HDR Discussion Thread

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by BrownianMotion

Going through the conversation, I think people got too hung up on the 'low nits' part of Vincent's argument. I don't agree that a low peak brightness necessarily makes something "fake HDR," but the part where he states that his heat map & waveform analysis (and the screenshots where he adjusted the tone curve to illustrate that the SDR version had the same highlight detail all along) carries some weight. If the HDR on these titles really came by way of a "crude conversion" via the press of a button, as opposed to the actual creative intent, then I think we can all agree that this would constitute "fake HDR." Whether or not this was actually the case remains up for debate, but Vincent seems convinced that it is.

But people shouldn't confused this with the level of image quality. I think most of the titles being mentioned here still look great.

The bolded is what amuses me though, BM. It's pretty much a case of 'Congratulations! You've discovered how HDR works! Have a lollipop' because, as I mentioned in a previous post, it would surprise people to learn how much highlight information is actually there in an SDR version of any given content. But we don't see it because the SDR EOTF does not permit it to be viewed when the tone curve is correctly followed, as SDR simply cannot resolve higher brightness and expanded highlight range at the same time.

If one takes the SDR and lowers the gain to tease out the highlight detail then even though the APL now matches the HDR the specular brightness sure as shit doesn't, which proves the point that SDR can't do both. It's all well and good altering the physical curve of SDR to underscore what's being said, but you're doing a Kobayashi Maru and changing the conditions of the test. I mean, you get points for initiative but you're not taking the test as it was meant to be taken and are thus missing the point of it.

[edit] Though the same could of course be said of people dismissing the science in the name of perceptual comparisons, like me for example. If only there was some kind of middle ground, eh? Nah, it's much more fun being an intractable hardass.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

So with the imminent demise of LCD . . . how is that going to effect HDR? No way can an OLED hit the kind of brightness nits that an LCD can. Will all this brouhaha about 2000 or 4000 nits become moot?

OLED exist in 3 sizes so far, none smaller than 55 inches.....

Imminent demise what?

If I want a 43" OLED, i CAN'T BUY IT

[Penton-Man]

You've discovered how HDR works! Have a lollipop' because, as I mentioned in a previous post, it would surprise people to learn how much highlight information is actually there in an SDR version of any given content.

Correct, in that it’s not some novel concept because starting with the very first feature film that was released in HDR (Dolby Vision) and even continuing on with some recent motion pictures, the ‘hero’ master was graded in P3 and then a developed LUT was/is used to convert that P3 master into the PQ format for the HDR pass if one doesn’t choose to use the Dolby Vision process of starting in HDR from the get-go.

Bottom line is yes, there can be a lot of data in the SDR grade, but it requires an HDR pass to bring out more fidelity in the images to the degree (conservative or bold) to which the filmmaker desires. These days normally episodics deemed for streaming services don’t take that pathway (SDR-> HDR) though as PeterTHX reasoned, they go the DV -> SDR route something the *fake* HDR proponents tend to ignore.

[Mierzwiak]

Michael Bay to the rescue!

6 Underground on Netflix:

SDR (direct screenshot from mobile Netflix app)


Dolby Vision (crushed shadow details because of lowered exposure to show highlight details)

[LordoftheRings]

Alright, Michael Bay on Netflix. Next, Steven Spielberg on Netflix, West Side Story?

[avs commenter]

So the most recent episode of Mando looks much more like typical UHD content than previous episodes

[mrtickleuk]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

OLED exist in 3 sizes so far, none smaller than 55 inches.....

Imminent demise what?

If I want a 43" OLED, i CAN'T BUY IT

^^ This. My friends wanted a new TV for their bedroom a few weeks ago. It had to fit in a gap between two windows. They wanted a 32" TV. Virtually impossible to buy any TV that wasn't complete crap at that size. In the end they were forced to buy a 40" LCD, but it's a lot bigger than they wanted, way too close to the windows, causing tensions with the WAF etc. I was distraught at the lack of options they faced.

They should have been able to buy a 36" OLED, that would have been the perfect product. Not everyone is obsessed with size (ding), and the industry needs to wake up and recognise that. TVs are getting bigger but houses are staying the same size. It's almost as if TV manufacturers are too thick to understand this , and have never been inside a UK house!

[mrtickleuk]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

Michael Bay to the rescue!

I don't care if it's the most beautiful gorgeous HDR image in the world. His downright nasty, sleazy, "phwoar look at this ass, forget that she's a person" cinematographic attitude in his movies is really repulsive, pernicious, and a terrible example to set to young children of both genders. After going as a group with many friends to the first couple of Transformers movies none of us have any appetite for any more these days. Just because it might look and sound good on a technical level, doesn't make those attitudes in any way ok.

If I get a 100% guarantee that there's NONE of that, then I'm happy to take a look but sorry, a line must be drawn somewhere.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by mrtickleuk

I don't care if it's the most beautiful gorgeous HDR image in the world. His downright nasty, sleazy, "phwoar look at this ass, forget that she's a person" cinematographic attitude in his movies is really repulsive, pernicious, and a terrible example to set to young children of both genders. After going as a group with many friends to the first couple of Transformers movies none of us have any appetite for any more these days. Just because it might look and sound good on a technical level, doesn't make those attitudes in any way ok.

If I get a 100% guarantee that there's NONE of that, then I'm happy to take a look but sorry, a line must be drawn somewhere.

there’s always - this and more to come -
https://www.instagram.com/p/B0JWbTUJK1z/

meanwhile –

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

Michael Bay to the rescue!

6 Underground on Netflix:

SDR (direct screenshot from mobile Netflix app)


Dolby Vision (crushed shadow details because of lowered exposure to show highlight details)

It's ****ing stunning this.



Also one of the last movies I watch on my old main TV

[DJR662]

Originally Posted by mrtickleuk

I don't care if it's the most beautiful gorgeous HDR image in the world. His downright nasty, sleazy, "phwoar look at this ass, forget that she's a person" cinematographic attitude in his movies is really repulsive, pernicious, and a terrible example to set to young children of both genders. After going as a group with many friends to the first couple of Transformers movies none of us have any appetite for any more these days. Just because it might look and sound good on a technical level, doesn't make those attitudes in any way ok.

If I get a 100% guarantee that there's NONE of that, then I'm happy to take a look but sorry, a line must be drawn somewhere.

Or, you could just take it a little less seriously.

That's what I did anyway.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by mrtickleuk

I don't care if it's the most beautiful gorgeous HDR image in the world. His downright nasty, sleazy, "phwoar look at this ass, forget that she's a person" cinematographic attitude in his movies is really repulsive, pernicious, and a terrible example to set to young children of both genders. After going as a group with many friends to the first couple of Transformers movies none of us have any appetite for any more these days. Just because it might look and sound good on a technical level, doesn't make those attitudes in any way ok.

If I get a 100% guarantee that there's NONE of that, then I'm happy to take a look but sorry, a line must be drawn somewhere.

Well, there's always the blatant homophobic, racist, xenophobic, etc. content that gets slipped into most of his movies too if sexism isn't enough for you.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Well, there's always the blatant homophobic, racist, xenophobic, etc. content that gets slipped into most of his movies too if sexism isn't enough for you.

Never watch that copy of Wedding Crashers then

[mrtickleuk]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Well, there's always the blatant homophobic, racist, xenophobic, etc. content that gets slipped into most of his movies too if sexism isn't enough for you.

Indeed . DJR662 misses the point entirely. Many things can be overlooked from many directors, but Michael Bay's methods are pernicious and have been called out many times. It's the leeriness, odious letching, downright sleaziness. Anyway I've made my point, and I wish he didn't do it.

it's entirely separate from what the discussion really should be about...

Michael Bay - What is Bayhem? - YouTube

Michael Bay LOVES Lampposts - YouTube

...but disgusting attitudes like his really do need to be called out. And it's a shame there are already multiple posts in response, joking about the subject.

[DJR662]

Yeah well, that's how you guys see it. Doesn't mean it's "the absolute truth" and we all have to agree with it.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

....Also one of the last movies I watch on my old main TV

I watched about 5 min. of the 1st car chase scene (unless that was not the 1st but consisted of the whole movie), couldn’t take anymore and turned it off.

[LordoftheRings]

It's interesting to have Michael Bay on the subject, because if there are movies on Blu-ray that look high dynamic range contrast and sharp and colorful is Michael Bay's flicks on Blu.
Bay is highly visual all the way ...
We all know about the impeccable picture quality of his Transformers movies on Blu-ray.
Also, top notch artist in 3D.

[dirtnoise1]

How do you explain HDR simply and quickly to a casual?

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by dirtnoise1

How do you explain HDR simply and quickly to a casual?

You don't.

[zen007]

Originally Posted by dirtnoise1

How do you explain HDR simply and quickly to a casual?

Ever taken a picture of someone with his back against the sun? If you exposed for the sun, the face could be crushed. If you exposed for the face, the details in the background could be lost. Using HDR technique, both the face and the background are correctly exposed

If you want to get the exposure right in camera, you would have to meter the background and use fill flash on the face. Or you could do it in post production