Has anyone noticed Instagram's HDR revolution?

[RomiK]

9 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

@RomiK The cease and desist is directed at you in particular, do you not understand the request to stop throwing insults around and stick to the subject matter?  Massimo is allowed to disagree with you as you are with him but we are requesting both of you do it by clearly and calmly stating your cases.  If you can't solve it that way please agree to disagree.

 

Do we have double standards here or was it him who called me idiot and stupid first? When you read this topic from the beginning it was him in his second answer diverting from the topic subject and starting personal attacks:

 

'you make a lot of random assertions that make me conclude you really don’t understand the topic at all especially how it is implemented as your statement show a lot of confusion'

 

 ... and the discussion went south from there. The problem with pedantic characters like him is that by presenting their one-sided views and disregarding other views which they don't know about or disagree with they tend to spoil the mood of the community. Unless you put him on the leash you might as well call waterpixels.net community 'Interceptor121 private forum'.

 

See in this topic case he called the images overblown overexposed only to find out that they were not overexposed at the end. But what a mess in the meantime... he even lies about what he views the images on only to admit that for this and that reason he is not using his HDR monitor... and so he makes flat out statements and package them inside some mud made from technical terms ... and do I call him stupid even at this point? 

[TimG]

The point is that we do not want members having a go at each other. Respectful communication is number 1 in our Terms and Conditions. Nor do we have any desire to adjudicate in a "He Said, He Said" dispute.

 

We're all adults and from the outset of establishing this forum, we asked that people treat each other with respect, avoid name-calling and if disagreements exist, just agree to disagree - and move on.

 

We have asked a number of times that this spat cease.

 

We really do not want to act like school teachers but this is the end of the road. We will lock this thread if this continues.

 

 

[Chris Ross]

4 hours ago, RomiK said:

 

Do we have double standards here or was it him who called me idiot and stupid first? When you read this topic from the beginning it was him in his second answer diverting from the topic subject and starting personal attacks:

 

 

We are not at all interested in who started it, I made it clear this was directed at both of you.  It is OK to disagree with other viewpoints and there is no requirement for you to agree or disagree with what Massimo posts or vice versa - it's called robust discussion.  If you disagree state your arguments as to why you disagree, back it up with logic and examples and leave it there.  No name calling or insults. 

 

Feel free to continue to discuss respectfully, however cross the line and as Tim says the thread is locked. 

[Guest]

This is the other image again the total dynamic range is around 8 stops before white balance

When you shift the red up and blue and green down this will drop to around 5

 

This is the image preview straight from raw digger

 

The RAW files has the info that the image was captured with Picture Profile HGL2 however no raw processor does anything with this information which is as the preview I show here

 

I believe the op may be confused by the picture profile which is used by the camera to present an image typically for movies where raw data is not saved and photos

 

The picture profile reads the raw information at 14 bits and through a specific gamma curve maps this into a 10 bits video using various compression techniques that try to fit the 14 stops into 10

However this is irrelevant for raw file processing the image shows low dynamic range and a predominance of blue green requiring an element of white balance that will bring the DR to 5 stops which is another classic example of standard low dynamic range image

Both the RAW files posted as example fit in what I defined to be a standard example of underwater photo with low dynamic range, in this case because it is ambient light there is very low contrast

[RomiK]

30 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

This is the other image again the total dynamic range is around 8 stops before white balance

When you shift the red up and blue and green down this will drop to around 5

 

This is the image preview straight from raw digger

 

The RAW files has the info that the image was captured with Picture Profile HGL2 however no raw processor does anything with this information which is as the preview I show here

 

I believe the op may be confused by the picture profile which is used by the camera to present an image typically for movies where raw data is not saved and photos

 

The picture profile reads the raw information at 14 bits and through a specific gamma curve maps this into a 10 bits video using various compression techniques that try to fit the 14 stops into 10

However this is irrelevant for raw file processing the image shows low dynamic range and a predominance of blue green requiring an element of white balance that will bring the DR to 5 stops which is another classic example of standard low dynamic range image

Both the RAW files posted as example fit in what I defined to be a standard example of underwater photo with low dynamic range, in this case because it is ambient light there is very low contrast

 

This is where and what I had in mind saying that technical analysis do not say the whole story in terms of resulting HDR image.

 

(FYI It just happened so that these images were shot with PP HLG as I was testing different scenarios of using Shinobi for video and picture capture. One way was Slog3 for both video and stills, the other HLG for both and I ended up with something else anyway. It's a matter of (in)accessibility of shin obi settings underwater but we covered that elsewhere on this forum.)

 

But as you pointed out the raw processor does not do anything with picture profile so recorded image still has its 14bit information. And what we do with this information on HDR capable screen is the whole point of HDR grade.

 

So the image may be flat as you shown above but it does not mean that the place where image was taken was flat. There were sun rays traveling through water and over sand, there were bubbles reflecting. On HDR screen we can extract relevant information from the raw file and display them to mimic actual condition. This is impossible on SDR screen and in SDR process as there are limits on brightness and colors available for display we could agree.

 

And then there is a problem in rendering the HDR image as unlike video the still image HDR standards are yet to be written and compatibility wars to be won. So for now it's .avif and instagram even though it has its limit as I shown in my newest post.

 

 

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, RomiK said:

 

This is where and what I had in mind saying that technical analysis do not say the whole story in terms of resulting HDR image.

 

(FYI It just happened so that these images were shot with PP HLG as I was testing different scenarios of using Shinobi for video and picture capture. One way was Slog3 for both video and stills, the other HLG for both and I ended up with something else anyway. It's a matter of (in)accessibility of shin obi settings underwater but we covered that elsewhere on this forum.)

 

But as you pointed out the raw processor does not do anything with picture profile so recorded image still has its 14bit information. And what we do with this information on HDR capable screen is the whole point of HDR grade.

 

So the image may be flat as you shown above but it does not mean that the place where image was taken was flat. There were sun rays traveling through water and over sand, there were bubbles reflecting. On HDR screen we can extract relevant information from the raw file and display them to mimic actual condition. This is impossible on SDR screen and in SDR process as there are limits on brightness and colors available for display we could agree.

 

And then there is a problem in rendering the HDR image as unlike video the still image HDR standards are yet to be written and compatibility wars to be won. So for now it's .avif and instagram even though it has its limit as I shown in my newest post.

 

 

I think you don’t understand how the camera operates

when you apply a picture profile the metering changes to take into account the fact the data will be compressed in 10 bits by the camera image pipeline 

this results in a change of the ISO however when data is recorded to file the data is processed as is even if the metadata is different 

when you take a shot at ISO 800 in slog3 the camera is actually shooting at ISO 100 because the log processing will expand later on the data

picture profiles are never to be used for photos under any circumstance because the alterations compromise the results 

In the specific of hlg2 there is no ISO shift therefore your raw files are totally identical to a standard photo without picture profile

the image i showed from rawdigger are exactly as the scene was they are not compressed in any shape or form

they are basically low dynamic range images and you can see they look pretty much as they would if you shoot ambient light without flash

the HLG curves do not shift ISO because they are made of a standard gamma for shadows and log for highlights so you can see record the raw data as is and compress into 10 bits using the algorithm 

hence in both your examples there was no HDR to be found and the images are just what they are

if you want to shoot images that have potential to be HDR the best is to shoot without picture profile and use zebra to check clipping

you can still use hlg2 if you really want to produce an heif out of camera though am not sure how it will be interpreted

in summary your two raw file fall in the low contrast use case I mention at the outset

my sunburst have some HDR potential but in my opinion didnt benefit a great deal either and for compatibility reasons not worth even bothering 

[RomiK]

10 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

I think you don’t understand how the camera operates

when you apply a picture profile the metering changes to take into account the fact the data will be compressed in 10 bits by the camera image pipeline 

this results in a change of the ISO however when data is recorded to file the data is processed as is even if the metadata is different 

when you take a shot at ISO 800 in slog3 the camera is actually shooting at ISO 100 because the log processing will expand later on the data

picture profiles are never to be used for photos under any circumstance because the alterations compromise the results 

In the specific of hlg2 there is no ISO shift therefore your raw files are totally identical to a standard photo without picture profile

the image i showed from rawdigger are exactly as the scene was they are not compressed in any shape or form

they are basically low dynamic range images and you can see they look pretty much as they would if you shoot ambient light without flash

the HLG curves do not shift ISO because they are made of a standard gamma for shadows and log for highlights so you can see record the raw data as is and compress into 10 bits using the algorithm 

hence in both your examples there was no HDR to be found and the images are just what they are

if you want to shoot images that have potential to be HDR the best is to shoot without picture profile and use zebra to check clipping

you can still use hlg2 if you really want to produce an heif out of camera though am not sure how it will be interpreted

in summary your two raw file fall in the low contrast use case I mention at the outset

my sunburst have some HDR potential but in my opinion didnt benefit a great deal either and for compatibility reasons not worth even bothering 

 Who was talking about ISO in the thread about HDR pictures ? 🙈 It has nothing to do why we discuss HDR imagery. You just muddy up the topic subject again.

 

You say HDR is of a little to no value for underwater photos so ok, stick to this, sit back, relax and watch how HDR photos will take over the online world the same way as video is doing. It's that simple. No need to muddy up the topic subject. 

 

Besides research a bit more on Sony's approach to ISO, you will discover some new world a bit different from what you thought. I won't muddy up this thread explaining you this.

 

So if you have nothing to say to HDR photos and cannot demonstrate that HDR images made from raw files posted would not be better or would be inferior to SDR images made from the same files then it is easy to just stay quiet. All other things you are trying to say just spoil the topic subject and frankly are irrelevant.

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, RomiK said:

 Who was talking about ISO in the thread about HDR pictures ? 🙈 It has nothing to do why we discuss HDR imagery. You just muddy up the topic subject again.

 

You say HDR is of a little to no value for underwater photos so ok, stick to this, sit back, relax and watch how HDR photos will take over the online world the same way as video is doing. It's that simple. No need to muddy up the topic subject. 

 

Besides research a bit more on Sony's approach to ISO, you will discover some new world a bit different from what you thought. I won't muddy up this thread explaining you this.

 

So if you have nothing to say to HDR photos and cannot demonstrate that HDR images made from raw files posted would not be better or would be inferior to SDR images made from the same files then it is easy to just stay quiet. All other things you are trying to say just spoil the topic subject and frankly are irrelevant.

You asked to examine two images and I did

During that process I confirmed using your own example that the use case for HDR in underwater photography is very small 

your own examples dont fit into this 

they are dull images with low contrast what else do you want to prove exactly?

The scene was flat exactly as it looks, if you go and stretch things to a display does not make the scene high dynamic range. The truth is in the raw data not in what you do with your display. Here there is a total confusion on your side

If your source is not HDR there is no point having an HDR target. The point is underwater images are rarely a suitable HDR use case even my sunburst and your scenes are as far as it could be from it

 

6 years ago I started shooting HDR video in HLG first and log later

I was approached by someone who was producing tons of example HDR videos even for Sony to ask me some details

at later stage I told this person I was no longer shooting HDR because I saw no value 

the communication stopped

 

the reality is HDR is more

suitable to video than it is to photos because you move the camera around and have less post processing tools

even so I find I dont need HDR

for photos I regularly check my topside landscape photos I do a lot of sunset and sunrises and even those rarely fit

 

i am driven by practical considerations and while I see the value of HDR imaging on sensors for phones as a way to overcome limited capabilities for camera it is not yet flying

 

I am not sure I am even interested in your prophecy but I want to make sure the images and video I produce look as good as they can and so far I have not needed HDR for anything 

so after the intial investigations I have dropped it. When it becomes of interest I will reconsider it

and thats all

regarding the ISO point I am afraid I know far more than you know, you read or you think you know and I have data that to back it up 

try that part I am looking forward to providing more education 😂 

Edited April 16 by Interceptor121

[RomiK]

43 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

You asked to examine two images and I did

During that process I confirmed using your own example that the use case for HDR in underwater photography is very small 

your own examples dont fit into this 

they are dull images with low contrast what else do you want to prove exactly?

 

well I offered raw files as you said the resulting images were just overexposed and clipped pieces of garbage 🤣 and that was before we learned you were looking at HDR files on an SDR display ... perhaps you learned something new too 🤣 so perhaps next time refrain from commenting until you actually see the subject of debate in the environment it was intended for - in this case it was high brightness HDR screen in HDR profile and correct software - until you do that the debate held over the analysis charts is pointless, you need to see HDR  to believe it.

 

Or perhaps there is a disconnect between what you and I understand by HDR image. For me it is a raw file rendition fully benefitting from high brightness high dynamic range screen, not some 450nits display even if it was 10bit. I take it many people understand by HDR those beautiful sunset images that you can print. But that is more of a tone mapping in my dictionary, not HDR, but we all have our own dictionaries. 

 

other than that I believe that the topic subject is exhausted and I am looking forward to Sony's ISO debate in a different forum and different time.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, RomiK said:

 

well I offered raw files as you said the resulting images were just overexposed and clipped pieces of garbage 🤣 and that was before we learned you were looking at HDR files on an SDR display ... perhaps you learned something new too 🤣 so perhaps next time refrain from commenting until you actually see the subject of debate in the environment it was intended for - in this case it was high brightness HDR screen in HDR profile and correct software - until you do that the debate held over the analysis charts is pointless, you need to see HDR  to believe it.

 

Or perhaps there is a disconnect between what you and I understand by HDR image. For me it is a raw file rendition fully benefitting from high brightness high dynamic range screen, not some 450nits display even if it was 10bit. I take it many people understand by HDR those beautiful sunset images that you can print. But that is more of a tone mapping in my dictionary, not HDR, but we all have our own dictionaries. 

 

other than that I believe that the topic subject is exhausted and I am looking forward to Sony's ISO debate in a different forum and different time.

No you posted images with the objective of showing they were HDR and you asked to edit them to show how they looked

Unfortunately they image you posted have very little dynamic range

I was mislead by your incorrect processing of your example where you made the image actually clip

Clearly you can stretch black and whites to fill up any stops you like but this is NOT an accurate rendition of the scene and neither is required it does not look good either

You seem to also make a lot of confusion between brightness and dynamic range

 

Or perhaps there is a disconnect between what you and I understand by HDR image. For me it is a raw file rendition fully benefitting from high brightness high dynamic range screen, not some 450nits display even if it was 10bit. I take it many people understand by HDR those beautiful sunset images that you can print. But that is more of a tone mapping in my dictionary, not HDR, but we all have our own dictionaries.

 

Dynamic range is the difference between the darkest and the brightest part of an image AS CAPTURED not as displayed. 

A display that is 400 nits peak but has a black level of 0.001 has a dynamic range of 400:0.001=400,000 or 18.6 stops

A display that has 1000 nits and black level of 1 has 1000:1=1000 or 9.98 stops like your atomos monitors that are not high dynamic range they are just bright

 

A bright screen is easier to see in daytime however that does not make it HDR. Dynamic range is scene referred you can have a high dynamic range scene that is very very dark the issue is displays are not good with blacks hence and cameras neither.

 

 

The recommended display from adobe is very much aligned to VESA 1000 that has a contrast ratio of 20,000 or 14.28 stops more is not necessary really because there are no cameras that can do more.

Besides OLED screen that have true blacks achieve an the same dynamic range with a peak brightness of 500 because their black level of 0.0005. I have HDR Tv since the first release and now have 3 OLEDs in my house I rather have tru blacks than get tanned in front of my screen.

 

As I see that you don't really understand the topic even for displays you may want to have a look at this

https://displayhdr.org/performance-criteria-cts1-1/ where you can see plenty of 400 500 600 nits displays are perfectly fine as long as they have good blacks. Your screen is at home not in the sun if you cant see it darken the room it has worked for cinemas since forever.

 

[RomiK]

9 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

No you posted images with the objective of showing they were HDR and you asked to edit them to show how they looked

Unfortunately they image you posted have very little dynamic range

I was mislead by your incorrect processing of your example where you made the image actually clip

Clearly you can stretch black and whites to fill up any stops you like but this is NOT an accurate rendition of the scene and neither is required it does not look good either

You seem to also make a lot of confusion between brightness and dynamic range

 

Or perhaps there is a disconnect between what you and I understand by HDR image. For me it is a raw file rendition fully benefitting from high brightness high dynamic range screen, not some 450nits display even if it was 10bit. I take it many people understand by HDR those beautiful sunset images that you can print. But that is more of a tone mapping in my dictionary, not HDR, but we all have our own dictionaries.

 

Dynamic range is the difference between the darkest and the brightest part of an image AS CAPTURED not as displayed. 

A display that is 400 nits peak but has a black level of 0.001 has a dynamic range of 400:0.001=400,000 or 18.6 stops

A display that has 1000 nits and black level of 1 has 1000:1=1000 or 9.98 stops like your atomos monitors that are not high dynamic range they are just bright

 

A bright screen is easier to see in daytime however that does not make it HDR. Dynamic range is scene referred you can have a high dynamic range scene that is very very dark the issue is displays are not good with blacks hence and cameras neither.

 

 

The recommended display from adobe is very much aligned to VESA 1000 that has a contrast ratio of 20,000 or 14.28 stops more is not necessary really because there are no cameras that can do more.

Besides OLED screen that have true blacks achieve an the same dynamic range with a peak brightness of 500 because their black level of 0.0005. I have HDR Tv since the first release and now have 3 OLEDs in my house I rather have tru blacks than get tanned in front of my screen.

 

As I see that you don't really understand the topic even for displays you may want to have a look at this

https://displayhdr.org/performance-criteria-cts1-1/ where you can see plenty of 400 500 600 nits displays are perfectly fine as long as they have good blacks. Your screen is at home not in the sun if you cant see it darken the room it has worked for cinemas since forever.

 

 

Your recommendation to watch  HDR content on 400-500nits ... what can I say... it just show kinda disconnect between your theory and the reality...

 

You seem to be good to put arguments on paper. In real life though, if it was as you say, OLED HDR TVs would not be pushing range of 1300 nits give or take and the newest wouldn't go for 2000 - even though OLEDs provide pitch blacks. And it would be good for the environment no? Saved energy.

 

Yeah and Apple which obviously have no clue about movies and pictures wouldn't reequipping their laptops and professional monitors with 1600nits screens... Yeah, not really needed for grading HDR movies and pictures🤦‍♀️ 

 

But from some reason the market concluded they need indeed the higher brightness to fully capture HDR requested. My samples were from 7m depth with sand rocks bottom and sun above. Really not that many chances for blacks. And so 450nits screen wouldn't be able to display what was it like there even if you would watch it in pitch dark. Technically? Doubt it. Perception-wise? Absolutely not.

 

And so I would suggest to get over the fact that not everything can be expressed in charts and the real world is different. The real world is our eyes and their perceptions. And again nitpicking on my words in pedantic way is like not helping - you knew what I meant by high brightness HDR but you just chose to pick what you liked from it.

So thank you for the lecture about the dynamic range but it was unnecessary.

 

 

 

Edited April 17 by RomiK

[Guest]

1 minute ago, RomiK said:

 

Your recommendation to watch  HDR content on 400-500nits ... what can I say... it just show kinda disconnect between your theory and the reality...

 

You seem to be good to put arguments on paper. In real life though, if it was as you say, OLED HDR TVs would not be pushing range of 1300 nits give or take and the newest wouldn't go for 2000 - even though OLEDs provide pitch blacks. And it would be good for the environment no? Saved energy.

 

But from some reason the market concluded they need indeed the higher brightness to fully capture HDR requested. My samples were from 7m depth with sand rocks bottom and sun above. Really not that many chances for blacks. And so 450nits screen wouldn't be able to display what was it like there even if you would watch it in pitch dark. Technically? Doubt it. Perception-wise? Absolutely not.

 

And so I would suggest to get over the fact that not everything can be expressed in charts and the real world is different. The real world is our eyes and their perceptions. And again nitpicking on my words in pedantic way is like not helping - you knew what I meant by high brightness HDR but you just chose to pick what you liked from it.

So thank you for the lecture about the dynamic range but it was unnecessary.

 

 

 

 

Excuse me dynamic range is what it is. The human eye is sensitive to contrast and dislikes excessive illumination levels or too bright images it even disturbs some individuals

This is not about charts is about reality. Having a bright display when you don't need it makes no difference

Having a phone with bright display that you use on the beach is a good idea hence all mobiles have super bright screens but thats a different story

 

You brought the topic and now you are not happy with the conclusions of those who actually designed the standard?

 

Am OLED screen 500 nits with tru black gives a truly immersive home cinema experience much better than other technologies and has very good transition.

This is why the best Tv on the market they only have peak brightness of 500-600 nits that coupled with true black give the best viewing experience for the human eye

 

 

And yes the image looks way better on an OLED than IPS panel which is why HDR content is better viewed on a Tv Set or an OLED monitor which are rare and expensive

 

 

[RomiK]

1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

 

Excuse me dynamic range is what it is. The human eye is sensitive to contrast and dislikes excessive illumination levels or too bright images it even disturbs some individuals

This is not about charts is about reality. Having a bright display when you don't need it makes no difference

Having a phone with bright display that you use on the beach is a good idea hence all mobiles have super bright screens but thats a different story

 

You brought the topic and now you are not happy with the conclusions of those who actually designed the standard?

 

Am OLED screen 500 nits with tru black gives a truly immersive home cinema experience much better than other technologies and has very good transition.

This is why the best Tv on the market they only have peak brightness of 500-600 nits that coupled with true black give the best viewing experience for the human eye

 

 

And yes the image looks way better on an OLED than IPS panel which is why HDR content is better viewed on a Tv Set or an OLED monitor which are rare and expensive

 

 

 

 So enlighten me... why is that they drool over nits over at PCMag? And why is LG putting out TVs with this anyway? Or is it not LG among the best as they exceed 600nits? Isn't this peak brightness actual useful in HDR world? Or would you prefer to watch 243 nits white screen? I am kinda getting confused 🙂

[Davide DB]

Romik, 
I think you are making a huge confusion by mixing different topics. Also citing random sources on the net doesn't help.
You insist on brightness as an absolute value but I reiterate that it has nothing to do with HDR or general quality. The relationship between DR, contrast ratio and brightness has been well explained by Interceptor giving the correct definitions.
The fact that the whole internet stresses about the brightness of screens, follows the cell phone fashion: a 3000 nits display allows you to see TikTok on the beach. Similarly, a TV with exaggerated brightness allows you to watch a movie in a living room in bright light. But if you close the curtains you can enjoy a movie even with a display that has only 450 nits but blacks at 0.001.

 

Nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, RomiK said:

 

 So enlighten me... why is that they drool over nits over at PCMag? And why is LG putting out TVs with this anyway? Or is it not LG among the best as they exceed 600nits? Isn't this peak brightness actual useful in HDR world? Or would you prefer to watch 243 nits white screen? I am kinda getting confused 🙂

It is typical of some individuals to find one data point and try to drive conclusions or even use the data point to discredit someone else

 

It is called 'truth by google first hit'

 

What I reported are correct definitions

 

Edited April 17 by Interceptor121

[Chris Ross]

16 minutes ago, RomiK said:

 

 So enlighten me... why is that they drool over nits over at PCMag? And why is LG putting out TVs with this anyway? Or is it not LG among the best as they exceed 600nits? Isn't this peak brightness actual useful in HDR world? Or would you prefer to watch 243 nits white screen? I am kinda getting confused 🙂

Don't confuse what is used to sell equipment with what actually works best or what is actually needed, plenty of examples of that around like 100 MP phone cameras.  I believe there is some use in high nit ratings for example punching specular highlights above the screen average brightness to make them closer resemble what you actually see in the real world.   But you don't want large areas of the screen punching that high as it will dazzle you.   Good TVs can distinguish between specular highlights and large bright areas to achieve that.

 

But a lot is driven by marketing and also OLEDs are more limited in brightness output than traditional screens and traditional screen makers push brightness numbers they know OLED makers can't and don't need to match to try to compete.

 

 

[RomiK]

Guys, actually all of you, please read that text on picture one more time and try to put it into perspective. I din't choose it random nor did PCMag guys hunted for the biggest number. 

 

The key for you to understand that test and why is relevant for HDR are those percentages of white and that it was HDR signal (whether provided by AppleTV or what IDK)... So please read it again, think it through and hit me again... in the context of what I was saying about why the peak brightness is important for HDR...

Edited April 17 by RomiK

[RomiK]

BTW none of you bothered to download and see my .avif image from the other topic (shows zero downloads) - that one actually shows nicely also the point why you need high brightness HDR display... I guess it's difficult to discuss a topic without seeing what is topic about. 

 

Otherwise we can continue this discussion in perpetuity as none of the parties seems to understand what the other one has in mind. I am bringing examples at least... but nobody bothers to watch them (disclaimer though - they only show in specific HDR matching conditions - screen, software)

[RomiK]

I will try to help you to see HDR image using SDR tools 🙈😁 it's not perfect but it may show the spirit of it. I just took picture from the HDR 1600nits screen and converted HEIC into JPEG. While it might not show the luminance it shows details on the sharks back which you won't be able to get and display using SDR approach - even if you would be masking . Plus that luminance creates a real depth for the image but that can't be seen using SDR tools ... 

 

Edited April 17 by RomiK

[Davide DB]

35 minutes ago, RomiK said:

BTW none of you bothered to download and see my .avif image from the other topic (shows zero downloads) - that one actually shows nicely also the point why you need high brightness HDR display... I guess it's difficult to discuss a topic without seeing what is topic about. 

 

Otherwise we can continue this discussion in perpetuity as none of the parties seems to understand what the other one has in mind. I am bringing examples at least... but nobody bothers to watch them (disclaimer though - they only show in specific HDR matching conditions - screen, software)

 

Romik, I don't have an HDR monitor hence I didn't download your image nor I I did not intervene in the discussion when analyzing the image.
I am intervening just by commenting on some statements.

In a introductory technical paper I read:

 

Quote

So, what is HDR? What does it mean when a manufacturer brands a TV as “HDR” or a movie claims to have “HDR content”? There's no single color or luminance profile standard for HDR. Instead, there are many different proposed standards from various manufacturers and consortiums that together contribute to what we may term HDR. Without a single standard to calibrate to or validate against, there's no objective way to say what is or is not HDR. Manufacturers and moviemakers have had a field day with the current situation. In an effort to correct this issue, manufacturers, film and TV studios, content distributors and technology companies established the Ultra High Definition (UHD) alliance (see https://alliance.experienceuhd.com and https://displayhdr.org). Their mission is to publish specific recommendations for display specifications.

 

And more important:

 

Quote

But please remember, HDR isn't a single entity; it isn't just PQ or HLG, and it isn't just wide color gamut. HDR consists of HDR concepts—dynamic range, gamma curve, and wide color gamut—along with the systems' technical requirements to create these conditions. 

 

From the two industry links I read completely different standards.

 

 

As you see from this table the highest standards (true blacks) have a maximum brightness of 600 nits while having an incredible low black level.

So the whole point is having a contrast ratio, a DR that fits the human eye.

 

 

The above image explains why you can have a perfect HDR monitor with only 400 nits. (source: https://www.leader.co.jp/uploads/2022/03/wp2_hdr_e1_181205.pdf)

 

[RomiK]

Here is a raw file if you want to take a crack at SDR / HDR development and see for yourself. It's exposed a bit to the right but not clipping. Myself I see differences when .avif displayed on Apple Studio display 600 nits and XDR Pro with 1600 nits.

20240321-113515.ARW

[RomiK]

@Davide DB 

6 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

 

Romik, I don't have an HDR monitor hence I didn't download your image nor I I did not intervene in the discussion when analyzing the image.
I am intervening just by commenting on some statements.

In a introductory technical paper I read:

 

 

And more important:

 

 

From the two industry links I read completely different standards.

 

 

As you see from this table the highest standards (true blacks) have a maximum brightness of 600 nits while having an incredible low black level.

So the whole point is having a contrast ratio, a DR that fits the human eye.

 

 

The above image explains why you can have a perfect HDR monitor with only 400 nits. (source: https://www.leader.co.jp/uploads/2022/03/wp2_hdr_e1_181205.pdf)

 

 

I don't dispute the theory behind HDR and bare necessities and principle it describes. I am disputing the practical world use of such and encouraging anyone to see it for themselves. Our eyes are not placed in darkness nor we consume the content in the darkness. And so the need for the high brightness HDR displays is very much obvious and justified. Blacks will always be blacks but the highs will have different impact based on relative luminosity around.

 

And so back to HDR images - by the ability to display high dynamic range and the highs especially during the content consumption is making drastic impact - in a positive way - on the images impact.

 

with SDR image (Jpeg or on SDR screen) cranking up the brightness will only bring the whole image up. On 400nits HDR screen the highs will stop short of having meaningful impact even in room with average lightning as the human eye will perceive the brightness relatively...

 

So that's my line of thinking why HDR images will take over the online world soon. Not that important for all of us who print the images and sell them 🙂 but for online world and marketing it will be super important.

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, RomiK said:

@Davide DB 

 

I don't dispute the theory behind HDR and bare necessities and principle it describes. I am disputing the practical world use of such and encouraging anyone to see it for themselves. Our eyes are not placed in darkness nor we consume the content in the darkness. And so the need for the high brightness HDR displays is very much obvious and justified. Blacks will always be blacks but the highs will have different impact based on relative luminosity around.

 

And so back to HDR images - by the ability to display high dynamic range and the highs especially during the content consumption is making drastic impact - in a positive way - on the images impact.

 

with SDR image (Jpeg or on SDR screen) cranking up the brightness will only bring the whole image up. On 400nits HDR screen the highs will stop short of having meaningful impact even in room with average lightning as the human eye will perceive the brightness relatively...

 

So that's my line of thinking why HDR images will take over the online world soon. Not that important for all of us who print the images and sell them 🙂 but for online world and marketing it will be super important.

 

 

I thought the same about HDR video 6 years ago to be left disappointed

 

Images are static so things like dynamic contrast are less important than color rendition

 

HDR is being pushed by gaming that has a relatively small color depth and is still working on sRGB while photos need wider gamut that today means P3

Many displays do not even support 100% P3 so even if the dynamic range is ok the color accuracy is not

For this reason photography monitors are focussed on color uniformity and the most important characteristic that makes you favour a relatively low brightness screen is color response

My monitor has 100% sRGB 100% AdobeRGB and 97% DCI-P3 at the time photography was aligned to AdobeRGB this was a good call

today photos are moving very slowly to DisplayP3 mostly driven by mobile devices but this is not really yet the standard

As most camera images do not even exceed 12 stops at photography quality standard this remains a predominant consideration

Games on the other hand can generate the level of DR because the colors are created on computer they are not real life

 

Will instagram drive a photography revolution? Am not that sure