UHD Why I’m looking forward to a HDR release of the Godfather Movies (1 Viewer)

[Synnove]

The biggest advantages of HDR come in the form of:

-making it very hard to hard-clip highlight information (which has been a problem on many blu-ray transfers), which can help when mimicking film's roll off response to being "over driven"
-due to a lack of hard clipping, detail can be preserved in highlight information
-very efficient use of available bits (10-12bpc) by Dolby's PQ curve to render banding a thing of the past, even with the increased dynamic range.

The general guidance from what I've seen is to grade a transfer much like you'd grade an SDR version, with the majority of content being between 0-100 nits, with the extra flexibility of having some brighter parts that go in to 200 nits, and specular highlights going even higher if necessary.

If colorists stick to that mentality as a general rule for film transfers, would this not be faithful to a theatrical experience whilst taking advantage of technological developments?

 

[Robert Harris]

The biggest advantages of HDR come in the form of:

-making it very hard to hard-clip highlight information (which has been a problem on many blu-ray transfers), which can help when mimicking film's roll off response to being "over driven"
-due to a lack of hard clipping, detail can be preserved in highlight information
-very efficient use of available bits (10-12bpc) by Dolby's PQ curve to render banding a thing of the past, even with the increased dynamic range.

The general guidance from what I've seen is to grade a transfer much like you'd grade an SDR version, with the majority of content being between 0-100 nits, with the extra flexibility of having some brighter parts that go in to 200 nits, and specular highlights going even higher if necessary.

If colorists stick to that mentality as a general rule for film transfers, would this not be faithful to a theatrical experience whilst taking advantage of technological developments?

Since every film is different...

 

[smithbrad]

Since every film is different...

Just trying to understand your position. Do you see any merit in the use of HDR? If so, what? If not, Why?

 

[Robert Harris]

Just trying to understand your position. Do you see any merit in the use of HDR? If so, what? If not, Why?

Certainly. For some films, old and new. Older with droit moral, presuming the elements allow it.

New? Go for it, especially if used during conception, prod and post.

No problem overall with HDR.

 

[smithbrad]

Certainly. For some films, old and new. Older with droit moral, presuming the elements allow it.

New? Go for it, especially if used during conception, prod and post.

No problem overall with HDR.

I believe I got it.

For new films, where the creators are available throughout the process, you should be able to assume their intent will be carried through to the final product, whether deciding to utilize HDR or not.

For older films, the most important step is whether it can first be restored to meet the original intent of the creators. If done, then it can be evaluated as to whether the expanded color space of HDR provides any meaningful value in replicating the original intent to a digital format over not using HDR. It can't hurt if used correctly, but may provide no perceived value. However, an obvious fear is that those at the HDR switchboard may become over zealous with the capability and become revisionist or just feel the need to make change for no better reason than to support selling a new format.

As a long-time software developer I have worked with simple images. Many times they were originally stored with the capability of 16.7M colors, and to save memory I would convert them to a 256K or even down to a 256 color space with no perceived loss, or in some cases, no loss in quality. In simple terms, just because more range may be available, doesn't always mean it is necessary or need be used.

If I missed the point, I'm sure someone will let me know

 

[Synnove]

For older films, the most important step is whether it can first be restored to meet the original intent of the creators. If done, then it can be evaluated as to whether the expanded color space of HDR provides any meaningful value in replicating the original intent to a digital format over not using HDR

Important to remember that HDR isn't a color space nor a bit depth; HDR can be used with even REC709 if one wanted, or REC2020 space could be used with SDR. It's better to think of HDR as a new bit value -> optical function intended to replace the gamma function, and as a new brightness range that video is mastered in.

The idea behind the gamma function (REC1886 to be specific) is you can make MUCH more efficient use of the available bits-per-channel by taking advantage of the fact that human vision has an easier time noticing differences in in two close dark shades vs two close bright shades; more bits are allocated to the darker parts of the image. This efficient allocation of bits helps to avoid the perception of banding or stair stepping on smooth gradients. Problem is the gamma function was modeled after CRT behavior which, while decent, isn't necessarily the most efficient use of the bits available; even with 10 bits a REC1886 video signal would still have visible banding.

Before describing HDR, it's important to remember that a white pixel value correlated to about 80-100 nits back in the CRT days, so displays were *generally* calibrated with that in mind, and video transfers were *generally* mastered within the range of 0-100 nits. Given that most Blu-Rays, which *generally* use the REC1886 gamma function, look pretty good using this system, it's fair to say that most of the information the colorist would wish to present resides within that 0-100nit range. Unfortunately, one of the problems with this limited range is that highlights can easily be hard clipped which destroys the detail within those highlights.

HDR is centered around two new developments: a new bit value -> optical function by Dolby called the Perceptual Quantizer, and a new brightness range of 0-10,000 nits (10k nits is about the brightness of a fluorescent tube). Dolby's PQ function is so efficient with it's usage of bits that it can cover the range of 0-10,000 nits using 12 bits without any visible banding. The averaged brightness of an average frame mastered in HDR is, ideally, not much more than the averaged brightness of an average frame mastered in SDR in that the majority of material resides within 0-100 nits (with 100 being the white value we are familiar with), but the colorist has that extra 100-10,000 nit range for elements of the frame that need that extra brightness (such as specular highlights) whilst preserving detail in those areas.

Basically, if the colorist is using the system as intended by the developers of this system, your average brightness within the frame will be similar to Blu-ray, just with the added benefit that highlight detail is preserved and the capability to make brighter elements stand out if necessary. As you can see, if a colorist deems it necessary, they could grade no frame elements above 100nits, keeping the grade similar to SDR. HDR doesn't automatically imply that content need be brighter, it simply provides a framework that accommodates many more artistic intentions vs the older SDR system.

 

[EnricoE]

Like Synnove posted above, this was my understanding for the use of HDR.
I don't want movies slammed with HDR just for the sake of it. It's like making
a 5.1 mix from a mono source, that in the end sounds like shit, e.g. Conan The Destroyer.

So when I finally watched the Blu-ray of Godfather 1 & 2, I saw potential for HDR to "fix" some
issues I had, like the redish/orange blacks, which was absent in the documentary. I'm not after a new
look for said movie or any movie. But when posted this, it felt more like "How dare you to speak
bad about this work done to the Godfather". I actually was looking for an explanation why there
are difference from the doc to finished movie, while doc implicates "Look what we have achieved".

HDR should be applied with care and knowledge and any movie shot on film could benefit from it,
no matter if color or black & white movies.

So.... a movie like The Bridge on the River Kwai, on UHD BD with HDR applied, doesn't benefit from it?
Idk, as I haven't seen this release yet. Or what about movies shot on 70mm like 2001, Lawrence of Arabia,
The Hateful Eight or great 65mm movies like Cleopatra, Ben-Hur? Wouldn't a movie like Casablanca,
Schindler's List benefit too from HDR? I would say "Yes, absolutely".

 

[Robert Harris]

Like Synnove posted above, this was my understanding for the use of HDR.
I don't want movies slammed with HDR just for the sake of it. It's like making
a 5.1 mix from a mono source, that in the end sounds like shit, e.g. Conan The Destroyer.

So when I finally watched the Blu-ray of Godfather 1 & 2, I saw potential for HDR to "fix" some
issues I had, like the redish/orange blacks, which was absent in the documentary. I'm not after a new
look for said movie or any movie. But when posted this, it felt more like "How dare you to speak
bad about this work done to the Godfather". I actually was looking for an explanation why there
are difference from the doc to finished movie, while doc implicates "Look what we have achieved".

HDR should be applied with care and knowledge and any movie shot on film could benefit from it,
no matter if color or black & white movies.

So.... a movie like The Bridge on the River Kwai, on UHD BD with HDR applied, doesn't benefit from it?
Idk, as I haven't seen this release yet. Or what about movies shot on 70mm like 2001, Lawrence of Arabia,
The Hateful Eight or great 65mm movies like Cleopatra, Ben-Hur? Wouldn't a movie like Casablanca,
Schindler's List benefit too from HDR? I would say "Yes, absolutely".

Wonderful!

 

[EnricoE]

Seriously Mr. Harris, you can keep your stupid sarcasm!
It seams like to "criticize" your work doesn't result in answers on why i'm seeing what i'm seeing,
but merely ends in crybaby responses.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Enough! There won't be another warning issued in this thread. We can't answer what you're seeing because many of us are not seeing what you are seeing with the Godfather Blu-rays.

 

[Robert Harris]

Seriously Mr. Harris, you can keep your stupid sarcasm!
It seams like to "criticize" your work doesn't result in answers on why i'm seeing what i'm seeing,
but merely ends in crybaby responses.

The answer is, that one cannot “fix” an issue that does not exist in the real world.

The Godfather films walk an extremely fine line between light and dark, shadow detail, no shadow detail, extremely slight shadow detail, and presumed under, or over-exposure, when exposures are precisely where the filmmakers designed them to be.

Likewise, the films have an extremely precise color scheme, that changes slightly from era to era.

If a viewer deigns something to be incorrect, based upon their own set of personal desires and parameters, that does not make it so.

It merely sets something up in the viewers mind, allowing them to tell themselves that something they believe they’re seeing is incorrect, and thus not fitting a preconceived norm.

There are numerous films that, to the uneducated (and that is not meant as a personal affront) viewer, appear odd, as they are set apart from that norm.

But keep in mind that cinema is not meant to reproduce a normalcy of life. It is art, as seen through the eyes, and specific intentions, of artists.

At some point, as you view films at home, presuming that your equipment is properly calibrated, you must learn to trust what you’re seeing, as correct, and possibly try to understand what makes it seem “off” to you.

I’m trying to explain this in the best way possible.

The best advise that I can give you, is to educate yourself as to what you will be seeing, before you do so, as that may raise the level of your enjoyment.

Cinema is very much like classical music or fine wine.

Sometimes ones’ palette must be trained.

RAH

 

[Jimbo64]

The Godfather trilogy looks great on my OLED

 

[Scott Merryfield]

The Godfather trilogy looks great on my OLED

We have not watched the BD's since I upgraded to a 4K display. It's time to rectify that situation.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Maybe its time somebody started a list of films that wont benefit from 4k to a major degree due to production choices.

 

[Robert Harris]

Maybe its time somebody started a list of films that wont benefit from 4k no matter what.

Since one already receives a decent uprez via a quality player, that list would include the majority of non-large format productions.

 

[smithbrad]

At some point, as you view films at home, presuming that your equipment is properly calibrated, you must learn to trust what you’re seeing, as correct, and possibly try to understand what makes it seem “off” to you. RAH

Completely understand. However, what becomes difficult from a fan/consumer perspective is trying to understand when what we are seeing is the true artistic intent vs. flaws in the source material that can or couldn't be easily corrected, limitation in the source materials that just are what they are, errors/revisionism introduced during a transfer/restoration effort, limitations in the technology available at any given time, financial constraints, and a lack of proper reference to always know how a particular film is intended to look. If there was a consistent standard of quality performed across all releases it would be easier to just accept what we are seeing is correct. Unfortunately, when you mix the inconsistencies with questionable memories and the "educated" arm chair fan with an internet connection to do research, there are going to be many questions.

For me, forums like this, while mostly great, can sometimes be destructive at the same time. It can be great to learn about releases, read reviews, and learn about various aspects of the industry. At the same time, I can't help but some times read about potential flaws that may or may not even be there, hindering the enjoyment of watching a film. Luckily, I have a bad memory and will typically forget what I've read after a while and will just sit back and enjoy the show.

 

[sleroi]

Since one already receives a decent uprez via a quality player, that list would include the majority of non-large format productions.

I think this is where the confusion lies. Jumanji, Apollo 13, A Few Good Men, Groundhog Day, the Dark Crystal, Die Hard, the Matrix. All of these look spectacular in 4k.

In your few words about... you even mentioned that Apollo 13 presumably looks better now than it did upon initial theatrical release. And you gave glowing reviews of A Few Good Men and Die Hard.

But now you are saying that since these weren't photographed in large format that a 4k uprez of a regular blu ray should suffice just fine.

When not talking about a specific title you tend to downplay 4k and hdr, yet the majority of your comments pertaining to specific titles tend to be overwhelmingly positive.

Please don't misunderstand me, I have the utmost respect for you and your expertise and have learned a tremendous amount reading your posts.

This is just something ive noticed and am curious about.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I think this is where the confusion lies. Jumanji, Apollo 13, A Few Good Men, Groundhog Day, the Dark Crystal, Die Hard, the Matrix. All of these look spectacular in 4k.

In your few words about... you even mentioned that Apollo 13 presumably looks better now than it did upon initial theatrical release. And you gave glowing reviews of A Few Good Men and Die Hard.

But now you are saying that since these weren't photographed in large format that a 4k uprez of a regular blu ray should suffice just fine.

When not talking about a specific title you tend to downplay 4k and hdr, yet the majority of your comments pertaining to specific titles tend to be overwhelmingly positive.

Please don't misunderstand me, I have the utmost respect for you and your expertise and have learned a tremendous amount reading your posts.

This is just something ive noticed and am curious about.

I have the utmost respect for RAH too, but if that's what he's saying then I don't agree with him that a 4K uprez of a Blu-ray will look as good as a 4K/UHD disc of the same title. I won't even get into the audio aspect improvement of Dolby Atmos.

 

[Robert Harris]

I have the utmost respect for RAH too, but if that's what he's saying then I don't agree with him that a 4K uprez of a Blu-ray will look as good as a 4K/UHD disc of the same title. I won't even get into the audio aspect improvement of Dolby Atmos.

Robert...

We’re discussing films NOT finished in 4k.

To be clear, and presuming that the Blu-ray and 4k disc are derived from the same recent master, you’ll get a slight quality bump in image quality in viewing the 4k vs your player uprez.

They will not be equal, but can be very close. The Oppo does a superb job of uprezzing.

But the more obvious upgrade, which for many is the rationale for replacing a quality HD Blu-ray, will be the audio upgrade to Atmos or X.

I did that recently for the Pitch Perfect films.

 

[Lord Dalek]

I'm pretty confident in saying a 4k UHD of Renoir's Rules of the Game will look no better than the Criterion blu-ray.