HDR is crayons

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Bourne1886

I felt like that that when I first got my Samsung KS55inch 7000 series. But after trial and error and pestering people on the forums I’ve got my set up just as I want it. It took a while but I got there. I think maybe my expectations were all wrong because I didn’t fully understand HDR.

Not all discs are made equal unfortunately so there will be the odd bummer here and there. HDR isn’t always wow it’s more like clouds or the sun not being clipped out and pictures looking more natural etc than blurays.

Good luck on your 4k hdr journey hope you get it just the way you want it.

Which is exactly why what Robert Harris wrote is 50% nonsense.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Which is exactly why what Robert Harris wrote is 50% nonsense.

What he wrote isn't nonsense if the HDR grade is interfering with the intended/anticipated look of the movie. Movies are designed, shot and graded in accordance with the limitations of the production and presentation formats of their times. A sun that appears more "natural" on the shot negative is not necessarily meant to look that "natural" when the movie is screened.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

What he wrote isn't nonsense if the HDR grade is interfering with the intended/anticipated look of the movie. Movies are designed, shot and graded in accordance with the limitations of the production and presentation formats of their times. A sun that appears more "natural" on the shot negative is not necessarily meant to look that "natural" when the movie is screened.

What Robert Harris wrote is indeed mostly nonsense. HDR is just a tool and a fabulous one at that. By that logic, TVs (and everything else at home) are evil too. As movies were meant to be projected. So it’s not as intended!

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

What Robert Harris wrote is indeed mostly nonsense. HDR is just a tool and a fabulous one at that.

He wasn't talking about the tool in the abstract; he was talking about the application of that tool to projects that were created with the use of a more limited set of tools. In some cases, the application of this tool to those projects can produce a completely inappropriate result.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

He wasn't talking about the tool in the abstract; he was talking about the application of that tool to projects that were created with the use of a more limited set of tools. In some cases, the application of this tool to those projects can produce a completely inappropriate result.

Every single tool can be misused. What am I missing here? Many movies were released when digital wasn’t around and we all know digital can be severely misused. Should we boycott? Harris’ logic does not compute.

Obviously we should voice our concerns if HDR is abused, but so far, the only thing it has done is make movies at home look indistinguishable from projected film. The irony!

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

Every single tool can be misused.

Of course. And when a new, exciting tool becomes available, there can be a tendency to overuse it. I think that's all Mr. Harris was warning about.

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Of course. And when a new, exciting tool becomes available, there can be a tendency to overuse it. I think that's all Mr. Harris was warning about.

And like I said, to think that studios (that funded his entire field of work, btw) would just misuse a shiny new tool, and especially for classic movies they spent 10+ million dollars getting it prepared in the digital age is insulting to not only them, but to the video consultants and other restoration gurus that have populated the landscape in the past 25 years.

The mindless fear-mongering rhetoric is absolutely and rightly being criticized in this thread. As that of a dinosaur operator past his prime, out of touch, and getting irrelevant with each format and it's advancement into our homes.

Like many have echoed, we are already past replicating the cinema experience/intent. It gets muddy right off the bat knowing most theatres in traditional projection softened their projected image. Most were 4th generation quality. And directors knew all this so they filmed for that in mind. So what exactly is 'intent' is up to the artists of today to respect, but not replicate, as that would be unpleasing by the standards we go by...

Has anyone cried foul on Bridge on the River Kwai? I'm told it's impressive with tasteful highlights and colour reproduction but stays faithful. And that is an indication how all of the classics are gonna be handled? Not unnecessarily neutered! I for one hope so

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

Every single tool can be misused. What am I missing here? Many movies were released when digital wasn’t around and we all know digital can be severely misused. Should we boycott? Harris’ logic does not compute.

Obviously we should voice our concerns if HDR is abused, but so far, the only thing it has done is make movies at home look indistinguishable from projected film. The irony!

Maybe think of this analogy to see what RAH is getting at:

Filmmaker creates movie with mono soundtrack, this is his intention.

Studio markets the 4k uhd with "NEW Dolby Atmos soundtrack." The studio *can* very easily encode a Dolby Atmos soundtrack with only center channel information, perfectly replicating the mono soundtrack... But will they? And if not, why not? Will consumer expectations of what an Atmos track "should" sound like influence the studios decision to deviate from original intention? Lets assume for this example the only soundtrack they could include was the Atmos for some reason.

So if a filmmaker creates movie in SDR and this is his intention...

Studio markets the 4k uhd with "NEW HDR color" etc, would they not be pressured to make the HDR significantly different than the SDR even if it deviates from intention for the same reason they wouldnt release Atmos encoded with only center channel info? Remember unlike a soundtrack its not financially feasible to include both a 4k sdr and hdr grade, and studies showed HDR is what sells 4k sets and discs moreso than 4k resolution itself.

[brainofj72]

There is an extremely small number of movies “created” in SDR, though. As has been said repeatedly, SDR cannot capture the full dynamic range of 35mm film.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

There is an extremely small number of movies “created” in SDR, though. As has been said repeatedly, SDR cannot capture the full dynamic range of 35mm film.

Correct but when you film or photograph something, you film it with development & display limitations in mind - at least any competent photographer/cinematographer does. There are tons of tradeoffs you must make when deciding how to capture an image, and having an idea of what your final target image will look like dramatically influences how you set up the camera, use lighting, etc. So to change that target some 30+ years later with added pressure to make HDR version look different due to consumer expectations is an obvious threat to original intent, this is what RAH is concerned about.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Good to see the nonsense threads are thriving today.

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Correct but when you film or photograph something, you film it with development limitations in mind - at least any competent photographer/cinematographer does. There are tons of tradeoffs you must make when deciding how to capture an image, and having an idea of what your final target image will look like dramatically influences how you set up the camera, use lighting, etc. So to change that target some 30+ years later with added pressure to make HDR version look different due to consumer expectations is an obvious threat to original intent, this is what RAH is concerned about.

Just to clarify, you dont actually have a proper 4K HDR set-up, correct? You’re just talking about this based on...theories?

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

Just to clarify, you dont actually have a proper 4K HDR set-up, correct? You’re just talking about this based on...theories?

Correct. You do not need to own something to make obvious logical conclusions about it. Can you conclude a cassette tape is not made of cheese without being able to play back a cassette tape?

[brainofj72]

lol, okay, dude. Let me know when you’ve actually seen HDR for yourself and we’ll talk.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

lol, okay, dude. Let me know when you’ve actually seen HDR for yourself and we’ll talk.

Guess I (and RAH) won that debate.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by nick4amber

And like I said, to think that studios (that funded his entire field of work, btw) would just misuse a shiny new tool, and especially for classic movies they spent 10+ million dollars getting it prepared in the digital age is insulting to not only them, but to the video consultants and other restoration gurus that have populated the landscape in the past 25 years.

No, it isn't- Mr. Harris has seen from first-hand experience (as have I) that they do it all the time! Just as one example, I can't count the number of releases I've seen that don't include the original audio, but only a modern re-mix. This industry often leaps at the chance to "modernize" or otherwise "enhance" older material when shiny new whizbang tools come along. It's very precedented.

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Guess I (and RAH) won that debate.

Whatever makes you feel better.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

No, it isn't- Mr. Harris has seen from first-hand experience (as have I) that they do it all the time! Just as one example, I can't count the number of releases I've seen that don't include the original audio, but only a modern re-mix. This industry often leaps at the chance to "modernize" or otherwise "enhance" older material when shiny new whizbang tools come along. It's very precedented.

Its more than that even when it comes to 4k HDR. In this case, the studio financially can't justify including the 4k SDR alongside the 4k HDR - unlike having multiple soundtracks which is financially possible. And if the HDR looks no different than the SDR to meet filmmaker intent, the product fails to meet consumer expectations of HDR - just like an Atmos soundtrack with only center channel info would fail to meet consumer expectations of Atmos.

So the studio (and by extension, RAH if he wants to get paid) is trapped to make HDR version look significantly different than SDR even if that is not filmmaker original intent, especially when studies show the HDR branding is what sells the product.

So this is likely what RAH is upset about.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

Whatever makes you feel better.

He has a point.

[bradnoyes]

"The only way to really judge the PQ on any film is to simply not watch it. Once you've seen the film, your judgement is clouded. That's why I only watch movies with my eyes closed. Same thing with books and stuff."

Ruined, 2018