4K Movies Releases

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

You'd have a point if the original Blu-ray & HDTV masters could capture the entire dynamic range of the picture...but they can't.

HDR is necessary to do that.


Now if they exaggerate the dynamics of the picture, that is an entirely different story.

I don't know how it's possible: No movie has ever been released or conceived to be watched in HDR before 2015. How can it be "necessary"?

It makes no sense at all, if you ask me...

[applemac]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

I don't know how it's possible: No movie has ever been released or conceived to be watched in HDR before 2015. How can it be "necessary"?

It makes no sense at all, if you ask me...

DCP and 35mm have a higher dynamic range than any home media until now.

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by applemac

DCP and 35mm have a higher dynamic range than any home media until now.

HDR could help with the lower end of the dynamic range but movies before 2015 are meant to be seen with a peak brightness of 48 nits. If the studios start releasing older movies with hundreds, or thousands, of nits of peak brightness than they are greatly changing the intended look of those movies. HDR is mainly being sold as a way to make video "brighter" so I expect that is what will happen with most HDR conversions.

[Opips3]

Originally Posted by applemac

DCP and 35mm have a higher dynamic range than any home media until now.

OH I'll damn straight!! I want UHDTV 4K with HDR.

[applemac]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

HDR could help with the lower end of the dynamic range but movies before 2015 are meant to be seen with a peak brightness of 48 nits. If the studios start releasing older movies with hundreds, or thousands, of nits of peak brightness than they are greatly changing the intended look of those movies. HDR is mainly being sold as a way to make video "brighter" so I expect that is what will happen with most HDR conversions.

I think this is the part were all worried about. And we know how well companies handle doing things right. Likely a lot of overblown transfers until backlash lets them know to try to keep it more to the point of showing the dynamic range already present in the source that couldn't be revealed by blu.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by applemac

DCP and 35mm have a higher dynamic range than any home media until now.

But can you prove what ends up on disc is the correct range as seen and shot theatricality?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by applemac

DCP and 35mm have a higher dynamic range than any home media until now.

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

You'd have a point if the original Blu-ray & HDTV masters could capture the entire dynamic range of the picture...but they can't.

HDR is necessary to do that.


Now if they exaggerate the dynamics of the picture, that is an entirely different story.

Well, that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? What the medium is ultimately capable of in its 'raw' form and what the director/DP were actually shooting for (keeping in mind the intermediate stages for photochemical finishes to actually end up on the screen) are two very different things. I'm in no way convinced that HDR is "necessary" to achieve the latter objective for older movies and from the sounds of it some content providers aren't either, what with Panasonic (I think?) revealing that some had passed on the prospect of an HDR grade for a UHD version of whatever movie.

[dvdmike]

See the OCN vs timed release print rubbish we have had to put up with on BD for ages

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

HDR could help with the lower end of the dynamic range but movies before 2015 are meant to be seen with a peak brightness of 48 nits. If the studios start releasing older movies with hundreds, or thousands, of nits of peak brightness than they are greatly changing the intended look of those movies. HDR is mainly being sold as a way to make video "brighter" so I expect that is what will happen with most HDR conversions.

I don't think this is right. For one, movies on Blu-ray have been mastered to 100 nits since the start, not 48 nits, which is the cinema standard on a screen and only that because of the limitations of the projector being used. HDR in cinema is 100 nits.

Also, people seem to continually forget that just because a HDR master is done at 1,000 nits or 4,000 nits or whatever else, that isn't the same as the level of reference white with SDR content. Overall APL is the same as before, you are just providing more dynamic range for highlights and color, it isn't like they shifted EVERYTHING up so that the movie is now 10x brighter than it was before.

[Geoff D]

Of course Kris, the same applies to the application of HDR just as it does to the original camera capture: just because x range is there, doesn't mean x range will be used. But even so, that some providers have declined an HDR regrade for certain movies unnamed speaks volumes for the process not being a simple "unveiling" of what was originally shot.

Those decisions may have a more prosaic motive, sure, e.g. the filmmakers were not available to supervise any HDR regrading (either due to scheduling or that they're no longer breathing) but still, it's nice to know that not EVERY single thing has suddenly been regraded in HDR because it presents its own challenges for something not 'shot' with a HDR end product in mind.

[edit] The specific characteristics of HDR as a display system are NOT simply the same as the wider dynamic range of whatever film/video source, i.e. the latter will still need careful managing to fit within the abilities of the former AND hold true to the filmmakers' intent, if we're talking HDR retrofits.

I think we'll get a few SDR catalogue titles if/when UHD Blu gains a foothold in the market and the opening waves of HDR titles have done their jobs at hooking customers.

[C.C. 95]

99% of these 4K UHD disc are not even really 4K. They are upconverts.
All the movies that have been shot in 4K and 5K use 2K DI. Until the DI is 4K, all you are watching is an upconvert. 4K is a scam.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But even so, that some providers have declined an HDR regrade for certain movies unnamed speaks volumes for the process not being a simple "unveiling" of what was originally shot.

I haven't heard about such refusals.

Originally Posted by C.C. 95

99% of these 4K UHD disc are not even really 4K. They are upconverts.
All the movies that have been shot in 4K and 5K use 2K DI. Until the DI is 4K, all you are watching is an upconvert. 4K is a scam.

You are going by pixel count. There are several improvements going to 4K. Color, dynamic range, compression are all improved.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by C.C. 95

99% of these 4K UHD disc are not even really 4K. They are upconverts.
All the movies that have been shot in 4K and 5K use 2K DI. Until the DI is 4K, all you are watching is an upconvert. 4K is a scam.

Wrong. At least 25% of the of the announced BD's have 4k DIs.

Also, they are using the raw files to create the uhd version. Alot of the good movies have raws that are 4-6k. The DI is NOT the main source they use. They go raw 1st, DI 2nd.

It's gonna get annoying correcting every person who parrots this with no actual knowledge of how these are made.

[Drewbee87]

Originally Posted by ray0414

Wrong. At least 25% of the of the announced BD's have 4k DIs.

Also, they are using the raw files to create the uhd version. Alot of the good movies have raws that are 4-6k. The DI is NOT the main source they use. They go raw 1st, did 2nd.

It's gonna get annoying correcting every person who parrots this with no actual knowledge of how these are made.

I was about to say... How do people know this for sure? Aren't 2K masters just what is sent out to most theaters?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I haven't heard about such refusals.

From the AVF's chat with Ron Martin, VP of Panasonic Hollywood Labs: VIDEO: What is High Dynamic Range (HDR) Technical Interview

[applemac]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

From the AVF's chat with Ron Martin, VP of Panasonic Hollywood Labs: VIDEO: What is High Dynamic Range (HDR) Technical Interview

very informative - thanks!

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

From the AVF's chat with Ron Martin, VP of Panasonic Hollywood Labs: VIDEO: What is High Dynamic Range (HDR) Technical Interview

Eh. There were a number of filmmakers (COUGH*Kubrick*COUGH) that refused to letterbox their films on home video. Doesn't make them correct.

[Geoff D]

^ And that link just reiterates the point that HDR retrofits need to be done with a "sensitive" approach. I've never said that HDR is the devil, I just don't want it to be wielded like a kid who's found his dad's gun (© Ian Malcolm).

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Eh. There were a number of filmmakers (COUGH*Kubrick*COUGH) that refused to letterbox their films on home video. Doesn't make them correct.

So I've made it past the first hurdle and provided some form of evidence, but I shouldn't have bothered because clearly you've already made your mind up that the HDR hold-outs are "incorrect" about how their work is best served in this brave new UHD world. Okey dokey.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

So I've made it past the first hurdle and provided some form of evidence, but I shouldn't have bothered because clearly you've already made your mind up that the HDR hold-outs are "incorrect" about how their work is best served in this brave new UHD world. Okey dokey.

Hardly, but we've all seen certain people have to be dragged kicking and screaming into current times, time and time and time again.


Filmmakers who are fine with a 2K final product.
Filmmakers who color grade their films teal & gold.
A certain filmmaker who pretty much mixes in MONO.
Filmmakers who destroy the composition to keep their films "TV safe".
A certain filmmaker who shot in IMAX and then refused to open up the frame on the BD version, despite numerous requests to do so.


So they're all correct in your book? No question?