Still not convinced

[Five Inches]

I'm pretty sure my first UHD display will be a 32" ASUS monitor. I need a new one (out of two screens) but will probably go for QHD (first) because the UHD one is twice as expensive. Hardly anything I will watch UHDBD on though. Since I want 32" the options are limited as well.

[Bryanc7982]

DvdMike thanks for the info, the only company I see that's making one this year is either TCL (which I know nothing about) and LG, the LG Super uhd lcds seem like they are going to be pretty awesome. Fully backlit not edge lit plus both HDR 10 and Dolby vision.. Possibly future proof?

[marine92104]

Originally Posted by Bryanc7982

DvdMike thanks for the info, the only company I see that's making one this year is either TCL (which I know nothing about) and LG, the LG Super uhd lcds seem like they are going to be pretty awesome. Fully backlit not edge lit plus both HDR 10 and Dolby vision.. Possibly future proof?

As future proof as you're going to get. My LG G6 should be here in a couple of weeks. You're correct it does HDR10 & Dolby Vision.

[marine92104]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

And this shows you have no idea what artistic intent is.

Since they're involving the director's & colorist on these HDR movies than how is that not preserving artistic intent?

Are we talking about someone else's intent other than the director?

[Rocklandsboy]

Originally Posted by ray0414

Thats a rediculous thought and you're obviously stretching because you're running out of excuses.

Not at all. If that shot was from a dream sequence or something then it might very well be designed to look like that.

[Rocklandsboy]

Originally Posted by marine92104

Since they're involving the director's & colorist on these HDR movies than how is that not preserving artistic intent?

Are we talking about someone else's intent other than the director?

But they're not always, that's the point.

[peterraes]

Originally Posted by marine92104

Since they're involving the director's & colorist on these HDR movies than how is that not preserving artistic intent?

Are we talking about someone else's intent other than the director?

I see where your going but remember Friedkin's "French Connection",he changed (colorwise) the original look of the film and had to go back again after releasing that appaling "new" version ,was mainly desaturation but you get the point.
When i read about HDR now it seems "we find it oke the director changes the original look of the film" cause he is the director after all?
You seriously want to back that up?
Hey,let's re-grade the movie cause UHD blu + HDR is here ,let's give it more vibrant (overly bright) colors and turn the contrast way up,that way the picture should really stand out!
I embrace WCG and 10 bit ,and while i love the deeper blacks i rather let go of that cause it aint possible without having the brighter whites and exactly those tend to boost the whole picture right now unnaturally.
It's the beginning of a new era and i cross fingers it al comes well ,wait and see...

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by peterraes

I embrace WCG and 10 bit ,and while i love the deeper blacks i rather let go of that cause it aint possible without having the brighter whites and exactly those tend to boost the whole picture right now unnaturally.
It's the beginning of a new era and i cross fingers it al comes well ,wait and see...

The whites don't boost the whole picture, only the areas where whites exist and they don't do it to all whites, only those which are naturally "lit" (like fires or sunlight). Also if the director doesn't want those portions brighter because they distract from other areas then he doesn't have to have them that way. HDR actually makes the film look more natural if you do it right, not less.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

And this shows you have no idea what artistic intent is.

The picture posted is completely blown out. If they want the picture to look that way, they will keep it that way when being graded, but I doubt it. It can certainly be improved with hdr grading without going over the top.

[richieb1971]

I don't know why someone hasn't invented a TV and player combo where you put the disc in and get perfect results.

These threads reach dizzying post counts about technicalities which shouldn't even involve the end user. If I buy a car I don't need to know how the pistons go up and down.. I just start the car and drive. When the electronics companies realize this is a great "Feature" of watching movies the better we will be.

[marine92104]

Originally Posted by Rocklandsboy

But they're not always, that's the point.

Where do you read that at? As the rep from new formats at Sony pointed out yesterday they're just getting it as close to rec2020 as is possible at this point.

We're getting closer to rec2020 at home but no display has done it yet.

Blu-Ray is a great format but it's not possible to do what UHD can.

As the rep from Sony pointed out we're not trying to add anything but we're trying to make it as close as possible to what you are seeing in the theatre.

There are colors that are available on the theatrical print that Blu-Ray can't produce. There are whites & dark areas & shadings that Blu-Ray can't produce that UHD can.

I seriously think some of you are thinking that there is someone with an iPad Pro pencil coloring in new colors on a tablet & creating things that were not there on the actual print.

I haven't seen anyone complain about a 4K new master on Blu-Ray & the better color that it produces. Do you think those remasteres are putting in color that wasn't there?

[42041]

Originally Posted by marine92104

There are colors that are available on the theatrical print that Blu-Ray can't produce. There are whites & dark areas & shadings that Blu-Ray can't produce that UHD can.

Wider color gamut, sure (again, not terribly meaningful for most content most of the time).
HDR? No.

[dvdmike]

[JoeDeM]

Originally Posted by richieb1971

I don't know why someone hasn't invented a TV and player combo where you put the disc in and get perfect results.

These threads reach dizzying post counts about technicalities which shouldn't even involve the end user. If I buy a car I don't need to know how the pistons go up and down.. I just start the car and drive. When the electronics companies realize this is a great "Feature" of watching movies the better we will be.

Apple could do it, but you would have to upgrade every year

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by jaaguir

So much debate going over the same things again and again. Things aren't that complicated, I think.

I love the idea of HDR. I like "pretty" above all else, I happen to find the enhanced contrast pretty, and I like that it was already recorded on the original negative/data files.

Am I a film purist? Of course not. Films were not released with HDR grading until now. So technically, it's revisionism. Let's just face and accept what each of us want/are.

Now, HDR can be applied lightly or heavily. It can look a lot like the original version, or not. There are degrees, and in my opinion they matter. Even though I'm no purist I like the original look being mostly retained.

Because revisionism is not a problem of UHD, it's as old as home-video. It has always happened, in different forms, each format introducing its new possibilities. Even home-video releases that most purists accept could be find fault with, as in some cases BD already looks better than some movies did in movie theaters, or are "improved" in some way. Let's not demonize UHD nor HDR.

There are also people who are not purists, and are not like me either, they value "director's intent" above all. They're ok even with revisionism as long as the director approves.

Some people conveniently switch sides from purist to "director's intent" from case to case as it better fits their tastes. This is cheating, or they don't have clear judgement yet.

Purists say home-video was getting closer and closer to original presentation until (and including) BD, now it seems to go somewhere else. That's pretty fair, I guess.

I think it's just the evolution of technology. Very crudely speaking, just like movies went from "silent, academy ratio, soft b&w" to "stereophonic, big format, color", now home-video has the possibility of going beyond in a different way. I like that, for now. Just my taste though.

I find no cause whatsoever to attack purists, nor "director's intent" people. And I don't like being attacked for not being either. All this quarreling is absurd.

Yes, movies are an art form and should always be available as they were created. I'm not against that, of course, I'm not a bandal. But I'm very much open to other possibilities. There are more considerations here.

To each his own (and to everybody whatever studios will give us...).

Will continue writing when I have the time.

Can't wait!

[marine92104]

I borrowed this from another thread in the forum but it's a twitter answer about how the HDR process is done by an industry insider concerning "The Martian".

In it he states all the HDR work is done with the film maker involvement & oversight. I seriously didn't think that a director would allow changes to be made to his movie without his involvement.


http://www.imagebam.com/image/59989e471243512


So would that mean the artistic intent is still there in the HDR realm?

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by marine92104

I borrowed this from another thread in the forum but it's a twitter answer about how the HDR process is done by an industry insider concerning "The Martian".

In it he states all the HDR work is done with the film maker involvement & oversight. I seriously didn't think that a director would allow changes to be made to his movie without his involvement.


http://www.imagebam.com/image/59989e471243512


So would that mean the artistic intent is still there in the HDR realm?

Well that's Fox and their views on director involvement are fortunately a little more strict than that of Sony (who have regraded Lawrence of Arabia in HDR, where filmmaker involvement or even approval is impossible because they're all dead).

[infiniteCR]

The involvement thing is kind of convoluted and far from straight forward if you ask me. Bram Stokers Dracula had coppola for director involvement on a bluray and folks wanted the remastered edition that came after his. I am fine with some subjectivity, but not having standards that keeps my calibrator from recommending I upgrade is just not acceptable.

[dankrakafoon]

In Home Theater Geeks' latest episode (295, Sony on UHD), Scott Wilkinson asks his guest why Sony picked such gems as "Smurfs 2" for the initial UHD Blu-ray launch, and Sony's rep's answer was illuminating to me:

"... I think all the studios are working through their catalogs to see what really works in HDR. You might love a film, but it doesn't necessarily translates well into high dynamic range. UHD, it doesn't cause a problem, but HDR can cause a problem." He goes on: "... With film titles, some of those look very good too, including the Sony titles, but, you know, it's with the understanding that film grain with higher dynamic range means more film grain."

We spent dozen of years asking studios not to remove grain, now we have to ask them not to add any.

Revisionism aside, it seems clear to me that HDR is a video feature (gimmick?) that should not be applied to past movies shot on film.

Smurfs 2. This reminds me of an old Onion headline back when HDTV was launched: "High-Definition Television Promises Sharper Crap."

[bruceames]

Fine, I agree they may not need HDR. But release them anyway. They can still benefit from the 10 bit depth, wider color gamut and of course the higher resolution. I hope they won't be afraid to release them without HDR thinking consumers are expecting eye candy or something (which they might if they get spoiled on HDR releases). I'm worried that with seemingly ALL the focus on HDR that this will become an HDR-only format and I don't think anybody wants that.