HDR is crayons

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by bradnoyes

"The only way to really judge the PQ on any film is to simply not watch it. Once you've seen the film, your judgement is clouded. That's why I only watch movies with my eyes closed. Same thing with books and stuff."

Ruined, 2018

"I dont understand the concept of both liking something while also being able to discuss that same thing's logically unavoidable downsides caused by basic principals of marketing and business."

-some people on an internet forum, 2018

[aetherhole]

I dunno, maybe I am thinking off-base here (foggy flu brain). Filmmakers creating content in SDR is due to the output limitations, not necessarily because it was always intended to be that way. Given new technology, revisionism is highly plausible as being the filmmakers ultimate intent. It isn't necessarily their "original" intent, but given new tech and less limitation, they can revisit their content and reevaluate said intent. However, film was able to capture more information than displays were originally capable of reproducing, so it's possible to now see more of what is intended (previously or currently).

If they had the technology and decided to NOT utilize it, then you could say that they intended it for SDR. Similarly when a filmmaker decides to make a film in black and white now a days. That IS their intent.

Same thing can be said about the audio soundtrack, as well. With the technology available, we are able to make 3D immersive sound, however filmmakers like Nolan, still are pretty adamant about not utilizing it. That IS intentional. However going from Mono to Multi-Channel is a different story because there's a limited amount of sound recorded that you would have to virtualize.

Doing an HDR pass from old film prints isn't (necessarily) adding more color or dynamic details, it is just using new technology to extract information that's already there.

[bradnoyes]

Originally Posted by Ruined

"I dont understand the concept of both liking something while also being able to discuss that same thing's logically unavoidable downsides caused by basic principals of marketing and business."

-some people on an internet forum, 2018

'HDR is crayons' has never been about anything resembling what you just wrote. Of course, by default this thread is going to be a very different experience for those of us who are familiar with watching films in HDR, so I can see how your interpretation might be different from mine.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by bradnoyes

'HDR is crayons' has never been about anything resembling what you just wrote. Of course, by default this thread is going to be a very different experience for those of us who are familiar with watching films in HDR, so I can see how your interpretation might be different from mine.

Well they dont even make a true HDR projector under $50,000 and im not giving up my 120" screen size, so unless someone wants to buy me a Dolby Cinema Christie HDR laser projector (6 figures), that is just the way its going to be.

Mind you they market some projectors as HDR, but they need so much tonemapping due to lack of light output that they are more like SDR+.

Anyway I didnt make this thread, but my quote very much speaks to my posts, ie:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=187

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=197

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by aetherhole

I dunno, maybe I am thinking off-base here (foggy flu brain). Filmmakers creating content in SDR is due to the output limitations, not necessarily because it was always intended to be that way. Given new technology, revisionism is highly plausible as being the filmmakers ultimate intent. It isn't necessarily their "original" intent, but given new tech and less limitation, they can revisit their content and reevaluate said intent. However, film was able to capture more information than displays were originally capable of reproducing, so it's possible to now see more of what is intended (previously or currently).

If they had the technology and decided to NOT utilize it, then you could say that they intended it for SDR. Similarly when a filmmaker decides to make a film in black and white now a days. That IS their intent.

Same thing can be said about the audio soundtrack, as well. With the technology available, we are able to make 3D immersive sound, however filmmakers like Nolan, still are pretty adamant about not utilizing it. That IS intentional. However going from Mono to Multi-Channel is a different story because there's a limited amount of sound recorded that you would have to virtualize.

Doing an HDR pass from old film prints isn't (necessarily) adding more color or dynamic details, it is just using new technology to extract information that's already there.

We can say it was meant for SDR but what does that mean in itself? I'm not arguing with you, I'm just pointing out that when 4K naysayers casually reference SDR as being inherently more accurate than HDR are they talking about an old-school film projection with a tungsten lamp at about 5400K colour temperature for prints, 14fL brightness mastered in P3 wide gamut and 10/12-bit for digital projection at 6300K, or the home 100 nit (about 30fL) version in 709 8-bit 6500K? So many moving targets and that's just for "SDR", never mind anything else. HDR may well go overboard with how much it can display, but consumer 8-bit SDR 709 can also fall some way short of what was ever intended. The taste of the people twiddling the knobs is almost always the key factor here.

[bradnoyes]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Well they dont even make a true HDR projector under $50,000 and im not giving up my 120" screen size, so unless someone wants to buy me a Dolby Cinema Christie HDR laser projector (6 figures), that is just the way its going to be.

Mind you they market some projectors as HDR, but they need so much tonemapping due to lack of light output that they are more like SDR+.

Anyway I didnt make this thread, but my quote very much speaks to my posts, ie:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=187

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=197

I mostly just see hand wringing. I'd be a lot more sympathetic to your concerns if some of the older catalog UHDs were somehow grotesque abominations due to HDR, but that just hasn't been the case.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by bradnoyes

I mostly just see hand wringing. I'd be a lot more sympathetic to your concerns if some of the older catalog UHDs were somehow grotesque abominations due to HDR, but that just hasn't been the case.

Im not particularly hand wringing myself (ive upgraded most of the movies im interested in to 4k UHD, except Halloween cause I want the original mono) but i can definitely see why RAH is hand wringing... Or maybe this is just RAHs opening salvo for a bigger budget that will allow him to restore both for 4k sdr and 4k hdr when dealing with the classics.

The point is RAH doesnt want to be beholden to the consumer or corporate marketing expectations of "brighter, deeper, more lifelike colors" that go along with HDR if he signs on to a 4k restoration, but on the other hand the studio hiring him/paying the bill might require him to make the HDR output look significantly different than what RAH believes intent was - and if RAH does not make the HDR grade look significantly different than SDR they may reject his restoration or not hire him to begin with since studio research shows HDR is what sells the content.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Maybe think of this analogy to see what RAH is getting at:

Filmmaker creates movie with mono soundtrack, this is his intention.

Studio markets the 4k uhd with "NEW Dolby Atmos soundtrack." The studio *can* very easily encode a Dolby Atmos soundtrack with only center channel information, perfectly replicating the mono soundtrack... But will they? And if not, why not? Will consumer expectations of what an Atmos track "should" sound like influence the studios decision to deviate from original intention? Lets assume for this example the only soundtrack they could include was the Atmos for some reason.

So if a filmmaker creates movie in SDR and this is his intention...

Studio markets the 4k uhd with "NEW HDR color" etc, would they not be pressured to make the HDR significantly different than the SDR even if it deviates from intention for the same reason they wouldnt release Atmos encoded with only center channel info? Remember unlike a soundtrack its not financially feasible to include both a 4k sdr and hdr grade, and studies showed HDR is what sells 4k sets and discs moreso than 4k resolution itself.

Nobody sets out to make an SDR movie. Any movie shot on film is not SDR. Only HDR can present film properly at home. If anything, Harris should be campaigning against SDR.

[aetherhole]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

We can say it was meant for SDR but what does that mean in itself? I'm not arguing with you, I'm just pointing out that when 4K naysayers casually reference SDR as being inherently more accurate than HDR are they talking about an old-school film projection with a tungsten lamp at about 5400K colour temperature for prints, 14fL brightness mastered in P3 wide gamut and 10/12-bit for digital projection at 6300K, or the home 100 nit (about 30fL) version in 709 8-bit 6500K? So many moving targets and that's just for "SDR", never mind anything else. HDR may well go overboard with how much it can display, but consumer 8-bit SDR 709 can also fall some way short of what was ever intended. The taste of the people twiddling the knobs is almost always the key factor here.

It may be more accurate to what they were shown on, absolutely.

Regarding the bolded part, I'd much rather have more headroom and be under utilized than more limitation. And I think that's why individuals like you and me and many others on here can appreciate and be equally impressed by the more subtle HDR presentations. They still perceptively are miles improved over SDR, but not to the point of "ermagerd dem 10,000nit highlights all over the place! My eyeballs are bleeding!" and "holy balls look how amazeballs those colors look popping straight off of mah tele!" Rather, the ones where image depth and color depth is much improved despite not raising the APL by several hundred nits.

[aetherhole]

Originally Posted by bradnoyes

I mostly just see hand wringing. I'd be a lot more sympathetic to your concerns if some of the older catalog UHDs were somehow grotesque abominations due to HDR, but that just hasn't been the case.

Agreed. I've yet to see a catalog title become a grotesque abomination due to HDR and I don't think we will... (I really hope not)

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

Nobody sets out to make an SDR movie.

Incorrect. Movies are graded for the presentation technologies available for their use. When those technologies are SDR, an SDR movie is exactly what they set out to make. Just like a boom mic in the shot above the intended picture area, what the eye can see exposed on the negative is not necessarily a part of the movie.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by aetherhole

It may be more accurate to what they were shown on, absolutely.

Regarding the bolded part, I'd much rather have more headroom and be under utilized than more limitation. And I think that's why individuals like you and me and many others on here can appreciate and be equally impressed by the more subtle HDR presentations. They still perceptively are miles improved over SDR, but not to the point of "ermagerd dem 10,000nit highlights all over the place! My eyeballs are bleeding!" and "holy balls look how amazeballs those colors look popping straight off of mah tele!" Rather, the ones where image depth and color depth is much improved despite not raising the APL by several hundred nits.

Regarding your bolded part I said virtually the same thing upthread.

The problem with the more subtle HDR grades - "problem" from a purely technical POV, not an artistic one - is that they're the ones that can end up looking very badly misrepresented by shit tellies and/or shit settings, which is why they end up having a poor rep following them around like a bad smell.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by aetherhole

Agreed. I've yet to see a catalog title become a grotesque abomination due to HDR and I don't think we will... (I really hope not)

RAH likely isnt referring to grotesque abominations. But instead, being a purist and perfectionist wants to restore movies to how his research indicates they should look - and doesnt want some studio exec rejecting his resto, coming back and saying "we need you to make this look a little more HDR" because the marketing dictates HDR should have higher brightness., bolder colors, more lifelike, etc.

Its a control/perfectionism purist thing. He wants to make the resto look exactly and precisely the way his research indicates its supposed to look, not the way HDR marketing dictates its supposed to look.

[bradnoyes]

I agree that this topic is basically about one very specific person clutching at his pearls and has little or nothing to do with the UHD format as a whole.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by bradnoyes

I agree that this topic is basically about one very specific person clutching at his pearls and has little or nothing to do with the UHD format as a whole.

Aren't they always? It's invariably someone who's not looking to learn but who instead has written off 4K HDR and is looking for any kind of validation as to why it sucks the big one. It's not the first and, sadly, it won't be the last.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Incorrect. Movies are graded for the presentation technologies available for their use. When those technologies are SDR, an SDR movie is exactly what they set out to make. Just like a boom mic in the shot above the intended picture area, what the eye can see exposed on the negative is not necessarily a part of the movie.

Film is graded in SDR? Isn’t film what Harris is restoring? We’re in some sort of Twilight Zone here. If Harris is restoring film and using SDR, then it doesn’t meet original intent and he should change course immediately.

[bradnoyes]

Incidentally, I think we all owe the OP a round of applause. Not only did his troll topic get off to a rousing start, but somehow he just knew he'd never even have to come back and carry his own water because someone else would do it for him. Kudos.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by bradnoyes

Incidentally, I think we all owe the OP a round of applause. Not only did his troll topic get off to a rousing start, but somehow he just knew he'd never even have to come back and carry his own water because someone else would do it for him. Kudos.

"HDR is crayons" should get thread title of the year award.

[trevanian]

Originally Posted by aetherhole

Doing an HDR pass from old film prints isn't (necessarily) adding more color or dynamic details, it is just using new technology to extract information that's already there.

But it could be extracting information that wasn't intended to be seen. I go back to the EASY RIDER transfer, where the colorist told the DP they could get a lot more detail out of the shadow area and Zsigmond indicated you weren't supposed to be able to see anything in the shadow area. So there's the matter of capability as well as intention (which is basically what an intelligence briefing is supposed to be about, now that I type those words and look at them.)

[bradnoyes]

Originally Posted by Ruined

"HDR is crayons" should get thread title of the year award.

I was thinking of writing up a template for some annual "Best of" forum awards and 'HDR is crayons' has certainly earned a special achievement award.