ACES workflow?

[Nick Shaw]

No, the ODTs are for standards, such as sRGB, P3, Rec.709 etc. Display devices should be calibrated to one of those standards, so a standard ODT is appropriate. It would in theory be possible to build a custom ODT for a non-standard device, but that would rather defeat the point of having standards.

 

[Sabovic Adis]

Ok.

Why are sRGB monitors, for example, by default, uncalibrated to sRGB standard?
Isn't that a faulty device then?
So-called sRGB?!

(Not trolling, really wanna know.)

 

[Marc Wielage]

Why are sRGB monitors, for example, by default, uncalibrated to sRGB standard? Isn't that a faulty device then? So-called sRGB?!

I guess it would be for the same reason that a standard exists for video monitors -- Rec709 -- but the consumer TV sets you buy in stores generally ignore this standard. They do it out of cheapness and ignorance more than anything else, plus the need to hype a really bright picture in the showroom. The picture is bright, but it's not accurate.

If a monitor isn't calibrated to a known standard, you could be looking at anything and have no idea what you're really seeing in terms of brightness and contrast and color. It's a shame that manufacturers don't routinely offer a menu option to specifically select sRGB or Rec709 and have something "close" to these standards kick in. Even then, it's going to be off a little bit just because of variances on the manufacturing line, along with panel inconsistency.

 

[M.Halsell]

And to your point Marc, HDR will be next wave of acronym to sell consumer displays that may or may not meet the HDR standard to varying degrees. Obviously, once that standard is solidified. As well will HDR color grading be attempted on non calibrated consumer displays for those so inclined.

 

[Sabovic Adis]

I guess it would be for the same reason that a standard exists for video monitors -- Rec709 -- but the consumer TV sets you buy in stores generally ignore this standard. They do it out of cheapness and ignorance more than anything else, plus the need to hype a really bright picture in the showroom. The picture is bright, but it's not accurate.

If a monitor isn't calibrated to a known standard, you could be looking at anything and have no idea what you're really seeing in terms of brightness and contrast and color. It's a shame that manufacturers don't routinely offer a menu option to specifically select sRGB or Rec709 and have something "close" to these standards kick in. Even then, it's going to be off a little bit just because of variances on the manufacturing line, along with panel inconsistency.

Thank You, Marc! That's exactly why I rarely change monitors, be it video or audio (been listening through same pair of screamers since '96 :rofl, and when I do, I run all the stuff I have on all of my TBs of disks again, just to get used to new look and feel of the monitor.
I stick with the stuff I know. :biggrin:

Just for fun, is it safe to say that a 19 Mpix camera is really a 19 Mpix camera? I mean, do I really have to count the photosites myself? :sifone:

 

[Marc Wielage]

And to your point Marc, HDR will be next wave of acronym to sell consumer displays that may or may not meet the HDR standard to varying degrees. Obviously, once that standard is solidified. As well will HDR color grading be attempted on non calibrated consumer displays for those so inclined.

That's the real trick: trying to figure out the audience for HDR. Already, people are nervous that some so-called "HDR" consumer sets can only hit 800 nits and not 1000. How they're going to handle 2000 nits or (god help us) 3000 nits is very specious.

This piece on RedSharkNews, titled "HDR: There's Still Work to Be Done," mentions that there were pseudo-HDR pro displays at only 400 nits, which is really dodgy. There were a handful of new HDR displays shown, but most of them were prototypes and probably won't ship until the end of the year (if then)...

http://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/3429-hdr-s-domination-of-nab-2016

I like the idea of HDR, and when it's done right it looks very good, but I'm skeptical that all of this is gonna happen as quickly as some believe.

 

[jake blackstone]

Already, people are nervous that some so-called "HDR" consumer sets can only hit 800 nits and not 1000. How they're going to handle 2000 nits or (god help us) 3000 nits is very specious.

It's not the peak brightness, that determines the validity of HDR and it never was. The idea of HDR, which you apparently still missing is NOT brightness, but the DYNAMIC RANGE.
OLED monitors can display HDR with peak brightness of "only" 540 nits. And that is because they are capable of much deeper blacks, which helps meeting the minimum dynamic range for HDR.
When SDR and HDR is seen side by side, most of the time images will look identical. That is until we see a specular portion of the image. That is where we will see the difference in display technologies. The specular portion on SDR image looks grey and dull, where on HDR it looks bright and full of life. It sparkles. So, to appreciate HDR you don't need to blast anyone with 10000 nits. Just a little bit (at least 540 nits on 10% of the screen) will do ya...

 

[Sabovic Adis]

Who invented HDR and where their screens can be bought? :biggrin:

 

[jake blackstone]

Who invented HDR and where their screens can be bought? :biggrin:

Dolby and right now you can't buy their monitor. Displaying HDR correctly on consumer monitor is another matter altogether. Right now we have a raging format war going on. Until that settles down, I wouldn't buy anything...

 

[Sabovic Adis]

Dolby and right now you can't buy their monitor. Displaying HDR correctly on consumer monitor is another matter altogether. Right now we have a raging format war going on. Until that settles down, I wouldn't buy anything...

Ha!
Lead by example, a! :rofl:

Are those "consumer monitors" to be certified/authorised by Dolby then, if Dolby is the one behind HDR? Is it that what all this fuss is about? :biggrin:

 

[jake blackstone]

Ha!
Lead by example, a! :rofl:

Are those "consumer monitors" to be certified/authorised by Dolby then, if Dolby is the one behind HDR? Is it that what's this fuss all about? :biggrin:

No, Dolby is behind the Dolby Vision standard. Visio is one of the TV manufacturers, that adheres to that format. Alliance is the other competing camp, that does the consumer monitor certification for that standard.

 

[Stacey Spears]

VIZIO and LG offer Dolby Vision capable displays. Samsung, LG, VIZIO, Sony and Panasonic offer HDR10 capable displays. HDR10 is a subset of Dolby Vision. They use the same EOTF (SMPTE ST2084) and ST2084 (static metadata) that Dolby created and submitted to SMPTE. Dolby has been working on Dolby Vision since at least 2003.

There are Dolby Vision and HDR10 capable displays from other manufacturers as well. I don't recall them off hand.

 

[Sabovic Adis]

Are those findings in EOTF - Society of Motion Picture & Television Engineers pdf correct?

Cool stuff this PQ, but how is it gonna be achieved with "linear" sensors? Analogue Dolby pre-eq insert before A to D converter?! :biggrin:

 

[Stacey Spears]

Are those findings in EOTF - Society of Motion Picture & Television Engineers pdf correct?

Cool stuff this PQ, but how is it gonna be achieved with "linear" sensors? Analogue Dolby pre-eq insert before A to D converter?!

Give this white paper a read, it gives you an overview of HDR.

Are those "consumer monitors" to be certified/authorised by Dolby then, if Dolby is the one behind HDR? Is it that what all this fuss is about?

Dolby works closely with its partners on implementing Dolby Vision. A lot of hand holding goes on. The VIZIO and LGs are first gen Dolby Vision displays. You will see things mature and get better over the new few years.

One thing about HDR is that content is being mastered on displays superior to those being viewed on. As the consumer displays get better, you can go back and re-watch the content and the experience will improve as the displays do.

In the video that Phil was on during NAB, one filmmaker commented that he did not like HDR because you can see the shadow detail. I had lunch with Ivan Agerton today and he expressed similar concern. I explained that this is all creative intent. If you don't want to see shadow detail, you don't have to see it. HDR is another tool for the filmmaker. You can take advantage of it or not or how much you want to take advantage. Early titles are going to have a lot more pop and sizzle as its new. Much like early 3D poking you in the eye or surround sound ping-ponging around the room.

And there will certainly be others who might re-grade your content without your input. Ivan was telling me about someone who re-colored Man of Steel for HDR w/o the filmmakers involvement and I guess really changed the look. (3rd hand info at this point)

 

[Marc Wielage]

In the video that Phil was on during NAB, one filmmaker commented that he did not like HDR because you can see the shadow detail. I had lunch with Ivan Agerton today and he expressed similar concern. I explained that this is all creative intent. If you don't want to see shadow detail, you don't have to see it.

Yeah, detail can still be crushed. What's weird is that I saw quite a bit of HDR demo material where the blacks were clearly lifted compared to the standard DR display. To me, having that great a difference was weird. Sony's X300 demo was a lot brighter and did not lift the blacks.

And there will certainly be others who might re-grade your content without your input. Ivan was telling me about someone who re-colored Man of Steel for HDR w/o the filmmakers involvement and I guess really changed the look. (3rd hand info at this point)

Is that the fan thing where they "normalized" the saturation? Or did somebody actually do an HDR pass? I think Company 3 has been doing HDR versions for a few years now, and Stefan over there did Man of Steel and ​Batman/Superman.

 

[Stacey Spears]

s that the fan thing where they "normalized" the saturation?

I don't know, sorry. It came up during lunch yesterday and I did not get the specifics. I will follow-up with Ivan next time I see him. If it is simply a fan re-grading the movie for fun, then I don't get everyone being so upset as Ivan said. At least not anymore than a fan re-grading any other title.

During Xbox One development, Microsoft had licensed a bunch of crappy algorithms from AMD that did contrast enhancement, color enhancement, detail enhancement, etc... I blocked all of them from being used on the Xbox. The co-worker who wanted them in the product was pretty upset with me. He thought they were super important to have and he also wanted them on and not have the option to disable them. He did not get the idea of creative intent. As far as I know, he still does not. He simply felt they made the image look better. He kept escalating the issue. First to my boss, then his boss, then his boss and so on. Each time they came back and asked me if we should do it and every time I said no. They spent a lot of money licensing the algorithms and they did not even bother to ask the software team if they should. The HW team did the licensing. I remember one of the examples was on Avatar. He said look how much better this scene looks. I said if he did not like the look of Avatar, he should take it up with Jim. He wanted that look for a reason and who was this guy to go and change the look of the movie.

The algorithms weren't crap because they were poorly written. They were simply crap because of what they did.

 

[Sabovic Adis]

Give this white paper a read, it gives you an overview of HDR.

Oh my, knock-down in the first round! :rofl:

Here it goes:

• Color bit depth: 10 bits minimum for content and distribution, 10 bits for playback displays.

• Mastering display; transfer function: SMPTE ST2084 inverse EOTF; color space: minimum 100% of P3; peak luminance more than 1,000 nits; black level: less than 0.03 nits.​

• Playback display; transfer function: SMPTE ST2084 EOTF; color space: minimum 90% of P3; peak luminance more than 1,000 nits and black level less than 0.05 nits OR peak uminance more than 540 nits and black level less than 0.0005 nits.​

How I hate minimum-s without maximum-s and both without optimum-s; less-s and more-s without equal-s...

Say, display capable of 0.0004 - 6865.8976 nits is Mastering display or Playback display?

ST2084 maps each video signal code word to the same absolute luminance and chromaticity in every display (i.e. 10-bit code word 691 always maps to 500 nits). This allows each playback display to exactly match the luminance and chromaticity of the mastering reference display.

This is nice...

The PQ curve covers a much wider luminance range than HDTV and maps each signal value directly to the same absolute luminance level on every HDR display, unlike the traditional gamma curve, where a specific signal value produces a different luminance level on each different display, depending upon each display’s peak luminance.

...as is this, but when You have one these...

HDR10 is not yet fully specified from end to end. It has a complete mastering spec, but the playback spec is not complete, as there is no standard for HDR10 color volume mapping on playback. This allows the white point and EOTF to be verified and calibrated, but the color gamut can’t be calibrated, as there are no standardized targets.

...I mean, who's chasing whose tail...or head, man? :rofl:

Yes...

Color calibrating the new HDR TVs is more critical than ever to assure the highest possible image accuracy to the original creative intent.

...calibration (By manufacturer! Camera manufacturers do their stuff on a regular basis.) is crucial, but if You already have a ST2084 & PQ done (right!) by the manufacturer, and then You (re)calibrate with, say, CalMAN, how bright the cv. 691 is going to be? 500?

I say, include Brightness, Contrast etc. controls on monitor, but let them be soaked in polyoxybenzylmethylenglycolanhydride so nobody can mess around with that display, it's that important! It's monitor, man!
Or don't include them! :biggrin:


One other thing I always wanted to ask is:
Are cameras beeng built to complement displays or are displays are beeing built to complement cameras? Or better, what display is bulit to complement - what camera? Or vice versa?! Or none of it?!
It's like making internal-combustion engine with absolutely no chassis in mind...letalone the roads, as roads aren't invented yet. :rofl:

It's my understanding that there is no display capable of 16+ stops, but there is (are) camera(s) capable of such a DR and colour gamut. I say (Jarred, are You reading this?) make a HDR display worthy RED Weapon 8K and let's celebrate! That's it! :sifone:

Dolby works closely with its partners on implementing Dolby Vision. A lot of hand holding goes on. The VIZIO and LGs are first gen Dolby Vision displays. You will see things mature and get better over the new few years.

Ha! Knew it!

The Dolby Labs HDR system, called Dolby Vision, is a proprietary HDR system requiring display manufacturer licensing.

So, VIZIO and LG are complying
(act in accordance with a wish or command) to Dolby...and paying for compliance?! :rofl:

One thing about HDR is that content is being mastered on displays superior to those being viewed on. As the consumer displays get better, you can go back and re-watch the content and the experience will improve as the displays do.

In the video that Phil was on during NAB, one filmmaker commented that he did not like HDR because you can see the shadow detail. I had lunch with Ivan Agerton today and he expressed similar concern. I explained that this is all creative intent. If you don't want to see shadow detail, you don't have to see it. HDR is another tool for the filmmaker. You can take advantage of it or not or how much you want to take advantage. Early titles are going to have a lot more pop and sizzle as its new. Much like early 3D poking you in the eye or surround sound ping-ponging around the room.

And there will certainly be others who might re-grade your content without your input. Ivan was telling me about someone who re-colored Man of Steel for HDR w/o the filmmakers involvement and I guess really changed the look. (3rd hand info at this point)

Also, a number of studios respect creative intent to the point that they don’t plan on remastering existing content to HDR unless there is a member of the content’s original creative team available to guide or approve the newly graded HDR content.

This I found in this demistifyer too, Stacey, I bett it was You. :thumbsup:

 

[Marc Wielage]

During Xbox One development, Microsoft had licensed a bunch of crappy algorithms from AMD that did contrast enhancement, color enhancement, detail enhancement, etc... I blocked all of them from being used on the Xbox.

Jesus, what an awful story! You did the right thing. I can't stand that automatic crap changing the picture. In color-correction sessions, we fight for every little unit of black and luminance and chroma in the picture, and it can't even be 1% different or else it's wrong. Enhancement adds all kinds of crap in the picture... that's just misleading at best and pure evil at the worst.

So, VIZIO and LG are complying (act in accordance with a wish or command) to Dolby...and paying for compliance?!

Bear in mind that there were easy HD specs to comply with going back to the 1990s, and to my knowledge almost no consumer TV manufacturer ever really met them, even for sets cost $10,000-$12,000. There are a handful of consumer sets that you can barely get to reproduce these standards to a point. But the HDR standards are much, much harder to hit. Evem with pro displays costing many thousands of dollars, not many of them can hit 1000 nits; they might do 800 nits, which I think is one of the lower HDR standards. I don't know of any that can do 100% of the expanded color range yet.

 

[Sabovic Adis]

The same old, Marc, a? Write books first, and if You get to it, learn to write letters! :rofl:

:thumbsup: