HDR is crayons

[mysticwaterfall]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Ok, I guess it’s anecdotal. I haven’t seen evidence of anyone doing so. I’m stating a simple position in what I think is a very rational way, but the return argument is treating me like an alarmist, flailing about how the cyan-boosted sky is falling.

So, you freely admit you cant think of instance where HDR has been done horribly, but yet you are still against it on "principle". That's idiocracy. Anything can be misused, and some things have been used horribly (DNR, EE...) but if you get rid of everything that could be bad you'll have nothing left.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by mysticwaterfall

So, you freely admit you cant think of instance where HDR has been done horribly, but yet you are still against it on "principle". That's idiocracy. Anything can be misused, and some things have been used horribly (DNR, EE...) but if you get rid of everything that could be bad you'll have nothing left.

You’re completely misreading me (and/or the question I was answering). I was saying I don’t have any evidence of anyone wanting to throw out the entirety of HDR technology because of the possibility of misuse.

... so, basically the exact opposite of what you seem to think I was saying.

[ROSS.T.G.]

sacd-man is a mastermind.

[StingingVelvet]

Some people mentioned Assassin's Creed in another thread and it reminded me to mention it here. That's a movie I saw in the theater and whose Blu-ray looks NOTHING like the theatrical presentation. The backlighting and whatnot are brightened an insane amount on the BD, while the UHD maintains the theatrical backlit look. So while my shitty local theater might not have more than 100 nits or whatever, but there's SOMETHING it can do with range that BD cannot, at least for that movie.

[Nothing371]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

You’re God damn right it’s the same argument. This thread is one big pixelated bukkake.

I can practically smell the rank, old man, nursing home breath from over here.

Originally Posted by Ruined

HDR is crayons

The internet is just a series of tubes.

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Some people mentioned Assassin's Creed in another thread and it reminded me to mention it here. That's a movie I saw in the theater and whose Blu-ray looks NOTHING like the theatrical presentation. The backlighting and whatnot are brightened an insane amount on the BD, while the UHD maintains the theatrical backlit look. So while my shitty local theater might not have more than 100 nits or whatever, but there's SOMETHING it can do with range that BD cannot, at least for that movie.

Completely different gamma and color gamut. I think the gamma is probably the main difference though.

[nick4Knight]

How come the skeptics of HDR being more accurate than SDR keep jumping over this point again and again? HDR in modern video has roughly 17 stops of range. Film can reveal 13 stops. And SDR blu-ray only allows 6. So how exactly isn't your argument severely handicapped right there. How does reflection not happen when you see this fact presented?

I keep seeing it being mentioned. And a maneuver to ignore it follows... At least argue it coherently. Don't side-step or change the subject -- we aren't sufficiently distracted by you.

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Since I’m not making any blanket claims that things are being done accurately, no, you shouldn’t.

Accurately is a strawman term in that usage, though. (I'm unclear if you think that or are speaking for someone elses words) But.. Respectfully handling intent is the mandate by the studios. By their very output. By their very words accompanying press releases, none claimed director/DP vision "accurately" presented...

More accurately than blu-ray does not = Accurately period. Nor accurately displayed in HDR for 4K.... it simply means more than any presentation previously it reveals the filmed elements, and further expounded, the choices with that revealing are done respectful of intent. Which most agree is true of the output.

Like I've chimed in with, if people want to take the 13 stops of dynamic range film scanning is revealing for 4K UHD's and reduce it to SDR in their signal chain, they can. Pay the money for all we care to present it how you think is accurate. But these people need to stop claiming it objectively is.

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

To be honest, there was a simple solution for this problem but they couldn't deliver it:

- To use an HDR system directly backwards compatible with SDR. I mean a system where using metadata the player could output the correct SDR grade as intended. Something like a "reverse Dolby Vision layer"

They couldn't find a way to do it so the HDR->SDR conversion depends entirely on the UHD BD Player with no TRUE standard in place. It's the biggest shortcoming of the format IMO

I agree there for the sake of those who want 4K but don't have HDR capability. HLG and Technicolour HDR can be backwards compatible though with the latter allowing for a fully graded SDR reversal, HLG is what the BBC is using on iPlayer and Technicolour HDR I fear is too late in the game.

HDR10 does it's job admirably, but SDR conversions are littered with issues, and Dolby Vision while good on paper has just disappointed me in the flawed applications we've seen. It's like they released a beta before the creases were ironed out. Thankfully that seems to be coming right now, though I'm stuck with a TV that doesn't look great with it despite the latest firmware. My Oppo can strip it out, thankfully.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

So while my shitty local theater might not have more than 100 nits or whatever, but there's SOMETHING it can do with range that BD cannot, at least for that movie.

If you were just in a standard theater the main additional capability would be greater color range w/ dcip3 instead of blu ray rec709. Possible they just botched the blu also.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Nothing371

I can practically smell the rank, old man, nursing home breath from over here.

The internet is just a series of tubes.

That really made me laugh out loud

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

How come the skeptics of HDR being more accurate than SDR keep jumping over this point again and again? HDR in modern video has roughly 17 stops of range. Film can reveal 13 stops. And SDR blu-ray only allows 6. So how exactly isn't your argument severely handicapped right there.

We don’t “keep jumping over” it again and again. We keep answering in a very simple, straightforward way and, apparently, you keep failing to read.

The range film can record is not the relevant measurement; the important range to be able to reproduce is the range to which films were graded.

[MiName]

Yet to see what HDR brings to table on old catalog releases.

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by MiName

Yet to see what HDR brings to table on old catalog releases.

What TV are you watching on?

[MiName]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

What TV are you watching on?

OLED 4k with Dolby Vision

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

What TV are you watching on?

Doesnt really matter, until we have side by side HDR BT2020 and SDR BT2020 versions of the same film mastered at the same time people may be confusing the improvements going from rec709 > bt2020 as opposed to sdr > hdr, or simply the improvement of a poorly executed blu ray transfer to a well executed uhd one.

[smithb]

Difficult to come to a conclusion on HDR when you can't even come to agreement on the fundamental question of what the target result should be and if/what constraints/limitation should be applied, if any (e.g., original film negative, before or after grading, theatrical presentation, what looks most natural).

Most appear to agree on the basic technical benefits of HDR, but continues to go around in circles due to subjective apples and oranges comparisons.

Funny thing is, most are likely to go with the least scientific approach available, which is "does it look good to me".

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

I agree there for the sake of those who want 4K but don't have HDR capability. HLG and Technicolour HDR can be backwards compatible though with the latter allowing for a fully graded SDR reversal, HLG is what the BBC is using on iPlayer and Technicolour HDR I fear is too late in the game.

HDR10 does it's job admirably, but SDR conversions are littered with issues, and Dolby Vision while good on paper has just disappointed me in the flawed applications we've seen. It's like they released a beta before the creases were ironed out. Thankfully that seems to be coming right now, though I'm stuck with a TV that doesn't look great with it despite the latest firmware. My Oppo can strip it out, thankfully.

Dolby Vision also has it in its spec to have an SDR grade as part of its deliverable, but the BDA saw it fit to include an HDR10 layer instead. I'm also not sure if it is Dolby that is the reason we've had as many issues with DV as it is the CE companies implementing it.

[guachi]

Originally Posted by MiName

Yet to see what HDR brings to table on old catalog releases.

So you've never watched an old catalog release in 4k, then?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

Dolby Vision also has it in its spec to have an SDR grade as part of its deliverable, but the BDA saw it fit to include an HDR10 layer instead. I'm also not sure if it is Dolby that is the reason we've had as many issues with DV as it is the CE companies implementing it.

Right, but with due fairness to the BDA they wanted to make sure that all implementations of HDR on UHD Blu-ray would be compatible at their core with any HDR TV, I'd be PISSED if I had a TV that did HDR10 only but the DV disc only contained an SDR layer and a DV layer, I'd be stuck with watching it in SDR! I suppose the DV layer could be busted down to 10-bit and stripped of the dynamic metadata to make it into a PQ10 signal that's broadly compatible with an HDR10 TV (as I think some streaming services have done?) but then that would subsequently be complained about as being a bit of a bodge-job so they're stuck whatever they do.

This did of course mean that the legacy owners of SDR 4K TVs (and indeed the 4K-curious 1080p owners) were left out in the cold - I should know, having bought my first 4K TV over five years ago - but, honestly, the market has overtaken that side of things pretty damned rapidly anyway. The only people left grousing about HDR are either those whose setups simply don't do it justice (not without a LOT of tweaking and/or globs of outboard tech) or those who see it as an anathema full stop, who would still be complaining about it anyway.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

Completely different gamma and color gamut. I think the gamma is probably the main difference though.

Sure, but my point is they made those decisions for some reason. If it was a revisionist home theater change then both formats would have it, but the UHD looks exactly like the movie originally did. So for some reason the BD could not. I don't think color space is the reason to drastically brighten backlit scenes.

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

The range film can record is not the relevant measurement; the important range to be able to reproduce is the range to which films were graded.

For you. For many others what's on the negative is what matters. We're not all trying to emulate theaters. Honestly normal blu-ray is better than my local theater.