HDR is crayons

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by 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?

Film projection was not true until late 2015 for you then?

And still today 95% of theaters show "not faithful" movies....

LOL

[infiniteCR]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

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.

Can encode it in whatever you want though if you are transferring it yourself, or creating the content. Wasn't thinking of any particular discs or disc rips. Anyhow, the original point still stands that the blanket statement about a particular dynamic range is pretty meaningless without all the other attributes related to an encode. I'm not advocating for SDR 2020. If I wanted to makeup whatever I wanted this format to be it'd be something more in line with my hardware, or hardware available, and preferred viewing environment. Something like 1,000nit 10 bit P3 color.

[Geoff D]

I know the point still stands, I've said as much in this thread several times.

[infiniteCR]

Alright, well I've found my last stand then

[StingingVelvet]

I think I'm going to go full Geoffy and stop caring about all this accuracy bullshit. Theater presentations look like shit anyway, honestly. Normal blu-ray destroys my local theater, let alone UHD. I haven't seen theatrical exhibition as the holy grail of movie presentation in at least a decade.

[Geoff D]

You never go Full Geoffy.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

Film projection was not true until late 2015 for you then?

And still today 95% of theaters show "not faithful" movies....

LOL

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You never go Full Geoffy.

[emailking]

Is he right that HDR is added in post, like 3D is to conversions?

[Black Sun]

HDR is crayons

[BrownianMotion]

Originally Posted by emailking

Is he right that HDR is added in post, like 3D is to conversions?

Yes, HDR is added in post production.

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You never go Full Geoffy.

I did once. Thought I was Tom Cruise there for a minute.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

I did once. Thought I was Tom Cruise there for a minute.

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by BrownianMotion

Yes, HDR is added in post production.

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.

3D conversion is a completely different animal where you are essentially creating fake offsets.

[Geoff D]

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.

3D conversion is a completely different animal where you are essentially creating fake offsets.

bingo ^

Both the SDR and the HDR are graded using the material that was originally shot (lest people need to be reminded that films were also colour timed using photochemical methods back in the day) with its inherent amount of extended colour & dynamic range, and as long as the HDR is part of that original decision-making process then it's no more or less revisionist than any other version, particularly when you consider the sheer amount of theatrical deliverables that many big-budget movies have to create these days like 2D, 3D 4.5fL, 3D 7fL, IMAX Xenon & IMAX Laser (with 3D variants thereof), Dolby Vision (with 3D variant thereof), variable aspect, fixed aspect, it can quickly mount up!

If we're talking stuff regraded in HDR years after the fact (which would preclude it being "added in post") then the waters are FAR murkier in terms of creative intent. But I still loves it. Mostly.

[Ruined]

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.

3D conversion is a completely different animal where you are essentially creating fake offsets.

The negative also contains all of the information needed to generate a 3D conversion.

And just like you can create exaggerated 3d effect in post, you can create exaggerated HDR effect. Just like you can have little to no 3d effect you can have little to no HDR effect. And just like the 3D formats marketing encourages significant use of 3d even for movies that were intended to be viewed 2D, the HDR fornats marketing encourages significant use of HDR even for movies that were intended to be viewed SDR.

For older films HDR is revisionism much like 3D. Once you embrace fhis there are much less mental gymnastics needed to justify HDR use in older films The use of HDR in older films are to make them look more exciting, not to make them closer to original intent (SDR).

[Geoff D]

No it doesn't. That's why they have to literally paint in new objects or expand existing ones to create the forced aspect in 3D. Some conversion houses don't even use the existing 2D as the left eye, they actually create two brand new 'eyes' out of the 2D original, with all the additional jiggery-pokery that that entails.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

No it doesn't. That's why they have to literally paint in new objects or expand existing ones to create the forced aspect in 3D. Some conversion houses don't even use the existing 2D as the left eye, they actually create two brand new 'eyes' out of the 2D original.

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. Therefore, if one says "HDR is not revisionism because the negative captures all the info needed to generate an HDR grade" one can say exactly the same about 3d not being revisionism (which is ridiculous).

btw, they also "paint" things when restoring 2D films (see recent changeling release), or the alterations made for the evil dead BD.

[Geoff D]

Sure, but no-one ever said that doing that wasn't revisionist either.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

as long as the HDR is part of that original decision-making process then it's no more or less revisionist than any other version,

So that rules out all films made before HDR was a theatrical thing. I'm glad we are in agreement