HDR is crayons

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by LexInHD

I saw Hitchcock's Vertigo last night, in 4K.

Not to jump us too far off-track (is that even possible in this thread?), but what did you think of that presentation? I'm presuming this was a 4K master of recent vintage... ?

[LexInHD]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Not to jump us too far off-track (is that even possible in this thread?), but what did you think of that presentation? I'm presuming this was a 4K master of recent vintage... ?

It was sound and solid, from 2012 or so, but as I have the eyes of a hawk, I was able to discern numerous visual anomalies such as the shipyard office scene's model ship - this is the scene where we meet Gavin and he pushes John to get involved in his machinations - fluctuating on the screen due to it being a digital CGI fix caused by film damage and several other instances of such things being fixed. These things are common with classic film restorations, even the more recent ones like Raiders of The Lost Ark, which has a nasty and noisy bit in the opening jungle sequence. The bookstore sequence - and this is not something I am familiar with due to not having seen the film before - had an instance where the picture brightness dimmed suddenly and abruptly during a shot and continued for a short time before going back to normal levels right before John and Marjorie left the shop, and it did not feel intentional to my eyes. The sound was quite good though and I would consider it very good for a film restoration, as the music and sound elements were on point from what I heard.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I’ll remind you, for the record, that some here were advocates of using the XYZ color space for encoding (as opposed to BT.2020) - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...z#post15497298 .

And also something I think may not have ever been reported is that Pat Griffiths of Dolby Labs actually wanted 20,000 nits for PQ.

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?
But funny thing it's basically the same as doing P3 inside 2020, they could have "done" 2020 (or any gamut) inside XYZ as it's just numbers and equations and color management would dealt with it, since we're doing it now with P3/2020 anyway.

Maybe later? HDRxYz



About 20k+ nit highlights..

well if they code highlights up to 1023 limit in the video, above the legal 10k nits 940 level.. doesn't Griffiths gets his wish? Unless it makes the player->monitor playback go like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GSd92zgqAs&t=0m45s

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Older movies were graded for theatrical presentation which was certainly not HDR. That’s why we’re having this discussion in the first place.

At this point you’ve been corrected by countless members who know the technical ins and outs and how the HDR process works. You also had plenty of time to do a bit of your own research. But it seems you’re more interested in trolling than in how HDR helps movies at home look more faithful to a theatrical projection. If you are willfully ignorant, then I apologize in advance for assuming that you’re trolling this thread.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

than in how HDR helps movies at home look more faithful to a theatrical projection.

Ehhhh... I don't think the "technical experts" are really saying that. What I've learned from the smart members here is that the range used with HDR is likely much higher than theatrical exhibition (as is 4k detail probably), but perhaps accurate to what you can get off the negative. So it depends on what you're trying to be "accurate" to. In my case I'm fine with accurate to the negative or general filmmaker intentions.

Also I think most would agree HDR goes above and beyond that at times, but as I was just saying I think for the most part it's more reigned in on catalog material. So it's not distressingly inaccurate, IMO.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Ehhhh... I don't think the "technical experts" are really saying that. What I've learned from the smart members here is that the range used with HDR is likely much higher than theatrical exhibition (as is 4k detail probably), but perhaps accurate to what you can get off the negative. So it depends on what you're trying to be "accurate" to. In my case I'm fine with accurate to the negative or general filmmaker intentions.

Also I think most would agree HDR goes above and beyond that at times, but as I was just saying I think for the most part it's more reigned in on catalog material.

I agree. HDR goes a bit above, but SDR is bellow. In the right hands, HDR is an essential tool to represent film faithfully at home. But that goes for anything.

[BrownianMotion]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Yeah! And send all the art-being-seen-as-it-was-meant-to-be-seen with him!

Who needs artists' expression when we can have "pop" instead?

You've been posting on this forum for several years, and you're still under the impression that HDR is some sort of tool used for revisionist purposes to add more "pop?"

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Ehhhh... I don't think the "technical experts" are really saying that. What I've learned from the smart members here is that the range used with HDR is likely much higher than theatrical exhibition (as is 4k detail probably), but perhaps accurate to what you can get off the negative. So it depends on what you're trying to be "accurate" to. In my case I'm fine with accurate to the negative or general filmmaker intentions.

This is a good summary of the issue.

Before HDR was available the person behind the camera was not tweaking their settings, using their lighting with a target of using the full range of the negative - the target was theatrical exhibition.

Thus when you go back and start trying to restore that range from the negative, you are indeed not meeting the intention of the filmmaker way back when IMO. Now the filmmaker could now say "wow i really would have displayed that range if possible" but that is a new statement and not their intention back in the 70s/80s, etc.

On top of this, i am sure experts like RAH are indeed pressured to make the HDR UHD look different than the SDR blu. Otherwise, if the HDR looks near identical to the SDR consumers may feel they got ripped off with no "improvement."

The best (and most expensive) way to handle this with older films is to provide both SDR and HDR presentations in 4k (RAHs statement may even be an attempt to advocate for this). Then the consumer can choose to either pick the option that looked closer to theatrical exhibition (SDR), or closer to the full range of the negative (HDR). RAH is arguing the former is closer to original intent and id tend to agree as no cinematographer from 70s/80s/etc expected to use the full range of the negative - however that does not mean that the HDR version might not look more appealing to some.

Both options are worthwhile, if financially possible.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Ruined

The best (and most expensive) way to handle this is to provide both SDR and HDR presentations in 4k. Then the consumer can choose to either pick the option that looked closer to theatrical exhibition (SDR), or closer to the full range of the negative (HDR). RAH is arguing the former is closer to original intent and id tend to agree as no cinematographer from 70s/80s/etc expected to use the full range of the negative - however that does not mean that the HDR version might not look more appealing to some.

You said this before, but I disagree. Reverting to full SDR isn't the way to go IMO, rather I'd like to see catalog releases continue to stick to restrained HDR like Goodfellas or Halloween do, for example. I think that greatly improves the image without looking at all revisionist or "poppy."

And, for the most part, I think catalog titles stick closer to that end than the wing zam book poppy end.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Ruined

This is a good summary of the issue.

Before HDR was available the person behind the camera was not tweaking their settings, using their lighting with a target of using the full range of the negative - the target was theatrical exhibition.

Thus when you go back and start trying to restore that range from the negative, you are indeed not meeting the intention of the filmmaker way back when IMO. Now the filmmaker could now say "wow i really would have displayed that range if possible" but that is a new statement and not their intention back in the 70s/80s, etc.

On top of this, i am sure experts like RAH are indeed pressured to make the HDR UHD look different than the SDR blu. Otherwise, if the HDR looks near identical to the SDR consumers may feel they got ripped off with no "improvement."

The best (and most expensive) way to handle this with older films is to provide both SDR and HDR presentations in 4k (RAHs statement may even be an attempt to advocate for this). Then the consumer can choose to either pick the option that looked closer to theatrical exhibition (SDR), or closer to the full range of the negative (HDR). RAH is arguing the former is closer to original intent and id tend to agree as no cinematographer from 70s/80s/etc expected to use the full range of the negative - however that does not mean that the HDR version might not look more appealing to some.

Both options are worthwhile, if financially possible.

It has nothing to do with the negative. Even 10th generation 35mm print cannot be faithfully represented by SDR.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

At this point you’ve been corrected by countless members who know the technical ins and outs and how the HDR process works.

That's news to me. Care to point one such instance out?

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

You also had plenty of time to do a bit of your own research. But it seems you’re more interested in trolling than in how HDR helps movies at home look more faithful to a theatrical projection. If you are willfully ignorant, then I apologize in advance for assuming that you’re trolling this thread.

How about refuting my statements with factual information instead of just making empty accusations of trolling?

My comments are not about "how HDR helps movies at home look more faithful to a theatrical projection" in the first place. I fully (and very, very happily!) acknowledge that it absolutely can (and, in almost all cases, does in several ways). My comments are in response to the opinions on Mr. Harris' comments and those relate to potential ways that HDR can be used that produce a resultant image that's less faithful to the theatrical projection. I think my statements have been clear enough that you should know that if you're actually reading my posts and not just shouting "Troll!" at me.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by BrownianMotion

You've been posting on this forum for several years, and you're still under the impression that HDR is some sort of tool used for revisionist purposes to add more "pop?"

I'm under the impression that it CAN be because it is a simple fact that it CAN be.

Someone cited The Bridge On the River Kwai recently and it's a perfect example. The HDR grade includes revisionism that it appears pretty much no one seems to mind (me included), but it IS revisionism, nonetheless. There are dynamic peaks on display that were never visible in theatrical presentation- it's just a fact.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

It has nothing to do with the negative. Even 10th generation 35mm print cannot be faithfully represented by SDR.

What's your point?!

[CarlosMeat]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Ehhhh... I don't think the "technical experts" are really saying that. What I've learned from the smart members here is that the range used with HDR is likely much higher than theatrical exhibition (as is 4k detail probably), but perhaps accurate to what you can get off the negative. So it depends on what you're trying to be "accurate" to. In my case I'm fine with accurate to the negative or general filmmaker intentions.

Also I think most would agree HDR goes above and beyond that at times, but as I was just saying I think for the most part it's more reigned in on catalog material. So it's not distressingly inaccurate, IMO.

Like it , deserves more than just a like.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

That's news to me. Care to point one such instance out?



How about refuting my statements with factual information instead of just making empty accusations of trolling?

My comments are not about "how HDR helps movies at home look more faithful to a theatrical projection" in the first place. I fully (and very, very happily!) acknowledge that it absolutely can (and, in almost all cases, does in several ways). My comments are in response to the opinions on Mr. Harris' comments and those relate to potential ways that HDR can be used that produce a resultant image that's less faithful to the theatrical projection. I think my statements have been clear enough that you should know that if you're actually reading my posts and not just shouting "Troll!" at me.

Then what exactly is your point? That HDR can be misused just like virtually every single other audio video tool, including SDR? Are you going to enlighten us next that water can be wet?

[JohnCarpenterFan]

It's all revisionism if you look at it fairly. The answer print of a photochemically-finished film is the record of how it should look. A lot of what you're seeing on UHD is beyond what could be presented on an answer print in terms of resolution, contrast and likely color too.

These "faithful to the negative" comments I've been seeing lately are curious for sure. Sounds like people just don't want to admit that they like something which is actually revisionist, and are slowly grasping onto any poor excuse to convince themselves they're a purist even though Blu-ray was already a couple steps ahead of what would have been seen theatrically.

[BrownianMotion]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I'm under the impression that it CAN be because it is a simple fact that it CAN be.

So can any other tool used during the grading process.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I'm under the impression that it CAN be because it is a simple fact that it CAN be.

Someone cited The Bridge On the River Kwai recently and it's a perfect example. The HDR grade includes revisionism that it appears pretty much no one seems to mind (me included), but it IS revisionism, nonetheless. There are dynamic peaks on display that were never visible in theatrical presentation- it's just a fact.

SDR version was an even bigger revisionism as it did not capture colors faithfully nor contrast.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

Then what exactly is your point? That HDR can be misused just like virtually every single other audio video tool, including SDR? Are you going to enlighten us next that water can be wet?

My point, as I think Mr. Harris is indicating and as Ruined elucidates so well, is that in this case there are incentives to misuse the tool.

1. HDR is the (*ahem*) high-visibility marketing leader for this new format that the industry's sales and advertising are trying to push. Thus, there may be pressure to overuse it in order to exaggerate its benefits to consumers.

2. Any time a new tool comes along and opens up previously unavailable possibilities, industry artists and craftspeople are naturally excited by it and, again, can tend to overuse it.

And that's really about it. No trolling. No inaccurate statements of fact. Just a couple of simple tendencies that experienced eyes will see precedent for throughout the history of this industry. These are potential pitfalls that Mr. Harris and I agree it would be nice for this industry to avoid.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

It's all revisionism if you look at it fairly. The answer print of a photochemically-finished film is the record of how it should look. A lot of what you're seeing on UHD is beyond what could be presented on an answer print in terms of resolution, contrast and likely color too.

These "faithful to the negative" comments I've been seeing lately are curious for sure. Sounds like people just don't want to admit that they like something which is actually revisionist, and are slowly grasping onto any poor excuse to convince themselves they're a purist even though Blu-ray was already a couple steps ahead of what would have been seen theatrically.

Blu-ray is a couple steps ahead in some respects and a couple steps behind in some other respects. This is the case, to greater or lesser degrees, with all video formats. They're all a compromise.

The key is that we shouldn't take our eyes off of the goal which should remain to make that compromise as minimal as we can.