Quote:
Originally Posted by el Filou
Did you mean provide visibly more dynamic range?
|
Probably not, unless you are using a definition of dynamic range that also works for contrast. What is the difference, exactly? You never really increase the dynamic range or contrast of the screen, obviously, but the image looks like it has more contrast.
I don't quite understand the strong interest in HDR -> SDR myself. Colorists could have graded this way for a long time, but they didn't. I find that very compressed HDR usually looks worse than the SDR release most of the time, in the same way "vivid" modes do on displays. It pops more but it doesn't look as good. Real HDR (1000+ nits) is great, no complaints there.
I suppose standard SDR is mastered for 0-100 and this very compressed HDR should be better for 0-300? I use 100 nits for SDR so maybe that is why I don't like it. Or maybe it is just that most of my HDR content also includes an SDR version which is better mastered for an SDR display?