Steve Yedlin - Debunking HDR

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by hdhar

His passive aggressive shots at Spencer for being right about this too are cringe seems he is allowed to be petty and insult others but nobody is allowed to give him a taste of his own medicine??

Hi Mike

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Kolkusz

I fell like, if anything, the HDR grading has been getting more and more conservative over the years, with many new movies/TVshows having maxCLL in the 200-300 nits region, if not lower. The re-releases of older movies are mostly carrying the torch right now, Tombstone on UHD shows a better usage of the format than most modern movies.

Exactly, yep. Yedlin's leading the anti-HDR charge, perhaps at the marketing as much as anything, and that's fine, but more and more grades are coming out with gentle enhancement, if any, and there's still no minimum requirement for how much "pop" (ugh) they should have, not officially anyway.

Originally Posted by frozenhamster

I don't even agree with Yedlin overall on digital vs film, but this is a really uncharitable read of his view on this issue, which is not anything to do with his favoured aesthetic. Quite the opposite. His point is that in the digital realm, post-production is where the look of a movie actually comes together, and that the camera choice has a lot less importance for a final look than a lot of marketing has claimed.

And even then, he's mostly concerned with marketing (and misinformation) directed at filmmakers. His presentation on resolution is all about how filmmakers had been roped into a resolution arms race, but that resolution is not actually the most important thing, even for things like increased detail in the final image.

What Yedlin sees in the shift to digital is young technology that's extraordinarily powerful, but in ways that have been obscured by the needs of corporations trying to sell it. This is particularly a problem for filmmakers, who are not always as knowledgable about the science of these things. A cinematographer will get some demo from a camera company and they just have to trust they're being told the truth, or being told what's actually relevant. Yedlin is coming in and saying, "Actually, these are the much more relevant things to crafting the final look of your film."

And I can tell you this, knowing some filmmakers, HDR has been a massive pain in the ass for them. They're constantly encouraged to do these pop-y HDR grades that go against their taste and intention, and that exist as basically second versions of the movie. They complain about compression, and the fact that half the time their own TVs can't seem to display HDR stuff as they graded it. But, they're told that HDR is better, and a selling point. Yedlin comes in and demonstrates: "Here are the reasons you're struggling with HDR. You're basically being lied to and misled by marketers. Here's what HDR can actually do that's unique. Here are the things you have been told are HDR-exclusive, but are actually just normal colour grading techniques doable in SDR. And here are some ideas for how to get what HDR can offer filmmakers, without being taken on a ride."

HDR is simply another set of tools - crayons, if you will - for filmmakers to use and I get why some are bewitched, bothered and bewildered by this new-fangled stuff - not Yedlin but all the other filmmakers who are seemingly sick of it all - as some people always are. Change is always resisted. But I think it's settling down already as noted above, they're realising that although they must deliver an HDR version (mostly) they don't have to pack it with nits for the sake of it, and if Yedlin's grab bag of algorithms helps people with that then so much the betterer.

But the thing for me that's the absolute biggest factor of HDR being feared is indeed the end user representation of it, tone mapping specifically plus other issues like ASBL, and not even Yedlin can do anything about that unfortunately. How many times just on this forum have we read that x movie is too dark or whatever? Too many. I remember reading that he hates it because he simply could not get the nominal 'HDR' grade of a movie, I think it was Knives Out, to match the SDR version he'd done, not on his own TV and not even on various expensive studio monitors fed with thousands of dollars of LUT boxes - and yet the two versions of Knives Out are all but identical grading-wise on my calibrated ZD9.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

I watched the first 50 minutes last night, and skimmed through parts again to jog my memory. Anyway, here's some brief thoughts:

1) One of my criticisms about HDR has not been how it looked but how poorly-implemented it has been, and how it doesn't appear to have been standardized at all. As a result, probably only a tiny fraction of people with HDR TVs are actually viewing HDR grades back as they were intended to be seen by the colorists for a number of reasons.

I think Yedlin's idea about creating a single base grade with a "ceiling" could be incredibly useful if implemented and help eradicate issues which I don't think should have ever been a thing. As he explains in the video, the option is there to punch through the ceiling on HDR grades so it's not like he's proposing every HDR grade matchers his own artistic tastes and remains virtually "SDR". He demonstrates how what I have described as "consumer-style HDR" effects can be achieved on an HDR presentation without affecting the SDR presentation which can look largely the same except without those same effects in certain areas.

2. I agree with what he's saying about perception of brightness being relative and not absolute. I don't believe he's saying that all grades should look strictly like a 100 nit or even 48 nit presentation. I think it's clear that he's actually railing against that mindset by the way he talks about prioritizing relative tonal relationships over absolute brightness in the grade. He's actually saying that brightness can be increased or decreased depending on personal taste, viewing conditions, etc. without compromising intent or introducing unintentional disproportionate effects.

3. I view this less as an attack on HDR, but rather an endorsement for more precise and informed grading in general without all the confusion introduced by marketing, misinformation, and supposed "restrictions". I've said a few times that a lot of the benefits we observe on some UHDs compared to their SDR counterparts could easily be achievable in SDR; but they often aren't for whichever reason. Anyway, I'm a lot happier with most of the newer HDR grades as more and more seem more like refinements rather than "Brighter, deeper, more lifelike!" like what was all too common during the beginning of the format.

[jess1581]

Originally Posted by hdhar

It is so cute when you get insecure and try discredit pros who know more than you. He knows 100x more about this and has infinite times the experience you do so sit down and do not let knowledge threaten you Geoff. You can still have your flock to lead and tell them how to think cause there will always be sheep on here who will need you to shepherd them.

[aladdin123]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Exactly, yep. Yedlin's leading the anti-HDR charge, perhaps at the marketing as much as anything, and that's fine, but more and more grades are coming out with gentle enhancement, if any, and there's still no minimum requirement for how much "pop" (ugh) they should have, not officially anyway.


HDR is simply another set of tools - crayons, if you will - for filmmakers to use and I get why some are bewitched, bothered and bewildered by this new-fangled stuff - not Yedlin but all the other filmmakers who are seemingly sick of it all - as some people always are. Change is always resisted. But I think it's settling down already as noted above, they're realising that although they must deliver an HDR version (mostly) they don't have to pack it with nits for the sake of it, and if Yedlin's grab bag of algorithms helps people with that then so much the betterer.

But the thing for me that's the absolute biggest factor of HDR being feared is indeed the end user representation of it, tone mapping specifically plus other issues like ASBL, and not even Yedlin can do anything about that unfortunately. How many times just on this forum have we read that x movie is too dark or whatever? Too many. I remember reading that he hates it because he simply could not get the nominal 'HDR' grade of a movie, I think it was Knives Out, to match the SDR version he'd done, not on his own TV and not even on various expensive studio monitors fed with thousands of dollars of LUT boxes - and yet the two versions of Knives Out are all but identical grading-wise on my calibrated ZD9.

The real issue with HDR is indeed how unreliable it is across TV. This is a horrible mess that could have been avoided with, for example, much stricter requirements for a TV to be classified as HDR, and a tierlist of HDR TVs, but TV manufacturers didn't care for that because it is easier to just slap the name HDR in any TV that can decode HDR video. And there's the issue that even in top tier TVs, tonemapping can still leave a lot to be desire in many ways, either making highlights too bright, even harsh for the sake more "pop" (which is what really annoys Spencer), or making it too dark.

But one positive of HDR over many innovations in cinema history is that filmmakers are allowed to deliver an essentially SDR grading in an HDR container if they want to. Any current criticisms against HDR are nothing compared to the wrath of filmmakers when they were forced to use widescreen, especially the Scope variety. The likes of Fritz Lang said that Scope wasn't meant for people, but for snakes and funerals. There were also sayings that if Scope was a good ratio, then painters would have used throughout history. If I'm not mistaken, Olson Welles hated even VistaVision. John Ford despised Scope, and was in general someone who disliked major changes even though he went through many of them (sound, color, widescreen, all of which he grumbled about if I'm not mistaken). Last, but not least, the japanese master Yasujiro Ozu never did widescreen. He was such a respected figure that he could continue doing Academy Ratio and even said that widescreen reminded him of toilet paper.

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

I watched the first 50 minutes last night, and skimmed through parts again to jog my memory. Anyway, here's some brief thoughts:

1) One of my criticisms about HDR has not been how it looked but how poorly-implemented it has been, and how it doesn't appear to have been standardized at all. As a result, probably only a tiny fraction of people with HDR TVs are actually viewing HDR grades back as they were intended to be seen by the colorists for a number of reasons.

I think Yedlin's idea about creating a single base grade with a "ceiling" could be incredibly useful if implemented and help eradicate issues which I don't think should have ever been a thing. As he explains in the video, the option is there to punch through the ceiling on HDR grades so it's not like he's proposing every HDR grade matchers his own artistic tastes and remains virtually "SDR". He demonstrates how what I have described as "consumer-style HDR" effects can be achieved on an HDR presentation without affecting the SDR presentation which can look largely the same except without those same effects in certain areas.

2. I agree with what he's saying about perception of tonality being relative and not absolute. I don't believe he's saying that all grades should look strictly like a 100 nit or even 48 nit presentation. I think it's clear that he's actually railing against that mindset by the way he talks about prioritizing relative tonal relationships over absolute brightness in the grade. He's actually saying that brightness can be increased or decreased depending on personal taste, viewing conditions, etc. without compromising intent or introducing unintentional disproportionate effects.

3. I view this less as an attack on HDR, but rather an endorsement for more precise and informed grading in general without all the confusion introduced by marketing, misinformation, and supposed "restrictions". I've said a few times that a lot of the benefits we observe on some UHDs compared to their SDR counterparts could easily be achievable in SDR; but they often aren't for whichever reason. Anyway, I'm a lot happier with most of the newer HDR grades as more and more seem more like refinements rather than "Brighter, deeper, more lifelike!" like what was all too common during the beginning of the format.

Honestly, it sounds like Steve Yedlin's video itself is reasonable, but the title ("Debunking HDR") is very hyperbolic, misleading, simplistic and click-baity. Typical of the internet age, sadly.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

I watched the first 50 minutes last night, and skimmed through parts again to jog my memory. Anyway, here's some brief thoughts:

1) One of my criticisms about HDR has not been how it looked but how poorly-implemented it has been, and how it doesn't appear to have been standardized at all. As a result, probably only a tiny fraction of people with HDR TVs are actually viewing HDR grades back as they were intended to be seen by the colorists for a number of reasons.

I think Yedlin's idea about creating a single base grade with a "ceiling" could be incredibly useful if implemented and help eradicate issues which I don't think should have ever been a thing. As he explains in the video, the option is there to punch through the ceiling on HDR grades so it's not like he's proposing every HDR grade matchers his own artistic tastes and remains virtually "SDR". He demonstrates how what I have described as "consumer-style HDR" effects can be achieved on an HDR presentation without affecting the SDR presentation which can look largely the same except without those same effects in certain areas.

2. I agree with what he's saying about perception of brightness being relative and not absolute. I don't believe he's saying that all grades should look strictly like a 100 nit or even 48 nit presentation. I think it's clear that he's actually railing against that mindset by the way he talks about prioritizing relative tonal relationships over absolute brightness in the grade. He's actually saying that brightness can be increased or decreased depending on personal taste, viewing conditions, etc. without compromising intent or introducing unintentional disproportionate effects.

3. I view this less as an attack on HDR, but rather an endorsement for more precise and informed grading in general without all the confusion introduced by marketing, misinformation, and supposed "restrictions". I've said a few times that a lot of the benefits we observe on some UHDs compared to their SDR counterparts could easily be achievable in SDR; but they often aren't for whichever reason. Anyway, I'm a lot happier with most of the newer HDR grades as more and more seem more like refinements rather than "Brighter, deeper, more lifelike!" like what was all too common during the beginning of the format.

Isn't HLG a bit like his 'single base grade' idea? It literally works by aping the response of SDR/gamma/whatever people call it up until a certain amount of the signal, after which a more logarithmic curve is available. It's also a relative system rather than absolute like PQ so there's no need to have all the complexities and nuance of an image put at the mercy of a tone mapper which is looking at a single piece of fixed metadata, it'll automatically mould the creative intent to the display's capabilities. It's crazy watching the HLG montage on Spears & Munsil and how those mega-bright scenes which are blown out to balls in HDR10 (bearing in mind the 1800-nit ceiling of my TV!) are perfickly rendered in HLG. DV makes the difference a lot closer but the HLG still outdoes it in the way that all the highlights are preserved.

HDR is something that ran before it could walk, I'd say. Not putting a universal system of tone mapping in place - not necessarily a dynamic system, just a standardised way of preserving APL more than anything - was utterly criminal I'd say, with a lack of any recommended grading practices - again, for average brightness as a priority - coming in second. Combine the absurd lack of continuity from one TV to another, from one manufacturer to another:

[Show spoiler]

with the drastic differences that one grade has to another and my god, it's a shitshow.

[Kolkusz]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

1) One of my criticisms about HDR has not been how it looked but how poorly-implemented it has been, and how it doesn't appear to have been standardized at all. As a result, probably only a tiny fraction of people with HDR TVs are actually viewing HDR grades back as they were intended to be seen by the colorists for a number of reasons.

Tbf, only a tiny fraction of people are consuming the SDR grades the way they are intended too.

Originally Posted by aladdin123

The real issue with HDR is indeed how unreliable it is across TV. This is a horrible mess that could have been avoided with, for example, much stricter requirements for a TV to be classified as HDR, and a tierlist of HDR TVs, but TV manufacturers didn't care for that because it is easier to just slap the name HDR in any TV that can decode HDR video. And there's the issue that even in top tier TVs, tonemapping can still leave a lot to be desire in many ways, either making highlights too bright, even harsh for the sake more "pop" (which is what really annoys Spencer), or making it too dark.

If you think the situation is bad in the TV space, just wait until you learn about the unbridled horror that is a consumer level monitor market. You can literally count the number of models that are worth a damn on one hand. Something like 42 inch LG C4 runs circles around the monitors twice the price.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Isn't HLG a bit like his 'single base grade' idea? It literally works by aping the response of SDR/gamma/whatever people call it up until a certain amount of the signal, after which a more logarithmic curve is available. It's also a relative system rather than absolute like PQ so there's no need to have all the complexities and nuance of an image put at the mercy of a tone mapper which is looking at a single piece of fixed metadata, it'll automatically mould the creative intent to the display's capabilities. It's crazy watching the HLG montage on Spears & Munsil and how those mega-bright scenes which are blown out to balls in HDR10 (bearing in mind the 1800-nit ceiling of my TV!) are perfickly rendered in HLG. DV makes the difference a lot closer but the HLG still outdoes it in the way that all the highlights are preserved.

Admittedly, I didn't have time to see or listen to the presentation yet, but from the impressions I've read, it really does sound like he is basically talking about HLG. I would be really surprised if it's not addressed in the video. Though, I've seen mixed options regarding HLG from the people in the know.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Isn't HLG a bit like his 'single base grade' idea? It literally works by aping the response of SDR/gamma/whatever people call it up until a certain amount of the signal, after which a more logarithmic curve is available. It's also a relative system rather than absolute like PQ so there's no need to have all the complexities and nuance of an image put at the mercy of a tone mapper which is looking at a single piece of fixed metadata, it'll automatically mould the creative intent to the display's capabilities. It's crazy watching the HLG montage on Spears & Munsil and how those mega-bright scenes which are blown out to balls in HDR10 (bearing in mind the 1800-nit ceiling of my TV!) are perfickly rendered in HLG. DV makes the difference a lot closer but the HLG still outdoes it in the way that all the highlights are preserved.

HDR is something that ran before it could walk, I'd say. Not putting a universal system of tone mapping in place - not necessarily a dynamic system, just a standardised way of preserving APL more than anything - was utterly criminal I'd say, with a lack of any recommended grading practices - again, for average brightness as a priority - coming in second. Combine the absurd lack of continuity from one TV to another, from one manufacturer to another:

[Show spoiler]

with the drastic differences that one grade has to another and my god, it's a shitshow.

Sort of, but there's a massive difference. HLG, from what I understand, simply carries out calculations for the most part, whereas what Yedlin is proposing would allow for filmmakers to have greater artistic integrity and control over the handling of their work. HLG seems more like a compromise, but Yedlin's idea would allow for streamlined optimization of multiple formats ensuring artistic integrity as opposed to some function simply analyzing, calculating and farting out data.

I agree with you re: HDR's implementation; I'd label it as utterly criminal too, and sadly its implementation isn't even the worst thing about it. I hope Yedlin addresses the more nefarious aspects in his video, but I'd understand if he chose not to go all-in. Certain companies profit off of its complexity through various means while filmmakers, indies, colorists, etc. are pressured into losing time, money and creativity/control due to mandates that are often enforced by such companies. The marketing itself is hugely problematic too; even on here it seems people have radically different ideas of what HDR is and what it's supposed to do. I'd encourage anybody who has the time to actually hear out what Yedlin is saying and give him a fair chance before dismissing him as anti-HDR or whatever.

[reanimator]

Originally Posted by Poya

This guy shot the best looking Star Wars movie ever.

He shot ROGUE ONE?

[Bugg]

Originally Posted by Poya

This guy shot the best looking Star Wars movie ever. We at least should give him the respect to take him seriously.

That was Peter Suschitzky.

[Dr. T]

Originally Posted by Bugg

That was Peter Suschitzky.

I was going to post this if someone didn't beat me, although I'm still partial to Gilbert Taylor.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Sort of, but there's a massive difference. HLG, from what I understand, simply carries out calculations for the most part, whereas what Yedlin is proposing would allow for filmmakers to have greater artistic integrity and control over the handling of their work. HLG seems more like a compromise, but Yedlin's idea would allow for streamlined optimization of multiple formats ensuring artistic integrity as opposed to some function simply analyzing, calculating and farting out data.

I agree with you re: HDR's implementation; I'd label it as utterly criminal too, and sadly its implementation isn't even the worst thing about it. I hope Yedlin addresses the more nefarious aspects in his video, but I'd understand if he chose not to go all-in. Certain companies profit off of its complexity through various means while filmmakers, indies, colorists, etc. are pressured into losing time, money and creativity/control due to mandates that are often enforced by such companies. The marketing itself is hugely problematic too; even on here it seems people have radically different ideas of what HDR is and what it's supposed to do. I'd encourage anybody who has the time to actually hear out what Yedlin is saying and give him a fair chance before dismissing him as anti-HDR or whatever.

It's funny how filmmakers have always had to battle against the technology tho. I've mentioned this book so many times but in Masters of Light you'll hear from some of the greatest cinematographers who ever lived moaning about how the final product looks nothing like how they wanted it so, such were the vagaries of the photochemical process. Like a lot of things it's become incredibly romanticised and idealised many years later, it's just a shame that with the transition to data came a whole other set of problems.

Maybe not so much with finishing out to a modern theatrical master, tho even there they may have to create dozens of deliverables, but there was a round table thingy with cinematographers several years ago where the host aksed how many of them saw an accurate representation of their work on home video and none of them put their hands up - and this was back in SDR times, never mind now with HDR! A different subject to what Yedlin's talking about perhaps but it still circles back around to my favouritest phrase ever: moving targets. For every filmmaker who's got an exact idea of what their work should look like and won't deviate over time, there's ten more who'll change their mind every single time they revisit something, so even with a whole set of standards in place there's no accounting for taste. What am I saying then? We shouldn't bovver with standards at all? Hmm. I know that for as long as there are such things on the display end I'll keep watching stuff set to those baselines, but 99.999% of people won't.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's funny how filmmakers have always had to battle against the technology tho. I've mentioned this book so many times but in Masters of Light you'll hear from some of the greatest cinematographers who ever lived moaning about how the final product looks nothing like how they wanted it so, such were the vagaries of the photochemical process. Like a lot of things it's become incredibly romanticised and idealised many years later, it's just a shame that with the transition to data came a whole other set of problems.

Maybe not so much with finishing out to a modern theatrical master, tho even there they may have to create dozens of deliverables, but there was a round table thingy with cinematographers several years ago where the host aksed how many of them saw an accurate representation of their work on home video and none of them put their hands up - and this was back in SDR times, never mind now with HDR! A different subject to what Yedlin's talking about perhaps but it still circles back around to my favouritest phrase ever: moving targets. For every filmmaker who's got an exact idea of what their work should look like and won't deviate over time, there's ten more who'll change their mind every single time they revisit something, so even with a whole set of standards in place there's no accounting for taste. What am I saying then? We shouldn't bovver with standards at all? Hmm. I know that for as long as there are such things on the display end I'll keep watching stuff set to those baselines, but 99.999% of people won't.

So you're saying my VHS tapes, LaserDiscs and DVDs were all wrong?

Yeah, it doesn't matter if it's SDR, HDR, SuperHDR or what. It's the grade itself that matters most. I'll take a well-done SDR grade on Blu-ray over a mediocre HDR grade any day of the week. The HDR grades that I tend to like the best usually resemble what we associate with SDR grades more than "consumer-style HDR" anyway.

Marketing would have you believe that HDR is capable of all these things that SDR is simply incapable of, but I think we've talked about specific releases before where I've said that certain improvements on an HDR grade could have been possible on an SDR one with absolute ease. I'm sure my thoughts on older home video grades are known on here at this point, but it's seriously depressing to see all this new tech and such coming out to help improve things... yet so many of these things were possible to do over a decade ago, but they seemingly put the cart before the horse and bought into marketing instead of getting knowledgeable and experienced colorists in the first place.

[aladdin123]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's funny how filmmakers have always had to battle against the technology tho. I've mentioned this book so many times but in Masters of Light you'll hear from some of the greatest cinematographers who ever lived moaning about how the final product looks nothing like how they wanted it so, such were the vagaries of the photochemical process. Like a lot of things it's become incredibly romanticised and idealised many years later, it's just a shame that with the transition to data came a whole other set of problems.

Maybe not so much with finishing out to a modern theatrical master, tho even there they may have to create dozens of deliverables, but there was a round table thingy with cinematographers several years ago where the host aksed how many of them saw an accurate representation of their work on home video and none of them put their hands up - and this was back in SDR times, never mind now with HDR! A different subject to what Yedlin's talking about perhaps but it still circles back around to my favouritest phrase ever: moving targets. For every filmmaker who's got an exact idea of what their work should look like and won't deviate over time, there's ten more who'll change their mind every single time they revisit something, so even with a whole set of standards in place there's no accounting for taste. What am I saying then? We shouldn't bovver with standards at all? Hmm. I know that for as long as there are such things on the display end I'll keep watching stuff set to those baselines, but 99.999% of people won't.

I think there will always be different formats and widely different display capabilities, so it is utopic to think about a world where every film is displayed perfectly for everyone. In fact, it's never been remotely close to that, even in the realm of videophiles and top calibrated gear, and every new technology has a learning curve with issues (though that doesn't excuse the mess of HDR implementation on TVs). Deakins is now pretty comfortable wirh HDR as just another tool that he can use to make what pleases him, after all the issues he encountered early of being unable to have the same grading in different monitors match (something like that if I remember correctly).

Even with all the problems we have now, problems that deserve criticism (such as the wonky HDR implementation on TVs, and even worse on monitors), it's still much better than in the photochemical era. Listen to what David Lynch says about the level of control for color on film vs. digital. Skip to 0:47.

YouTube

With all of that said, part of me wishes that we all had access to a Dolby Pulsar or any of those utmost top-tier reference monitors that cost tens of thousands of dollars, the monitors where everything is graded to begin with. HDTVTest has such an expensive reference monitor that he always compares any reviewed TV to.

[Modren]

I think a related point Yedlin doesn't mention is that, in many situations, SDR is arguably a preferable format. Like, if someone is watching a movie on their phone or tablet, does HDR really make sense? A lot of the time you're not in a controlled environment, and if you're watching something with a more conservative HDR grade, you're basically just getting a darker image that's less visible than an SDR version. I ran into this issue while trying to watch Avatar: The Way of Water and Trap on a plane - the image was just too dark even on the highest brightness. There's also a lot of TVs which don't have the brightness to display HDR properly, or are in brightly-lit rooms where, again, conservative grades just look like a darkened SDR image. I think a lot of streaming services should offer SDR as an option, since it's more flexible for more situations.

[PeterTHX]

I refuse to believe that he can look at a 4K SDR image and say: "Yep. Everything is there. Every color, every shade, everything from absolute black to nuclear white."

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya

I prefer subtle judicial nuanced usage of HDR, instead of HDRRRRRRRR!!!!!

I strongly dislike and loathe the grades in which HDR is abused and goes full Eff Dem EyeballZ!

Anyhow, nuanced and subtly is best in my book.

I wouldnt say nuanced and subtly. That runs the risk of what happened with 3D, where the 3D in theaters is so subtle and so inconspicuous now that after 10 minutes you forget you are even watching 3D, rendering it ineffective.

Also, you dont want HDR applied in a way that looks ridiculous or inappropriate, like Peter Jackson's King Kong 4K UHD, either.

It's not that you need to be subtle, there are HDR grades with 4000 nits+ peak that look excellent. It just needs to be graded with skill and with proper usage of big pops of color and light when it is called for, rather than throughout the whole movie or not at all.

It's much like stereo, that was applied inappropriately at first also. But now people would never want to go back to mono, and its not because the stereo is used in a subtle way now that isnt much different than mono, its just used intelligently. The same applies to HDR.

[BorisKarloffice]

My takeaway was that Yedlin is railing against the idea that you HAVE to deliver a super poppy HDR grade with nuclear highlights or you're behind the times and need to catch up.

He demonstrated that it's perfectly possible to create a beautiful image that exists entirely within an SDR range, and that it's equally possible to create something with ultrabright highlights that's also desirable, even if it's not to his personal taste.

His point is that the look has to be what the filmmakers intended. He specifically mentions that the adjustments he's making to the frame grabs of A Serious man are heretical because they're not what Deakins and the Coen bros wanted the movie to look like.

This video needs to be shown to everyone who whines when a catalogue title is released in SDR or with a conservative HDR grade because they think "Well it's shot on film, shouldn't it have 10K nit highlights?" I've seen many 35mm and 70mm prints in my life and none of them have blinding bright highlights like people seem to think they should.

[KMFDMvsEnya]

Originally Posted by Ruined

I wouldnt say nuanced and subtly. That runs the risk of what happened with 3D, where the 3D in theaters is so subtle and so inconspicuous now that after 10 minutes you forget you are even watching 3D, rendering it ineffective.

Also, you dont want HDR applied in a way that looks ridiculous or inappropriate, like Peter Jackson's King Kong 4K UHD, either.

It's not that you need to be subtle, there are HDR grades with 4000 nits+ peak that look excellent. It just needs to be graded with skill and with proper usage of big pops of color and light when it is called for, rather than throughout the whole movie or not at all.

It's much like stereo, that was applied inappropriately at first also. But now people would never want to go back to mono, and its not because the stereo is used in a subtle way now that isnt much different than mono, its just used intelligently. The same applies to HDR.

I think you are parsing a difference that I was not necessarily making.

I thought I qualified my statements further with some additional musings that you omitted in the reply.

I did not make a declaration on any specific usage of HDR other than I prefer an HDR grade to be sensible in its application.

If the final result appears reasonable in the context of the shot and scene and they can make use of 1k-10k nits then have at it.

I just hate the abuse of cranking the average image levels to scorching like some Sony titles like Starship Troopers or WB's The Meg.

Or a visual imbalance in which the highlights appear unnaturally bright.

Like an audio mix in which the treble is over cranked and fatiguing or excessive dynamic range compression.

Less is more.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by BorisKarloffice

My takeaway was that Yedlin is railing against the idea that you HAVE to deliver a super poppy HDR grade with nuclear highlights or you're behind the times and need to catch up.

He demonstrated that it's perfectly possible to create a beautiful image that exists entirely within an SDR range, and that it's equally possible to create something with ultrabright highlights that's also desirable, even if it's not to his personal taste.

His point is that the look has to be what the filmmakers intended. He specifically mentions that the adjustments he's making to the frame grabs of A Serious man are heretical because they're not what Deakins and the Coen bros wanted the movie to look like.

This video needs to be shown to everyone who whines when a catalogue title is released in SDR or with a conservative HDR grade because they think "Well it's shot on film, shouldn't it have 10K nit highlights?" I've seen many 35mm and 70mm prints in my life and none of them have blinding bright highlights like people seem to think they should.

HDR is an artistic choice, of course. HDR allows the filmmaker to present an image that is more akin to what the filmmaker pointed their camera at, since real life isn't limited to SDR - I guarantee you the sun isn't 200 nits, for instance. So HDR enables the opportunity to present a more realistic image than SDR, but that doesn't necessarily mean the artist wants a more realistic image. To make an analogy, presenting a film in color instead of black and white is an artistic choice, too, and maybe some artists might prefer no color for their specific work.

Whether the tech is misused, or someone feels bad because they don't want to be labeled as behind the times because they prefer something else, IMO that is not really relevant to the tech itself which opens possibilities not possible previously.