HDR is crayons

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by LoSouL

Deciazulado has given you literal math that shows SDR has been incapable of fully reproducing the potential visual information contained on film and that, of the two, only HDR is a container capable of tendering it. You can put all the color you want into SDR and it won't provide the required range.

For the umpteenth time, the exposure latitude of film is not the appropriate measure. SDR is capable of reproduing what a theatrical projector of the time could and that is the target.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

35mm film negatives have up to 13 stops of dynamic range. HDR has roughly 17 while standard Blu-Ray has only 6. Why anyone would prefer to have highlights and black levels clipped is beyond my comprehension. Yes the format has a higher range than what would have been projected but IMO that doesn’t make it less accurate. All a projector is, is a means to display what was captured from the camera to a large audience. We’re finally in a world where our displays achieve better than cinema picture and people still complain. People aren’t forced to adopt the format, don’t like HDR then stick with sdr. I find it amusing that many of the naysayers of the format choose to ignore the audio side of the format. If the theatrical exhibition is the only way to measure what should be seen or heard then I assume those have chosen subwoofers that can’t dig lower than 25-30hz since commercial theatres can’t even though a movie soundtrack contains bass lower than what theatres can produce.

Did Ted Turner, himself, write this eloquent defense of colorization? Seriously, it’s the same argument. If you can understand the “why wouldn’t you” of colorization, you can apply the very same logic here.

[newtonp01]

I hate to be "this guy"... but we literally have tons of 4K HDR content now, 99.99% of which looks better than the comparable BD with extended dynamic range that clips in SDR. The information is clearly there, without any doubt.

So why are we still arguing?

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Did Ted Turner, himself, write this eloquent defense of colorization? Seriously, it’s the same argument. If you can understand the “why wouldn’t you” of colorization, you can apply the very same logic here.

You’re God damn right it’s the same argument. This thread is one big pixelated bukkake.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

For the umpteenth time, the exposure latitude of film is not the appropriate measure. SDR is capable of reproduing what a theatrical projector of the time could and that is the target.

You’re 100% wrong. Simple as that. And what does it mean, “projector of the time?”

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

For the umpteenth time, the exposure latitude of film is not the appropriate measure. SDR is capable of reproduing what a theatrical projector of the time could and that is the target.

Do you have some sources confirming this? I’d be interested in reading up, but I haven’t been able to find anything.

Also, I really don’t think I agree that era projector limitations should be the goal for “accuracy.” Intentionally bottlenecking the visual potential of an OCN based on speculation about how the movie might have looked on old projectors (which surely would have varied widely anyway) doesn’t seem like an “accurate” way to present old films.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

You’re 100% wrong. Simple as that. And what does it mean, “projector of the time?”

Nah the Doc is correct, its that cognitive dissonance and excitement over a new format that is causing people to wrestle so much with this mentally. Many are struggling with the concept that they are purchasing revisionist versions of films (its really not a big deal) after all those years of demanding OAR, original audio, original intent, etc, but there is no escaping HDR is revisionist for older films.

"Projector of the time" is self explanatory. It means at the time of release the commecial cinema theatrical hardware was 100% incapable of rendering HDR, thus a filmmaker would never have considered HDR dynamic range when making considerations in shooting and developing the film.

A filmmaker doesn't just turn on a camera and call it a day; there are tons of settings and tradeoffs that must be made on the camera itself, tons of tradeoffs in lighting and metering, and tons of tradeoffs in developing the film - to claim that now, 50 years later, going back and re-doing some of that process with a dynamic range higher than the filmmaker ever considered when originally shooting the film simply because "we can" *isn't* revisionist is mental gymnastics of the highest order.

Once again, 4K UHD format is more than capable of delivering the closest approximation of original intent to date for these older films via 4K SDR BT2020. It just hasn't been used for marketing reasons (studios feel people are more willing to pay for the "shiny" of HDR than the accuracy of original intent, and so far studios have been proven mostly right).

[brainofj72]

You keep mentioning “cognitive dissonance” but it really doesn’t seem like many people here are “struggling” with anything. We’ve already seen the light. We’re HDR believers.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

You keep mentioning “cognitive dissonance” but it really doesn’t seem like many people here are “struggling” with anything. We’ve already seen the light. We’re HDR believers.

It appears you don't know what cognitive dissonance is based on this statement.

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by Ruined

It appears you don't know what cognitive dissonance is based on this statement.

Uh, sure. Once again, whatever makes you feel better.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

Uh, sure. Once again, whatever makes you feel better.

Ways to reduce dissonance:

1. Eliminate the behavior causing dissonance
-"I'll just stop buying 4K UHD releases of older films." (Not going to happen with many)

2. Acquire new information that outweigh the dissonant thoughts
-"But, the negative has more dynamic range than SDR, therefore HDR is closer to original intent"
-"The original theatrical target the filmmaker considered at the time of filmmaking is outweighed by the potential to get more information off the negative"

3. Reduce the importance of the cognitions
-"These days I just want the best possible quality on my TV and 4K HDR has delivered that so far."
-"4K HDR is better looking than Blu-ray. We've already seen the light. We're HDR believers. "

[brainofj72]

Cool

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Nah the Doc is correct, its that cognitive dissonance and excitement over a new format that is causing people to wrestle so much with this mentally. Many are struggling with the concept that they are purchasing revisionist versions of films (its really not a big deal) after all those years of demanding OAR, original audio, original intent, etc, but there is no escaping HDR is revisionist for older films.

"Projector of the time" is self explanatory. It means at the time of release the commecial cinema theatrical hardware was 100% incapable of rendering HDR, thus a filmmaker would never have considered HDR dynamic range when making considerations in shooting and developing the film.

A filmmaker doesn't just turn on a camera and call it a day; there are tons of settings and tradeoffs that must be made on the camera itself, tons of tradeoffs in lighting and metering, and tons of tradeoffs in developing the film - to claim that now, 50 years later, going back and re-doing some of that process with a dynamic range higher than the filmmaker ever considered when originally shooting the film simply because "we can" *isn't* revisionist is mental gymnastics of the highest order.

Once again, 4K UHD format is more than capable of delivering the closest approximation of original intent to date for these older films via 4K SDR BT2020. It just hasn't been used for marketing reasons (studios feel people are more willing to pay for the "shiny" of HDR than the accuracy of original intent, and so far studios have been proven mostly right).

No. Sorry. You lack elementary knowledge. And the stuff you write is embarrassing. And you don’t want to listen to those smarter than you. That’s not a good character to have. But everyone knows what you’re doing here.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

No. Sorry. You lack elementary knowledge. And the stuff you write is embarrassing. And you don’t want to listen to those smarter than you. That’s not a good character to have.

Wow, an ad hominem attack, how unpredictable and convincing!

what you’re doing here.

...attenpting to improve the 4K UHD format by advocating for usage of BT2020 SDR when most appropriate instead of slapping HDR on everything because it sells better.

[smithb]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Ways to reduce dissonance:

1. Eliminate the behavior causing dissonance
-"I'll just stop buying 4K UHD releases of older films." (Not going to happen with many)

2. Acquire new information that outweigh the dissonant thoughts
-"But, the negative has more dynamic range than SDR, therefore HDR is closer to original intent"
-"The original theatrical target the filmmaker considered at the time of filmmaking is outweighed by the potential to get more information off the negative"

3. Reduce the importance of the cognitions
-"These days I just want the best possible quality on my TV and 4K HDR has delivered that so far."
-"4K HDR is better looking than Blu-ray. We've already seen the light. We're HDR believers. "

Sorry, but calling out "cognitive dissonance" on those that don't agree with you is lame and completely unjustified. There is no clear winner in this debate and no signs of discomfort in ones beliefs. Best to just argue the points and leave out the psychology.

[mysticwaterfall]

The argument that we should be limited to the technology of the time is ridiculous. That's like saying nobody should watch something like little house on the prairie on bluray because the TVs at the time couldn't display the information needed. So should we forever watch it on VHS to match the "original tv experiance" when a far superior version made from the original source exists? That's just dumb.

(If you dont like LHOTP sub another show... I figured I would pick something that had a great remaster but no "revisionism" like say, Star Trek. Even though I also think TNG looks great)

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by mysticwaterfall

The argument that we should be limited to the technology of the time is ridiculous. That's like saying nobody should watch something like little house on the prairie on bluray because the TVs at the time couldn't display the information needed. So should we forever watch it on VHS to match the "original tv experiance" when a far superior version made from the original source exists? That's just dumb.

(If you dont like LHOTP sub another show... I figured I would pick something that had a great remaster but no "revisionism" like say, Star Trek. Even though I also think TNG looks great)

Especially when technology of the time was significantly more capable than SDR. Even at a second rate cinema with the cheapest projector.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by mysticwaterfall

The argument that we should be limited to the technology of the time is ridiculous.

That’s why I watch Citizen Kane colorized, converted to HFR widescreen HDR 3D and mixed in Atmos!

[ROSS.T.G.]

Can you send me the Amazon link please and thx.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

Especially when technology of the time was significantly more capable than SDR. Even at a second rate cinema with the cheapest projector.

Uh, no. The vast majority of commercial cinemas even with today's superior technology can't exceed SDR limits, including in the cinemas owned by the richest theater chains. There is a small percentage of theaters today (i.e. Dolby Cinema) that can exceed SDR limits, but they use top notch technology with extremely costly RGB Laser projectors. I think you are mixing up WCG with HDR when they are two separate things even though they are commonly used in tandem on 4K UHD.