HDR is crayons

[nick4Knight]

It would be nice if people didn't enshrine someone's OPINION just because they are some perceived authority.

RAH strikes me as a dinosaur relic of the industry from a time when his skills, passion and results were demonstrably utilized and greatly important for home video and the legacy of film widely. Awesome!

We are in 2018 now. And the industry moved past him. So now like a cliche of the highest order, he is becoming that old codger proclaiming platitudes from his retirement home. Pretty sure enough is enough on this topic of bashing HDR using him as a proxy -- He is just wrong

[CarlosMeat]

Yea ,I hate to say it but that list isn't fair to RAH. As anyone he isn't always right but in much I've seen him write he refers to HDR as giving UHD the ability to reproduce the dynamic range film already has but should be employed judiciously.

[jh901]

Why won't he draw a still photography analogy? The dynamic range of analog film in still photography could not be matched by digital until HDR came along. Right? Presumably 35mm (or 70mm) motion photography captures a dynamic range that could not be fully represented when digitally scanned until now (w/HDR pass).

I'd like to see mint print screened under ideal conditions and then compare with a well transferred blu-ray, UHD, and UHD w/ HDR. Of course, digital projection continues to improve.

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by jh901

Why won't he draw a still photography analogy? The dynamic range of analog film in still photography could not be matched by digital until HDR came along. Right? Presumably 35mm (or 70mm) motion photography captures a dynamic range that could not be fully represented when digitally scanned until now (w/HDR pass).

I'd like to see mint print screened under ideal conditions and then compare with a well transferred blu-ray, UHD, and UHD w/ HDR. Of course, digital projection continues to improve.

When the industry moves past someone and their work and philosophy around others like them is in risk of being changed from what they deem "right" -a mere opinion, btw- they will often use terribly biased argumentation to justify "the good old days". Adopting an ignorant narrative that will circumvent facts like how SDR does blow out highlights in a scan of even these old classics he claims shouldn't ever be presented in HDR, etc.

At least the pics/gifs in this thread are good for a laugh

[mar3o]

He's wrong.

[infiniteCR]

Originally Posted by jh901

Why won't he draw a still photography analogy? The dynamic range of analog film in still photography could not be matched by digital until HDR came along. Right?

Not really, in terms of video HDR (not the type of HDR you see on your camera phone). Its the resolution, bit depth, and color that actually makes the spatial information on film doable via digital to where the naked eye can't see the difference. The luminance range is somewhat arbitrary and user specified...and we all know film can't quite do 'black' without extra help.

[recS-12]

I demand more MSG, more ASBESTOS, and more HDR in my life.

[nick4Knight]

If anyone on this forum believes there is no place for HDR implementation on classic movies based on RAH logic that it "could" be abused, what is the issue? Just pop in your accurate-to-source Blu ray and enjoy 'dem ye olde ways of yore

p.s I love crayons... I wants them. Myyyyyyy precious

[cynatnite]

[infiniteCR]

The only time I've seen any crayons used lately are on Braveheart and in Andreasy's Harry Potter caps. One of the reason's that Deakins didn't want HDR is to basically be forced into using 'crayons' on his work. But that doesn't mean that HDR can't be good and crayon free either. I think there's a studio/political undercurrent to some of the grumblings personally.

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by cynatnite

Where'd you find a picture of me???

[Geoff D]

It doesn't help when you have the frickin' president of the American Society of Cinematographers proclaiming that a "friend" actually had their eyes damaged by viewing something in HDR, I've heard some tall tales in my time but that's an absolute corker.

RAH's comments are a good year or two old at this point. At the end of the day there's a big pushback against HDR by the traditionalists, 'twas ever thus.

[zw94]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

What movie is that gif from?

[78deluxe]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

I respect RAH for his restoration work but everything I’ve ever heard him say about 4K Blu-rays is ignorant nonsense.

What is posted in the OP is very far from nonsense. His stance might seem a little extreme, but most people are not using HDR to truly represent the original print.

It is a process being used in post to change things on these older sources.

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by zw94

What movie is that gif from?

I think it is from It's Complicated.

[lilboyblu]

Here's another quote from RAH.

The image?

Superb.

HDR adds measurable impact, and a 4k feed, even uprezzed from a 2k source at the studio, looks better than a hardware uprez.

Overall resolution, color, blacks, shadow detail, compared to the Blu-rays of Kingsman, Wild and The Martian, were superb.

Source: A few words about...™ 4k UHD

Crayons, indeed...

[bradnoyes]

Hey now, let's not forget that this topic is less about HDR than it is about the OP getting the reassurance he needs regarding his current HT setup. Who are we to deny him that reassurance?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by 78deluxe

What is posted in the OP is very far from nonsense. His stance might seem a little extreme, but most people are not using HDR to truly represent the original print.

It is a process being used in post to change things on these older sources.

Most 1080p SDR 709 iterations "don't truly represent the original print" either. Each OETF/EOTF for video is a compromise intended to turn film light into electrical signals and then back again, and the old gamma system (designed around the CRT TVs of yore) has served us well but HDR is capable of providing so much more of the original expression, albeit with the caveat of potentially showing us everything that was intended and well beyond.

Even so, what does the "original print" matter to some filmmakers? Ridley Scott and Michael Mann revise the look of their films every time they go up for a new transfer and plenty of others indulge in revisionism of one form or another (fixing of the falling licence plate in Goodfellas, removal of several goofs and imperfections in Aliens, Titanic and T2). Not saying two wrongs make a right, but I am saying that the goalposts get moved an awful lot these days.

[LoSouL]

I wish I could damage my eyes with HDR. Maybe on a future set.

"Lights. Sounds. At the same time? That's a bit much innit?" - Stewart Lee

[cynatnite]

Originally Posted by LoSouL

I wish I could damage my eyes with HDR. Maybe on a future set.

"Lights. Sounds. At the same time? That's a bit much innit?" - Stewart Lee

You just ruined a great GIF I was gonna use.