HDR is crayons

[nick4Knight]

I think the point is they already did take the "warnings" (read: fear-mongering) on board? Where are the horrendous remasters that are objectively revisionist. We're waiting... And we still will be.

All I see is an industry stocked with quality artists and video gurus letting the studios catalog to be freed up in the dynamic range within the creative intent of the films. The idea of being pro or anti HDR are both the wrong two positions to take.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

I'm not about to go through some 23 pages of comments, but did anyone post the American Cinematographer Editorial regarding HDR and also not agreeing with the application/process - it was very enlightening and informative in how they see it as a detriment to the DP and director original intent. If I find it, I'll post it here.

Dude, when he lead with "my friend went to an HDR screening and had to have medical treatment for his eyes" I tuned out BIG time. I reference that magazine's articles a lot and see it as a very valuable resource but, TBH, the people running the show are dinosaurs. There are colourists out there right now who are sitting in front of 4K-nit Pulsars in darkened rooms for many hours at a time and they haven't been blinded just yet.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Dude, when he lead with "my friend went to an HDR screening and had to have medical treatment for his eyes" I tuned out BIG time.

I don't know. Watching a lot of porn ruined my eyes.

[smithb]

I've passed on HDR for now for the simple reasons that my preference is projector-oriented and they aren't there yet for what I would want price-wise, my setup is working fine with no need to replace anything at this time, and the titles of my current interest aren't offered in the UHD format.

That said, I am following along out of interest for how older classics will be treated, and it seems like those are the ones that RAH and many others have questions about. However, so far we only have "Bridge over the Rives Kwai (1957)" as a reference, and it apparently came out quite good. All the posts now just appear to be going around in theoretical circles about what could happen. I believe at least most, if not all, accept that HDR as a capability is not the issue, and that it is all about the implementation.

May be its time to just sit back and wait for more pre-60's titles to emerge. It's not like anything that is said here is going to have an impact on future releases.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Dude, when he lead with "my friend went to an HDR screening and had to have medical treatment for his eyes" I tuned out BIG time. I reference that magazine's articles a lot and see it as a very valuable resource but, TBH, the people running the show are dinosaurs. There are colourists out there right now who are sitting in front of 4K-nit Pulsars in darkened rooms for many hours at a time and they haven't been blinded just yet.

Even with my new light cannon, choosing an appropriate color temperature and settings for FALD and then having max and contrast on high for HDR, I’m not going blind either. Out of the box the brightness was too much but that’s to be expected. I get a picture that’s well saturated (as long as the film calls for that) and gets bright without making me want to turn away. Same thing with HDR gaming beasts such as Assassins Creed Origins and Assassins Creed Odyssey. I’m finding that while ‘ehrmahgawrd that REAL HDR’ is substantially more dynamic than I ever could have imagined, it’s more complimentary in many applications than being a surefire way to cripple my eyes.

But it’s no wonder.

There’s a new owner of the same tv on another forum that’s using terrible settings. Another here is using Vivid mode, of all things. So of course people are going to think HDR is too much for them... they don’t care enough to choose a more accurate picture mode in many cases.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Dude, when he lead with "my friend went to an HDR screening and had to have medical treatment for his eyes" I tuned out BIG time. I reference that magazine's articles a lot and see it as a very valuable resource but, TBH, the people running the show are dinosaurs. There are colourists out there right now who are sitting in front of 4K-nit Pulsars in darkened rooms for many hours at a time and they haven't been blinded just yet.

Right you are. There are persons out there right now who are standing in front of optical brightener washed white shirts in sunlight that might be reflecting 30000 nits! Cover your eyes!

o/~ The HDRnit reality is so bright I gotta wear shades ~\o

Vulcan colorists excepted.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

I'm not about to go through some 23 pages of comments, but did anyone post the American Cinematographer Editorial regarding HDR and also not agreeing with the application/process - it was very enlightening and informative in how they see it as a detriment to the DP and director original intent. If I find it, I'll post it here.

Last July with an informed opinion on thee uninformed opinion (piece) here, 150 pages ago - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...k#post15342809

On the other hand, last June, real (not ignorant-minded) 'medical' concerns regarding some imagery which affects ~ 3% of the population….https://www.epilepsy.com/release/201...redibles-2-and

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Markgway

I don't know. Watching a lot of porn ruined my eyes.

If you get it in your eye it will.

[aetherhole]

HDR is so misconstrued and misunderstood. I know one of the misconceptions that I had initially was that HDR was going to make things "brighter," as in APL. I quickly came to realize that just not the case 99% of the time. HDR and higher nits capabilities is more referring to specular highlights and the like. Realistically, the APL in movies hasn't gone up significantly because of HDR.

But... HDR is still just crayons.

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by aetherhole

HDR is so misconstrued and misunderstood. I know one of the misconceptions that I had initially was that HDR was going to make things "brighter," as in APL. I quickly came to realize that just not the case 99% of the time. HDR and higher nits capabilities is more referring to specular highlights and the like. Realistically, the APL in movies hasn't gone up significantly because of HDR.

But... HDR is still just crayons.

I think the whole "it is brighter" is definitely the biggest misconception. HDR's APL is just about identical to SDR (though you could setup a display to make it brighter, but that just comes down to calibration). What HDR does is allow a significantly larger color volume (and massive increase in color luminance) and specular highlights coupled with higher bit depth to alleviate the banding that comes with encoding video that covers a larger range.

I also agree with Geoff that when you boil it down, EVERYTHING IS REVISIONIST when you get into these endless arguments because movies are never made to look one way (WAY too many different deliverables for that). If you had to say it was supposed to look exactly one way, that would be the original negative that all the others are based on, and at the moment HDR is the ONLY way to deliver that unspoiled (if desired). So one could make the argument that for any film HDR is the only way to not employ revisionism, even for older films (but we know that isn't the reality any more than all the other deliverables). But honestly, who really gives a crap unless you're just hereto argue in circles all day and change no ones mind anyway.

[CYMBOL]

I don't care. They have my permission to do whatever they want/need to do to make it look f***ing amazing on my TV while keeping the film's integrity.

If the flashlights appear quite bright and someone says they don't remember the flashlights being that bright when they saw the movie in the theater in the 70's... I'm not going to lose any sleep.

I would say 95% of movies from almost any era have looked phenomenal on my TV. If someone had to "revise" something to get it to look that way, I'm cool with it. (Sorry, I know a few film enthusiasts probably just spit out whatever they were drinking...)

I don't know what is being done behind the scenes, but my eyeballs approve...

[oddbox83]

Yes, every transfer to video is revisionist in those barking mad terms, since you have to regrade film to look good on the format. This has always happened, even in the analogue days when they had to do it live. Anything going back to the negative also has to be heavily regraded regardless of what format it's intended for.

Do some people seriously think SDR is just a raw scan of what's on the film?!

[Black Sun]

You are all crayons

[gkolb]

NO, the crayons are all in your heads. All 64 of them (crayons, not heads).

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by aetherhole

HDR is so misconstrued and misunderstood. I know one of the misconceptions that I had initially was that HDR was going to make things "brighter," as in APL. I quickly came to realize that just not the case 99% of the time. HDR and higher nits capabilities is more referring to specular highlights and the like. Realistically, the APL in movies hasn't gone up significantly because of HDR.

Correct. Because longterm readers (Sept. 2014) are aware that the standard approach for the grading of PQ based HDR content is based upon ST. 2084 - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ar#post9754213, quoting -

“This EOTF (ST2084) is intended to enable the creation of video images with an increased luminance range; not for creation of video images with overall higher luminance levels. For consistency of presentation across devices with different output brightness, average picture levels in content would likely remain similar to current luminance levels; i.e. mid-range scene exposures would produce currently expected luminance levels appropriate to video or cinema.”

^ suggesting, in essence, that PQ specifies 100% diffuse white as being at 100 nits (identical to SDR).

For more Advanced Learning (for the bottom line, just scroll down to the bolded black and red phrase)
If desired by the content creator, in the future, the diffuse white level could go up a little more, but as noted in the math intensive post, brightness can’t go waay high for there is a real limit due to the inherent nature of PQ and its code values resulting in the picture quality degenerating. Colorists working with the Pulsar have already discovered this.

P.S.
b.t.w., speaking of standards and standard approaches, the ITU working party meetings (including those for HDR) begin next Monday. I’ll update with anything significant of note in due course (prior to publication), if at liberty to do so.

[TheZoof]

I agree with this topic actually. I remember when I was buying my TV - HDR was so important.

Now after I properly calibrated the image on the HDR gamma - it barely makes a difference. It does improve shading quite a bit but I don't have the bright orange and such that is advertised. I just don't like that kind of unnatural image.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

You keep saying that. Film was not even HDR, film was not even SDR. At the time. etc.

Correct, however SDR is a more accurate digital approximation of theatrical exhibition target of older film.

Can you please tell me from what year backward, film, the cinematographic process, prints, had less gamut and less contrast and this includes both silver and dye prints (Technicolor or Eastmancolor), that did not reach or exceed SDR (220 level 7.78 bits rec.709) home TVs.

Why are you tieing a narrow color gamut to SDR? That only applies to standard blu ray. UHD spec allows for bt2020 + SDR. Lets not make a straw man argument that SDR requires rec709.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Correct, however SDR is a more accurate digital approximation of theatrical exhibition target of older film.



Why are you tieing a narrow color gamut to SDR? That only applies to standard blu ray. UHD spec allows for bt2020 + SDR. Lets not make a straw man argument that SDR requires rec709.

No.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

No.

Very convincing rebuttal.

[ROSS.T.G.]