Ultra HD Blu-ray (4K) Disks and High Dynamic Range (HDR) for Dummies

[Vriess]

I think I've realized that for me, Dolby Vision is pretty amazing and actually makes a large difference in how even and effortless the contrast in a uhd presentation presents.

It's actually pretty sad but comparing titles that have HDR10 only on disc to the streaming DV version I prefer the streamed DV in a lot of ways. The fact that some of the studios are cheaping out when they have these Dolby Vision versions ready to go is really bull.

My tv is decent at tonemapping(c9) and I even have a 820 to help, but really the DV is a step above.

Do your own comparisons but I think I need to think before I buy any more discs without Dolby Vision if it's available somehow

[DisplayCalNoob]

But, we're told, that a consumer TV that is not capable of doing 1000 nits fullscreen doesn't have to tonemap it can 1000 nits peak for highlights. Still in many cases it can't match the black levels of the display the content was graded on.

[Geoff D]

Tone mapping is absolutely crucial. There is no special sauce to Dolby Vision at source level despite its reputation as a "black box" technology, it uses the same EOTF as HDR10 does and can't do any more colour or nits or range than what HDR10 can, despite what the marketing bullshit says. They'll even be graded using the exact same suites/controls. The difference maker is all about that dynamic metadata which offers extensive control over the tone mapping process at whatever levels it's specified for (100 nits, 600, 1000, 2000) and is still making that difference.

I've said that DV's impact will diminish as this in-house capability keeps improving, as well as TVs hopefully getting closer in tech terms e.g. 4000 nits peak brightness and more BT.2020 coverage, but the legacy of older sets crapping out dodgy HDR10 mapping is going to be with us for a while yet.

[wxman2003]

My Sony A90J does an excellent job tone mapping HDR10. IMO, it is a good as DV tone mapping, if not better. The problem with DV, DV Dark is not always the correct picture mode, and sometime DV bright is. Over on AVS, it was shown that sometimes on the Sony's, DV Dark is brighter than DV bright with specular highlights, and sometimes it's the opposite. You never know which picture mode to use. Whereas, HDR10 tone mapping on the Sony does not have that issue. In fact, many professional calibrators over on AVS recommend watching DV content as HDR10 instead. HDR10 when calibrated is more accurate than calibrated DV too.

[Geoff D]

You're right, as the mere existence of different DV picture modes introduces elements of indecision and confusion into what is supposed to be the unquestionably "correct" mode, but as the DV metadata is shirley tailoring the image for each mode then it could still be considered as being more accurate to source intent than the average HDR TV handling the HDR10 (though the line must be drawn at Dolby IQ which is more about salvaging the image when seen in bright AF viewing conditions than it is about a true preservation of creative intent).

I'm lucky I guess in that my TV has only one DV mode (though I suspect it would measure nearer 'DV Dark') so that's taken out of my hands, and when it comes to viewing HDR10 it can essentially show 1000-nit content in "1:1" fashion so the DV tone mapping is not needed for the vast majority of content. But I use it anyway where available for three reasons:

1) in HDR10 blue can skew towards purple on the ZD9 and I can't dial it out as there's no CMS, but DV aligns the gamut correctly.

2) there's some Light Cannon™ HDR content that even the mighty Zed chokes on and the DV metadata is a godsend in those cases (mostly on Sony UHDs, ironically enough)

3) and the main reason why I'd keep using it anyway even if 1 and 2 weren't an issue: the way that DV FEL can literally rebuild a poorly compressed base layer on a UHD. This benefit should've had far more publicity but as it isn't an official 'feature' of DV that you'd find on a spreadsheet I'm not surprised that most "tech gurus" don't know a thing about it, and compression has always been one of the last things that people, be they "professional reviewers", youtube goobers or regular joes/janes, tend to notice anyway, not just on UHD but in general.

[DisplayCalNoob]

Originally Posted by wxman2003

My Sony A90J does an excellent job tone mapping HDR10. IMO, it is a good as DV tone mapping, if not better. The problem with DV, DV Dark is not always the correct picture mode, and sometime DV bright is. Over on AVS, it was shown that sometimes on the Sony's, DV Dark is brighter than DV bright with specular highlights, and sometimes it's the opposite. You never know which picture mode to use. Whereas, HDR10 tone mapping on the Sony does not have that issue. In fact, many professional calibrators over on AVS recommend watching DV content as HDR10 instead. HDR10 when calibrated is more accurate than calibrated DV too.

It sounds more like, if it doesn't fit your perception of what goor or great PQ(Picture Quality) is then it must be wrong. Is it possible, you just take issue with creators intent?

[DisplayCalNoob]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You're right, as the mere existence of different DV picture modes introduces elements of indecision and confusion into what is supposed to be the unquestionably "correct" mode, but as the DV metadata is shirley tailoring the image for each mode then it could still be considered as being more accurate to source intent than the average HDR TV handling the HDR10 (though the line must be drawn at Dolby IQ which is more about salvaging the image when seen in bright AF viewing conditions than it is about a true preservation of creative intent).

I'm lucky I guess in that my TV has only one DV mode (though I suspect it would measure nearer 'DV Dark') so that's taken out of my hands, and when it comes to viewing HDR10 it can essentially show 1000-nit content in "1:1" fashion so the DV tone mapping is not needed for the vast majority of content. But I use it anyway where available for three reasons:

1) in HDR10 blue can skew towards purple on the ZD9 and I can't dial it out as there's no CMS, but DV aligns the gamut correctly.

2) there's some Light Cannon™ HDR content that even the mighty Zed chokes on and the DV metadata is a godsend in those cases (mostly on Sony UHDs, ironically enough)

3) and the main reason why I'd keep using it anyway even if 1 and 2 weren't an issue: the way that DV FEL can literally rebuild a poorly compressed base layer on a UHD. This benefit should've had far more publicity but as it isn't an official 'feature' of DV that you'd find on a spreadsheet I'm not surprised that most "tech gurus" don't know a thing about it, and compression has always been one of the last things that people, be they "professional reviewers", youtube goobers or regular joes/janes, tend to notice anyway, not just on UHD but in general.

I think 1:1 happens when consumer displays, can do 1000-2000 nits fullscreen and match black levels of true black or OLED levels assuming Sony will produce a QD-OLED based color grading monitor, which would be something colorist would love.

Flanders Scientific has a 5000 nit monitor they are pushing now, whether or not the film industry will give it any consideration remains to be seen.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by DisplayCalNoob

I think 1:1 happens when consumer displays, can do 1000-2000 nits fullscreen and match black levels of true black or OLED levels assuming Sony will produce a QD-OLED based color grading monitor, which would be something colorist would love.

Flanders Scientific has a 5000 nit monitor they are pushing now, whether or not the film industry will give it any consideration remains to be seen.

That's why I said "1:1" for 1000-nit content, not HDR content as a whole. That's actually what Kris Deering said of the ZD9 and 1000-nit content, though I do of coursh acknowledge its limitations in other areas. Point being it's been a beast for HDR and has avoided the major pitfall with tone mapping precisely because it DOESN'T tone map, it just displays the content along the PQ EOTF and clips at the ceiling of the TV's abilities (about 1800 nits for brightness, 1200 nits for colour). This is why the only thing I need taking caring of separately is content that exceeds those figures, and DV does so.

[DisplayCalNoob]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's why I said "1:1" for 1000-nit content, not HDR content as a whole. That's actually what Kris Deering said of the ZD9 and 1000-nit content, though I do of coursh acknowledge its limitations in other areas. Point being it's been a beast for HDR and has avoided the major pitfall with tone mapping precisely because it DOESN'T tone map, it just displays the content along the PQ EOTF and clips at the ceiling of the TV's abilities (about 1800 nits for brightness, 1200 nits for colour). This is why the only thing I need taking caring of separately is content that exceeds those figures, and DV does so.

IIRC, the ZD9 does 800 nits full screen. The ZD9 is a unicorn or at least was a unicorn.

[Staying Salty]

Where can I find Dolby Vision 4K BD Reviews by Geoff D (FAQ)

. Invasion of the Body Snatchers 4K UHD (1978)

Where can I find HDR10 4K BD Reviews by Geoff D (FAQ)

. First Blood (1982) 4K HDR10, UK StudioCanal UHD disc

. Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) 4K HDR10, UK StudioCanal UHD disc

. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl 4K UHD (2003), Australian Disney UHD disc

Where can I find General 4K BD Reviews by Forum Members (FAQ)

. No new General 4K reviews

[Staying Salty]

Where can I find Dolby Vision 4K BD Reviews by Geoff D (FAQ)

. Ghostbusters 4K UHD (1984): US Sony 2022 'Ultimate Collection'

Where can I find HDR10 4K BD Reviews by Geoff D (FAQ)

. Ghostbusters 4K UHD (1984): UK Sony 2016

Where can I find General 4K BD Reviews by Forum Members (FAQ)

. Belladonna of Sadness (1973) 4K UHD Review by gigan72

[Staying Salty]

Originally Posted by cdx47

@waxhead provided a useful response on that particular issue. But my general point was that hdr makes the majority of the difference and without it, there's "usually" very little difference between a 4k sdr and well produced blu-ray.

^

Originally Posted by geoff d

i understand what you're saying and agree with it, as hdr has provided the single biggest upgrade to my personal viewing pleasure since the switch from composite video to component. I was simply like "nah bruv" when hearing that st 4k has as much resolution as the blu. What screen size do you have and how far do you sit from it?

Anyhoo, it's that latter part about a "well produced blu-ray" that's key, yes. Look at the caps of the criterion bd of great escape vs the kino 4k sdr uhd and tell me with a straight face that the uhd doesn't beat the snot out of the bd. But it's not so much because it's adding loads of resolution in itself, though there is some for sure, it's because the compression of the criterion bd is so wretched that it's frittering away the filmic essence of the image. Though when it comes to modern digital toss in particular then the blus can look so clean and sharp already that it doesn't seem like the 4k's doing much more, amiright?

But something people either forget or don't realise is a thing is the increased chroma resolution of uhd, i.e. It's not just about luminance resolution. This format is still ycbcr 4:2:0 just like blu so it's still throwing away a ridonkulous amount of colour information via the master, but it's 4x higher than blu-ray nonetheless so you can get marked improvements in highly saturated areas of colour, red and blues especially as they're colours that this combination of colour space and subsampling has always struggled with rendering.

I've used this example before from coos: https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x...4&l=0&i=3&go=1, look at how the flowers go from mostly nondescript coloured blobs to distinct two-toned shades where you can clearly see each petal. Does that mean much in the grand scheme of things? No, i guess not, but it's a cumulative effect of what these subtler resolution improvements can do for 4k sdr that makes it more pleasant to look at, though again i return to the question of screen size and viewing distance because they will make a massive difference as to how much of this anyone can discern.

.

[Staying Salty]

Where can I find Dolby Vision 4K BD Reviews by Geoff D (FAQ)

. An American Werewolf in London 4K UHD (1981): UK Arrow

. Looper 4K UHD (2012) (10th Anniversary Edition) US Sony

Where can I find HDR10 4K BD Reviews by Geoff D (FAQ)

. The Green Mile 4K UHD (1999): UK Warners

Where can I find General 4K BD Reviews by Forum Members (FAQ)

. No new General 4K reviews

[Staying Salty]

Where can I find Dolby Vision 4K BD Reviews by Geoff D (FAQ)

. Halloween II 4K UHD (1981): US Shout Factory

. RoboCop 4K UHD (1987): UK Arrow Director's Cut

Where can I find HDR10 4K BD Reviews by Geoff D (FAQ)

. No new HDR10 reviews

Where can I find General 4K BD Reviews by Forum Members (FAQ)

. No new General 4K reviews

[Staying Salty]

Where can I find Dolby Vision 4K BD Reviews by Geoff D (FAQ)

. Halloween III: Season of the Witch 4K UHD (1982): US Shout Factory

. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein 4K UHD (1994): UK Arrow

Where can I find HDR10 4K BD Reviews by Geoff D (FAQ)

. No new HDR10 reviews

Where can I find General 4K BD Reviews by Forum Members (FAQ)

. No new General 4K reviews

[Staying Salty]

Where can I find Dolby Vision 4K BD Reviews by Geoff D (FAQ)

. No new DV reviews

Where can I find HDR10 4K BD Reviews by Geoff D (FAQ)

. Singin' in the Rain 4K UHD (1952): UK Warners

Where can I find General 4K BD Reviews by Forum Members (FAQ)

. Looper (2012) 4K UHD (10th Anniversary Edition) Review by tama

. The Alfred Hitchcock Classics Collection Volume 2 4K UHD: Marnie (1964) Review by EVOLVIST

. The Alfred Hitchcock Classics Collection Volume 2 4K UHD: Saboteur (1942) Review by EVOLVIST

. The Alfred Hitchcock Classics Collection Volume 2 4K UHD: The Trouble with Harry (1955) Review by EVOLVIST

[Staying Salty]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

Yep, and the biggest issue is that it's how the film has always looked.

Even the 2018 Arrow BD looks identical to the old Universal DVD in that respect.

I really need to open up my UHD and see:

A) if all the flashbacks look like this

B) if the alteration looks as extreme in motion, with HDR on.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's how it's always looked within SDR space, yes. That is the blessing and the curse of HDR, you're going to find things like this that don't jive with any extant version.

Originally Posted by James Luckard

I'll admit this is all very new to me, but I thought the goal of HDR was mostly to make a home video presentation look more like a theatrical presentation on film, with brighter areas that approximate projected light hitting the screen and darker areas that mimic the absence of light from portions where the film blocks light getting through.

I know HDR also adds richer colors, but have I misunderstood the goal of HDR completely?

I'll admit, I'm new to 4K and haven't read up that much about HDR.

I do know that the best UHDs I've seen, like Gattaca, make me feel like I'm watching a projected film print and not a screen throwing light out at me...

I didn't think the goal of HDR was to present the film in a noticeably different way.

I'm asking this because 12 Monkeys has looked like this on film too, not just on previous home video incarnations.

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

HDR is supposed to allow for a greater dynamic range overall. SDR normally cannot properly reproduce professional grade film or video dynamics.

Like anything, HDR is a tool. It can be used properly and it can also be used improperly.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

HDR at its core is absolutely nothing like emulating a theatrical presentation on film. Film hits 48 nits for standard projektion, 108 nits for Dolby Cinema (and MUCH less for 3D in either case owing to the glasses). The system used to grade HDR for the home can hit 10,000 nits and can convey many more stops of range than what any theatrical print could ever do. Not to mention 4K detail itself being far beyond what a regular IP-IN print could ever manage.

That doesn't mean 4K UHD always hits these dizzy heights, but more often than not you're seeing something that bears little relation to its theatrical counterpart, aside from very new movies where the workflow is much more rigidly controlled in the digital space and consumer HDR deliverables are now pretty much a standard part of that workflow, so the creative intent can be managed properly throughout the chain.

.

[James Luckard]

Just to be clear, I do think those quotes, out of context, are a bit confusing.

I was bending over backwards to excuse my possible lack of knowledge about HDR, but I don't think that's the sole issue here.

It appears the director was not involved in the HDR grading. I think it's much more likely that the exceedingly blown out highlights of the theatrical look of the film just were not re-created properly on the Arrow UHD, as they were on the Arrow BD. The negative clearly doesn't look like that and the UHD seems to find a middle ground between the raw negative and the extreme look that fans are used to, and which Gilliam presumably approved.

I still need to view my own disc tonight, my comments have, so far, been based purely on a few screencaps, which I have freely admitted.

I'll comment more once I've checked out the disc.

[Staying Salty]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

Just to be clear, I do think those quotes, out of context, are a bit confusing.

I was bending over backwards to excuse my possible lack of knowledge about HDR, but I don't think that's the sole issue here.

It appears the director was not involved in the HDR grading. I think it's much more likely that the exceedingly blown out highlights of the theatrical look of the film just were not re-created properly on the Arrow UHD, as they were on the Arrow BD. The negative clearly doesn't look like that and the UHD seems to find a middle ground between the raw negative and the extreme look that fans are used to, and which Gilliam presumably approved.

I still need to view my own disc tonight, my comments have, so far, been based purely on a few screencaps, which I have freely admitted.

I'll comment more once I've checked out the disc.

This thread is mainly about HDR information in general and not directed at an individual disc. I posted this discussion about 12 Monkies because is had some information about HDR, particularly the Geoff D comment:

HDR at its core is absolutely nothing like emulating a theatrical presentation on film.

[Staying Salty]

Where can I find Dolby Vision 4K BD Reviews by Geoff D (FAQ)

. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance 4K UHD (1962): UK Paramount (Zavvi exclusive)

Where can I find HDR10 4K BD Reviews by Geoff D (FAQ)

. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006): Australian Disney

Where can I find General 4K BD Reviews by Forum Members (FAQ)

. The Alfred Hitchcock Classics Collection Volume 2 4K UHD: Family Plot (1976) Review by EVOLVIST