HDR is crayons

[BrownianMotion]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Neither of which allowed the format to display characteristics beyond those available to the original theatrical presentations.

No. HDR exceeds the range of theatrical exhibition and is a leading sales feature of the format. Conventional BD does not have a parallel to this..

That's not your argument. You've posted so much silly shit in this thread that you've lost track of your actual position.

Earlier in the thread you admitted that HDR doesn't have to result in revisionist grading, and I also believe you conceded that often times it does not. Instead, your argument is that it can lead to a revisionist color grade, mostly due to the pressure of how the format is marketed.

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. Therefore, casuals would expect to see a razor sharp image that's significantly more vibrant and saturated, based on the marketing of BD. For a movie that had a more muted color palette theatrically, there would have been the exact same pressure to raise the level of saturation beyond what was intended in the theatrical grade.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by BrownianMotion

BD had fewer limitations than DVD. Were you guys making the same brain dead claims about BD when it first launched?

There is nothing BD has that is technically more capable when compared to 35mm film projection of older films, other than not degrading with multiple run throughs. This is not the case with UHD.

Also note UHD fornat itself is not the concern, the concern RAH speaks of is the marketing push to use HDR beyond what was capable at the time of theatrical release, as studies have shown HDR is what sells the 4k product.

[BrownianMotion]

Originally Posted by Ruined

There is nothing BD has that is technically more capable than 35mm film projection, other than not degrading with multiple run throughs.

Also note UHD fornat itself is not the concern, the concern RAH speaks of is the push to use HDR beyond what was capable at the time of theatrical release, as studies have shown HDR is what sells the 4k product.

Doctorossi's argument is different from yours. You're both laughably wrong, but for entirely different reasons.

In your case, you've already been proven wrong multiple times when people have pointed out to you that film can have a higher dynamic range than what SDR can support, and so HDR can get you closer to the artistic intent.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by BrownianMotion

Doctorossi's argument is different from yours. You're both laughably wrong, but for entirely different reasons.

In your case, you've already been proven wrong multiple times when people have pointed out to you that film can have a higher dynamic range than what SDR can support, and so HDR can get you closer to the artistic intent.

Yeah? Show me a projector from 1965 that can do the equivalent of 1000 nits on a commercial movie screen. And then explain how it would control the highlights/black level at that brightness.

Waiting to see what 1965 laser projectors you can come up with.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by BrownianMotion

That's not your argument. You've posted so much silly shit in this thread that you've lost track of your actual position.

Earlier in the thread you admitted that HDR doesn't have to result in revisionist grading, and I also believe you conceded that often times it does not. Instead, your argument is that it can lead to a revisionist color grade, mostly due to the pressure of how the format is marketed.

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. Therefore, casuals would expect to see a razor sharp image that's significantly more vibrant and saturated, based on the marketing of BD. For a movie that had a more muted color palette theatrically, there would have been the exact same pressure to raise the level of saturation beyond what was intended in the theatrical grade.

Thank you for addressing the discussion instead of trying to point-score.

So, you seem to have a better understanding of my position than you let on. I don't see how that position has changed or how I've "lost track" of it- maybe you can enlighten me.

Anyway, I disagree with your premise about the marketing of BD. I don't recall any particular push around the added color bandwidth the format allowed (versus DVD) except in very educated-consumer/specialist circles. To my memory, the format was sold principally on high-definition resolution. And, even if color was a marketing driver, the significance of that resolution difference produced enough immediately visible picture difference between BD and DVD that I think there would have been very little pressure to add extra "enhancement" in the color grade. The picture was already dramatically different and better by dint of resolution alone.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Yeah? Show me a projector from 1965 that can do the equivalent of 1000 nits on a commercial movie screen. And then explain how it would control the highlights/black level at that brightness.

Waiting to see what 1965 laser projectors you can come up with.

Come on, man- just accept that you and I are laughably wrong. Also, our arguments are both wrong in completely different (but equally laughable?) ways. I'm yet to determine how my argument differs from yours, but I'm going to defer to the expert here and just get myself ready to laugh heartily when I figure it out.

[Ruined]

BTW, also to be clear to others in this thread, I am happily buying revisionist HDR grades in almost all cases since I think generally they look better than the BD or are simply an interesting alternative (not to mention the immersive audio for more recent films); I have quite a lot UHDs. I am still holding onto the BD copy though both for compatibility and for a SDR version.

Tldr; you can support 4k uhd format while also not having to do mental gymnastics to argue that 50 years ago somehow HDR was anywhere remotely near the target cinematographers were aiming for.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Come on, man- just accept that you and I are laughably wrong. Also, our arguments are both wrong in completely different (but equally laughable?) ways. I'm yet to determine how my argument differs from yours, but I'm going to defer to the expert here and just get myself ready to laugh heartily when I figure it out.

I just hope I can find that elusive 1965 HDR laser projector on ebay so I dont have to spend half a million on a Christie Dolby Cinema pj!

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

What's that have to do with mastering releases in a color grade that's respectful of artistic intent? I think his opinion on mastering is valid regardless of the display choices he makes for his own personal viewing.

Glad you think so however I don’t take him seriously. He shits all over threads repeating the same thing about HDR.

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Does your post have relevance to the topic?

I do, that’s why I posted.

Originally Posted by Ruined

No projector out is bright enough to truly display "HDR" except those over $100k. The projectors that are marketed as HDR take the HDR signal and tonemap it to a lower nit value. However, using an Hdfury device and many SDR projectors, you can send HDR, WCG, set display gamma to 2.8, and use tonemapping + CMS controls to get the same result as a projextor marketed as HDR.

My projector does support a far wider color gamut (near full rec2020) than your OLED TV (dcip3) So in this regard my projector is better than your OLED tv for WCG.

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. So watching you trying to ride some high horse about your equipment when your TV fails the basic requirements for true HDR is laughable. My 70" 4k TV was bought for casual living room TV viewing, not movies, because I find 70" far too tiny for movies.

Maybe learn some of this stuff before looking ridculous with animated gifs as your primary defense. Not everyone buys consumer electronic companies marketing hook, line, and sinker.

I understand the limitations with projectors on the format. I don’t doubt your projector has a wider gamut but that doesn’t mean it’s accurate. I’m not ignorant to the limitations of my panel, I’ve frequently brought up it’s limitations.

Originally Posted by Ruined

I try to avoid this but Ross insists on every other thread. Not to mention his avatar pic and signature, some pride there heh.

Yeah I take pride in my modest room. It’s not the best but I enjoy it.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Thank you for addressing the discussion instead of trying to point-score.

So, you seem to have a better understanding of my position than you let on. I don't see how that position has changed or how I've "lost track" of it- maybe you can enlighten me.

Anyway, I disagree with your premise about the marketing of BD. I don't recall any particular push around the added color bandwidth the format allowed (versus DVD) except in very educated-consumer/specialist circles. To my memory, the format was sold principally on high-definition resolution. And, even if color was a marketing driver, the significance of that resolution difference produced enough immediately visible picture difference between BD and DVD that I think there would have been very little pressure to add extra "enhancement" in the color grade. The picture was already dramatically different and better by dint of resolution alone.

I have to agree here that Blu-ray was sold as a resolution upgrade over DVD and that was the main selling point. It was also very obvious, even at average viewing distances & screen size that Blu-ray "looked" quite a bit better than most DVDs. 1080i or 1080p TV shows also blew away standard defintinionTV shows. It was a pretty big upgrade, not quite as big as DVD was over VHS but still pretty noticeable by "normal" people.

With 4K, that resolution isn’t such a game changer anymore and quite a few people probably don’t benefit much just from more pixels. HDR and Dolby vision are nice additions to the UHD arsenal, no doubt. But, let’s face it, for a lot of people it’s confusing and might not mean that much. You have to have gear that supports it properly which many don’t. Then, you have to have that gear setup properly which many don’t. Us nerds might love it and appreciate but joe average doesn’t care at all.

I dunno, what I’m trying to say is that if they want to push HDR or DV being the "real" upgrade of the 4K spec then they should advertise that more. I think it makes a difference but it’s not the end of the world if it went away either.

[StingingVelvet]

1) HDR and WCG are unquestionably good things, but some movies might use HDR to a revisionist extent. We can all agree the technology is good, the implementation is subjective.

2) When a movie feels revisionist (which is rare IMO) it's up to you how much to care about that. Blu-ray and DVD certainly weren't accurate either, so it's all six versus a half-dozen.

3) TV/Projector capabilities definitely matter to what you're seeing. Anyone whose opinion is based on an older set or a set with weak HDR/WCG should basically be written off. I'm sorry but it's true, life sucks like that. No one's trying to be mean to you, it just is what it is. We have to evaluate proper presentations. No one would evaluate a BD based on how it looks down-converted to analog CRT.

Hopefully I kill the thread with this post but I bet I won't because fate hates me.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Ruined

I just hope I can find that elusive 1965 HDR laser projector on ebay so I dont have to spend half a million on a Christie Dolby Cinema pj!

I just bought a 35/70 convertible and wrote "laser" on the side with a sharpie. The HDR performance still kinda sucks, though.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

He shits all over threads repeating the same thing about HDR.

In a thread entitled, "HDR is crayons", wouldn't that be a good thing? You know, double negatives and all...

[bruceames]

The OP is from a post quoted over two years ago. RAH for the most part has given glowing reviews to UHD catalog so he has changed his tune. Nothing to see here. I don't see any complaints from anyone else either that UHD catalogs look revisionists. On the contrary most people think they look truer to the source and more natural looking. For the life of me I can't understand why there are still a few holdouts that continue with the same old ignorant arguments from 2-3 years ago, that should know better by now.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by bruceames

I don't see any complaints from anyone else either that UHD catalogs look revisionists. On the contrary most people think they look truer to the source and more natural looking.

I confess, I love my Kwai UHD to pieces and I shower it with kisses every day.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I confess, I love my Kwai UHD to pieces and I shower it with kisses every day.

I couldn't find RAH's review of KWAI. I wonder what he thought of it.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

I still think it is a completely misunderstood release, but I believe Scorsese took issue with the UHD for some reason.

I recall someone over in another thread bringing up an article regarding the films look where the intent was to make it look as if someone forced a black and white film into color. It was intended to be contrasty, in your face and punchy.

Do you have a link for that?

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Ruined

However, using an Hdfury device and many SDR projectors, you can send HDR, WCG, set display gamma to 2.8, and use tonemapping + CMS controls to get the same result as a projextor marketed as HDR.

You probably want 2.4.

[ronboster]

Originally Posted by bruceames

The OP is from a post quoted over two years ago. RAH for the most part has given glowing reviews to UHD catalog so he has changed his tune. Nothing to see here. I don't see any complaints from anyone else either that UHD catalogs look revisionists. On the contrary most people think they look truer to the source and more natural looking. For the life of me I can't understand why there are still a few holdouts that continue with the same old ignorant arguments from 2-3 years ago, that should know better by now.

Combined with the fact the OP hasn't participated since he started the thread really reveals his intentions.

[aetherhole]

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. So watching you trying to ride some high horse about your equipment when your TV fails the basic requirements for true HDR is laughable. My 70" 4k TV was bought for casual living room TV viewing, not movies, because I find 70" far too tiny for movies.

Maybe learn some of this stuff before looking ridculous with animated gifs as your primary defense. Not everyone buys consumer electronic companies marketing hook, line, and sinker.

Sir... you really ought to do your own research as well.

According to the UHD Alliance itself:

To bear the Ultra HD Premium™ logo, brightness and black level performance must range from either a minimum of 0.05–1,000 ‘nits’ or 0.0005 –540 ‘nits’.

Link for your reference

So yes, OLED meets the requirements, surpasses the requirements and offers a proper HDR experience.