HDR is crayons

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by SonSon III

Sure HDR reveals more details... but a nighttime view to real human eyeballs looks much more like the SDR image on the left than the HDR on the right.

So is HDR all about looking unrealistic but more detailed? I always thought technology was supposed to bring us closer to reality.

HDR in photography =/= HDR in video, these are two different things.

[Geoff D]

See what I mean though re: our recent little discussion over PM, Scottishguy? There's still so much misunderstanding out there about HDR and what it means for video. I suspect SonSon is indulging in a bit of trolling too but the point remains that this notion about it being ultra bright and ultra saturated all the time is the standard viewpoint for those who know nothing about it.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

See what I mean though re: our recent little discussion over PM, Scottishguy? There's still so much misunderstanding out there about HDR and what it means for video. I suspect SonSon is indulging in a bit of trolling too but the point remains that this notion about it being ultra bright and ultra saturated all the time is the standard viewpoint for those who know nothing about it.

Well people certainly had their visual expectations met with standard Blu-ray in a lot of cases. Maybe they aren't used to film as it naturally should be.

[Xtrem3]

Originally Posted by Himmel

So is HDR crayons, or not?

For me it is all about what stuff you have, if you run 4K HDR on $500 TV you hardly see any diffrence at all, But run it for example on LG Oled you see all details and black levels, cheap Led no upgrade, Buy OLed and go for 4K.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by SonSon III

Sure HDR reveals more details... but a nighttime view to real human eyeballs looks much more like the SDR image on the left than the HDR on the right.

So is HDR all about looking unrealistic but more detailed? I always thought technology was supposed to bring us closer to reality.

I know you’re trolling but you obviously haven’t seen HDR on a good setup in a dark room. Walmart showrooms don’t count.

On a proper setup a “good” 4K title looks gorgeous. Highlights look realistic. It’s all about little nuances with HDR.

[Brian81]

Between HDR and SDR, the bad part about SDR is that the picture frequently looks undersaturated in comparison, rather than the HDR looking oversaturated.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Xtrem3

For me it is all about what stuff you have, if you run 4K HDR on $500 TV you hardly see any diffrence at all, But run it for example on LG Oled you see all details and black levels, cheap Led no upgrade, Buy OLed and go for 4K.

The gear has a HUGE impact on all of this, no question. So does people’s knowledge. Hell, I have friends and relatives that have 4K TVs and don’t even know what the hell that means. I’ve offered to let them borrow some UHD titles to try them at home and they generally shrug and don’t even care. It’s crazy.

Us dorks are quite the minority. We argue HDR and most of the population doesn’t even know WTF that is, lol.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

The gear has a HUGE impact on all of this, no question. So does people’s knowledge. Hell, I have friends and relatives that have 4K TVs and don’t even know what the hell that means. I’ve offered to let them borrow some UHD titles to try them at home and they generally shrug and don’t even care. It’s crazy.

Us dorks are quite the minority. We argue HDR and most of the population doesn’t even know WTF that is, lol.

arguing is one thing, thinking though HDR needs to applied to every UHD transfer is another. A director and a DP spend a lot of time tweeking and manipulating the look and images shot during post production; to then redo that just for the sake of UHD home video release seems to negate that aspect and think, "oh, here's the new improved version for your home theater enthusiasts our theatrical release version you saw in DCP form was shit". I think this is one reason why Criterion is staying out of the UHD market for a reason, I don't see them applying HDR just for the sake of appeasing to us 'the minority'.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

The gear has a HUGE impact on all of this, no question. So does people’s knowledge. Hell, I have friends and relatives that have 4K TVs and don’t even know what the hell that means. I’ve offered to let them borrow some UHD titles to try them at home and they generally shrug and don’t even care. It’s crazy.

Us dorks are quite the minority. We argue HDR and most of the population doesn’t even know WTF that is, lol.

I kind of feel sorry for the general consumer that gets an OLED. Where I live I can certainly say there is nothing that breaks OLED technology down into simplified language. Let alone HDR.

It's like LG and Sony said who cares, mostly it's the enthusiasts and the rich going to be buying these things. If we get some suckers along the way, then fine.

[crazybeats]

That's literally what has happened. The only people forking out 20 quid for 40 year old films and animated films that can never even be 4K resolution are enthusiasts and lets be honest......people that don't spend their money on anything else. It's disposable income. I think the general public have long moved on from the days of home video and what kind of quality they can get at home. It's not important in the grand scheme of things.


And I do think the older we get, for some of you it wont have happened yet but for a lot of people you really start prioritising what is important in life and entertainment is just that, it's entertainment, it's not going to change your life, you can't take it with you when you pass on. You end up really making sure you spend time and money on the things that matter. This stuff about £20 for a CD disc that costs pennies to make and it's got a 40 year old film on it and this one's £25 and it's a film that's made last year and it's just......madness lol. It really is for enthusiasts and there's enthusiasts everywhere. The sports fan that goes to every game, the video game fan that's there every week for the big releases, the fashion fan that needs the latest shoes and tracksuits. I get it. People need a way of letting off steam and finding something to fill their lives.


Things aren't going to change very much in our lifetime, I don't care what age any of you are. By the time we check out there's still gonna be a BBC, a Sky, a Virgin Media, DVDs, games consoles. It's not going to change. TV's will be released and updated every few years and that's that. It's not going to change anybodies life, it's only ever going to make a difference to those that have the fun and the free time to sit and enjoy it. Those friends and relatives you mention having 4K TVs and not wanting your UHDs....they've probably realised what is important in their life. Friends, family, socialising, getting out of the house, going on holidays, maybe they have children. Your priority might be staying in and watching films all night, they may have decided to enjoy life very differently. Everyone is different. Some people like going to the pub, some like going to the discos, when people are working 40 hours a week, many don't want to sit in the house every night.

And I do think TVs now last a long time. It's not something people feel the need to upgrade every few years. It's just life. You realise very quickly when you reach a certain age what you're wasting your money on and what you're wasting your time on and this stuff isn't cheap. £20 for any film is too much. £10 is too much. These games just don't work anymore or they don't work on a level to where millions of people are paying those prices anymore. Then £100 at least for the hardware to play them? It's just not going to fly in 2019.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by crazybeats

That's literally what has happened. The only people forking out 20 quid for 40 year old films and animated films that can never even be 4K resolution are enthusiasts and lets be honest......people that don't spend their money on anything else. It's disposable income. I think the general public have long moved on from the days of home video and what kind of quality they can get at home. It's not important in the grand scheme of things.


And I do think the older we get, for some of you it wont have happened yet but for a lot of people you really start prioritising what is important in life and entertainment is just that, it's entertainment, it's not going to change your life, you can't take it with you when you pass on. You end up really making sure you spend time and money on the things that matter. This stuff about £20 for a CD disc that costs pennies to make and it's got a 40 year old film on it and this one's £25 and it's a film that's made last year and it's just......madness lol. It really is for enthusiasts and there's enthusiasts everywhere. The sports fan that goes to every game, the video game fan that's there every week for the big releases, the fashion fan that needs the latest shoes and tracksuits. I get it. People need a way of letting off steam and finding something to fill their lives.


Things aren't going to change very much in our lifetime, I don't care what age any of you are. By the time we check out there's still gonna be a BBC, a Sky, a Virgin Media, DVDs, games consoles. It's not going to change. TV's will be released and updated every few years and that's that. It's not going to change anybodies life, it's only ever going to make a difference to those that have the fun and the free time to sit and enjoy it. Those friends and relatives you mention having 4K TVs and not wanting your UHDs....they've probably realised what is important in their life. Friends, family, socialising, getting out of the house, going on holidays, maybe they have children. Your priority might be staying in and watching films all night, they may have decided to enjoy life very differently. Everyone is different. Some people like going to the pub, some like going to the discos, when people are working 40 hours a week, many don't want to sit in the house every night.

And I do think TVs now last a long time. It's not something people feel the need to upgrade every few years. It's just life. You realise very quickly when you reach a certain age what you're wasting your money on and what you're wasting your time on and this stuff isn't cheap. £20 for any film is too much. £10 is too much. These games just don't work anymore or they don't work on a level to where millions of people are paying those prices anymore. Then £100 at least for the hardware to play them? It's just not going to fly in 2019.

Atchually "40 year old films" stand to benefit the most from 4K. A 35mm print has a max resolution of around 6500K.

[Sky_Captain]

There's a strong smell of urine around here.

Originally Posted by crazybeats

£20 for any film is too much. £10 is too much.

That'll be it.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

There's a strong smell of urine around here.

That'll be it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv-j...ature=youtu.be

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

I kind of feel sorry for the general consumer that gets an OLED. Where I live I can certainly say there is nothing that breaks OLED technology down into simplified language. Let alone HDR.

It's like LG and Sony said who cares, mostly it's the enthusiasts and the rich going to be buying these things. If we get some suckers along the way, then fine.

Suckers? Not sure what that’s supposed to mean.....?

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Suckers? Not sure what that’s supposed to mean.....?

People that just buy something with no idea about the technology.

[nick4Knight]

We're going around in circles. Think the DP/director referenced recently just strike me as the "professional" version of simpletons in this thread trying to talk about HDR in the most reductionist of terms they can in order to justify a negative stance.

Bottom line is HDR is about more shades of colour. Nothing in of itself is universally gimmicky, saturated or not saturated. All those potential factors are down to the grading and the intent; not the HDR spec itself -- And director intent has been maintained in the majority (you can quibble over a handful of titles, subjectively) of the hundreds of catalog releases so far!

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Sure...
Rambo
The Hunger Games
All three seasons of Hannibal
Seasons 1 & 2 of American Gods
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance
Crank 1 & 2
Seasons 3-8 of The Simpsons
Expendables 1-3
Draft Day
Dragged Across Concrete
Kin
Hacksaw Ridge
Power Rangers
Waiting...
Hard Candy
Angel Has Fallen

Nice.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Agreed... I think we would all hate to give any importance to the highly skilled and successful professionals who actually create these works and do this day after day when we can just throw a rock and hit any number of home video "enthusiasts" armed with a bag full of opinions.

*ouch* hey watch where your throwing those rocks.

*stares at the rock*

Hey this rock is smooth, it's been DNRed!

[LoSouL]

Originally Posted by Cliff

opinions

facts*

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Well the debate rages on. Less is More vs More and then Some


Submitted for your consideration:

Color:

Color film (negative and print) and digital cameras have a wider gamut of color than SDR 709. Color on film which is out of the 709 bounds has to be clipped or reduced.

Posted some of these before.
This first one, the link to the measured film colors image on Bruce Lindbloom's site from years ago is not working anymore but I found the image on my hard drive where I had added some color space triangles to it, I think they are the 709/P3 or NTSC/2020 triangles transformed to the D50 illuminant that these film color points are measured with:
Attachment 209286


(Triangle is Adobe1998, whose red and blue are equal to 709, but green is the 1953 NTSC original green which lies between the P3 green and 2020 green). From https://www.photo.net/discuss/thread...f-film.464422/.





Attachment 209289

Sony F65


You can see the SDR 709/sRGB space is rather limiting

Levels/Values:

PQ 12-bit: 3760-256 = 0-3504, 3505 values from 0-10,000 nits;  
                      0-1780, 1781 values from 0-100 nits 
PQ 10-bit:   940-64 = 0-876,   877 values from 0-10,000 nits;
                      0-445,   446 values from 0-100 nits
8-bit gamma: 235-16 = 0-219,   220 values from 0-100 nits

Deep shadow detail:

For 8-bit 2.2 gamma:

0 = 0% black = infinite black
1 = -17.1 f/stops darkest gradation discernible from total black

For 8-bit 2.4 gamma:

0 = 0% black = infinite black
1 = -18.7 f/stops darkest gradation discernible from total black
2 = -16.3 f/stops second gradation discernible from black, a + 2.4 stops change
3 = -14.9 f/stops third gradation discernible from black, a + 1.4 step
219 = 100% = -0 f/stops (100 nits)

For PQ 10 bit

0 = 0% black = infinite black
1 = -21 f/stops darkest gradation discernible from total black
2 = -19.2 f/stops second gradation discernible from black, a + 1.8 step
3 = -18.2 f/stops third gradation discernible from black, a + 1.0 step
4 = -17.4 f/stops +0.8 step
5 = -16.9 f/stops +0.5 step
6 = -16.4 f/stops +0.5 step
7 = -16.0 f/stops +0.4 step
8 = -15.6 f/stops +0.4 step
9 = -15.3 f/stops +0.3 step
10 = -15.0 f/stops +0.3 step
11 = -14.8 f/stops +0.2 step
445 = 50.8% = -0 f/stops (100 nits)
876 = 100% = + 6.6 f.stops (10,000 nits)

I've color coded the brightness levels common to both so you can compare and you can see that apart of going deeper, in HDR the gradation of tones has 3-5 times more steps between tones than SDR.
For SDR to have this quality you have to limit shadows to be higher in the range.

For PQ 12 bit:

0 = 0% black = infinite black
1 = -24.3 f/stops darkest gradation discernible from total black
And 4 times finer gradation steps than 10-bit PQ has. (No, I'm not gonna calculate those)


Step discrimination:
Attachment 209297
Under the thresholds you don't see steps. I couldn't find one chart with 100nit SDR 8-bits on the pdfs so I recalculated from 10b and 12b 1k nit and 10k nits SDR graphs.

(Probably the last few shadows, in the low level f/stops, in SDR could end up looking "grotty" when unveiled on high contrast/deep black displays if they weren't evaluated on such when mastering.)



Range summary:

8-bit 2.2 gamma: From step 1 = -17.1 f/stops to + 0  f/stops above 100 nits
8-bit 2.4 gamma: From step 1 = -18.7 f/stops to + 0  f/stops above 100 nits
10-bit PQ:       From step 1 = -21.0 f/stops to +6.6 f/stops above 100 nits
12-bit PQ:       From step 1 = -24.3 f/stops to +6.6 f/stops above 100 nits

Since SDR has no highlight headroom (unless you use above range video values from 236-255, a + 0.3 f/stop difference at gamma 2.4, less at 2.2) the diffuse white value is usually set lower in SDR than 100 nits, therefore reducing further the f/stops available for the shadows.


Highlights headroom:

As per above SDR has no highlight headroom above 100nits. HDR has +6.6 f/stops


What about film

Checking the spec sheets I see:
Attachment 209303
15.5 f/stops, + ~ 1.3 f/stops of lens flare shadow "compression" = 16.8 f/stops recorded onto = 2.1 dLog density neg,

Attachment 209302
printed to 5.3-5.4 dLog density (17.7-18 f/stops) in Premier prints, but only onto 3.8 dLog density (12.7 f/stops) on the other print stock.

Which smacks of print revisionism! j/k

What I mean, you have to have a perfectly preserved unfaded reference original print or have seen it, and watched it in the same illuminant it was projected in, or have the exact print stock tech sheet and detailed notes on how the print was developed and the negative was to be printed (printer lights) for each scene originally, and be able to reproduce a LUT table from them, and the negative is well preserved too, to get exactly how the film "looked". Sometimes as best approximate it as closely as possible with the technology, materials and tools at hand, sometimes using your best subjective interpretation.

You can always abuse a tool but a better tool lets you do a better job.

UHD HDR 2160p x PQ x 10 bit x 2020 has less limitations than SDR.

[Show spoiler]

Film is within the range of HDR. SDR is less than film.

The end.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

Bottom line is HDR is about more shades of colour. Nothing in of itself is universally gimmicky, saturated or not saturated. All those potential factors are down to the grading and the intent; not the HDR spec itself -- And director intent has been maintained in the majority (you can quibble over a handful of titles, subjectively) of the hundreds of catalog releases so far!

Yes. Usually I feel it improves color across the board and adds saturation or nuance that should be there. So many BDs now look like they have a flat blanket grading applied, while the UHD looks more professionally graded.

It can definitely be misused though I feel. As much as I loved Casino's remaster there were a couple times I felt the red of a shirt "popped" too much off the screen, like we used to look for as a sign of oversaturated color back in the day. I just Watched the last X-Men movie and the very end is a scene of Charles and Eric playing chess and their skin tones looked super oversaturated, the BD looking much better. However every other scene I checked, the BD looked flat and drained.

It's about execution and artist's intent, not the tech.