HDR is crayons

[mysticwaterfall]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

We all do it, trying to convince ourselves that we don't need something in our lives while other people are living it up royally using said thing. Personally I think HDR is the single greatest improvement to my viewing experience since the switch from VHS to DVD, and I say that with no hyperbole.

I dont know if I would go that far, but it does have a certain magical quality do it when its done right.

To the other point though, very true. Maybe even more so with UHD since it's really something that has to be seen. Otherwise it's too easy for people to fall into the traps of "fake 4k" and whatnot.

People ask me at work if 4K is "worth it" all the time. I usually say it depends on the movie but overall yes. Then if they want more I show them some of your screenshot comparisons to try and give a basic idea. Usually works.

[Markgway]

So, if one (i.e. me) has a mid-market, low level-HDR TV is it possible that UHD's with HDR will look worse for me than if I turned the HDR off altogether? I mean, is mediocre HDR still better than no HDR?

[bradnoyes]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

We all do it, trying to convince ourselves that we don't need something in our lives while other people are living it up royally using said thing. Personally I think HDR is the single greatest improvement to my viewing experience since the switch from VHS to DVD, and I say that with no hyperbole.

Not me. Not anymore. I gave up on being fiscally responsible a few years ago and now I just splurge, splurge, splurge. I just don't care anymore.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Markgway

So, if one (i.e. me) has a mid-market, low level-HDR TV is it possible that UHD's with HDR will look worse for me than if I turned the HDR off altogether? I mean, is mediocre HDR still better than no HDR?

That's the problem with that kind of HDR performance in general, Mark. You may find that a slew of discs look absolutely magical on it and then you'll put one in that looks so bad you'll think that something broke inside the TV. Switching to SDR conversion is one way around it but even then, SDR conversion is basically screwed on certain players (there being no established 'baseline' for how it should be done) and it's only the Panasonics that produce a decent enough result. They also have HDR optimisation though and that might be a much better fit for your TV, if it's the one we were talking about, as the player can do its own mapping of the HDR signal.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by bradnoyes

Not me. Not anymore. I gave up on being fiscally responsible a few years ago and now I just splurge, splurge, splurge. I just don't care anymore.

[aetherhole]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Not even once.

Troll is likely back under his bridge.

He apparently never wanted to discuss HDR; if he did, he would have joined in at some point. He instead chose to misrepresent the opinion of Robert Harris with a single cherry-picked quote as a justification for his own personal disdain for HDR.

As previously noted and with links provided, Robert Harris has routinely praised the picture quality of several 4K HDR releases, both recent and older films. Suggesting that Mr. Harris dislikes HDR is patently false. He was simply expressing concerns that HDR could be misused- this is readily apparent when viewing the full context of that quote combined with the consistent high praise he has given many 4K HDR releases.

Mr. Harris had this to say, in reply to a question based on his earlier comment, right after making the statement quoted by the OP:

"The execs who make those decisions at the studios are reasonably savvy, and one must presume they would listen carefully to what the asset protection execs tell them.

I'm really not anticipating a problem."

Keep in mind that the quote used by the OP is more than 2 years old and during the infancy of 4K and HDR. Mr. Harris's opinion appears to have evolved somewhat since then.

The quote used by the OP and all of the subsequent remarks by Mr. Harris that followed from it can be read here:

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/com...lu-ray.347934/

His reviews are scattered across the first 11 pages contained in this link:

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/tags/hdr/

Lol well here we are 6 pages later, still continuing to feed the troll thread!

[aetherhole]

Originally Posted by bradnoyes

Not me. Not anymore. I gave up on being fiscally responsible a few years ago and now I just splurge, splurge, splurge. I just don't care anymore.

Brad you're doing your best to support this format, so kudos to you, sir! Me and my paltry 144 UHD collection will now take ourselves over to the box of shame.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yeah, I mean movies were/are intended to play at 48 nits for SDR theatrical projection (and ~half that nittage for 3D) but are instantly upgraded to 120 nits for the SDR home version, never mind anything else. And I still don't think that SDR 709 on blu-ray, what with its cruder gamut, 8-bit depth and chroma resolution that's effectively 960x540, is wholly accurate to the intent either, so people can stick with their Blu-rays thinking that they're 100% accurate to the original intent but they're really not, it's just another digital bottleneck.

I've mentioned this before but a few years ago there was a roundtable piece with several cinematographers at Variety or THR or some such industry mouthpiece site and when they were specifically asked "do you think that Blu-ray represents what you originally intended?" not a single person held their hand up. Not a one of 'em. Apocryphal perhaps, seeing as I can't find the piece no more, but it really is the case that many of the Blu-ray versions we see (from the majors at least, the indies generally do a bit more to ensure a correct SDR 709 trim pass) aren't the ultimate bastions of accuracy they're assumed to be.

Doesn't mean that the HDR version is any less sacrilicious of course, but by virtue of the expanded bit depth and wider colour gamut you've got a greater chance of one being "correct" (albeit with bells on) than the other. The door does swing the other way - one can make a case that the greenier colour cast and reduced tints on the X-Men UHD aren't what was intended - but those instances are few IMO.

Yeah, at this point we’ve moved away and have definitely surpassed the theatrical experience minus screen size. I’m more than fine with stepping outside of the accurate zone so long as we don’t get the French Connection revision of classics. I don’t frequent cinemas anymore because aside from size which doesn’t impress me anymore I don’t see the point.

Oh, and I couldn’t agree more about your feelings on HDR. It’s the single biggest leap in any home video format.

[Bluebolt]

Originally Posted by aetherhole

Has the OP even come back to this thread since creating the thread?

Originally Posted by Vilya

Not even once.

Troll is likely back under his bridge.

The OP determines the subject matter of the thread; that's who sets the agenda. It's the rest of you who are trolling.

If you don't like the topic, feel free to start your own.

[nick4Knight]

And this is why I think the way I do about RAH, to circle it back. A lot of us care more about home video presentation than him. If that even needs to be said... The guy devoted his life to an entirely different beast. And so he has his biases.

My issue is when sycophants and trolls take his alarm-bell ringing rants about HDR and prop his expertise as a shield to discredit it. Of course he's praised UHD discs, because he isn't going to risk his reputation just outright slandering good quality. But there's an undercurrent of tribalism to his rhetoric. It has no place in the modern landscape. As many have said, we're past the cinema imitation stage to a hybrid of breathing life into old in a respectful and pleasing manner -- Whether thats Matrix or Vertigo, to me, it's fair game!

Maybe one day there will be limited HDR versions of all the films he's restored, and others of that era. I hope so. Options are great! But as far as 4K UHD, currently, this selling point will dictate that those classics will get healthy highlights extracted from the scan. And absolutely the same level of WCG as Bridge on the River Kwai, and other film catalog -- Regardless that audiences never saw that much colours on film projection, nor his bias on the matter.

[Noremac Mij]

HDR is like that 152 Crayola Ultimate Box.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

We all do it, trying to convince ourselves that we don't need something in our lives while other people are living it up royally using said thing. Personally I think HDR is the single greatest improvement to my viewing experience since the switch from VHS to DVD, and I say that with no hyperbole.

Wait until you get an OLED.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Bluebolt

The OP determines the subject matter of the thread; that's who sets the agenda. It's the rest of you who are trolling.

If you don't like the topic, feel free to start your own.

The OP misrepresented the opinions of Robert Harris in an attempt to justify his own. The OP has never once rejoined the conversation. He posted the same misleading post in the comments section of the news announcement for the upcoming 4K release of Superman and he has never been heard from again there, either. He did not even provide a link to his own thread.

He never appears to have wanted a discussion, just a reaction, and he has certainly succeeded there.

HDR is a topic of interest to many. That's why we are here: participating and discussing it. It is beyond ridiculous to say that all of the active contributing participants are trolling anyone; we were invited here after all by the creation of the thread itself. Where's our host?

If it is my post that you object to, then that's fine. Label my actions however you like, but do not paint everyone here with that broad brush.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

Wait until you get an OLED.

do you have one that can do ~2000 nit peaks?

[ROSS.T.G.]

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

do you have one that can do ~2000 nit peaks?

Worrying about 2000 nits is not being able to see the forest for the trees.

[guachi]

Originally Posted by Moonlight Shadow

I'd get the Mummy UHD if I would like the movie more.

If you get the Mummy in UHD you probably will like the movie more. It's probably the one (out of 99!) UHD movie I own that exceeded my expectations the most for how it turned out in 4k. A very pleasant surprise.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

Worrying about 2000 nits is not being able to see the forest for the trees.

Uh huh.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's the problem with that kind of HDR performance in general, Mark. You may find that a slew of discs look absolutely magical on it and then you'll put one in that looks so bad you'll think that something broke inside the TV. Switching to SDR conversion is one way around it but even then, SDR conversion is basically screwed on certain players (there being no established 'baseline' for how it should be done) and it's only the Panasonics that produce a decent enough result. They also have HDR optimisation though and that might be a much better fit for your TV, if it's the one we were talking about, as the player can do its own mapping of the HDR signal.

In all honesty I think I'm probably less sensitive to the nuances of HDR appreciation than most of you guys... I just don't want something that will look worse than not having it. Seems like there's no way to be sure. Yeah, it's the Sony TV I'm talking about, and my player is a Samsung. I'm not buying upscales, only native 4K masters, so that might help. I mean, I'm not buying discs for the HDR alone.

[desertedsun]

@Geoff D Just reading your reviews I knew you had to have a high nit peak tv. What tv is it? I just upgraded from a 500 nit peak tv to the new Vizio P Quantum and it makes a night and day difference in HDR.