Anonymous
10/10/2025, 1:19:28 PM
No.106846469
>>106837468
>>106845745
>>106845882
You know, I actually took the liberty of watching this video (multiple times, even), and for one-hundred and twenty minutes of my time, he presents:
Two valid criticisms about the HDR format itself:
- The choice to encode absolute values for luminosty rather than a relative contrast delta like SDR (wholly impractical when viewing conditions can vary wildly, especially amongst smartphones)
- The complete nonexistence of reproducability due to no standardized tonemapping between displays
A valid critique surrounding the marketing of HDR:
- HDR is a CONTAINER, it is NOT an "enhancement". SDR content should look IDENTICAL in SDR formats and HDR formats. Wide Gamut/Luminosity is available for content that explicitly takes advantage of it
- HDR as an acronym has been thoroughly abused through the years, meaning everything to exposure bracketing to eye adaption to a scene-linear rendering pipeline (but not actual HDR)
The "debunking" is mostly just boomer-ranting:
- this is garish
- that is garish
- garish garish garish
- "bust through the ceiling"
And if it's not just personal preference, it's actual fallacy:
- The dipshit likely isn't actually looking at real HDR content; he says at the end of his video that all the "HDR" he's been showing is actually just SDR with a post-process gain on the highlights, which he calls Sizzle. So he doesn't get the nuanced differences of an HDR tonemap of scene-data compared to an SDR tonemap.
- One of his scopeviews shows a scene with color converging exactly from an sRGB primary point, which suggests it's sRGB-tonemapped instead of HDR or scene-data
- "10,000 nits/Rec.2020 is wasteful" which is true at the moment in time, but as is the case here >>106843250 it may not be soon.
- "HDR is wasteful" as if the format needs to use all 10,000 nits instead of just using what's appropriate.
(continued...)
>>106845745
>>106845882
You know, I actually took the liberty of watching this video (multiple times, even), and for one-hundred and twenty minutes of my time, he presents:
Two valid criticisms about the HDR format itself:
- The choice to encode absolute values for luminosty rather than a relative contrast delta like SDR (wholly impractical when viewing conditions can vary wildly, especially amongst smartphones)
- The complete nonexistence of reproducability due to no standardized tonemapping between displays
A valid critique surrounding the marketing of HDR:
- HDR is a CONTAINER, it is NOT an "enhancement". SDR content should look IDENTICAL in SDR formats and HDR formats. Wide Gamut/Luminosity is available for content that explicitly takes advantage of it
- HDR as an acronym has been thoroughly abused through the years, meaning everything to exposure bracketing to eye adaption to a scene-linear rendering pipeline (but not actual HDR)
The "debunking" is mostly just boomer-ranting:
- this is garish
- that is garish
- garish garish garish
- "bust through the ceiling"
And if it's not just personal preference, it's actual fallacy:
- The dipshit likely isn't actually looking at real HDR content; he says at the end of his video that all the "HDR" he's been showing is actually just SDR with a post-process gain on the highlights, which he calls Sizzle. So he doesn't get the nuanced differences of an HDR tonemap of scene-data compared to an SDR tonemap.
- One of his scopeviews shows a scene with color converging exactly from an sRGB primary point, which suggests it's sRGB-tonemapped instead of HDR or scene-data
- "10,000 nits/Rec.2020 is wasteful" which is true at the moment in time, but as is the case here >>106843250 it may not be soon.
- "HDR is wasteful" as if the format needs to use all 10,000 nits instead of just using what's appropriate.
(continued...)