criterionforum.org

andyli wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:30 am Hi Eddie, you explanation is crystal clear and massively helpful. I do have an additional question that has huanted me for a long time. When people talk about a film getting graded in HDR, what are the colorists doing differently from when the film is done in SDR? I gather that in SDR, you are still able to assign brightness, contrast, and specific colors to each scene (or each frame if it's desired to do so) and fine tune the image to your heart's content. So what exactly does HDR bring to the table at the grading stage? Does grading on a HDR-capable display make people see each scanned image differently and assign another set of brightness, contrast and color values?

I guess what confuses me is the fact that HDR and WCG often come hand in hand and it's hard for the technically less informed to really discern what is the benefit brought by WCG and what exactly is the result of HDR replacing SDR.

WCG is simple to understand. When talking about the advantages of Blu-ray one only ever heard about the resolution bump, but there was a "wider colour gamut" used with that format too. So in the same way that SD used Rec.601, and HD used Rec.709, WCG refers to the colour gamuts that UHD uses (in this case, two): DCI-P3 and Rec.2020. The big plus with DCI-P3 is that it's the colour gamut that the majority of films are presented in natively (both new films and modern restorations of old films), so in that sense there isn't a loss between the DI and the UHD. Rec.2020 is an even wider gamut than DCI-P3, but it's not commonly used (and no TV can display it fully yet).

As for HDR, I went into some detail here. But it's the same principle as WCG really, where that offers a wider colour space, PQ offers a wider dynamic range. I don't know enough about film restoration to discuss details, but ultimately when a colourist is grading "in HDR" they are simply managing the raw information from the OCN or the raw digital files from the camera in a suite that offers them these wider ranges. Then when running off an SDR version they have to fit their results into the more narrower ranges of gamma and Rec.709. So as an example, this in HDR becomes this in SDR (taken from GeoffD's review of Batman 1989). In that example, the extra detail that is visible in HDR has not been "added", it's there on the film element, but it cannot be seen in the confines of SDR.

I think one of the reasons people have this impression that HDR is "adding" something on top of normal images, is because their TVs switch to HDR mode when they receive an HDR signal, in the same way that a 3D set switches to 3D mode. But the only reason this happens is because TVs are having to deal with two transfer fuctions now, not just one. When in normal use a 4K HDR TV is set to gamma, and only switches over to PQ when dealing with HDR signals. There was no equivalent to this with Blu-ray over DVD (as both still used gamma).

Another wish list item: seeing as how The Red Shoes is a Film Foundation title, here's hoping The Leopard gets an upgrade and uses the FF restoration.

EddieLarkin wrote:As for HDR, I went into some detail here. But it's the same principle as WCG really, where that offers a wider colour space, PQ offers a wider dynamic range. I don't know enough about film restoration to discuss details, but ultimately when a colourist is grading "in HDR" they are simply managing the raw information from the OCN or the raw digital files from the camera in a suite that offers them these wider ranges. Then when running off an SDR version they have to fit their results into the more narrower ranges of gamma and Rec.709. So as an example, this in HDR becomes this in SDR (taken from GeoffD's review of Batman 1989). In that example, the extra detail that is visible in HDR has not been "added", it's there on the film element, but it cannot be seen in the confines of SDR.

I think one of the reasons people have this impression that HDR is "adding" something on top of normal images, is because their TVs switch to HDR mode when they receive an HDR signal, in the same way that a 3D set switches to 3D mode. But the only reason this happens is because TVs are having to deal with two transfer fuctions now, not just one. When in normal use a 4K HDR TV is set to gamma, and only switches over to PQ when dealing with HDR signals. There was no equivalent to this with Blu-ray over DVD (as both still used gamma).

Thanks again for the detailed response. So we're supposed to regard film stock as a raw data collector and grading is the process of mapping these data to the display (be it a theatrical print or a TV screen) creatively. Since the display as a data container cannot show all the data from the raw data collector, the grading artist has to choose what to transfer and what to leave out. Obviously an HDR display is a larger container that accommodates more data (a broader dynamic range) than an SDR one. WCG works similarly but it's larger in the color department. Am I right in this interpretation?

Right! I'd go as far to assume that the dynamic range PQ allows, and the colour range that Rec.2020 allows, is more than enough to fully represent any film element out there. It's just the TVs that need to catch up. Combine that with 4K resolution and you have the first format that can truly represent film without any compromises, something which Blu-ray falls far short of in comparison.

EddieLarkin wrote: Tue Aug 17, 2021 4:55 pm HDR has got to be the most poorly understood element of home video viewing ever, so I'm happy to help with any questions (to the best of my ability anyway).

dwk wrote: Tue Aug 17, 2021 4:23 pm A couple 16mm UHDs: the original The Evil Dead, Mother!, and the original Maniac

The Techniscope films that Blue Underground released on UHD are also super grainy (in a lovely lush way): Zombie, The New York Ripper, House by the Cemetery. Indeed all of their titles are, they seem to be very purist when it comes to grain reproduction, much like Arrow when they perform their own restorations. I don't know if a different authoring house than usual did The New York Ripper though as that's one of the few non-SC UHDs that has a poorly encoded HDR10 layer alongside a superior DV layer, and also has a colour gamut conversion error (correctable on some TVs in HDR10, but not DV!).

Thank you both for the 16mm UHD recommendations. I will check out some of those, even though none of them fit my taste, I must admit. @EddieLarkin: Thinking about it again, it could also simply be that I have become used to standard blu-ray's distorted rendering of grain. I remember the jump from dvd, a format which has completely inept grain rendering to blu-ray thinking, "this is how it should look!", when in fact it still quite wasn't as the fine grain is still distorted into bigger lumps of dense grain like on 16mm (if that makes sense at all). But at least it's there which you couldn't ever say about dvd.

Over on reddit, a user posted a more detailed response about future DVD releases:


The TLDR:

As the other e-mail stated they're still releasing DVDs, BUT they may be less likely to release titles on the format themselves if that title has already received a DVD release (from any studio) in the past, though it will be on a title-by-title basis. The e-mail then encourages them to consider making an upgrade in format (pointing out they don't need to upgrade their existing collection), or go to the Criterion Channel.

Since they've been going the route of not doing DVD editions for their big sets and have also been skipping DVDs for their own upgrades, this feels like the next natural step. I would have to assume they're seeing poorer sales lately, at least with some of the big studio licensed titles.

This seems like the most sensible route they could have taken - anyone going out of their way for a Criterion edition of a big studio film is almost certainly up-to-date enough to play Blu-Rays.

More DVD are in the works for 2022 and will be announced in the coming months

So, based on their explanation it seems that CC will be releasing titles that will be new to the disc format

I also received an email from Criterion stating that some future releases will be SDR only. I would suspect 'A Hard Days Night' to be one of those titles since it has a 4K SDR release out in Japan.

I also wonder about The Red Shoes, which hasn't been restored since 2009 as far as I'm aware. Criterion would have to back and do an HDR pass.

Dr Strangelove was restored in 4k around 2009 and Sony managed to release it on UHD in HDR, so it is possible even for restorations a decade old to have a very late HDR pass. Same goes for River Kwai, which was restored around 2010.

The question is whether Criterion would do that, given that Powell and Jack Cardiff are no longer with us and Lee Kline seems to have some resistance to HDR at the outset.

I can't think of a bigger waste of the format than to take a more than decade old master and slap it on a UHD in SDR and Rec.709. At least when Kino did this with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly the last Blu-ray was so badly mangled there was still huge room for improvement. It would be laughable for Lee Kline to talk shit about the aspects of the format that actually offer a real benefit all this time, and then sign off on a disc that would genuinely offer next to no upgrade (you only have to look at the Dr. Strangelove comparisons to see how little releasing old 4K masters on UHD offers an upgrade vs the Blu-ray, if it wasn't for HDR and WCG on that release it would be equally pointless).

I'll second that very much. If they began releasing SDR UHD's of the same restorations of titles that are already available on blu-ray, there would be no real catch to upgrade if one already has the blu-ray and good upscaling gear. There's resolution and compression benefits, of course, but a title such as The Red Shoes already looks pretty stunning on blu-ray. I wouldn't upgrade that one if it came from the same master and the only difference would be resolution and compression. For titles that aren't already in the collection, SDR UHD would be OK, I guess.

The Red Shoes is IMO a technical poor idea to launch the UHD releases because of that, especially if released only in SDR. There are tons of restorations, includibg major ones, that Criterion could choose instead that would be better fits to the upgrades UHD can offer, and I've been surprised that within the 6 titles they choosed to inaugurate the format, a third of those would recycle older restorations, including possibly solely releasing them in SDR.

I get that these aren't small sellers, but there are around movies most likely as popular that also happen to have restoration more suitable to say "hey, look how much better than BD this looks".

EddieLarkin wrote:At least when Kino did this with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly the last Blu-ray was so badly mangled there was still huge room for improvement.

Sure, but the main improvements they're offering over the past BD have nothing to do with the abilities of UHD. They could have released it solely on BD (like they did with their first shot at trying to fix it), it would still have retained the most important elements of their sales pitch points.

tenia wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 11:48 am

EddieLarkin wrote:At least when Kino did this with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly the last Blu-ray was so badly mangled there was still huge room for improvement.

Sure, but the main improvements they're offering over the past BD have nothing to do with the abilities of UHD. They could have released it solely on BD (like they did with their first shot at trying to fix it), it would still have retained the most important elements of their sales pitch points.

Absolutely you're right, the release didn't "need" a UHD but that was what it took to get Kino to finally put some actual fucking effort into the discs, so I was happy to buy it (I skipped their shite first effort anyway). The true 4K rez and superior compression was a nice bonus.

Their first effort was indeed half baked and absolutely skippable.
Yes, I get what you mean now : the expected higher returns on investment allowed to put more effort in the works.

I'm wondering if the SDR only release is not one of the six launch titles, but whatever Coen title they are working on with Sonnenfeld, and that whole podcast was a "look he doesn't want it" type of deal.

Sonnenfeld's comments seemed to me to be more focused on original material that is required to be shot in 4K and HDR, like some of his work on A Series of Unfortunate Events

That is true.

swo17 wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 2:20 pm Sonnenfeld's comments seemed to me to be more focused on original material that is required to be shot in 4K and HDR, like some of his work on A Series of Unfortunate Events

If that's his real gripe, I totally know what he means. What may have been my first post on HDR:

"How does HDR typically work with older titles? I ask because I actually got to see some newly shot shows in HDR and it was horrible - the colors glowed like they were radioactive. (The lawn alone looked weirdly fluorescent.)"

MichaelB suggested the screen wasn't calibrated correctly, but given the professional environment I saw this (it wasn't exactly open to the public), it would've been an enormous oversight if that was the case. In their defense, they didn't exactly deny the look they were getting - if anything they were probably wondering if they should dampen things down. This was in the earliest days of HDR, and the technicians dealing it with joked to me that only three people in the entire country would be able to watch this.

Another worthy Criterion UHD would be Tarkovsky's Solaris. Since the blu-ray was released it has been eclipsed by a new restoration that has been released on blu in Russia, but internationally only by Potemkine in France – somewhat similar to the new Mirror restoration only being released internationally in the Netherlands until Criterion released it. I'm not sure, but Mosfilm is probably behind the Solaris restoration too, so maybe it could be an option for Criterion, seeing as they worked closely with them for the release of Mirror, no?

Neither Solaris nor The Mirror was restored in 4K, I believe.

Does anyone have confirmation that when Criterion says "One 4K UHD disc of the film [...] and one Blu-ray with the film and special features", they mean that the commentaries won't be on the 4K disc?

Thats correct.
the 4Ks will just be the movie only.
Personally, I prefer it that way.