HDR is crayons

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

progress

There is progress and there is, simply, movement.

Billy Bean and his employers face competition that won’t stop until it eats their lunch; the movie industry only faces itself. If they don’t choose to apply HDR to old movies, they’ll just carry on the way they always have- selling new movies with HDR and old movies without HDR. Just like they sell new movies in color and old movies in black-and-white. There’s no compulsion to “adapt or die” here because progress comes from the new product, not from bastardizing the old.

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Your reaction is not uncommon to folks who wouldn't normally watch HDR on a direct-view display. Give it time...

I've watched A LOT of HDR on direct view. I've been using it for comparison stuff with my projector and work I'm doing with another manufacturer a lot. I just found this particular instance to be a bit overcooked (the average APL was very low, so the lights look particularly cooked IMHO). I'm sure others would love the effect though.

Trust me Geoff, when I can replace my projection system with something that performs like my OLED at a similar size, I'm ALL for it.

[alexanderg823]

Originally Posted by BrownianMotion

Then there are shows like Sneaky Pete (their second best original) and Man in the High Castle, which look way too consistent from one episode to the other. The color grading is drastically different for some episodes even within the same season, which is very weird.

I can't speak for newer shows, but older Prime shows experimented quite a bit with different HDR metadata for different episodes within the same season - this different metadata could be causing your TV to behave differently depending on the episode.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

I've watched A LOT of HDR on direct view. I've been using it for comparison stuff with my projector and work I'm doing with another manufacturer a lot. I just found this particular instance to be a bit overcooked (the average APL was very low, so the lights look particularly cooked IMHO). I'm sure others would love the effect though.

Trust me Geoff, when I can replace my projection system with something that performs like my OLED at a similar size, I'm ALL for it.

Fair enough Kris.

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

There is progress and there is, simply, movement.

Billy Bean and his employers face competition that won’t stop until it eats their lunch; the movie industry only faces itself. If they don’t choose to apply HDR to old movies, they’ll just carry on the way they always have- selling new movies with HDR and old movies without HDR. Just like they sell new movies in color and old movies in black-and-white. There’s no compulsion to “adapt or die” here because progress comes from the new product, not from bastardizing the old.

That's overly presumptuous of you. You can't know that, nor assert it. This is not an opinion from authority. My assertion is that in business you do indeed need to adapt or die. That is a literal principle.

And links to the aspect of having a product not meeting with the spec/expectation of consumers, you know the ones who buy? Unless you somehow carve a niche that can counter the change. This is not applicable here as the market for 4K UHD classic movies is not analogous to the market for Vinyl, let's say.

I think you all too casually pivoted the innovation paradigm leveled at you and slapped the bastardization tag on it. Based on strawmanning some extremist scenario I never said, literally inserting a new actor into an old movie lolol You're just being extreme to try discredit a very logical stance.

[nick4Knight]

And, again. I don't see why there is magical qualifying of different celluloid eras?? Because I never hear this revisionism bunk insisting we should scrap the HDR grade on The Matrix? Not a lick of difference than the scans of "classics" currently in the pipe or in future.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

That's overly presumptuous of you. You can't know that, nor assert it. This is not an opinion from authority. My assertion is that in business you do indeed need to adapt or die. That is a literal principle.

In my hypothetical, it's a moot principle. The content providers I'm talking about, collectively, represent an effective virtual monopoly on movies. If they adopt an approach, as a group, there is literally no one who can come along and best them with an adapted business model.

Here's a comparison: with only extremely rare exception, movies on UHD disc are presented in their original aspect ratios, regardless of the shape of the displays they will be played back upon, right? This is the product of an industry-wide decision (or accumulation of decisions). In the same way, if the industry were to adopt a policy that "only movies designed for HDR will be released in HDR", consumers would only be able to buy discs not inappropriately HDR-ed, as today, we are only able to buy discs not inappropriately panned-and-scanned.

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

I think you all too casually pivoted the innovation paradigm leveled at you and slapped the bastardization tag on it.

And I would say that you all too casually duck the alteration/revisionism concern by re-labeling an inappropriate application of technology as "innovation" and "progress".

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

Based on strawmanning some extremist scenario I never said, literally inserting a new actor into an old movie lolol You're just being extreme to try discredit a very logical stance.

I can see your argument that my Brad Pitt analogy was an extreme one. On the other hand, part of my point is that both Brad Pitt and unintended dynamic range are inappropriate elements that were never intended to be seen in Lawrence of Arabia, so for the purpose of my position, there's really no difference between them. In for a penny (HDR), in for a pound (Brad).

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

I don't see why there is magical qualifying of different celluloid eras?? Because I never hear this revisionism bunk insisting we should scrap the HDR grade on The Matrix?

Do you want to hear it? I'll say it. I don't think an HDR re-grade is any more appropriate for The Matrix than it is for Lawrence of Arabia.

The only place I draw a line between eras is the same place the industry draws a line between eras. In other words, if the movie targeted non-HDR theatrical exhibition, it should not be graded into HDR. If the movie targeted HDR theatrical exhibition, it should be graded into HDR.

It ain't rocket surgery.

[mysticwaterfall]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

If they adopt an approach, as a group, there is literally no one who can come along and In the same way, if the industry were to adopt a policy that "only movies designed for HDR will be released in HDR", consumers would only be able to buy discs not inappropriately HDR-ed

Any movie can be "inappropriately HDR'ed" so having some arbitrary cut off on which movies can and can't have it is just plain silly. I don't think anybody is arguing that HDR could be widely misused, but not a single person in this thread has been able to give a real world example, just hypotheticals like Arabia. Some of the best 4K releases so far have been catalog titles with great use of HDR.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by mysticwaterfall

Any movie can be "inappropriately HDR'ed" so having some arbitrary cut off on which movies can and can't have it is just plain silly.

I'm not arguing for "some arbitrary" cut off; I'm arguing for the most clearly pre-defined cut off there is.

Was the movie designed for HDR theaters?

Yes = HDR

No = SDR

That's just as much an "arbitrary cut off" as you'd apply when determining whether or not a video should be in color.

Was it in color in theaters?

Yes = color

No = black & white

Opinions and interpretation literally don't enter into it.

[mysticwaterfall]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I'm not arguing for "some arbitrary" cut off; I'm arguing for the most clearly pre-defined cut off there is.

Was the movie designed for HDR theaters?

Yes = HDR

No = SDR

That's just as much an "arbitrary cut off" as you'd apply when determining whether or not a video should be in color.

Was it in color in theaters?

Yes = color

No = black & white

Opinions and interpretation literally don't enter into it.

Considering how few HDR theaters their actually are compared to non-HDR ones, one could argue that no movies are "designed for HDR".

Edit If we want to be like that, almost no theatrical movies are "designed for TV" or "designed for home projectors" so we shouldn't watch anything movie wise at home.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by mysticwaterfall

Considering how few HDR theaters their actually are compared to non-HDR ones, one could argue that no movies are "designed for HDR".

The movies that go into those HDR theaters are designed for HDR, though, so no, one could not argue that.

[LoSouL]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Was the movie designed for HDR theaters?

Yes = HDR

No = SDR

Opinions and interpretation literally don't enter into it.

The only movies designed for SDR were straight to video and/or made-for-TV.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by LoSouL

The only movies designed for SDR were straight to video and/or made-for-TV.

Incorrectamundo.

Semantics about anything ever really being “designed for SDR” aside, prior to the advent of HDR theaters, movies were not graded for high dynamic range viewing.

[LoSouL]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Incorrectamundo.

Semantics about anything ever really being “designed for SDR” aside, prior to the advent of HDR theaters, movies were not graded for high dynamic range viewing.

They just didn't realize they were making HDR content, but they were never making SDR content, even on accident.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by LoSouL

They just didn't realize they were making HDR content, but they were never making SDR content, even on accident.

That's it, right ****ing there. Film is film, it's not SDR or HDR or um jammer lammy or whatever. We're only ever seeing an approximation of it on video, a means of turning the light into electrical signals and back again (film not being the gamma EOTF, just as it's not the PQ EOTF), and as far as consumer video options are concerned then SDR 8-bit 709 just doesn't cut it any more IMO. It's still capable of very lovely looking images to be sure, but even when I watch the best SDR Blu-ray I feel it's falling short, spoiled little shit that I am.

By that token HDR could be perceived as way overshooting the target rather than falling short, but speaking solely for my own preferences I'll take overshooting it rather than not getting near it at all. Yes, 10-bit SDR 2020 encoding is an option for UHD Blu, and one I wouldn't mind seeing used at some point, but for whatever reasons it's being ignored.

[oddbox83]

Oh look, there goes that nonsense about shot and projected on film being SDR again.

EDIT: It's a total waste of time, Geoff. How many times has this been pointed out and ignored? It's the big inconvenient truth against their stance.

[CarlosMeat]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

And, again. I don't see why there is magical qualifying of different celluloid eras?? Because I never hear this revisionism bunk insisting we should scrap the HDR grade on The Matrix? Not a lick of difference than the scans of "classics" currently in the pipe or in future.

The reason you never heard it regarding the Matrix is that from day one it was a stylized oddity. It became a cult classic not from it's theatrical run but from it's appearance on DVD. From the get go it was not transferred there as it appeared on film and was altered again to coincide with the color timing of Reloaded to make it consistent. It really never had a "normal" or peer film.

Other films like 2001, Lawrence, Aliens, Bull Durham, Forest Gump and Midnight Cowboy etc do have a color timing consistent with films of the era and it becomes obvious and jarring in fact if they are or were to be "brought up to date".

[Black Sun]

[sukraj]

Wtf