HDR is crayons

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

From the HDR Discussion thread:

“...one more thing...”

HDR color pass last week –

[jrcorwin3]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

How is that even possible? Theatrical projectors (film or digital) can't do HDR at all.... LOL

...yes, they can and they do.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by jrcorwin3

...yes, they can and they do.

Can open, worms everywhere

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by jrcorwin3

...yes, they can and they do.

Yeah HDR at 106 nits in a few theaters worldwide is really something.....

[Deciazulado]

people will keep confusing High Dynamic RANGE with high brightness, high nits, displays that are bright.

You can watch SDR at 10000 nits in an outdoor daylight billboard type display. That doesn't make it HDR.

You can watch high dynamic range prints with several more f/stops of dynamic range than an LCD is capable of at 50 nits. Still HDR

[Crow]

HDR = Highly Doubtful Rendering

[ROSS.T.G.]

SDR =

[Geoff D]

I'm going to Yemen!

[Brian81]

Originally Posted by jrcorwin3

Whether they praise or condemn a release...I always have and always will roll my eyes at anyone who claims to faithfully remember the specific audio and video details of a film they saw in a random movie theater years ago.

There are theaters that acquire older films and present them. I used to go to these regularly, until all the theaters in my area went digital only.

[Brian81]

Originally Posted by CarlosMeat

I agree with this generally as long as the version which makes an effort to be as close to unrevised as possible is also available.

I will default to the extreme tealing of Blade Runner The Final Cut. All previous iterations had the colors red and blue the Final cut has only aqua and orange. Skin tones are orange red lipstick is orange tail lights are orange etc. Now I fully understand this is the Directors intent with the revision but if you look at Forest Gump, Bull Durham, and IMO Midnight Cowboy there has been significant color timing change all again toward Cyan.


We will very likely never see a more natural looking color as contemporary films in those days routinely had but only the revised version. One can say "it looks fine" which is what I hear from so many but in my heart of hearts knowing that films essentially never had those sorts of color timing until the last decade or so that this is revised and I personally don't like it.

I'd like to have both but of course we will not get it.

The Final Cut gets off because it's a new version of the film. It can be taken on it's own, like the Star Wars special editions.

[Brian81]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Sometimes i wonder if these BDs were sabotaged on purpose to facilitate a UHD double dip down the road. The difference between rec709 and dcip3 color space is not large enough to warrant some of the radical coloring differences we are seeing between BD and UHD. Or conversely, if the stylized color "blankets" are removed on UHD to make them look more colorful in order to fulfill the HDR marketing.

Honestly, I feel the same way about the hate for NTSC and tealing.


"Oh, the old LD wasn't capable of teal and that is why it is blue"....Copies DVD to SVHS and it looks teal.

[Geoff D]

Alas, that the Star Wars trilogy got the same treatment as Blade Runner. Gimme a tarted-up Final (or 'not so Final Cut' when it comes to Lucas) Cut remastered from negative and preserve the prior cut(s) with a decent HD transfer from an IP at the minimum.

[Brian81]

Originally Posted by jrcorwin3

...yes, they can and they do.

Theatrical presentation of film outside of large formats generally seemed to be about as good as a higher quality BD in my experience. If it weren't for the DNR, I would say that the Jaws BD easily looks better than when I saw it in 35mm.

So often I remember thinking film projectors made things looked blown out or questioned if they weren't properly focused because of how soft things were.


That's why the Nolan UHDs don't really bother me. They're not razor sharp, but they're about how I remember them being. Possibly better.

[Ernest Rister]

HDR isn't crayons. These are crayons.

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by Brian81

There are theaters that acquire older films and present them. I used to go to these regularly, until all the theaters in my area went digital only.

You know full well these supposed 'maestros of memory' mean their original viewings of the film projected AT year of release, when they make the claims. And I promptly invoke science to call BS on that noise.

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

HDR isn't crayons. These are crayons.

64? TV in 2018 has over 1 Billion of those suckers. IMO pretty impressive

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

people will keep confusing High Dynamic RANGE with high brightness, high nits, displays that are bright.

You can watch SDR at 10000 nits in an outdoor daylight billboard type display. That doesn't make it HDR.

You can watch high dynamic range prints with several more f/stops of dynamic range than an LCD is capable of at 50 nits. Still HDR

Try watching HDR on a 100 nits LCD, you will see darkness....

[Ernest Rister]

I received treatment for nits.



That's my high school yearbook photo.

[gkolb]

Now, I won’t be able to sleep tonight after seeing that.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by gkolb

Now, I won’t be able to sleep tonight after seeing that.

Pretty sure that's just rice

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

people will keep confusing High Dynamic RANGE with high brightness, high nits, displays that are bright.

You can watch SDR at 10000 nits in an outdoor daylight billboard type display. That doesn't make it HDR.

You can watch high dynamic range prints with several more f/stops of dynamic range than an LCD is capable of at 50 nits. Still HDR

If you try to watch HDR on a 50nits display, 100 nits display, etc, without tonemapping it will be dark and unwatchable.

That is what tone mapping is for... Of course the more tonemapping used, the less "HDR" the image is. Tonemapped to 100 nits, you are not much better off than SDR - in fact you may be worse off than SDR, as dynamic tonemapping consumer displays use that extreme could result in massively blown out highlights over much of the screen and other issues a professional SDR grade would not have; the results also could be better, but that's largely dependent on the tonemapping hardware used and HDR grade at hand.

Your argument is similar to saying a display that accepts and downcoverts 16.7 million color images to 65K colors because it can't natively display the full 16.7 million colors, is still a 16.7 million color display. Its not; it may be compatible with and able to accept the signal, but its not able to fully render it.

Filmmakers create their films with theatrical exhibition in mind; the film is shot and graded with the limitations of theatrical exhibition at the forefront. There was no hardware that came even remotely close to what is necessary for HDR theatrical exhibition even 20 years ago, nevermind the 50+ RAH is referring to. The argument that "well enough information is there on the negative to make a HDR master of Spartacus so its not revisionist" is about as convincing as saying "well enough information is there on the negative to make a 3D master of Top Gun so its not revisionist." (also, Top Gun 3D is awesome!! )