|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
Jun 9 2015, 7:20pm
Post #1 of 6
(527 views)
Shortcut
|
|
HDR - I'm scared for the future of film...
|
Can't Post
|
|
What's HDR?
HDR (High Dynamic Range) is an image process that vastly increases the contrast of an image, creating much more detail in both dark and light areas of the image and creating deeper blacks and whiter whites overall.
The process can be used wonderfully, particularly in still photography, to create a very striking and dramatic image. But the result is generally quite unnatural. If you Google "HDR comparisons" you'll see what I mean. The images are cool, but they look artificial and over-styled compared to their more traditional counterparts. They also appear more flat, because the background is more saturated (bringing it forward) as is the foreground (pushing it backwards) so that the whole image looks like a strange optical illusion. You don't get that sense of the landscape moving into the distance because, unlike normal photography, the landscape doesn't fade or desaturate as it moves away. Instead, all areas of the image jump out at you.
So, what's this got to do with films?
Well, although the process has been around for a while, it's only recently started being used in movies. It's what gives The Hobbit that over-bright, over-digital "I can't quite tell what's wrong with it" kind of look, it's also being used on Jurassic World, which is why there are so many complaints about the "bad CGI" - HDR makes CGI look terrible.
So why complain, it's an artistic choice and only a few movies will use it, right?
Well, no. Because HDR creates an artificial sense of detail, there has been a great push for all digital movies to use HDR to make up for the low resolution of cameras. So basically, 4K isn't as high a resolution as film, but with HDR we can digitally enhance it to look just as detailed (although, the result is really digital, saturated and weird). This isn't such an awful thing, it's the director's decision how they want the film to look - just like any aesthetic choice, and this could just be a fad.
So why the fear?
Well, as it turns out, it's a pretty significant fad. Because all future 4K remasters (that's ALL your old movies, on film and digital) are going to be scanned and enhanced in HDR for their UHD (4K) Blu-ray releases. I have a pretty big problem with this. I don't want to watch The Lord of the Rings in weird crazy colours and bad looking CGI (although it would be more in-line with The Hobbit) nor do I want to see any other great classics digitally "enhanced" for the sake of marketing fads. It's effectively taking all those great films from the past and saying "this is how they'd look on digital" without giving you the option of seeing them in their traditional and more cinematic state. 
You think the "green-tint" was bad, wait until you see HDR Lord of the Rings. 
(This post was edited by AshNazg on Jun 9 2015, 7:25pm)
|
|
|
MatthewJer18
Rohan
Jun 9 2015, 9:08pm
Post #2 of 6
(486 views)
Shortcut
|
|
There's a chance that it will merely be a fad, but...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
There's also the possibility that, as the process is adopted on a wider scale, the technology will also improve. Film has been perfected over the decades; there's no reason why digital filmmaking can't follow the same path. While I agree that it shouldn't come at the expense of film, it's exciting new territory for directors who are only now just starting their careers. Filmmaking has never been more accessible for individuals who have an interest.
Having seen previews for Jurassic Work on a nice, large screen, I think the visual effects look fantastic, but I'm also one of those odd fans who thought The Hobbit was quite beautiful too. Only time will tell if more films experimenting with this process allow it to become more sophisticated and less "unnatural."
(This post was edited by MatthewJer18 on Jun 9 2015, 9:10pm)
|
|
|
Old Toby
Grey Havens
Jun 9 2015, 10:39pm
Post #3 of 6
(475 views)
Shortcut
|
Thanks! I am not very versed in technological stuff, but I do see how different things look on screen even with Blu-ray and HD TVs. Some people embrace the higher-defined-than-normal look and some prefer the 'older' technology with its softer, more natural look. I think it largely depends on what you are watching. The images do appear more 'flat' and more like people are on a set, I think. Also you can see so much detail that you can also see all the faults, such as bad make-up, etc. And yeah, I think it's probably going to be the standard more than the exception in general in years to come. It's a pity that we will probably have less and less choices, our options being dictated by forces beyond our control.
"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
Jun 10 2015, 9:40pm
Post #4 of 6
(423 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Like anything, it can work really well if done right...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'll hold judgement on Jurassic World until I've seen it in full, but The Hobbit is an example of using the technique to the absolute extreme, particularly AUJ. If it's used for a few films then I'm okay with it, it's an interesting look. But if remasters in HDR look as unsubtle as The Hobbit does then it'll get old fast and we'll all be getting our 1080p versions out just to see the colours as they were intended to look.
It particularly worries me for films that are supposed to have very subtle and natural styles, or even nature documentaries. We'll have to wait for December to see how it looks, it could be a really good thing. But I am concerned
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
Jun 23 2015, 10:42pm
Post #5 of 6
(351 views)
Shortcut
|
|
So apparently there will be two types of UHD Blu-ray...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
"UHD Blu-ray" and "UHD+HDR Blu-ray".
Some Sony documents have leaked that show two types of UHD Blu-Ray which will require different UHD Blu-Ray players and different UHD TVs, depending on their HDR capability. These both also require different HDMI cables.
How they expect to sell this on a consumer market I've no idea. They're expecting average consumers to know if their TV is HDR ready, and their player, and know which discs to buy for their players and what HDMIs to use  It all seems unnecessarily complicated.
(This post was edited by AshNazg on Jun 23 2015, 10:48pm)
|
|
|
|
|
