HDR is crayons

[Fendergopher]

Originally Posted by 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?

Not necessarily an apt comparison considering it's entirely possible to use the OCN as the basis for raw detail, then create a LUT based off of an IP or something and match the look that way. Would that be raw pancake batter with bacon on top then?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by 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?

I can't blame them for thinking that way, people don't realise that the neg is the raw untimed source. They see sizzle like "restored from the original camera negative!" and think it was all there to begin with. It is...but at the same time it isn't, which is when the whole "moving target" thing come into play.

The head of FotoKem spoke to SMPTE a few years ago and said that the best kept secret about their restorative work is that they literally cannot get it looking exactly like it was, it's about taking all the available reference materials and making their best guess (folks may recall me mentioning RAH having to choose from three different dye transfer prints as to which was "correct" for Spartacus).

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

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.

Eh, gotta disagree, nothing compares to a 50'+ screen at theater. Heck, nothing at home even comes close to the feel of even just a 35' screen (well, unless you are one of the rare few who actually has a giant 35'+ screen at home, but I mean that is like 0.00000000000000001% of the population).

[StingingVelvet]

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.

I don't think it was ever my metric. I probably used "theatrical" as shorthand for sticking to the general intended look, but I'm not sure I was ever looking to perfectly replicate the theater experience, because I honestly think the theater experience is shit.

I want the general look/color/aspect ratio/effects/etc. that the filmmaker intended, but I'm not married to the actual theater watching experience at all. I probably go to the theater twice a year, and hate the image quality both times.

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

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??

No, like most I rely on experts and armchair experts I trust and what they say about it. Also I have a basic sense of what the technology does, and other than 12 bit color I know my set doesn't really need it because it's a high-nit LCD with great tone-mapping (which you basically say yourself in your last paragraph).

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I want the general look/color/aspect ratio/effects/etc. that the filmmaker intended, but I'm not married to the actual theater watching experience at all.

Your “look/color/aspect ratio/effects/etc.” covers everything we’re talking about here. I’m certainly not putting forward that the industry has systematized popcorn or a guy kicking you in the back of the head.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Your “look/color/aspect ratio/effects/etc.” covers everything we’re talking about here. I’m certainly not putting forward that the industry has systematized popcorn or a guy kicking you in the back of the head.

It doesn't though, because you're using the theatrical showing as the test of those things and I'm not.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

It doesn't though, because you're using the theatrical showing as the test of those things and I'm not.

Ok. Well, with all respect, your personal aesthetic is beside my point. The people who made the movies did use that standard.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Ok. Well, with all respect, your personal aesthetic is beside my point. The people who made the movies did use that standard.

This here is the bottom line. A filmmaker needs to have a target when filming. There are innumerable variables in everything from how you set the camera to light the scene to develop the film etc; the target the filmmaker had in mind for the final product of tweaking all of those variables was theatrical exhibition. Its really that simple.

When you go back to the negative and move the goalposts to a target that did not exist at the time, and thus logically could never have been the target when tweaking all of the above variables, you are quite clearly being unnecessarily revisionist just so the film can be once again resold as "new and improved."

Sometimes i think people are of the notion the filmmaker just turns on the camera and films and it gets recorded to the negative and thats that. It is incredibly more complex than that. To draw an analogy if some random tech went back to the RAW files of photos ive taken in order to mess with/attempt to increase the dynamic range of one of my existing developed images Id be pissed, because I specifically developed those images the way I intended and I set the camera and lighting a certain way to support that intended look. Then again if I got a fat royalty check because the goosed up dynamic range sold a bunch of copies of my film, maybe i wouldn't care

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW

Eh, gotta disagree, nothing compares to a 50'+ screen at theater. Heck, nothing at home even comes close to the feel of even just a 35' screen (well, unless you are one of the rare few who actually has a giant 35'+ screen at home, but I mean that is like 0.00000000000000001% of the population).

While size does matter(ha ha ha) it is more than fair to say that other than just size, the home PQ experience in just about other category possible blows away the theater PQ performance. Detail, Contrast, color saturation, etc, etc, etc. is way bettre at home.

Im sure each theater is different and some might have premium stuff but the few times Ive gone to my local Tinseltown I was quite unimpressed with the PQ and even the AQ versus home. Ive seen It & Last jedi most recently and especially with It - the UHD at home destroys the PQ at the theater. The size didnt make up for that either, IMO, not by a longshot. The home experience has improved drastically over the last 5 years. These premium TVs have changed the game. Even a very modest sound system like mine fills the room with great sound and creates quite the experience. And of course, the theater has a whole set of other issues that you have to deal with: Driving there, having to watch 20+ mins of BS trailers/promos, rude people, cell phones, crowdedness with new films on busy nights and so on.

The big dawgs and their 100' screens are the envy of all. You guys rock. Enjoy! The rest of us can sit closer to our 65" TV and its plenty immersive.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Ok. Well, with all respect, your personal aesthetic is beside my point. The people who made the movies did use that standard.

You're missing the forest for the trees here. The point is I don't care. Not everyone cares. I want to adhere to how they generally intended the film to look, but I don't need to adhere to the exact theatrical look. HDR is so minimally different, but adds so much, that I'm totally fine with it. Same for 4k scan detail off a negative.

This whole conversation is about you and me having different adherence goals, but you keep coming back at me with "well these should be the goals!" Like, I get your opinion. Really I do. I just disagree with it.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

You're missing the forest for the trees here. The point is I don't care. Not everyone cares. I want to adhere to how they generally intended the film to look, but I don't need to adhere to the exact theatrical look. HDR is so minimally different, but adds so much, that I'm totally fine with it. Same for 4k scan detail off a negative.

This whole conversation is about you and me having different adherence goals, but you keep coming back at me with "well these should be the goals!" Like, I get your opinion. Really I do. I just disagree with it.

I think I fully understand your opinion. What I think you are missing is that I'm not contrasting your opinion with my opinion; I'm defending (my interpretation of) Robert Harris' position. I'm not calling your opinion irrelevant because I prefer my own- I'm calling my opinion irrelevant, too.

Personally, I'm generally with you that I can live with both spatial resolution and dynamic range exceeding filmmakers' original targets/expectations. My own opinion is not what I'm talking about, though, and I don't think my own opinion should have any bearing on the way that it's done.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Personally, I'm generally with you that I can live with both spatial resolution and dynamic range exceeding filmmakers' original targets/expectations. My own opinion is not what I'm talking about, though, and I don't think my own opinion should have any bearing on the way that it's done.

Fair enough. RAH's opinion isn't having much bearing either though, at the moment.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Fair enough. RAH's opinion isn't having much bearing either though, at the moment.

True. My argument, though, is that it should. In this case, if "the industry has left him behind", they've left behind a quality standard that they should be maintaining.

Anyway, I've said more than my share on the matter.

[aetherhole]

Wow... 33 pages in and still going!

Crayola would be proud of this thread.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by aetherhole

Crayola would be proud of this thread.

Plot twist... THEY'RE GENERIC BRAND CRAYONS!

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

True. My argument, though, is that it should. In this case, if "the industry has left him behind", they've left behind a quality standard that they should be maintaining.

Anyway, I've said more than my share on the matter.

I’ll disagree with this sentiment a bit. Standards can certainly change over time, and that’s something enthusiasts, especially ones like RAH, need to probably adapt with.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Plot twist... THEY'RE GENERIC BRAND CRAYONS!

Not if using Dolby Vision HDR

[JoeDeM]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Plot twist... THEY'RE GENERIC BRAND CRAYONS!

not if you want WCG

[aetherhole]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Plot twist... THEY'RE GENERIC BRAND CRAYONS!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Darth Vader is Luke's father?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE!

[guachi]

Originally Posted by JoeDeM

not if you want WCG

WCG? Wide Crayon Gamut?