HDR Discussion Thread

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by PaulGo

A technical discussion

Some should learn the basics before reaching for the stars, e.g. –

There are several major ways to convert HDR -> SDR, namely –
algorithmic conversion with algorithmic roll off
direct conversion with clipping
conversion vis-à-vis a LUT
adaptive algorithmic conversion
adaptive algorithmic conversion with creative controls (my fave)

regardless, all the ^ start with a real HDR source, not *fake* HDR with some methods being proven superior to others

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by BrownianMotion

I stop coming into this thread for a couple of weeks and I miss out on Vincent's debut, his fight with several other posters, and his subsequent departure.

That'll teach me to never neglect this thread.

It was so much less complicated when we were concentrating on - https://www.facebook.com/FallonTonig...3350785815414/

[TheSweetieMan]

One more thing I want to mention in this thread before I eventually forget about it (which I probably shouldn't): I've stated that what Vincent and Boris are doing, from an analysis standpoint, is cool--and welcomed. And I think we'd all like to know what our favorite titles are being graded with, as well as to what point on the HDR spectrum. However, what I don't think they understand is, by applying something like 'Fake HDR' upon specific titles, it could potentially turn away consumers based on a superficial metric. I mentioned it already that we already have enough ignorant people refusing to buy any UHD discs that are 2K/up-converted, and by doing so, they miss out on exceptional looking titles like the last two John Wick films, Alita (which guess what, has what you would call a 'fake HDR' grade, too), Zero Dark Thirty, and plenty of other great looking titles.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone takes what they see from Vincent and Boris' videos/analysis, and end up making a 'Real-or-Fake HDR' website, just like the 'Real-of-Fake 4K' one.

It also seems like a rather disrespectful and dismissive way of assessing the way the creator wants their work to be experienced with.

Do I like HDR? Yes.

Do I like it whenever it meets whatever these number specifications in terms of nit-output is being met? Yes. As long as it's being done by someone that is visually competent.

Does this mean I need "real HDR" to enjoy the low-pass HDR grades like 'Alita', 'Goodfellas', 'Blade Runner 2049', etc, etc

No. Absolutely not. They're still terrific looking discs. Be that from the wider color volume or improved compression, and little to nothing from HDR, I don't care. I think these films and their discs look fantastic, and I don't need some technical specifications or analysis being applied to potentially damage the quality output I am getting from the people that work on these films and discs.

To quote Roger Deakins himself: "I frankly find it offensive if someone tells me how bright my highlights need to be."

Deakins finds plenty of detail within his SDR grades. As much as I do like HDR as a new medium and a new tool for artists to work with, competent DOPs and colorists will still find plenty of range to work with in SDR. All it takes is a good photographer, which Deakins is one of the best.

Geoff brought up David Fincher.

Erik Messerschmidt's work on 'Mindhunter' is godlike. Yet I would bet that show's HDR pass doesn't exceed anything beyond 450-500 nits, yet it's still visually spectacular in its presentation.

For comparisons sake, a film like 'The Meg', wasn't that graded within a 10,000-nit container? Doesn't the max luminance of that film even exceed 4,000-nits of peak brightness on several occasions? Yet that is one ugly film to look at. That's an example of a superficial application being applied to make something look brighter and starker in contrast, yet it's just such a poorly photographed film. It's ugly.

I would take fake-HDR, subdued-HDR, no-HDR, whatever you want to call it, as long as the photography and lighting are excellent, over something that feels overcooked and superficially applied, any day of the week.

Just my remaining meaningless .02 on the subject.

Guys like Vincent, Boris, Geoff, and plenty others in this thread have forgotten more about HDR than I'll ever know. But technical terms be damned. I still have a good pair of eyes and I know what I see--and I know I don't need to know every piece of vocabulary to know that a film with a 'Fake HDR' pass can still look significantly better than a film with a real one.

[Lee A Stewart]

These are some examples of how UHD with HDR is presented to consumers. So how will consumers react when there is no HDR? Remember . . . these are the same consumers sitting in front of a 55" UHD TV sitting 9 feet away.





And maybe they have come across these photos on the internet when researching HDR.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

LCD replaced Plasma! Not the other way around.

LCD displays were around before plasma displays. But plasma owners swore by them with the same advantages touted by the OLED crowd - better blacks, no off-axis issues, etc.

[gkolb]

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?

Exactly.

[Geoff D]

Lee: that's all on the marketing, and when was it ever different? I sold TVs for a loooong time - this is just before the HDR era - and the #1 complaint was 'it doesn't look the same at home as it does in the showroom!', people expecting every single thing that they watched to look like it blistering crisp, sharp and colourful. Nooooope.

Not to excuse the HDR cluster****, which IMO beats any industry snafu that cropped up during my lengthy sentence on the shop floor, but better display devices and better edumacation for consumers are key to helping them appreciate all facets of HDR, not just the titles that have enough wattage to light a small town. But, to go back to my first point, 'twas ever thus with people swallowing the marketing hook, line and sinker. We've already lived through a period of home video where the studios messed with the content something chronic to make it appeal to the average consumer by blitzing grain and jacking up contrast, I just hope we don't get the same thing again with HDR being overcooked for the sake of it.

[Lee A Stewart]

LCD displays were NOT around before plasma displays. We are talking about large flat panel TVs. The first large screen LCD was 30". This was the same time a PDP was 50"

But plasma owners swore by them with the same advantages touted by the OLED crowd - better blacks, no off-axis issues, etc.

Correct - but as we know - those attributes did not make PDPs more desirable by consumers . . . PDPs bit the dust.

The reason for the demise of the LCD isn't picture quality. It's PROFITS! LCDs are no longer profitable for TV OEMs while OLEDs are.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

LCD displays were NOT around before plasma displays. We are talking about large flat panel TVs. The first large screen LCD was 30". This was the same time a PDP was 50"



Correct - but as we know - those attributes did not make PDPs more desirable by consumers . . . PDPs bit the dust.

The reason for the demise of the LCD isn't picture quality. It's PROFITS! LCDs are no longer profitable for TV OEMs while OLEDs are.

So we're gonna start seeing 20" OLEDs for bedrooms and whatnot? Cool.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Lee: that's all on the marketing, and when was it ever different? I sold TVs for a loooong time - this is just before the HDR era - and the #1 complaint was 'it doesn't look the same at home as it does in the showroom!', people expecting every single thing that they watched to look like it blistering crisp, sharp and colourful. Nooooope.

Not to excuse the HDR cluster****, which IMO beats any industry snafu that cropped up during my lengthy sentence on the shop floor, but better display devices and better edumacation for consumers are key to helping them appreciate all facets of HDR, not just the titles that have enough wattage to light a small town. But, to go back to my first point, 'twas ever thus with people swallowing the marketing hook, line and sinker. We've already lived through a period of home video where the studios messed with the content something chronic to make it appeal to the average consumer by blitzing grain and jacking up contrast, I just hope we don't get the same thing again with HDR being overcooked for the sake of it.

IMO - I see the opposite happening. HDR will be undercooked simply because it's cheaper to do so. Money motivates Hollywood, not picture quality

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

IMO - I see the opposite happening. HDR will be undercooked simply because it's cheaper to do so.

Or the content creators might actually want it way, as incredulous a notion as that is. It's a total fallacy that money = amazing HDR. The Irishman cost $140M to make, was graded in DV first and yet you probably won't see a more un-HDR like grade all year. Apart from the Mando, obvs

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Or the content creators might actually want it way, as incredulous a notion as that is. It's a total fallacy that money = amazing HDR. The Irishman cost $140M to make, was graded in DV first and yet you probably won't see a more un-HDR like grade all year. Apart from the Mando, obvs

Interesting. That's NOT what the DP said about their use of HDR:

In post-production, the only thing was: when we were doing the version for television, we did two versions: one is high-dynamic range, and, from that, the regular arrives. I must say it’s pretty exciting. To see the film in high-dynamic range is amazing. You see the richness of the highlights and lowlights; it’s very beautiful. For screen, we did a version–and I don’t know if they’re going to project with this–that’s Dolby Vision, similar to HDR but for the cinema. It’s amazing. I think those are my favorite versions. You really get the rich, deep blacks and the highlights have much more detail. That was the only thing.

https://thefilmstage.com/features/ci...rtin-scorsese/

[Geoff D]

And yet it's exceedingly restrained in terms of the overall levels and expansion of highlights that certain parties are expecting, nay demanding from their HDR content, them citing it as a core example of the fake HDR menace. But Marty loved it! Oh well.

[MechaGodzilla]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

LCD displays were NOT around before plasma displays. We are talking about large flat panel TVs. The first large screen LCD was 30". This was the same time a PDP was 50"



Correct - but as we know - those attributes did not make PDPs more desirable by consumers . . . PDPs bit the dust.

The reason for the demise of the LCD isn't picture quality. It's PROFITS! LCDs are no longer profitable for TV OEMs while OLEDs are.

I look at this industry the same way I look at home video and whatever else. Whatever happens, happens. I'm just a simple Swede trying to Swede my way in the universe, I'm just along for the ride, I understand I have no power over these things.

If, in the near future, all premium TVs are OLEDs, then that's the reality and I will accept it. I'm neither fanatically pro-LCD, nor anti-OLED. I just hope that, by then, these sets will be damn good at preventing burn-in, otherwise that'll be a big headache for consumers and manufacturers alike.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

LCD displays were NOT around before plasma displays. We are talking about large flat panel TVs. The first large screen LCD was 30". This was the same time a PDP was 50"

Yes but you didn't specify size - LCD televisions (the tiny portable type) were around in the '80s after all. Then evolving into flat panel monitors for laptops and computers and then large screen TVs.

In any case, PDPs did not kill LCDs.

[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.

[Penton-Man]

for our Euro lurkers reading, heads up and log in for the presentations –
https://tech.ebu.ch/events/2019/hdrworkshop

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

IMO - I see the opposite happening. HDR will be undercooked simply because it's cheaper to do so.....

Not really, for if you have a Dolby license and run a recommended L2 (https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...a#post15620128 )
which even small shops are doing, cost is really no different whether you decide to ‘undercook’ or ‘overcook’ the content on the trim

money comes into play for those productions that want and have the budget to do a dedicated SDR grade completely separate to a Dolby Vision grade and the normal SDR iteration arising from that

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

money comes into play for those productions that want and have the budget to do a dedicated SDR grade completely separate to a Dolby Vision grade and the normal SDR iteration arising from that

And readers may wonder why some productions (feature films) have chosen that ^ dedicated SDR grade route.
Well, for those filmmakers striving for the utmost in picture quality the main advantage of a bespoke custom SDR grade over getting it thru the Dolby Vision -> SDR process (which streaming services like Netflix, etc. encourage) has been that with the former, colorists feel they have greater control of the highlight saturation and the ability to compress mid shadows a bit more by doing a custom SDR grade regardless of the added expense.

The introduction and utilization of Dolby Vision 4.0 by shops may mitigate such advantage as I discussed with Stacey somewhere on the forum either in this or another thread back in late Spring or early summer if memory serves, before the reshoot for Top Gun: Maverick (a clip of a scene shown in the 1st trailer).

[DanBa]

Gray uniformity of TVs
https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/pict...een-effect-dse
https://twitter.com/DanielBa78/statu...70178016485376



Note that RTINGS doesn’t test Panasonic TVs that are no longer sold in the US.


"Despite the significant investment, the display industry still primarily relies on the use of human operators to perform the final test and inspection of displays. The operator performs visual inspections of each display for defects, and accepts or rejects the display based upon the operator's perceptions. Such inspection includes, for example, pixel-based defects and area-based defects. The quality of the resulting inspection is dependent on the individual operator which are subjective and prone to error."
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8049695

"Panel companies can easily apply the advanced function of Mura defect correction, and additionally, the use of automatic Mura detection and correction device can help the stable production by evolving its quality and improving yield."
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dj53ulyW4AAmbgC.jpg
http://olednet.com/cybernet-develops...-oled-display/

Mura correction: fewer panels have to be discarded => a win-win situation for TV makers and for consumers.




The Mura correction is in its first steps, therefore perfectible. It must be improved and generalized for all high-end TVs.

In the meantime, TV retailer can provide a uniformity control service carried out by professional calibrator in order to eliminate the panel lottery concerns.
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...2#post15262192