HDR is crayons

[jrcorwin3]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

My point is we should be trying to emulate theaters because that’s what the filmmakers did when they made the movies. If we can match the standard they produced to, we can correctly reproduce what they made. It’s the same reason we calibrate displays.

How often are filmmakers even going near a theatrical setting prior to a screening though? They are reviewing shots on monitors and editing with professionally calibrate displays. Theater quality and consistency for release is a total is a crapshoot. They are trying to emulate their own creative vision, not the viewing environment of screen #3 at the AMC theater on Sunset Blvd.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by McSteebler

HDR is literally the only reason I enjoy 4K content over standard HD...The 4K resolution is a moot point when sitting 10-20 ft. back from your screen.

why is anyone sitting 20' away? even a huge screen in the home looks like a postage stamp, poor viewing experience regardless at that point

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by LoSouL

You mean they don't tell the crew to turn up the HDR on set before they start shooting?

this part depends, plenty of stuff can make use of HDR and could be shot with it in mind

just go to a forest with dappled lighting and you need HDR to get anything at all like the eyes sees

stills photographers have long longed for HDR screens
you can make things looks natural instead of having to struggle to make it work and run the risk of those weird looking HDR photographs

[FilmFreakosaurus]

It's a mastering tool, like any other. If poorly used, it's a crayon, if it's used to properly recreate the intended dynamic range of the source, then it's a gift.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

One note:

don't mix up SDR and HDR or 8bit vs more bits with gamut though, there have been plenty of SDR monitors, many only 8bit, out there for years that feature wide gamuts far beyond sRGB

and don't mix up 8bits vs 10bits vs 12 bits with SDR vs HDR as there have been many 10bit displays out were SDR, in fact, all of them were until recently (or a few exclusive, specialized, non-commercial things)

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by Crow

WOW!
Finally. I always wondered if we were ever going to get some clarity and common sense on this website from someone who actually knew what they were talking about.
Instead of all the 4K BS that I'm sorry to say, most of my fellow members on this website have fell for, hook, line and sinker.

***Conversation at a Major Studio Marketing Department meeting not too long ago***

"What gimmick can we use to entice those saps.....I mean those videophiles out there to spend their hard earned money to upgrade from 1080P Blu-ray to 4K Blu-ray and actually make them believe it is an upgrade?"

***After a few moments of silence, a young executive eyeing a promotion, says:***

"I know, I know! How about if we over saturate the color scheme to the point that it looks like cartoon colors. We can market it as a new breakthrough innovation. We can even call it some fancy schmancy name like.....High Dynamic Range so that it sounds professional. We can even abbreviate the name so it sounds cool. That'll work."

HDR has nothing to do with wider gamut
and you don't have to boost saturation to make use of wider gamut

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

""We heavily evaluate our catalogue titles to see which ones would benefit from 4K HDR, which titles may actually look worse with the 4K HDR treatment. From a content provider perspective we always want to make sure what we put out looks great – we’ve definitely identified titles that we’d like to put out on the format, gone back to the original source masters, done some tests and realised it wouldn’t benefit from a 4K HDR remaster." "

Ridiculous, nothing ever has to look worse on UHD. If HDR doesn't work for the title then don't use it! You still get the wider gamut and 4k resolution, two huge things! If the movie has no scenes that need a wider gamut, OK, not better, but not worse either, exactly the same, but you still get 4k resolution which itself is huge! Now maybe some movies were shot on poor stock, with poor lenses or whatnot and maybe you barely see any extra detail, that could be, but at best, it will be the same, never worse and usually it's at least a trace better and even just the grain form make look more natural at least, granted once you are down to just that it's not a huge difference.

But they make it sound like unless you have a film that can make use of HDR and has intense saturation beyond sRGB it's a waste, but that is ridiculous. I have an SDR 4k monitor and my photos all look MILES better on it, even when I just have it in regular sRGB gamut mode.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

"As such, the growth of the format will still be mostly down to today's big studio releases, those that take advantage of modern technical upgrades.
But for those looking to entirely upgrade their overflowing DVD or HD Blu-ray catalogues"

a ridiculous and off-base conclusion from the interview with Telly Kim, Executive Director of New Technology Marketing at Warner Bros. Home Entertainment.

so many of the recent films have 2K DI and can barely even get anything out of 4K while most older films can get a good bit out of 4K! Some more recent films were shot on digital cameras that don't even do much of a wide gamut at all, while film could deliver colors beyond sRGB, so once again, probably more older titles that could make use of UHD discs than more modern titles!

now maybe not all of them would work with an HDR conversion, it depends, in some cases it might alter the mood or the classic look we are used to, it depends, but you still, always, have the 4k, and often at least some scenes that can make use of wide gamut

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by MiName

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

depends regarding HDR, but 4k brings a lot to many and wider gamut helps some too and those latter two aspects are a bit part of UHD too

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Again though, that's YOUR metric. I'm just trying to point out that not everyone shares it. HDR and 4k negative scans have made me evaluate exactly what I care about and I've come down on the side of caring about what's on the negative and general filmmaker intent, rather than the guessed at specifics of what a random theatrical exhibition looked like. You can disagree and have different loyalties, obviously, but I'm just trying to point out that not every enthusiast agrees with you.



His point was that no two theatrical exhibitions were identical. The framing would be different, the bulbs and such would create different brightness and warmth levels. Also more often than not people THINK they know what an original exhibition looked like only to be proven wrong when we see scans of print negatives. Aliens is a great example, where people screamed about revisionism over the teal only for print scans to show the movie was always teal. It was years of VHS and DVD that people actually wanted to adhere to.

I respect the desire for theatrical exhibition at home but I’m definitely on your side of the fence. I was at the movies over the weekend and despite it being at a chain that should have all the good stuff, I was reminded yet again how black levels suffer in theaters. Even most other aspects of a film look better at home these days. It’s no wonder I rarely make it a point to go anymore. When you’ve got a big enough screen with HDR and a sound system, there’s very little incentive to leave that.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Again though, that's YOUR metric.

Until this new era of theatrical digital projection and home UHD, it was the industry’s metric. Let’s not throw that out for the 100 years of movies made within that metric.

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

His point was that no two theatrical exhibitions were identical.

That doesn’t mean you don’t try! You’re never going to remove all of that variance, but the point of standards is to remove as much as possible.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Until this new era of theatrical digital projection and home UHD, it was the industry’s metric. Let’s not throw that out for the 100 years of movies made within that metric.



That doesn’t mean you don’t try! You’re never going to remove all of that variance, but the point of standards is to remove as much as possible.

I think you’re still missing the point. He’s not suggesting anything gets thrown out. He’s clarifying his personal preference to prove that not everyone is on the same page as you... which is fine.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by jrcorwin3

How often are filmmakers even going near a theatrical setting prior to a screening though? They are reviewing shots on monitors and editing with professionally calibrate displays.

... so that properly set up theaters will play their movies correctly! Just because the system sometimes fails doesn’t mean you shouldn’t bother trying to succeed.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

When you’ve got a big enough screen

Doesn't exist.

[jrcorwin3]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

... so that properly set up theaters will play their movies correctly! Just because the system sometimes fails doesn’t mean you shouldn’t bother trying to succeed.

Your fantasy is that filmmakers are making these films with the dream commercial theatre in mind. That isn’t happening, nor would it be a reasonable goal. In reality it is a very, very broad target. They aren’t even utilizing projection until long after the vast majority has been shot.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by jrcorwin3

Your fantasy is that filmmakers are making these films with the dream commercial theatre in mind. That isn’t happening, nor would it be a reasonable goal. In reality it is a very, very broad target. They aren’t even utilizing projection until long after the vast majority has been shot.

They are made to a standard. Sometimes commercial theaters don't meet that standard (in any number of ways and for any number of reasons) but, again, that's no reason to give up trying. This isn't my "fantasy"; it's just the way Hollywood has been making movies for ~100 years.

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Also I chuckled at "Dolby Vision is by far the best." Yes it is better, but on a quality TV the difference is not that big. It's the Walmart HDR televisions that are messing up HDR 10 implementation, IMO.

I always get a chuckle out of this. What makes you say the difference is not that big. Have you done side by side controlled comparisons with content that varies significantly in APL throughout with one display showing it in DV and the other the exact same film in HDR10??

I think what most people do is what a film in one format and say, yeah it looks great and then watch another film in the other format and say, yeah it looks great too. But that isn't comparing two technologies. Notice how I didn't say that HDR10 looks like crap. But having an image look nice or acceptable isn't what an objective comparison does. People always think something looks great until they see something that does it better. DV at least gives the display the opportunity to have ZERO guess work when it comes to tone mapping so it can literally be EXACTLY what it is supposed to be for every instance of the movie. With HDR10, they can either rely on the static metadata and hope that its gets them close, or rely on frame by frame (very rare) and hope that they don't have a lot of pumping artifacts or artifacts of any kind for shifting image qualities.

I'm certainly not a DV zealot, I watch 99% of my movies on my projection system, which doesn't even support DV. But that doesn't mean that I don't understand the technologies and their pros and cons. In fact, the more I've been working behind the scenes with vendors on tone mapping, the more I appreciate exactly what DV brings to the table and compromises that HDR10 has. With bright flat panels the differences aren't nearly as big though, but there is still room for improvement. Just using the Panasonic 820 on a flat panel with difficult HDR10 content shows that.

[jrcorwin3]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

They are made to a standard. Sometimes commercial theaters don't meet that standard (in any number of ways and for any number of reasons) but, again, that's no reason to give up trying. This isn't my "fantasy"; it's just the way Hollywood has been making movies for ~100 years.

Yes, but that standard is far more of a moving target than you are willing to admit. Commercial theater adherence to a standard is about as consistent as a Jaguars quarterback or my ex-wife’s personalities.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

It's funny that people are suddenly so worried about "respecting" the negative now. It's like wanting a bowl of raw pancake batter over a stack of cooked pancakes with bacon on top.

But if people care so much about preserving what's on the negative, why not just ask for full-ap raw scans from now on?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by jrcorwin3

Yes, but that standard is far more of a moving target than you are willing to admit. Commercial theater adherence to a standard is about as consistent as a Jaguars quarterback or my ex-wife’s personalities.

For this purpose, that's entirely beside the point.