HDR is crayons

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Posting that basically just affirms what we were discussing earlier... some people are so obsessed with the tech that they have no attention span left for the technique.

What's your job in the industry again? I can't be bothered reading through lots of pages to find out. Cheers.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Atchually "40 year old films" stand to benefit the most from 4K. A 35mm print has a max resolution of around 6500K.

I'd say a perfectly-shot 35mm negative using the full width and height of all four perfs has 4K worth of information at the absolute maximum, while a 35mm IP->IN print is down to half that.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'd say a perfectly-shot 35mm negative using the full width and height of all four perfs has 4K worth of information at the absolute maximum, while a 35mm IP->IN print is down to half that.

Maybe I'm confusing it with IMAX.

[Geoff D]

An IMAX negative is said to be 18K, a conventional IP->IN print would be nearer half that. A show print minted directly from the negative (which Nolan did for Dunkirk's entire 15/70 print run) is about 12K.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by crackedknee

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

sort of a meaningless statement
many blus were not over-saturated, but some are
HDR can be over or under saturated, any format can

but some formats clip colors and will prevent proper full saturation at times,
sRGB/REC709 will clip some of things and make then shift color or become less saturated or as saturated but less bright, etc. while REC2020 gamut can contain all those colors naturally and in some cases that means it should look more saturated than a blu-ray ever could for certain things (of course one could also turn up saturation like mad and make some crazy blu-ray that had lots of things more saturated, but that is just making a mess)

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

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.

no

There is a difference between mimic HDR shown on an SDR display and real HDR.
Real HDR can make such a scene look more like it does to the eye (even mimic HDR can when done with care but it still can't really show it).

[Pecker]

But I’ve seen measured that a typical cinema print will be sub-1080.

Not that I’m saying that means we shouldn’t go for more, just putting it out there.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by crazybeats

That's literally what has happened. The only people forking out 20 quid for 40 year old films and animated films that can never even be 4K resolution are enthusiasts and lets be honest......

actually some of those can show more detail than all the modern 2k DI

not that film necessarily really gave the uber best case scenario numbers people toss around in many cases depending upon tons of factors (and, of course, the typical theatrical 35mm print often had less than 2k detail, although the analog nature and grain would make it appear not as much softer as it actually was)

[nick4Knight]

Even within this one page... the topic summed up in crayon

[cms382]

What HDR can achieve with micro-contrast/textural integrity completely outclasses previous digital formats and film transfers no longer look like video because of that. I’m not talking about resolution or brightness but the ability to reproduce subtle variations in shade & color.

[monstermidget]

Originally Posted by crazybeats

That's literally what has happened. The only people forking out 20 quid for 40 year old films and animated films that can never even be 4K resolution are enthusiasts and lets be honest......people that don't spend their money on anything else. It's disposable income. I think the general public have long moved on from the days of home video and what kind of quality they can get at home. It's not important in the grand scheme of things.


And I do think the older we get, for some of you it wont have happened yet but for a lot of people you really start prioritising what is important in life and entertainment is just that, it's entertainment, it's not going to change your life, you can't take it with you when you pass on. You end up really making sure you spend time and money on the things that matter. This stuff about £20 for a CD disc that costs pennies to make and it's got a 40 year old film on it and this one's £25 and it's a film that's made last year and it's just......madness lol. It really is for enthusiasts and there's enthusiasts everywhere. The sports fan that goes to every game, the video game fan that's there every week for the big releases, the fashion fan that needs the latest shoes and tracksuits. I get it. People need a way of letting off steam and finding something to fill their lives.


Things aren't going to change very much in our lifetime, I don't care what age any of you are. By the time we check out there's still gonna be a BBC, a Sky, a Virgin Media, DVDs, games consoles. It's not going to change. TV's will be released and updated every few years and that's that. It's not going to change anybodies life, it's only ever going to make a difference to those that have the fun and the free time to sit and enjoy it. Those friends and relatives you mention having 4K TVs and not wanting your UHDs....they've probably realised what is important in their life. Friends, family, socialising, getting out of the house, going on holidays, maybe they have children. Your priority might be staying in and watching films all night, they may have decided to enjoy life very differently. Everyone is different. Some people like going to the pub, some like going to the discos, when people are working 40 hours a week, many don't want to sit in the house every night.

And I do think TVs now last a long time. It's not something people feel the need to upgrade every few years. It's just life. You realise very quickly when you reach a certain age what you're wasting your money on and what you're wasting your time on and this stuff isn't cheap. £20 for any film is too much. £10 is too much. These games just don't work anymore or they don't work on a level to where millions of people are paying those prices anymore. Then £100 at least for the hardware to play them? It's just not going to fly in 2019.

You make these kinds of negative myopic posts in every thread about UHD, now you're here trying to validate your opinions about UHD by proffering it as some sort of life lesson...ah but wait til you grow up and realise what's important in life, you wont be such saddos buying media and enjoying it.

Get a grip man.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

A show print minted directly from the negative (which Nolan did for Dunkirk's entire 15/70 print run) is about 12K.

And bear in mind that even if such 12K is actually realized in the photographic exposure, the best of human visual acuity tops out around 9K.

[Pecker]

I have the recent WAC Blu-ray Disc of Seven Days in May, which I watched a couple of weeks ago. That’s a 55 year old film.

Being Blu-ray it’s 1080p, presumably from a 4K scan.

Some shots had more detail than anything I saw in the UHD presentation of Halloween, which is a full 14 years younger.

Don’t just go on the age.

[spider-neil]

Going by the opening post. I haven't seen a single movie that wasn't enhanced by HDR. Not one. Maybe there are some movies won't be enhanced by HDR/DV but I've yet to see one.

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

I know you’re trolling but you obviously haven’t seen HDR on a good setup in a dark room. Walmart showrooms don’t count.

On a proper setup a “good” 4K title looks gorgeous. Highlights look realistic. It’s all about little nuances with HDR.

Does it have to be a dark room? I mean like pitch black dark? I say this because at night I often have a light on in the living room where my main viewing experience is. It's not an overhead light, as I don't have that. It's just a floor lamp. Sometimes it's the sconce lighting by the front door and the bathroom. I can't really do a totally dark room all of the time. If I go totally dark I will be more inclined to pass out. I have a hard enough time staying awake watching a movie while the light is on. I don't want to make things any easier.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

Does it have to be a dark room? I mean like pitch black dark? I say this because at night I often have a light on in the living room where my main viewing experience is. It's not an overhead light, as I don't have that. It's just a floor lamp. Sometimes it's the sconce lighting by the front door and the bathroom. I can't really do a totally dark room all of the time. If I go totally dark I will be more inclined to pass out. I have a hard enough time staying awake watching a movie while the light is on. I don't want to make things any easier.

Preferably yes. I will sometimes have lamps on with my wife but if I’m critically watching it’s in a completely dark room. If I have my lights on I’ll use 2.2 gamma. Dark BT.1886

[brainofj72]

Yeah I only watch HDR content in total darkness. It’s just not the same with ambient light.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Preferably yes. I will sometimes have lamps on with my wife but if I’m critically watching it’s in a completely dark room. If I have my lights on I’ll use 2.2 gamma. Dark BT.1886

Yep - my dark room viewing settings on the OLED use BT1886 for gamma. I also agree that a very darkroom is the best way to view a film and assess picture quality. HDR does flex its muscles and looks great in these situations. There are times whe things can seem too bright though IMO and I dont run my OLED light that high with my dark room movie settings.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by Pecker

But I’ve seen measured that a typical cinema print will be sub-1080.

Not that I’m saying that means we shouldn’t go for more, just putting it out there.

which is also why they'd make 70mm releases even of stuff shot on 35mm
Like when I saw SW and ESB in 70mm I definitely recall being like man this is so sharp and has more detail than I'm used to seeing. Printing it out to 35mm from as early a stage as possible helps maintain more detail than a 35mm print from 35mm shot movie.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Also some say well timing varied print per print and with screen and so on so it's nonsense for people to even talk about color differences and trying to match original, etc.

I'll say again that is taking things wayyyyyyy too far, sure there was variation and so on but I mean look at some of these comparisons from PrueFever's website (http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/walt-dis...u-ray#comments) and I mean come look how utterly different these releases are at home, there is way the heck more variation here than you'd normally ever see between 35mm original print release prints, so it's plenty valid to talk about color and trying to reasonably match something closer to original take:


and I've now seen frames from one scene from Batman Returns from three different 35mm prints and two look identical and the other nearly the same, all vastly more alike than the old blu-ray vs. new blu-ray vs these 35mm prints.