HDR is crayons

[koberulz]

I don't see it as any less worth dignifying than anything else in that post.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by koberulz

I don't see it as any less worth dignifying than anything else in that post.

Fair enough, but I just started reading this thread

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by koberulz

I don't see it as any less worth dignifying than anything else in that post.

Yes but we've been debating Kubrick's AR decisions for decades already (well, some of us have ) so it's not a rabbit hole we want to go down in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with AR at all. Heck, even the HDR discussion has been done to death (I've probably repeated massive chunks of that massive post of mine in this and many other threads on this subject) but it's only been three years so far and people are still coming to it anew every day, bringing their own pre-conceived notions and/or outright ignorance which needs correcting, Delbert Grady-style.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Or absolute black. Anyone who says HDR is needed for films to look like they looked when projected... never saw an actual film projected. No film projected, whether in 35mm or 70mm, ever had the contrast that HDR produces. It is physically impossible when projecting light through celluloid. RAH is correct to call HDR revisionism. As a matter of fact... I'm working on a brand new film right now where the DP and director HATE HDR and Dolby Vision. They contend a competent cinematographer can expose film or digital to look exactly like they want it to without using HDR to manipulate and candy coat the image.

Interesting post and it makes sense. I bet you get lambasted because of it though.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Or absolute black. Anyone who says HDR is needed for films to look like they looked when projected... never saw an actual film projected. No film projected, whether in 35mm or 70mm, ever had the contrast that HDR produces. It is physically impossible when projecting light through celluloid. RAH is correct to call HDR revisionism. As a matter of fact... I'm working on a brand new film right now where the DP and director HATE HDR and Dolby Vision. They contend a competent cinematographer can expose film or digital to look exactly like they want it to without using HDR to manipulate and candy coat the image.

Blacks in theaters are super grey, much worse than even my LCD on max without bias lighting. I just mentioned that elsewhere, how amusing it is that people who obsess over theatrical accuracy also buy OLEDs to get perfect blacks.

As Geoffy has said many times though, home video has always been revisionist, and HDR is a revision he likes, so f**k it. I feel mostly the same way, or have adjusted to feel that way over time at any rate. I could honestly take or leave the range improvements though... I mean I like them, but I also am fine without them. It's the color and detail improvements I care about most (and yes, I know color and HDR are related).

[ROSS.T.G.]

I’m all for artistic intent but how many filmmakers actually make their films with only the theatrical experience/limitations in mind these days? With so many ways to experience movies today I personally want the best technology to deliver it. As I get older I’m moving away from what things should be, I’m more concerned about how they actually are and in 2019 we finally have affordable gear that surpasses the theatrical experience. I’m a HDR junky. I want infinite contrast and I like my bass to slap me in the face and that’s what my theatre delivers.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

I’m all for artistic intent but how many filmmakers actually make their films with only the theatrical experience/limitations in mind these days?

Hell, even 30 years ago most filmmakers knew their work would mostly be seen on 4:3 televisions and planned around that to some degree.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Or absolute black. Anyone who says HDR is needed for films to look like they looked when projected... never saw an actual film projected. No film projected, whether in 35mm or 70mm, ever had the contrast that HDR produces. It is physically impossible when projecting light through celluloid. RAH is correct to call HDR revisionism. As a matter of fact... I'm working on a brand new film right now where the DP and director HATE HDR and Dolby Vision. They contend a competent cinematographer can expose film or digital to look exactly like they want it to without using HDR to manipulate and candy coat the image.

Will it get a HDR pass nonetheless, Cliff?

I think some things are being conflated here though, because film or digital (in latter years anyway) has long had the dynamic range to expose and capture whatever the filmmakers wanted to expose and capture. You don't "shoot" in SDR or HDR, film negative and digital raw using logarithmic response curves that dance to their own beat, though most on-set monitoring is still done in 709 by dint of it being quicker and easier.

But in the home both SDR and HDR are sets of arbitrary technical specifications placed on the content after the fact by whichever such transfer function is being aimed for, as even SDR @ 100 nits is twice as bright as the 14 fL (48 nits) that movies are initially graded for in standard 2D theatrical projektion, imposing its own linearised response curve during the SDR 709 trim pass. Roger Deakins has said before that the regular 2D master designed for projektion is his gold standard and every other deliverable is designed to chase that, only goosing something in order to overcome the deficiencies that it has, like the 'hot spotting' on silver 3D screens. He's a prime example of someone who does exactly what you describe, knowing exactly what he's exposing and how it *should* look in the final product, and when the photography looks as gorgeous as it does then who needs HDR? (Though having all dat 4K resolution on disc sure is nice, Deakins being a firm supporter of such finishes.)

And yet some people do actually like having a bigger sandbox to play in, or having a bigger packet of crayons, if you will. As much as I may dislike Chris Nolan's approach to certain aspects of 4K HDR mastering (using IPs for transfer then smacking them with 'grain management', ugh) he's not afraid to give the HDR a tweak upwards which greatly surprised me, given how staunchly anti-digital (in terms of capture) that he is. He's so anal(ogue) when it comes to this stuff, not even liking the separate .1 sub channel in 5.1 audio (never mind dat Atmos!), that I thought he'd run a mile from HDR but instead he's embraced it.

Not that it isn't a "revision" just because the director okay's it, it's all a "revision" unless we're actually sitting there watching it IN the cinema (which of course has a slew of its own display variables in terms of both presentation formats and presentation quality, then and now, but that's a whole 'nuther can o' worms). A few years ago I saw a THR 'round table' discussion video with a bunch of cinematographers, they were asked for a show of hands if what they saw on Blu-ray - regular 1080p Blu, UHD didn't exist yet - didn't represent their work properly and to a person they all reached for the sky.

I'm not saying that all HDR wrongs make a right, no no no, but SDR 1080p Blu specifically is something that can already have a brighter range than the projected image BUT with worse bit depth, chroma resolution and compression, plus a more limited colour gamut compared to theatrical P3, which can make for a strange mix. 4K allows for more transparency to the source in several of these respects and if it comes with HDR then I'm able to enjoy it as such.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Hell, even 30 years ago most filmmakers knew their work would mostly be seen on 4:3 televisions and planned around that to some degree.

Yep.

[Geoff D]

It's a matter of taste and judgement then to have it best fit the viewing methods of the day, 'twas ever thus. I don't know how far into this thread you've gone but given what you've said about no two theatres being the same I mentioned it just on the previous page that movies have always been a moving target.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Honestly... I'm pushing for no because it's what the filmmakers want and we may even be discussing it in the making of.



Agreed... I'm not anti-HDR at all, but I think people have a tendency to become slaves to the tech while also having a fundamental misunderstanding of that which they are enslaving themselves to. I'm a massive proponent of OAR (and have been since the 80s), but I roll my eyes so far I get headaches every time I see someone complain about 1:85:1 films being presented in 1.78:1. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding about what an OAR actually is. I've said for many years now that theater screens are like snowflakes... no two are exactly the same (which was especially true during the decades of film). You could see the same movie in two different auditoriums right next to each other and both would be framed slightly differently. Hell, I worked at a theater in the mid-late 80s that had to have it's screen maskings for scope and flat adjusted by hand. But people approach art like it's science. They obsess about the tech and never give much thought to the technique. Look at Gremlins, both the old Blu-ray and the new UHD are both framed at 1.78:1, but each is framed quite differently, sometimes WILDLY differently. So to me... HDR is like OAR... as look as it helps and doesn't hinder- I'm on-board. But in the same way you can overcrop a film to the point of distraction (like the old Apocalypse Now and Tucker 2:1 framing, you can "overcrop" the visual texture of a movie and push it so that it doesn't look like the film you know (I think Batman 89's HDR pass makes it look garish and unpleasant).

The key to me is moderation... enhance, but not at the expense of the original artistry.

I find it hard not to be somewhat "enslaved" by HDR. Mostly because of the wide colour gamut than luminosity presently. I'm sure as processing power and tone mapping of televisions incrementally improve over the next decade; then MaxCLL and MaxFALL will become more relevant to discussions. Though right now we just don't have the TVs commercially available to fully judge the high dynamic ranges benefit to the sources we have.

But i remain positive and excited by what I have seen. And definitely think this format with use of 4K resolution and HDR video brings promise that no other format has brought to the home video market.

Which is owning a film print preserved in digital form. And that's something I don't think any film enthusiast should take for granted. Especially those of us who are stuck in the 20th century.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Absolutely! I remember back in the day it used to be common practice on some films for reels to be inspected before being shipped out so that the ones that most closely matched each other could be grouped together. So this stack of reels 1-6 would have a similar tone, while that stack of reels 1-6 would have a slightly different tone than this 1-6, but they would at least be consistent unto themselves.

This is also just one reason (among many mind you) why I shake my head at some of the obsession around here sometimes of "the original color timing as shown in the theaters".

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Blacks in theaters are super grey, much worse than even my LCD on max without bias lighting. I just mentioned that elsewhere, how amusing it is that people who obsess over theatrical accuracy also buy OLEDs to get perfect blacks.

As Geoffy has said many times though, home video has always been revisionist, and HDR is a revision he likes, so f**k it. I feel mostly the same way, or have adjusted to feel that way over time at any rate. I could honestly take or leave the range improvements though... I mean I like them, but I also am fine without them. It's the color and detail improvements I care about most (and yes, I know color and HDR are related).

Good points here about OLED and blacks vs the grays you get at the theater. cant argue this! Its like the OLED isnt so accurate anymore, is it?

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Honestly... I'm pushing for no because it's what the filmmakers want and we may even be discussing it in the making of.



Agreed... I'm not anti-HDR at all, but I think people have a tendency to become slaves to the tech while also having a fundamental misunderstanding of that which they are enslaving themselves to. I'm a massive proponent of OAR (and have been since the 80s), but I roll my eyes so far I get headaches every time I see someone complain about 1:85:1 films being presented in 1.78:1. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding about what an OAR actually is. I've said for many years now that theater screens are like snowflakes... no two are exactly the same (which was especially true during the decades of film). You could see the same movie in two different auditoriums right next to each other and both would be framed slightly differently. Hell, I worked at a theater in the mid-late 80s that had to have it's screen maskings for scope and flat adjusted by hand. But people approach art like it's science. They obsess about the tech and never give much thought to the technique. Look at Gremlins, both the old Blu-ray and the new UHD are both framed at 1.78:1, but each is framed quite differently, sometimes WILDLY differently. So to me... HDR is like OAR... as look as it helps and doesn't hinder- I'm on-board. But in the same way you can overcrop a film to the point of distraction (like the old Apocalypse Now and Tucker 2:1 framing, you can "overcrop" the visual texture of a movie and push it so that it doesn't look like the film you know (I think Batman 89's HDR pass makes it look garish and unpleasant).

The key to me is moderation... enhance, but not at the expense of the original artistry.

Just tell us what the movie is. Or give us a big hint.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Good points here about OLED and blacks vs the grays you get at the theater. cant argue this! Its like the OLED isnt so accurate anymore, is it?

Well it's more the problem of cinema technology being able display blacks correctly. So an OLED is technically more accurate to the film makers intent

[guachi]

Originally Posted by Cliff

They contend a competent cinematographer can expose film or digital to look exactly like they want it to without using HDR to manipulate and candy coat the image.

Huh? HDR lets me (in theory) show the dynamic range that already exists in my digital camera. SDR requires I manipulate the image to squash my dynamic range into the limited range available with SDR.

[TheHutt]

The whole UHD is basically a fake package. 4K is mostly fake anyway, and HDR is basically revisionist crap.

[Trekkie313]

Is this bait?

[LoSouL]

[Himmel]

So is HDR crayons, or not?