HDR is crayons

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by Ruined

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.

What utter trash. It's been pointed out to you several times film is NOT SDR. SDR is something in the video domain. Film has it's own range depending on stocks, speeds, blahdy blah, etc. Whether a HDR grade is revisionist or not is an entirely different thing. But clearly you don't care and just go round in circles with your same flawed argument in using film as proof HDR is false.

[avs commenter]

I think HDR will only get better, especially DV in the coming years. Seems like there is still a lot kinks to be worked out with the home HDR experience.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

What utter trash. It's been pointed out to you several times film is NOT SDR. SDR is something in the video domain. Film has it's own range depending on stocks, speeds, blahdy blah, etc. Whether a HDR grade is revisionist or not is an entirely different thing. But clearly you don't care and just go round in circles with your same flawed argument in using film as proof HDR is false.

Show me a 1965 commercial movie theater projector capable of reproducing even 1% greater range than SDR, that would even begin to venture into HDR territory.

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Show me a 1965 commercial cinema projector capable of reproducing even 1% higher range than SDR.

Dynamic range isn't just how bright an image can go. But what's the point?

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

Dynamic range isn't just how bright an image can go. But what's the point?

Because if the hardware doesnt exist to reproduce the higher theoretical range you discuss in the intended theatrical venues, then the theatrical target the filmmaker is aiming for when the film is shot and developed logically would not be that higher theatrically-nonexistant theoretical range.

Even today, 50 years later, you need a six-figure RGB laser projector to truly tap into theatrical HDR. Vast, vast majority of theaters today are still SDR, just to demonstrate how challenging and expensive it is to reproduce HDR theatrically.

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Because if the hardware doesnt exist to reproduce the higher theoretical range you discuss in the intended theatrical venues, then the theatrical target the filmmaker is aiming for when the film is shot and developed logically would not be that higher theatrically-nonexistant theoretical range.

Even today, 50 years later, you need a six-figure RGB laser projector to truly tap into theatrical HDR. Vast, vast majority of theaters today are still SDR, just to demonstrate how challenging and expensive it is to reproduce HDR theatrically.

What's any of that got to do with film projection?

[ROSS.T.G.]

Lol

[Fat Phil]

Quoted posts - the achilles heel of blu-ray.com's 'ignore' feature.

[aetherhole]

dammit, I need to get some popcorn.

It looks like the forum has another Rocky.

"Fact. HDR is Crayons."

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Show me a 1965 commercial movie theater projector capable of reproducing even 1% greater range than SDR, that would even begin to venture into HDR territory.

Virtually any competent projector with a xenon arc lamp since the 1950s, or carbon arc prior to that, wipes the floor with SDR.

If you like SDR, there are plenty of DVDs around.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Show me a 1965 commercial movie theater projector capable of reproducing even 1% greater range than SDR, that would even begin to venture into HDR territory.

My 1960s era Kodachrome slides and 1950s IB Tech 16mm prints say hi.

[CarlosMeat]

Originally Posted by singhcr

My 1960s era Kodachrome slides and 1950s IB Tech 16mm prints say hi.

Bang !

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Because if the hardware doesnt exist to reproduce the higher theoretical range you discuss in the intended theatrical venues, then the theatrical target the filmmaker is aiming for when the film is shot and developed logically would not be that higher theatrically-nonexistant theoretical range.

Even today, 50 years later, you need a six-figure RGB laser projector to truly tap into theatrical HDR. Vast, vast majority of theaters today are still SDR, just to demonstrate how challenging and expensive it is to reproduce HDR theatrically.

The point is HDR is about more than high nits pop. This has been brought up repeatedly and you always ignore it. Honesty the most important aspect of HDR for me is the added contrast and better details in the dark portions of the image without having to brighten them. That stuff is on the negative, so...

Now if your goal is to emulate a 60's theater projection then sure, not many home video presentations are doing that (on any format). That's not everyone's goal though.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Now if your goal is to emulate a 60's theater projection then sure, not many home video presentations are doing that (on any format). That's not everyone's goal though.

Come to think of it, I've actually experienced this scenario.

I had an EIKI projector that was a 1960s era workhorse. The bulb was 20% brighter than standard spec, but the optics were original. It's way beyond SDR in terms of color gamut at least especially when viewing IB Tech prints. Again, as mentioned many times before, the projector doesn't do anything in terms of "SDR or HDR". It's a light source and transportation mechanism. A good lens will be nice and sharp and fast (i.e. doesn't rob the screen of light) but what really determines the dynamic range and color gamut of the movie is the damn film. Everything else just presents what's on that film as best as it possibly can if you have a nice setup.

A lot of arthouse theaters here use 35mm and 70mm projectors from the 1960s and 1970s as they haven't changed that much over the years. I've seen plenty of bright, sharp prints, even in black and white that have easily more rich color and sometimes a tad more dynamic range than what I see on BD.

When you also factor in that the premiere theaters of the day prided themselves on their presentations, what you saw then kicked the crap out of the majority of theaters today (polarizer in place, out of focus, etc).

[Noremac Mij]

The irony of this thread is that HDR is literally and virtually the only one and singular tool that can mimic film from any era at home, besides having an actual film projector. And there are still people who refuse to educate themselves and object to it. It’s the kind of stuff you just can’t make up.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

The point is HDR is about more than high nits pop. This has been brought up repeatedly and you always ignore it. Honesty the most important aspect of HDR for me is the added contrast and better details in the dark portions of the image without having to brighten them. That stuff is on the negative, so...

Now if your goal is to emulate a 60's theater projection then sure, not many home video presentations are doing that (on any format). That's not everyone's goal though.

What’s wrong with 60s projection? 99.9% of modern theaters can’t even approach 60s projection, yet alone some home video SDR. Back in those days, they projected beautifully shot 70mm and 35mm film. Not some ugly 2K DI.

[Dubstar]

I'm not about to go through some 23 pages of comments, but did anyone post the American Cinematographer Editorial regarding HDR and also not agreeing with the application/process - it was very enlightening and informative in how they see it as a detriment to the DP and director original intent. If I find it, I'll post it here.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Ruined

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

If the negative is not shot in 3-D it doesn't contain 3-D information.

If the negative is shot, it contains high dynamic range and wide color gamut and analog - defined and created by the great variation of silver grains and dye densities - high tonal depth.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Ruined

The target for older films was theatrical exhibition, which at the time did not exceed SDR, by far.

You keep saying that. Film was not even HDR, film was not even SDR. At the time. etc.


Can you please tell me from what year backward, film, the cinematographic process, prints, had less gamut and less contrast and this includes both silver and dye prints (Technicolor or Eastmancolor), that did not reach or exceed SDR (220 level 7.78 bits rec.709) home TVs.

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

I'm not about to go through some 23 pages of comments, but did anyone post the American Cinematographer Editorial regarding HDR and also not agreeing with the application/process - it was very enlightening and informative in how they see it as a detriment to the DP and director original intent. If I find it, I'll post it here.

I think even the pro HDR posters here are aware the application can be the sticking point in certain hands.

Generally though, in my small collection I haven't seen any true film transfer looking to be unnaturally boosted. DIs, yes, but not film. Even with DIs they should ideally just be using the container to hold the full P3 space, maybe with a grading tweak for optimisation. Dodgy ones seem to be in the minority.

Articles like that are very useful as a warning, hopefully many in the industry took it on board.