HDR Discussion Thread

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I hope that's not just the Percocet talking!

Not at all. As I said, there are numerous examples on this forum in which professional labs and organizations have deemed subjectivity testing of the direct images as the verifying factor, e.g. question from Sony rep -

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...y#post14851266

And I believe that content providers are responsible to consumers for the content, movies or what not, from capture, grading, mastering to delivery in peoples’ homes within parameters they can control or influence. They hold no liability as to the quality or lack thereof of individual consumers’ purchased televisions.

I agree with your contention in that if some (what % of users out there are we talking about anyway?) experience a *fake HDR issue* viewing some content on their home TVs (assuming said TVs have been at least rudimentarily calibrated/tweaked) then consumer electronics companies should up their game a little and sell better HDR tvs, not lay it on the creators, but of course consumer TV companies do what they want to do, e.g. introducing 8K tvs rather than concentrating on other picture quality improvements.

[gkolb]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

So this forecast is that LCD sales drop to near zero by 2022 - 2024?
Not just shocking, but revolutionary.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by gkolb

So this forecast is that LCD sales drop to near zero by 2022 - 2024?
Not just shocking, but revolutionary.

The article helps give the correct context to this graph. It's about how much capital is spent on TV manufacturing.

[gkolb]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

The article helps give the correct context to this graph. It's about how much capital is spent on TV manufacturing.

Ah, I sped through the article, didn’t latch onto that fact.
Still, zero spending on LCD fabs would seem to predict it’s future demise.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

HDR and rec 2020 I think have been shown to be just creative tools that can be used to varying extents. But if you can't get that bit rate to watch them as intended then, to me at least. It's not true UHD.

Just like 2K based upscales aren't true UHD, riiiiiight?

Remember that, just like discs, 4K on Netflix is not only about resolution but also wide color gamut and Dolby Vision which can look amazing, just like in Sabrina I mentioned before.

Can I get, for example, Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance on UHD? No, so what's on Netflix is the best available quality, even if it's not as good as it would be on disc.

[LordoftheRings]

MicroLED is part of OLED right, emissive.
And QLED is part of LCD LED right, dismissive.

[Mierzwiak]

Yes, but OLED is organic, while microLED not.

[sapiendut]

Transmissive, not dismissive.

[Lee A Stewart]

Samsung Display recently announced a plan to shift away from LCD and Panasonic now confirms that it will end production of LCD panels by 2021. LG will reportedly halve production of LCD TV panels in 2020.

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.ph...&id=1575441077

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

Just like 2K based upscales aren't true UHD, riiiiiight?

Remember that, just like discs, 4K on Netflix is not only about resolution but also wide color gamut and Dolby Vision which can look amazing, just like in Sabrina I mentioned before.

Can I get, for example, Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance on UHD? No, so what's on Netflix is the best available quality, even if it's not as good as it would be on disc.

It's debatable if a lot of sources even have 4Ks worth of information. The Wizard Of Oz was given an 8K scan from the negative. The UHD does indeed bring out more detail, but not a whole lot more than the HD Blu-ray.

Regardless of source of source limitations, I still feel bit rate is key to presenting a source accurately in the UHD standard.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

HDR developments

background - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...e#post16995786

released today, the video from the ^ presentation ->

SMPTE 2019: Film Grain and Film Scanner Noise in HDR Video - YouTube

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

Yes, but OLED is organic, while microLED not.

Non-organic (MicroLED), right.

Originally Posted by sapiendut

Transmissive, not dismissive.

[Vincent Teoh]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Subjectivity testing rules, just a couple of past examples noted on this forum, plus there are plenty more –

Objective data provides the foundation for many scientific standard/ advancements. D65 white point, Rec709/ Rec2020 coordinates, PQ curve, in fact anything related to colour science and standards should have objective measurements to back them up. We don't eyeball broadcast monitors and trust that they are accurate, we measure and calibrate them. We don't write subjective TV reviews full of flowery phrases; we measure, we test, we calibrate. Subjective impressions are important, but not without objective/ unbiased data as anchor.

To dismiss objective data and uphold subjective testing above all else is choosing to believe what you want to believe. It's cherry-picking.

As I mentioned previously somewhere back in this thread is that Geoff’s methodology is more accurate than yours/Boris in that Geoff is showing the direct visual effect of the actual imagery rather than some indirect methodology because color map images can sometimes be misleading, as the displayed colors are false colors and can underestimate the true psychovisual impact between 2 samples of content.

We have analysed the SDR stream of Mandalorian Episode 3 using Geoff's methodology, and found that the specular highlight detail that Geoff claimed was clipped in the SDR version was actually present all along, just less visible than what's seen in the HDR version because of different tone-curves used, as I demonstrate in this video below:

The Mandalorian Episode 3 SDR vs HDR Analysis - YouTube

The supposedly "clipped" specular highlight detail in the SDR stream can be recovered by lowering gain, which also lowers the overall APL (thus explaining why the APL of the HDR version is lower than the APL of the SDR version). This reaffirms our belief that the HDR stream is simply upconverted from SDR, and there is no increase in dynamic range. Ergo "fake HDR".

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by Vincent Teoh

The supposedly "clipped" specular highlight detail in the SDR stream can be recovered by lowering gain, which also lowers the overall APL (thus explaining why the APL of the HDR version is lower than the APL of the SDR version). This reaffirms our belief that the HDR stream is simply upconverted from SDR, and there is no increase in dynamic range. Ergo "fake HDR".

That's about as red handed as you can be caught. When gain was lowered it looked identical to the HDR versions.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Vincent Teoh

Objective data provides the foundation for many scientific standard/ advancements. D65 white point, Rec709/ Rec2020 coordinates, PQ curve, in fact anything related to colour science and standards should have objective measurements to back them up. We don't eyeball broadcast monitors and trust that they are accurate, we measure and calibrate them. We don't write subjective TV reviews full of flowery phrases; we measure, we test, we calibrate. Subjective impressions are important, but not without objective/ unbiased data as anchor.

To dismiss objective data and uphold subjective testing above all else is choosing to believe what you want to believe. It's cherry-picking.



We have analysed the SDR stream of Mandalorian Episode 3 using Geoff's methodology, and found that the specular highlight detail that Geoff claimed was clipped in the SDR version was actually present all along, just less visible than what's seen in the HDR version because of different tone-curves used, as I demonstrate in this video below:

The Mandalorian Episode 3 SDR vs HDR Analysis - YouTube

The supposedly "clipped" specular highlight detail in the SDR stream can be recovered by lowering gain, which also lowers the overall APL (thus explaining why the APL of the HDR version is lower than the APL of the SDR version). This reaffirms our belief that the HDR stream is simply upconverted from SDR, and there is no increase in dynamic range. Ergo "fake HDR".

Disney doesn't just botch their Atmos tracks it seems.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Regardless of source of source limitations, I still feel bit rate is key to presenting a source accurately in the UHD standard.

Yes, but just like with good ol' Blu-ray, bitrate is just a number. It won't tell you how the image actually looks, if it was shot on film and has grain (which as you should know is more demanding when it comes to compression) or if it was shot digitally and has very clean look. It also won't tell you what aspect ratio is, which is also important, because 1,78:1 / 1,85:1 means more picture, and more picture means more data to compress.

Originally Posted by Vincent Teoh

there is no increase in dynamic range. Ergo "fake HDR".

So... can we officially call "Pacific Rim" or "Aquaman" a fake HDR?

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Vincent Teoh

Objective data provides the foundation for many scientific standard/ advancements. D65 white point, Rec709/ Rec2020 coordinates, PQ curve, in fact anything related to colour science and standards should have objective measurements to back them up. We don't eyeball broadcast monitors and trust that they are accurate, we measure and calibrate them. We don't write subjective TV reviews full of flowery phrases; we measure, we test, we calibrate. Subjective impressions are important, but not without objective/ unbiased data as anchor.

To dismiss objective data and uphold subjective testing above all else is choosing to believe what you want to believe. It's cherry-picking.



We have analysed the SDR stream of Mandalorian Episode 3 using Geoff's methodology, and found that the specular highlight detail that Geoff claimed was clipped in the SDR version was actually present all along, just less visible than what's seen in the HDR version because of different tone-curves used, as I demonstrate in this video below:

The Mandalorian Episode 3 SDR vs HDR Analysis - YouTube

The supposedly "clipped" specular highlight detail in the SDR stream can be recovered by lowering gain, which also lowers the overall APL (thus explaining why the APL of the HDR version is lower than the APL of the SDR version). This reaffirms our belief that the HDR stream is simply upconverted from SDR, and there is no increase in dynamic range. Ergo "fake HDR".

I guess the only question is was this Disney themselves that done this? Or was this the creators decision?

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

So... can we officially call "Pacific Rim" or "Aquaman" a fake HDR?

are they confirmed to have less dynamic range than the SDR versions?

There was a member here named ZMARTY that has an HDR channel on youtube, he was doing HDR analysis measuring peak brightness of movies also.

1 movie that was considered to have a "reserved" HDR grade and was considered "dark" by a lot of people was Star Trek Beyond. But his analysis showed that peak highlights were occasionally hitting 850 nits. He was basically doing the same thing by measuring the brightness throughout the movie.

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

[Mierzwiak]

High peak brightness =/= more range.

[EvilBoris]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

I guess the only question is was this Disney themselves that done this? Or was this the creators decision?

My feeling is it has happened nearer to the Disney+ side. The team that oversaw the colouring are very experienced and have even produced some of the titles we’ve cited in the past as utilising the format well.
Another thing we do know is that the difference between SDR/HDR is the same across the whole episode, which suggests no shot by shot or scene by scene adjustments have been made, rather a conversion had been applied.

Whilst the argument for creators intent is an entirely viable point of view to take, the part that we are interested in is why the 2 versions look different enough, despite the data being so similar. There is no reason that there shouldn’t be an aesthetic parity between the 2 versions, however those considerable differences in overall contrast and saturation that point toward a human not having vetted each shot.