HDR is crayons

[Geoff D]

Never claimed anything else. I just don't have a problem with it being applied to films before theatrical HDR was a thing, which is in the part of my post that you left out (BOY you do that a lot). I'm not saying it's not revisionist, I'm saying that I don't really give a **** any more. Audio though, that's a different story...

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Never claimed anything else. I just don't have a problem with it being applied to films before theatrical HDR was a thing, which is in the part of my post that you left out (BOY you do that a lot). I'm not saying it's not revisionist, I'm saying that I don't really give a **** any more. Audio though, that's a different story...

Well audio a different story as its exponentially cheaper and easier to simply include the original audio in addition to the remix track and this should always be done when possible. For some reason it also seems more challenging to create convincing revisionist audio vs convincing revisionist video.

This thread started because RAH was arguing HDR was revisionism for older films (since the theatrical HDR target did not exist) and has continued because many others strongly disagreed with that. If we have landed now at the point that RAH is correct that HDR is revisionism but some prefer that revisionism I am in agreement with that - in fact I also often prefer the revisionist video. I just disagreed with those trying to claim HDR was somehow original intent for older films and that RAH was incorrect.

[BrownianMotion]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

Ummm, yes and no. It is NOT added in post because the overall dynamic range and color range is captured by the camera, regardless of what camera is used. In the end, that caps what is or is not possible when it comes to the full range of exposure, contrast, color.

The HDR grading is done in post just like SDR grading is done in post. It isn't "added" in, it is just deciding what portions/balances of the image captured are used and how they are shown.

Fair enough, and I'm aware of that. What I meant by "added" is that the metadata has to be encoded as SEI into the video stream, in order for a display to be able to playback the content in HDR.

[Colson]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Well audio a different story as its exponentially cheaper and easier to simply include the original audio in addition to the remix track and this should always be done when possible. For some reason it also seems more challenging to create convincing revisionist audio vs convincing revisionist video.

This thread started because RAH was arguing HDR was revisionism for older films (since the theatrixal target did not exist) and has continued because many others strongly disagreed with that. If we have landed now at the point that RAH is correct that HDR is revisionism but some prefer that revisionism I am in agreement with that - in fact I also prefer the revisionist video. I just disagreed with those trying to claim HDR was somehow original intent and that RAH was incorrect.

My position is that, in general, is that HDR provides a benefit in the direction of displaying the dynamic range of film, something previous SDR Blu-rays were incapable of doing very well. HDR also has the opportunity to be rather revisionist, and it often is, with mixed results.

I guess I'd have to hear what is so revisionist about HDR grades on catalog movies. If the answer is that "HDR" did not exist when the movie was shot, then I do not accept that answer, as "HDR" is just a descriptor that means High Dynamic Range. Generally speaking, SDR Blu-rays are incapable of reproducing the dynamic range of film, and HDR helps approach that more accurately.

However, if your position is that HDR is, more often than not, being used in a revisionist manner, then I can see where you are coming from. I still need some further arguments, though, I think.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Well audio a different story as its exponentially cheaper and easier to simply include the original audio in addition to the remix track and this should always be done when possible. For some reason it also seems more challenging to create convincing revisionist audio vs convincing revisionist video.

This thread started because RAH was arguing HDR was revisionism for older films (since the theatrixal target did not exist) and has continued because many others strongly disagreed with that. If we have landed now at the point that RAH is correct that HDR is revisionism but some prefer that revisionism I am in agreement with that - in fact I also prefer the revisionist video. I just disagreed with those trying to claim HDR was somehow original intent and that RAH was incorrect.

I still say there's a middle ground though in terms of what RAH is getting at because SDR is not SDR is not SDR, there are so many variants of what that could ultimately be (original theatrical print, re-issue print, newly struck theatrical print, theatrical P3 48-nit 12-bit DCP, consumer 709 120-nit 8-bit Blu-ray, with all of the myrid colour changes on top that some directors have wrought over the years) that it's not as clear cut as pointing to a 1080p Blu-ray and heralding that specific piece of software as the ultimate rendition of whatever show. HDR is not the intent, but SDR 709 Blu-ray is rarely it either and that's part of the grey area of this discussion rather than the easy binary answers that some people (don't necessarily mean you) need in order to sleep easier at night.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Colson

My position is that, in general, is that HDR provides a benefit in the direction of displaying the dynamic range of film, something previous SDR Blu-rays were incapable of doing very well. HDR also has the opportunity to be rather revisionist, and it often is, with mixed results.

I guess I'd have to hear what is so revisionist about HDR grades on catalog movies. If the answer is that "HDR" did not exist when the movie was shot, then I do not accept that answer, as "HDR" is just a descriptor that means High Dynamic Range. Generally speaking, SDR Blu-rays are incapable of reproducing the dynamic range of film, and HDR helps approach that more accurately.

However, if your position is that HDR is, more often than not, being used in a revisionist manner, then I can see where you are coming from. I still need some further arguments, though, I think.

The idea is whether you are shooting movies or photography and then go into post you always have an end target in mind, because there are tradeoffs in settings/lighting/etc when filming and what you can do with the negative in post is near limitless.

The target for older films was theatrical exhibition, which at the time did not exceed SDR, by far. In fact the vast majority of theaters are still SDR and even the small slice of HDR ones cannot fully reproduce the range HDR is capable of.

What you can do with the negative in post is nearly limitless so having something that can reproduce more of the negative when that range was never available theatrically (the intended target) just gives you more opportunity to foul it up. More opportunity to be fouled up both at the studio end when its mastered and at the user end when it has to be tonemapped to whatever the display is capable of.

For older films 4k SDR BT2020 best represents the theatrical target of the time and also does not require the dynamic tonemapping that occurs with HDR. It technically is the most accurate way of capturing intent and ensuring the user sees that intent. HDR adds unnecessary headroom that only serves to make the end result less accurate to the theatrical target of the time and thus is undesirable if accuracy/intent is the goal.

On the other hand, if the intent is to resell an older film using HDR marketing and more exciting video HDR is very useful for that purpose with older films.

[Geoff D]

I've said this before but I found it rather amusing that the prints that were struck of Godfather I & II's 4K restoration weren't to Gordon Willis' liking at all because the capabilities of the data outstripped the capabilities of the analogue projection medium, in his own words: "...the positive available isn’t doing the job we all hoped for. The print stock I saw doesn’t produce a full and comfortable range from black to white, and the mid range is compressed as well. Everyone is pursuing a solution".

If you were to ask RAH then he'd go for the data projection every time and that in its own way shows how we're only too happy to move the technological goalposts to suit our own desires and expectations when it suits us. I'm not saying that this relates to his attitude towards HDR per se but some film buffs would be horrified that a man like RAH would advocate a digital screening over a print and yet he's said the same thing about other films too, that he'd prefer watching a DCP to all but the most ultra-pristine showprint minted off the negative.

[LoSouL]

What someone might intend to do could be theater projection, but what they actually do is the negative.

Displays have always had discrepancies, including theaters themselves. What your display is doing wrong can be attributed to your display rather than to the format.

Any arguments that theater projection wasn't capable of accurately displaying what's on film, and that film is generationally removed from the actual source, just makes a case against theater projection and the film reels they receive being a compromised experience.

Some people might want the authentic 80's crack experience, and the dealer may never have intended you to snort pure, uncut Coumbian cocaine without baking soda, flour etc in it, but home video HDR can get you a direct line to Pablo Escobar.

[Colson]

Originally Posted by Ruined

The idea is whether you are shooting movies or photography and then go into post you always have an end target in mind, because there are tradeoffs in settings/lighting/etc when filming and what you can do with the negative in post is near limitless.

The target for older films was theatrical exhibition, which at the time did not exceed SDR, by far. In fact the vast majority of theaters are still SDR and even the small slice of HDR ones cannot fully reproduce the range HDR is capable of.

What you can do with the negative in post is nearly limitless so having something that can reproduce more of the negative when that range was never available theatrically (the intended target) just gives you more opportunity to foul it up. More opportunity to be fouled up both at the studio end when its mastered and at the user end when it has to be tonemapped to whatever the display is capable of.

For older films 4k SDR BT2020 best represents the theatrical target of the time and also does not require the dynamic tonemapping that occurs with HDR. It technically is the most accurate way of capturing intent and ensuring the user sees that intent. HDR adds unnecessary headroom that only serves to make the end result less accurate to the theatrical target of the time and thus is undesirable if accuracy/intent is the goal.

On the other hand, if the intent is to resell an older film using HDR marketing and more exciting video HDR is very useful for that purpose with older films.

If HDR provides extra headroom, then it is down to the people creating the HDR grade to not use that headroom in order to provide an accurate picture.

Would the most accurate possible HDR grade look any different from/less accurate than the most accurate possible SDR BT2020 grade?

[Ruined]

Filmmakers often have George Lucas syndrome of wanting to constantly revise their works and that is fine. Usually the purists go for the original artist theatrical intent, because current artist intent is inherently revisionist as the goalposts frequently move as technology advances.

[Colson]

Originally Posted by LoSouL

What someone might intend to do could be theater projection, but what they actually do is the negative.

Displays have always had discrepancies, including theaters themselves. What your display is doing wrong can be attributed to your display rather than to the format.

Any arguments that theater projection wasn't capable of accurately displaying what's on film, and that film is generationally removed from the actual source, just makes a case against theater projection and the film reels they receive being a compromised experience.

Some people might want the authentic 80's crack experience, and the dealer may never have intended you to snort something without baking soda and flour in it, but home video HDR can get you the uncut, pure Columbian cocaine.

This is an excellent point. After all, I'm not after the artist's intent, I'm after something that is as accurate to that cut together, edited, ready-to-go, color timed negative as is possible. It isn't about the artist's intentions, but about the result of the artist's work.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Colson

If HDR provides extra headroom, then it is down to the people creating the HDR grade to not use that headroom in order to provide an accurate picture.

Would the most accurate possible HDR grade look any different from/less accurate than the most accurate possible SDR BT2020 grade?

So here is the thing. If the intended target was SDR, and you want to accurately capture intent, why are you using HDR? Even if you were to put SDR in an HDR container perfectly... why do that, what is the point? Better off again just using SDR because in this usage there would be no visual advantage to using HDR and again the HDR signal would have to go through all the fun dynamic HDR processing on the user end we have all become accustomed with (and this theoretically could reduce accuracy/introduce differences on the user end depending on the hardware). Using SDR would bypass all that processing and just deliver a straight up SDR signal.

Also note UHD SDR is potentially superior to BD SDR because of wide color gamut, even though no releases have been mastered in this fashion.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by LoSouL

What someone might intend to do could be theater projection, but what they actually do is the negative.

Displays have always had discrepancies, including theaters themselves. What your display is doing wrong can be attributed to your display rather than to the format.

Any arguments that theater projection wasn't capable of accurately displaying what's on film, and that film is generationally removed from the actual source, just makes a case against theater projection and the film reels they receive being a compromised experience.

Some people might want the authentic 80's crack experience, and the dealer may never have intended you to snort something without baking soda and flour in it, but home video HDR can get you the uncut, pure Columbian cocaine.

In the book Masters of Light (1984) several DPs lament the fact that what they signed off on for the answer print and what turned up in the cinema prints was very different. Some liked to carry their images all the way through to completion and had the clout to ensure that even the prints were to their liking, but not every working stiff could take time out to keep an eye on the whole process or possessed the cachet needed to override their studio overlords.

As for the 4K HDR being the equivalent of the purest Bolivian bingo dust, Geoffy be like

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Doesnt matter. They still only need the info from the negative to create the 3d conversion. No additional filming or camerawork needed. The negative is all they need, all the info is captured there.

That's...not how it works.

[Colson]

Originally Posted by Ruined

So here is the thing. If the intended target was SDR, and you want to accurately capture intent, why are you using HDR? Even if you were to put SDR in an HDR container perfectly... why do that, what is the point? Better off again just using SDR because in this usage there would be no visual advantage to using HDR and again the HDR signal would have to go through all the fun dynamic HDR processing on the user end we have all become accustomed with. Using SDR would bypass all that processing and just deliver a straight up SDR signal.

Also note UHD SDR is potentially superior to BD SDR because of wide color gamut, even though no releases have been mastered in this fashion.

I agree with everything you've said here. WCG is the real goods with UHD discs for catalog titles. You just can't get it without HDR, because no one does discs that way.

On top of that the extremely minor revisionism that comes with most of these catalog titles means that, as a package, the whole thing is quite lovely.

I still would like some clarification on what exactly is revisionist about the whole thing. Can you show me something present in an HDR grade that would be impossible on the negative? This is an area of ignorance for me and I am asking genuinely: what is revisionist about HDR when used in a manner other than "SDR in an HDR container" for catalog films?

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Colson

I agree with everything you've said here. WCG is the real goods with UHD discs for catalog titles. You just can't get it without HDR, because no one does discs that way.

On top of that the extremely minor revisionism that comes with most of these catalog titles means that, as a package, the whole thing is quite lovely.

I still would like some clarification on what exactly is revisionist about the whole thing. Can you show me something present in an HDR grade that would be impossible on the negative? This is an area of ignorance for me and I am asking genuinely: what is revisionist about HDR when used in a manner other than "SDR in an HDR container" for catalog films?

Its not about being impossible on the negative, because you can do virtually anything with the negative.

Its about being impossible to display in a theater in 1965. The filmmaker sets the cameras (all settings have tradeoffs), uses filters, adjusts lighting, captures the negative and then develops the negative all with the intended target of your eyes sitting in that theater in 1965. And at that time, the hardware was woefully incapable of producing anything remotely beyond SDR and the filmmaker knows this. Therefore logically the original intent cannot be anything greater than SDR as no target beyond SDR existed at that time. Hence anything beyond the SDR range must be revisionist for that time period.

If the filmmaker says 50 years later they love what HDR does for their film and they wish it could of looked that way originally (like Lucas says for his star wars revisions) its still revisionist even if current artist intent; the original intent was the decisions made for whatever was put up on that SDR screen in 1965.

[Staying Salty]

Originally Posted by geoff d

but i still loves it. Mostly.

[Show spoiler]mostly.jpg

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Its not about being impossible on the negative, because you can do virtually anything with the negative.

Its about being impossible to display in a theater in 1965. The filmmaker sets the cameras (all settings have tradeoffs), uses filters, adjusts lighting, captures the negative and then develops the negative all with the intended target of your eyes sitting in that theater in 1965. And at that time, the hardware was woefully incapable of producing anything remotely beyond SDR and the filmmaker knows this. Therefore logically the original intent cannot be anything greater than SDR. Hence anything beyond the SDR range must be revisionist for that time period.

If the filmmaker says 50 years later they love what HDR does for their film and they wish it could of looked that way originally (like Lucas says for his star wars revisions) its still revisionist even if current artist intent; the original intent was the decisions made for whatever was put up on that SDR screen in 1965.

But unless you're viewing a 1965 print with 1965 optics (lenses, light source, screen etc) then you're not seeing that exact same experience either. Everything. Is. Revisionist.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But unless you're viewing a 1965 print with 1965 optics (lenses, light source, screen etc) then you're not seeing that exact same experience either. Everything. Is. Revisionist.

Sure there is no perfect reproduction but HDR is like using crayons on the film, it makes things more revisionist than it needs to be. UHD is perfectly capable of delivering SDR (and better than BD due to WCG) if original intent is your goal.

[Show spoiler]couldnt resist

[Geoff D]

Crayons!!