Do the Right Thing 4K UHD (1989)

[gnicks]

Originally Posted by urbo73

I have no idea what yellow tint you are talking about on SDR. SDR BT.709 works the same across all devices that are calibrated for it. HDR is another story, as I've explained before - you never know what you're gonna get! It's like back to NTSC in terms of same colors across devices. I don't doubt what you see, but it's not what I'm seeing.

Geoff will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he means SDR itself has a yellow tint, but that many HD blu-rays do tend to have a yellow push. I'm not sure why this happened frequently (perhaps due to a conversion process?). But in comparing colors between the SDR and HDR iterations, it seems very common for the UHD to have a much more neutral palette, with the 1080p BD looking yellowy/green in comparison. I believe we also saw something like this with DVD-era masters, where it seemed like there was an overly pinkish hue to skin tones. But again, please correct me if I'm wrong

[andreasy969]

Geoff once read that when not taken proper care of, DCI-P3 to Rec.709 conversion can lead to yellow/teal push. And ever since is attributing every single case of yellow/teal Rec.709 encode to said thing he once read.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Geoff once read that when not taken proper care of, DCI-P3 to Rec.709 conversion can lead to yellow/teal push. And ever since is attributing every single case of yellow/teal Rec.709 encode to said thing he once read.

Nope. I am not saying that SDR as a format/function in itself carries an overriding tint of any description, but for various reasons it's ended up that soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many SDR transfers over the years have carried a distinct yellow or greeny push, and still do.

One reason, as explained in this BBC R&D tech blog about the Royal Wedding in HLG: https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2018-0...edding-uhd-hdr, is that 709 can make colours 'pop' to compensate for ye olde shite TVs, with an example being that the limestone of Windsor Castle looked more yellowish in SDR than the paler, more natural shade as seen in the HDR version. That's a live production to be sure, not something graded after the fact where control over colour is much more precise...but that's where this chap comes in: https://vimeo.com/203351189#t=1h6m34s

He mentions how the previous SDR colourist of the linked work pushed the yellow tones to give it more 'warmth' but they just didn't need that to sell the effect of heat in the HDR because the luminance provides it. He then goes on to say that because blue is such a dark colour and has so little luminance that SDR grades tended to add a bit of green to give things like blue skies more colour volume, thus skewing it into the cyan tone we know and love/hate. So yeah, overdoing the yellows and greens to make up for what SDR can/can't do seems to have been/still be a thing.

Again: SDR doesn't have an innate 'tint' but whenever I mention dat "SDR tint" it's in the context of historical factors like the above, espoused by actual colourists and technicians and stuff, as well as having compared literally hundreds of SDR Blus to their HDR counterparts on my properly calibrated TV and have come across this kind of yellow/green tint in the SDR on so many occasions I've lost count.

Maybe it's not even due to any technical factors at all, maybe it's just what the trend was/is, just like teal and orange was a major thing before everyone came to their senses, and some colourists still seem to like a particular trend, e.g. Warners love to have those weird teal highlights in their HDR stuff. But I still see this kind of sallow tinge to modern SDR material, including DTRT, and the great thing about the HDR version is that it doesn't lose the essential 'warmth' of the imagery but it does dial back that yellow undertone specifically.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

[Show spoiler]Nope. I am not saying that SDR as a format/function in itself carries an overriding tint of any description, but for various reasons it's ended up that soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many SDR transfers over the years have carried a distinct yellow or greeny push, and still do.

One reason, as explained in this BBC R&D tech blog about the Royal Wedding in HLG: https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2018-0...edding-uhd-hdr, is that 709 can make colours 'pop' to compensate for ye olde shite TVs, with an example being that the limestone of Windsor Castle looked more yellowish in SDR than the paler, more natural shade as seen in the HDR version. That's a live production to be sure, not something graded after the fact where control over colour is much more precise...but that's where this chap comes in: https://vimeo.com/203351189#t=1h6m34s

He mentions how the previous SDR colourist of the linked work pushed the yellow tones to give it more 'warmth' but they just didn't need that to sell the effect of heat in the HDR because the luminance provides it. He then goes on to say that because blue is such a dark colour and has so little luminance that SDR grades tended to add a bit of green to give things like blue skies more colour volume, thus skewing it into the cyan tone we know and love/hate. So yeah, overdoing the yellows and greens to make up for what SDR can/can't do seems to have been/still be a thing.

Again: SDR doesn't have an innate 'tint' but whenever I mention dat "SDR tint" it's in the context of historical factors like the above, espoused by actual colourists and technicians and stuff, as well as having compared literally hundreds of SDR Blus to their HDR counterparts on my properly calibrated TV and have come across this kind of yellow/green tint in the SDR on so many occasions I've lost count.

Maybe it's not even due to any technical factors at all, maybe it's just what the trend was/is, just like teal and orange was a major thing before everyone came to their senses, and some colourists still seem to like a particular trend, e.g. Warners love to have those weird teal highlights in their HDR stuff. But I still see this kind of sallow tinge to modern SDR material, including DTRT, and the great thing about the HDR version is that it doesn't lose the essential 'warmth' of the imagery but it does dial back that yellow undertone specifically.

You're quoting exactly what I was saying/referring to and I was also only just teasing. I guess I better stick with serious.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

You're quoting exactly what I was saying/referring to and I was also only just teasing. I guess I better stick with serious.

Don't tease the kitty

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Maybe it's not even due to any technical factors at all, maybe it's just what the trend was/is, just like teal and orange was a major thing before everyone came to their senses, and some colourists still seem to like a particular trend, e.g. Warners love to have those weird teal highlights in their HDR stuff.

And I think the above often actually is the case: It was a trend indeed IMO and at times they really just wanted it to look like that I think. But again, really mostly just teasing.

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Nope. I am not saying that SDR as a format/function in itself carries an overriding tint of any description, but for various reasons it's ended up that soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many SDR transfers over the years have carried a distinct yellow or greeny push, and still do.

One reason, as explained in this BBC R&D tech blog about the Royal Wedding in HLG: https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2018-0...edding-uhd-hdr, is that 709 can make colours 'pop' to compensate for ye olde shite TVs, with an example being that the limestone of Windsor Castle looked more yellowish in SDR than the paler, more natural shade as seen in the HDR version. That's a live production to be sure, not something graded after the fact where control over colour is much more precise...but that's where this chap comes in: https://vimeo.com/203351189#t=1h6m34s

He mentions how the previous SDR colourist of the linked work pushed the yellow tones to give it more 'warmth' but they just didn't need that to sell the effect of heat in the HDR because the luminance provides it. He then goes on to say that because blue is such a dark colour and has so little luminance that SDR grades tended to add a bit of green to give things like blue skies more colour volume, thus skewing it into the cyan tone we know and love/hate. So yeah, overdoing the yellows and greens to make up for what SDR can/can't do seems to have been/still be a thing.

Again: SDR doesn't have an innate 'tint' but whenever I mention dat "SDR tint" it's in the context of historical factors like the above, espoused by actual colourists and technicians and stuff, as well as having compared literally hundreds of SDR Blus to their HDR counterparts on my properly calibrated TV and have come across this kind of yellow/green tint in the SDR on so many occasions I've lost count.

Maybe it's not even due to any technical factors at all, maybe it's just what the trend was/is, just like teal and orange was a major thing before everyone came to their senses, and some colourists still seem to like a particular trend, e.g. Warners love to have those weird teal highlights in their HDR stuff. But I still see this kind of sallow tinge to modern SDR material, including DTRT, and the great thing about the HDR version is that it doesn't lose the essential 'warmth' of the imagery but it does dial back that yellow undertone specifically.

Give two colorists the same clip to grade, with the same set of instructions, and you'll get two different grades. Without knowing what the reference print and timing was at the time of any film, we can never know which is the more faithful - whether it's comparing 5 SDR versions, HDR, HLG, etc. So it's less of a format thing, than a decision. And these decisions change with time and new tools and formats. Grading and color accuracy don't seem to be priorities with home video releases unfortunately. And having a reference print to go back on, is not always easy or even possible. And we all now how color memory works. Even for established DPs and colorists.

[MidnightHunter]

$17.99 at Amazon right now, Can't wait to check it out.

[groove93]

Yet, another older film with an awesome video and image presentation.

Received my copy in the mail yesterday. I used points from one of my credit cards towards this purchase on Amazon, so I ended up just paying $5 and some change.

This is my first time owning this movie on any format. I've always watched this whenever it came on TV. It appears that the Orange "tint" is a bit toned down, but it's not aggressive at all to my eyes.

Sheesh, the beginning of the film with Rosie Perez dancing, the overhead affects were completely unexpected. I just wanted to look at Rosie for crying out loud

The weekend is here so I'm going to give this movie another play at a higher Volume.

[captainron_howdy]

I watched my disc again, I think it may be one of my favorite UHDs. Looks phenomenal and I'm so glad this Film was given such a nice treatment.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by urbo73

Give two colorists the same clip to grade, with the same set of instructions, and you'll get two different grades. Without knowing what the reference print and timing was at the time of any film, we can never know which is the more faithful - whether it's comparing 5 SDR versions, HDR, HLG, etc. So it's less of a format thing, than a decision. And these decisions change with time and new tools and formats. Grading and color accuracy don't seem to be priorities with home video releases unfortunately. And having a reference print to go back on, is not always easy or even possible. And we all now how color memory works. Even for established DPs and colorists.

These are all fair points, absolutely. If you do a search for my posts containing the phrase "moving target" you'll find me echoing those exact same sentiments. But the amount of SDR grades with a blanket yellow or green tint (especially stuff from major studios released over the last 10+ years on Blu) vs the HDR version is staggering, there's so many of them that get changed up for a more natural or neutral look in HDR it's kinda ridonkulous - though DTRT does NOT have a more neutral look on UHD, it still looks hot hot hot, it just loses that yellow kink. So when I say "SDR yellow tint" I'm offering it up without prejudice as to what's causing it, but it's there nonetheless.

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

These are all fair points, absolutely. If you do a search for my posts containing the phrase "moving target" you'll find me echoing those exact same sentiments. But the amount of SDR grades with a blanket yellow or green tint (especially stuff from major studios released over the last 10+ years on Blu) vs the HDR version is staggering, there's so many of them that get changed up for a more natural or neutral look in HDR it's kinda ridonkulous - though DTRT does NOT have a more neutral look on UHD, it still looks hot hot hot, it just loses that yellow kink. So when I say "SDR yellow tint" I'm offering it up without prejudice as to what's causing it, but it's there nonetheless.

Yes, I understood. If you look at a lot of the SDR releases in the last 10 years, a lot of the yellow came from ones done from new 4K masters, where they had to have new grades from scratch. It was just "the" thing to do. Now with HDR, something else is the "thing". And it will be like this going forward. Sometimes worse, sometimes better, but most often not something we can say is more or less accurate. For this disc, I prefer the HDR grade. Do I think the SDR Criterion is closer to what I remember? Yes. But like I said, memory is not accurate that way. I also know the DP was involved in that grade. I prefer the timing of the Criterion, and the skin tones, but prefer the HDR overall for it's depth as I said.

[azmodeous]

I got the steelbook from Target last night for $15, technically it was $22.99 but the buy 2 get one free deal totalled my purchase out to be $44 and some change. I've always loved this film but somehow never owned a copy until now, I had to right that.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by urbo73

Yes, I understood. If you look at a lot of the SDR releases in the last 10 years, a lot of the yellow came from ones done from new 4K masters, where they had to have new grades from scratch. It was just "the" thing to do. Now with HDR, something else is the "thing". And it will be like this going forward. Sometimes worse, sometimes better, but most often not something we can say is more or less accurate. For this disc, I prefer the HDR grade. Do I think the SDR Criterion is closer to what I remember? Yes. But like I said, memory is not accurate that way. I also know the DP was involved in that grade. I prefer the timing of the Criterion, and the skin tones, but prefer the HDR overall for it's depth as I said.

And yet accuracy is not something I'm talking about. Moving targets baby, moving targets...

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And yet accuracy is not something I'm talking about. Moving targets baby, moving targets...

Yeah, I know, but I am. How did they sell the warmth and heat in the original projection of DTRT? If as that colorist claims, they pushed certain colors in SDR but the luminance of HDR didn't need it, well, ask yourself how it was done in the theater in projection.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by urbo73

Yeah, I know, but I am. How did they sell the warmth and heat in the original projection of DTRT? If as that colorist claims, they pushed certain colors in SDR but the luminance of HDR didn't need it, well, ask yourself how it was done in the theater in projection.

But we're not watching a theatrical projektion from film, which itself is distinctly different from SDR 709 as a transfer function for video so changes and compromises are needed to replicate one in the other. Even SDR @ 100 nits is twice as bright as 14fL/48 nit theatrical projektion but with a smaller colour gamut. And the DP himself regraded the movie to have a distinctly different look for the Universal BD, thereby chucking said accuracy out of the window before dusting it down and gluing it back together for the new transfer.

Plus you can bet that the gamma of the prints would've been vastly higher than anything we've seen on video so I still think it's a fruitless task pursuing dat theatrical accuracy because video is not film and vice versa. Not that there shouldn't be some attempt to use a print or signed-off answer print for reference (pref the latter, as the former could look different from batch to batch and lab to lab), it's how slavish do you want to be? Seeing as many contemporary filmmakers keep changing their minds anyway, driven by both changing tech and changing tastes, then as long as we don't get a Friedkin-style pastel disaster (which itself got corrected, lol) I'm more sanguine about dat "accuracy" these days.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by urbo73

Yeah, I know, but I am. How did they sell the warmth and heat in the original projection of DTRT? If as that colorist claims, they pushed certain colors in SDR but the luminance of HDR didn't need it, well, ask yourself how it was done in the theater in projection.

Different lamps would change it slightly anyway

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But we're not watching a theatrical projektion from film, which itself is distinctly different from SDR 709 as a transfer function for video so changes and compromises are needed to replicate one in the other. Even SDR @ 100 nits is twice as bright as 14fL/48 nit theatrical projektion but with a smaller colour gamut. And the DP himself regraded the movie to have a distinctly different look for the Universal BD, thereby chucking said accuracy out of the window before dusting it down and gluing it back together for the new transfer.

Plus you can bet that the gamma of the prints would've been vastly higher than anything we've seen on video so I still think it's a fruitless task pursuing dat theatrical accuracy because video is not film and vice versa. Not that there shouldn't be some attempt to use a print or signed-off answer print for reference (pref the latter, as the former could look different from batch to batch and lab to lab), it's how slavish do you want to be? Seeing as many contemporary filmmakers keep changing their minds anyway, driven by both changing tech and changing tastes, then as long as we don't get a Friedkin-style pastel disaster (which itself got corrected, lol) I'm more sanguine about dat "accuracy" these days.

Yes, I know all of that and don't disagree. I still think striving for accuracy is important, but realize I'm in the minority. I'm not saying it's easy, but there could be more effort. It's disappointing that's all.

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

Different lamps would change it slightly anyway

Yes, I know. My comment was more about how color accuracy is not something that's important in the home video market, and it never really has been. The techniques and tools are available, not easy as I said above, but also not impossible. People accept this, but then they debate about every release. Can't be in both camps IMO.

[Agent Kay]

It should be important