HDR is crayons

[desertedsun]

My new tv does over 2000 nits and it did feel like my eyes were sore at first, but not damaged. hdr did damage my enjoyment of sdr tho.

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by 78deluxe

What is posted in the OP is very far from nonsense. His stance might seem a little extreme, but most people are not using HDR to truly represent the original print.

It is a process being used in post to change things on these older sources.

Because it is. If you concede his stance reads extreme, how can he also be correct about his views? That smacks of one word. Incongruent.

Firstly, are you suggesting SDR formats have accurately represented the 'original print' before? We know they haven't. The industry has moved past 8-bit choking of the scan's potential and a 709 colour space.

The process that is being used "in post" is the same digital grading premise as since DI's came about. But now the industry has developed, refined, and shown amazing results on catalog film mastering to UHD discs. It's beyond his technical grasp as an authority. I defer to other video gurus on the topic of HDR and it's approximation to revealing the native range of a film print (OCN, or IP). For RAH, at 80 now, all he has left is to try and turn these advancements into a boogeyman and rely on sycophants to confirm his bias. It's a tired narrative.

[Bates_Motel]

Much of what he's saying is technically right, but he seems to bbe forgetting the "dynamic range" part of the High Dynamic Range and is focusing solely on color, which is only part of what HDR does. So it's pretty much necessary if you want to see everything that's on the film negative, whether ot not you blast the colors.

[Cook]

HDR and Dolby Vision is the biggest selling point for 4K afaiac. I like the increased resolution, but I love HDR. I love the color highlights, the improved contrast, the reduction of blow out and crush. I'm not going to pay a premium for a UHD release without HDR.

[aetherhole]

Baited... aaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnndd hooked.

Resolution is the least noticeable improvement in the format and the forced fixation on it is nigh absurd. 4K DI? 2K DI? 8K DI? Shot in 3.4K?

For the majority of consumer television sizes (40-65, maybe even up to 70) it's at the point of diminishing returns. Casual viewers mostly aren't watching their TVs at the proper size to distance ratio to realize a big difference. Casual viewers are likely still rocking default settings which typical add sharpness anyway, so any real difference isn't going to be noticeable.

Difference in light/dark and colors (re: HDR and WCG), however, is noticeable regardless of viewing distance and size.

HDR/WCG (if properly done) bring the image closer to the image that was intended. SDR's Rec.702 is a limited color gamut. UHD's DCI-P3 is an improvement. Then there's the potential of Rec.2020, which our TVs still can't really get close to realizing.

[Vilya]

The OP has essentially copy and pasted his original post into the comments section of the news announcement about the upcoming 4K release of Superman on the homepage. He appears to be on some sort of crusade.

Mr. Harris has posted a number of reviews where he has praised the 4K HDR releases of both recent and older films.

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

Look at his reviews for Halloween and Die Hard; he said the the latter was "perfect in every regard" with "Full film resolution, with requisite grain, perfect color, deep rich blacks, and stable as a rock" and that the former was "Absolutely gorgeous, with beautifully rendered color, great shadow detail, and luscious moving grain."

Are these the words of someone who dislikes what HDR can do?

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/com...lu-ray.357411/

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/com...lu-ray.359127/

I believe that the OP has an agenda as he conveniently omits the many instances where Mr. Harris has praised 4K HDR releases.

[ROSS.T.G.]

I don’t like this thread. We’re a few years into the format and clearly the format has really taken off since last fall. At this point any videophile who doesn’t see the merit in the format is either blind or nearing the age where people forget how to use a phone.

[KubrickKurasawa]

OP

Watch the DVD/Blu of The Revenant on a Sony or LG OLED.

Then watch the Ultra UHD.

You will see the light.

Some old movies like Goodfellas look barely better but I'd still rather watch the 4K Ultra over anything else available. The HDR if used slightly on older looks fine imho so far.

[TheSweetieMan]

All I know is, a filmmaker like Chris McQuarrie, who is super traditional (loves his 35mm anamorphic format) gushes over HDR and Dolby Vision, as he did for the final pass for MI: Fallout, then that catches my attention. Big time.

Obviously, not every great visionary will be on board with HDR (see, Deakins)--and that's fine. I am also of the belief that to enjoy the 4K format, you don't need HDR. I will, however, say that there should be a mandate for 4K-DIs for discs that don't have HDR. You got me ****ed up if you think I'm going to take even the best 2K upscale if it doesn't at least offer anything more than that.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by sacd-man

Want to see 2001, or Lawrence, Ben-Hur, The Godfather, The Magnificent Seven, or Elvira Madigan in 4k?

No problem.

We're ready for it, and there's no reason why those films can't be released, except those which don't fit on the
current sized discs.

And NONE of them should be released with HDR.

Agreed.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Then don’t buy them and let us enjoy them.

[Crow]

Originally Posted by sacd-man

Here is what Robert Harris, the man who resoted Spartacus and many other films, has to say about HDR.

There seems to be a misunderstanding, at least in on-line discussions, as to what HDR (High Dynamic Range) actually is...

and might not be.

It is NOT an inherent part of the 4k UHD package.

It is in no way necessary toward the enjoyment of 4k, either in the home, or elsewhere.

HDR is an option, much like ordering a different kind of leather of fabric for your new car's interior.

It's nothing new -- been around for years.

If generally NOT a part of the design of a film, with most HDR entering the picture, no pun intended, during post.

"Wouldn't look neat if those flames were Really bright orange..."

It's added the same way that 3D is added in post, to the majority of 3D productions.

It has no relevance to production photography.

It should not be included as a function for classic films, unless the filmmakers have a desire to re-visit, and create
a new version, a re-imagining.

It will not work well with most classic films, and can be problematic to those that have needed restoration based upon fade.

Want to see 2001, or Lawrence, Ben-Hur, The Godfather, The Magnificent Seven, or Elvira Madigan in 4k?

No problem.

We're ready for it, and there's no reason why those films can't be released, except those which don't fit on the
current sized discs.

And NONE of them should be released with HDR.

Every UHD release does NOT need HDR, nor should they have it.

If we can clear the airwaves of mis and dis-information regarding HDR, things would be easier.

RAH

WOW!
Finally. I always wondered if we were ever going to get some clarity and common sense on this website from someone who actually knew what they were talking about.
Instead of all the 4K BS that I'm sorry to say, most of my fellow members on this website have fell for, hook, line and sinker.

***Conversation at a Major Studio Marketing Department meeting not too long ago***

"What gimmick can we use to entice those saps.....I mean those videophiles out there to spend their hard earned money to upgrade from 1080P Blu-ray to 4K Blu-ray and actually make them believe it is an upgrade?"

***After a few moments of silence, a young executive eyeing a promotion, says:***

"I know, I know! How about if we over saturate the color scheme to the point that it looks like cartoon colors. We can market it as a new breakthrough innovation. We can even call it some fancy schmancy name like.....High Dynamic Range so that it sounds professional. We can even abbreviate the name so it sounds cool. That'll work."

[tama]

Originally Posted by Crow

WOW!
Finally. I always wondered if we were ever going to get some clarity and common sense on this website from someone who actually knew what they were talking about.
Instead of all the 4K BS that I'm sorry to say, most of my fellow members on this website have fell for, hook, line and sinker.

***Conversation at a Major Studio Marketing Department meeting not too long ago***

"What gimmick can we use to entice those saps.....I mean those videophiles out there to spend their hard earned money to upgrade from 1080P Blu-ray to 4K Blu-ray and actually make them believe it is an upgrade?"

***After a few moments of silence, a young executive eyeing a promotion, says:***

"I know, I know! How about if we over saturate the color scheme to the point that it looks like cartoon colors. We can market it as a new breakthrough innovation. We can even call it some fancy schmancy name like.....High Dynamic Range so that it sounds professional. We can even abbreviate the name so it sounds cool. That'll work."

Awe not enough DNR for ya?

[Brian81]

It is all a matter of whether those overseeing the HDR process are concerned more with accuracy or eye candy...

[Rusty100]

It sounds kind of like the people hating on HDR haven't actually ever watched a movie with HDR and just hate it because we've had the old 8 bit depth standard for so long that anything higher is some kind of corruption of the format and incorrect colour, without really realising that the old format was extremely limited to begin with.

[hype88]

Originally Posted by KubrickKurasawa

OP

Watch the DVD/Blu of The Revenant on a Sony or LG OLED.

Then watch the Ultra UHD.

You will see the light.

Some old movies like Goodfellas look barely better but I'd still rather watch the 4K Ultra over anything else available. The HDR if used slightly on older looks fine imho so far.

Exact movie I used to shut a neighbor up real quick when he told me the difference was just in my head because of how much I spent on the tv and wanted to believe it. 4-5 months later he asked me what exact model I had because he was looking to replace the living room tv lol

Obviously there are standout HDR releases just like there were/are BluRay releases.. I have no intentions of not buying BluRay anymore, I am just not going to buy most that I feel a 4k release is coming around the corner. HDR and Dolby Vision are still somewhat new as well and will only improve over time imo.

To say HDR is just a gimmick is pretty ridiculous at this point if you have watched some of the better releases. I was skeptical in the very beginning as well but it's clearly superior when done right. Sound wise, the new Dolby Atmos tracks on some 4k releases are also a big improvement and something I hope to see on many future Horror 4k releases.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by hype88

To say HDR is just a gimmick is pretty ridiculous at this point if you have watched some of the better releases.

Honestly kind of hard to assess since the buyer isnt given the option of seeing both 4k sdr rec2020 vs. 4k hdr rec2020 (say on different discs) on the same release. Without that reference point how do you know which improvements (other than the obvious like blazing highlights) are afforded by WCG vs HDR?

Too bad studios dont offer both, projector uses would likely greatly appreciate a 4k sdr rec2020 disc.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Crow

WOW!
Finally. I always wondered if we were ever going to get some clarity and common sense on this website from someone who actually knew what they were talking about.
Instead of all the 4K BS that I'm sorry to say, most of my fellow members on this website have fell for, hook, line and sinker.

***Conversation at a Major Studio Marketing Department meeting not too long ago***

"What gimmick can we use to entice those saps.....I mean those videophiles out there to spend their hard earned money to upgrade from 1080P Blu-ray to 4K Blu-ray and actually make them believe it is an upgrade?"

***After a few moments of silence, a young executive eyeing a promotion, says:***

"I know, I know! How about if we over saturate the color scheme to the point that it looks like cartoon colors. We can market it as a new breakthrough innovation. We can even call it some fancy schmancy name like.....High Dynamic Range so that it sounds professional. We can even abbreviate the name so it sounds cool. That'll work."

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Brian81

It is all a matter of whether those overseeing the HDR process are concerned more with accuracy or eye candy...

Hopefully both. Film is absolutely eye candy. So eye candy should be focused on.

[billy35]

This is a quote from an interview dated 2017.

Just to stay on topic.

Telly Kim, Executive Director of New Technology Marketing at Warner Bros. Home Entertainment:

"It’s challenging on the content side," admitted Kim.

"We heavily evaluate our catalogue titles to see which ones would benefit from 4K HDR, which titles may actually look worse with the 4K HDR treatment. From a content provider perspective we always want to make sure what we put out looks great – we’ve definitely identified titles that we’d like to put out on the format, gone back to the original source masters, done some tests and realised it wouldn’t benefit from a 4K HDR remaster."

Article conclusion:

As such, the growth of the format will still be mostly down to today's big studio releases, those that take advantage of modern technical upgrades.
But for those looking to entirely upgrade their overflowing DVD or HD Blu-ray catalogues, there's a possibility that some UHD gaps may persist. While some titles, like the forthcoming Blade Runner: Final Cut release, are perfect for the format, others won't be so lucky. Put simply, some older titles – especially early CGI-heavy flicks – don't live up to the visual scrutiny of 4K fidelity...

And now - why I actually wanted to make this post. For some time now I`ve had some questions adding up.. They are basic ones, but something that I couldnt find a direct answer to. Im sorry if these were talked and discussed about hundreds of times already, but using the search function - didnt help me.. Maybe I missed something.

So, being an amateur in technical things, here are my questions:

I`ve read people claiming that owning a 4k uhd blu-ray disc - is like owning an actual print of a movie. Putting it in a very straighforward way - how does it work if the disc itself has only between 66/100 gb of space? how important is the actual size?

I know there are music formats like flac/wav which are lossless, true to its source. It takes a lot of space even for a sound recording. What is the lossless format for movies? How much of an actual space would a standart lenght 35 mm movie take? And how much is lost by compressing and trying to squeeze it into the size of 4k uhd disc?

I remember reading about the restoration of "The Terminator" and finding this: "The original negative was scanned using an Imagica pin registered scanner to produce 4K 10bit Log DPX files. Reliance performed nearly 800 hours of meticulous work including, image processing, QC and frame by frame touch up of dirt and film damage (scratches etc.). The project consumed over 40 terabytes at its greatest size."

Regarding size - its on a whole different level. But it might be false logics of mine and lack of general understanding about these things, thats basicly why Im asking. For instance, the definition of lossless compression: "Lossless compression is a class of data compression algorithms that allows the original data to be perfectly reconstructed from the compressed data." It doesnt mean that compressed is equal to losing information, it can mean that its just compressed in a way to take less space, but still being able to reproduce the original detail, so to speak. Just like Flac in sound files. Im just not sure what to compare it to in video world, what is the landmark, the actual size, how many detail is lost by compression/if any? What is the actual definition of owning an original print on a digital disc, seeing it in its full glory at home?

Likewise, I have read reviews, claiming that some of these new 4k restorations look even better than what the reviewer saw in a theatre on its original screening. Is it the detail, texture, colors or stability, removal of dirt, scratches? Observations like: "HDR and 4k uhd releases allow us to see movies like they were intended to be seen and even more..." make me wonder and compare to, for instance, with the comments and precautions on "The Matrix" 4k release (or pretty much any other release): "It looks stunning! It looks like a proper film. I hope this is the last time I have to buy this movie.. But you never know what future might bring us." How much room is there left for improvement? where can it still improve and justify a new "upgrade"? It kind of gets contradictory, because if manages to show everything there is to be shown or even more - then where the potential future upgrades might come in? with all the 8k and further stuff for home entertainment.

Thanks in advance, hoping for a free lesson to broaden my horizonts.