Old* films in HDR

[Pecker]

* For which read almost all (if not all) 35mm/70mm films, and quite a few digitally shot films.

This argument has been kicking around since HDR was first suggested - old films were 'not shot for HDR'. I'm perhaps not knowledgeable about the precise terms to articulate the argument myself, so I'll quote Robert A Harris.

For those who are unaware, RAH has been responsible for a number of film restorations over the years, starting with the job of simply restoring film for archive film and presentation purposes, but then also for moving these works into the digital media of (at first) LaserDisc, then DVD, and then Blu-ray Disc. He's restored Hitchcock's Vertigo, Coppola's Godfather Trilogy, Lean's Lawrence of Arabia, and Kubrick's Spartacus. The master analogue (film) elements and digital masters were largely restored and created by him; whenever you watch a restored print of The Godfather, or view it on Blu-ray Disc, it's his restoration you're seeing, from film cell to digital pixel.

Harris says:

There seems to be a misunderstanding, at least in on-line discussions, as to what HDR (High Dynamic Range) actually is...

and might not be.

It is NOT an inherent part of the 4k UHD package.

It is in no way necessary toward the enjoyment of 4k, either in the home, or elsewhere.

HDR is an option, much like ordering a different kind of leather of fabric for your new car's interior.

It's nothing new -- been around for years.

If generally NOT a part of the design of a film, with most HDR entering the picture, no pun intended, during post.

"Wouldn't look neat if those flames were Really bright orange..."

It's added the same way that 3D is added in post, to the majority of 3D productions.

It has no relevance to production photography.

It should not be included as a function for classic films, unless the filmmakers have a desire to re-visit, and create a new version, a re-imagining.

It will not work well with most classic films, and can be problematic to those that have needed restoration based upon fade.

Want to see 2001, or Lawrence, Ben-Hur, The Godfather, The Magnificent Seven, or Elvira Madigan in 4k?

No problem.

We're ready for it, and there's no reason why those films can't be released, except those which don't fit on the current sized discs.

And NONE of them should be released with HDR.

Every UHD release does NOT need HDR, nor should they have it.

If we can clear the airwaves of mis and dis-information regarding HDR, things would be easier.

A more damning criticism of applying HDR to older films, I cannot imagine. A more knowledgeable or reputable source, it's difficult to picture.

I wanted to bring this up, as we have a thread here about Blade Runner, and I don't doubt there'll be more 'premium' titles given the HDR treatment in the near future. Now whether these will be given an HDR 'remix' is not yet clear. But it's a factor of which I think we all need to be aware, before automatically swooning over the possibility.

In most cases the increased resolution of 4K compared to 1080p will be negligible on the best displays at anything like a normal seating distance, and invisible on many.

And the increased colour space, whilst visible, will not be worth the substantial extra cost for most. Ask yourself this, when was the last time you came home from the cinema, turned on your TV, and noticed any difference in the colour gamut on offer?

I'm not anti-UHD. To be absolutely clear, if a film is shot in 4K with plenty of extra detail, using the full colour range on offer, and in HDR (and with an HDR presentation in mind), and you have a large display at a reasonably clos seating distance, then a UHD viewing will be closer to what the film-makers wanted you to see. And I'd definitely rather see such a film on UHD than Blu-ray Disc.

But that's a tiny, almost imperceptibly small number of films in the great scheme of things.

 

[thegeminiman]

At least we now have a response from someone with real technical knowledge that all this baloney about HDR being such an important part of UHD is bollocks.
Those willing to buy upscaled 2k disguised as 4k excuse the con by claiming HDR makes it worthwhile. I think Robert Harris knows a thing or two more about film than some of the people on this forum.
At least it might prevent whining when a title suddenly appears without HDR and the fanboys go ballistic because the disc is incomplete

 

[simonblue]

But again it's only another person's opinion on the subject,and for all of his credential he is not and has not been as director or an cinematographer or lighting technician.
As within any industry when changes come there will be those who favor it,and those who don't,its always been that way.

 

[thegeminiman]

But again it's only another person's opinion on the subject,and for all of his credential he is not and has not been as director or an cinematographer or lighting technician.
As within any industry when changes come there will be those who favor it,and those who don't,its always been that way.

I think you need to check up on Robert A Harris. He knows a thing or two about films and how they should appear. It was his correct criticism of the 50th Anniversary restoration of Spartacus that ensured it was done right for the 55th.
He has been responsible for many restorations including My Fair Lady , Vertigo and more. I first saw his name when he was credited for restoring Spartacus back in 1990.

Re: clarification that HDR is not part of the UHD spec is enough. And as HDR is a home video feature added later I would say he knows more about its application than many cinematographers or lighting technicians from the age of celluloid

 

[simonblue]

I think you need to check up on Robert A Harris. He knows a thing or two about films and how they should appear. It was his correct criticism of the 50th Anniversary restoration of Spartacus that ensured it was done right for the 55th.
He has been responsible for many restorations including My Fair Lady , Vertigo and more. I first saw his name when he was credited for bringing the restored Spartacus back in 1990

I think you need to check up on Robert A Harris. He knows a thing or two about films and how they should appear. It was his correct criticism of the 50th Anniversary restoration of Spartacus that ensured it was done right for the 55th.
He has been responsible for many restorations including My Fair Lady , Vertigo and more. I first saw his name when he was credited for restoring Spartacus back in 1990.

Re: clarification that HDR is not part of the UHD spec is enough.

I no who Robert Harris is,all i am saying its just one person opinion ?

By the way under the spec of the UHD Alliance,which most major studio have signed up to the spec include HDR.


UHD Alliance (link)

 

[Mark Costello]

* For which read almost all (if not all) 35mm/70mm films, and quite a few digitally shot films.

This argument has been kicking around since HDR was first suggested - old films were 'not shot for HDR'. I'm perhaps not knowledgeable about the precise terms to articulate the argument myself, so I'll quote Robert A Harris.

For those who are unaware, RAH has been responsible for a number of film restorations over the years, starting with the job of simply restoring film for archive film and presentation purposes, but then also for moving these works into the digital media of (at first) LaserDisc, then DVD, and then Blu-ray Disc. He's restored Hitchcock's Vertigo, Coppola's Godfather Trilogy, Lean's Lawrence of Arabia, and Kubrick's Spartacus. The master analogue (film) elements and digital masters were largely restored and created by him; whenever you watch a restored print of The Godfather, or view it on Blu-ray Disc, it's his restoration you're seeing, from film cell to digital pixel.

Harris says:



A more damning criticism of applying HDR to older films, I cannot imagine. A more knowledgeable or reputable source, it's difficult to picture.

I wanted to bring this up, as we have a thread here about Blade Runner, and I don't doubt there'll be more 'premium' titles given the HDR treatment in the near future. Now whether these will be given an HDR 'remix' is not yet clear. But it's a factor of which I think we all need to be aware, before automatically swooning over the possibility.

In most cases the increased resolution of 4K compared to 1080p will be negligible on the best displays at anything like a normal seating distance, and invisible on many.

And the increased colour space, whilst visible, will not be worth the substantial extra cost for most. Ask yourself this, when was the last time you came home from the cinema, turned on your TV, and noticed any difference in the colour gamut on offer?

I'm not anti-UHD. To be absolutely clear, if a film is shot in 4K with plenty of extra detail, using the full colour range on offer, and in HDR (and with an HDR presentation in mind), and you have a large display at a reasonably clos seating distance, then a UHD viewing will be closer to what the film-makers wanted you to see. And I'd definitely rather see such a film on UHD than Blu-ray Disc.

But that's a tiny, almost imperceptibly small number of films in the great scheme of things.

Nice pull on that - thanks for sharing. I agree entirely - I'm not interested in any form of changing the original look and intent of a film, be it via retrospective colour timing changes (cough....Friedkin......cough) or OAR variations (cough......Storaro.......cough).......when it comes to the picture. But these kinds of things have been going on for decades - colourised B&W films? This is just another new tool that filmmakers will try and apply to older films.

But, like a number of remixed 5.1 tracks we have on DVDs and BDs, as an alternative, I'm all up for them being put out to market and offered as a choice as long as we as consumers have the originals also being made available - in some cases I'm a purist, in others....well, less so (Jaws in remixed 5.1? Doesn't bother me at all oddly!), but what I value is choice.

The upcoming Blade Runner UHD in HDR is going to be fascinating to look at - given Scott's penchance for revisiting his works, it seems oddly fitting that he'd go back and do a new HDR pass on the film. It may not be what was originally intended, but as long as I have the original (or should that be originals in this case?????) then bring it on I say! I'll be getting it even as I don't have a 4K screen, but Vangelis in Atmos? On it like a tramp on a chip. Interestingly I've been loving the new Atmos remixes of previously non-Atmos tracks - the recent Sony 4K restorations of FFC's Dracula, Leon and Fifth Element sounded immense! Still, horses for courses and all that......

 

[Mark Costello]

At least we now have a response from someone with real technical knowledge that all this baloney about HDR being such an important part of UHD is bollocks.
Those willing to buy upscaled 2k disguised as 4k excuse the con by claiming HDR makes it worthwhile. I think Robert Harris knows a thing or two more about film than some of the people on this forum.
At least it might prevent whining when a title suddenly appears without HDR and the fanboys go ballistic because the disc is incomplete

Again that's not quite the whole story though is it? There are full and proper HDR passes applied to new films by directors who wish to use it as a tool to achieve their original intent that are finished at 2K that ARE a genuine improvement over the non-HDR passes applied to the standard BDs: in these cases the UHD represents the full and true directors intent and we're not necessarily seeing that on regular 1080p BD. HDR passes being retrospectively applied to films where HDR was never a concern - that's a very different story.

 

[Drongo]

The pertinent question is ‘Does HDR applied to older films show us more of what is on the original negative; or is it adding something not originally intended?’

Is there a definitive answer to this question or is it a matter of debate?

 

[Will Scarlet]

The pertinent question is ‘Does HDR applied to older films show us more of what is on the original negative; or is it adding something not originally intended?’

Is there a definitive answer to this question or is it a matter of debate?

HDR applied to older films is most definitely adding something not originally intended. The idea of Casablanca or Lawrence of Arabia etc., being given an HDR pass, I shudder to think.
To be honest I am more than a little concerned about the upcoming Blade Runner release.

 

[thegeminiman]

I agree although to be fair Blade Runner is the type of film that might benefit. Certainly the real oldies may not

 

[thegeminiman]

The pertinent question is ‘Does HDR applied to older films show us more of what is on the original negative; or is it adding something not originally intended?’

Is there a definitive answer to this question or is it a matter of debate?

I think Mr Harris has answered that

 

[thegeminiman]

Again that's not quite the whole story though is it? There are full and proper HDR passes applied to new films by directors who wish to use it as a tool to achieve their original intent that are finished at 2K that ARE a genuine improvement over the non-HDR passes applied to the standard BDs: in these cases the UHD represents the full and true directors intent and we're not necessarily seeing that on regular 1080p BD. HDR passes being retrospectively applied to films where HDR was never a concern - that's a very different story.

You said "new films" and that is correct. This thread and the comments from Mr Harris refer to old films.
New films are presumably shot with the additional tricks available from modern technology in mind

 

[thegeminiman]

I no who Robert Harris is,all i am saying its just one person opinion ?

By the way under the spec of the UHD Alliance,which most major studio have signed up to the spec include HDR.


UHD Alliance (link)

When it comes to the restoration of old movies saying that Mr Harris opinion is just one man is like saying the views of George Lucas on how the Star Wars films should look is "just the views of one person".
And we should remember this is specifically referring to films not shot with modern tech originally in mind

 

[raduv1]

I thought 35mm had a far greater dynamic range than rec709 was ever capable of showing ?

Rather than HDR being an add on , isnt it now just HDR rec2020 finally being able to show the full dynamic range of these 35mm films ?

 

[Uruloke]

That was also my understanding. That the Wider Colour Gamut of HDR allowed for a more accurate representation of what was captured on the film.

Unforgiven in HDR looks fantastic.

 

[Mark Costello]

You said "new films" and that is correct. This thread and the comments from Mr Harris refer to old films.
New films are presumably shot with the additional tricks available from modern technology in mind

Fair play - I thought your comment about HDR on UHD was in general and not just in reference to older films, so apologies. I agree entirely about it on older films - no interest in seeing shiny new bells and whistles added, unless it, as others have said, now allows a better representation of what was originally captured and shown.

 

[johngerard]

I thought 35mm had a far greater dynamic range than rec709 was ever capable of showing ?

Rather than HDR being an add on , isnt it now just HDR rec2020 finally being able to show the full dynamic range of these 35mm films ?

Precisely what my understanding of it is. Not adding, just getting even more of what was there originally.

 

[Pecker]

I believe you can release a UHD of a film with the original colour gamut of 35mm film (or a lot closer than we get currently from Blu-ray Disc) without it being HDR, though I stand to be corrected.

 

[raduv1]

I believe you can release a UHD of a film with the original colour gamut of 35mm film (or a lot closer than we get currently from Blu-ray Disc) without it being HDR, though I stand to be corrected.

Do you not need the HDR for colour volume , luminance etc ?

 

[Will Scarlet]

Do you not need the HDR for colour volume , luminance etc ?

I too stand to be corrected, but I believe Pecker is right, WCG and HDR are separate things and not interdependent. I am sure Geoff will be along in a little while and put us all straight.

 

[raduv1]

I too stand to be corrected, but I believe Pecker is right, WCG and HDR are separate things and not interdependent. I am sure Geoff will be along in a little while and put us all straight.

That's alright I may be confusing myself here as the WCG may well be . I stand by the colour volume and luminance though that has to be tied into the HDR .

 

[Will Scarlet]

That's alright I may be confusing myself here as the WCG may well be . I stand by the colour volume and luminance though that has to be tied into the HDR .

I just found this online, which appears to confirm that HDR and WCG are indeed separate entities:

"High Dynamic Range (HDR) displays a greater difference in light intensity from white to black, and Wide Color Gamut (WGC) provides a greater range of colors."[emoji106]

Thinking about it, Oppo has a 'Strip Metadata Function', which aims to strip away HDR Metadata leaving the rec 2020/WCG intact. It's experimental at the moment, but I believe Panasonic have a version on the UB900 that works very well.

 

[raduv1]

I just found this online, which appears to confirm that HDR and WCG are indeed separate entities:
"High Dynamic Range (HDR) displays a greater difference in light intensity from white to black, and Wide Color Gamut (WGC) provides a greater range of colors."[emoji106]

Cheers mate , i actually I never said the WCG was not separate in discussion though . I actually said.

Do you not need the HDR for colour volume , luminance etc ?

 

[Will Scarlet]

Do you not need the HDR for colour volume , luminance etc ?

No you don't, see the paragraph I've added to my post above.

 

[raduv1]

No you don't, see the paragraph I've added to my post above.

WCG and colour volume , luminance are also very different and you need HDR for the latter that in most respects is more important than the former.

The WCG without HDR will not get you that colour volume as colours have luminance and will be clipped out in the very bright and dark scenes , hence one will miss detail that HDR can bring .

Yup already knew the OPPO could strip back the HDR metadata. Isn't this mainly for projection though ?