HDR is crayons

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Right, but with due fairness to the BDA they wanted to make sure that all implementations of HDR on UHD Blu-ray would be compatible at their core with any HDR TV, I'd be PISSED if I had a TV that did HDR10 only but the DV disc only contained an SDR layer and a DV layer, I'd be stuck with watching it in SDR! I suppose the DV layer could be busted down to 10-bit and stripped of the dynamic metadata to make it into a PQ10 signal that's broadly compatible with an HDR10 TV (as I think some streaming services have done?) but then that would subsequently be complained about as being a bit of a bodge-job so they're stuck whatever they do.

This did of course mean that the legacy owners of SDR 4K TVs (and indeed the 4K-curious 1080p owners) were left out in the cold - I should know, having bought my first 4K TV over five years ago - but, honestly, the market has overtaken that side of things pretty damned rapidly anyway. The only people left grousing about HDR are either those whose setups simply don't do it justice (not without a LOT of tweaking and/or globs of outboard tech) or those who see it as an anathema full stop, who would still be complaining about it anyway.

I understand, but personally I would have preferred that they did the DV layer and SDR layer and forgone the HDR10 layer for the following reasons:

Market adoption of DV would have been increased. I see this as a win/win because no matter how you slice it, it is by far the best HDR implementation. People can whine about manufacturer implementation all they want, but HDR10 is a scraps version of DV. The ONLY people that HDR10 benefited was the CE companies that didn't want to pay Dolby for all the years of work that went into HDR. Instead they went with a bandaid version that relies on information that is usually wrong and creates way too many issues, interpretations and deviations.

The SDR layer would have served all those without DV (until we saw more DV adoption) and would have gotten rid of all the BS tone mapping issues we see with stuff like projectors or 4K displays that don't have HDR. There would be no guess work or constant fiddling.

So IMHO everyone wins.

[MiName]

Originally Posted by guachi

So you've never watched an old catalog release in 4k, then?

I do own quite a number of them maybe 20 catalog titles. So far only have watched Blade Runner, River Kwai, Mummy 1&3, Jurassic Park, Jurassic World, Private Ryan, Christine. While I enjoyed some of the movies, only the Mummy 4k transfers were truly impressive. The rest were missing the fresh crisp 4k look that newer titles has. Some of them are worth purchasing more due to AQ than PQ. Blade Runner 1984 and Private Ryan are among my go to disc to test Atmos.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by MiName

I do own quite a number of them maybe 20 catalog titles. So far only have watched Blade Runner, River Kwai, Mummy 1&3, Jurassic Park, Jurassic World, Private Ryan, Christine. While I enjoyed some of the movies, only the Mummy 4k transfers were truly impressive. The rest were missing the fresh crisp 4k look that newer titles has. Some of them are worth purchasing more due to AQ than PQ. Blade Runner 1984 and Private Ryan are among my go to disc to test Atmos.

Blade Runner's UHD literally looks better than pretty much any modern UHD to me.

[Geoff D]

I'm guessing that "fresh crisp look" translates to "none of that nasty grain stuff"

[wxman2003]

Originally Posted by guachi

So you've never watched an old catalog release in 4k, then?

To be fair, a remastered 2K, that is done correctly, can look pretty darn impressive too.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

I understand, but personally I would have preferred that they did the DV layer and SDR layer and forgone the HDR10 layer for the following reasons:

Market adoption of DV would have been increased. I see this as a win/win because no matter how you slice it, it is by far the best HDR implementation. People can whine about manufacturer implementation all they want, but HDR10 is a scraps version of DV. The ONLY people that HDR10 benefited was the CE companies that didn't want to pay Dolby for all the years of work that went into HDR. Instead they went with a bandaid version that relies on information that is usually wrong and creates way too many issues, interpretations and deviations.

The SDR layer would have served all those without DV (until we saw more DV adoption) and would have gotten rid of all the BS tone mapping issues we see with stuff like projectors or 4K displays that don't have HDR. There would be no guess work or constant fiddling.

So IMHO everyone wins.

But who released the freebie HDR10 version? Oh, that's right, the people who created it: Dolby. If they were so concerned about the state of play then maybe they should've held off creating a generic format using the PQ EOTF in the first place, forcing everyone pay for their wares right from the start - in which case the providers might have got into bed with another system entirely that, ironically enough, might've had an inherently more SDR-friendly approach e.g. HLG.

But they didn't hold off, they released HDR10 and they knew full well that no kind of system was going to be put in place as to how best to tone map it. Why, it's almost as if they knew people would then come queuing at their door to adopt Dolby Vision. They be like HDR crack dealers, doling out the samples to get the kids hooked, and by the very nature of that freebie system they were undercutting the chance to put the SDR/HDR-layered DV version onto UHD disc. As for consumer projectors, it doesn't help that they can't easily be certified for DV owing to the need to certify the projector and the screen in a specific environment. That in itself is a technological gap with ye almighty DV that no-one at Dolby seems too intent upon filling.

[Noremac Mij]

I’m about to enjoy some glorious HDR. I hope I don’t offend anyone here.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Blade Runner's UHD literally looks better than pretty much any modern UHD to me.

Blade Runner UHD honestly is my favorite of them all and I own quite a few.

[painted_klown]

One time I ate an entire cake before my friends had enough time to tell me there was a stripper in it.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by painted_klown

One time I ate an entire cake before my friends had enough time to tell me there was a stripper in it.

If you started from the bottom might not be that bad?

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But who released the freebie HDR10 version? Oh, that's right, the people who created it: Dolby. If they were so concerned about the state of play then maybe they should've held off creating a generic format using the PQ EOTF in the first place, forcing everyone pay for their wares right from the start - in which case the providers might have got into bed with another system entirely that, ironically enough, might've had an inherently more SDR-friendly approach e.g. HLG.

But they didn't hold off, they released HDR10 and they knew full well that no kind of system was going to be put in place as to how best to tone map it. Why, it's almost as if they knew people would then come queuing at their door to adopt Dolby Vision. They be like HDR crack dealers, doling out the samples to get the kids hooked, and by the very nature of that freebie system they were undercutting the chance to put the SDR/HDR-layered DV version onto UHD disc. As for consumer projectors, it doesn't help that they can't easily be certified for DV owing to the need to certify the projector and the screen in a specific environment. That in itself is a technological gap with ye almighty DV that no-one at Dolby seems too intent upon filling.

Also some studios were still having trouble getting Dolby Vision to work right on disc somewhat recently, right? They were in a sort of rush to get UHD out there as a format, so they likely didn't want to wait around for another year or two for Dolby Vision on disc to get perfected.

Also I chuckled at "Dolby Vision is by far the best." Yes it is better, but on a quality TV the difference is not that big. It's the Walmart HDR televisions that are messing up HDR 10 implementation, IMO.

[painted_klown]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

It's the Walmart HDR televisions that are messing up HDR 10 implementation, IMO.

Yeah, I don't know how anybody who bought a TV at Wal-Mart could possibly have an enjoyable viewing experience. Unless you have an OLED and an Oppo, you may as well be watching regular BD.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

For you. For many others what's on the negative is what matters. We're not all trying to emulate theaters. Honestly normal blu-ray is better than my local theater.

My point is we should be trying to emulate theaters because that’s what the filmmakers did when they made the movies. If we can match the standard they produced to, we can correctly reproduce what they made. It’s the same reason we calibrate displays.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Not really. Commercial theatres are calibrated to a warmer greyscale. And that’s assuming the projector is even calibrated frequently. Then there is the issue with bulbs, maintenance etc. If we want to emulate the theatre experience we would need to make our panels dim and soften the image.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Not really. Commercial theatres are calibrated to a warmer greyscale. And that’s assuming the projector is even calibrated frequently. Then there is the issue with bulbs, maintenance etc.

The greyscale difference doesn’t really matter as long as it’s consistent. That’s what standards are for- so you can translate between formats and simple mathematics will get you there without having to second-guess or interpret what the artists were trying to do.

[ROSS.T.G.]

I get that but that’s one of the issues. Consistency. I understand what standards are for. I fully support standards which is why I purchased calibration software. For years my home theatre was setup to emulate a commercial theatre, after all it’s why I’ve owned 4 projectors. Some, including myself find commercial theatres severely lacking in PQ which is why we sacrifice size for quality and love what HDR does for catalogue titles. Movies I’ve seen in theatres like Saving Private Ryan, The Dark Knight, the Matrix, to name a few have never looked right in SDR. I don’t get very excited for new releases, it’s catalogue titles that do it for me. And don’t call me Ted Turner

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

I’m about to enjoy some glorious HDR. I hope I don’t offend anyone here.

HDR is unashamed

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

My point is we should be trying to emulate theaters because that’s what the filmmakers did when they made the movies. If we can match the standard they produced to, we can correctly reproduce what they made. It’s the same reason we calibrate displays.

We’re all doing it with HDR perfectly. Cheers!

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

We’re all doing it with HDR perfectly. Cheers!

Oh, Noremac, you truly are the gnik of the world.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

My point is we should be trying to emulate theaters because that’s what the filmmakers did when they made the movies. If we can match the standard they produced to, we can correctly reproduce what they made. It’s the same reason we calibrate displays.

Again though, that's YOUR metric. I'm just trying to point out that not everyone shares it. HDR and 4k negative scans have made me evaluate exactly what I care about and I've come down on the side of caring about what's on the negative and general filmmaker intent, rather than the guessed at specifics of what a random theatrical exhibition looked like. You can disagree and have different loyalties, obviously, but I'm just trying to point out that not every enthusiast agrees with you.

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

The greyscale difference doesn’t really matter as long as it’s consistent. That’s what standards are for- so you can translate between formats and simple mathematics will get you there without having to second-guess or interpret what the artists were trying to do.

His point was that no two theatrical exhibitions were identical. The framing would be different, the bulbs and such would create different brightness and warmth levels. Also more often than not people THINK they know what an original exhibition looked like only to be proven wrong when we see scans of print negatives. Aliens is a great example, where people screamed about revisionism over the teal only for print scans to show the movie was always teal. It was years of VHS and DVD that people actually wanted to adhere to.