HDR is crayons

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

SDR version was an even bigger revisionism as it did not capture colors faithfully nor contrast.

That was a product of the technical limitations imposed by the format, not of misuse of the format. There's revisionism that can't be avoided with a given format and revisionism that can be avoided- that's the difference.

[Brian81]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

It's all revisionism if you look at it fairly. The answer print of a photochemically-finished film is the record of how it should look. A lot of what you're seeing on UHD is beyond what could be presented on an answer print in terms of resolution, contrast and likely color too.

These "faithful to the negative" comments I've been seeing lately are curious for sure. Sounds like people just don't want to admit that they like something which is actually revisionist, and are slowly grasping onto any poor excuse to convince themselves they're a purist even though Blu-ray was already a couple steps ahead of what would have been seen theatrically.

I remember when Gremlins was put on BD, everyone complained it was soft and looked bad, but I thought it looked just like it would if one saw it in the theater. People have forgotten how chunky and soft some of these films looked.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

That was a product of the technical limitations imposed by the format, not of misuse of the format. There's revisionism that can't be avoided with a given format and revisionism that can be avoided- that's the difference.

Oh, there was plenty of misuse with SDR. Take a look at almost any older Blu-ray and the clipped highlights look soooo distracting and very non-filmic to be sure. In many cases, the remastered BD version alleviated this at least to a better extent.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Brian81

I remember when Gremlins was put on BD, everyone complained it was soft and looked bad, but I thought it looked just like it would if one saw it in the theater. People have forgotten how chunky and soft some of these films looked.

Yeah, but you can just tell on that old Blu-ray there is too much clipping - hence, my last comment about older Blus in general.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Brian81

I remember when Gremlins was put on BD, everyone complained it was soft and looked bad, but I thought it looked just like it would if one saw it in the theater. People have forgotten how chunky and soft some of these films looked.

Not everyone: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...s#post10168099

[jrcorwin3]

Whether they praise or condemn a release...I always have and always will roll my eyes at anyone who claims to faithfully remember the specific audio and video details of a film they saw in a random movie theater years ago.

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Not everyone: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...s#post10168099

I always thought it looked "soft" too but reading your comments here (and comparing the Blu-ray screenshots to the DVD on caps-a-holic) it actually looks like it does hold up rather well, even for an ancient Blu-ray with a VC-1 encode. The image is tighter and grain is actually apparent on the blu compared to the DVD. Looks like there's a bit of distortion too on the DVD.

My guess is this will probably (hopefully) get a 4K release next year with it being the 35th anniversary.

Now I wanna watch Gremlins...

~Matt

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

It's all revisionism if you look at it fairly. The answer print of a photochemically-finished film is the record of how it should look. A lot of what you're seeing on UHD is beyond what could be presented on an answer print in terms of resolution, contrast and likely color too.

These "faithful to the negative" comments I've been seeing lately are curious for sure. Sounds like people just don't want to admit that they like something which is actually revisionist, and are slowly grasping onto any poor excuse to convince themselves they're a purist even though Blu-ray was already a couple steps ahead of what would have been seen theatrically.

I agree with this. There obviously is nothing perfectly 100% faithful unless you have the original reels, though there are definitely levels of revisionism, too.

I do think people have been conditioned to think revisionism is bad, thus embracing a format that at its core for older films can be highly revisionist - especially when its main marketing drive is based on revisionism (HDR) - creates cognitive dissonance. Ive noticed the same thing about discussing where responsible DNR use can actually be beneficial for problematic masters especially at 4k res with HDR pass; people have an almost violent mental reaction to this idea, yet sometimes they somehow are ok with "grain management" - which uses DNR to manage grain, but doesn't have the stigma the term DNR does attached to it. Again, cognitive dissonance.

I know I make a lot of provocative posts than many do not like, but often its simply to get people to think more independently about these things rather than just having an often highly contradictory herd mentality.

The irony is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with liking a revisionist product better. For some movies I often have multiple copies when one seems more likely to be "intent" while another is obviously revisionist but also more pleasing to me in some ways. Again, there is no problem with this.

RAH probably does not like the pressure to use HDR and provide a revisionist product; but on the other hand if he refuses revisionism he may not be hired. It is too bad including both 4k SDR and HDR versions wasnt so expensive, as this would address both the revisionism issue and also give projector owners a version that doesn't require the extreme tonemapping HDR does.

[MiName]

Originally Posted by jrcorwin3

Whether they praise or condemn a release...I always have and always will roll my eyes at anyone who claims to faithfully remember the specific audio and video details of a film they saw in a random movie theater years ago.

Doesn't make it inaccurate.

[alexanderg823]

Wow it's crazy this thread is still going. I don't even understand what there is to talk about. HDR is just a bigger canvas to paint the picture on, I really don't get why anyone would be against people having more tools at their disposal at home to faithfully reproduce the original DP intent.

Is this some liberal conspiracy of haters to block HDR to save content creators from themselves or something? Sure some editors will use HDR to create something far off from the original intent with an HDR revision. Others won't. Either way, it's not the fault of HDR, it's the fault of the people using the tool. But it seems to be an objective fact that HDR provides tools that can paint a copy of the original picture much more faithfully than SDR could ever hope to.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by alexanderg823

Wow it's crazy this thread is still going. I don't even understand what there is to talk about. HDR is just a bigger canvas to paint the picture on, I really don't get why anyone would be against people having more tools at their disposal at home to faithfully reproduce the original DP intent.

Is this some liberal conspiracy of haters to block HDR to save content creators from themselves or something? Sure some editors will use HDR to create something far off from the original intent with an HDR revision. Others won't. Either way, it's not the fault of HDR, it's the fault of the people using the tool. But it seems to be an objective fact that HDR provides tools that can paint a copy of the original picture much more faithfully than SDR could ever hope to.

Again going back to a prior example I made, how would you feel if you bought a movie that said BRAND NEW DOLBY ATMOS SOUNDTRACK on the front, but then upon opening and playing it you discovered it was a mono soundtrack (center channel only) encoded in Dolby Atmos codec? Technically, the label on the front was correct, but many might feel ripped off.

Nearly all 4k UHD discs have a label in the front that says in big letters "HDR - higher brightness, deeper color, more lifelike". Studies have also shown that HDR is what sells product, not the actual 4k resolution...

So along comes RAH saying.for his restoration he doesnt want to utilize the benefits of HDR to be more faithful to intent. Studios have three options: 1) Dont use the HDR label, and risk consumer disinterest/mediocre reviews/poor sales 2) Use the HDR label but essentially use SDR in an HDR container (mono Atmos example), and risk consumer disappointment/mediocre reviews/poor sales 3) Forget about RAH and find someone else to restore the film that is willing to utilize the benefits of HDR, even if revisionist, when restoring the film.

I think most studios would go with option 3 and this is why RAH has publcially opened a dialogue about this.

[alexanderg823]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Again going back to a prior example I made, how would you feel if you bought a movie that said BRAND NEW DOLBY ATMOS SOUNDTRACK on the front, but then upon opening and playing it you discovered it was a mono soundtrack (center channel only) encoded in Dolby Atmos codec? Technically, the label on the front was correct, but many might feel ripped off.

Nearly all 4k UHD discs have a label in the front that says in big letters "HDR - higher brightness, deeper color, more lifelike". Studies have also shown that HDR is what sells product, not the actual 4k resolution...

So along comes RAH saying.for his restoration he doesnt want to utilize the benefits of HDR to be more faithful to intent. Studios have three options: 1) Dont use the HDR label, and risk consumer disinterest/mediocre reviews/poor sales 2) Use the HDR label but essentially use SDR in an HDR container (mono Atmos example), and risk consumer disappointment/mediocre reviews/poor sales 3) Forget about RAH and find someone else to restore the film that is willing to utilize the benefits of HDR, even if revisionist, when restoring the film.

Im think most studios would go with option 3 and this is why RAH has publcially opened a dialogue about this.

But we already have titles that don't really take much advantage of HDR and are essentially SDR in an HDR container. See Blade Runner 2049 and The Last Jedi. I don't really see what you mean.

Furthermore if we're talking restorations of catalog titles, I'm not sure here either because the target market for these releases are more than likely NOT going to be the consumer that wants their eyeballs blown out with some crazy new "enhanced" HDR grade either.


That being said, i think many people would be shocked just how good an HDR release subdued at ~100 nits can look with the enhanced bit depth and wider color alone. Blade Runner 2049 is a perfect example of this, although shot on digital. Film can still offer a substantial upgrade even without dazzling fireworks.

[CarlosMeat]

Originally Posted by Ruined

The irony is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with liking a revisionist product better. For some movies I often have multiple copies when one seems more likely to be "intent" while another is obviously revisionist but also more pleasing to me in some ways. Again, there is no problem with this.

I agree with this generally as long as the version which makes an effort to be as close to unrevised as possible is also available.

I will default to the extreme tealing of Blade Runner The Final Cut. All previous iterations had the colors red and blue the Final cut has only aqua and orange. Skin tones are orange red lipstick is orange tail lights are orange etc. Now I fully understand this is the Directors intent with the revision but if you look at Forest Gump, Bull Durham, and IMO Midnight Cowboy there has been significant color timing change all again toward Cyan.


We will very likely never see a more natural looking color as contemporary films in those days routinely had but only the revised version. One can say "it looks fine" which is what I hear from so many but in my heart of hearts knowing that films essentially never had those sorts of color timing until the last decade or so that this is revised and I personally don't like it.

I'd like to have both but of course we will not get it.

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by alexanderg823

Is this some liberal conspiracy of haters

...what?

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by CarlosMeat

I agree with this generally as long as the version which makes an effort to be as close to unrevised as possible is also available.

I will default to the extreme tealing of Blade Runner The Final Cut. All previous iterations had the colors red and blue the Final cut has only aqua and orange. Skin tones are orange red lipstick is orange tail lights are orange etc. Now I fully understand this is the Directors intent with the revision but if you look at Forest Gump, Bull Durham, and IMO Midnight Cowboy there has been significant color timing change all again toward Cyan.


We will very likely never see a more natural looking color as contemporary films in those days routinely had but only the revised version. One can say "it looks fine" which is what I hear from so many but in my heart of hearts knowing that films essentially never had those sorts of color timing until the last decade or so that this is revised and I personally don't like it.

I'd like to have both but of course we will not get it.

The Final Cut of Blade Runner on UHD looks extremely close to the original prints, apparently it was graded to match the answer print or another valid reference.

Forrest Gump always had the "modern blockbuster" look. In fact I may have mentioned this years before the actual UHD was announced, maybe on this forum. I'm surprised
Paramount went back to this look for the UHD since they didn't with Saving Private Ryan which was strangely celebrated by sone "purists".

Criterion's Midnight Cowboy was graded based on a print approved by the director, DP and producer. I don't see why they'd remove certain elements that people assume to be revisionist when it's on the seemingly most authoritative print out there. Certainly looks a million times better than the MGM master, they'd just give everything the same colors back in the day and are some of the most revisionist masters ever because of it.

[CarlosMeat]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

The Final Cut of Blade Runner on UHD looks extremely close to the original prints, apparently it was graded to match the answer print or another valid reference.

Forrest Gump always had the "modern blockbuster" look. In fact I may have mentioned this years before the actual UHD was announced, maybe on this forum. I'm surprised
Paramount went back to this look for the UHD since they didn't with Saving Private Ryan which was strangely celebrated by sone "purists".

Criterion's Midnight Cowboy was graded based on a print approved by the director, DP and producer. I don't see why they'd remove certain elements that people assume to be revisionist when it's on the seemingly most authoritative print out there. Certainly looks a million times better than the MGM master, they'd just give everything the same colors back in the day and are some of the most revisionist masters ever because of it.

Once again you've come along to miss my point. Have you read the other posts.

I never said any of them didn't look great but in their own way. But they are revised Forest Gump came long before the Summer Block Buster look took hold as certainly Cowboy, Bull Durham and Blade Runner did.

To say that all previous Blade Runner versions (all) were graded one way then suddenly this one graded totally differently and in a way that film doesn't naturally grade too unless filtered and just coincidentally is so blatently teal is just as it originally looked is unsupportable. The director chose this intentionally for his own reasons. I just happen to not like it.

A far as intentional or not "updating" or not it is the owners choice but still revision.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

It's all revisionism if you look at it fairly. The answer print of a photochemically-finished film is the record of how it should look. A lot of what you're seeing on UHD is beyond what could be presented on an answer print in terms of resolution, contrast and likely color too.

These "faithful to the negative" comments I've been seeing lately are curious for sure. Sounds like people just don't want to admit that they like something which is actually revisionist, and are slowly grasping onto any poor excuse to convince themselves they're a purist even though Blu-ray was already a couple steps ahead of what would have been seen theatrically.

I wouldn't say I'm trying to justify anything, more just trying to find my peace with things. I definitely don't find normal blu-ray to be more accurate, mostly due to rec 709, so I'm left with trying to work with UHD and come to terms with how much I am bothered by revisionist concerns. Where I've come out on it is "as long as it's faithful to the general intended look I'm okay," which I think is the best we can do really. As Geoff often says outside of having Tarantino money and screening a print at home there will always be compromises, so we have to do the best with what we get.

For all the concerns folks raise with UHD there's no damn way anyone will convince me blu-ray is more accurate, mostly because of color. I can't get past the flat, digital and blanket color schemes of blu-rays anymore.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

For all the concerns folks raise with UHD there's no damn way anyone will convince me blu-ray is more accurate, mostly because of color. I can't get past the flat, digital and blanket color schemes of blu-rays anymore.

Sometimes i wonder if these BDs were sabotaged on purpose to facilitate a UHD double dip down the road. The difference between rec709 and dcip3 color space is not large enough to warrant some of the radical coloring differences we are seeing between BD and UHD. Or conversely, if the stylized color "blankets" are removed on UHD to make them look more colorful in order to fulfill the HDR marketing.

[BrownianMotion]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Sometimes i wonder if these BDs were sabotaged on purpose to facilitate a UHD double dip down the road. The difference between rec709 and dcip3 color space is not large enough to warrant some of the radical coloring differences we are seeing between BD and UHD. Or conversely, if the stylized color "blankets" are removed on UHD to make them look more colorful in order to fulfill the HDR marketing.

The differences between the color gamuts may not be as large, but you're forgetting to account for the differences in color volume that higher peak brightness produces. HDR can have a big impact on colors - it's not just the wider color gamut.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Sometimes i wonder if these BDs were sabotaged on purpose to facilitate a UHD double dip down the road. The difference between rec709 and dcip3 color space is not large enough to warrant some of the radical coloring differences we are seeing between BD and UHD. Or conversely, if the stylized color "blankets" are removed on UHD to make them look more colorful in order to fulfill the HDR marketing.

I sincerely doubt it.