Axel

On the long run, yes. Your sky doesn't have a very steep gradient, and you don't move your camera. If you see Annihilation on Netflix (practically only watchable in HDR, for the SDR version lets all the highlights clip, unnecessarily) you'll notice a lot of lights with smooth gradients, and moving. Alistair Chapman provided a LUT for the FS7 (and others, the ones that support 10-bit and All-i, see below) to convert Slog3 to HLG, he calls it instant HDR. But he insists that Slog is actually preferable. My own experiences (but others confirm that) are, that Slog3 in 8-bit will make the above situations difficult. The other obstacle has nothing to do with bit depth but with compression. In Slog3, ETTR or not, you will often capture noise, and compressed noise ruins the image for good. Yes, yes, a field recorder. Do I want to use one when it doesn't give me 10-bit? No. The 8-bit HLG-cameras are promoted by avoiding the difficult shots: As far as I can see, there are very few highlights above IRE 100, the SDR version doesn't look dramatically different. Reflections on the waves, the medals on the shelf, sweat on the boxer's skin. I dare say that this clip wouldn't have looked better, or different, had it been in 10-bit ...

Apart from the very interesting discussion about whether this is a good film or a pretentious film (usually the mark of a 'classic' or even something considered a masterpiece as time goes by): I noticed that on Netflix the SDR version is poorly graded. Lights clip and shadows are crushed. The majority sees very bad image quality. If you liked the film and want to see it a second time, go and buy an HDR DV TV. There are even bright mother-of-pearl / rainbow reflections in the sky and the water that you almost miss in SDR. It's a mystery and a shame that they did such a lousy job. I recently re-watched The Martian (bought on iTunes, HD automatically becomes 4k HDR if available), and the SDR version, though less impressive, is perfectly watchable.

It‘s gorgeous in image quality on Netflix, Dolby Vision. Has a lot of good stuff in it, but as a whole didn‘t leave me fully satisfied.

That insight shouldn't shock us too much. This whole image quality theme is much less about purism than it is about subjective preferences. A world of travesty (> film look recipes). But yet, confronted with a particular drag queen, you'd still have a general idea what Marilyn Monroe should look like. @sam Very nice room. Don't like the glass-protected fireplace. Contradicts the purpose and dignity of a traditional one. You could put the Samsung there and loop an HDR fireplace ...

Then you'd either have to buy the Studio version or convert your files to ProRes AND make do with 3840 (I'd do that if I were you) or wait a while and see if the sleepyheads at Apple get into gear and provide a bugfix.

@jonpais Are you satisfied with the solution so far? Can you judge the Image? Is there any benefit in using FCP without the "nits-scopes" (known bug, I asked)?

No, I have only a vague idea how to use ACES. Seems I have to learn this. Everything regarding 'color space conversion' and the like is black magic to me. Such as: I have no HDR monitor now, and I don't know how to connect my iMac (thunderbolt, no direct AV out through this port) to the TV. The officially supported interfaces are too expensive (starting at 2500 €). Easier with PCs? Could I buy a Windows laptop?

Exactly. Yes. Let me cite myself from the german thread, translation by Google : An ambitious short film project I've been preparing for almost a year now wouldn't profit much of HDR, thankfully. But I have another one, a comic short on the agony of the dying, and this one would. Will then probably borrow an Ursa Mini to shoot the (few) scenes in raw. And I hope by then HDR monitoring for grading will have become more easy and affordable. I wonder why Andrew Reid doesn't seem to be very interested in HDR. His videos are so 'impressionistic' and 'poetic' ...

Do you speak german?

Meanwhile on Germany's huge slashCAM forum. Started a controversial HDR thread there - the first one, apart from one guy who asked how best to achieve a working Youtube upload. Very few fans there as well. The usual suspects, like here. Said HDR would change the way films were lit and framed (finally understanding the vanHurkman thoughts). Was baracked. HDR was for nature docs and candy ads, not suitable for serious storytelling. Wrote, what about *light*? There is no light in SDR, only it's faint reflection. Answer (by a pro DoP): that's enough, brightness is relative. HDR is a gimmick like 3D was, and it will disappear just the same, get over it ... Another article in the news section: UHD TVs bigger than 50" came to 40% of all houses in Germany in 2017, AUO announces 8k TVs for 2018 and projects 10% market share within two years ...

Terrific. But again: Please use a tripod or "camera lock" stabilizer (checkbox in Resolves stabilizer). Another suggestion: name your clips y0x4 or something like that, followed by HDR asf., that would make it easier to find them in the Youtube app.

I‘ve no proof, but to me it seems as though there are very few visible compression artifacts on the HDR channel. That‘d be as well 2160 as 10-bit HEVC ...

Very interested too, since I have Sony.

Found it: My opinion: terrible! Way over the top (you can judge even in SDR that the colors are ridiculously oversaturated, most of the time). This kind of HDR grading borders on assault.

Well, yes, I suppose it IS a bug. Just tried it now, in the same project where nits/cmd/m² were available before (in the scope settings dropdown menu), these are now greyed out. Feedback sent. They have to iron out some really annoying things asap, I think.

Round tripping would be an option, but if I remember correctly, as well 10-bit as HLG and 4k (the limit is UHD) clips from the GH5 are not supported in the free version of Resolve. And it makes no difference whether you created Optimized Media (=ProRes) before or not, because Resolve will refer to the original media in the roundtrip. Your only free option was to create ProRes copies outside of FCP X. Or, but this is a little awkward, extract the Optimized Media from the Library bundle and re-import them to a new Library. I also feel that it would be better to work in ProResHQ, and you can't choose that for Optimized Media. Is the fact that the histogram of the FCP scopes doesn't switch to nits in an HDR Library a bug? Another color-related bug? I'm not sure. Note that in this Ripple Training the histogram isn't even mentioned, it's the waveform in RGB parade: And, apart from that, the known Color Wheels issue (behaving weird in rec_709) isn't an issue for HDR/rec_2020. And the comparatively simple workflow described above is for the faint-of-heart. (this is redundant for jonpais, I know)

Doesn't trigger HDR on my TV, coming from the web app with EOSHD. Only works with the dedicated Youtube app. Watch on Youtube doesn't do the trick for me. Did I miss some hidden setting? Shortcoming of my TV firmware? While it looks better in HDR, it's not as dramatic as one would expect, probably due to the brightness control for bigger areas over a longer time. Allegedly somewhat better on QLED TVs, but one has to be aware of that. The colors are vivid. But I feel that most of the shots do not make use of extreme contrast. This video (I think I saw it on some HDR TV on my tour through the shops) apparently isn't HDR? ... but it's shot for HDR (can someone link to an HDR version?). The Alexis van Hurkman link in the long HDR thread tried to draft some preliminary "rules" for the HDR aesthetics. He said, I paraphrase here, that highlights and accentuated color contrast should be the eyecatcher and gaze tracker. And that knocking out just the prominent motif from the background (i.e. through sDoF or vignettes in post, but also through too blunt framing) was a typical SDR approach. As well as (my own addition) a moving camera in a pointing gesture fashion. Therefore, it may be the best approach to forgo some of those common tools in these early HDR days. I also feel that an unstable camera subconsciously tells recording! If anything, HDR is a huge step towards a more realistic or even hyperrealistic look, and camera shakes destroy that partially. Tripods, sliders and post stabilizers should be used. Unless you want to say POV.

There: SDR, to put it that way, has to compose an image with rough strokes. Shades, lights and colors are there, but the differentiation is too weak to be subtle and seductive. Vignettes, sDoF, background motion blur and *more cuts* are used instead. With HDR (and of course UHD), the viewer's gaze can linger. The take can last longer, it can be a wider shot, containing more detail. The rarer the cuts, the more powerful they are. They become lean-forward, hold-your-breath moments. Yes, I can see how HDR may change the way films are made. These are creative possibilities indeed. Not yet explored, and there's a lot to learn.

Remember, I was the one who started this thread over a year ago, when no one here even mentioned HDR. You can hardly accuse me of underestimating the relevance. It's you who, as I see it, gets carried away now and makes questionable comparisons. But why not discuss this in earnest? HDR is about image quality (whereas UHD is not), and there is no arguing that it can provide much better IQ than SDR. Even, as jonpais said, with less compression artifacts on Youtube. Can we agree upon that? Color, compared to B&W, enlarged the creative space substantially. But how can HDR? Serious question. With 3D (some 8, 9 years ago), some said it was more immersive and that it, too, expanded the artistic palette. It was also compared with color as opposed to B&W. Back then, one critic made a good remark. All well-composed images know and always knew about the third dimension. The famous Lumière clip from *1895* showed a train entering a station. The audience was terrified. They reacted as if this train could roll over them: 3D never added one word to the language of film. Immersion? Yes. But not because the images looked more real or more natural, but because they looked more fake. It was the gimmick that sold it. As we all witness now, the hype is essentially over. For now. Again: can higher dynamic range actually change the expression or the content? Something rings true here. Bachs very famous Goldberg Variations had been composed for harpsichord, but became most famous on piano (Glenn Gould). Hear the comparison on Youtube. Greater dynamic range? No problem, transports/transcends just fine. But the other way around? Would Beethoven have even thought of this, if there had been only harpsichords? I test-watched one of my all time favorites on the new TV: 2001. Very disappointing. No question, it does look better, insofar as the space is black and the lights do appear brighter (in contrast, that is, they peak at 100 nits nonetheless). Kubrick clearly had shot this film "with HDR in mind" (google images, you'll see it in every instance). They should remaster it. Which connection? What BM card?

For those who are not willing to buy a new TV or who can't afford it, just one note: No one forces anyone to follow any new hype. I certainly don't. Having watched and compared hundreds of Youtube clips, I find few clips on the HDR channel attractive. Most of them are as cheesy and unnecessary as they appeared before, on my old TV. Oversaturated, shrill. My favorite clips are still SDR, and they hold up. SDR Films on Netflix or iTunes look gorgeous. Conventional grading in rec_709 is not just "okay". There is no easy way right now to monitor HDR grading, and there appear to be more obstacles, more requirements (see thread-title) than I thought before. For now, I stick to SDR for my own stuff. And I watched my own stuff. All I can say is, grade for contrast, and don't be too conservative, too "legal", with saturation. Because this ... ... is not nice. It may look quite decent on an SDR TV. If you see what I mean and if you can imagine how this will look on a display that has better contrast and much better color differentiation, then just avoid this.

Guilty. So I didn't check if Samsung HDRs support Dolby Vision. I didn't care too much though. Samsung and others try to avoid to pay Dolby for the certificate and developed their own, open-source standard, named "HDR 10+". The background to this is - in layman's terms - that both Dolby and HDR 10+ can dynamically change the contrast and brightness for each scene, even each frame. There may come the point when the streaming providers switch from Dolby to HDR 10+, and UHD HDR BD players too. But - look it up! - the hardware would *still* play back the HDR base layer, just without the scene-by-scene metadata, - and the big difference is HDR. You may call that a format war, but it's in no way comparable to, say, HD DVD and Blu-ray. The german television isn't better in this respect. It sends 1080 50i, SDR, highly compressed, around 50% of all content (the smaller and regional broadcasters) is SD, and this really is the worst case scenario for a 4k TV panel. But the big TV companies let you view all content with library apps, in much better quality. A few TV series are already produced in HLG UHD. Because of this situation, I feel (beware: unsubstantiated opinion) that support of HLG is currently more important than Dolby. The oldest HDR panels (the most affordable ones) might not support it. "Live TV" is slowly but surely becoming extinct. To air UHD alone needed a completely new and VERY costly infrastructure. But to store high quality content on a streaming server does not. If the purpose of a TV was to adequately showcase what the broadcasters output live ... I sent you a heart, because I agree. Opinion should be respected, acknowledged, weighed. It's fundamentally different from knowledge. We all should confront and challenge "alternative facts" wherever they are published. I stand corrected, so let me try again. I recall my first DVD. It was John Woos Face/Off. Subjectively, there was a huge improvement in image quality, compared to VHS. I am telling about a personal experience. I also felt that HDR made such a huge difference. That's all.

That's a good approach! With limited resources, one is forced to concentrate. Whenever I see someone take photos in burst mode, I think he/she hasn't understood the first thing about photography. But that's just me. Applicable to video as well. Imagine you have an expensive roll of film in your camera, just a few minutes. Imagine you could not immediately check the recording. Wouldn't this sharpen your senses?

The following are not my words, I quote and compile the thoughts of others, famous photographers as well as filmmakers. When a filmmaker is reborn, he becomes a photographer. When a photographer is reborn, he becomes a filmmaker (a filmmaker who started as a photographer). You freeze one moment of eternity (said by a famous run & gun photographer). I compose an image in my mind. It already exists when I push the release (famous photographer). A powerful sequence is made of imperfect images. There must be something missing and unsatisfying in every single shot (renowned DP). I never shoot anything I don't want (filmmaker). There comes a moment when it is no longer you who takes the photograph, but receives the way to do it quite naturally and fully (famous portrait and nature photographer).

Format war? The hurlyburly's done, the battle's lost and won. There are three victors: PQ, Dolby and HLG. Most TVs younger than 10 months accept / support all three. There are good arguments to let each format survive. It's not like VHS vs. Betamax or Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD, where you betted on EOL hardware. As long as there is a need for classic broadcasting via cable or satellite, HLG will be the way to beam HDR. And within two or three generations of consumer cameras, it will be standard there. It doesn't need to be graded. Of course all Samsung and Apple smartphones will record and play back HLG. It can be recorded and stored in 8-bit as well. As technology progresses, panels will become even better. 1000 nits will be considered "HDR ready" in retrospect, because the goal has already been set: 10.000 nits. For a start. You'll want to buy, rent and watch premium content then. Dolby set the standard. It's good for you if you think that your 100 nits TV cuts it in 2018. Spares you at least 1000 bucks - I have researched two weeks, that's HDR TV entry price. These old panels do usually not support all formats, but will make SDR look as good as it gets. This alone is a difference comparable to your first DVD after decades of borrowed VHS cassettes. It really is. Reasonable prices for "HDR ready" (all trademarks after spring 2017) with full support are ~1500 € for 55" and 2400 € for 65". For LG, i.e. (my choice), the next product line is announced for April, prices will go down further.

It's time to sum up my findings on the topic so far and invite you to comment. First of all, I bought an HDR TV, finally. There is no risk in doing that, and it doesn't have to be about 'adopting new technology'. Everyone here should do this. You will watch content in better quality, any content, including your own. Now I can answer my own question I asked a couple times in this thread. Does SDR on an HDR display look better or worse? Better, in most cases. With one exception: LOG footage that has been graded and still is somewhat flat. Some may find it aesthetically pleasing in SDR. On an HDR TV, you'd simply say, lacks contrast. NOT good. HDR does look better. Unfortunately, it's not easy or cheap to monitor and grade it now. This will change. As we discuss this, not a single TV panel for SDR is manufactured anymore. It's the future. Our rec_709 stuff doesn't become unendurable over night, that's the good news. Okay, you may say, it's like the jump from HD to 4k. We kept up with the times, but HD is still okay. Wrong. HDR will change much more. It may prove that your current equipment is not suitable to achieve the level of quality you demand and see elsewhere. That's the bad news.