Look, I dropped it in the other thread because I couldn't be bothered getting into a long-winded technical debate where you'd continue to deliberately misunderstand what I was saying, but considering you're doing it here in a different thread, I'll pick it back up:
- HDR is just about being brighter - it's in the name: high dynamic range. The range of luminance. That's it. The function of HDR is to expand the ceiling of luminance so that media can be displayed at higher peak brightness. The UHD format as a collective, which includes HDR does indeed carry more improvements than just brighter highlights, yes, including, as you're alluding to, wide colour gamut and improved bit depth. I never wanted to get so technical in the previous thread, but considering how much nit-picking was going on, here we are.
- No one is saying Blade Runner 2049 doesn't look great on the format, nor is anyone saying that it doesn't improve upon the Blu-Ray release. What I was saying, and what some people are alluding to here, is that it's not necessarily the best showcase for HDR, if that's what you're interested in, especially if you're not exactly sure or sold on the merits of HDR. That's because BR2049 doesn't take advantage of the expanded luminance ceiling that HDR provides - and that's fine, as I've said in the past. I don't think the film needs it and I don't think it's a lesser looking film as a result, it just isn't communicating the benefits of HDR, which is why I find it so frustrating when it's used as a response to the question "Hey, what films should I watch that take advantage of HDR?"
It's like someone saying "I just bought a PS5. What game should I play to showcase 60fps?" and large swathes of responses are "Red Dead Redemption 2" even though the game only runs at 30fps. And then when people point that out, the response is "There's more to graphics than just framerate. RDR2 is a graphical powerhouse." Yes, I know that, but it's still not showcasing 60fps specifically if that's what someone is interested in (Yes, I'm aware the OP of this thread is not asking about HDR, but even then, if it's their first taste of the new format I'd suggest films that do take advantage of all aspects of the UHD format so they understand the clear benefits across the board).
- Further, BR2049 was shot at 3.4K. Again, it looks great. It was mastered in 4k, all that good stuff, absolutely. Resolution isn't the be-all-end-all, I know. But again, if we're talking about a showcase that demonstrates the benefits of the UHD format, there are better options than a film that doesn't take advantage of the increased luminance ceiling and was shot at a resolution lower than the format provides. To really make sure there's no ambiguity to what I'm saying here: BR2049 is an incredible looking film that looks great on the format and I don't need it to do anything else, but there are better candidates to communicate the benefits of UHD.
so for point 1, you're focusing on the wrong word in "high dynamic range" the key part is dynamic. Meaning higher
dynamic range. In the photography world, where i've shot on everything from 35mm film and medium format film to 4/3rds digital FF digital and medium format digital, the last of which has more color bits than what any display device we have can display. Dynamic range is about brining out detail in BOTH highlights and shadows. Not just being brighter for the sake of being brighter. And as i already mentioned 4k Blu-rays have 2 bits per color channel more than regular blu-rays, so yes its going to have better color, richer color, better gradations than a standard blu-ray. regardless of how much brighter it is.
for your second point, if we're talking demo material you coming in like hyven glaven its only 200 nits. you're going to lose 90% of your audience, even in a thread like this, that don't know or understand nits.
but beyond that, we have tangible evidence that movies that aren't 1000 nits look great. In both Blade Runner 2049 and Blade Runner The Final Cut.
notice how blacks are blacker, colors are richer and more vibrant. Having watched it on my setup, i would bet money that there's not one scene above 500 nits. More details in the shadows, higher contrast and yet despite not being that high in the nits, some of it is brighter.
and here's 2049.
for your final point, 2049 being at 3.4k and upscaled to 4k is all but meaningless.
I've put close to 200 hours on my setup. which is 180" CineScope screen that i sit 11ft from. And these are the best looking movies from a technical perspective, detail, sharpness, resolution.(not stylistically) I couldn't tell you which were 2k upscales and 4k native, though i could guess just from having seen some mention which are 4k native.
Oblivion
All four avengers movies
all 3 iron mans
black panther
The Revenant
guardians of the galaxy
the dark knight trilogy
interstellar
1917
bad boys for life
aquaman
knives out
toy story 4
coco
captain marvel
spiderman into the spiderverse
creed
black hawk down
you tell me which of those are "real 4k" and which are "fake 4k" and ill tell you i dont care cause they all looked VERY very good.
as for something i *know* is 4k native, the first two harry potter films are 4k native and both look particularly bad, comparative to the rest.
in the end it matters more how a movie was shot and lit, and what it was shot on, film vs digital, or even what kind of film, 35mm? super 35mm, medium format? What kind of grain structure does the film it was shot on have etc. and then how well was that film scanned in, was digital noise reduction applied or not? Than whether something was natively done at 4k or not.
docs.google.com
