HDR, Why wasn’t dynamic range an issue before? (1 Viewer)

[CarlosMeat]

it's good we're getting some good catalog titles... but it's also bad they are being rushed out using 'auto-tune' HDR vs. human-eyes inspected and optimized at 10k NITS

I was wondering what the significance is for the 10,000 Nit standard ?

 

[Worth]

It's unreasonable to think of HDR as "gimmicky" because HDR attempts to achieve what the human eye is already capable of in the natural world. The human eye is capable of 20 stops of luminance. That's a 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio. Film is generally capable of 13-15 stops of luminance. Digital is generally capable of 10-14 stops of luminance.

Clearly, prior to HDR, neither film nor digital could recreate what we see with our eyes in the natural world. And that is the purpose of HDR. HDR allows us to see a movie with a greater range of luminance. It allows a creation that is closer to what we see in the natural world. And the more REAL a movie looks to our eyes, the more immersive it can be.

In my opinion, 4K is only a minimal upgrade without HDR. HDR is the game changer. A great HDR transfer played on a high quality HDR TV is a real thing of beauty. It is heads and shoulders above 1080p, not just because it's sharper (4K vs 1080) but because it looks more like what our eyes see in the natural world.

Mark

I don't agree with the notion that filmmaking should necessarily strive to replicate what we see in the natural world. Films have always been more about transforming reality than recreating it. If I want to see what reality looks like, I'll glance out the window or go for a walk.

 

[JediFonger]

i think the idea is to have more paintbrushes or "colors" for artists to work with when possible. it's sorta like when oil vs. fresco, it completely increased the possibilities of what is possible.

 

[Joel Fontenot]

i think the idea is to have more paintbrushes or "colors" for artists to work with when possible. it's sorta like when oil vs. fresco, it completely increased the possibilities of what is possible.

Yeah, but here, we are talking about the fact that the painting is already done.

I've wondered this myself. If it brings out more of what is already there, I'm all for it. But, like anything else, I don't want to see it overused just because it's there.

 

[JediFonger]

35mm maybe, but 70mm most def. not on the older archives.

Digital capture can also allow for higher/greater/ colors now.

Plus, for CG movies... there is no "already done" except the decision by creators, like Coco they looked at it in 4k and made the decision for us on 2k.

but in the future... if pixar gives us a 4k copied that's fully optimized for 10k DV... that would be stellar.

Yeah, but here, we are talking about the fact that the painting is already done.

I've wondered this myself. If it brings out more of what is already there, I'm all for it. But, like anything else, I don't want to see it overused just because it's there.

 

[Brian Kidd]

I think HDR is great when it enhances what is already there without significantly changing the look of the film as it was completed by the DP and director. It's one thing to use the technology to provide greater fidelity to the image, since normal HD and NTSC are definite compromises compared to what is present on the original film. It's another thing to artificially boost colors and contrast simply because it's possible to do it. HDR is a great tool for filmmakers to consider going forward. It expands the possibilities of the image, like adding new colors to a painter's palette. It isn't a catch-all that is necessary for all films, though.

Question: When you turn off HDR on your player, would the resulting image be closer to the original non-HDR picture or is it a similar thing to desaturating a color image to make a black and white one as opposed to starting with a monochromatic original? Does that make sense? I mean, what effect does turning off HDR actually have on the resulting image?

 

[Mark-P]

Question: When you turn off HDR on your player, would the resulting image be closer to the original non-HDR picture or is it a similar thing to desaturating a color image to make a black and white one as opposed to starting with a monochromatic original? Does that make sense? I mean, what effect does turning off HDR actually have on the resulting image?

That's an excellent question that I would also like the answer to. I hear opposing viewpoints all the time. Mostly I've heard HDR described as a layer of metadata embedded in the video stream that tells your TV how bright to make each area of the screen. I don't know how isolated these areas are. For instance is it down to the specific pixel? If so, I would think that would effectively double your bandwidth. By this logic if HDR is turned off, the metadata stream would be ignored and the player would output the raw image identical to the one on the accompanying Blu-ray, though at quadruple the resolution. On the other hand I have heard people talk about how well a 4K player "downconverts" HDR to SDR which would imply that HDR is burned in to the image and the player would then need to compress the HDR to approximate the look of SDR, which would not be the original image at all. So what's the true story?

 

[Mark Booth]

I don't agree with the notion that filmmaking should necessarily strive to replicate what we see in the natural world. Films have always been more about transforming reality than recreating it. If I want to see what reality looks like, I'll glance out the window or go for a walk.

Forgive me, but that's a narrow viewpoint. It reminds me of the silent film producers, directors and actors that scoffed at "talkies".

Of course filmmaking should strive to increase realism. The transformation of reality is done by the story, special effects, cinematography and quality acting (to name a few).

I'm not saying HDR is appropriate for every film. I'm saying it is entirely appropriate for many films.

If you haven't spent any time in front of a quality HDR TV with a quality 4K HDR source, I encourage you to give it a try. The film I recommend is 'Passengers'. During the film, when we see exterior shots of the ship (Avalon) against the star-filled black void of space the ship and stars glisten in a way that is literally breathtaking. I've viewed the standard HD Blu-ray version too and it's just not the same.

A good HDR source on a good HDR set makes films look more natural and realistic. It improves the experience, it doesn't detract from it.

Mark

 

[RobertR]

Forgive me, but that's a narrow viewpoint. It reminds me of the silent film producers, directors and actors that scoffed at "talkies".

Of course filmmaking should strive to increase realism. The transformation of reality is done by the story, special effects, cinematography and quality acting (to name a few).

I disagree with your characterization. Moviemaking (the term "filmmaking" is pretty much obsolete) is never "real", but an artistic representation of reality. Comic book movies are an obvious example, but there are many many others. Colors are transformed (I've posted many times about the seemingly never ending fascination with tealing colors in movies. Colors do NOT look like that). Sounds are synthesized (ever been to a Foley studio?). Physics are ignored (watch several episodes of Mythbusters for examples). Sound itself (and color) was embraced because it made movies more interesting and dramatic, not because it made them more "real" (I'll take a great old B&W mono movie over a mediocre tealized wham bam surround monstrosity any day).

 

[Mark Booth]

My question to those that disagree: Do you own a quality HDR display and source and/or have you spent a number of hours viewing quality HDR sources on a quality HDR display?

Mark

 

[RobertR]

Spending lots of hours viewing an HDR display has no more relevance to the point I was making than spending lots of hours watching movies in color and with surround sound.

 

[Mark Booth]

Spending lots of hours viewing an HDR display has no more relevance to the point I was making than spending lots of hours watching movies in color and with surround sound.

It's relevant if you are arguing against HDR when, in fact, you haven't actually viewed quality HDR for a long enough period (and enough different sources) to have personal experience with the technology.

Absent that experience, it's like hearing "I don't like broccoli" from a person that has never tasted broccoli.

Mark

 

[JediFonger]

i believe the argument is more foundation than that. disagree on if broccoli is actually broccoli, it's actually asparagus! somn like that >)

It's relevant if you are arguing against HDR when, in fact, you haven't actually viewed quality HDR for a long enough period (and enough different sources) to have personal experience with the technology.

Absent that experience, it's like hearing "I don't like broccoli" from a person that has never tasted broccoli.

Mark

 

[RobertR]

It's relevant if you are arguing against HDR

Mark

What argument against HDR? You're making a strawman argument. My post addressed your statement about movies being "real", not HDR. That's why your post about viewing HDR is irrelevant.

 

[Sam Posten]

Move along.

 

[david hare]

Does not HDR also carry metadata for color mapping? WIth this it's clear some players are superior to others in enabling and optimizing it. The best player player I now have (out of three) is the Panasonic UD900 which sadly did not get released in the States as Panny seems to have pulled its domestic product there.

 

[brap]

One question on UHDs that uprez movies finished in 2K digital intermediate. Is there any improvement or would it be just as good and space saving to provide it on a UHD disc in 1080p with HDR? The encode would shine with the newer h265 codec, 10-12 bit color, and plenty of space for all other extras or an extra long movie.

 

[JediFonger]

yep, finished DCP is greater than what standard BD can provide, so even though resolution is uprezzed, UHD gives the 2k DCP more headroom especially in colors/HDR that doesn't exist with BDs.

less about codecs/resolution, but more about colors, you'll see more on UHD due to it supporting HDR10/DV vs. BD which doesn't support HDR.

i truly wished that they had just provided 2k+ HDR i think i could have just lived w/that vs. higher res.

One question on UHDs that uprez movies finished in 2K digital intermediate. Is there any improvement or would it be just as good and space saving to provide it on a UHD disc in 1080p with HDR? The encode would shine with the newer h265 codec, 10-12 bit color, and plenty of space for all other extras or an extra long movie.

 

[Sean Bryan]

Does not HDR also carry metadata for color mapping? WIth this it's clear some players are superior to others in enabling and optimizing it. The best player player I now have (out of three) is the Panasonic UD900 which sadly did not get released in the States as Panny seems to have pulled its domestic product there.

The metadata contained in HDR is often incorrect and useless. It does not tell HDR displays how to properly map to the capability of the display (though the Dolby Vision and HDR10+ variants are supposed to basically do that, normal HDR does not).

The Panasonic UB900 is certainly available in the States. It is one of the most popular UHD players, and the new model (UB820) is just starting to become available.

And just to clarify based on the comments/questions I read from a few in this thread: there is no HDR “layer” and HDR cannot be “turned off”. HDR is HDR. It can be manipulated and mapped in different ways to the capability of the monitor on which it is being displayed, but it will always be HDR. Untouched, remapped, or otherwise.

The quality of the mapping will vary from CE manufacturer to manufacturer. Precisely because (with the exception of variants like Dolby Vision and HDR10+) there is no standard in the format for how the original grade should be tone mapped to the capability of the display.

 

[JediFonger]

is it time to bring back THX cert for HDR? lol