HDR is crayons

[mzupeman]

I'm definitely in the camp that believes HDR is sort of revisionist. Like, I totally understand what RAH's point of view is but... his take is pretty extreme. Blu-ray cannot provide films in the same way that we see them in the cinema, so by his logic, aren't they, too, revisionist iterations?

Well, HDR can actually deliver what was in the cinema. Yes, it's also used to improve upon what we've grown accustomed to. But I actually enjoy that refinement, and I think calling the stuff HDR can add to an image as blasphemous as black-and-white to color transitions is just silly.

But this is something that's really going to be a subjective battle from here on out. I don't think anybody should be arguing over it. Like, back in the day when we fought over fullscreen vs. widescreen, it was objectively incorrect to state that fullscreen gave you MORE image. But this? This comes down to personal taste.

And besides, we've seen so many Blu-ray releases with questionable color timing, that the line between revisionist and accuracy is severely blurred. Like, people act like they remember what Halloween looked like in 1978, you know? Sorry, but no.

I'll take these as more 'definitive' releases... or at least 'even closer to the original intent, even if it does go a bit above and beyond at times'.

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's funny though, you said that "if the stylized color "blankets" are removed on UHD to make them look more colorful in order to fulfill the HDR marketing" but in actuality the opposite is true! Not the removal of the blanket 709 wash, that much is true, but the way that UHD's wider gamut & colour volume makes colour actually look more natural and more realistic, not more hyped up and more jacked up. That's still the a-number-one misconception about what HDR actually brings to the table and about what 709 is actually capable of, for that matter. It's a gamut that over-emphasises certain colours by its very nature because it was designed for a time when TV hardware was nothing like the quality we have today, the tech of yore having a tendency to wash out colour so the gamut was over-egged to compensate for it, making certain colours (green especially) look more stylised than they really should do.

So yeah, while 709 and P3 aren't separated by a wide gulf on paper, the extra wavelengths of colour in P3 and the extra volume of colour afforded by HDR (even 709 HDR could still benefit from this) mean that the HDR graders can and often do move away from the almost radioactive look that we've grown accustomed to seeing on SDR 709 Blu-ray. Heck, people are still cut up about the teal menace on whatever movie but I'd love to see those same source transfers given an HDR WCG pass, I'd bet cash money that the extreme teal bias ends up being a lot less crass in HDR. Blade Runner is a case in point...

As someone who's found UHDs a bit "meh" so far, what are the best examples of colours being helped by HDR/WCG? In terms of specific shots I can look at and A/B, rather than just films?

[Deciazulado]

Well the debate rages on. Less is More vs More and then Some


Submitted for your consideration:

Color:

Color film (negative and print) and digital cameras have a wider gamut of color than SDR 709. Color on film which is out of the 709 bounds has to be clipped or reduced.

Posted some of these before.
This first one, the link to the measured film colors image on Bruce Lindbloom's site from years ago is not working anymore but I found the image on my hard drive where I had added some color space triangles to it, they are the 709/P3/2020 monitor triangles transformed from D65 to D50 illuminant to match what these film color points are measured with:
BetaRGBxy.jpg

Adobe1998 triangle whose red and blue are equal to 709/sRGB/HDTV, but green is the 1953 NTSC original green which lies between the P3 green and 2020 green, vs film points. (note; the A98 red in the diagram seems is slighly off, a little more saturated than the 709/sRGB/HDTV):

From https://www.photo.net/discuss/thread...f-film.464422/.






severalmaincolorspaces.jpg

Sony F65


You can see the SDR 709/sRGB space is rather limiting

Levels/Values:

PQ 12-bit: 3760-256 = 0-3504, 3505 values from 0-10,000 nits;  
                      0-1780, 1781 values from 0-100 nits 
PQ 10-bit:   940-64 = 0-876,   877 values from 0-10,000 nits;
                      0-445,   446 values from 0-100 nits
8-bit gamma: 235-16 = 0-219,   220 values from 0-100 nits

Deep shadow detail:

For 8-bit 2.2 gamma:

0 = 0% black = infinite black
1 = -17.1 f/stops darkest gradation discernible from total black

For 8-bit 2.4 gamma:

0 = 0% black = infinite black
1 = -18.7 f/stops darkest gradation discernible from total black
2 = -16.3 f/stops second gradation discernible from black, a + 2.4 stops change
3 = -14.9 f/stops third gradation discernible from black, a + 1.4 step
219 = 100% = -0 f/stops (100 nits)

For PQ 10 bit

0 = 0% black = infinite black
1 = -21 f/stops darkest gradation discernible from total black
2 = -19.2 f/stops second gradation discernible from black, a + 1.8 step
3 = -18.2 f/stops third gradation discernible from black, a + 1.0 step
4 = -17.4 f/stops +0.8 step
5 = -16.9 f/stops +0.5 step
6 = -16.4 f/stops +0.5 step
7 = -16.0 f/stops +0.4 step
8 = -15.6 f/stops +0.4 step
9 = -15.3 f/stops +0.3 step
10 = -15.0 f/stops +0.3 step
11 = -14.8 f/stops +0.2 step
445 = 50.8% = -0 f/stops (100 nits)
876 = 100% = + 6.6 f.stops (10,000 nits)

I've color coded the brightness levels common to both so you can compare and you can see that apart of going deeper, in HDR the gradation of tones has 3-5 times more steps between tones than SDR.
For SDR to have this quality you have to limit shadows to be higher in the range.

For PQ 12 bit:

0 = 0% black = infinite black
1 = -24.3 f/stops darkest gradation discernible from total black
And 4 times finer gradation steps than 10-bit PQ has. (No, I'm not gonna calculate those)


Step discrimination:
2.4gamma8bit100nitsvspq1000nits.jpg
Under the thresholds you don't see steps. I couldn't find one chart with 100nit SDR 8-bits on the pdfs so I recalculated from 10b and 12b 1k nit and 10k nits SDR graphs.

(Probably the last few shadows, in the low level f/stops, in SDR could end up looking "grotty" when unveiled on high contrast/deep black displays if they weren't evaluated on such when mastering.)



Range summary:

8-bit 2.2 gamma: From step 1 = -17.1 f/stops to + 0  f/stops above 100 nits
8-bit 2.4 gamma: From step 1 = -18.7 f/stops to + 0  f/stops above 100 nits
10-bit PQ:       From step 1 = -21.0 f/stops to +6.6 f/stops above 100 nits
12-bit PQ:       From step 1 = -24.3 f/stops to +6.6 f/stops above 100 nits

Since SDR has no highlight headroom (unless you use above range video values from 236-255, a + 0.3 f/stop difference at gamma 2.4, less at 2.2) the diffuse white value is usually set lower in SDR than 100 nits, therefore reducing further the f/stops available for the shadows.


Highlights headroom:

As per above SDR has no highlight headroom above 100nits. HDR has +6.6 f/stops


What about film

Checking the spec sheets I see:
16.3f:stopswithlensflareexposedonto2.1dlogneg.jpg
15.5 f/stops, + ~ 1.3 f/stops of lens flare shadow "compression" = 16.8 f/stops recorded onto = 2.1 dLog density neg,

2.1dlognegprinted.jpg
printed to 5.3-5.4 dLog density (17.7-18 f/stops) in Premier prints, but only onto 3.8 dLog density (12.7 f/stops) on the other print stock.

Which smacks of print revisionism! j/k

What I mean, you have to have a perfectly preserved unfaded reference original print or have seen it, and watched it in the same illuminant it was projected in, or have the exact print stock tech sheet and detailed notes on how the print was developed and the negative was to be printed (printer lights) for each scene originally, and be able to reproduce a LUT table from them, and the negative is well preserved too, to get exactly how the film "looked". Sometimes as best approximate it as closely as possible with the technology, materials and tools at hand, sometimes using your best subjective interpretation.

You can always abuse a tool but a better tool lets you do a better job.

UHD HDR 2160p x PQ x 10 bit x 2020 has less limitations than SDR.

[Show spoiler]

[Geoff D]

Heh, that's exactly what I mentioned before about even newly struck prints of older films not having the same look because the print stock is not the same.

Originally Posted by koberulz

As someone who's found UHDs a bit "meh" so far, what are the best examples of colours being helped by HDR/WCG? In terms of specific shots I can look at and A/B, rather than just films?

My point was that HDR can often end up looking less 'globally' saturated than the equivalent SDR version, so that in itself may be why you've had a such a 'meh' reaction to it so far. It's been hyped as one thing, the reality has proved to be quite different on many occasions. Too many for me to think of specific examples right now, but my reviews cover this ground repeatedly.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

You can always abuse a tool but a better tool lets you do a better job.

UHD HDR 2160p x PQ x 10 bit x 2020 has less limitations than SDR.

No one is arguing that HDR has less limitations, nor is HDR required to be used in a way that drastically exceeds what was possible to display at the time of theatrical release - and if there was no product to be sold that would be the end of the story.

But, there is a product to be sold, and the marketing for that product very specifically states HDR results in "brighter, sharper, more vivid colors," etc. The people buying said product expect something very significantly different colorwise than what was previously available as a result of this marketing; and thus it is very most likely the person in charge of restoration is being pressured to more significantly utilize HDR's capabilities to fulfill this marketing - even if it is obviously well beyond what would have been capable at time of release. And, this is likely why RAH is complaining.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Maybe watch HDR on a display that can display it or one that isn’t shit.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Maybe watch HDR on a display that can display it or one that isn’t shit.

Maybe buy a display that remotely approaches a cinematic experience instead of the microscopic TV panel you have now. I'm sure good for some Netflix TV show, cinematic experience not so much. Literally half the size of my main display

P.S. - Your display also doesn't have enough nits to display the full capabilities of HDR.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Maybe watch HDR on a display that can display it or one that isn’t shit.

What's that have to do with mastering releases in a color grade that's respectful of artistic intent? I think his opinion on mastering is valid regardless of the display choices he makes for his own personal viewing.

[BrownianMotion]

BD had fewer limitations than DVD. Were you guys making the same brain dead claims about BD when it first launched?

[ROSS.T.G.]

Does your projector have HDR? Does your crap tv handle HDR and does it have WCG?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by BrownianMotion

BD had fewer limitations than DVD. Were you guys making the same brain dead claims about BD when it first launched?

BD wasn't marketed on the back of a feature that older movies weren't designed with. UHD is a different situation.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Does your projector have HDR? Does your crap tv handle HDR and does it have WCG?

Does your post have relevance to the topic?

[BrownianMotion]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

BD wasn't marketed on the back of a feature that older movies weren't designed with. UHD is a different situation.

BD was absolutely marketed as a significant improvement in picture quality, and also supported a wider color gamut than previous home video formats.

It's entirely the same situation.

Thanks for illustrating to us that you're only complaining about a new format just for the sake of complaining, and that in a decade or so, you will defend UHD in favor of whichever new format comes out, just as you're currently doing with BD.

I'm glad we can all move on now, since we know not to take your views on the matter seriously.

[alexanderg823]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

BD wasn't marketed on the back of a feature that older movies weren't designed with. UHD is a different situation.

That's quite a statement. Film definitely has a high dynamic range, especially compared to SDR. If we refer in terms of stops, good film has more dynamic range than alot of top end digital hdr cameras.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Does your projector have HDR? Does your crap tv handle HDR and does it have WCG?

No projector out is bright enough to truly display "HDR" except those over $100k. The projectors that are marketed as HDR take the HDR signal and tonemap it to a lower nit value. However, using an Hdfury device and many SDR projectors, you can send HDR, WCG, set display gamma to 2.8, and use tonemapping + CMS controls to get the same result as a projextor marketed as HDR.

My projector does support a far wider color gamut (near full rec2020) than your OLED TV (dcip3) So in this regard my projector is better than your OLED tv for WCG.

Your OLED TV fails to meet the minimum amount of nits (1000) needed to display most UHD BDs without tonemapping to something less than HDR. So watching you trying to ride some high horse about your equipment when your TV fails the basic requirements for true HDR is laughable. My 70" 4k TV was bought for casual living room TV viewing, not movies, because I find 70" far too tiny for movies.

Maybe learn some of this stuff before looking ridculous with animated gifs as your primary defense. Not everyone buys consumer electronic companies marketing hook, line, and sinker.

[mzupeman]

Does this thread really have to devolve into a competition of who has the bigger and better you know what?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by BrownianMotion

BD was absolutely marketed as a significant improvement in picture quality, and also supported a wider color gamut than previous home video formats.

Neither of which allowed the format to display characteristics beyond those available to the original theatrical presentations.

Originally Posted by BrownianMotion

It's entirely the same situation.

No. HDR exceeds the range of theatrical exhibition and is a leading sales feature of the format. Conventional BD does not have a parallel to this.

Originally Posted by BrownianMotion

Thanks for illustrating to us that you're only complaining about a new format just for the sake of complaining, and that in a decade or so, you will defend UHD in favor of whichever new format comes out, just as you're currently doing with BD.

I'm glad we can all move on now, since we know not to take your views on the matter seriously.

How about cooling the argumentative rhetoric and just discussing the topic. If you're actually bothering to read what you're responding to, it looks like you have a reading comprehension issue. Please look at my comments again because my intended meaning has no relation to your interpretation and I think my statements are pretty clear.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

Does this thread really have to devolve into a competition of who has the bigger and better you know what?

I try to avoid this but Ross insists on every other thread. Not to mention his avatar pic and signature, some pride there heh.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by alexanderg823

That's quite a statement. Film definitely has a high dynamic range, especially compared to SDR. If we refer in terms of stops, good film has more dynamic range than alot of top end digital hdr cameras.

*sigh*

We've been over this point multiple times. The latitude of film is not the measure. Theatrical grades are the measure. It doesn't matter how much latitude film has because theatrical presentation is the limiting factor and doesn't display all of that latitude.

[thethingwithnoname]