HDR is crayons

[sacd-man]

Here is what Robert Harris, the man who resoted Spartacus and many other films, has to say about HDR.

There seems to be a misunderstanding, at least in on-line discussions, as to what HDR (High Dynamic Range) actually is...

and might not be.

It is NOT an inherent part of the 4k UHD package.

It is in no way necessary toward the enjoyment of 4k, either in the home, or elsewhere.

HDR is an option, much like ordering a different kind of leather of fabric for your new car's interior.

It's nothing new -- been around for years.

If generally NOT a part of the design of a film, with most HDR entering the picture, no pun intended, during post.

"Wouldn't look neat if those flames were Really bright orange..."

It's added the same way that 3D is added in post, to the majority of 3D productions.

It has no relevance to production photography.

It should not be included as a function for classic films, unless the filmmakers have a desire to re-visit, and create
a new version, a re-imagining.

It will not work well with most classic films, and can be problematic to those that have needed restoration based upon fade.

Want to see 2001, or Lawrence, Ben-Hur, The Godfather, The Magnificent Seven, or Elvira Madigan in 4k?

No problem.

We're ready for it, and there's no reason why those films can't be released, except those which don't fit on the
current sized discs.

And NONE of them should be released with HDR.

Every UHD release does NOT need HDR, nor should they have it.

If we can clear the airwaves of mis and dis-information regarding HDR, things would be easier.

RAH

[brainofj72]

[McSteebler]

Originally Posted by sacd-man

Here is what Robert Harris, the man who resoted Spartacus and many other films, has to say about HDR.

There seems to be a misunderstanding, at least in on-line discussions, as to what HDR (High Dynamic Range) actually is...

and might not be.

It is NOT an inherent part of the 4k UHD package.

It is in no way necessary toward the enjoyment of 4k, either in the home, or elsewhere.

HDR is an option, much like ordering a different kind of leather of fabric for your new car's interior.

It's nothing new -- been around for years.

If generally NOT a part of the design of a film, with most HDR entering the picture, no pun intended, during post.

"Wouldn't look neat if those flames were Really bright orange..."

It's added the same way that 3D is added in post, to the majority of 3D productions.

It has no relevance to production photography.

It should not be included as a function for classic films, unless the filmmakers have a desire to re-visit, and create
a new version, a re-imagining.

It will not work well with most classic films, and can be problematic to those that have needed restoration based upon fade.

Want to see 2001, or Lawrence, Ben-Hur, The Godfather, The Magnificent Seven, or Elvira Madigan in 4k?

No problem.

We're ready for it, and there's no reason why those films can't be released, except those which don't fit on the
current sized discs.

And NONE of them should be released with HDR.

Every UHD release does NOT need HDR, nor should they have it.

If we can clear the airwaves of mis and dis-information regarding HDR, things would be easier.

RAH

HDR is literally the only reason I enjoy 4K content over standard HD...The 4K resolution is a moot point when sitting 10-20 ft. back from your screen.

[imsounoriginal]

[LoSouL]

If generally NOT a part of the design of a film, with most HDR entering the picture, no pun intended, during post.

You mean they don't tell the crew to turn up the HDR on set before they start shooting?

[Jessie]

Thanks for posting this. I found it most interesting.

[bradnoyes]

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

[brian9229]

Well, he's right in many ways. And posting a list of quotes, completely out of any sort of context, is hardly fair in any way, and comes off pretty one-sided.

[brainofj72]

I respect RAH for his restoration work but everything I’ve ever heard him say about 4K Blu-rays is ignorant nonsense.

[Noremac Mij]

Proper HDR allows home video to look like projected film. As much as I like RAH, he’s starting to mumble and not make much sense.

[LoSouL]

Originally Posted by bradnoyes

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

A good method actor should be able to apply HDR to their performance.

[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.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by sacd-man

[Show spoiler]Here is what Robert Harris, the man who resoted Spartacus and many other films, has to say about HDR.

There seems to be a misunderstanding, at least in on-line discussions, as to what HDR (High Dynamic Range) actually is...

and might not be.

It is NOT an inherent part of the 4k UHD package.

It is in no way necessary toward the enjoyment of 4k, either in the home, or elsewhere.

HDR is an option, much like ordering a different kind of leather of fabric for your new car's interior.

It's nothing new -- been around for years.

If generally NOT a part of the design of a film, with most HDR entering the picture, no pun intended, during post.

"Wouldn't look neat if those flames were Really bright orange..."

It's added the same way that 3D is added in post, to the majority of 3D productions.

It has no relevance to production photography.

It should not be included as a function for classic films, unless the filmmakers have a desire to re-visit, and create
a new version, a re-imagining.

It will not work well with most classic films, and can be problematic to those that have needed restoration based upon fade.

Want to see 2001, or Lawrence, Ben-Hur, The Godfather, The Magnificent Seven, or Elvira Madigan in 4k?

No problem.

We're ready for it, and there's no reason why those films can't be released, except those which don't fit on the
current sized discs.

And NONE of them should be released with HDR.

Every UHD release does NOT need HDR, nor should they have it.

If we can clear the airwaves of mis and dis-information regarding HDR, things would be easier.RAH

If you are going to quote, or even paraphrase, someone, you should provide the source of that information. Having a link to the source often provides context in addition to actual proof of the quote in question.

[BrownianMotion]

[benhoppel]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

Proper HDR allows home video to look like projected film. As much as I like RAH, he’s starting to mumble and not make much sense.

You don't need HDR for that. SDR with 10 bits is enough. Cinema never had super bright highlights.

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by benhoppel

You don't need HDR for that. SDR with 10 bits is enough. Cinema never had super bright highlights.

Yeah, no. This is not true. I don’t know why people assume digital SDR is somehow more accurate to analog film projection.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by benhoppel

You don't need HDR for that. SDR with 10 bits is enough. Cinema never had super bright highlights.

It’s not just about the “super bright highlights.”

[Agent Kay]

Harris huh, cool

[bradnoyes]

Originally Posted by LoSouL

A good method actor should be able to apply HDR to their performance.

This HDR is definitely weak, but I have a feeling that if we apply enough of it we'll be okay.

[LoSouL]

Originally Posted by benhoppel

You don't need HDR for that. SDR with 10 bits is enough. Cinema never had super bright highlights.

HDR isn't just laser beams, neon signs, god rays and explosions. It's also light sources that aren't clipped into flat blobs of white, yellow and/or orange. You can often finally see what's around the sun in the sky, and the actual bulbs these lights emit from, as well as the grace of the halation between the light cast, the surrounding shadows and the naturalness of the light bounce on people and objects. Or a broader range of shadow and greyscale that isn't as compressed to the point of being one-note and often crushed. This is letting you see what's actually on the source.

One of my favorite UHD's is Brawl In Cell Block 99 which has amazing gains in detail and resolution, provides more room for it's standard color and dynamic range to breathe at a per-pixel level, and isn't HDR10... so I'm open to the idea and expect to eventually see many classics released this way, but anyone who thinks HDR is only candy coating, and can only be revisionist rather than revealing, has it wrong imo.