[opendtv] Re: Sparkle

  • From: cooleman@xxxxxx
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2016 20:04:23 +0100

Mike can you also force HDR to be sent like some of the Fury products?

Craig, actually you won't be able to find any formal definition of HDR 10 either, a it is a 'Hotshpotsh' of parts from various standards, as one compression vendor told me last year. 2084, some metadata from 2086, CTA infoframes, with HDR10 being shorthand people started using, as informal moniker.

Mike Tsinberg schreef op 03-12-2016 16:30:

Yes correct, if source is capable of 10 bit it will scale its output to 8
bit for 8 bit capable display or processor depending on EDID information
received. You can of course force it by substituting 10 bit EDID to 8 bit
EDID in the device connected to the output of such source. Yes, in this
case the HDR metadata will be used with 8 bit luma/chroma on the output of
such source. We call it HDR8. The result on picture quality as far as HRD
is concern is almost impossible to differentiate from HDR10.

Best Regards
Mike Tsinberg
http://keydigital.com






On 12/3/16, 8:03 AM, "opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Craig
Birkmaier" <opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of
brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mike

A point of clarification.

I'm not able to find any formal definition of HDR8. I assume that this is
8 bit luma and color samples derived from 10 bit HDR source. Is this
correct?

If yes, then you are saying that a good mapping of HDR source into 8 bits
can look almost as good as HDR10?

Regards
Craig

On Dec 2, 2016, at 10:35 AM, Mike Tsinberg <Mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

FYI:

We compared very carefully HDR10 and HDR8 on the same content and same
screens. Yes, if you know where to look you can see regular differences
between 8bit and 10bit pictures with or without HDR. However, the
differences between HDR8 and HDR10 is extremely hard to see.

Best Regards,
Mike Tsinberg
http://keydigital.com

-----Original Message-----
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Craig Birkmaier
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2016 7:19 AM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Sparkle

On Dec 1, 2016, at 10:43 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Good for you, Craig. But it proves nothing. I will explain below what
it takes to claim you have an HDR display. You stated that smartphones
and tablets are available with HDR displays. All you have to do is
support your claim. Or just say ooops, my bad. Should be simple enough.

Ooops, my bad...

There, does that make you feel better Bert?

The reality is that displays are moving beyond the old 8 bit definition
of luminance and color optimized for CRT displays. Do they meet the new
definitions of what an LCD or OLED HDR display should offer?

NO.

Did every NTSC display fully support the capabilities of NTSC? Does
every HD display fully support the capabilities of HD (pick a definition
as there are several)?

We are in a transitional period. There are several existing/proposed
standards for HDR; and several for WCG. There are many sets being sold
today as HDR capable that do not meet all of these specs. All one needs
to do is look at LCD and an OLED displays that claim to offer HDR side
by side to understand that there will be a range of products offering
varying levels of performance. And then there is the minor matter that
it may not matter based on the viewing conditions where the display is
installed.

I wrote:

What you are missing is that there is a continuum between today's 8
bit luminance representations and the specifications that Mark was
citing for HDR.

Except that there are specific definitions at play now. This first,
very recent article, only tells half the story, but it's a start.

Yup. And there are specific products being sold that claim to offer HDR
that are very different.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/hdr-for-tvs-explained/

It states that SDR displays, at their brightest, provide 300 to 500
nits. Compare that to the displays of smartphones and tablets, to see
if they are meaningfully better. It also states:

A meaningless definition. There are SDR displays for outdoor use that
have more than 8500 nits of brightness.

Clearly modern mobile devices have displays with HD or better pixel
resolutions. Some support improved color gamuts; some offer more than
500 nits brightness. You cannot say what a display is today based on
definitions. What you can say is that displays now have the ability to
conform to multiple standards.

"In April, the UHD Alliance - an inter-industry group made up of
companies like Samsung, LG, Sony, Panasonic, Dolby, and many others -
announced the Ultra HD Premium certification for UHD Blu-ray players.
This benchmark sets some baseline goals for HDR, like the ability to
display up to 1,000 nits of brightness and feature a minimum of 10-bit
color depth. Both HDR10 and Dolby Vision meet the standards set by the
certification, but how they go about it varies greatly between the two."

Sounds like a bunch of technophiles arguing about the future. Oh wait!

That's what's happening. Maybe I'll come up with a spec for HDR.

They should also have provided an idea of the dimmest possible
content, but at least you have the 1000 nits parameter to work with.
The wider color gamut might be associated, but you can have WCG without
HDR, in principle. Getting the super bright output from your small hand
held devices is a much harder nut to crack.

But that nut is being cracked. The nits requirement is related to the
display technology, and is heavily influenced by the amount of ambient
light where the display is used. Here's one clue that may help Bert over
this misunderstanding:

Why is the peak brightness for OLED based HDR only 500 nits, while for
LCD it is more than 1000?

I guess it is not related to the actual screen brightness or the
requirements of the human visual system. If 0 to 500 nits is good enough
for HDR on an OLED display, why do we need twice as much peak brightness
for LCD?

Explain this Bert?

This article is better. It quantifies the range of brightness needed
for HDR:

https://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/files/cat/hdr/latest/MK20109V1_1_H
DR.pdf

It says that SDR covers a range of nits of 3 orders of magnitude,
whereas HDR provides 5 orders of magnitude. So, something like 0.3 to
300 nits is SDR. To qualify as HDR, you would need to be able to
display a range 0.01 to 1000 nits, for example, or 0.005 to 500 nits.
This is what I'm talking about. Now you have the information needed to
prove whether smartphone and tablet displays can achieve this range,
rather than just barely meet the same specs as SDR displays.

The Sony article is informative in that it places all of this in the
context of what the human visual system can perceive under various
ambient conditions. The nits requirements above are related to
delivering HDR with various display technologies under various ambient
conditions.

There is no single point stand here Bert; there is a continuum that is
related to source, emission coding, and display.

What is abundantly clear is that you need at least 10 bit luminance to
deliver the dynamic range needed for HDR. The FACT that this visual
information can be displayed at varying light levels based on the
display technology is what you should be focused on.

A mobile device that is capable of displaying 10 bit luminance and
color - I'm talking about the internal processing paths and standards
supported by the device, not the display - can deliver an improved
viewing experience. The quality of that experience will depend on the
display technology, the calibration of that display, and the ambient
lighting conditions.

The same is true for any TV.

I wrote:

I would note that there is little difference between "real" HDR image
acquisition and the three exposure technique used in many smartphone
cameras - both acquire the HDR information.

This is what convinces me you have yet to understand what HDR display
is. Funny thing is, I have never noticed any confusion on dynamic range
when it comes to audio.

I'm not talking about HDR display Bert. I'm talking about capturing an
image then optimizing it for any display. Take another look at that Sony
article Bert. It does an excellent job of explaining (with pictures
too!) how we process images captured with High Dynamic Range, then map
them into limited representations for emission. As I said, there is
little difference between what a video camera and a smartphone camera do
in the real world. In both cases we can acquire more dynamic range than
a device with an 8 bit display can deliver. In both cases a human or an
algorithm determine how the higher dynamic range data is mapped into a
more limited "display space."

In principle, if you play the little game of taking three images on an
SDR camera, IN PRINCIPLE (I repeat), you can process the images to send
to HDR displays. But that is **not** what these hand held appliances
are doing. The fact that you don't see the difference is truly weird,
because the processing these devices *are doing* is exactly the
opposite of what it takes to send images to HDR displays.

Correct. It is more closely related to what a processing system that
starts with HDR data does with this data in order to display it on a
display with 8 bit luminance.

Let me repeat this: HDR mode in a smartphone camera is used to capture
high dynamic range in a *scene*, and then compress that high dynamic
range so it can better be displayed on an SDR display. The bright parts
are dimmed, the dim parts are brightened. There is no way you can
pretend this is HDR display.

Yup. Just like EVERYTHING we watch on our fancy HDTVs Bert. You are
showing your ignorance of how imaging systems are used to create an
optimal product for use across a range of displays with varying
capabilities.

This is a very complex subject with MANY, MANY variables. You cannot
neatly fit this into a box and say "this is what it takes to be HDR."

Clearly display technology has evolved and improved. And it will keep
improving. What is really in play here is how do we deliver better
quality images with HDR and WCG. And how do we do this in a manner that
is compatible with billions of screens with varying capabilities.

Regards
Craig


----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.




----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts: