4K Movies Releases

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by singhcr

I totally understand and can relate to that. I am not a fan of revisionist color grading either. My point is that a restoration can look faithful or awful in SDR and the same is true of HDR. HDR has the potential to make the final home release even more faithful to the original film precisely because it captures more of the dynamic range that was present on the film that you can't see with SDR grading.

Where is this range coming from? It was damn sure not release prints.
What are they saying they are trying to replicate exactly?

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by singhcr

I totally understand and can relate to that. I am not a fan of revisionist color grading either. My point is that a restoration can look faithful or awful in SDR and the same is true of HDR. HDR has the potential to make the final home release even more faithful to the original film precisely because it captures more of the dynamic range that was present on the film that you can't see with SDR grading.

I like this post & from the restoration/archival standpoint I'm in absolutely no position to disagree, but what about end-user variables like projector brightness? Does/did the theatergoer actually get to perceive all those bright highlights originally captured by camera? how much & how often? How many people ever get to see the full-range original film?

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Teazle

I like this post & from the restoration/archival standpoint I'm in absolutely no position to disagree, but what about end-user variables like projector brightness? Does/did the theatergoer actually get to perceive all those bright highlights originally captured? how much & how often? How many people ever get to see the full-range original film?

Exactly, and the neg was never timed like the release prints

[Teazle]

How long it will take for some influential director / DP to piss all over this, saying for some films that not only were we not meant to view the full contrast captured by camera but that we were specifically meant NOT to (e.g. for gloomy or subdued visual effect)? Which maybe was achieved not just in post but through a routine expectation of ordinary-contrast exhibition?

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Teazle

How long it will take for some influential director / DP to piss all over this, saying for some films that not only were we not meant to view the full contrast captured by camera but that we were specifically meant NOT to (e.g. for gloomy or subdued visual effect)? Which maybe were achieved not just in post but through a routine expectation of ordinary-contrast exhibition?

Soon I hope

[Teazle]

For new content (specifically shot for high-contrast displays) the use of HDR sounds excellent and v well motivated; I only hope I can actually watch it in my HT without eyestrain. IMHO it's just the reworked older stuff that has the "Ummm" factor.

As a movie buff I want to see what the director and DP want me to see, as much as possible, without interference. Traditionally (in the HD era) this means getting the home version close to 35mm theatrical exhibition standards. All of a sudden the talk is about massively exceeding those standards for old films.

With a new film like Tomorrowland I don't have any of these issues since I'm supposed to see it in the new spec.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Teazle

For new content (specifically shot for high-contrast displays) the use of HDR sounds incredible and v well motivated; I only hope I can actually watch it in my HT without eyestrain. IMHO it's just the reworked older stuff that has the "Ummm" factor.

I just don't like how it looks, I have never seen anyhting projected on film that looked that way

[Geoff D]

I think the point with HDR regrades of older movies is NOT to ratchet it up to the full 1000/4000/whatever nits just for the sake of it. Goes without saying I guess, but seeing how HDR apparently brings with it much more faithful colour reproduction ("colour volume" being the parlance as I understand it) then there's still an opportunity there to get it closer to the intended look without turning it into some permanently bright, washed-out image that completely ignores the original look, which is what people are afraid of.

There's the possibility that certain directors may take the opposite approach and HDR the hell out of it, yes, but if they do then we can only hope the end result is not as much of a comparative aberration as the original Friedkin'ed Blu of French Connection, say. If the studios are doing this without the input of the director or better yet the DP then I hope they take the above course of action, i.e. respect the original intent while using HDR's strengths to expand upon aspects which current SDR 709 material really doesn't capture all that faithfully, like the more nuanced gamut of film.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I think the point with HDR regrades of older movies is NOT to ratchet it up to the full 1000/4000/whatever nits just for the sake of it. Goes without saying I guess, but seeing how HDR apparently brings with it much more faithful colour reproduction ("colour volume" being the parlance as I understand it) then there's still an opportunity there to get it closer to the intended look without turning it into some permanently bright, washed-out image that completely ignores the original look, which is what people are afraid of.

There's the possibility that certain directors may take the opposite approach and HDR the hell out of it, yes, but if they do then we can only hope the end result is not as much of a comparative aberration as the original Friedkin'ed Blu of French Connection, say. If the studios are doing this without the input of the director or better yet the DP then I hope they take the above course of action, i.e. respect the original intent while using HDR's strengths to expand upon aspects which current SDR 709 material really doesn't capture all that faithfully, like the more nuanced gamut of film.

What about the directors, or more importantly cinematographers that are not alive to sign off

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

What about the directors, or more importantly cinematographers that are not alive to sign off

That's kinda inferred in the above, no? But studios transferring stuff anew when the filmmakers are long dead is not a new phenomenon, so they've got to use whatever reference materials are at hand. If they can use HDR to bring out a more faithful rendition of the colour whilst leaving the dynamic range alone (or perhaps bring up more range than what SDR can manage without expanding beyond the intended remit) then I won't have a problem with that. Just by going back to the negatives the studios are doing something that the original filmmakers never dreamed of doing and are exposing more of the seams which need massaging out, it may well be that HDR'd versions of older movies will need similar massaging.

But, as always, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so we gotta wait and see how they approach this stuff.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's kinda inferred in the above, no? But studios transferring stuff anew when the filmmakers are long dead is not a new phenomenon, so they've got to use whatever reference materials are at hand. If they can use HDR to bring out a more faithful rendition of the colour whilst leaving the dynamic range alone (or perhaps bring up more range than what SDR can manage without expanding beyond the intended remit) then I won't have a problem with that.

But, as always, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so we gotta wait and see how they approach this stuff.

Yes sorry, only Monday but its a long hard week already
Or the case of Warner where they just teal and orange stuff no matter who is alive

[Geoff D]

Yeah, it doesn't matter to them whether you're alive or dead, your film is gonna look just like all the others with filtered detail, blotchy grain that's chock full of chroma noise etc.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yeah, it doesn't matter to them whether you're alive or dead, your film is gonna look just like all the others with filtered detail, blotchy grain that's chock full of chroma noise etc.

Yep its another tool to ruin movies

[Geoff D]

So we should all just watch prints, yes? Are you sure you're not Tarantino in disguise?

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

So we should all just watch prints, yes? Are you sure you're not Tarantino in disguise?

Well now that you mention it........
But I have shown you the drawback of prints before.
Mind you I have seen none that look like HDR, from any source yet

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Well now that you mention it........
But I have shown you the drawback of prints before.
Mind you I have seen none that look like HDR, from any source yet

Mate, if I could actually project them onto a cinema screen rather than try and shoehorn them into the limited range of video I'd be right there with you, believe me. But most of them just aren't suited for video, the gamma's just too high, and if you brighten it to try and bring something up out of the shadows then you end up with something that's far too washed out (like Shout's Dog Soldiers).

But, funnily enough, I'd love to see what HDR could do with theatrical prints because it'd have more dynamic range to capture as much of the low end as possible without the brightness having to be blown out at the other end, which is the main problem when trying to conform a print with its hard contrast into linear video space.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Mate, if I could actually project them onto a cinema screen rather than try and shoehorn them into the limited range of video I'd be right there with you, believe me. But most of them just aren't suited for video, the gamma's just too high, and if you brighten it to try and bring something up out of the shadows then you end up with something that's far too washed out (like Shout's Dog Soldiers).

But, funnily enough, I'd love to see what HDR could do with theatrical prints because it'd have more dynamic range to capture as much of the low end as possible without the brightness having to be blown out at the other end, which is the main problem when trying to conform a print with its hard contrast into linear video space.

You are right in a few respects

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Very, very nice.
"Then the image shifts so drastically an entire audience of A/V enthusiasts audibly gasps. The white dot now shining a bright 31 fL. As for the screen? Seemingly gone. Perfectly black. The auditorium plunged into total darkness. The contrast ratio a staggering million to one"….http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...mc-prime/26635

Not to nitpick the press, but the A/V reporter rounded down the peak brightness. 107 nits (master grade on the Dolby Cinema projector) = 31.229395352 foot-lamberts. Also i’ll remind journalists that the International Organization for Standardization really doesn’t recognize fL anymore, it’s nits or cd/m2.

Plus, since we’ve been discussing food here recently and the way to a man’s heart is thru his stomach, the HDD reviewer didn’t recommend a place for a great meal on the way over to (or returning back from) the AMC Burbank dolby vision auditorium, soooo, in the spirit of a more comprehensive day/night theater outing…..

http://cafebizou.com/home_so.php

might I humbly suggest for starters, the lobster bisque.

p.s.
singhcr, you’ve got to watch Season 2 of Fargo, (which is set back in the late 70’s) as again the show is truly entertaining – http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/...atter-feminism

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Could you translate for this future 4K fanboy please?

a more elegant solution offering greater precision, kinda think of it as the passing quality of Xavi (dynamic metadata) vs. someone like Lukas Jutkiewicz (static metadata), not to pick on him specifically, but you should get my drift

p.s. i loved the N.E. derby , as i knew I would…
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...y#post10793668

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

...I am saying if you think that is where they stop you have rocks in your head.

since much of today’s early SMPTE conference presentations were in regards to the human visual system, let us here not neglect other parts of dee head.
un momento por favor…now searching for illustrative pics and/or gifs.