HDR is crayons

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by CarlosMeat

True ,yet the only way to make it work based the capabilities of the display technologies.

For a projector owner, the tradeoffs are difficult to calculate with HDR when considering "intent" and what 4k hardware to buy, since nothing remotely affordable can do it all like a flatpanel might.

Should I go with a 7500 lumens unit that is rec709 and lower contrast to avoid aggressive tone mapping? Or should I go with a 2200 lumens unit that is P3 and higher contrast but would require very aggressive tonemapping for adequate brightness? Honestly im not even sure what the best choice would be for accuracy's sake.

Should I buy an Oppo with their tone mapping or Panasonics with their tone mapping? Maybe Panasonics looks more pleasing, but is it more accurate?

Either way though, the much larger screen size of a projector easily trumps the less troubled flatpanels due to the cinematic immersion factor IMO.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Tone mapping helps make the format workable for sure, but given the dynamic nature of tone mapping that widely varies from device to device - how much of the final product on your screen is the filmmakers intent vs Panasonics?

Thats really the crux of the issue, we've moved on from reproducing exactly what is on the disc to reproducing an interpretation of what is on the disc depending on our settings preferences and electronics capabilities; on top of this, it may take a decade to get projectors to a 1000nit equivalent in anything remotely approaching a reasonable price. Basically for some displays impossible to have true accuracy of visual reproduction, so must settle what looks "good" on my display/player. Or, must settle for a very small screen that doesn't really provide a truly immersive cinematic experience. For a purist I could see why this is a highly undesirable outcome.

Of course having two 4k versions (SDR and HDR) could resolve this but as you stated it may be financially unfeasible for most films.

Well, I think true purism is out the door with HDR. I think HDR implementation even with flat panels (say an OLED vs a high nit LED like the Sony Z9) has made director intent a tricky situation as you are going to get different images between the two.

Regarding Panasonic, they have worked with studios in their research (PHL).

But even with BD, you have different discs mastered at different gamma levels as there was no consistent gamma standard being applied from day one. So, it was never truly perfect in that sense. And then ABL could play a factor on some displays. And MOST DISCs were never mastered with the filmmaker so there goes your director intent.

However, with UHD BD, at the end of the day, you get your wide gamut coverage as good as it can get with the best tone mapping and you will enjoy the images. Every disc I have seen or compared exceeds the BD version and looks more like film.

You're never going to get perfection in life. That's just how it is. But, you get the best you can get and UHD BD is definitely an improvement over BD when it's all said and done on a projector with the right set-up.

What projector and UHD player are you using today?

[CarlosMeat]

Originally Posted by Ruined

For a projector owner, the tradeoffs are difficult to calculate with HDR when considering "intent" and what 4k hardware to buy, since nothing remotely affordable can do it all like a flatpanel might.

Should I go with a 7500 lumens unit that is rec709 and lower contrast to avoid aggressive tone mapping? Or should I go with a 2200 lumens unit that is P3 and higher contrast but would require very aggressive tonemapping for adequate brightness? Honestly im not even sure what the best choice would be for accuracy's sake.

Should I buy an Oppo with their tone mapping or Panasonics with their tone mapping? Maybe Panasonics looks more pleasing, but is it more accurate?

Either way though, the much larger screen size of a projector easily trumps the less troubled flatpanels due to the cinematic immersion factor IMO.

One thing is true there is a direct relationship between nits from the screen and mastering nits when considering accuracy or intent. This makes projection at a major disadvantage with HDR yet even resonably good tone mapping with projection beats flat panels for immersion IMO.

I have a 16' wide screen and get 240 nits in HDR and in a light controlled room it's hard on inducing all the way. OLEDs get me there at first but I notice I habituate to the wow faster. YMMV

I love the cinematic experience and never get tired of it.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Should I buy an Oppo with their tone mapping or Panasonics with their tone mapping? Maybe Panasonics looks more pleasing, but is it more accurate

Should buy? You already bought TWO after having bashed them relentlessly in other threads. Keep it real, now.

"So I bought two Oppo UDP-203s..."

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-b...l#post56218056

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=6684

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

You're never going to get perfection in life. That's just how it is. But, you get the best you can get and UHD BD is definitely an improvement over BD when it's all said and done on a projector.

It is. It just annoys me that I feel like its taking a step backwards in that im not seeing what the content producer envisioned with the disc and basically am just picking what i personally think looks good.

What projector and UHD player are you using today?

For projector currently using a Vivitek H9090 which with some extra hardware HDMI faking can actually reproduce around 95% of the full rec2020 gamut unlike most projectors, but needs 1080p downconversion and comes up short in lumens for HDR so needs a lot of tonemapping. I got it on a super clearance about 75% off Msrp when they were dumping 1080p pjs so I could wait for 4k projector market to develop instead of spending a lot of money on a half baked unit. I can watch 4k on my 70" TV but i cant stand the small size.

I would love to buy a 4k projector but none of the offerings under $10k meet my requirements. Either they are not sharp enough, lamp based (refuse to buy another bulb based pj), cant reproduce beyond rec709, not bright enough, etc. Even at $30k the projectors still arent bright enough to avoid huge amounts of tonemapping unless you are willing to give up some contrast and p3 color space.

I am thinking next year of getting something but still am conflicted over less tonemapping vs wider color gamut. There really is no perfect answer except maybe the Barco Thor and that costs $400k, lol.

Player I was going to get the panasonic 9000 but the recent line launched without aspect ratio control or zoom and this is a nonstarter with me, so using oppo 205 instead.

[CarlosMeat]

Originally Posted by Ruined

It is. It just annoys me that I feel like its tsking a step backwards in that im not seeing what the content producer envisioned with the disc and basically am just picking what i personally think looks good.



For projector currently using a Vivitek H9090 which with some extra hardware HDMI faking can actually reproduce around 95% of the full rec2020 gamut unlike most projectors, but needs 1080p downconversion and comes up short in lumens for HDR so needs a lot of tonemapping. I got it on a super clearance about 75% off Msrp when they were dumping 1080p pjs so I could wait for 4k projector market to develop instead of spending a lot of money on a half baked unit. I can watch 4k on my 70" TV but i cant stand the small size.

I would love to buy a 4k projector but none of the offerings under $10k meet my requirements. Either they are not sharp enough, lamp based (refuse to buy another bulb based pj), cant reproduce beyond rec709, not bright enough, etc. Even at $30k the projectors still arent bright enough to avoid huge amounts of tonemapping unless you are willing to give up some contrast and p3 color space.

I am thinking next year of getting something but still am conflicted over less tonemapping vs wider color gamut. There really is no perfect answer except maybe the Barco Thor and that costs $400k, lol.

Player I was going to get the panasonic 9000 but the recent line launched without aspect ratio control or zoom and this is a nonstarter with me, so using oppo 205 instead.

Barco Thor is far from perfect. I looked at an optimized unit with custom gamma and internal iris and still only had 3000 :1 sequential contrast. They can be had for around 200,000 USD street but not worth even that IMO. Low APL looked like $hit.

[Black Sun]

What a dumb thread title.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Should I buy an Oppo with their tone mapping or Panasonics with their tone mapping? Maybe Panasonics looks more pleasing, but is it more accurate?

The Oppo tone mapping has a TON problems. It's not even displaying P3 properly, but lots of other issues.

I've been very pleased with the 820. It surpasses the Arve curves.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

The Oppo tone mapping has a TON problems. It's not even displaying P3 properly, but lots of other issues.

I've been very pleased with the 820. It surpasses the Arve curves.

I know the panny tonemapping has less issues and more flexibility, but its missing significant features elsewhere in the player like aspect ratio control and zoom that i use to remedy blu rays that were framed wrong.

Was hoping oppo might improve tonemapping in next update but if it stays like this ill probably go for the next gen of Panasonic, hopefully with those missing festures added.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Ruined

I know the panny tonemapping has less issues and more flexibility, but its missing significant features elsewhere in the player like aspect ratio control and zoom that i use to remedy blu rays that were framed wrong.

Was hoping oppo might improve tonemapping in next update but if it stays like this ill probably go for the next gen of Panasonic, hopefully with those missing festures added.

What are you using for tone mapping right now?

[CarlosMeat]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

The Oppo tone mapping has a TON problems. It's not even displaying P3 properly, but lots of other issues.

I've been very pleased with the 820. It surpasses the Arve curves.

What material are you displaying in P3 ?

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by CarlosMeat

What material are you displaying in P3 ?

I say P3, but I'm really referring to P3 within the bt2020 container from UHD BD. It's doing something closer to rec 709 in the container.

However, the Oppo issues are well documented with its tone mapping "SDR/2020". No one should be using it for optimal performance. I would only use the Oppo for pure HDR output. MadVr, Lumagen, or the 820 excel by a big margin otherwise.

[StingingVelvet]

As we've discussed in other threads I'm not a purist in the sense of replicating the 50 year old theater experience. I'm a purist in the sense of wanting the movie to look as the creators originally intended in a general way. I don't think HDR betrays that unless it goes way overboard, which it very rarely does.

If you are a theater experience purist I think you're between a rock and a hard place, because UHD with wide color and restrained HDR looks so much more theatrical but the highlights obviously don't.

[ROSS.T.G.]

The thing of it all is movies were never really intended to be seen on TV’s or home projectors for that matter. I get the feeling some are looking for any excuse to justify the need to upgrade and would love nothing more than to see it fail. Jokes on them because it ain’t going anywhere.

[bradnoyes]

I don't think it's a coincidence that the people creating these topics have over 1000 BD/DVDs but not a single UHD in their collection.

[aetherhole]

Has the OP even come back to this thread since creating the thread?

[LoSouL]

realorfakeformat dot com

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

The thing of it all is movies were never really intended to be seen on TV’s or home projectors for that matter. I get the feeling some are looking for any excuse to justify the need to upgrade and would love nothing more than to see it fail. Jokes on them because it ain’t going anywhere.

Yeah, I mean movies were/are intended to play at 48 nits for SDR theatrical projection (and ~half that nittage for 3D) but are instantly upgraded to 120 nits for the SDR home version, never mind anything else. And I still don't think that SDR 709 on blu-ray, what with its cruder gamut, 8-bit depth and chroma resolution that's effectively 960x540, is wholly accurate to the intent either, so people can stick with their Blu-rays thinking that they're 100% accurate to the original intent but they're really not, it's just another digital bottleneck.

I've mentioned this before but a few years ago there was a roundtable piece with several cinematographers at Variety or THR or some such industry mouthpiece site and when they were specifically asked "do you think that Blu-ray represents what you originally intended?" not a single person held their hand up. Not a one of 'em. Apocryphal perhaps, seeing as I can't find the piece no more, but it really is the case that many of the Blu-ray versions we see (from the majors at least, the indies generally do a bit more to ensure a correct SDR 709 trim pass) aren't the ultimate bastions of accuracy they're assumed to be - [edit] and that's not even including all the times that the filmmakers themselves have overseen several different looking versions, some like Michael Mann actually admit to grading newer transfers of their older movies as if they'd shot them today!

Doesn't mean that the HDR version is any less sacrilicious of course, but by virtue of the expanded bit depth and wider colour gamut you've got a greater chance of one being "correct" (albeit with bells on) than the other. The door does swing the other way - one can make a case that the greenier colour cast and reduced tints on the X-Men UHD aren't what was intended - but those instances are few IMO.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by bradnoyes

I don't think it's a coincidence that the people creating these topics have over 1000 BD/DVDs but not a single UHD in their collection.

We all do it, trying to convince ourselves that we don't need something in our lives while other people are living it up royally using said thing. Personally I think HDR is the single greatest improvement to my viewing experience since the switch from VHS to DVD, and I say that with no hyperbole.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by aetherhole

Has the OP even come back to this thread since creating the thread?

Not even once.

Troll is likely back under his bridge.

He apparently never wanted to discuss HDR; if he did, he would have joined in at some point. He instead chose to misrepresent the opinion of Robert Harris with a single cherry-picked quote as a justification for his own personal disdain for HDR.

As previously noted and with links provided, Robert Harris has routinely praised the picture quality of several 4K HDR releases, both recent and older films. Suggesting that Mr. Harris dislikes HDR is patently false. He was simply expressing concerns that HDR could be misused- this is readily apparent when viewing the full context of that quote combined with the consistent high praise he has given many 4K HDR releases.

Mr. Harris had this to say, in reply to a question based on his earlier comment, right after making the statement quoted by the OP:

"The execs who make those decisions at the studios are reasonably savvy, and one must presume they would listen carefully to what the asset protection execs tell them.

I'm really not anticipating a problem."

Keep in mind that the quote used by the OP is more than 2 years old and during the infancy of 4K and HDR. Mr. Harris's opinion appears to have evolved somewhat since then.

The quote used by the OP and all of the subsequent remarks by Mr. Harris that followed from it can be read here:

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/com...lu-ray.347934/

Providing this full context is more than the OP could be bothered to do.

His reviews are scattered across the first 11 pages contained in this link:

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/tags/hdr/