HDR is crayons

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Markgway

In all honesty I think I'm probably less sensitive to the nuances of HDR appreciation than most of you guys... I just don't want something that will look worse than not having it. Seems like there's no way to be sure. Yeah, it's the Sony TV I'm talking about, and my player is a Samsung. I'm not buying upscales, only native 4K masters, so that might help. I mean, I'm not buying discs for the HDR alone.

I'm not talking about appreciating the finest little HDR differences, it's about something possibly coming across as looking so dim or so blown out as to be unwatchable.

Originally Posted by desertedsun

@Geoff D Just reading your reviews I knew you had to have a high nit peak tv. What tv is it? I just upgraded from a 500 nit peak tv to the new Vizio P Quantum and it makes a night and day difference in HDR.

Sony ZD9. Most perfect TV ever? Certainly not, although Johnny Archer gave it no small amount of praise in his ZF9 review when he lead with "When it came out in 2016, Sony’s 65Z9D (65ZD9 in Europe) was the best LCD TV ever made. In fact, it was arguably the best TV ever released, period" which is quite a change from the usual gushing OLED worship amongst tech journalists.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's the problem with that kind of HDR performance in general, Mark. You may find that a slew of discs look absolutely magical on it and then you'll put one in that looks so bad you'll think that something broke inside the TV. Switching to SDR conversion is one way around it but even then, SDR conversion is basically screwed on certain players (there being no established 'baseline' for how it should be done) and it's only the Panasonics that produce a decent enough result. They also have HDR optimisation though and that might be a much better fit for your TV, if it's the one we were talking about, as the player can do its own mapping of the HDR signal.

And I want to just add. I've tried the UB900 + Linker for SDR 2020, Arve curves, Oppo SDR/2020, and now the UB820. The UB820 is BY FAR the best I have seen on my JVC. Panasonic has tapped into something special here with their secret sauce. I used to see occasional oddities here and there with the Arve curves (which are my second choice), but have seen none of that with the 820. It really makes everything look natural and does a wonderful job rendering specular highlights that I would see otherwise clipped at times. If anyone is using a projector, the 820 is hands down the way to go. The only potentially better option is MadVr, but I have ZERO desire for a HT PC or the Lumagen - but Kris Deering has said the 820 comes very close to the Lumagen and it costs more than my projector.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

RAH lost me on UHDs with his Oblivion review. Like others have said, I respect his work in the past but his opinions on this new format hold no water for me.

Yes. He gave top marks for some of the UHDs which actually inferior to the Blu-ray counterparts.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by bradnoyes

So what RAH is saying is that HDR can't be applied to the actors themselves. Good to know!

No. What he's saying is that the original capture medium does not capture the extreme whites and extreme blacks and it's applied after the fact. And he's implying that this "addition" to the film (but I would add "in most cases") is a violation of the director's and cinematographer's original intent (but I would add "with the possible exception in the cases where they would have wanted those extreme whites and blacks had they had it.")

IMO, HDR hurts films in as many instances that it helps. For example, I've seen a number of instances where there's a window in a scene that bears almost no relevance to the scene. It's there to let you know only that it's daylight. In HDR, it becomes so bright, it takes your attention away from the primary action and/or actors and to that window and for no good reason.

On the other hand, when I attend a film at a Dolby Cinema, the deeper blacks and the higher contrast ratio do make films look better.

But when applied to already existing films made without HDR in mind, how is HDR any different from colorization?

And I would also suggest that this is different than Wide Color Gamut, which provides a truer image to what was originally desired, although with today's largely desaturated color films, it might not make much of a practical difference.

[singhcr]

As I have mentioned before, I think the easiest way to be true to the source is to consult the answer print if it's available. That is a timed positive print right off the negative and is what the director and/or DP signed off on for what the movie was to look like. All of the theatrical prints are copies of this which have notably less detail and dynamic range than the answer print would. In addition, show prints would look like the answer print too and would be the print shown for the movie's premiere. So not only was this the official timing reference for the movie, it was shown to audiences as well. To my knowledge, any 70mm blow-up of 35mm OCNs as well as 70mm prints of 70mm OCNs were struck right off the negative.

For newer movies, be it digital or film sourced, the DI would be the obvious reference.

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

No. What he's saying is that the original capture medium does not capture the extreme whites and extreme blacks and it's applied after the fact.

You can't insert detail that hasn't been captured.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

No. What he's saying is that the original capture medium does not capture the extreme whites and extreme blacks and it's applied after the fact. And he's implying that this "addition" to the film (but I would add "in most cases") is a violation of the director's and cinematographer's original intent (but I would add "with the possible exception in the cases where they would have wanted those extreme whites and blacks had they had it.")

But when applied to already existing films made without HDR in mind, how is HDR any different from colorization?

There is nothing "added" to an HDR grade of a camera negative. You are seeing what was always there. It is valid to debate exactly how much of the dynamic range of that negative was meant to be seen (hence my comment about the answer print) but it's not something done in post processing.

For example, I shoot a lot of Fuji Velvia slide film. When I get it on my scanner, I can play with what are digital equivalents of printing lights for traditional film duplication. I can easily notice how how much dynamic range and color depth is lost when restricted to 8-bit SDR when comparing my projected slides to my scans.

Slide film has about 1/3rd the DR of negative film (although it has wonderfully saturated, rich colors) and if there's an obvious loss when scanning in 8-bit, imagine how much I'm throwing away with negative film.

This article about the HDR grades of the Mission: Impossible series also attests to the ideas I discussed.

https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/18/...le-4k-and-hdr/

"Our mastering philosophy here is always to work directly with the talent whenever possible and use the new technology to enhance the movie but always stay true to the intent of the movie," Pielstick said. "You're not going to want to make things brighter just because you can, if it's not the intent of how you were supposed to see things."

When working with directors and DPs, Pielstick said some are more aggressive than others during the restoration process. But if it can't get the original talent involved, Paramount's mastering group relies on the original film as a reference and works together with studio colorists for every project.

"You also have to remember that we're not putting in anything that didn't exist on the film [for HD remasters]," Pielstick added. "It was always there; we just didn't have the ability to see it. So we're not adding anything new, we're not doing anything to increase those. We're just able to look at the negative in a much clearer way than we ever could before."

[nick4Knight]

To think that these colorists and restoration artists, (not to mention those overseeing) don't care about being respectful to director intent, about having their own reputation upheld, about checks and balances? In terms of what they bring out in the HDR grade process... Sorta speaks to the alarmist nature inherent that would boar a thread like this.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'm not talking about appreciating the finest little HDR differences, it's about something possibly coming across as looking so dim or so blown out as to be unwatchable.

I guess I'll have to use my own eyes to see if there's a negative difference and if it bothers me.

Have to say this whole business sours me. If a TV can't do HDR properly they shouldn't be allowed to include it as an option let alone advertise it.

Most people would just switch on the HDR without (understandably) checking to see if it's worse than the SDR. Until recently it never occurred to me that might be the case.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

No. What he's saying is that the original capture medium does not capture the extreme whites and extreme blacks and it's applied after the fact. And he's implying that this "addition" to the film (but I would add "in most cases") is a violation of the director's and cinematographer's original intent (but I would add "with the possible exception in the cases where they would have wanted those extreme whites and blacks had they had it.")

IMO, HDR hurts films in as many instances that it helps. For example, I've seen a number of instances where there's a window in a scene that bears almost no relevance to the scene. It's there to let you know only that it's daylight. In HDR, it becomes so bright, it takes your attention away from the primary action and/or actors and to that window and for no good reason.

On the other hand, when I attend a film at a Dolby Cinema, the deeper blacks and the higher contrast ratio do make films look better.

But when applied to already existing films made without HDR in mind, how is HDR any different from colorization?

And I would also suggest that this is different than Wide Color Gamut, which provides a truer image to what was originally desired, although with today's largely desaturated color films, it might not make much of a practical difference.

Its hurts for sure when it is overdone (e.g. King Kong 2005). All dialed up plus contrast boosting plus edge enhancement (seriously??/)

[Pyoko]

Just because it's HDR doesn't mean you have to go all nuclear with the color grade.

Since we're not artificially softening details on digital scans from OCN, then it stands to reason that if the highlight information on the OCN can be unfolded* a bit to no ill effect that would be fair game too, or should we also ban OLED TVs and TVs brighter than 50 nits if those conditions were unattainable during a theatrical projection?

*It depends on the type of film, but in general film captures light according to a mostly logarithmic curve so that as the real-world light level increases, the difference in the recorded light gets smaller and smaller (especially on the very upper end), i.e. the highlights are compressed and you need brighter and brighter light to get the film to record a change. This means that if you applied this curve in reverse after scanning the film, the highlights would be uncompressed/expanded and you would get something that better corresponded to the real-world light levels, which could be used as a base for the HDR grade. Digital cinema cameras also store data in a similar fashion, as does the ST2084 curve for transferring HDR.

The greatest example I've seen so far of what HDR can do for a "normal" scene (as in not a Blade Runner-esque neon paradise) of a classic film is the below one from A Few Good Men (at 49:30), taking place in a dim corridor with the outside sun creating some intense rim and highlights. In SDR it just looks like great cinematography, in HDR you can almost feel the light and atmosphere. It is unquestionably amazeballs when toggling between HDR and SDR.

As an aside the BD looks absolutely pathetic with its flat, blown-out highlights even next to the SDR-converted UHD (UHD left, BD right):

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Markgway

I guess I'll have to use my own eyes to see if there's a negative difference and if it bothers me.

Have to say this whole business sours me. If a TV can't do HDR properly they shouldn't be allowed to include it as an option let alone advertise it.

Most people would just switch on the HDR without (understandably) checking to see if it's worse than the SDR. Until recently it never occurred to me that might be the case.

Everyone expected it to be plug and play, and not unfairly. That has not been the case.

[panasonicst60]

A lot of studios definitely over do HDR to a point where it doesn't add anything to the film but be more of a distraction. When HDR is done correctly and watched on a capable tv, the image is impressive. We also have to remember to have our display calibrated before we even judge an image. One other problem currently is not a single display out there can properly display uhd to it's max potential. We have long way to go. There's hundreds of other issues but I'll just stop there.

[Geoff D]

I've got nearly 300 UHD movies and the amount of times I've thought that the image actually looked more distracting and was serving HDR for HDR's sake I can count on one hand. Most of the time it really is deployed in a way that adds a tangible amount of realism and depth to the images, using that HDR brightness in exactly the way it should be, to define the brighter specular moments instead of pumping up the entire image into an eyebrow-singeing disaster, as most people on the fringes assume HDR to be. It helps that although I haven't got a display that does HDR's "max potential", it can do 1000 nits peak (75% of the PQ EOTF's signal range) in its sleep and can nudge nearer 2000 nits if required, which in terms of range really does cover a great deal of the content that's actually out there (according to the MaxFALL/MaxCLL metadata figures). I ain't saying that 4000-nit peaks wouldn't be better, but for me it's going to be another increment in HDR performance rather than the massive jump that some people will perceive when they can finally see HDR in its native 4000 nit habitat.

[captainsolo]

HDR should be a way to better realize the source material instead of someone else not form the original production making choices to what they feel is ostensibly "better". Unfortunately there is no set rule or accuracy checking just as virtually no audio track is ever examined for being authentic. That's why I worry over everything being remixed into Atmos and DTS X with no originals being preserved.

I thought HDR would be used to better capture the depths of color and detail from original sources but it seems we have just a whole new ballgame in terms of checking for accuracy and what can be manipulated. There are still things I've seen in print screenings that aren't in the DCP or video editions even in this advanced age.

[Brian81]

Originally Posted by koberulz

You can't insert detail that hasn't been captured.

And sometimes image information is there but not really meant to be that noticeable or even seen. Turn up the brightness on content and you'll see additional detail that was previously buried.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

A 10-bit 2K master of a 2hr movie will clock in at 2TB. A 10-bit 4K master will be 8TB.

At best we're looking at maybe 80 or 90GB of 4K video on a 100GB disc, leaving room for audio, menus and whatnot.

2K 2000GB 4:4:4/UHD 80GB "4:4:4" = 25:1

4K 8000GB 4:4:4/UHD 90GB 4:2:0 = 89:1

If we accept the notion that our eyes have less color resolution discrimination than luma so 4K 4:2:0 is acceptable/not noticeable at the luma resolution viewing distance limit,

4K 4000GB 4:2:0/UHD 90GB 4:2:0 = 44:1

The question then is at what compression ratio can you distinguish a detailed 2000 x 4000 pixel jpg from a 2000 x 4000 bitmap; and adding to that motion compression, at what H.265 compression ratio you can distinguish it from lossless movement compression ?

Originally Posted by wiki

In comparison to AVC, HEVC offers about double the data compression ratio at the same level of video quality

Originally Posted by Geoff D

even the theatrical DCPs (Digital Cinema Packages) that are used to distribute movies to cinemas aren't 1:1 copies either, the video is compressed using an intraframe codec called JPEG2000 which stores each frame in its entirety, meaning that DCPs often run upwards of 100GB and usually hit 200GB or more. But these DCPs have a higher bit-depth and wider colour gamut than regular 8-bit 709 Blu-ray, with no chroma subsampling either

in this case DCP 100-200GB/UHD 80-90GB = 1.1:1 to 2.5:1

Originally Posted by Geoff D

the 10/12-bit depth and P3 (inside 2020) colour space of UHD disc ensures a closer representation of the source files (and beyond, thanks to HDR).

PQ encodes 21 or more f/stops of contrast ratio which is more than normal film negatives (and digital cameras) usually record and way more than maximum print density. The 10-bit version uses double the discrimination levels of 8-bit SDR for the under 100-nit range, the 12-bit one 8 times the levels of 8-bit SDR for the same range.

The 2020 gamut is basically the biggest color reproduction space there is now unless you're using 4 or more color primaries/dyes/inks, and should contain most of the colors the eyes (and film) can see.

In other words, UHD HDR is the best container we have for repetitive consumer enjoyment and viewing.

A 2160p 2020 10,000-nit PQ hi-bit UHD on a high contrast direct view TV is a better format to reproduce a film than a 1080p rec.709 8-bit 100-nit SDR BD on a low contrast LCD which is better than a 480i SMPTE-C 8-bit 100-nit SDR DVD on an old CRT

Film and video technology advances through the years. Even if you are able to see the best film presentation on the best theater of a movie, which still has it's limitations, sadly this is ephemeral, and hard to find. Unless average movie projection improves/upgrades to the latest tech, in some respects Home Theater UHD viewing can match it and even surpass it in some parameters.

Originally Posted by Pyoko

Just because it's HDR doesn't mean you have to go all nuclear with the color grade.

[Show spoiler]

Since we're not artificially softening details on digital scans from OCN, then it stands to reason that if the highlight information on the OCN can be unfolded* a bit to no ill effect that would be fair game too, or should we also ban OLED TVs and TVs brighter than 50 nits if those conditions were unattainable during a theatrical projection?

*It depends on the type of film, but in general film captures light according to a mostly logarithmic curve so that as the real-world light level increases, the difference in the recorded light gets smaller and smaller (especially on the very upper end), i.e. the highlights are compressed and you need brighter and brighter light to get the film to record a change. This means that if you applied this curve in reverse after scanning the film, the highlights would be uncompressed/expanded and you would get something that better corresponded to the real-world light levels, which could be used as a base for the HDR grade. Digital cinema cameras also store data in a similar fashion, as does the ST2084 curve for transferring HDR.

The greatest example I've seen so far of what HDR can do for a "normal" scene (as in not a Blade Runner-esque neon paradise) of a classic film is the below one from A Few Good Men (at 49:30), taking place in a dim corridor with the outside sun creating some intense rim and highlights. In SDR it just looks like great cinematography, in HDR you can almost feel the light and atmosphere. It is unquestionably amazeballs when toggling between HDR and SDR.

Yes. Apart of misusing the "hyper" capabilities of the format to reinterpret or juice up the image which has nothing to do with the objective qualities of the format but is a human subjective intervention; the format itself has the best shot of reproducing what was recorded on the negative (or original digital file), which is also better than what's normally recorded and seen on the print on screen:

The negative itself due to its nature has more highlight range* which is trimmed/compressed by the print's image running out of dye because its brightest highlight are smashed onto near the film print transparent base. The negative can have more and better colors, which are distorted/drifted when copying it onto another film (That's why color negatives and intermediates have an orange mask, to minimize color dye imperfections, but prints don't). On the shadows end, the negative runs out of dyes (same as the print but opposite) as the darkest shadows reach the limit of the negative's transparent base + fog, but camera lens flare helps on this, being a "natural" form of "pre-compresion" to help fit the shadows there. These already compressed shadows on the negative are then printed on the maximum densities of the print. But maximum density is dependant on the print stock. That's why high density (dMax) print stocks like Vision print films get the best blacks. But still, these maximum shadows are limited in film projection by projector lens flare (and any stray light in the theater). etc


The creative capable director/cinematographer/restorer can then decide to reproduce all there is on the negative or go for the constrained film print look or anything in between. But now he is not limited by the consumer medium as before.





*(the negative says niiiii ts)

[CarlosMeat]

Incredibly information dense post. Almost a reference text in and of itself ! I think I should get at least three college credits if I can understand all of it. Nice !

[stigdu]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

The greatest example I've seen so far of what HDR can do for a "normal" scene (as in not a Blade Runner-esque neon paradise) of a classic film is the below one from A Few Good Men (at 49:30), taking place in a dim corridor with the outside sun creating some intense rim and highlights. In SDR it just looks like great cinematography, in HDR you can almost feel the light and atmosphere. It is unquestionably amazeballs when toggling between HDR and SDR.

As an aside the BD looks absolutely pathetic with its flat, blown-out highlights even next to the SDR-converted UHD (UHD left, BD right):

Now you see, looking at those screenshots on my wife's laptop, they both look great to me. I'd be happy watching the film if it looked like either picture. Are you saying the one on the right looks crap?

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by stigdu

Now you see, looking at those screenshots on my wife's laptop, they both look great to me. I'd be happy watching the film if it looked like either picture. Are you saying the one on the right looks crap?

It is harder to tell in SDR converted caps, but yes normal Blu-rays do look extremely flat after you get used to HDR.