2018-04-19, 09:41 AM
Nah it's not a gimmick - the color space is just wider than it would necessarily need to be to represent most current movies. That doesn't negate the fact that Rec709 is way too small for the same task. It's not even possible to give a really accurate representation of a final 35mm film print in Rec709/SDR. You can notice that when you look at an actual film print or a slide image and then you look at the scanned one. While it may resemble it in most aspects there is a certainly brilliance that is lost.
In other words - it's better than it would need to be for most movies right now. But I think that's okay in the name of future proofing.
To be fair though - it's not usually fully filled up so the people in charge seem to be smart enough to show some restraint. If some of them do oversaturate and overcontrast current movies then that would be gimmicky in nature but the technology itself isn't.
Edit: I want to add another argument why it's not a gimmick. While most current movies may not have been made with the wide HDR colorspace in mind, there's an area that very well does profit from it, if it is used for that: Documentaries and anything trying to resemble the way things actually look in real life. Movies often use tricks to reduce the dynamic range of scenes to make them fit in the recording color space better. But real life shows an incredible variety of dynamics and Rec709 struggles *immensely* with portraying those. I'm really glad HDR is here to come closer to showing realistic real world representations. Imagine a scene of a dark cave shot against the bright sunlight. In the past you would be called crazy and incompetent for choosing such a shot as it would look horrendous in Rec709/Rec601. But now this may be an opportunity to get a really good looking and impressive shot. (as long as the framing etc. is good of course). Oh yeah and with that of course also comes the possibility of having much better looking memories for yourself once HDR consumer cameras become a thing. Just look at some of your personal casual recordings from the past ... notice all the constantly blown out highlights and crushed blacks ruining the image? No longer is that necessary!
In other words - it's better than it would need to be for most movies right now. But I think that's okay in the name of future proofing.
To be fair though - it's not usually fully filled up so the people in charge seem to be smart enough to show some restraint. If some of them do oversaturate and overcontrast current movies then that would be gimmicky in nature but the technology itself isn't.
Edit: I want to add another argument why it's not a gimmick. While most current movies may not have been made with the wide HDR colorspace in mind, there's an area that very well does profit from it, if it is used for that: Documentaries and anything trying to resemble the way things actually look in real life. Movies often use tricks to reduce the dynamic range of scenes to make them fit in the recording color space better. But real life shows an incredible variety of dynamics and Rec709 struggles *immensely* with portraying those. I'm really glad HDR is here to come closer to showing realistic real world representations. Imagine a scene of a dark cave shot against the bright sunlight. In the past you would be called crazy and incompetent for choosing such a shot as it would look horrendous in Rec709/Rec601. But now this may be an opportunity to get a really good looking and impressive shot. (as long as the framing etc. is good of course). Oh yeah and with that of course also comes the possibility of having much better looking memories for yourself once HDR consumer cameras become a thing. Just look at some of your personal casual recordings from the past ... notice all the constantly blown out highlights and crushed blacks ruining the image? No longer is that necessary!