Why no HDR when Blu-ray first came out ?

[Brightstar]

Why didn't we get HDR when blu ray first came out ? It could have saved everyone alot of money becouse some people are still happy with HD

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by Brightstar

Why didn't we get HDR when blu ray first came out ? It could have saved everyone alot of money becouse some people are still happy with HD

Hdr didn't exist yet nor was the tv technology anywhere near reafy.

Dolby invented hdr for tv a few years back.

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by ray0414

Hdr didn't exist yet nor was the tv technology anywhere near reafy.

Dolby invented hdr for tv a few years back.

Did it have anyting to do with disk space to ?

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by Brightstar

Did it have anyting to do with disk space to ?

Yes. Definitely. Video compression back then weren't as efficient as it is now.

[skippychurch]

HDR is like gluten. Before it was ever brought up, nobody knew about it and life was fine. Nobody asked for stupid HDR because it's not important

[Cortiz]

I remember when expert reviewers used to say that for best PQ, leave any additional processing and/or video enhancements off. Blu ray/DVD player needs to play exactly what's on the disc without any fake processing to maintain the purity of the filmakers intentions. Along the way, Oppo came in something called Darby processing on their Blu ray machines and now HDR. Now the experts doesn't seem to mind all these new technologies that are essentially what they were against to: PQ Enhancements. I'm not a tech person and I don't know nothing about how a film should look like, but are movies even shot with HDR in mind? Forgive me if this is an ignorant question.

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by Cortiz

I remember when expert reviewers used to say that for best PQ, leave any additional processing and/or video enhancements off. Blu ray/DVD player needs to play exactly what's on the disc without any fake processing to maintain the purity of the filmakers intentions. Along the way, Oppo came in something called Darby processing on their Blu ray machines and now HDR. Now the experts doesn't seem to mind all these new technologies that are essentially what they were against to: PQ Enhancements. I'm not a tech person and I don't know nothing about how a film should look like, but are movies even shot with HDR in mind? Forgive me if this is an ignorant question.

Most off all does all that colour come from a 35mm print ? Which we get when HDR is on

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Brightstar

Most off all does all that colour come from a 35mm print ? Which we get when HDR is on

HDR= high dynamic range.
WCG= wide color gamut.

Film has a dynamic range and color gamut that is far beyond what a typical consumer display can show. These technologies are wonderful because they get us far closer to what was actually shot. If I compare a scan of my film slides to the actual slides, this is obvious.

Seeing 35mm prints of movies that I have only seen on DVD and even Blu-ray shows the increased dynamic range and color.

So HDR (this term is used to describe both HDR and WCG in general) is a good thing. Studios can muck up color in SDR, too. This is no different. Just because a tool can be abused doesn't mean the tool is bad.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Cortiz

I remember when expert reviewers used to say that for best PQ, leave any additional processing and/or video enhancements off. Blu ray/DVD player needs to play exactly what's on the disc without any fake processing to maintain the purity of the filmakers intentions. Along the way, Oppo came in something called Darby processing on their Blu ray machines and now HDR. Now the experts doesn't seem to mind all these new technologies that are essentially what they were against to: PQ Enhancements. I'm not a tech person and I don't know nothing about how a film should look like, but are movies even shot with HDR in mind? Forgive me if this is an ignorant question.

No worries.

When you shoot film, what is captured has a far higher dynamic range and color gamut (range of colors) than what we can see on our consumer displays. In a sense, HDR has always been there, we just couldn't see it at home until now. Same with the newer digital cameras.

Your standard digital projector in the theater isn't able to display HDR, so directors, cinematographers, and colorists have to intentionally limit the dynamic range of their movies to meet this. What was captured by the film or digital camera is way beyond this limitation. Now HDR allows the moviemakers to bring a higher quality image that is closer to reality.

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/hom...lu-ray-1322099

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by singhcr

HDR= high dynamic range.
WCG= wide color gamut.

Film has a dynamic range and color gamut that is far beyond what a typical consumer display can show. These technologies are wonderful because they get us far closer to what was actually shot. If I compare a scan of my film slides to the actual slides, this is obvious.

Seeing 35mm prints of movies that I have only seen on DVD and even Blu-ray shows the increased dynamic range and color.

So HDR (this term is used to describe both HDR and WCG in general) is a good thing. Studios can muck up color in SDR, too. This is no different. Just because a tool can be abused doesn't mean the tool is bad.

Thanks alot now i understand

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Brightstar

Thanks alot now i understand

You are welcome! These things can be confusing. Always happy to help and I appreciate your enthusiasm in wanting to learn

[Seilerbird2]

Not only was disc space an issue ten years ago but processor speed and memory were also a huge issue.

[Deciazulado]

HDR relies on a bigger contrast range in the display and on higher bit-depth (at least 10-bit). Most displays past 10 years ago couldn't do that. CRTs had gone the way of the dodo and 8-bit 1000:1 LCDs ruled the Earth

[jibucha]

(1) :: outstanding post

Originally Posted by singhcr

HDR= high dynamic range.
WCG= wide color gamut.

Film has a dynamic range and color gamut that is far beyond what a typical consumer display can show. These technologies are wonderful because they get us far closer to what was actually shot. If I compare a scan of my film slides to the actual slides, this is obvious.

Seeing 35mm prints of movies that I have only seen on DVD and even Blu-ray shows the increased dynamic range and color.

So HDR (this term is used to describe both HDR and WCG in general) is a good thing. Studios can muck up color in SDR, too. This is no different. Just because a tool can be abused doesn't mean the tool is bad.

[jibucha]

(1) :: outstanding post

Originally Posted by singhcr

No worries.

When you shoot film, what is captured has a far higher dynamic range and color gamut (range of colors) than what we can see on our consumer displays. In a sense, HDR has always been there, we just couldn't see it at home until now. Same with the newer digital cameras.

Your standard digital projector in the theater isn't able to display HDR, so directors, cinematographers, and colorists have to intentionally limit the dynamic range of their movies to meet this. What was captured by the film or digital camera is way beyond this limitation. Now HDR allows the moviemakers to bring a higher quality image that is closer to reality.

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/hom...lu-ray-1322099

[benhoppel]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Your standard digital projector in the theater isn't able to display HDR, so directors, cinematographers, and colorists have to intentionally limit the dynamic range of their movies to meet this.

Neither has a 35mm projector HDR capability like a modern TV. The nits are not achievable. And the black level is limited as well.

[gkolb]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

HDR relies on a bigger contrast range in the display and on higher bit-depth (at least 10-bit). Most displays past 10 years ago couldn't do that. CRTs had gone the way of the dodo and 8-bit 1000:1 LCDs ruled the Earth

The dodo Thanks Deci, you pretty much hit the nail on the head with that one.

We were all just blissfully looking at our displays back then (as far back as 1966 for me when Star Trek debuted in glorious NBC color, and even now on every SDR display) thinking this must be the best the picture can look, because if it could be improved, they would have done that and marketed it to us.

Well now that HDR and WCG are here (it's still not 100% of what the eye can process in real life) the blindfolds are off and some people are asking questions and getting riled up that the 2014 and 2015 4K TV's they bought weren't as great as the buyer thought they would be.

The new Sony Z9D (or is it ZD9) will be a huge showroom hit, the BBY manager told me he saw one next to the 75" Sony X940, and the X940 looked pale in comparison.

Not sure what it will take on the hardware side, but mark this, I think 12-bit panels will come sooner than we think, and Dolby Vision 12-bit encoded programming will look like the 22nd Century TV's of some of our dreams. Don't "they" keep saying that banding and crush will be gone if we can get to 12-bit (or will it have to be higher even?)

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by gkolb

We were all just blissfully looking at our displays back then (as far back as 1966 for me when Star Trek debuted in glorious NBC color, and even now on every SDR display) thinking this must be the best the picture can look, because if it could be improved, they would have done that and marketed it to us.

Aaah, Star Trek and RCA's NBC NTSC color! That's one of the things that started me on my quest. When I was little on an RCA NTSC TV Captain's Kirk (and Sulu's etc) command shirts were green (NTSC's RGB Scotty Kirk and Spock) when I adjusted the colors. then the 70's came and a new TV with the reduced gamut (but brighter!) yellow green phosphours and Kirk's shirt were puke kakhi brown yellow that you couldn't make green without making Kirk look like Spock and Spock look like a Martian.(called "gold" by the modern Trek fan. And probably modern young telecine/colorist that never saw them green cus they weren't born yet! ) But now after 50 years+, with WCG P3 we're back to close to the NTSC/Technicolor gamut. And when consumer tech advances to 2020 we'll be beyond that

Film has more contrast than LCDs but when projected (goes through a lens, lens have flare) the onscreen image contrast is reduced the brighter the scene is (dark scenes can get the darker blacks that's on film, darker than LCDs, if the theater is set up properly (bat cave)( which these days they ain't). If you have seen a KodakEktaFujichrome transparency on a backlit illuminator (no lens but your own eyes') you can see film's true contrast. The nits (maximum brightness) race is exagerated by the promotions. It's not really that much better to increase the backlight to make the image brighter if you don't increase the actual display contrast in the image itself , that would only be torching it. We're now achieving that (higher contrast with new display technology, that's also not bulky and heavy and sucks electricity bythe gallon to achieve higher brightness like CRT/Plasma, so we can also get closer to Cinema viewing fields of views (Just try imagine a 77" CRT or Plasma being brought to an aptment and being hung on an extendable VESA mount!)

8-bit panels emulate 10-bit with dither, 10-bits will emulate 12-bit, then there will be full 12-bit (and 2020 and 4000 nits and 30 f/stop contrast) and so forth. We've finally gotten 60p capability this year on UHDs.