Ich finde aber schon, dass das 3D heute ausgereifter wirkt als noch vor einigen Jahren. Vor allem, wenn man zur Seite blickte, nahm die Bildqualität früher ab – ähnlich wie der Betrachtungswinkel eines LCD-Flachbildschirms. Oder täusche ich mich da? Aber das können die Fachleute hier besser beurteilen und auch erläutern.
„Wissen Sie, Ryback, aussehen tut's köstlich. Aber riechen tut's wie Schweinefraß. Ich hab' Ihren Scheiß lang genug geduldet. Nur weil der Captain die Art liebt, wie Sie kochen. Aber dieses eine Mal ist er nicht hier und wird Ihnen nicht helfen können.“
Bei 2D muss man 1/48s belichten, damit man das Ruckeln bei 24fps kaschieren kann.
Ein "cinematischer" Mythos bedingt einen anderen - und zeigt, dass HFR auch bei 2D ein Thema ist.
Nur weil bei HFR die CGI-Mängel aufgrund der besseren Bewegungsauflösung stärker zutage treten, bringt HFR dennoch eine signifikante Verbesserung.
Dann mach mal. Die Welt wartet auf dein bahnbrechendes HFR-Werk.
-
dienstag_01
- Beiträge: 14524
Weiss denn/versteht denn jemand, wie die Judder-Einstellung bei dem TrueCut Demo funktioniert? Was genau die bewirkt?
Vermutung: KI/machine learning. Die Einstellräder mit „realen“ Werten erinnern an die nachträgliche Schärfentiefe-Einstellung in fcp, die man mit „echten“ Blendenwerten regelt.
Nur geraten.
Nur geraten.
-
dienstag_01
- Beiträge: 14524
Und was genau macht dann die KI? Ich meine, an welcher Stelle greift sie überhaupt ein? Die Blende wird doch schon für Motion Blur genutzt.
Das Demo-Video auf deren Seite erklärt‘s ein wenig. Quasi Behandlung vertikaler Kanten bei Schwenks.
-
dienstag_01
- Beiträge: 14524
Ah, ok, hatte ich mir nicht angesehen. Schau ich mal.
Yedlin’s presentation and the FAQs on his website are riddled with distortions and misinformation. Nothing but lies, TBH. Here are just a few:stip hat geschrieben: ↑Do 10 Jul, 2025 19:11 Zum Thema HDR kann ich Steve Yedlin's "Debunking HDR" empfehlen.
https://www.yedlin.net/DebunkingHDR/
❌ “BT.2100 = ST2084”
❌ “Rec.2020 = BT.1886 + wider gamut”
❌ “HLG = SDR color space”
❌ “BT.1886 = color space”
❌ Colors outside Rec.709 = “garish”
❌ “sRGB = BT.1886 + different transfer function”
❌ “HDR = grading style only”
❌ “BT.1886 is more efficient than HLG, PQ”
❌ “Rec.1886”
⚠️ Tests PQ at 8-Bit
❌ “Only SDR can preserve relative contrast”
❌ “Everything about HDR that is different from SDR is a detriment”
⚠️ “WCG not specific to HDR”
❌ “BT.1886 is converted to P3”
❌ “SDR can reproduce subtler increments of luma & chroma than HDR”
❌ “HLG transfer function is inferior to BT.1886”
❌ Straw man: Attacks Rec.2020 knowing industry uses P3
❌ 200-nit HDR
❌ “HLG = weird edge case”
Zuletzt geändert von jonpais am Di 02 Sep, 2025 16:56, insgesamt 1-mal geändert.
Let’s cut through the noise: Steve Yedlin’s critique of PQ ST.2084 misrepresents its design, testing it in ways it was never meant to be used. Using the ITU’s own playbook (BT.2390), we’ll separate his claims from reality—exposing critical errors that invert the truth about HDR efficiency.
Yedlin’s Claim on PQ Efficiency
Yedlin asserts: “HDR needs 10 bits to look as good as SDR’s 8 bits” and frames PQ as inefficient.
Reality per BT.2390
PQ allocates code values where the eye sees differences, avoiding waste. BT.1886’s allocation is grossly inefficient beyond SDR’s limited 0.1-100 cd/m2 range.
Section 5.2 (Figs. 13–14) proves BT.1886 fails even at 12 bits, while PQ stays artifact-free at 10 bits. 8 bits hides BT.1886’s flaws—HDR exposes them. Yedlin’s critique inverts reality.
Yedlin’s Deceptive 8-Bit Demo
Yedlin states: “I’m gonna chunk it to 8 bit… That’s the HDR. Do you see how bad that is? The SDR is totally smooth at 8 bit, and the HDR isn’t,” calling 10-bit HDR a “trick.”
Reality per BT.2390
Testing PQ at 8-bit is invalid: PQ was never designed for 8-bit. Section 5.2 requires 10/12-bit pipelines to avoid artifacts. Yedlin cripples PQ while testing BT.1886 in its native SDR range (0.1–100 cd/m²)—like forcing BT.1886 to 4-bit, then declaring gamma “broken.” Figure 14 confirms PQ works at 10-bits; Figure 13 shows it’s flawless at 12 bits. BT.2390 never mentions 8-bit viability.
Yedlin’s “Wasted Code Values” Argument
Yedlin contends: “HDR’s only using 65% of up to scene white... The rest is wasted by holding out all this space for pixels that don’t exist", calling PQ "spectacularly inefficient.”
Reality
“While there are several key quality dimensions and creative opportunities opened up by HDR, one of the key differentiators from SDR is the ability for more accurate rendering of highlights.” ITU-R BT.2390
200-nit “scene white” treats highlights as overhead, not creative tools. Ignoring them reduces HDR to nothing more than ‘bright SDR’. BT.2390 defines HDR by its ability to preserve highlights (Sec. 1.3), not arbitrary nit caps.
Yedlin's Ignorance of PQ's Purpose
Yedlin states: “I don't know why they came up with this PQ curve" while praising BT.1886 as “fantastic because it actually works.”
Reality per BT.2390
PQ solves BT.1886’s HDR limitations. Section 5.2 states traditional gamma "is not a good approximation for human vision over an extended range".
Yedlin Claims Not To Know Who Developed PQ
Yedlin states: ”I don't know who came up with this PQ curve.”
Yedlin's Mislabeling of PQ as "Logarithmic"
Yedlin repeatedly calls PQ: “that PQ logarithmic curve" and “this logarithmic curve."
Reality per BT.2390
PQ is perceptually quantized (Sec. 5.2), not logarithmic. It uses the Barten vision model to match human sight. Yedlin is keenly aware that log is camera-referred yet falsely brands display-referred PQ as log to delegitimize it.
Yedlin's Data Rate Misrepresentation
Yedlin contends: “HDR is a data hog" and “at any data rate... the SDR curve is going to be better.”
Reality per BT.2390
Irony: Yedlin condemns PQ as a "data hog," but BT.2390 proves: BT.1886 needs >12-bits for HDR (Fig 13: “rises substantially above the visual threshold"). PQ delivers artifact-free HDR at 10/12-bits—the minimum for its range. Yedlin’s efficiency claim collapses.
Yedlin's Claim on Creative Intent
Yedlin implies BT.1886 preserves intent better: “SDR is the more reliable system for viewers to see relative contrast as authored by the filmmaker.”
Reality per BT.1886 & BT.2390
SDR’s OOTF alters contrast by design (Sec 2.1). PQ was engineered to preserve absolute luminance relationships.
Conclusion
Yedlin’s arguments misrepresent PQ’s design, test it invalidly, and artificially cap HDR to SDR constraints. BT.2390 refutes every claim, proving PQ is essential for preserving real-world light and creative intent beyond SDR’s limits.
Yedlin’s Claim on PQ Efficiency
Yedlin asserts: “HDR needs 10 bits to look as good as SDR’s 8 bits” and frames PQ as inefficient.
Reality per BT.2390
PQ allocates code values where the eye sees differences, avoiding waste. BT.1886’s allocation is grossly inefficient beyond SDR’s limited 0.1-100 cd/m2 range.
Section 5.2 (Figs. 13–14) proves BT.1886 fails even at 12 bits, while PQ stays artifact-free at 10 bits. 8 bits hides BT.1886’s flaws—HDR exposes them. Yedlin’s critique inverts reality.
Yedlin’s Deceptive 8-Bit Demo
Yedlin states: “I’m gonna chunk it to 8 bit… That’s the HDR. Do you see how bad that is? The SDR is totally smooth at 8 bit, and the HDR isn’t,” calling 10-bit HDR a “trick.”
Reality per BT.2390
Testing PQ at 8-bit is invalid: PQ was never designed for 8-bit. Section 5.2 requires 10/12-bit pipelines to avoid artifacts. Yedlin cripples PQ while testing BT.1886 in its native SDR range (0.1–100 cd/m²)—like forcing BT.1886 to 4-bit, then declaring gamma “broken.” Figure 14 confirms PQ works at 10-bits; Figure 13 shows it’s flawless at 12 bits. BT.2390 never mentions 8-bit viability.
Yedlin’s “Wasted Code Values” Argument
Yedlin contends: “HDR’s only using 65% of up to scene white... The rest is wasted by holding out all this space for pixels that don’t exist", calling PQ "spectacularly inefficient.”
Reality
“While there are several key quality dimensions and creative opportunities opened up by HDR, one of the key differentiators from SDR is the ability for more accurate rendering of highlights.” ITU-R BT.2390
200-nit “scene white” treats highlights as overhead, not creative tools. Ignoring them reduces HDR to nothing more than ‘bright SDR’. BT.2390 defines HDR by its ability to preserve highlights (Sec. 1.3), not arbitrary nit caps.
Yedlin's Ignorance of PQ's Purpose
Yedlin states: “I don't know why they came up with this PQ curve" while praising BT.1886 as “fantastic because it actually works.”
Reality per BT.2390
PQ solves BT.1886’s HDR limitations. Section 5.2 states traditional gamma "is not a good approximation for human vision over an extended range".
Yedlin Claims Not To Know Who Developed PQ
Yedlin states: ”I don't know who came up with this PQ curve.”
Yedlin's Mislabeling of PQ as "Logarithmic"
Yedlin repeatedly calls PQ: “that PQ logarithmic curve" and “this logarithmic curve."
Reality per BT.2390
PQ is perceptually quantized (Sec. 5.2), not logarithmic. It uses the Barten vision model to match human sight. Yedlin is keenly aware that log is camera-referred yet falsely brands display-referred PQ as log to delegitimize it.
Yedlin's Data Rate Misrepresentation
Yedlin contends: “HDR is a data hog" and “at any data rate... the SDR curve is going to be better.”
Reality per BT.2390
Irony: Yedlin condemns PQ as a "data hog," but BT.2390 proves: BT.1886 needs >12-bits for HDR (Fig 13: “rises substantially above the visual threshold"). PQ delivers artifact-free HDR at 10/12-bits—the minimum for its range. Yedlin’s efficiency claim collapses.
Yedlin's Claim on Creative Intent
Yedlin implies BT.1886 preserves intent better: “SDR is the more reliable system for viewers to see relative contrast as authored by the filmmaker.”
Reality per BT.1886 & BT.2390
SDR’s OOTF alters contrast by design (Sec 2.1). PQ was engineered to preserve absolute luminance relationships.
Conclusion
Yedlin’s arguments misrepresent PQ’s design, test it invalidly, and artificially cap HDR to SDR constraints. BT.2390 refutes every claim, proving PQ is essential for preserving real-world light and creative intent beyond SDR’s limits.
Zuletzt geändert von jonpais am Di 02 Sep, 2025 16:50, insgesamt 1-mal geändert.
Exposing Steve Yedlin’s Contradictions on Color: P3 Workflows vs. Rec.2020 Misrepresentations
Steve Yedlin’s “Debunking HDR” presentation misrepresents color science through factual inaccuracies, contradictory statements, and deceptive framing—particularly by attacking Rec.2020 while ignoring industry standard P3-D65. This analysis corrects his errors while emphasizing that creative flexibility—not dogma—should guide color workflows.
I. Misrepresenting Color Gamuts & Their Creative Utility
CLAIM 1: “Wide Color Gamut… is not specific to HDR. Wider gamut is not a distinction between HDR and SDR.”
REALITY CHECK: While BT.2020 does technically define a path to SDR WCG, it’s effectively unavailable to consumers via streaming services, which exclusively deliver WCG content through HDR formats (e.g., HDR10, Dolby Vision). (Thanks to Alex [Dolby] for clarification on the standards.)
CLAIM 2: Colors within Rec.709 are “tasteful”; those outside are “garish” or “obnoxious.“
REALITY CHECK: Subjective Bias ≠ Technical Truth: Yedlin conflates artistic preference with technical capability. P3 is a standard digital cinema color space [1]. To call it “obnoxious” is to indict cinema itself.
CLAIM 3: “WCG is only applicable to outliers like super narrow band emissive lights [e.g., lasers].”
REALITY CHECK: ≈64% of naturally occurring colors exist outside Rec.709.
II. Fundamental Errors in Color Science Terminology
CLAIM 4: “Rec.1886 primaries” / “BT.1886 is a color space.”
REALITY CHECK: ITU-R BT.1886 is an EOTF—not a color space (has no primaries).
Pedagogical Malpractice: “Rec.1886″ Doesn’t Exist: Misnaming standards causes industry confusion.
III. Logical Contradictions & Omissions
CLAIM 5: Color spaces are “perfectly convertible” because “any color within the gamut” can be matched.
REALITY CHECK: Direct Contradiction: Later admits colors outside a gamut “can’t be perfectly converted.”
Perceptual Ignorance: SDR’s 100-nit ceiling crushes highlight detail during conversion.
CLAIM 6: Rec.2020 Straw Man
REALITY CHECK: Admitted Industry Practice: On his website, Yedlin concedes “Literally no one finishing at professional cinema post houses is going outside of P3,” yet attacks Rec.2020.
Deceptive Framing: Targets Rec.2020 (delivery container) to ignore P3 (actual mastering standard).
CLAIM 7: “If somebody’s saying they’re getting different skin tones [in HDR], that’s absolutely absurd.”
REALITY CHECK: Ignored Physics: Skin tones >100 nits are crushed in SDR.
IV. Methodological Deceptions
CLAIM 8: Using a 2D CIE 1931 chromaticity diagram (misnamed “CIE hull”) to dismiss WCG.
REALITY CHECK: Outdated Model: Ignores luminance; modern workflows use ICTCP/CIELAB.
“Hull” Misnomer: Correct term is “spectrum locus”—exposing superficial understanding.
CLAIM 9: Focusing primarily on skin tones to dismiss WCG.
REALITY CHECK: Cherry-Picking Data: Skin tones occupy <10% of P3 gamut. His lightsabers demonstrate gamut limitation.
Correcting the Record
Yedlin’s errors—conflating EOTFs with color spaces, misrepresenting industry practices, and dismissing WCG based on taste—fuel misinformation. Key takeaways:
1. Technical Rigor Matters: Mislabeling BT.1886 as a “color space” undermines professional education.
2. Creative Choice ≠ Universal Truth: Rec.709’s limitations are measurable facts, not subjective preferences.
1. “The P3 gamut […] has become a de facto standard—not only for cinema and HDR production, but also for consumer and computer displays, such as Apple Display P3.” David A. LeHoty, Charles Poynton. Comparing Displays Using Luma Contours and Color Volumes. | Information Display, Volume 36, Issue 5. (Sept.19, 2020)
Sources: Debunking HDR (1:28:05); ITU-R BT.2100/2390; SMPTE ST 2084; Netflix HDR specs; [yedlin.net]
Steve Yedlin’s “Debunking HDR” presentation misrepresents color science through factual inaccuracies, contradictory statements, and deceptive framing—particularly by attacking Rec.2020 while ignoring industry standard P3-D65. This analysis corrects his errors while emphasizing that creative flexibility—not dogma—should guide color workflows.
I. Misrepresenting Color Gamuts & Their Creative Utility
CLAIM 1: “Wide Color Gamut… is not specific to HDR. Wider gamut is not a distinction between HDR and SDR.”
REALITY CHECK: While BT.2020 does technically define a path to SDR WCG, it’s effectively unavailable to consumers via streaming services, which exclusively deliver WCG content through HDR formats (e.g., HDR10, Dolby Vision). (Thanks to Alex [Dolby] for clarification on the standards.)
CLAIM 2: Colors within Rec.709 are “tasteful”; those outside are “garish” or “obnoxious.“
REALITY CHECK: Subjective Bias ≠ Technical Truth: Yedlin conflates artistic preference with technical capability. P3 is a standard digital cinema color space [1]. To call it “obnoxious” is to indict cinema itself.
CLAIM 3: “WCG is only applicable to outliers like super narrow band emissive lights [e.g., lasers].”
REALITY CHECK: ≈64% of naturally occurring colors exist outside Rec.709.
II. Fundamental Errors in Color Science Terminology
CLAIM 4: “Rec.1886 primaries” / “BT.1886 is a color space.”
REALITY CHECK: ITU-R BT.1886 is an EOTF—not a color space (has no primaries).
Pedagogical Malpractice: “Rec.1886″ Doesn’t Exist: Misnaming standards causes industry confusion.
III. Logical Contradictions & Omissions
CLAIM 5: Color spaces are “perfectly convertible” because “any color within the gamut” can be matched.
REALITY CHECK: Direct Contradiction: Later admits colors outside a gamut “can’t be perfectly converted.”
Perceptual Ignorance: SDR’s 100-nit ceiling crushes highlight detail during conversion.
CLAIM 6: Rec.2020 Straw Man
REALITY CHECK: Admitted Industry Practice: On his website, Yedlin concedes “Literally no one finishing at professional cinema post houses is going outside of P3,” yet attacks Rec.2020.
Deceptive Framing: Targets Rec.2020 (delivery container) to ignore P3 (actual mastering standard).
CLAIM 7: “If somebody’s saying they’re getting different skin tones [in HDR], that’s absolutely absurd.”
REALITY CHECK: Ignored Physics: Skin tones >100 nits are crushed in SDR.
IV. Methodological Deceptions
CLAIM 8: Using a 2D CIE 1931 chromaticity diagram (misnamed “CIE hull”) to dismiss WCG.
REALITY CHECK: Outdated Model: Ignores luminance; modern workflows use ICTCP/CIELAB.
“Hull” Misnomer: Correct term is “spectrum locus”—exposing superficial understanding.
CLAIM 9: Focusing primarily on skin tones to dismiss WCG.
REALITY CHECK: Cherry-Picking Data: Skin tones occupy <10% of P3 gamut. His lightsabers demonstrate gamut limitation.
Correcting the Record
Yedlin’s errors—conflating EOTFs with color spaces, misrepresenting industry practices, and dismissing WCG based on taste—fuel misinformation. Key takeaways:
1. Technical Rigor Matters: Mislabeling BT.1886 as a “color space” undermines professional education.
2. Creative Choice ≠ Universal Truth: Rec.709’s limitations are measurable facts, not subjective preferences.
1. “The P3 gamut […] has become a de facto standard—not only for cinema and HDR production, but also for consumer and computer displays, such as Apple Display P3.” David A. LeHoty, Charles Poynton. Comparing Displays Using Luma Contours and Color Volumes. | Information Display, Volume 36, Issue 5. (Sept.19, 2020)
Sources: Debunking HDR (1:28:05); ITU-R BT.2100/2390; SMPTE ST 2084; Netflix HDR specs; [yedlin.net]
Zuletzt geändert von jonpais am Mi 03 Sep, 2025 07:00, insgesamt 1-mal geändert.
Fact Check: Steve Yedlin’s HLG Claims vs. Industry Reality
While we aren’t taking a position on HLG’s suitability for narrative streaming, we cannot remain silent in the face of persistent industry-wide inaccuracies. We clarify some of these points below.
REAL-WORLD ADOPTION
CLAIM
“There’s no real-world in-use path for images to be encoded in HLG at the final viewing stage. Consumer disks, streaming platforms, and theatrical ‘HDR’ are all encoded in PQ.”
REALITY CHECK
In addition to being the preferred HDR format for live broadcast, HLG is supported by YouTube for HDR delivery to capable devices across 2+ billion users, including HDR uploads from billions of iPhones and many modern Android devices worldwide.
According to the most recent documentation available, Sky UK HDR licensed acquisitions can be delivered as either PQ or HLG, while all HDR commissioned productions are required to be mastered with PQ ST2084.
That being said, all HDR deliverables are then conformed to HLG for publication on its platforms—decisively disproving Yedlin’s contention of “no real-world in-use path”.
Yedlin’s assertion of ‘no real-world in-use path‘ is central to his broader dismissal of HLG. Debunking this core premise essentially undermines his entire thesis.
CLAIM
“I was addressing problems with what’s substantively going on in the real world, not weird edge cases or hypotheticals.”
REALITY CHECK
HLG is not some “weird edge case“: it’s central to live sports, news, and events. Ignoring this misrepresents the industry. Industry bodies standardized Rec.2100, confirming its mainstream role.
TECHNICAL DEFINITIONS
CLAIM
“HLG is an alternate transfer function (not the main line; the main line is PQ).”
REALITY CHECK
Although PQ dominates pre-recorded streaming content, HLG is the primary HDR standard for live broadcasting (sports, news, events) – a distinct, critical domain.
CLAIM
“HLG (in effect if not in name) is just yet another SDR colorspace.”
REALITY CHECK
HLG is emphatically not “just another SDR colorspace.” HLG is an HDR format that uses the HLG transfer function and BT.2020 color primaries and was designed to be backward compatible with SDR displays.
Performance & Efficiency
CLAIM
“If you change only the SHAPE of the transfer function… there is no difference in what the system can do… The shape only effects efficiency.”
REALITY CHECK
Yedlin overlooks HLG’s perceptual benefits. Transfer functions define how luminance values are encoded. HLG’s logarithmic curve preserves highlight detail that SDR’s gamma crushes.
CLAIM
“The one and only thing that’s even a little bit different… is the efficiency of its curve which is worse than traditional gamma-style curves for most real-world applications.”
REALITY CHECK
To say that HLG’s hybrid log-gamma curve outperforms gamma for HDR would be an understatement of monumental proportions: BT.1886 is entirely unsuited to HDR, as it would exhibit atrocious banding artifacts.
General Observations
Yedlin’s claims about HLG suffer from three critical flaws:
1. Ignoring broadcast reality: HLG is central to live HDR delivery.
2. Misdefining technical terms: Conflating color spaces, EOTFs, and standards.
3. Overgeneralizing from artistic preference: Asserting HDR’s “detriments” based on SDR-centric workflows.
While we aren’t taking a position on HLG’s suitability for narrative streaming, we cannot remain silent in the face of persistent industry-wide inaccuracies. We clarify some of these points below.
REAL-WORLD ADOPTION
CLAIM
“There’s no real-world in-use path for images to be encoded in HLG at the final viewing stage. Consumer disks, streaming platforms, and theatrical ‘HDR’ are all encoded in PQ.”
REALITY CHECK
In addition to being the preferred HDR format for live broadcast, HLG is supported by YouTube for HDR delivery to capable devices across 2+ billion users, including HDR uploads from billions of iPhones and many modern Android devices worldwide.
According to the most recent documentation available, Sky UK HDR licensed acquisitions can be delivered as either PQ or HLG, while all HDR commissioned productions are required to be mastered with PQ ST2084.
That being said, all HDR deliverables are then conformed to HLG for publication on its platforms—decisively disproving Yedlin’s contention of “no real-world in-use path”.
Yedlin’s assertion of ‘no real-world in-use path‘ is central to his broader dismissal of HLG. Debunking this core premise essentially undermines his entire thesis.
CLAIM
“I was addressing problems with what’s substantively going on in the real world, not weird edge cases or hypotheticals.”
REALITY CHECK
HLG is not some “weird edge case“: it’s central to live sports, news, and events. Ignoring this misrepresents the industry. Industry bodies standardized Rec.2100, confirming its mainstream role.
TECHNICAL DEFINITIONS
CLAIM
“HLG is an alternate transfer function (not the main line; the main line is PQ).”
REALITY CHECK
Although PQ dominates pre-recorded streaming content, HLG is the primary HDR standard for live broadcasting (sports, news, events) – a distinct, critical domain.
CLAIM
“HLG (in effect if not in name) is just yet another SDR colorspace.”
REALITY CHECK
HLG is emphatically not “just another SDR colorspace.” HLG is an HDR format that uses the HLG transfer function and BT.2020 color primaries and was designed to be backward compatible with SDR displays.
Performance & Efficiency
CLAIM
“If you change only the SHAPE of the transfer function… there is no difference in what the system can do… The shape only effects efficiency.”
REALITY CHECK
Yedlin overlooks HLG’s perceptual benefits. Transfer functions define how luminance values are encoded. HLG’s logarithmic curve preserves highlight detail that SDR’s gamma crushes.
CLAIM
“The one and only thing that’s even a little bit different… is the efficiency of its curve which is worse than traditional gamma-style curves for most real-world applications.”
REALITY CHECK
To say that HLG’s hybrid log-gamma curve outperforms gamma for HDR would be an understatement of monumental proportions: BT.1886 is entirely unsuited to HDR, as it would exhibit atrocious banding artifacts.
General Observations
Yedlin’s claims about HLG suffer from three critical flaws:
1. Ignoring broadcast reality: HLG is central to live HDR delivery.
2. Misdefining technical terms: Conflating color spaces, EOTFs, and standards.
3. Overgeneralizing from artistic preference: Asserting HDR’s “detriments” based on SDR-centric workflows.
Steve Yedlin’s presentation “Debunking HDR” makes a bold claim:
“Only SDR can faithfully reproduce relative contrast as authored by filmmakers.” This argument underpins his entire critique of HDR workflows.
During a Technical Webinar, Dolby’s Samuel Bilodeau directly challenged Yedlin’s core premise.
Bilodeau argues:
We don’t broadcast BT.1886; we broadcast Rec.709. When combined, Rec.709 and BT.1886 create an OOTF (Opto-Optical Transfer Function) that injects contrast absent from the original signal. Consumer devices seldom follow BT.1886 – the transfer function, the contrast that’s being added, is anything. Conversely, PQ (SMPTE ST 2084) preserves absolute light relationships by design. So, it’s the opposite of what Yedlin contends, not only on the consumer side of things, but also in the grading suite.
Why this matters:
Hidden Contrast Boost
The Rec.709 + BT.1886 chain introduces an OOTF that alters contrast relative to scene-referred intent.
Consumer Reality
TVs and devices are free to present SDR however they choose.
PQ’s Advantage
Perceptual Quantizer (PQ SMPTE ST 2084) encodes absolute luminance values, preserving contrast ratios by design when displays are PQ-compliant.
The Irony
Yedlin’s thesis hinges on SDR’s theoretical fidelity (“if monitor is capable”) —but its real-world implementation breaks creative intent. PQ solves this by design.
“Only SDR can faithfully reproduce relative contrast as authored by filmmakers.” This argument underpins his entire critique of HDR workflows.
During a Technical Webinar, Dolby’s Samuel Bilodeau directly challenged Yedlin’s core premise.
Bilodeau argues:
We don’t broadcast BT.1886; we broadcast Rec.709. When combined, Rec.709 and BT.1886 create an OOTF (Opto-Optical Transfer Function) that injects contrast absent from the original signal. Consumer devices seldom follow BT.1886 – the transfer function, the contrast that’s being added, is anything. Conversely, PQ (SMPTE ST 2084) preserves absolute light relationships by design. So, it’s the opposite of what Yedlin contends, not only on the consumer side of things, but also in the grading suite.
Why this matters:
Hidden Contrast Boost
The Rec.709 + BT.1886 chain introduces an OOTF that alters contrast relative to scene-referred intent.
Consumer Reality
TVs and devices are free to present SDR however they choose.
PQ’s Advantage
Perceptual Quantizer (PQ SMPTE ST 2084) encodes absolute luminance values, preserving contrast ratios by design when displays are PQ-compliant.
The Irony
Yedlin’s thesis hinges on SDR’s theoretical fidelity (“if monitor is capable”) —but its real-world implementation breaks creative intent. PQ solves this by design.
War Yedlin nicht vor ein paar Jahren der Forengott für manche, weil er meinte, dass man 4K nicht sehen kann?
Egal.
Egal.
Das ist was anderes. Nur Gamer sitzen halben Kopf entfernt vorm Bildschirm, so dass sie 4K auf Anhieb wirklich erkennen. Der Kauf vom Super-Gamer-Bildschirm und Super-Gamer-Tower mit LEDs & Co. hat sich ja richtig gelohnt - und die Welt ist dann in Ordnung wenn alles Turbo und eigenes ist.
"Deine Zeit ist begrenzt. Verschwende sie nicht damit, das Leben eines Anderen zu leben"
(Steve Jobs)
(Steve Jobs)
✅ “UHDTV is a television application that is intended to provide viewers with an enhanced visual experience primarily by offering a wide field of view that virtually covers all of the human visual field with appropriate sizes of screens relevant to usage at home and in public spaces.” - ITU-R BT.2246-8❌ Only gamers sit half a head away in front of the screen, so that they really recognize 4K right away.
Recommended Viewing Distances for Watching TV
55 inch – 39 inches (3.28 feet)
65 inch – 47 inches (3.94 feet)
75 inch – 55 inches (4.59 feet)
Seit einiger Zeit sind die Werbedisplays in Städten (Stroer etc.) mindestens 4K. Jetzt kann man man endlich was drauf lesen statt Pixelwüste.
Jonpais = Jon Pais
ist ein HDR Extremist, besessen von Steve Yedlin.
Er ist von LiftGammGain.com verbannt worden (das wichtigste internationale Forum für Coloristen).
Er ist HDR Fanatiker der die Webseite daejeonchronicles.com betreibt, wo er in den letzten Monaten ein Dutzend Anti-Yedlin Artikel geschrieben hat, zb "Steve Yedlin macht einen Clown aus sich", "Personenkult" oder "Yedlin vs Reality".#
Seit neuestem greift er Cullen Kelly oder Dado Valentic an weil sie nicht wie er Steve Yedlin hassen.
Der Typ ist ein armer Tropf, seine Scheinargumente sind löchriger als meine Socken. Wie besessen er ist gegen alle die HDR anzweifeln sieht man ja an seinen Beträgen hier.
Einfach ignorieren.
ist ein HDR Extremist, besessen von Steve Yedlin.
Er ist von LiftGammGain.com verbannt worden (das wichtigste internationale Forum für Coloristen).
Er ist HDR Fanatiker der die Webseite daejeonchronicles.com betreibt, wo er in den letzten Monaten ein Dutzend Anti-Yedlin Artikel geschrieben hat, zb "Steve Yedlin macht einen Clown aus sich", "Personenkult" oder "Yedlin vs Reality".#
Seit neuestem greift er Cullen Kelly oder Dado Valentic an weil sie nicht wie er Steve Yedlin hassen.
Der Typ ist ein armer Tropf, seine Scheinargumente sind löchriger als meine Socken. Wie besessen er ist gegen alle die HDR anzweifeln sieht man ja an seinen Beträgen hier.
Einfach ignorieren.
diese hier
"Deine Zeit ist begrenzt. Verschwende sie nicht damit, das Leben eines Anderen zu leben"
(Steve Jobs)
(Steve Jobs)
In other words, everything you said is false; you cannot prove a single one of Yedlin’s claims using the official SMPTE/ITU documents because nothing he says is true. Go on believing that ST 2084 = Rec.2100. 😂stip hat geschrieben: ↑Di 02 Sep, 2025 22:52 Jonpais = Jon Pais
ist ein HDR Extremist, besessen von Steve Yedlin.
Er ist von LiftGammGain.com verbannt worden (das wichtigste internationale Forum für Coloristen).
Er ist HDR Fanatiker der die Webseite daejeonchronicles.com betreibt, wo er in den letzten Monaten ein Dutzend Anti-Yedlin Artikel geschrieben hat, zb "Steve Yedlin macht einen Clown aus sich", "Personenkult" oder "Yedlin vs Reality".#
Seit neuestem greift er Cullen Kelly oder Dado Valentic an weil sie nicht wie er Steve Yedlin hassen.
Der Typ ist ein armer Tropf, seine Scheinargumente sind löchriger als meine Socken. Wie besessen er ist gegen alle die HDR anzweifeln sieht man ja an seinen Beträgen hier.
Einfach ignorieren.
Yedlin claims that BT.1886 is more efficient than PQ. That is a falsehood:
Yedlin claims BT.1886 is a color space. BT.1886 is an EOTF. A color space must have (1) color primaries (2) a white point and (3) a transfer function. BT.1886 has only #3. Therefore, BT.1886 is an EOTF. It cannot be a color space.
Yedlin says, “Display P3 is the color space that Apple computer monitors use. The monitor itself is Display P3, but very often it’s receiving Rec.1886 and just converting it to P3. Rec.2020 is exactly the same as Rec.1886, but with a wider color gamut. sRGB is also exactly the same as Rec.1886, but with a slightly different transfer function.”
All of these claims are physically impossible.
Rec.1886 does not exist. ITU-R BT.1886 exists. Using “Rec.1886” contributes to industry-wide confusion.
Display P3 is a color space. BT.1886 is a transfer function. One cannot simply “convert” BT.1886 to Display P3 in the manner described.
Rec.2020 is a color space. BT.1886 is an EOTF. It has no primaries. Therefore, Rec.2020 cannot be “BT.1886 + wider gamut”
sRGB is a color space. BT.1886 is a transfer function. Therefore, sRGB ≠ BT.1886 + “a slightly different transfer function.”
SOURCES: ITU-R BT.2020, ITU-R BT.1886, IEC 61966-2-1
Yedlin claims BT.1886 is more efficient than HLG. That is demonstrably false:
The graph above (Figure 5 from BBC R&D White Paper WHP 309) plots the Weber fractions for three 10-bit systems:
HLG
PQ 10K
BT.1886
The Schreiber limit (cyan line) represents the approximate visibility threshold for banding artifacts. The key takeaways are undeniable:
1. HLG is Highly Efficient: Its curve rides just below the visibility threshold for most of the range, meaning it uses bits efficiently to avoid banding.
2. PQ is Also Highly Efficient: It performs similarly to HLG, using a different approach to achieve the same goal of perceptual efficiency.
3. BT.1886 is Shown to be Inefficient for HDR: The BT.1886 curve lies significantly above the Schreiber limit (visibility threshold) throughout much of the tonal range.
Conclusion: This data from the BBC proves the exact opposite of Yedlin’s claim. When compared fairly at the same bit depth and peak luminance, both HLG and PQ are perceptually efficient HDR curves, while BT.1886 is utterly unsuited for the task.
Du hast keine ausreichende Berechtigung, um die Dateianhänge dieses Beitrags anzusehen.
Aktuelle Beiträge [alle Foren]
» DaVinci Resolve 20 Workshop - Mit der Magic Mask v2 Objekte automatisch freistellen
von scrooge - Di 22:19
von scrooge - Di 22:19
» Revolutionärer AF für Cine-Objektive: Tilta Autofokus-Adapter zapft interne Kamera-AF-Daten an
von rush - Di 17:06
von rush - Di 17:06
» EIZO ColorEdge CG2400SV - Neuer 24" Produktionsmonitor mit SDI und Farbkalibrierung
von slashCAM - Di 13:30
von slashCAM - Di 13:30
» Kostenlose IFA-Masterclass - Leo Keller über visuelles Storytelling mit der FX2
von Jominator - Mo 19:03
von Jominator - Mo 19:03
» Die beste Cine-Kamera 2025 - Wo gibt es die ultimative Bildqualität?
von Darth Schneider - Mo 12:22
von Darth Schneider - Mo 12:22
» DJI Mic 3 - kompaktes Wireless-Mikrofonsystem mit Adaptive Gain und 32-Bit-Float
von Darth Schneider - Mo 10:23
von Darth Schneider - Mo 10:23
» Kostenbloser Leitfaden zu neuen Funktionen in Blackmagic Resolve 20.1 und neue Version
von slashCAM - So 13:15
von slashCAM - So 13:15
» Google Gemini 2.5 Flash Image "Nano Banana" bringt Charakterkonsistenz und Multi-Imag
von berlin123 - Fr 17:50
von berlin123 - Fr 17:50
neuester Artikel
Maskieren mit KI: DaVinci Resolve 20 Workshop - Mit der Magic Mask v2 Objekte automatisch freistellen
Impressum | slashCAM Homepage | Nutzungsbedingungen | Datenschutzrichtlinie
Rechtliche Notiz:
Wir übernehmen keine Verantwortung für den Inhalt der Beiträge und behalten uns das Recht vor,
Beiträge mit rechtswidrigem oder anstößigem Inhalt zu löschen.