HDR is crayons

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Himmel

So is HDR crayons, or not?

Upgrade and find out.

[nick4Knight]

This thread is the gift that keeps on taking... my brain cells

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

This thread is the gift that keeps on taking... my brain cells

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by Himmel

So is HDR crayons, or not?

It's like playing a movie on a 50's cathode ray tube TV compared to a 2020's OLED TV.
...70-year technological evolution ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prQF...ature=youtu.be

[Geoff D]

I see HDR as just another invention in cinema's long history e.g. colour, sound, widescreen, CinemaScope, Cinerama, Technicolor, 3D, 70mm, IMAX etc. Many, in fact most, were scoffed at initially as just being the latest unnecessary gimmick by filmmakers and civilians alike, and while there's certainly a kernel of truth to that - this is ALL designed purely to keep people coming back to the theatre - plenty of these "gimmicks" have gone on to become beloved cinematic institutions. Not all of them are so beloved by all, and I'm still talking about viewers and professionals alike, but they have endured nonetheless and have seen movies retrofitted to their standards, for better or worse, and HDR is another one to add to the list.

But the interesting thing for me is that HDR is a format which in the home exceeds theatrical viewing standards, itself following on the heels of tech like OLED which destroys most forms of projection (film or digital) for black levels. Hell, even my wretched FALD LCD has blacks which easily outdo regular theatrical projection. I could only laugh when I read an article on the grading of a movie (I forget which one) and they literally said that they raised the blacks because modern projection was so poor in that regard it wasn't worth making them darker.

Something I don't get though w/ref to Cliff's compadres making their movie is that HDR only ever does whatever the filmmakers want it to do. If they're railing at it being "revisionist crap" when applied to catalogue product then that's one thing, but if they're contemporaneously grading SDR and HDR versions then the latter can hew as closely to the former as they'd like. Some people may question what the point is of SDR in an HDR container but that didn't stop Steve Yedlin from doing pretty much just that on Last Jedi.

Indeed, when it comes to home video they may find that the specific 8-bit SDR 709 trim pass doesn't retain the range or colour of the 12-bit P3 theatrical pass, and while a 10-bit SDR 709 4K version would be better and still retain plenty of 4K's improved encoding characteristics it could be even better served by HDR's wider gamut or Dolby Vision's FEL 12-bit retention, however subtle the effects may prove to be.

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

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

Maybe Craig Zahler's next flick?

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I see HDR as just another invention in cinema's long history e.g. colour, sound, widescreen, CinemaScope, Cinerama, Technicolor, 3D, 70mm, IMAX etc. Many, in fact most, were scoffed at initially as just being the latest unnecessary gimmick by filmmakers and civilians alike, and while there's certainly a kernel of truth to that - this is ALL designed purely to keep people coming back to the theatre - plenty of these "gimmicks" have gone on to become beloved cinematic institutions. Not all of them are so beloved by all, and I'm still talking about viewers and professionals alike, but they have endured nonetheless and have seen movies retrofitted to their standards, for better or worse, and HDR is another one to add to the list.

But the interesting thing for me is that HDR is a format which in the home exceeds theatrical viewing standards, itself following on the heels of tech like OLED which destroys most forms of projection (film or digital) for black levels. Hell, even my wretched FALD LCD has blacks which easily outdo regular theatrical projection. I could only laugh when I read an article on the grading of a movie (I forget which one) and they literally said that they raised the blacks because modern projection was so poor in that regard it wasn't worth making them darker.

Something I don't get though w/ref to Cliff's compadres making their movie is that HDR only ever does whatever the filmmakers want it to do. If they're railing at it being "revisionist crap" when applied to catalogue product then that's one thing, but if they're contemporaneously grading SDR and HDR versions then the latter can hew as closely to the former as they'd like. Some people may question what the point is of SDR in an HDR container but that didn't stop Steve Yedlin from doing pretty much just that on Last Jedi.

Indeed, when it comes to home video they may find that the specific 8-bit SDR 709 trim pass doesn't retain the range or colour of the 12-bit P3 theatrical pass, and while a 10-bit SDR 709 4K version would be better and still retain plenty of 4K's improved encoding characteristics it could be even better served by HDR's wider gamut or Dolby Vision's FEL 12-bit retention, however subtle the effects may prove to be.


Maybe Craig Zahler's next flick?

I’m so ready for that! God I love his work.

[Scottishguy]

Indeed there needs to be that logical separation of what is gimmicky and ephemeral, from technological advances that improve film/cinematic in a practical and artistic sense.

HDR for me definitely falls into the latter. Schindler's List being one prominent example. I personally reject the contention of a cinema being the one true way of seeing film; and every other form of viewing is erroneous. It's that kind of mentality which nearly killed Hollywood in the 50s and 60s.

As Geoff saids home viewing has out paced the cinema in it's capability to deliver a more accurate presentation of film. I say capability, because while it most definitely can, employing that capability is another matter entirely.

Which comes neatly to the point of while HDR has the capability to artistically present film's in a fresh and faithful way. It also has the power to destroy that artistry.

[ROSS.T.G.]

@ Cliff - could you name a few titles you’ve worked on? Really curious.

Thanks

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Cliff

At least some of it has to do with the fact that Dolby Vision is a closed system that doesn’t give filmmakers specifics about what EXACTLY its algorithms are doing to their image. Cinematographers are a notoriously finicky group and don’t like leaving ANY of the creative decisions or alterations solely to the tech. If you’ve never seen a color grading session, you’d be shock at exactly how specific these artists are and loosing some of that control to some technological “secret sauce” doesn’t sit well with them.

Sure. I was actually thinking about these exact points earlier today, I recall a demo grading session that Panasonic did with Dado Valentic to shill their new OLEDs and he basically dismissed DV as 'just metadata'. Filmmakers can be a VERY particular bunch when it comes to how they craft their visions, opting for specific cameras/stocks, lenses, LUTs, grading/timing practices etc to deliver very specific results that they can re-employ on show after show to provide the repeatability of their 'vision', like Deakins using the same show LUT for Alexa that he used on Sicario when shooting BR2049.

They like using definable tech to provide definable results, this could somewhat uncharitably be referred to as them being 'set in their ways' but hey, if you're making a living from doing this then obviously you're doing something right. Doesn't mean there mightn't be a better way of doing things, but as we say on Earth: C'est la vie.

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I see HDR as just another invention in cinema's long history e.g. colour, sound, widescreen, CinemaScope, Cinerama, Technicolor, 3D, 70mm, IMAX etc. Many, in fact most, were scoffed at initially as just being the latest unnecessary gimmick by filmmakers and civilians alike, and while there's certainly a kernel of truth to that - this is ALL designed purely to keep people coming back to the theatre - plenty of these "gimmicks" have gone on to become beloved cinematic institutions. Not all of them are so beloved by all, and I'm still talking about viewers and professionals alike, but they have endured nonetheless and have seen movies retrofitted to their standards, for better or worse, and HDR is another one to add to the list.

But the interesting thing for me is that HDR is a format which in the home exceeds theatrical viewing standards, itself following on the heels of tech like OLED which destroys most forms of projection (film or digital) for black levels. Hell, even my wretched FALD LCD has blacks which easily outdo regular theatrical projection. I could only laugh when I read an article on the grading of a movie (I forget which one) and they literally said that they raised the blacks because modern projection was so poor in that regard it wasn't worth making them darker.

Something I don't get though w/ref to Cliff's compadres making their movie is that HDR only ever does whatever the filmmakers want it to do. If they're railing at it being "revisionist crap" when applied to catalogue product then that's one thing, but if they're contemporaneously grading SDR and HDR versions then the latter can hew as closely to the former as they'd like. Some people may question what the point is of SDR in an HDR container but that didn't stop Steve Yedlin from doing pretty much just that on Last Jedi.

Indeed, when it comes to home video they may find that the specific 8-bit SDR 709 trim pass doesn't retain the range or colour of the 12-bit P3 theatrical pass, and while a 10-bit SDR 709 4K version would be better and still retain plenty of 4K's improved encoding characteristics it could be even better served by HDR's wider gamut or Dolby Vision's FEL 12-bit retention, however subtle the effects may prove to be.


Maybe Craig Zahler's next flick?

Unlikely since it’s still in development right now. I don’t think it’s even with any studio yet.

[Geoff D]

What could it be then? Gotta be something quite Lionsgatey, i.e. a small enough feature that there's no demand from the studio to tack on IMAX or HDR or Smellovision or whatever, demands which not even the likes of la Deakins (who hates 3D, HDR, IMAX, the lot) can resist on big-budget shows.

[Brian81]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

I’m so ready for that! God I love his work.

I didn't even know he directed films until recently when a mutual friend brought it up.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

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".

Sure it could vary in theaters, but some of the new home versions have colors and so on radically shifted, sometimes turned to an extreme teal that was nothing like certainly 98% of the prints ever seen, walls with a clear tint as seen in virtually every print turned pure gray or even take Star Wars where for ages every single home release had R2-D2 entering the Jawa canyon in what looked like broad daylight with faded colors when in the theaters he entered it at twilight with deep, richly saturated browns. The funny thing is that the first time the home version finally got that correct, tons of people complained that the fools at THX had messed it up and totally revised the scene .

So despite the inconsistencies of 35mm, there is still plenty enough space to talk about changes.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

A little bit of HDR can allow one to more closely match theatrical film projection. Of course, one can also go wild with it and make it look way different than it did on film or in digital in theaters or just make it look slightly different.

The expanded color gamut can allow UHD to more closely match film or digital theatrical presentation since sRGB/REC709 primaries will clip stuff (of course it depends upon the movie, some movies have almost nothing bit low saturation, grays, browns and the gamut difference makes zero difference), although one could go wild and hyper saturate stuff to an even greater degree than one could going wild with sRGB/REC709 gamut. Stuff that sRGB/REC709 primaries tends to clip a lot are intensely saturates sunsets, sunrises, flowers, birds, sports cars, 80s and other such clothing, gems like emeralds and such, tropical waters, intense golden hour sunlit scenes and such.

[SonSon III]

[ROSS.T.G.]

People think HDR is some vivid mode over saturation. What’s funny is in comparison that’s what BD looks like.

[crackedknee]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

People think HDR is some vivid mode over saturation. What’s funny is in comparison that’s what BD looks like.

So judging from the pic above (SonSonIII), "as shot" would represent HDR, and "over saturated" would represent SDR.

[Trekkie313]

Cause HDR was a thing for photography before it came to home video.

[SonSon III]

Sure HDR reveals more details... but a nighttime view to real human eyeballs looks much more like the SDR image on the left than the HDR on the right.

So is HDR all about looking unrealistic but more detailed? I always thought technology was supposed to bring us closer to reality.

[s_har]

Originally Posted by SonSon III

Sure HDR reveals more details... but a nighttime view to real human eyeballs looks much more like the SDR image on the left than the HDR on the right.

So is HDR all about looking unrealistic but more detailed? I always thought technology was supposed to bring us closer to reality.

Traditionally, HDR in stills photography consists of several images captured with different exposures composited into one final image. The longest exposures can be several seconds and capture details in the dark far beyond what we can see with our own eyes. When these individual images are composited together into one final image it can often come across as unnatural looking.
But that is HDR in stills photography which is very different to the HDR we're currently talking about when it comes to video.

In video it is more like this:

The dynamic range of rec709 (SDR) is about 5 stops.
The dynamic range of the human eye is about 14-20 stops.

So, in short, the dynamic range of the human eye is far, far superior to what SDR video offers. If handled correctly, HDR video will look much closer to how we are capable of seeing things with our own eyes.