HDR is crayons

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Your OLED TV fails to meet the minimum amount of nits (1000) needed to display most UHD BDs without tonemapping to something less than HDR.

I must take issue with that as I've always have. 700 nits is only 0.5 f/stops away from 1000 nits. Take a camera, and pressing the depth of field preview button, close the lens 0.5 f/stops (like from f/2.0 to f/2.38) and that's the dimming (or take a birthday cake with 4 candles and blow out 1). Since OLEDs have "infinite blacks" and contrast ranges of 20+ f/stops, watching the movies on them set up for 700 nits vs 1000 nits with the proper adjustment is such as small difference, it is basically THE HDR experience. Or at least more so than watching them at 1000 nits with limited contrast displays that have half to 2/3rds the contrast range.

If you want to calculate/compare
1000:1 = 10 f/stops (typical/SDR LCD)
2000:1 = 11 f/stops
4000:1 = 12 f/stops
8000:1 = 13 f/stops
16000:1 = 14 f/stops
32000:1 = 15 f/stops
64000:1 = 16 f/stops
128000:1 = 17 f/stops
256000:1 = 18 f/stops
512000:1 = 19 f/stops
1,000,000:1 = 20 f/stops

This is not a post of which technology is best but it really is nonsensical to say an OLED can't give you the "full" HDR experience just because it doesn't glow 0.5 f/steps brighter, while the panels/projectors it's being compared with, can't even display 5 or more of the full f/steps of the HDR contrast range than OLEDs displays do display!
HDR from -20.5 to -0.5 f/stops is more HDR (Higher Dynamic Range) than from -12 to 0 f/stops, or -13 to 0 f/stops, or -14 to 0 f/stops, etc
(or if you want it normalized to 100 nits, OLED HDR from -17.2 to + 2.8 is more HDR (Higher Dynamic Range) than a range of -8.7 to + 3.3, or -9.7 to + 3.3, or -10.7 to +3.3, of a 1000 nit monitor, etc.).
Dim your room lighting half a f/stop or watch in the dark and you eye will adapt to the 0.5 f/stop difference in no time and see the highlights as bright as on a 1000 nit monitor, just like it adapts when the day goes from full sunlight to overcast (3 f/stops) or from going outside to inside. People watch movies in theaters with whites at 35 nits which is 1.5 f/stops darker than whites at 100 nits (or 1 f/stop darker than whites at 70 nits on an OLED adjusted for the full 0-1000 range at 700 nits) etc. It's like saying when I listen to The Beatles my amp can reach 118 dB peaks while yours only reaches 112 dBs, can't get the full experience.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Yes XYZ coding would be even better encompassing all but I guess 2020 was chosen because the primaries were within the visible and they could "visualize" it instead of dealing with "imaginary" out of bound colors?

That really didn’t enter into the decision. Unlike the decision and practice in the D-cinema world to use XYZ components for production and distribution (https://www.oreilly.com/library/view...9780240808741/), in a nutshell, XYZ and P3 were ruled out for television production and delivery because of several other factors.

Briefly, there were too many unknowns as to exactly how XYZ would perform compared to 2020 in the high compression HEVC environments of streaming, broadcasting or packaged media (remember that D-Cinema uses JPEG2000 at very high bit rates and is less compressed…equating in TV terms to a very high quality mezzanine format rather than HEVC). Also, the thinking was that in order to use XYZ components for TVs, would require at least 12 bit/sample (HEVC 12) rather than 10 bit/sample. Lastly, it was felt that compared to 2020, to make XYZ work would require more expense by the consumer TV manufacturers (reps of which are on various standardization committees) for perhaps marginal gains in picture quality.

P.S.
remind thee other mods and the Scandinavian folk, that’s ^ all inside baseball from a retired Insider.

[Deciazulado]

Penton I had a smilie . But posting the real reasons is important. Thank you. There's even questioning of 2020 being "too wide", needing more bits etc.

Btw I included a graph with Cie XYZ just because you mentioned it and is relevant. :>

[StingingVelvet]

Talking about nits kind of misses the point. I mean yeah, it's part of the equation, but good tone-mapping is a bigger part. I think a lot of those middling TVs having issues suffer from being 500 nits or whatever, but they suffer more from having poor color volume and tone-mapping.

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by BrownianMotion

The exact same thing applies to BD. It's marketed as a vast improvement in picture quality and supports a wider color gamut than previous home video formats.

Actually, BD and DVD have very little difference in colour gamut, so little they often don't bother to adjust the grade. Not to say there isn't a difference, there is, but it's more akin to a colour shift in saturated areas than a wider gamut.

[alexanderg823]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

*sigh*

We've been over this point multiple times. The latitude of film is not the measure. Theatrical grades are the measure. It doesn't matter how much latitude film has because theatrical presentation is the limiting factor and doesn't display all of that latitude.

the measure should be the DP's intent, right?

This may be crazy, but what if a theatrical grade limitations frustrated a DP as it couldn't fully capture the majesty and intent of one's photography? I mean shoot, something tells me that professional photographers that film beautiful vistas on location would appreciate more than the pitiful 500:1 contrast ratio the average cinema provides. Wouldn't you say?

Nevertheless, a theatrical grade still captures a hell of alot more dynamic range than SDR does, even if it's peaking at 100 nits or lower. Remember, these films aren't mastered from 1 to 100 nit. It's 0 to 100 nit. (or maybe .005 or whatever, still way less than 1) And that's a really important distinction to understand.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by alexanderg823

This may be crazy, but what if a theatrical grade limitations frustrated a DP as it couldn't fully capture the majesty and intent of one's photography? I mean shoot, something tells me that professional photographers that film beautiful vistas on location would appreciate more than the pitiful 500:1 contrast ratio the average cinema provides. Wouldn't you say?

The people riled up about HDR accuracy are the people who think the cinematic exhibition was the holy grail. That home video's goal should be to emulate the theater experience as closely as possible. So to them this is an irrelevant question.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

*sigh*

We've been over this point multiple times. The latitude of film is not the measure. Theatrical grades are the measure. It doesn't matter how much latitude film has because theatrical presentation is the limiting factor and doesn't display all of that latitude.

*sign* indeed. SDR cannot properly do justice to “theatrical grades,” not even close. If you want to faithfully preserve theatrical grades at home, you NEED HDR, it’s an essential and only tool available today that can get you there.

[oddbox83]

Theatrical prints are a guide, not a hard rule. There would have been massive variations at times. Once the director has signed off it's at the mercy of making prints on various stocks and matching these to the intent. It'd vary a lot.

Only the most powerful directors could be making sure they stuck to it exactly. Even then, film is an organic medium, no two prints would be absolutely identical. They also change with age, especially colour film. Prints are often used as guides in restorations, they suggest the look but they don't match them exactly. It's important to get that magic median between looking like it's supposed to and looking the best it can.

It's only when new grades have a lot of revisionism where it becomes an issue, because the technology now allows us to be more accurate to the original intent than film prints were. Why would you not take advantage of that, and what director would want you watching a compromised version when a better option is available?

[BrownianMotion]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

Actually, BD and DVD have very little difference in colour gamut, so little they often don't bother to adjust the grade. Not to say there isn't a difference, there is, but it's more akin to a colour shift in saturated areas than a wider gamut.

That's not the point. Some people were claiming that a new format with greater capabilities would create pressure for content creators to "boost" the image beyond what was originally intended. It doesn't matter how great the technical difference is - any new format has the potential to create the same pressure, because the "casuals" always expect a pristine and super saturated image. That's not unique to UHD.

However, we're not really seeing much revisionist grading in practice.

[alexanderg823]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

The people riled up about HDR accuracy are the people who think the cinematic exhibition was the holy grail. That home video's goal should be to emulate the theater experience as closely as possible. So to them this is an irrelevant question.

the irony is that the theater experience pre digital wasn't a "standard", and varied widely depending on film generation, number of times used, projector system, etc.

Even if you disregard all of that, HDR still renders closest to a theoretical "theater experience" than anything else.

[Geoff D]

From the HDR Discussion thread:

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Claudio (DP for Top Gun: Maverick), Daryn and Vanja on HDR, 8K and other things….
https://postperspective.com/production-roundtable/

'tis a fascinating glimpse into what HDR and 8K and all that jazz really mean for several working cinematographers. Claudio Miranda speaks of too much grain in HDR (perhaps he really did de-noise Oblivion for the HDR pass? ) while others repeatedly mention that dynamic range is more important than resolution. I also liked the comment from Daryn Okada that the requirements of OTT to go for 4K and HDR finishes is a more natural progession from shooting for movies than some might think.

[aetherhole]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

From the HDR Discussion thread:



'tis a fascinating glimpse into what HDR and 8K and all that jazz really mean for several working cinematographers. Claudio Miranda speaks of too much grain in HDR (perhaps he really did de-noise Oblivion for the HDR pass? ) while others repeatedly mention that dynamic range is more important than resolution. I also liked the comment from Daryn Okada that the requirements of OTT to go for 4K and HDR finishes is a more natural progession from shooting for movies than some might think.

Shhhhhh don't tell Rocky!

Actually, do tell him over and over again... maybe it'll eventually stick!

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

From the HDR Discussion thread:



'tis a fascinating glimpse into what HDR and 8K and all that jazz really mean for several working cinematographers. Claudio Miranda speaks of too much grain in HDR (perhaps he really did de-noise Oblivion for the HDR pass? ) while others repeatedly mention that dynamic range is more important than resolution. I also liked the comment from Daryn Okada that the requirements of OTT to go for 4K and HDR finishes is a more natural progession from shooting for movies than some might think.

Ahem

TFW Geoff realizes a LPF's purpose *is* DNR.

[Black Sun]

Every time I come back to this forum and see this stupid thread title I die a little inside. I’m afraid this will be one of those threads that never goes away.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Penton I had a smilie .....

No problem

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Ahem

TFW Geoff realizes a LPF's purpose *is* DNR.

The contention that HDR exacerbates noise/grain was never in doubt. It's the way you're applying that thinking to a badly bodged final SDR master which was, and still is, the problem. And no, I'll never put an LPF under the same banner as DNR because while the purpose *is* the same the actual processes are not, viz the temporal component of DNR.

[koberulz]

What's LPF?

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by koberulz

What's LPF?

LPF is markers

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

*sign* indeed. SDR cannot properly do justice to “theatrical grades,” not even close. If you want to faithfully preserve theatrical grades at home, you NEED HDR, it’s an essential and only tool available today that can get you there.

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

Are you confusing color space with HDR?

I mean UHD brings several improvements in the color department with 10/12 bit P3 color space, but that doesn't have anything to do with HDR...

I'm not against HDR, I just find amusing that the reference standard for movies should be a technology that didn't even exist before late 2015 and that no projector in the world can actually use properly....

So let's be honest: UHD actually tries to go BEYOND the theatrical presentation, no shame in that but it's truly the first time in Home Video history