Joe Kane prefers SDR over HDR

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

What Joe Kane said about HLG (at 19:15 in the video) is wrong. One of the features that the BBC promotes about HLG is that it is a relative system and using a log curve doesn't change that. Joe Kane is also wrong about PQ since it doesn't use a log curve but is based on human perception.

Facts are irrelevant when one is a celebrity video guru.

[Deciazulado]

Checking the bottom of 10-bit PQ and 10-bit γ2.4 (from -13 f/stops to -21 f/stops below 100 nits) they are roughly equivalent in tone discrimination there. The advantage is more in the high levels where for example from 50nit to 100nit (1 f/stop) 2.4 has 219 video levels and PQ has only 60 video levels. But I don't think having an approximate average of discrimination of 1 level per 1/60th of an f/stop (0.017 f/stops) is much of a hindrance there. Plus it has the additional 431 video levels reserved for the +6.6 f/stop 100-10,000 nit highlight range.

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Facts are irrelevant when one is a celebrity video guru.

Agreed, and the most amazing statement I have seen Joe Kane make was that Rec. 2020 would require at least 16-bit video (at 44:57 in this video from 2013). It looks like he didn't understand binary math and thought that doubling the color gamut would require double the bit depth. For about a year he advocated for 16-bit video and it wasn't until 2014 that he started advocating for 12-bit video. People make mistakes but for someone who calls himself a video guru he has made a lot of them.

[cgpublic]

Joe is entitled to his opinion, and others have pointed out perceived errors, but what caught my attention was the following post:

While Joe spent more time discussing how he prefers 10 bit SDR graded video over the 10 bit PQ HDR graded footage he's seen thus far (when viewed on most current HDR displays) due to increased number of gradations (less banding), he did make a brief mention of a second issue closer to the end of the episode. That issue being the increased importance of proper ambient light control when viewing HDR graded material, due to the fact that HDR graded content currently shoots for APL's similar to what you get from most SDR content. Basically, current HDR content is intended to be viewed in a darkened environment with approx. 5 nits of ambient light. That's much darker than most people's living rooms! Adding to this issue (if you want to call it one) is the fact that the displays reproduce these rather dim APL's with the backlight setting maxed and locked out, which drastically limits your ability to boost light output for proper daytime viewing. Here's an article from hdtvtest that does a decent job of describing the phenomenon...

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-vs-201604104279.htm

and here is the thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/465-hi...m-daytime.html

Who here has watched HDR content in moderately bright room?

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Joe is entitled to his opinion, and others have pointed out perceived errors, but what caught my attention was the following post:

While Joe spent more time discussing how he prefers 10 bit SDR graded video over the 10 bit PQ HDR graded footage he's seen thus far (when viewed on most current HDR displays) due to increased number of gradations (less banding), he did make a brief mention of a second issue closer to the end of the episode. That issue being the increased importance of proper ambient light control when viewing HDR graded material, due to the fact that HDR graded content currently shoots for APL's similar to what you get from most SDR content. Basically, current HDR content is intended to be viewed in a darkened environment with approx. 5 nits of ambient light. That's much darker than most people's living rooms! Adding to this issue (if you want to call it one) is the fact that the displays reproduce these rather dim APL's with the backlight setting maxed and locked out, which drastically limits your ability to boost light output for proper daytime viewing. Here's an article from hdtvtest that does a decent job of describing the phenomenon...

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-vs-201604104279.htm

and here is the thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/465-hi...m-daytime.html

Who here has watched HDR content in moderately bright room?

Well that's because current DV theaters can't do more than 100 nits, so the room needs to be dark. With 1000 nit displays it allows HDR to look good in a more normal living room environment.

My display is maxed out in the daytime and the HDR looks good, but of course it will look better in a dark room (like any content would). At night I lower the gamma and black level a little.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Joe is entitled to his opinion, and others have pointed out perceived errors, but what caught my attention was the following post:

While Joe spent more time discussing how he prefers 10 bit SDR graded video over the 10 bit PQ HDR graded footage he's seen thus far (when viewed on most current HDR displays) due to increased number of gradations (less banding), he did make a brief mention of a second issue closer to the end of the episode. That issue being the increased importance of proper ambient light control when viewing HDR graded material, due to the fact that HDR graded content currently shoots for APL's similar to what you get from most SDR content. Basically, current HDR content is intended to be viewed in a darkened environment with approx. 5 nits of ambient light. That's much darker than most people's living rooms! Adding to this issue (if you want to call it one) is the fact that the displays reproduce these rather dim APL's with the backlight setting maxed and locked out, which drastically limits your ability to boost light output for proper daytime viewing. Here's an article from hdtvtest that does a decent job of describing the phenomenon...

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-vs-201604104279.htm

and here is the thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/465-hi...m-daytime.html

Who here has watched HDR content in moderately bright room?

You can adjust settings to boost the brightness for daytime viewing. I do suggest if someone is interested in hdr to get a tv that has enough juice to power up the picture.

I bump my gamma up but also use the dynamic contrast setting which also gives major boost to picture luminosity. My previous hdr tv though was too dark for me even with boosted settings, so I sold up and bought a better tv.

[marine92104]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

I have a JS9500; I think the Samsung player has some DNR built into it or something though because I'm getting banding on everything and even stuff like The Revenant just looks blurrier compared to playing back 4K content on this screen from my PC or other players. Maybe that's why I'm not impressed.

It's the Amazon streaming content using the display's built-in app that suffers from oversaturated color.

No banding or oversaturated colors on my LG G6. No blurry picture. Super sharp & unbelievable.

You might want to check the settings on your TV.

Also HDR sets before 2016 may not be 100% up to spec on HDR.

I can tell you I'm not getting anything like you described on my display.

Unbelievable picture on 4K HDR.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Joe Kane seems to get more conservative as time goes on. I guess that's a byproduct of getting older but this is ridiculous. SDR better than HDR?

It's been this way for 20 years now.

Originally Posted by Esox50

Joe Kane...somewhat/kind-of relevant back in the mid-90s when we had Laserdisc and Widescreen Review. Now...not so much.

Which is sad but doesn't surprise me now.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Facts are irrelevant when one is a celebrity video guru.

He advocated LaserDisc over DVD.

He advocated HD DVD over Blu-ray.


See a pattern?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

He advocated LaserDisc over DVD.

He advocated HD DVD over Blu-ray.


See a pattern?

No; I see two isolated examples that may reflect reasoning around entirely separate issues.

[Jodi]

I'm familiar with Kane. What in the **** is he thinking - SDR better than HDR? I must know what Joe's been smoking lately.

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Joe is entitled to his opinion, and others have pointed out perceived errors, but what caught my attention was the following post:

I don't mind that Joe Kane has an opinion (the Moon looks funny) but the problem is that he sometimes bases his opinion on information that is wrong (the Moon is made of cheese). What Joe Kane said about HLG and PQ is wrong and 10 minutes of internet searching can prove that:

http://www.arib.or.jp/english/html/o...TD-B67v1_0.pdf
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/w...les/WHP309.pdf
https://www.smpte.org/sites/default/...-2-handout.pdf

Originally Posted by cgpublic

While Joe spent more time discussing how he prefers 10 bit SDR graded video over the 10 bit PQ HDR graded footage he's seen thus far (when viewed on most current HDR displays) due to increased number of gradations (less banding), he did make a brief mention of a second issue closer to the end of the episode. That issue being the increased importance of proper ambient light control when viewing HDR graded material, due to the fact that HDR graded content currently shoots for APL's similar to what you get from most SDR content. Basically, current HDR content is intended to be viewed in a darkened environment with approx. 5 nits of ambient light. That's much darker than most people's living rooms! Adding to this issue (if you want to call it one) is the fact that the displays reproduce these rather dim APL's with the backlight setting maxed and locked out, which drastically limits your ability to boost light output for proper daytime viewing.

That isn't because of HDR but because Dolby designed PQ to be an absolute brightness system which is shown at a specific brightness. The BBC disagrees with that decision and talks about it in one of their documents on HDR. I think CE companies will eventually give consumers the ability to change brightness levels regardless of the HDR format that is used.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

No; I see two isolated examples that may reflect reasoning around entirely separate issues.

Except it isn't that way.


He advocated LD over DVD because DVD was "too mainstream" and preferred LD's niche status.


HD DVD because of an anti-Sony bias.


Well?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

I don't mind that Joe Kane has an opinion (the Moon looks funny) but the problem is that he sometimes bases his opinion on information that is wrong (the Moon is made of cheese). What Joe Kane said about HLG and PQ is wrong and 10 minutes of internet searching can prove that:

Joe had better buckle up for the ride as there are new SMPTE projects planned for HDR Signaling over SDI and SVIP (studio video over IP).

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

He advocated LD over DVD because DVD was "too mainstream" and preferred LD's niche status.

HD DVD because of an anti-Sony bias.

Doctorossi, for the ^ particulars, Peter is referring to the later part of this post….. https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...g#post11600088

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Except it isn't that way.


He advocated LD over DVD because DVD was "too mainstream" and preferred LD's niche status.


HD DVD because of an anti-Sony bias.


Well?

So... you tell me "it isn't that way" and then proceed to explain how it's exactly "that way".

Regardless of whether it's for different reasons or the same, two data points is not a big enough sample size to indicate a pattern.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Regardless of whether it's for different reasons or the same, two data points is not a big enough sample size to indicate a pattern.

How many times do they introduce a major home video format? It's a pattern since 1996.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Except it isn't that way.


He advocated LD over DVD because DVD was "too mainstream" and preferred LD's niche status.


HD DVD because of an anti-Sony bias.


Well?

Didn't he also initially advocate 720p over 1080p for the HD format?

When he worked with the front projection screen manufacturer Da-Lite, they released a line of screens called JKP HD Progressives and it was claimed there was no sparkles/sheen visible in the image - that was BS as I learned from experience with them. I had to return two of them and went with the Stewart ST100 and have been much happier...the true gold standard screen.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

How many times do they introduce a major home video format? It's a pattern since 1996.

It's a grand total of two decisions that you acknowledge were made for entirely separate reasons! That does not indicate a pattern.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Didn't he also initially advocate 720p over 1080p for the HD format?

I don't know about that, but he definitely advocated for 720p over 1080i (and I suspect he still would).

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

It's a grand total of two decisions that you acknowledge were made for entirely separate reasons! That does not indicate a pattern.

It's three decisions now. Basically every major home video format launch since 1996.


He's out of touch. He hasn't shown otherwise. That's a pattern.


Not to mention 1080i still has 2 million active pixels per frame. Just not per field. Since only live TV benefits from the 60fps of 720p he was wrong about that too.