HDR is crayons

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by Black Sun

Is that in HDR? I'm on an SDR calibrated monitor. No, not BT.2020...

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

How many times has this been pointed out and ignored?

Zero, by me- I've addressed it every time. I keep answering it every time I see it come up and then all I see is more claims that it's being "conveniently ignored".

Again...

Of course, film is not "SDR". However, it was designed, shot, timed and printed to be displayed the way it could be at the time, which was in theaters not equipped to present HDR levels of dynamic range.

It's that simple. Negatives can also have boom mics and dolly tracks exposed on them- it doesn't mean they were intended to be seen.

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

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.

What use is a restrictive business model approach if it only hurts their bottom line? That probably speaks to why they went how they did... Maximising the amount of people who will actually buy.

The RAH philosophy speaks to a special category of films that shouldn't be touched, and thats my framework for arguments, that this logic is so silly. And you seem to be advocating for turning back time and scrapping all film being mastered for UHD lol So...

I got nothing against debating you, but we're more or less tapped out on new ground. Or I'm tapping out simply because, for me, catalog film falls somewhere between HDR and SDR in terms of respecting the intent. So I'd rather the studios do what they are? Which is work within an HDR container to get whatever level of subtle they deem appropriate for respecting the film scanned data. And we haven't seen any 'classics' going overboard with HDR topping brightness levels and boosting saturation or anything. And it's been pointed out peak nits isn't all HDR is about, and that gets largely talked around. So it's all going circular

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

What use is a restrictive business model approach if it only hurts their bottom line? That probably speaks to why they went how they did... Maximising the amount of people who will actually buy.

Of course, it has to be the best financial road for them. Make no mistake, the only reason we don't have pan and scan anymore is because in this educated consumer climate, it makes the studios more money to present original aspect ratios. The same applies here. If consumers are educated to understand that adapting pre-HDR movies into HDR is inappropriate, we will insist upon those movies being respected and it will become a more successful financial model for the studios to only issue respectful releases.

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

And you seem to be advocating for turning back time and scrapping all film being mastered for UHD lol So...

What I'd like is similar to what Ruined describes: movies designed before theatrical HDR being presented on UHD in 2020 SDR, so that all of that lovely color and contrast in the movies' original timing can be represented as accurately as the format allows.

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

I got nothing against debating you, but we're more or less tapped out on new ground.

Agreed. I've said my piece and I dare say, you've said yours, as well.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

What I'd like is similar to what Ruined describes: movies designed before theatrical HDR being presented on UHD in 2020 SDR, so that all of that lovely color and contrast in the movies' original timing can be represented as accurately as the format allows.

I just see zero point in this when HDR can be used very subtly and in a way that feels theatrically accurate. Like Goodfellas, Big Lebowski, etc. I can see arguing for that, but not for SDR.

BDs look so flat to me now and HDR is a big reason I'm in love with UHD. Not the bright shiny stuff either, but the subtle HDR that increases contrast and depth in every scene and makes it look like film to me. If UHD went SDR for catalog movies I'd probably start skipping a lot more of them.

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Zero, by me- I've addressed it every time. I keep answering it every time I see it come up and then all I see is more claims that it's being "conveniently ignored".

Again...

Of course, film is not "SDR". However, it was designed, shot, timed and printed to be displayed the way it could be at the time, which was in theaters not equipped to present HDR levels of dynamic range.

It's that simple. Negatives can also have boom mics and dolly tracks exposed on them- it doesn't mean they were intended to be seen.

Again - 35mm has more stops of dynamic range than SDR. How many nits a projection lamp had is irrelevant. They shot it to look the best they could on their budget, they didn't intentionally degrade it for theatrical exhibition. Why are you even bringing framing into it? That's a whole different argument.

I take it you also take a dim view of HD remasters of filmed TV shows - because of course they were never intended to be seen that way, they were intended to be seen on PAL and NTSC CRT TVs. The Twilight Zone in HD, I mean, what a travesty. Wait, you don't? Hmm... Same thing isn't it.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

Again - 35mm has more stops of dynamic range than SDR. How many nits a projection lamp had is irrelevant.

The projection lamp is the bottleneck- of course it's relevant! Who cares how many stops the film has if you can never see them in the cinema?

Originally Posted by oddbox83

Why are you even bringing framing into it?

As above, you seem to lack the understanding that something can be visibly exposed on a film frame without being intended by the filmmakers to be seen; framing provides another example.

Originally Posted by oddbox83

I take it you also take a dim view HD remasters of classic TV shows - because of course they were never intended to be seen that way, they were intended to be seen on PAL and NTSC CRT TVs. Wait, you don't? Hmm... Same thing isn't it.

It's not at all the same thing. If I want to watch an HD remaster of a NTSC or PAL television show in its original spatial resolution, with the click of a button, I can. If I want to watch an UHD remaster of a classic film in its original dynamic range... there's no button for that.

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

If I want to watch an UHD remaster of a classic film in its original dynamic range... there's no button for that.

No there isn't. Because SDR wouldn't show that anyway. See, you are talking about SDR as intended dynamic range for film, as much as you say you aren't.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

No there isn't. Because SDR wouldn't show that anyway. See, you are talking about SDR as intended dynamic range for film, as much as you say you aren't.

It wouldn't match it exactly, no. All of this is an estimation and a compromise. The idea is to compromise no more than technology necessitates.

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by 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

Ok, Ted.

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

My thoughts exactly.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

My thoughts exactly.

Well, have a beer on me and I'll have a beer on you, eh?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

Ok, Ted.

If it walks like a colorization apologist and it talks like a colorization apologist...

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

BDs look so flat to me now and HDR is a big reason I'm in love with UHD. Not the bright shiny stuff either, but the subtle HDR that increases contrast and depth in every scene and makes it look like film to me. If UHD went SDR for catalog movies I'd probably start skipping a lot more of them.

I still am pretty impressed with many standard blu-rays on my OLED and they've never looked better. Flat isnt a word Id use to describe the best transfers. But, I agree with you that HDR is a nice addition and a subtle, yet appreciated image quality boost on most UHDs I have watched. Dolby Vision too.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

If it walks like a colorization apologist and it talks like a colorization apologist...

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=524

[ROSS.T.G.]

Because I like HDR I'm a "colorization apologist"? No shortage of douche bags today lol

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Because I like HDR I'm a "colorization apologist"?

No, because I said your argument is the same as a pro-colorization argument and you responded with, "Damn right it is". I can only go on what you give me, man.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Blu-rays can still look amazing on high-end displays/projectors. Usually, the problem is with the display rather than the disc itself. I've never seen anybody with an OLED complain about how flat Blu-rays look unless the disc was poorly mastered to begin with.

Reminds me of a while back, I had to make do with a calibrated LED for home viewing and while some discs looked great, I noticed plenty of ones which I knew looked amazing on high-end displays, appeared flat and washed out on the LED.

I think the issue is likely due to TV limitations, especially in regard to SDR settings. I remember trying to watch some remastered Warner Blu-rays on the LED I had at the time and just couldn't enjoy the experience because I knew I was missing out by not watching it on a display that could do it justice. On an OLED, it was like watching a pristine print while on the LED it was like watching washed-out video.

I said something similar years ago when people were complaining about a distracting "blanket tint" on some Blu-ray. On all the calibrated displays at my office, the Blu-ray looked fine yet when I viewed it on a consumer-grade LED, I noticed what people were complaining about, but the issue was that the disc wasn't being viewed on a display that could do it justice, rather than it being an issue with the disc.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

No, because I said your argument is the same as a pro-colorization argument and you responded with, "Damn right it is". I can only go on what you give me, man.

Thought it was obvious I was joking with the bukkake comment and all.