HDR Discussion Thread

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Vincent Teoh

[Show spoiler]@Geoff D: The OPPO 203 doesn't have any internal apps, so how are you comparing SDR vs HDR versions of the Mandalorian? If you are downloading episodes (is there any legal way of doing this?), then how can you be sure that the SDR version is indeed the original source file, and hasn't been tampered with by the uploader?

Adam and I have been doing our analysis at source, and will hopefully present more findings that support our assertion that Mandalorian's "HDR" is more akin to SDR than HDR.

@Penton-Man: Re subdued HDR grade being the creative intent, all I'm going to say is this. I have frequently criticised TVs that have low peak brightness for not delivering true HDR; I have repeatedly asserted that domestic projectors have no way of achieving meaningful HDR due to low light output (relative to direct-view displays); so why should I suddenly refrain from criticising HDR content that does not deliver impactful HDR, that appears to be just an elementary SDR conversion?

Unlike some colourists and armchair experts who deal only with £30k+ OLED/ dual LCD mastering monitors, perhaps with a consumer OLED as client reference monitor, I see all kinds of displays - budget, midrange, high-end - in my line of work. And the practice of using an HDR container to deliver SDR-esque creative intent just results in a poor viewing experience.

The creative community need to start understanding that on non-OLED displays, HDR is a zero-sum game. If you send an HDR metadata to an HDR-capable television, HDR mode is triggered, almost always irreversibly. Backlight goes up to maximum, and consequently blacks brightens up, clouding and flashlighting become more apparent, there's more blooming, colours become more washed out, power consumption goes up. Why should a viewer suffer these shortcomings to get an SDR-like experience, when they can watch in SDR without these shortcomings in the first place?

The gold-standard HDR mastering monitors in Hollywood are at least 1000 nits in peak brightness. Netflix specifies at least 1000 nits peak brightness for Dolby Vision/ HDR grading monitors. Ultra HD Premium certification (as pointless as it is) requires 1000 nits peak brightness from LCDs; 540 nits from OLEDs. Why is it that we place such demands on the hardware side; yet are willing to turn a blind eye to the software side (i.e. content), conveniently sweeping subdued HDR grade and "fake HDR" conversion under the carpet of "creative intent"? It's all the more frustrating when you see fabulous HDR grades of older films such as Wizard of Oz, The Shining, Alien and the original Blade Runner.

Someone emailed me saying that Schindler's List is not "fake colour". Yeah, but then watching a black-and-white film in SDR doesn't worsen the blacks, backlight uniformity, blooming, colour fidelity and power consumption on a transmissive display. Unlike watching a show with 300-400 nits peak and paper white <80 nits in HDR.

Warmest regards
Vincent

I'm downloading the eps of the Mando, but it's funny that the relative appearance of the SDR and HDR10 streams is constant no matter which 'group' is ripping them. If you'd like to do a perfectly legal comparison of both SDR and HDR versions via the D+ app - not just by running a heat map which strips away any pretence of appreciating the artistry involved, but by visually comparing them like for like, frame for frame, on the same TV - then I'd love to see your findings.

Yet I still can't help but feel that you're using your "zero-sum game" as an excuse to get the "meaningful" and "impactful" HDR that you're so obviously craving for everything, when the reality is that that's just not going to happen for everything. Leaving aside the potential issue of Disnee just "fake HDR'ing" their stuff - which I don't think is true at all for what I've seen of their HDR content on UHD disc, apart from the CAPS-made movies - then the end game here is that we're not leaving any room for content creators to actually have a say in how their content should be presented in HDR, and that to me is a dark path to take - all the more so now that Netflix mandate that any original programming must be delivered in HDR.

HDR is on the way to becoming the de facto viewing deliverable for content so filmmakers may not have a say in that matter any more, but they can at least still control what their content actually looks like in HDR space. If it ends up being "subdued" in HDR or just a virtual clone of SDR then so be it; the TVs that can stand up to it without shitting themselves will still get benefits with UHD HDR disc delivery like 10-bit depth (or 12 if using Dolby Vision with FEL) and whatever parts of the wider colour gamut the content is using. And for those TVs that choke on it there's always the SDR disc or stream.

Besides, your "zero-sum game" still applies with all these piss-poor LCDs even if they're playing a Light Cannon™-style grading, no? So all these dreadfully apparent issues with clouding, flash-lighting, raised blacks, power consumption etc are going to be just as prevalent or perhaps even more so on a mega-nit grade. Sure, the visual perception of the brighter imagery may help to offset some of these issues but what would cause even more apparent blooming and raised blacks on a dodgy backlit LCD, a 200-nit highlight in a dark scene or a 1000-nit highlight in a dark scene? Seeing as most of HDTVtest's reviews are about OLEDs these days, as well as the occasional mid to high-end LCD, it's a little late for yourself to start worrying so much about the little guy (eh, not everyone has a Rolex) as these problems have been myriad with HDR since day 1. What TV do you personally use for day to day usage, BTW?

Not that these problems shouldn't be corrected. If this were an ideal world everyone would have an OLED or a ZD9, although there's still those projektor types who treasure their throwers like Chuck Heston clutching a rifle and who defend their right to projekt just as vehemently. But it's not an ideal world so we're stuck with the reality of LCD's HDR performance, yet potentially removing creative control from the filmmakers isn't the way I'd like to see the problem solved. By all means make sure an SDR equivalent is available if the ol' LCD starts acting up with "subdued" HDR grades, but sweeping creative intent under the carpet using the pretence of the "zero-sum game" is not where I want to be with this format.

[Scottishguy]

Geoff you raise a very good point about creators and dynamic range. Specifically in regards to directors and cinematographers who are now long dead. It's now entirely at the discretion of archivists how much dynamic range is utilized. We can never say if something like It's A Wonderful Life is accurate anymore, not least because it has been pieced together from many elements. It's all just a guessing game.

There's a strong possibility Universal will bring out a 60th anniversary for Spartacus around this time next year. A film that can have a lot of highlights. Who's left to say if the dynamic range is correct on that? They can't wheel out Kirk Douglas to give it the ok.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Geoff you raise a very good point about creators and dynamic range. Specifically in regards to directors and cinematographers who are now long dead. It's now entirely at the discretion of archivists how much dynamic range is utilized. We can never say if something like It's A Wonderful Life is accurate anymore, not least because it has been pieced together from many elements. It's all just a guessing game.

There's a strong possibility Universal will bring out a 60th anniversary for Spartacus around this time next year. A film that can have a lot of highlights. Who's left to say if the dynamic range is correct on that? They can't wheel out Kirk Douglas to give it the ok.

That's a good point but I've made references to film being a moving target several times before so I won't rehash those points (seriously, just do a search for my posts that contain 'moving target' ), not that I want everything to get a Sony Light Cannon grade that pushes a ridiculous amount of light through it because I don't, as a level of taste is still involved and always should be involved. Regarding Spartacus specifically: if they delivered the exact grade as it is in now but with 4K resolution on a UHD disc then I'd be happy with that. Still, even with that new restoration they had to choose from three different IB Tech prints as to which was the most correct reference for colour...

BUT the reason why I've replied to you is that when it comes to newly made modern HDR content - especially something delivered in Dolby Vision with its ultimate creative-decision-is-king approach to the mastering - then we can be assured that it's exactly what the filmmaker wanted it to be. I've referred to this interview with the cinematographer of Joker several times already but it's a great reference for what some professionals really do think of HDR and all the other deliverables they have to produce these days: some just want to get the movie looking like it should and don't particularly want to make an 'enhanced' version for the sake of it. Roger Deakins and Steve Yedlin are also of this same mindset.

And yet as Joker had a specific P3 monitoring pipeline all the way through production, plus a 4K finish, then just putting it onto an 8-bit SDR 709 1080p disc is going to sell it short, and Warners love to filter grain on their 1080p platters too. Who wouldn't want to have it looking as intended, grain and resolution both intact, on a 10-bit HDR WCG 2160p disc even if the actual HDR component isn't eye-roastingly bright? Technically SDR 2020 is part of the UHD spec, so we could in theory have a 10-bit SDR WCG 4K disc if someone wanted to, but it seems to be vaporware as UHDs are either encoded as plain SDR or HDR, only S&M's UHD Benchmark has an actual SDR 2020 encoded piece of video (and even then it's still been graded in HLG HDR, so isn't 'just' 100-nit SDR).

[Scottishguy]

It might be worth creating a dedicated thread for articles that quote or, interview directors about HDR. Could prove a valuable resource as time goes by.

[Kris Deering]

HDR Grading On The Mandalorian

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

HDR Grading On The Mandalorian

...and what he's referring to is precisely the kind of HDR approach that I like the best: not something that's balls-out for the sake of it but which keeps the APL near enough to SDR levels and then provides some kick in the highlights. The difference between the two values - average and peak - is partly where the whole 'dynamic range' thing comes into play. If something is blasting out with a very high level of average brightness into the many hundreds of nits then it's going to 'pop' on most TVs but the appearance of the actual highlights won't look as impressive because the image is already so bright.

Aquaman is one such example (MaxFALL 902 nits, MaxCLL 3291 nits), as people were raving about it but when I saw it I thought 'is this it?' because it's plenty bright and colourful, yes, but the actual dynamic range on offer seemed to be rather modest. Most Disnee grades I've seen on UHD disc are about a third or even a quarter as bright as that ^ for peak highlights and are at virtually SDR levels for APL, so while they aren't as superficially "impactful", their relative expansion of the highlights vs the average brightness is so much wider. It gives their grades such naturalism and realism and depth and Mando is, IMO, no exception.

It does however make them a beeyotch to tone map properly which is why complaints of their HDR content looking too dark have continually lingered. And from what I've read this has been the main complaint about Mando's HDR across the board, that it's too dim and dark, not that people's crappy LCD TVs are going into a backlighting frenzy or whatever trying to cope with it. Hell, if Mando's "fake HDR" is supposed to make it look brighter in the shadows and more washed out on LCD TVs then why aren't more people complaining about that?

Another thing to consider is that now that HDR is being opened up to more content creators than ever then they're not all going to use it to it's subjectively-decided 'fullest'. I mentioned the hold-outs above but I don't mean the staunch HDR naysayers so much as the people who will use it but who'll employ it artfully, sporadically, to make sure it has a purpose and that it doesn't detract from the overriding aesthetic. It's just another creative tool, another means to a storytelling end rather than being the single focal point of the piece.

[Scottishguy]

It's also worth noting (though I haven't seen it) The Mandarlorian is a TV show, not a film. Even if the lines are more blurred than ever today.

These are still two very distinct creative mediums, TV and film. And how a photographer and director applies their creativity in each is very diffrent. Those in TV aren't thinking in the cinematic vein, shooting something for a theatrical release first and foremost. Their work is exclusively for broadcast on TVs.

[LordoftheRings]

Off topic: Say a new member is registering, does he need five (5) posts first before he's approved to post in the HDR thread, or any other thread for that matter?

Vincent is @ four (4) posts now.

@Penton, you don't need to be absent too much; keeping in touch often is good for the knowledge expansion. And besides, you might miss some essential "In the moment" latest HDR developments.
_____

Bonus:

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

[Mierzwiak]

I don't exactly understand Vincent's argument about LCD TV's.

Let's imagine a shot of night sky with a moon. On edge-lit LCD, with backlight being set to maximum, it will look bad with moon being 200 nits, yes. But it will also look bad with moon being 1000 nits. Contrast will be better on the latter, yes, but it still won't look as it should in both versions.

I've had edge-lit LCD before (Samsung KS8000) and while I was amazed by many UHD titles, it was frustrating experience in scenes that demanded precise contrast. You won't convince me that Mandalorian looks bad on such TV, but Alien and, for example, scene with Dallas in the air duct, don't.

So who's problem is this? DPs and colorists, or a TV owner who, unfortunately, can't afford OLED or high end LCD?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

It's also worth noting (though I haven't seen it) The Mandarlorian is a TV show, not a film. Even if the lines are more blurred than ever today.

These are still two very distinct creative mediums, TV and film. And how a photographer and director applies their creativity in each is very diffrent. Those in TV aren't thinking in the cinematic vein, shooting something for a theatrical release first and foremost. Their work is exclusively for broadcast on TVs.

Eh...yes and no. While it's true that TV viewing is the ultimate delivery format for TV/streaming content I take issue with the notion of them being "two very distinct creative mediums" insofar as visuals are concerned. Storytelling, yes, still very different, but as you say yourself the lines are becoming ever more blurred when it comes to the cinematography. They have smaller budgets and less time for sure on TV shows, though even the budget thing is becoming an antiquated notion, what with all the cash that streamers and cable companies are spunking on new shows, and even His Dark Materials is one of the most expensive shows the BBC has ever done.

It's too funny that more and more TV shows are being shot in anamorphic widescreen these days, giving that very distinctive ana flavour to the imagery on Mando or Star Trek Discovery, while an actual movie like The Irishman was shot flat in 1.85 precisely because of its intended destination i.e. Netflix where most people are going to be watching on a phone or tablet. Heck, it seems like every new primetime drama on British TV lately is being framed up for 2:1 even if not shot anamorphic. So the TV shows are becoming more like mini-movies and the movies are becoming more like TV shows! Even though HBO's Watchmen series was shot for flat 1.78 the photography is still fantastic, some episodes made use of split diopters which I haven't seen used for years in actual movies apart from a virtual usage in Toy Story 4 (itself part of a wave of animated movies that consciously ape anamorphic lenses and real world lighting styles).

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Geoff speaks Mandarin all the time to Noremac. Well it might as well be Mandarin, for all Nore comprehends.

who’s/what's Noremac?

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

who’s/what's Noremac?

Backwards Jim, one of the users here on the forum who comes up with some big whoppers.


Jim Cameron spelled backwards, Normac Mij.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Vincent Teoh

@Penton-Man: Re subdued HDR grade being the creative intent....

@Vincent, I don’t agree with your logic, plus language matters (your recent sensationalistic YouTube headers - “It’s a trap”, “Is it Fake HDR” and the claim that the Star Wars episodes in question didn’t receive, in your words, a “proper HDR grade”) –

The Mandalorian on Disney Plus HDR Analysis: It's A Trap!! - YouTube

Star Wars in 4K HDR Dolby Vision on Disney Plus Analysis: Is It Fake HDR? - YouTube

language matters, otherwise the issue gets way out of hand with your followers (see some of the comments on Youtube) and popular science journalists

[Penton-Man]

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...6#post17142686
Kris ^ et al., deja-vu

all over again

b.t.w., another experienced professional colorist, other than Alexis, who in terms of reputation is a full member of the Colorist Society International (https://coloristsociety.com/ ) will publicly comment in several days about the grading of The Mandalorian for more non-sensationalistic perspective

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

I don't exactly understand Vincent's argument about LCD TV's.

Let's imagine a shot of night sky with a moon. On edge-lit LCD, with backlight being set to maximum, it will look bad with moon being 200 nits, yes. But it will also look bad with moon being 1000 nits. Contrast will be better on the latter, yes, but it still won't look as it should in both versions.

I've had edge-lit LCD before (Samsung KS8000) and while I was amazed by many UHD titles, it was frustrating experience in scenes that demanded precise contrast. You won't convince me that Mandalorian looks bad on such TV, but Alien and, for example, scene with Dallas in the air duct, don't.

So who's problem is this? DPs and colorists, or a TV owner who, unfortunately, can't afford OLED or high end LCD?

It’s the TV owner’s problem. Who chose to support LCD, the very worst TV technology of all time. Alien looks spectacular on OLED, Plasma, and even on CRT. And no, the ZD9 is not the savior. Just another outdated LCD.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

you might miss some essential "In the moment" latest HDR developments.

You mean like seeing the video of this recent past event - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...t#post17119676 posted on this thread
or, more to the point, the latest developments on - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...m#post16969095

nope, isn’t gonna happen, some things are only available to those with access.

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

@Penton, you don't need to be absent too much;

tell that to my sinus and tooth and the work that needs to be done to fix them –


anesthetic just starting to kick in now

[Vincent Teoh]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'm downloading the eps of the Mando, but it's funny that the relative appearance of the SDR and HDR10 streams is constant no matter which 'group' is ripping them. If you'd like to do a perfectly legal comparison of both SDR and HDR versions via the D+ app...

Now that we know you are downloading episodes, we may unfortunately have to consider resorting to this illegal method to level the playing field when doing comparisons.

...not just by running a heat map which strips away any pretence of appreciating the artistry involved...

Our heatmap provides objective data in the name of science, which somehow gets dismissed when it doesn't suit your agenda.

If it ends up being "subdued" in HDR or just a virtual clone of SDR then so be it...

This is where I 100% disagree with your stance, now that you have shown your hand that it's ok to send out SDR images in a HDR container. My opinion is that IT IS NOT OK. HDR = High Dynamic Range, the clue is in the name. Virtual clone of SDR is not HDR, it is just SDR. To package and sell it as HDR is fraud, plain and simple. If you've ordered a steak burger, but the waiter brings you a Tesco Value beef sandwich, would you accept it as "chef's intentions", or would you be up in arms complaining? Can you blame people for calling SDR-content-wrapped-in-HDR container "fake HDR"?

And for those TVs that choke on it there's always the SDR disc or stream.

For most TVs, there is no way to force SDR stream on the internal TV app. Even on your Sony ZD9, there is no way to watch Sabrina, The Irishman and Marriage Story - three high-profile Netflix shows that do not do the term "HDR" or "Dolby Vision" justice - without downgrading your Netflix package (thus missing out on fabulous HDR grades like Altered Carbon or Chef's Table) or buying an external device (e.g. Apple TV 4K box) to force SDR.

Besides, your "zero-sum game" still applies with all these piss-poor LCDs even if they're playing a Light Cannon™-style grading, no? So all these dreadfully apparent issues with clouding, flash-lighting, raised blacks, power consumption etc are going to be just as prevalent or perhaps even more so on a mega-nit grade.

I think you have missed my point: it is because of these issues that the benefits of HDR need to outweigh these downsides for people to embrace HDR. That 1000-nit lighting flash, that flame so roaring you can feel the heat of, that 800-nit reflection... these are all elements that add realism and depth, that cannot be obtained in SDR, that can persuade people to put up with all the issues I mentioned.

Capping peak brightness to 300 nits; paper white <80 nits; APL dimmer than SDR; and most people will be wondering: "why should I watch in HDR and put up with clouding/ flashlighting/ raised blacks, when I can get the same/ a superior experience by watching in SDR? There is nothing in this supposed 'HDR' grade that I couldn't get in SDR..."

Seeing as most of HDTVtest's reviews are about OLEDs these days, as well as the occasional mid to high-end LCD, it's a little late for yourself to start worrying so much about the little guy (eh, not everyone has a Rolex) as these problems have been myriad with HDR since day 1. What TV do you personally use for day to day usage, BTW?

Sure, go ahead and attack the messenger rather than the message. What does my watch and TV have anything to do with the debate at hand? I desire better picture quality for everyone, and am fighting for it regardless of the TV that I use on a day-to-day basis. I am not content with the status quo, not when there is so much room... uhm, range... for improvement.

Warmest regards
Vincent

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

It’s the TV owner’s problem. Who chose to support LCD, the very worst TV technology of all time. Alien looks spectacular on OLED, Plasma, and even on CRT. And no, the ZD9 is not the savior. Just another outdated LCD.

There isn't an eyeroll gif or emoji big enough for this "statement".

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

There isn't an eyeroll gif or emoji big enough for this "statement".

If there's one thing I want for Christmas, it's Vincent to roast Noremac. Got rid of him for nearly a week pretty much. Now he's back, more prolific than ever.

Sure, go ahead and attack the messenger rather than the message. What does my watch and TV have anything to do with the debate at hand? I desire better picture quality for everyone, and am fighting for it regardless of the TV that I use on a day-to-day basis.

I was going to say I don't think it was cool asking you about what TV you personally use Vincent. Any perceived
favouritism/bias is obviously not good for your trade.

I am not content with the status quo, not when there is so much room... uhm, range... for improvement.

Maybe the focus of debate is narrow in range, because the UHD standard is not only HDR, but resolution and rec 2020 10/12 bit colour depth.

More then the main issue is at the consumer technological end, is the capability of deliver video information that can be considered UHD. With HD SDR, there is a lot more flexibility for what average Mbs can be considered HD. UHD I'd say doesn't have that flexibility. You need a solid average of 40 to 50mbs to say your content is even in that ballpark.

No streaming provider even comes close to that. All you are really getting is more colour depth from rec 2020, if you are lucky enough to own a TV with good colour volume and contrast. But still, you can't polish a turd, not even with a premium TV. So the UHD Blu-ray format by default is the only source to experience content in true UHD. And that could be the case for years and years to come.

Personally I have very little sympathy for those who don't have a TV and sources to get proper UHD. If they really wanted quality, there's very little preventing most people from obtaining such a TV and source to do the job.

It's a highly competitive retail space. TV models regularly drop in price till the models from that year bottom out at end of the Japanese fiscal year. And, if that's not enough, there's more than enough generous finance options out there.

Eventually TVs for UHD will reach a solid base line in quality. It's as I've stated above more sources I'm worried about to deliver it.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Vincent Teoh

Now that we know you are downloading episodes, we may unfortunately have to consider resorting to this illegal method to level the playing field when doing comparisons.

Can't hurt to give it a try.

Our heatmap provides objective data in the name of science, which somehow gets dismissed when it doesn't suit your agenda.

But what about the artistry, which isn't typically quantifiable solely with science? I've done a lot of HDR to SDR comparisons on here (it's not my first rodeo: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...2&postcount=45) and I've lost count of the amount of times that a much maligned UHD disc ("too dim", "no pop" etc) ends up being a noticeable improvement over the SDR version when the two are stacked side by side. Should we always have to quantify HDR in this manner to ascertain its worth? No, because it's not practical for the average person (who has one of these pesky 'life' thingies that I keep hearing about) to do so, and yet it's precisely because HDR artistry isn't merely about being definable with numbers that I do what I do, simple visual comparisons to show people that there is worth after all, even if they can't see it on their own displays (like this recent discussion about the apparent clipping on the UHD of Pacific Rim for example, where a B8 OLED is badly clipping in default mapping mode while the ZD9 just smiles and aks for more: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...271749&page=44 )

This is where I 100% disagree with your stance, now that you have shown your hand that it's ok to send out SDR images in a HDR container. My opinion is that IT IS NOT OK. HDR = High Dynamic Range, the clue is in the name. Virtual clone of SDR is not HDR, it is just SDR. To package and sell it as HDR is fraud, plain and simple. If you've ordered a steak burger, but the waiter brings you a Tesco Value beef sandwich, would you accept it as "chef's intentions", or would you be up in arms complaining? Can you blame people for calling SDR-content-wrapped-in-HDR container "fake HDR"?

Of course I can't blame them, it just highlights their wilful disregard for the creative process and wanting everything to dance to their tune. Changing aspect ratios, removing grain with heavy DNR, remixing audio into Atmos and junking the original intent, wanting an HDR grade that can be seen from space regardless of the content creator's wishes, eh - it's just another one for the fire.

For most TVs, there is no way to force SDR stream on the internal TV app. Even on your Sony ZD9, there is no way to watch Sabrina, The Irishman and Marriage Story - three high-profile Netflix shows that do not do the term "HDR" or "Dolby Vision" justice - without downgrading your Netflix package (thus missing out on fabulous HDR grades like Altered Carbon or Chef's Table) or buying an external device (e.g. Apple TV 4K box) to force SDR.

Fair enough, but as I'm more of a disc jockey I'm not one to give too much sympathy to the streaming devil.

I think you have missed my point: it is because of these issues that the benefits of HDR need to outweigh these downsides for people to embrace HDR. That 1000-nit lighting flash, that flame so roaring you can feel the heat of, that 800-nit reflection... these are all elements that add realism and depth, that cannot be obtained in SDR, that can persuade people to put up with all the issues I mentioned.

Capping peak brightness to 300 nits; paper white <80 nits; APL dimmer than SDR; and most people will be wondering: "why should I watch in HDR and put up with clouding/ flashlighting/ raised blacks, when I can get the same/ a superior experience by watching in SDR? There is nothing in this supposed 'HDR' grade that I couldn't get in SDR..."

As I said, this has been the case with HDR on most lower-end (and even some higher end) sets from day 1. I understand your point perfectly so by all means carry on fighting the fight, but it strikes me that the underlying issue here is that the display technology is at fault first and foremost, so IMO the onus shouldn't be placed solely on juicing all content just to handhold a poor display through the HDR minefield. Display manufacturers need to get on board with making HDR performance as transparent as it can be even on lower-end sets, to me the bigger disgrace isn't "fake HDR" in the content but "fake HDR" in the displays, most of these lower-end sets shouldn't be marketed as 'HDR' in the first place and THAT is the true "Tesco Value Beef sandwich" moment here IMO.

What really bakes my noodle then is that someone like yourself, who enjoys such a seemingly exulted position within the TV manufacturers' orbit, is focusing solely on the content rather than on getting the display makers to buck up their ideas. So that's why it strikes me that your personal "agenda" isn't really about improving the lot of the little guy, you just want mega-watt HDR all the time - I do believe you referred to yourself as a "nits wh0re" in a previous YT video when you saw the Pulsar, which I loved as I felt the same at that point in that time - and you don't care how you get it.

And poor display performance with tricksy content isn't just an HDR thing either, look at the outcry over GoT: The Long Night being literally unwatchable for many people regardless of SDR or HDR delivery on myriad displays and devices owing to poor low-light performance and/or calibration in whatever display they were using, as well as streaming turning the image into a mushy posterised mess (and OLED's near-black overshoot certainly didn't help). Sometimes the content is going to be incredibly challenging in order to fulfil the creative intent and if anything we should be celebrating such stuff as it exposes the poor quality and/or setup that people have been putting up with. Masking poor performance with a juiced-up grade is the ass-backwards way of doing it IMO, the irony being that the person in that blog linked to upthread actually reduced the average brightness on his personal HDR grades in order to avoid tripping the ABL on OLED displays!

Sure, go ahead and attack the messenger rather than the message. What does my watch and TV have anything to do with the debate at hand? I desire better picture quality for everyone, and am fighting for it regardless of the TV that I use on a day-to-day basis. I am not content with the status quo, not when there is so much room... uhm, range... for improvement.

I must apologise for my hostility as I've genuinely loved your work thus far, you're one of the most clued-up tech reviewers on the entire internets IMO. Alas, here is where our personal taste for what we want and expect from HDR is starting to greatly diverge so I'll continue to vehemently disagree with you on this matter, but it's always easier to be a snarky shit when I'm not talking to someone face to face so I'll dial it down. I still find it odd that you've never gone to town on this subject until now though, because there have been plenty of SDR style grades inside HDR containers (Star Wars The Last Jedi being one of them) that didn't get people decrying them as "fake HDR!" all over the internet. I'd still love to know what your personal TV of choice is, no aspersions cast.

Warmest regards
Vincent

Somehow I'm not quite feeling the "warmest regards" bit. Not that I deserve it, mind you