HDR is crayons

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Perhaps. Or, it will be Marketing's call.

Yep, it may be. But then it begs the question:

Would you prefer the SDR 4K grade of one of the most well respected film restoration experts...

...or marketing's HDR call?


Before you answer, remember: HDR is crayons

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Yep, it may be. But then it begs the question:

Would you prefer the SDR 4K grade of one of the most well respected film restoration experts...

...or marketing's HDR call?


Before you answer, remember: HDR is crayons

I would prefer the filmmaker or those closest to such (restoration guy in this case). But I am not sure if Universal marketing would allow a non HDR UHD BD or not on a big release. I guess we'll eventually find out.

However, speaking of older classics, The Bridge of the River Kwai with HDR looks quite good so I am not frightened by such.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Eh?

If you plan on



you’d better come well-armed.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Ruined

RAH may be trying to tell us....

I think most people stopped paying attention to RAH in/around 2012, e.g.



when they started thinking for themselves on all matters, for instance by doing their own investigations with regards to his opinions, e.g. from Sound&Vision -

“A direct 2K/4K scan comparison of a scene from The Odessa File on a 1920 x 1080 HD monitor was equally revealing. One close-up of a military officer showed gobs of additional fine detail in his beard that were simply washed out in the earlier 2K scan. Bottom line: New Blu-ray releases will continue to benefit from Hollywood’s migration to 4K masters, even as we await a native 4K delivery system to the home.”

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I think most people stopped paying attention to RAH in/around 2012

So now we have moved on to attempting to discredit the (by far) most knowledgeable and experienced person on the subject of 4K restorations of older films mentioned thus far in the thread because his conclusions on HDR for older films being revisionist trips up our cognitive dissonance; this dissonance caused by our desire for more HDR content alongside a conflicting desire to preserve original intent - which results in an impossible yet satisfying conclusion that HDR is somehow original intent before it even existed as a display target. Oh dear.

[ROSS.T.G.]

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by Ruined

... a conflicting desire to preserve original intent - which results in an impossible yet satisfying conclusion that HDR is somehow original intent before it even existed as a display target. Oh dear.

• SDR is a constrained target for displaying film scans accurately = true
  
• HDR has the capability as a tool for presenting more of it accurately than blu-ray = true
  
• Current discs out in the wild prove this theory holds, classics included = true
  
• Current discs out in the wild use judicious highlight data not possible in film projection = true
  
• So did the SDR blu-ray format, though = true
  
• Any of this breeds a "conflicting" desire for anyone with nuance in their brain = FALSE

[infiniteCR]

^mostly false. SDR with 10 bit 2020 has more potential to display the film accurately than HDR 10 bit 2020. HDR range is too wide and needs closer to 12 bit.

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by infiniteCR

SDR with 10 bit 2020 has more potential to display the film accurately than HDR 10 bit 2020.

You don't even have to know anything about the subject to know that's wrong.

[benhoppel]

Originally Posted by koberulz

You don't even have to know anything about the subject to know that's wrong.

Actually you do since mathematically it's obvious that with the same bits you can descibe a smaller range more accurately than a larger range. So if HDR were more accurate nonetheless you need to know the coding details that make it so.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by nick4amber

• SDR is a constrained target for displaying film scans accurately = true
  
• HDR has the capability as a tool for presenting more of it accurately than blu-ray = true
  
• Current discs out in the wild prove this theory holds, classics included = true
  
• Current discs out in the wild use judicious highlight data not possible in film projection = true
  
• So did the SDR blu-ray format, though = true
  
• Any of this breeds a "conflicting" desire for anyone with nuance in their brain = FALSE

Nope. Your argument only holds true if SDR BT2020 was not possible, and it is possible on UHD. Therefore the HDR - intent dissonance is real.

Originally Posted by infiniteCR

^mostly false. SDR with 10 bit 2020 has more potential to display the film accurately than HDR 10 bit 2020. HDR range is too wide and needs closer to 12 bit.

This is an interesting point I had not thought about. Im not sure practically how much impact it would have though.

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by infiniteCR

^mostly false. SDR with 10 bit 2020 has more potential to display the film accurately than HDR 10 bit 2020. HDR range is too wide and needs closer to 12 bit.

Okay... I'm comfortable operating in our reality, not the one you just constructed out of thin air; Since blu-ray was constrained to 8 bits in the spec, there is no denying that.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by nick4amber

Okay... I'm comfortable operating in our reality, not the one you just constructed out of thin air; Since blu-ray was constrained to 8 bits in the spec, there is no denying that.

What is preventing a UHD from being 10bit SDR BT2020? (aside from marketing)

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Ruined

What is preventing a UHD from being 10bit SDR BT2020? (aside from marketing)

Nothing, just marketing

[Deciazulado]

12pq10pq10gamma2.4.jpg

[Show spoiler]

[Geoff D]

PQ needs a minimum of 11 bits to avoid inherent banding owing to the smaller allocation of bit depth for highlights and lowlights in the PQ EOTF than in the equivalent gamma SDR encoding, yes. That doesn't mean to say that 10-bit PQ HDR is fundamentally borked at source, because it's not.

[Noremac Mij]

Serious questions to those who think SDR is more faithful to film than HDR: Moon landing was fake and Earth is flat, correct?

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

PQ needs a minimum of 11 bits to avoid inherent banding owing to the smaller allocation of bit depth for highlights and lowlights in the PQ EOTF than in the equivalent gamma SDR encoding, yes. That doesn't mean to say that 10-bit PQ HDR is fundamentally borked at source, because it's not.

According to the graph that would be for the Barten ramp threshold, where 10bit SDR would also fall short for most of its range. (And still doesn't have any highlight headroom!). For the Schreiber threshold according to the graph, below 1 nit, 10bitPQ is better, and above 1 nit it doesn't matter, both being below the threshold. (And still SDR doesn't have any highlight headroom) (Of which ,according to Kodak, there can be 13+ f/stops above 100 in the original image)

[infiniteCR]

Originally Posted by Ruined

What is preventing a UHD from being 10bit SDR BT2020? (aside from marketing)

Not going to find any on bluray, since has already been stated the spec uses 8 bit. But there are in reality video files not on bluray that are 4k 10 bit SDR transfers from film.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by infiniteCR

Not going to find any on bluray, since has already been stated the spec uses 8 bit. But there are in reality video files not on bluray that are 4k 10 bit SDR transfers from film.

They're not encoded in 2020 though, still 709. Some discs out there already have 4K 10-bit SDR 709 like the Italian/English Suspiria UHD.

While the UHD Blu spec does indeed have a provision for SDR 2020 it's not been used yet on a commercial disc AFAIK.