HDR is crayons

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Very convincing rebuttal.

It’s a better argument than the one you put up.

[Deciazulado]

Why are you tieing a narrow Standard Dynamic Range to film? That only applies to standard Blu-ray and videos. Film has high densities away from it's highlights/film base. Lets not make a straw man argument that film equates SDR,

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Why are you tieing a narrow Standard Dynamic Range to film? That only applies to standard Blu-ray and videos. Film has high densities away from it's highlights/film base. Lets not make a straw man argument that film equates SDR,

Film itself has a higher range than BD, sort of, yes. However theatrical exhibition never did. So it's about what you're being loyal to, and a lot of people are loyal to theatrical exhibition.

However no home digital format is going to be "accurate" to projected 35mm film, as Geoff, Kris and others have explained endlessly, so they're all a batch of compromises. UHD has the least compromises IMO, but it can be debated, hence the thread.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Film itself has a higher range than BD, sort of, yes. However theatrical exhibition never did. So it's about what you're being loyal to, and a lot of people are loyal to theatrical exhibition.

However no home digital format is going to be "accurate" to projected 35mm film, as Geoff, Kris and others have explained endlessly, so they're all a batch of compromises. UHD has the least compromises IMO, but it can be debated, hence the thread.

Any film projected theatrical exhibition ever had “higher range” than BD.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by aetherhole

But... HDR is still just crayons.

It’s a bit more complex than that. For that matter, sometimes even the SDR version can be more artificially ‘crayoned in’ (forced) whereas the HDR version needn’t be and actually comes out looking more natural than SDR, for example - https://vimeo.com/203351189#t=1h6m34s

(I posted this vimeo ^ clip about a year ago in the HDR Discussion thread and I offer the caveat that I don’t agree with everything said by the DoP in the first hour of that past event at Dolby London's screening theatre).

[nick4Knight]

Down to brass tacks.. You don't get 10 years of format rollout catering to a <1% market base interested in theatre replication. Never gonna happen if you want a chance to see The Abyss on this format. So do you want the movie, or not? Seems to me even if you're a purist you should want it to be HDR. To be rolling off the shelves -justifying its scanning cost and existence on 4K UHD- even if it is not doing that to the peak nits...

What you do with that image (convert to SDR, limit the peak nit rolloff, w/e) if you're personal philosophy is SDR is more "pure"? That is totally up to you and in your control for pretty cheap vs. the total cost a setup that kinda person has.

Originally Posted by CYMBOL

I don't care. They have my permission to do whatever they want/need to do to make it look f***ing amazing on my TV while keeping the film's integrity.

x100 for me! Emphasis on the last bold Keep saying respecting intent is the key, not maintaining it. I personally love where the technology is at, and how it's being judiciously implemented.

In the blu-ray era I knew, intuitively, that we had a more compromised image even though I wasn't versed in this stuff (and I was happy with titles aesthetic on my Plasma!). I am talking about the HDR/WCG in posts in 2014 and early 2015 on here because of how this is for illuminating film and for keeping up with modern tech as it's captured today for movies.

[Deciazulado]

The factor limiting print dinamic range on screen is flare. (Be it from a low quality lens or bad theater design (walls/drapes/chairs/floor carpets not being dark/black and reflecting light back on screen. And of course the horrible later practice of leaving lights on!) (I once saw a movie in a theater that was black and turned lights off. It was pitch black, couldn't see my family one inch from my nose. The movie was The Return of Count Yorga. Never had an experience like that again. Literally, a Bat Cave. ) If a print has a density range of X, that's the on/off contrast. The simultaneous contrast would be controlled by the projector optic's flare characteristics and the scene being high key or low key (which would be the source of the amount of average flare being generated/added to the scene by the projector lens). Now if you watch SDR video on a CRT, Plasma, LCD, or Projector, you have the displays minimum black (plus/or lens flare) characteristics adding their own veiling (reducing) to the contrast range. In a print, the print is the light valve and usually for excellent prints it has a great dynamic range and let's say great tonal (tho not infinite) depth. On SDR the dynamic range "valve" is limited by 220 (7.78 bits) levels and gamma you coded it to.

Would the dynamic range and depth of a film be greater on a 25" analog CRT than on my black yorga theater? On a LCD in the 2000s? Maybe on a 40" Plasma from a DVD or newly introduced BD? So Now we have 10-bit high contrast displays that might do justice to 7.78 bits SDR video and show its full range. Is it better than prints. Or lets say, average theatrical exhibition (specially these last years). Probably to yes. But it happens now we have UHD and 9.78+bit video too available.


You see I, like others have said here, at the beginning when I heard of "HDR" rumblings on the horizon, also thought for a while we probably could do ok just with SDR if properly mastered and calibrated if you had high contrast displays (the void of true black during the low contrast LCD era was painful ) but then I started reading on PQ and the 10 bits and resolved the equation and graphed it and not only of its truer NTSCish possible gamuts, but of wider possibilities, and knowing a little of film characteristics.. well lets say i saw the light going forward

3 out of 3 ain't bad - HDRloaf

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by TheZoof

I agree with this topic actually. I remember when I was buying my TV - HDR was so important.

Now after I properly calibrated the image on the HDR gamma - it barely makes a difference. It does improve shading quite a bit but I don't have the bright orange and such that is advertised. I just don't like that kind of unnatural image.

I'm not surprised, your TV barely rates as HDR in terms of the luminance and colour gamut needed...NOT that having it would turn everything into a colour explosion anyway because HDR really isn't about that despite what the marketing sez.

[Sky_Captain]

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Why are you tieing a narrow Standard Dynamic Range to film? That only applies to standard Blu-ray and videos. Film has high densities away from it's highlights/film base. Lets not make a straw man argument that film equates SDR,

Correct, however when the filmmakers selected their camera settings, made their lighting choices, captured the image on film, and eventually developed it, they did not do all of this for no purpose other than to archive the image on film for development half a century later with newer technology. No, instead they made their filming choices specifically with the intent of exhibiting the film theatrically shortly after the time of being filmed using the technology of the time; not on an LG OLED TV, not on a Samsung FALD QLED, not on a Christie Dolby Vision projector, but just a regular old commercial movie theater projector of the time - that while would translate well to BT2020/Wide Color Gamut would be a complete and utter fail at even attempting anything remotely approaching something greater than SDR. Even today most projectors fail at attempting this task, and we are talking 50 years later! But at least a filmmaker today has the ability to consider HDR exhibition as a target, unlike a filmmaker 50 years ago, as today the target of HDR actually exists.

So there is no debate that the equivalent of "HDR" wasn't the theatrical target of the time, because it literally wasn't possible to exceed our modern day SDR's limitations in a commercial theater.

And if "HDR" obviously could not be the theatrical target of the time, going back to some film 50 years ago and exceeding SDR limits w/ an HDR grade is similarly obviously revisionist. I can get on board with BT2020 still being in line with original intent as that is simply wider color gamut, but exceeding SDR's capabilities with an HDR grade is most definitely revisionist as there is no way, no how, that it could have been intent at the time of creation when that target wasn't even an option for the filmmaker.

Note also this discussion is not a knock on UHD as UHD is capable of both HDR BT2020 and SDR BT2020. It's simply a discussion of whether older films should match their original intent, or should be "updated" with revisionist HDR grades. Finally as stated before, for those arguing to essentially put SDR in an HDR container (a non-revisionist very conservative "HDR" grade), this is a bad idea also as it will lead in inaccuracy on the user end as the signal has to go through HDR processing which is dynamic in nature and varies in technique from one piece of hardware to the next. If you want a "very conservative" HDR grade, you are better off just doing a BT2020 SDR grade as it will have similar results and be more consistent from user-to-user by dropping all the unnecessary HDR processing.

[Deciazulado]

Man when I was little I had a Kodachrome Super-8 projector, and man was that thing better than SDR.


__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________
Where is Boxxy when you need her.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Man when I was little I had a Kodachrome Super-8 projector, and man was that thing better than SDR.

On a commercial cinema-sized screen?

Was it a Back to the Future RGB Laser Super 8 pj?

[Staying Salty]

Originally Posted by Ruined

If you want a "very conservative" HDR grade, you are better off just doing a BT2020 SDR grade as it will have similar results and be more consistent from user-to-user by dropping all the unnecessary HDR processing.

We are living in a world of capitalism. Companies build things to make money. In order to make money they have to sell their products. If these products are not vital to one’s survival, they have to offer some “It Factor” that makes the consumer believe his/her life is not “complete” without it. They have used this Jedi mind trick on me and now I must have 4k Blu-rays. Those sneaky SOBs birthed HDR and WCG to make me spurn my blu-rays (Live, Buy, Replace, or Edge of Perfection). I don’t believe an increase of resolution alone, would have done it. Viva the HDR Matrix.

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Correct, however when the filmmakers selected their camera settings, made their lighting choices, captured the image on film, and eventually developed it, they did not do all of this for no purpose other than to archive the image on film for development half a century later with newer technology. No, instead they made their filming choices specifically with the intent of exhibiting the film theatrically shortly after the time of being filmed using the technology of the time; not on an LG OLED TV, not on a Samsung FALD QLED, not on a Christie Dolby Vision projector, but just a regular old commercial movie theater projector of the time...

Which includes Blu-ray - they didn't intend it to be seen on that either. Just put the shovel away.

So, if you are so intent on capturing this theatrical exhibition grail, why are you so against a format that can capture more accurately what's on the film source? Sheer wilful ignorance?

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

Which includes Blu-ray - they didn't intend it to be seen on that either. Just put the shovel away.

So, if you are so intent on capturing this theatrical exhibition grail, why are you so against a format that can capture more accurately what's on the film source? Sheer wilful ignorance?

Who said I am against the format? I own a ton of 4K UHD discs, and I think the format can be further improved by not sticking every single release with HDR - even where inappropriate - just because the studios think it will sell more copies.

If you've been reading my posts I've been advocating the usage of SDR BT2020 on 4K UHD which would be the most accurate way we've been able to represent original intent for older films on home media, ever, and we are letting it pass us by entirely for shiny HDR. The only thing holding back SDR BT2020 releases on 4K UHD is the marketing depts of studios who believe consumers won't buy non-HDR content because it won't look "shiny" enough.

I also enjoy the revisionist HDR stuff too as an alternate take, mind you, but it is a shame that is all we are getting - especially with some of the older classics which IMO should be BT2020 SDR.

Ironically, if both HDR BT2020 and SDR BT2020 were put on the discs for something like SPARTACUS, I bet a lot of folks here would actually choose to watch the SDR version for the closest original intent experience; I think people know deep down HDR really is not original intent, even if it looks cool. But since SDR BT2020 hasn't been an option many who have been Blu-ray fans for years claiming to want the original intent (original aspect ratio, original soundtrack, etc) have been compelled into taking a conflictual position of defending HDR as orginial intent (impossible IMO, as I think I've demonstrated) - because they simply haven't been provided the option of 4K SDR BT2020 and are excited about 4K UHD's other quality improvements like 4K resolution and WCG even though they are sacrificing original intent w/ HDR to get those improvements.

[LoSouL]

Are you sure you're not just resentful of HDR because capable HDR projectors aren't yet obtainable? I don't mean this as a personal attack, but as a rhetorical observation.

Deciazulado has given you literal math that shows SDR has been incapable of fully reproducing the potential visual information contained on film and that, of the two, only HDR is a container capable of tendering it. You can put all the color you want into SDR and it won't provide the required range.

You're asserting that SDR is more accurate because it isn't malleable enough to go as far off the rails as HDR hypothetically could... hypothetically... could. SDR isn't an exacto knife due to it's limited, fixed range, it's a dull pocket knife. HDR may be a broadsword, but utilizing just the tip is enough to function as precisely as the exacto knife would. Were there a dynamic range specification acutely tuned exactly to film and theater projection in "1965" (and incapable of providing anything else, over or under), said specific range would exist within the range that HDR provides.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by LoSouL

Are you sure you're not just resentful of HDR because capable SDR projectors aren't yet obtainable? I don't mean this as a personal attack, but as a rhetorical observation.

Deciazulado has given you literal math that shows SDR has been incapable of fully reproducing the potential visual information contained on film and that only HDR is container capable of tendering it.

Your argument got whittled down to siding with SDR because it isn't malleable enough to go as far off the rails as HDR hypothetically could... hypothetically... could. SDR isn't an exacto knife due to it's limited, fixed range, it's a dull pocket knife. HDR may be a broadsword, but utilizing just the tip is enough to function as precisely as the exacto knife would, were there a dynamic range specification acutely tuned exactly to film and theater projection in "1965"... and incapable of providing anything else, over or under.

HDR not being truly achievable (meaning without tons of tonemapping that greatly alters the final image) on most projectors *is* definitely a part of it, yes - but its not about being resentful, again its about accuracy.

I don't want to watch films on a 75" screen (for those with a screen this size, imagine watching a movie on a 42" TV and this is similar to how it feels to me watching on a 75"), but at the same time especially for classic movies I don't feel comfortable with all the extreme and unnecessary dynamic processing/manipulation going on - leading to an end product that is nowhere near 1:1 accurate to how it would look if projectors could do 1000nits easily - for an HDR effect that shouldn't even be there in the first place.

If there was an SDR BT2020 grade available it would present the theatrical experience for older films more accurately, and it would translate that theatrical experience radically more accurately across the board to all displays than all the dynamic tonemapping processing you have to do (which is different for each piece of hardware) with HDR (especially on projectors and low nit displays). At this point its about which processing looks the "best" instead of which looks the most "accurate" because accuracy is not attainable. SDR BT2020 is the best approximation of intent for older films, and this is consistent, attainable, and accurate across all displays bypassing all of the extreme HDR processing.

HDR is like being between a rock and a hard place for those who like cinematic big screen presentation of films never designed for HDR in the first place. Yeah, you can watch it probably with some good accuracy on a flat panel ,but then you are locked into a small size and lose the cinematic feel; or on the other hand, you can watch on a projector to get the cinematic size and instead are locked into tonemap city, where basically just set the tonemapping where it looks good and pretty much throw accuracy to the wind because the hardware is nowhere near capable of true accuracy as a 1000nit display would be. And, on top of that, all of this sacrifice of accuracy for films that weren't even intended to be displayed with HDR in the first place!

If its something like a Marvel film designed for HDR it doesn't really matter if the end product is highly manipulated, because those movies are designed with flexible targets including SDR, HDR, 3D etc; there are so many targets in mind the creators had that the zone of "accuracy" is massive. But that's not the case with older films. RAH is probably coming from a similar viewpoint, I'm sure.

And with all of that being said, I would prefer having *both* the SDR and HDR presentations for older films, simply because I like having both original intent and revisionist presentations.

[Black Sun]

Forget it, Jake. It’s crayons.

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

They didn't intend it to be seen on that either [SDR]. Just put the shovel away.

It's circular debate and a cul de sac for logic that drives that particular individual...

Originally Posted by "R"

[Show spoiler]

[ROSS.T.G.]

35mm film negatives have up to 13 stops of dynamic range. HDR has roughly 17 while standard Blu-Ray has only 6. Why anyone would prefer to have highlights and black levels clipped is beyond my comprehension. Yes the format has a higher range than what would have been projected but IMO that doesn’t make it less accurate. All a projector is, is a means to display what was captured from the camera to a large audience. We’re finally in a world where our displays achieve better than cinema picture and people still complain. People aren’t forced to adopt the format, don’t like HDR then stick with sdr. I find it amusing that many of the naysayers of the format choose to ignore the audio side of the format. If the theatrical exhibition is the only way to measure what should be seen or heard then I assume those have chosen subwoofers that can’t dig lower than 25-30hz since commercial theatres can’t even though a movie soundtrack contains bass lower than what theatres can produce.