Encoding 4K HDR 4:2:0 10bit BT.2020

[benwaggoner]

Originally Posted by Maystone

Apologies if this is a derail but I've attempted to read and re-read this thread many times and am pretty sure this hasn't come up, but why not encode all in ffmpeg? Would it have something to do with the current convo on the shortcomings of ffmpeg and colorspace? Can someone tell me why the below command would not work to produce exactly what the OP wanted? (and yeah first post, ahem)

Input= 16bit 4k HDR10 graded tiffs in rec.2020

I get nervous with "color_matrix=bt2020". Because that is going to be 2020 primaries with gamma, not 2020 with PQ, which is what the x265 command line is using.

It might well work if the source and output are both PQ. Let us know how it works!

[kolak]

Originally Posted by Maystone

Apologies if this is a derail but I've attempted to read and re-read this thread many times and am pretty sure this hasn't come up, but why not encode all in ffmpeg? Would it have something to do with the current convo on the shortcomings of ffmpeg and colorspace? Can someone tell me why the below command would not work to produce exactly what the OP wanted? (and yeah first post, ahem)

Input= 16bit 4k HDR10 graded tiffs in rec.2020

ffmpeg -threads 16 -r 24000/1001 -start_number 0085069 -i 'hdr10_targ5_test_3.%07d.tiff' \\
-vf scale=out_color_matrix=bt2020:out_h_chr_pos=0:out_v_chr_pos=0,format=yuv420p10 -c:v libx265 -preset medium \\
-x265-params crf=12:colorprim=bt2020:transfer=smpte-st-2084:colormatrix=bt2020nc:master-display="G(13250,34500)B(7500,3000)R(34000,16000)WP(15635,16450)L(10000000,1)":max-cll="1000,400" -an /output/test.mp4

OUTPUT:

ffmpeg version N-81451-g8a78fc5 Copyright (c) 2000-2016 the FFmpeg developers
  built with gcc 4.8 (Ubuntu 4.8.4-2ubuntu1~14.04.3)
  configuration: --enable-libopenjpeg --prefix=/home/CORP/someone/ffmpeg_build \\
--pkg-config-flags=--static --extra-cflags=-I/home/CORP/someone/ffmpeg_build/include \\
--extra-ldflags=-L/home/CORP/someone/ffmpeg_build/lib --bindir=/home/CORP/someone/bin --enable-gpl --disable-libass \\
--enable-libfdk-aac --enable-libfreetype --enable-libmp3lame --enable-libopus --enable-libtheora --enable-libvorbis --enable-libvpx \\
--enable-libx264 --enable-libx265 --enable-nonfree
  libavutil      55. 29.100 / 55. 29.100
  libavcodec     57. 54.100 / 57. 54.100
  libavformat    57. 48.100 / 57. 48.100
  libavdevice    57.  0.102 / 57.  0.102
  libavfilter     6. 54.100 /  6. 54.100
  libswscale      4.  1.100 /  4.  1.100
  libswresample   2.  1.100 /  2.  1.100
  libpostproc    54.  0.100 / 54.  0.100
Input #0, image2, from 'hdr10_targ5_test.%07d.tiff':
  Duration: 00:00:01.96, start: 0.000000, bitrate: N/A
    Stream #0:0: Video: tiff, rgb48le, 3840x2160, 25 tbr, 25 tbn, 25 tbc
x265 [info]: HEVC encoder version 2.0+16-215eedc9ecc0
x265 [info]: build info [Linux][GCC 4.8.4][64 bit] 10bit
x265 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX
x265 [info]: Main 10 profile, Level-5 (Main tier)
x265 [info]: Thread pool created using 24 threads
x265 [info]: frame threads / pool features       : 5 / wpp(34 rows)
x265 [info]: Coding QT: max CU size, min CU size : 64 / 8
x265 [info]: Residual QT: max TU size, max depth : 32 / 1 inter / 1 intra
x265 [info]: ME / range / subpel / merge         : hex / 57 / 2 / 2
x265 [info]: Keyframe min / max / scenecut       : 23 / 250 / 40
x265 [info]: Lookahead / bframes / badapt        : 20 / 4 / 2
x265 [info]: b-pyramid / weightp / weightb       : 1 / 1 / 0
x265 [info]: References / ref-limit  cu / depth  : 3 / on / on
x265 [info]: AQ: mode / str / qg-size / cu-tree  : 1 / 1.0 / 32 / 1
x265 [info]: Rate Control / qCompress            : CRF-12.0 / 0.60
x265 [info]: tools: rd=3 psy-rd=2.00 rskip signhide tmvp strong-intra-smoothing
x265 [info]: tools: lslices=8 deblock sao
[mp4 @ 0x3239340] Using AVStream.codec to pass codec parameters to muxers is deprecated, use AVStream.codecpar instead.
Output #0, mp4, to 'test.mp4':
  Metadata:
    encoder         : Lavf57.48.100
    Stream #0:0: Video: hevc (libx265) ([35][0][0][0] / 0x0023), yuv420p10le, 3840x2160, q=2-31, 23.98 fps, 24k tbn, 23.98 tbc
    Metadata:
      encoder         : Lavc57.54.100 libx265
Stream mapping:
  Stream #0:0 -> #0:0 (tiff (native) -> hevc (libx265))
Press [q] to stop, [?] for help
frame=   49 fps=1.0 q=-0.0 Lsize=    9831kB time=00:00:01.91 bitrate=41977.1kbits/s speed=0.0391x
video:9829kB audio:0kB subtitle:0kB other streams:0kB global headers:1kB muxing overhead: 0.025485%
x265 [info]: frame I:      1, Avg QP:9.14  kb/s: 96922.02
x265 [info]: frame P:     10, Avg QP:9.70  kb/s: 67176.81
x265 [info]: frame B:     38, Avg QP:13.07  kb/s: 30572.90
x265 [info]: Weighted P-Frames: Y:0.0% UV:0.0%
x265 [info]: consecutive B-frames: 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 18.2% 72.7%

encoded 49 frames in 49.61s (0.99 fps), 39397.15 kb/s, Avg QP:12.30

Maybe it's better to export straight out of grading app 4:2:2 10bit uncompressed, instead of RGB based format, so data doesn't go over any RGB<->YUV conversion.
You can also now specify "smpte-st-2084" in ffmpeg, so does it mean conversion will be accurate even from RGB?

[musicvideos4k]

VISIONPLUS HDR 10k nits ST. 2084/BT. 2020 Transfer

MadVR HDR to SDR configured in 3000 NITS / Preserve Hue in 0% High Quality and compressing the highlights.

MadVR Color & Gamma Settings:

- Contrast in -24
- Enable Gamma Processing: Pure Power Curve 2.20

Display Calibration:
- This display has been calibrated
- Disable GPU Gamma Ramps
- BT. 2020 Gamut
- Pure Power Curve: 2.40

3000 NITS MADVR:







And the star of the show.

[musicvideos4k]

Avatar Transferred to HDR.


2000 nits / Pure Power Curve in 2.40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QqapeMCjZw

Now with 4250 nits / Pure Power Curve in 2.60 and Without Compressing Highlights at all.

Watch these images in a TV Dynamic/Vivo Preset and if you want turn up saturation some more.

[kolak]

I'm not sure if these grabs show anything interesting.
What are you guys actually do? HDR grading? What do you use as reference screen- Dolby?

[musicvideos4k]

Originally Posted by kolak

I'm not sure if these grabs show anything interesting.
What are you guys actually do? HDR grading? What do you use as reference screen- Dolby?

2000 nits / Pure Power Curve in 2.40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QqapeMCjZw

Watch that video with a TV Dynamic Preset in fullscreen. And later just watch original SDR Avatar.

Even on youtube you can see the difference, but the best would be playing the hevc stream on HDR tv or MadVR in above settings.

HDR must be displayed fullscreen by using Dynamic TV Presets, at least the one im showing to you here.

With the HEVC stream you get fullscreen directx11 exclusive 10-bit MadVR.

This also has BT. 2020, again even on youtube you can see the color gamut against the original SDR blu-ray.

This is from that video settings by using the same Power Curve on both:

SDR:




HDR:

[kolak]

Different doesn't mean better
How I meant to see higher gamut if in both cases I'm just looking at it on Mac screen which just have Rec.709 gamut?
It just looks oversaturated and with to high contrast.

madVR won't rigger HDR mode in most TVs, as it doesn't add correct flagging on HDMI and most consumer TVs don't allow manual set TV to HDR mode. You need to encode h265 with correct flagging and play this from USB, so TV automatically switches to HDR mode.

[musicvideos4k]

Originally Posted by kolak

Different doesn't mean better
How I meant to see higher gamut if in both cases I'm just looking at it on Mac screen which just have Rec.709 gamut?

You need MadVR and the native HDR stream. With MadVR you can calibrate to BT. 2020 even with luts.

It doesn't matter anyway, you can see the gamut difference even on those pictures and on the youtube video. Find the same scene on youtube and compare range and gamut.

And HDR IS better than SDR, in any way.

[kolak]

HDR is going to be better, as SDR is based on spec from many years ago. It was made based on TV capabilities at the time and this has changed a lot since then. Pro industry is very outdated and adopting very slowly compared to other things.
I've seen some HDR v SDR comparison on Sony OLED professional (and on Dolby) monitor and difference looked like day and night

TV has to be in HDR mode in order to see HDR advantages. Otherwise it's not a real deal

[musicvideos4k]

Originally Posted by kolak

HDR is going to be better, as SDR is based on spec from many years ago. It was made based on TV capabilities at the time and this has changed a lot since then. Pro industry is very outdated and adopting very slowly compared to other things.
I've seen HDR v SDR on Sony OLED professional monitor and it looked day and night

TV has to be in HDR mode in order to see HDR advantages. Otherwise it's not a real deal

You don't seem to understand. HDR doesn't needs some TV, the technology is on the video. TV's can expand or make it look better or worse depending their contrast and nits capabilities. Gamut is also on the video not on the TV's.

This is from the same images you said " there is nothing interesting " and " different doesn't means better "

SDR:



HDR:



Same Power Curve on both.

And this is my HDR processing, i don't know what the guys on here are doing.

[kolak]

I know what you mean, but your HDR is far from being correct/optimal
Gamut is on the video not TV? It's on both- video is graded to some gamut and then in order to see it correctly you need TV which covers this gamut, Rec.709, P3 etc. That's why video is graded on pro monitors (which cost big money) which are calibrated perfectly to specific gamut. If your home TV is "perfect" video will look 100% the same as on grading monitor, but this is almost never the case as home TVs out if box are really mess when it comes to accuracy
Go back too goole and read more

[musicvideos4k]

Originally Posted by kolak

I know what you mean, but your HDR is far from being correct/optimal
Gamut is on the video not TV?
Go back too goole

And yet you are watching the "HDR" on a laptop window and in pictures. Read again where i said: fullscreen tv dynamic mode. The HDR is just fine, it's even better than the toning from the commercial hdr blu-ray, and more nits mastered.


Cheers.

[kolak]

Define better? Brighter, more contrast, warmer, colder? It's director who decides with colourist how movie looks and they give it a reference look based on reference screen viewing.
You can tweak your version as you want, but this is just for your pleasure. No one is going to put your version on Blu-ray
Also- it looks somehow on your TV, but on some else Tv it will look different as home TVs are far form being consistent (even if in theory the meant to be). That's why grading monitors cost 20K

[musicvideos4k]

Originally Posted by kolak

Define better? Brighter, more contrast, warmer, colder? It's director who decides with colourist how movie looks and they give it a reference look based on reference screen viewing.
You can tweak your version as you want, but this is just for your pleasure. No one is going to put your version on Blu-ray
Also- it looks somehow on your TV, but on some else Tv it will look different as home TVs are far form being consistent (even if in theory the meant to be). That's why grading monitors cost 20K

HDR is high dynamic range, another curve. HDR makes SDR look like garbage. HDR expands everything, what are you talking about directors?

Do you think the director wants this movie to look like this :



Or like this?



Now without highlights compression and 3500 nits:



See the sky? Notice anything?



Same Power Curve on both. See how SDR even artifacts? Do you even know why is that?

This HDR is being processed by MadVR. Just in case, software processing.

Figure out why Sony released the HDR version of "The Shallows" then... if the "director" was fine with the crappy SDR. Go and buy the HDR version and you will be surprised on how well mine looks. And double surprised since the HDR version looks complete the opposite as the SDR in toning, because HDR makes things look more real than crappy SDR technology.

More?

1000 nit MadVR processing, compressing highlights and Power Curve on 2.60:

HDR:


SDR BT. 709 Curve:


I wonder if you even understand what HDR is about.

[kolak]

Read about whole process of making a movie, specially how it's graded. You may find it interesting.

Director wanted it to look as on original Blu-ray as this is done to a standard (Rec.709). When this was done there was no HDR. When time comes and studio finds money they will create HDR version from original assets and this will be again approved by the director and will most likely look noting like your HDR version
Your HDR just as HDR look, but it's nothing like REAL HDR. You have created it from SDR version, which has limited gamut and dynamic range. What you need is access to original assets (which have huge gamut an dynamic range) and then starting from this you create proper HDR master. Your version is just a quite poor simulation of possible real HDR master. If you like it, then fine- enjoy it, just don't forget how you created it (what was the source)

[nevcairiel]

If all you do is take a SDR video, "process" it into HDR, and then let madVR convert it back into SDR, then you didn't create HDR, you just created a new SDR video thats different. You could encode a SDR video file from that!

HDR is primarily about actually showing more information on your screen - a higher range of data, higher gamut and higher contrast. For that to be possible you actually need to set your screen in BT.2020 and HDR mode. Using a video player to convert it back to SDR won't give you "more information", it'll just give you different results.

[benwaggoner]

Exactly. None of the commercial HDR content I know of was created from 8-bit SDR compressed sources. It's almost always going back to at least a digital cinema master, which will use the P3 color space, or a negative scan, or some sort of camera RAW like file. And definitely at least 10-bit source, probably uncompressed (like DPX).

And it's another pass of creative tweaking and creative signoff. Different directors and cinematographers have very different preferences for how an HDR version looks. And you see different stylistic choices get made depending on whether it gets graded in HDR first and then SDR, or vise versa. Or graded for DCI first and then HDR, etcetera.

And there is no good programmatic way to grade an HDR, just as there isn't for SDR. These are different creative canvases, and thus different creative choices get made. Some scenes in the HDR of Man in the High Castle were darker than in the SDR, because 10-bits of the PQ curve allowed for a lot more visible detail in the shadow which Rec. 709 simply couldn't mathematically represent. And HDR can do a bright, blue sky, while an SDR the sky can be EITHER bright OR blue. Starting with a SDR grade, there's no way to know what the creatives would prefer.

Doing automated HDR is kind of like using "Vivid" mode on a TV. It can be impressive, but can also dramatically diverge from creative intent.

Originally Posted by kolak

Read about whole process of making a movie, specially how it's graded. You may find it interesting.

Director wanted it to look as on original Blu-ray as this is done to a standard (Rec.709). When this was done there was no HDR. When time comes and studio finds money they will create HDR version from original assets and this will be again approved by the director and will most likely look noting like your HDR version
Your HDR just as HDR look, but it's nothing like REAL HDR. You have created it from SDR version, which has limited gamut and dynamic range. What you need is access to original assets (which has huge gamut an dynamic range) and then starting from this you create proper HDR master. Your version is just a quite poor simulation of possible real HDR master. If you like it, then fine- enjoy it

[musicvideos4k]

Originally Posted by nevcairiel

If all you do is take a SDR video, "process" it into HDR, and then let madVR convert it back into SDR, then you didn't create HDR, you just created a new SDR video thats different. You could encode a SDR video file from that!

HDR is primarily about actually showing more information on your screen - a higher range of data, higher gamut and higher contrast. For that to be possible you actually need to set your screen in BT.2020 and HDR mode. Using a video player to convert it back to SDR won't give you "more information", it'll just give you different results.

I'm actually astonished on the knowledge in that post, more coming from a doomer in "HDR" thread.

MadVR process HDR signal ( native ) only if you feed actual HDR to it, otherwise it doesn't even works. That explains to you what im feeding is actually HDR.

When MadVR process the HDR signal back to SDR you can select "display nits" to your pleasure and the processed image is "watchable" on a SDR display, giving you the "higher contrast and higher gamut" compared to the same video in Standard dynamic range and BT. 709 Curve and gamut.

I use MadVR since you can see the difference from miles away and that's what is for, showing HDR signal back to SDR with MadVR gives you the "new image" showing huge differences from the SDR version, yet again "the higher contrast, gamut and range".

You can also watch my HDR streams with the "process HDR with pixel shader math" or just "passthrough HDR signal to the TV" by using a calibrated TV preset for HDR ( white balances, contrast tweaks , etc ).

HDR is HDR, there's nothing more to it.

This image is processed again by MadVR to SDR, this allows you to see the higher contrast, gamut and range compared to the same scene in SDR with 709 curve and gamut: SDR is going to look weaker contrast, lower gamut and lower range. You can even notice it when you saturate both pictures, one gets saturated in a milisecond, the other does not. Not to mention the higher contrast in lights, details and range.

[musicvideos4k]

Originally Posted by benwaggoner

Exactly. None of the commercial HDR content I know of was created from 8-bit SDR compressed sources. It's almost always going back to at least a digital cinema master, which will use the P3 color space, or a negative scan, or some sort of camera RAW like file. And definitely at least 10-bit source, probably uncompressed (like DPX).

And it's another pass of creative tweaking and creative signoff. Different directors and cinematographers have very different preferences for how an HDR version looks. And you see different stylistic choices get made depending on whether it gets graded in HDR first and then SDR, or vise versa. Or graded for DCI first and then HDR, etcetera.

And there is no good programmatic way to grade an HDR, just as there isn't for SDR. These are different creative canvases, and thus different creative choices get made. Some scenes in the HDR of Man in the High Castle were darker than in the SDR, because 10-bits of the PQ curve allowed for a lot more visible detail in the shadow which Rec. 709 simply couldn't mathematically represent. And HDR can do a bright, blue sky, while an SDR the sky can be EITHER bright OR blue. Starting with a SDR grade, there's no way to know what the creatives would prefer.

Doing automated HDR is kind of like using "Vivid" mode on a TV. It can be impressive, but can also dramatically diverge from creative intent.

I don't care what you believe they "do". I do what i like, and is HDR. Tell me why it looks bad, then.
And what did you mean as "automated hdr" ? I process the HDR myself, what is automated HDR anyway?

[musicvideos4k]

Originally Posted by kolak

Read about whole process of making a movie, specially how it's graded. You may find it interesting.

Director wanted it to look as on original Blu-ray as this is done to a standard (Rec.709). When this was done there was no HDR. When time comes and studio finds money they will create HDR version from original assets and this will be again approved by the director and will most likely look noting like your HDR version
Your HDR just as HDR look, but it's nothing like REAL HDR. You have created it from SDR version, which has limited gamut and dynamic range. What you need is access to original assets (which have huge gamut an dynamic range) and then starting from this you create proper HDR master. Your version is just a quite poor simulation of possible real HDR master. If you like it, then fine- enjoy it, just don't forget how you created it (what was the source)

Did you watch ANY of my movies in HDR? When you actually do and compare it to the HDR10 ( 1200 nits mastered ) movies, you will change your mind and apologize.

The movies you can buy are the best 4000 nits mastered ( dolby vision ) and not so many are even well done. The rest, are only HDR10.

What i do is up to 10k nits and you can see the higher range everywhere in my movies, i posted you how sky shows new clouds and you are talking about "higher masters" where you will see the SAME cloud i managed to show up in higher range and gamut.

Then... there's nothing more to it. It won't have another cloud that is not there, since that's how it was filmed even on the "higher master".

Blu Ray HDR are mastered in low nits, that's why you get an annoying bright picture, what i do is higher nits from where you get higher gamut , range and gamma curve to play with. Details are all there since the toning is the same the studios do.

You can't generate what is not there, in a movie HDR you see better image, range, contrast and gamut, making you see what you can't with the 709 curve, not things that are not actually there, unless it's another movie.

And it's completely obvious that an HDR movie mastered from the original source film will be best, what i do is HDR from SDR and i have never seen anybody doing it the way i do it. Sometimes i feel like this forum is full of crap, instead saying you like what i do you prefer to diminish the whole work with your comparisons with higher masters that nobody else do either on this forum or anywhere publicly.

Take care.