SDR Contrast in the Age of HDR - What Do You Prefer?

[StingingVelvet]

I was thinking funny things this morning looking at this cap comparison for Ninja III: The Domination. The new master from Shout looks more natural and film-like, but because of my experience with HDR now-a-days it also looks SOOOO flat. The older master, while possibly contrast-boosted to some degree and obviously more processed in general, has more depth like I am now used to, even if it's "fake."

Obviously the "theatrical accuracy" question rears its head here, but theater projection and home video are not the same and it's hard to say exactly how much contrast should be there sometimes. I'm not an expert or even an armchair expert, so I thought I'd open a discussion up about this.

What do you think should be the "contrast standard" on an SDR blu-ray? Which image do you think looks best, contrast-wise? If you have experience with HDR has that changed your desires and expectations for SDR contrast? Do you think SDR remasters should be tuned a bit to emulate HDR? Sound off!

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Warner Archive pretty much have it nailed, to the point that their SDR grades look much more like something you'd see on film than the vast majority of HDR grades. They use reference materials unlike most companies/labels and films are going to look their best at their most accurate.

If every home video release was done to the standard of a WAC release (Leatherface excluded) then you'd never read a complaint from me again.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Warner Archive pretty much have it nailed, to the point that their SDR grades look much more like something you'd see on film than the vast majority of HDR grades. They use reference materials unlike most companies/labels and films are going to look their best at their most accurate.

Better than Arrow?

I agree they mostly do great work. I was disappointed by Superfly, but everything else I have of theirs looks really nice. Hope they start doing UHD sometime.

[nitin]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Better than Arrow?

I agree they mostly do great work. I was disappointed by Superfly, but everything else I have of theirs looks really nice. Hope they start doing UHD sometime.

Arrow has released plenty of questionably graded transfers, although most of them are outsource jobs. Their in house restorations are much better quality but that’s not the majority of thei output at all.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by nitin

Arrow has released plenty of questionably graded transfers, although most of them are outsource jobs. Their in house restorations are much better quality but that’s not the majority of thei output at all.

Well I meant Arrow's remasters versus Warner Archive's. I know Arrow don't remaster everything they release. Wish they did.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Better than Arrow?

I agree they mostly do great work. I was disappointed by Superfly, but everything else I have of theirs looks really nice. Hope they start doing UHD sometime.

Without a doubt, as with most other companies/labels Arrow are more "interpretive" rather than accurate, which is fair enough since that's essentailly the standard for home video and always has been.

Warner (especially the Archive) are doing something different which some perceive as "radical" because their results look different to what consumers have been conditioned to believe is "film-like" and "natural". Don't think this is limited to just the consumers either, there are heads of labels who have the same beliefs and believe that the work they are doing is accurate.

Not dropping names but there was label I was in contact with who didn't even think to ask for a framing guide, lab notes or access to an answer print for a film they were working on. When I made an inquiry regarding a certain stylistic color choice (that was added after initial photography, hence not on the negative), they insisted that they would study the negative to see how it appeared on there so they'd know what is "correct". I wish I was kidding but I'm not.

[Geoff D]

I keep saying it Velvs: when I look at something converted to SDR from a modern movie on a DI it seems to lose so much of dat depth compared to HDR, they've got a knack for killing the highlights and flattening the colour.

But when it comes to a fresh new transfer from film that the indies handle, i.e. they're designed purely for the SDR space (unlike those from the majors because the SDR passes are a joke) I don't find myself missing HDR so much. I'd be lying if I said I still didn't notice where the highlights are being burned out but something like Charmed looks SO good on the new HD transfer for detail, grain, colour, range, the lot.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But when it comes to a fresh new transfer from film that the indies handle, i.e. they're designed purely for the SDR space (unlike those from the majors because the SDR passes are a joke) I don't find myself missing HDR so much. I'd be lying if I said I still didn't notice where the highlights are being burned out but something like Charmed looks SO good on the new HD transfer for detail, grain, colour, range, the lot.

Well what I'm getting at is I think it depends on how well contrast is handled. For stuff like Criterion's Princess Bride or Arrow's 12 Monkeys I don't really miss HDR at all, those look amazing. However there are other new masters that look really flat and lack depth and contrast to my eye, like the one linked to in the OP or Shout's In the Mouth of Madness.

I guess my point is more "low contrast bothers me more in the age of HDR" or something like that, and I'm wondering if I that shot shows poor contrast on the new master or boosted contrast on the old one. Is HDR making me like boosted contrast? Etc. etc.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Well what I'm getting at is I think it depends on how well contrast is handled. For stuff like Criterion's Princess Bride or Arrow's 12 Monkeys I don't really miss HDR at all, those look amazing. However there are other new masters that look really flat and lack depth and contrast to my eye, like the one linked to in the OP or Shout's In the Mouth of Madness.

I guess my point is more "low contrast bothers me more in the age of HDR" or something like that, and I'm wondering if I that shot shows poor contrast on the new master or boosted contrast on the old one. Is HDR making me like boosted contrast? Etc. etc.

I don't think HDR is making you like it, I think higher contrast is making you like it because it's inherently more pleasing to our visual system. It's why home video transfers were boosted to shit for years and years and years because it had the effect of making the image appear 'sharper' in the low-rez SD domain.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I don't think HDR is making you like it, I think higher contrast is making you like it because it's inherently more pleasing to our visual system. It's why home video transfers were boosted to shit for years and years and years because it had the effect of making the image appear 'sharper' in the low-rez SD domain.

Sure, but I was good about disliking it before. I hated it on Shout's Escape From New York for example. I dunno.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Sure, but I was good about disliking it before. I hated it on Shout's Escape From New York for example. I dunno.

That's different, the contrast was high but incompetently handled on the SF disc. It looked completely digital, the way the highlights appeared on that had nothing in common with how they naturally appear on film.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Sure, but I was good about disliking it before. I hated it on Shout's Escape From New York for example. I dunno.

As WarnerArchiveFan hinted at, some stuff will look more 'electronic' in the way that they clip the highlights so it's a different effect again, one you don't like for what it does to the overall image (though not on all the people who slated the MGM EFNY Blu for being too dark, despite the Shout blowing out detail that really should've been plenty visible in HDR).

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

That's different, the contrast was high but incompetently handled on the SF disc. It looked completely digital, the way the highlights appeared on that had nothing in common with how they naturally appear on film.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

As WarnerArchiveFan hinted at, some stuff will look more 'electronic' in the way that they clip the highlights so it's a different effect again, one you don't like for what it does to the overall image (though not on all the people who slated the MGM EFNY Blu for being too dark, despite the Shout blowing out detail that really should've been plenty visible in HDR).

Hmmm so basically you're saying I'm fine with a bit of contrast-boosting as long as it's done well and doesn't go too crazy? I guess that makes some sense, though I don't think Princess Bride or 12 Monkeys were boosted and they look great. Maybe it depends on the movie or how it was remastered and there's no generalizing to be done.

I do think In the Mouth of Madness looks good, but the old Warner master undeniably has a richer, deeper picture without looking overly processed. I guess those last four words are the key.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Hmmm so basically you're saying I'm fine with a bit of contrast-boosting as long as it's done well and doesn't go too crazy? I guess that makes some sense, though I don't think Princess Bride or 12 Monkeys were boosted and they look great. Maybe it depends on the movie or how it was remastered and there's no generalizing to be done.

I do think In the Mouth of Madness looks good, but the old Warner master undeniably has a richer, deeper picture without looking overly processed. I guess those last four words are the key.

I'm not so sure that something's necessarily "boosted" in the pejorative sense just because it dares to show a bit of decent contrast though, it may just as well be that other stuff is "flattened", I've noticed that Shout's new transfers tend to pull the brightness down on the highlights so they look dimmer but contain more highlight information (you can't really have both in SDR).

Contrast isn't a bad word and I don't mind a transfer getting a bit hotter here and there as long as it doesn't look like harsh, clipped video as so many older transfers often do. I even said as much when I watched the WAC disc of Body Snatchers '93 a couple of weeks ago so I'm not saying this now to score points, I'm perfectly fine with high contrast and lesser highlight as long as it doesn't look like a creaky old master: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...2#post15714432

[DarknessBDJM]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Hmmm so basically you're saying I'm fine with a bit of contrast-boosting as long as it's done well and doesn't go too crazy? I guess that makes some sense, though I don't think Princess Bride or 12 Monkeys were boosted and they look great. Maybe it depends on the movie or how it was remastered and there's no generalizing to be done.

I do think In the Mouth of Madness looks good, but the old Warner master undeniably has a richer, deeper picture without looking overly processed. I guess those last four words are the key.

If you've watched a segment from both disks back to back the old Warner master definitely doesn't have a richer and deeper picture. Seeing a still image gives off a different vibe compared to seeing it in motion.
A lot of the issue is that enough contrast booting makes images appear closer to the screen and three dimensional in that way that you feel closer to them and they pop out at/towards you and edges a bit more defined which gives the illusion of more depth at the cost of losing detail through bloom. A well balanced contrast will give an image enough object separation, but images will appear in a three dimensional manner deeper into the screen (rather than the forward push of contrast boosting) giving it a sense of separation of objects through air and natural space. I'll often use the scene in Halloween where Dr. Loomis and the groundskeeper are walking through the cemetery as a test as a well balanced contrast level will have the background feel deep and there being a good sense of air between planes (where each tree or bush in the background will represent a different plane/layer).
Please give my words a bit of weight in your heart as I used to have my contrast on my displays boosted because I liked the image popping out at me, but have since found out what truly makes the image more real through trial and error over many many years of experimentation.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

If you have experience with HDR has that changed your desires and expectations for SDR contrast? Do you think SDR remasters should be tuned a bit to emulate HDR?

Honestly, I'm finding that it's getting harder and harder to enjoy standard Blu-rays. So I guess I would like them to have a slightly punchier look.

[Geoff D]

You call it what you like, I'm not going to continue second-guessing what you're seeing or not seeing, that's just how I see it.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You call it what you like, I'm not going to continue second-guessing what you're seeing or not seeing, that's just how I see it.

I'm just trying to make sure I understand what you're saying. I know what I like the look of, I'm trying to nail down why I prefer the older masters of the two mentioned Shout releases. You and JC Fan are great at explaining the technical aspects.

[4kmaaster]

I always keep my Panasonic 4K player in conversion mode from HDR to SDR because I find HDR unbearable on my OLED TV. HDR tends to excessively boost whites to an uncomfortable brightness. Enjoying 4K resolution at normal brightness is much more pleasant for me so SDR>Hdr