HDR is crayons

[PopPunkNerd182]

I have to say, I'm thoroughly impressed a thread that started out with one of the worst posts ever grew to be 27 pages.

[mysticwaterfall]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

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

You obviously miss my point... obviously that would be dumb (even though to be fair, the 3d version of Wizard of Oz wasn't bad. But it doesnt replace the original, only forms a nice compliment) but so is sticking to an inferior version just because of some misguided belief of "original intent" and "preserving the experiance", when this well, pretty much impossible.

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

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

A ridiculous statement since the color and framerate information is forever gone from what was recorded for Citizen Kane, which is not the case with the extended highlight information.

Not to say that keeping things limited to the original theatrical projection isn't without merit, but then we could easily extend that to the spatial realm as well, meaning we should never scan anything but prints, or INs at best if counting the transfer from analog->digital as one generational loss. After all there are plenty of wires, wig meshes, dodgy matte paintings and other assorted effects where they fully counted on nothing incriminating being visible three generations down.

[LoSouL]

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.

Nah. I believe the math. Either way, "for the umpteenth time" I've already provided an argument that what you intend to do (the "target") and what you actually do (what's on the negatives) are two different things. That theater projection varies wildly as basic common sense, and others "for the umpteenth time" have shot down this idea that anything was ever SDR, or that projectors were never capable of doing anything blu-ray isn't.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by PopPunkNerd182

I have to say, I'm thoroughly impressed a thread that started out with one of the worst posts ever grew to be 27 pages.

That and the fact that its gotten quite a few pairs of undies tied into impossible knots is also quite funny.

Ive been lapping up the entertainment coming from both camps. Lets just watch the movies and enjoy the content, eh boys & gals?

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by sentinel-fine

May I ask how do you send SDR BT.2020 to your projector?

Tonemapped UHD player output > HD FURY (EDID fake/HDCP strip) > projector user memory w/ custom CMS & gamma settings.

I don't like relying on third party hardware, but only way to do it until a 4K UHD/HDR/BT2020 projector that meets my requirements is released. Hoping I like one of the ones released this quarter...

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by mysticwaterfall

You obviously miss my point... obviously that would be dumb (even though to be fair, the 3d version of Wizard of Oz wasn't bad. But it doesnt replace the original, only forms a nice compliment) but so is sticking to an inferior version just because of some misguided belief of "original intent" and "preserving the experiance", when this well, pretty much impossible.

It is pretty much impossible to preserve original intent completely, but why not try to get as close as one can?

Also, why would you perceive SDR BT2020 as an "inferior version" if its closer to original intent? Because it reveals less of what is captured on the negative? Do you also prefer watching the 1.37:1 full frame versions of movies originally intended to be exhibited in 1.85:1 since 1.37:1 full frame exposes more of the negative information?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Ruined

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.

This is at least our third go-round on the matter; he’s not listening.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by sentinel-fine

So, without the HD Fury the player would output SDR only in BT.709?

Yes, because everything in the chain during hdmi handshake without EDID spoofing need to agree on something they can all accept and display based on the limitations of the hardware or hdmi revision. Youd want to get hdmi 2.0a all around minimum for bt2020 sdr transmission.

That doesn't mean you cant do it though, in fact if your projector's gamma and CMS are flexible enough there is no issue even sending a HDR signal to an SDR projector, again with the help of an hdfury device.

But honestly i dont like relying on third party hardware like that, so really that type of setup would be a good temporary fix until one can get a projector that can accept it all natively.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

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

Nothing, really. A projector is a metal box with gears that transports the film, with a lamp housing attached at the back that shines light that goes to a lens attached at the front of the projector. Like I said the light valve, the "imager", the thing that controls the image you see on screen is the film. A 35mm projector "of the time" be it 30s 50s 90s 2020s would look basically the same with the same film, if it had a excellent optic. The main thing that would alter the image on a projector would be if you use a bad lens or a good lens. I don't know where this notion of projectors of the era changing the image or limiting it comes from, like if they the were digital TV models that change features and panels every year. The main change was Carbon Arc being replaced by the easier Xenon and the changing of reels replaced by the easier platter systems.

A movie print from the 30s or 60s (not faded) still looks the same on a projector today.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

A ridiculous statement since the color and framerate information is forever gone from what was recorded for Citizen Kane, which is not the case with the extended highlight information.

Not to say that keeping things limited to the original theatrical projection isn't without merit, but then we could easily extend that to the spatial realm as well, meaning we should never scan anything but prints, or INs at best if counting the transfer from analog->digital as one generational loss. After all there are plenty of wires, wig meshes, dodgy matte paintings and other assorted effects where they fully counted on nothing incriminating being visible three generations down.

I've led with that plenty of times before, it doesn't seem to register as being supercalisacrilicious though for some reason. The best you'd EVER see up on screen is a 2nd generation element (showprint minted direct from the negative, 70mm blowup direct from 35, 70mm print from a 65 A/B original etc) and that in itself can hit the resolution quite a bit, not to mention the inherent instability of the sprockets 'n' gears which subtly leeches off more resolving power during projection.

Again, I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right but people who screech about whatever latest revisionism have been partaking of some other form of it in one way or another for many years already. It all depends on what revisionism irks us more than others, which is down to the mercurial majesty of us hooman beans.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Nothing, really. A projector is a metal box with gears that transports the film, with a lamp housing attached at the back that shines light that goes to a lens attached at the front of the projector. Like I said the light valve, the "imager", the thing that controls the image you see on screen is the film. A 35mm projector "of the time" be it 30s 50s 90s 2020s would look basically the same with the same film, if it had a excellent optic. The main thing that would alter the image on a projector would be if you use a bad lens or a good lens. I don't know where this notion of projectors of the era changing the image or limiting it comes from, like if they the were digital TV models that change features and panels every year. The main change was Carbon Arc being replaced by the easier Xenon and the changing of reels replaced by the easier platter systems.

A movie print from the 30s or 60s (not faded) still looks the same on a projector today.

Except you left out the key bit of information that most projectors utterly fail at exceeding SDR on a screen the size of a commercial cinema sized screen.

HDR BT2020 commercial cinema projectors of today are 60,000 lumens, 1,000,000:1 contrast. Good luck finding that 50 years ago.

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Except you left out the key bit of information that most projectors utterly fail at exceeding SDR on a screen the size of a commercial cinema sized screen.

HDR BT2020 commercial cinema projectors of today are 60,000 lumens, 1,000,000:1 contrast. Good luck finding that 50 years ago.

Really, dude. Must we...

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

Really, dude. Must we...

Yes, it's the HDR is crayons way.

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Again, I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right but people who screech about whatever latest revisionism have been partaking of some other form of it in one way or another for many years already. It all depends on what revisionism irks us more than others, which is down to the mercurial majesty of us hooman beans.

Fair enough. I mostly agree. But when these so-called purists are hit with the stumbling block of their philosophy with the question 'Why are you watching the TV show Star Trek: Original Series on blu-ray in HD when it's "intent" was to be displayed on CRT in SD over analog broadcast? Revisionist SDR blu-ray!!

They'll instead of reflect on their moving goal post logic, just pivot to some other nonsense point they think they have standing on; which they've already ridden into the brown dust of a mad max HDR scene...

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Except you left out the key bit of information that most projectors utterly fail at exceeding SDR on a screen the size of a commercial cinema sized screen.

HDR BT2020 commercial cinema projectors of today are 60,000 lumens, 1,000,000:1 contrast. Good luck finding that 50 years ago.

You have a dissonance where you equate high brightness with high dynamic range. As pointed out before, SDR at 10000 nits or 10 nits is still SDR, or HDR at 10000 nits or 10 nits is still HDR. The brightness of the image doesnt change the RANGE. A 4 x 6" photo print has the same dynamic range seen in 30000 nits in sunlight as in the interior of a building. The sunlight doesn't make it HDR. A 1000000:1 HDR image at 10000 nits or 10 nits is still a 1000000:1 HDR image.


The other notion that you have repeatedly repeated and asserted is that that film (prints) can't exceed SDR. What is your source of this. What is SDR range.



Btw your BT2020 comercial projector DR spec is 20 f/stops or a dLog of 6. If it's to reproduce HDR fully that has 13.3 f/stops below the diffuse white or dLog of 4

[MisterXDTV]

To be honest, there was a simple solution for this problem but they couldn't deliver it:

- To use an HDR system directly backwards compatible with SDR. I mean a system where using metadata the player could output the correct SDR grade as intended. Something like a "reverse Dolby Vision layer"

They couldn't find a way to do it so the HDR->SDR conversion depends entirely on the UHD BD Player with no TRUE standard in place. It's the biggest shortcoming of the format IMO

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

To be honest, there was a simple solution for this problem but they couldn't deliver it:

- To use an HDR system directly backwards compatible with SDR. I mean a system where using metadata the player could output the correct SDR grade as intended. Something like a "reverse Dolby Vision layer"

They couldn't find a way to do it so the HDR->SDR conversion depends entirely on the UHD BD Player with no TRUE standard in place. It's the biggest shortcoming of the format IMO

Or it's no shortcoming at all, because the studio system that original greenlit The Matrix and financed it have now delivered an HDR grade of that analog source? It'd an end-to-end pipeline. SDR is irrelevant to that process. Not a factor at all

SDR grading of the scan would not permit it to be delivered as accurately (luminance values from the scan data) as it was on 4K UHD. Period.

Maybe you just need to admit you have a digital projection bias, eh

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

You have a dissonance where you equate high brightness with high dynamic range. As pointed out before, SDR at 10000 nits or 10 nits is still SDR, or HDR at 10000 nits or 10 nits is still HDR. The brightness of the image doesnt change the RANGE. A 4 x 6" photo print has the same dynamic range seen in 30000 nits in sunlight as in the interior of a building. The sunling doesn't make it HDR. A 1000000:1 HDR image at 10000 nits or 10 nits is still a 1000000:1 HDR image.

True but it's purely theoretical. At the end of the day HDR10 but also Dolby Vision NEED high luminance (NOT brightness) screens to be fully appreciated: that's why you pay more for screens with more nits, it's the way it works

HDR on a 100 nits screen is pointless, you are better off with an SDR grade

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

Or it's no shortcoming at all, because the studio system that original greenlit The Matrix and financed it have now delivered an HDR grade of that analog source? It'd an end-to-end pipeline. SDR is irrelevant to that process. Not a factor at all

SDR grading of the scan would not permit it to be delivered as accurately (luminance values from the scan data) as it was on 4K UHD. Period.

Maybe you just need to admit you have a digital projection bias, eh

Never had a projector in my life.

But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of people have subpar experiences with HDR because you need a $1500 TVs MINIMUM to get good HDR performances.

People with projectors and normal screens are basically left out because a proper HDR->SDR conversion is not possibile using the information on the disc..

And that is a shortcoming, it's simply my opinion.