically affect people's perceptions of HDR. But if the average brightness still had a decent kick - nothing too extreme as mentioned so it wouldn't be a major deviation from intent - then it could have helped to alleviate the main complaint about HDR in the short term without a dynamic tone mapping solution. Something like Goodfellas - MaxFALL of just 67 nits (!) but contained within 4000-nit MDL (double !!) - has been woefully misrepresented because of the tone mapping snafu, but if it had a higher APL then the mapping wouldn't have wrecked it like it did.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

Stacey and I were talking about that table a year or so ago. This is obviously a new approach as the standard for SDR and before that table was 100 nits. Nothing wrong with a new approach for HDR though,...

As to the development of the table in the guidelines, I believe that the ITU working group considered the real world situation in which 100 nits is the 709 studio monitor standard, however, life’s reality is that as the majority of modern SDR TV’s and uncalibrated monitors reproduce white much brighter than this, so 100 nits on an HDR monitor or TV tends to look rather dim in comparison. In practice, diffuse white at 100 nits, ultimately, is just widening the gap between what the audience see’s and what the creators intended.

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

I also saw Vincent's comments on his YouTube video about SW and its HDR levels. I don't see how he can say they are not HDR simply because it doesn't hit the peak luminance he wants (brighter). He also mentions that he thinks it is just a boosted SDR signal, but that would only be the case if the SDR ranges were significantly higher than the previous versions. A movie doesn't have to have 1000 or 4000 nit highlights to be HDR....

Indeed, as I was trying to enlighten folks as to the whole situation with these other examples – https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...l#post17082246

And this answer - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...y#post17073266

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

Stacey and I were talking about that table a year or so ago. This is obviously a new approach as the standard for SDR and before that table was 100 nits. Nothing wrong with a new approach for HDR though, it would help with displays that do have to tone map because the standard range won't get pushed down as much with bad tone mapping so the likelihood of getting a "dark" image goes down as well.

I agree with D-Nice's comments that HDR was designed to be viewed in a controlled dark environment. It is actually a complaint I talked to Stacey about in the very beginning. The format takes a "all or leave it" approach by mastering for a very specific viewing environment and absolute luminance values that are not achievable by a wide range of displays and then gives you no guidance on what to do for anything outside that. Poorly implemented is an understatement.

I also saw Vincent's comments on his YouTube video about SW and its HDR levels. I don't see how he can say they are not HDR simply because it doesn't hit the peak luminance he wants (brighter). He also mentions that he thinks it is just a boosted SDR signal, but that would only be the case if the SDR ranges were significantly higher than the previous versions. A movie doesn't have to have 1000 or 4000 nit highlights to be HDR. And comparing to Ep7 doesn't make sense because that was a film that was shot with HDR in mind and was sourced from a Dolby original grading. So I could understand maybe being disappointed with the lack of high peaks, but that doesn't mean the content is NOT HDR. I've already talked to some mastering folks about it and they felt the exact same way.

I was watching the Santa Claus on Disney+ and if someone told me it was fake hdr, I'd believe it. Not only is it very flat looking, the highlights really don't look very "hdr graded" and what I mean by that is they seemed to lack the detail and color gain from hdr. There's a few scenes where they're driving though town at night time and the street lamps and window signs just did not look good at all. Stil the best version of the movie I've seen to date, but a real hdr master (and on disc) would be alot better in this case.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

....I've already talked to some mastering folks about it and they felt the exact same way.

and consumers shouldn’t blame the now dated film stock used as the root cause for the conservative HDR approach because SW Episodes 4 and 5 used the same Kodak stock as E.T. (https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/ET-Th...lu-ray/179485/ ), nevertheless, the later had a MaxCLL of 1000 nits

[multiformous]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yeah, but unfortunately people will now take that video of his as gospel forever more. I like the dude a hell of a lot but he's way off base here.

Adam Fairclough (aka EvilBoris) explains the reasoning behind labeling it "fake" HDR:

[Kris Deering]

He isn't explaining anything, he is making assumptions to back up a hypothesis. It is a conservative grade of an older film that still exceeds the SDR great by quite a bit in the areas that would be expected. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this isn't a genuine HDR grade simply because it doesn't have highlights that are as bright as others may want. This movie has highlights that exceed nearly all of what is found in the HDR grade of Blade Runner 2049, which is largely considered to be one of the best 4K releases.

[multiformous]

Originally Posted by multiformous

Adam Fairclough (aka EvilBoris) explains the reasoning behind labeling it "fake" HDR:

[Show spoiler]

Not saying I agree with their conclusions, just thought I'd share a little context. When I watched the HDTV Test video, I was reminded of this Planet Earth II HDR analysis video that showed a ~500 nit cap throughout:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lly...ature=youtu.be

[puddy77]

Originally Posted by multiformous

Adam Fairclough (aka EvilBoris) explains the reasoning behind labeling it "fake" HDR:

[Show spoiler]

It's funny, when HDR first became a thing, people were afraid that it would be a new form of revisionism and that old movies we know and love would look completely different than what we remember. Now it seems that if the highlights don't cause retina damage, pitchforks come out.

I watched all the new grades on Disney+ and think they look superb.

Unfortunately, the Instagram post was deleted. But the team at Company3 did the new HDR grades and George himself approved them. If anything, people may want to blame a conservative house style. The same team has done most of the Marvel grades that many complain as being barely HDR.

[Fendergopher]

I think using the term "fake HDR" is unhelpful, as long as the content follows the HDR EOTF properly and there isn't some sort of mastering error. Calling it lazy HDR implementation or guessing that it was a quick and easy automated process is different from arguing whether the content fits the technical definition of HDR.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by multiformous

...When I watched the HDTV Test video, I was reminded of this Planet Earth II HDR analysis video that showed a ~500 nit cap throughout:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lly...ature=youtu.be

that’s ^ zmarty’s work , as well as his first HDR analysis on YouTube - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...z#post13574581

who since the time of that video has been awarded a Ph.D. degree in Computer Science while being a full-time Microsoft senior software engineer at the same time - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...y#post16445853

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by multiformous

Adam Fairclough (aka EvilBoris) explains the reasoning behind labeling it "fake" HDR:

...and yet I could discern highlight information in The Little Mermaid that greatly exceeded the previous SDR grade and still had a little more in the tank vs the newer SDR grade, e.g. https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=829

As with morphinapg and his gospel of the spreadsheet, these guys are getting much too caught up with sheer numbers and aren't taking the content for what it is and how it compares to SDR - as the first reply above tried to point out - instead they're slating it because it's not what they want/expect it to be. There may well be some sort of 'low pass' HDR restriction on grades from certain studios, but it doesn't mean they're not HDR at all. Reminds me of what someone said about Universal's HDR grades not being kosher because so many of them stop dead on 1000 nits MaxCLL, this person not realising that Uni were/are capping that peak brightness as per BDA advice in the UHD spec.

[multiformous]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

that’s ^ zmarty’s work , as well as his first HDR analysis on YouTube - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...z#post13574581

[Show spoiler]

who since the time of that video has been awarded a Ph.D. degree in Computer Science while being a full-time Microsoft senior software engineer at the same time - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...y#post16445853

Originally Posted by zmarty

Mr. Penton-Man, I dedicate this video to you.

I have published what I believe to be the first HDR technical analysis / review ... in HDR. You need YouTube HDR to view it properly, but the analysis itself should be useful even when viewing on an SDR screen.

[Show spoiler]

In the video I am trying to provide some general information about HDR, and to determine if the Star Trek Beyond 4K Blu-Ray is as dark as some reviews complained. See the description below the video for more information.

Real 4K HDR: Star Trek Beyond HDR Review and general HDR information (Chromecast Ultra) - YouTube

I was hoping to see a lot more of these analysis videos. I could stare at that HDR scope all day!

[Staying Salty]

HDRecho.jpg

echo1.jpg


echo2.jpg

[Sad Turtle]

I have a quick question and apologize in advance if has been answered, I looked it up and have not been able to find it. I have a xbox one x and had a 65 inch curved Samsung, when I played 4k movies it would skip. I thought it was because the tv did not support HDR. I just got the Sony 85 inch 950g and tried to watch Aladdin last night and it was still skipping. Am I doing something wrong, frustrating after spending 4k on a 4k tv and not being able to watch it