Thread: Proper HDR workflow

Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 71
  1. #41  
    Senior Member jake blackstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,975
    Quote Originally Posted by Christoffer Glans View Post
    Yes, but the problem is that even without the license, the basic tone mapping should work and when putting it to 100 nits, it should not react like in the images I showed. All other tone mappings work as they should, but 100 nits (rec709) just expands everything in the scopes to oblivion and the footage looks totally wrong. This is the same result as I get when trying to export a H265 with proper HDR export settings. So either I have some settings wrong or there's a serious bug in version 16.2 or whatever the latest update is.
    From a quick glance at 100 nits image I can see, that you haven't performed the analysis- it is not greyed out. After running it on the single shot or whole timeline, your waveform will show correct measurements on a 100 nits scale. This has nothing to do with the license. In the past I have done DolbyVision HDR test grade with Red material and after running 100 nits tone mapping analysis on all images in the timeline, it looked completely normal on a standard Rec-709 monitor even though everything is processed and graded in PQ 2084/P3 for DolbyVision project. Unless you knew it, it is impossible to tell if it's standard Rec-709 project or DolbyVision 1000 nits ST2084/P3D65 tone mapped to 100 nits for Rec-709.
    Jake Blackstone
    Colorist
    Los Angeles
    MOD Color Web Site
    Demo Reel
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #42  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    4,460
    Quote Originally Posted by jake blackstone View Post
    From a quick glance at 100 nits image I can see, that you haven't performed the analysis- it is not greyed out. After running it on the single shot or whole timeline, your waveform will show correct measurements on a 100 nits scale. This has nothing to do with the license. In the past I have done DolbyVision HDR test grade with Red material and after running 100 nits tone mapping analysis on all images in the timeline, it looked completely normal on a standard Rec-709 monitor even though everything is processed and graded in PQ 2084/P3 for DolbyVision project. Unless you knew it, it is impossible to tell if it's standard Rec-709 project or DolbyVision 1000 nits ST2084/P3D65 tone mapped to 100 nits for Rec-709.
    Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if I analyze or not, the behaviour is the same. The problem is a two-parter. First there's this with the 100 nits tone mapping not behaving correctly (all other tone mapping options behave as expected), while the second problem is the worst part; that I can't export HDR H265 files without them looking the same as in that picture. Settings all over and in export are set according to the Dolby crash course videos you linked to before. So still a mystery why Resolve behaves like this for me.
    "Using any digital cinema camera today is like sending your 35mm rolls to a standard lab. -Using a Red is like owning a dark room."
    Red Weapon 6K #00600 Red Komodo #002397
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #43  
    Senior Member rand thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    7,942
    Christoffer,

    I think this problem will either be in the Project settings and/or the Export settings and Monitor setup.


    Here's the settings from the videos to use either BT2020 or P3 - DCI and Full Range and 6500 Temp.with your Mastering Monitor. Also make sure the Output Color Space corresponds to the same Mastering Setup.




    For SD monitor, Rec709/ BT1886 ( Gamma 2.4 ) Full Range 6500 Temp.

    Last edited by rand thompson; 10-21-2020 at 09:47 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #44  
    Senior Member rand thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    7,942
    Here are the H.265 settings I used. I placed the file on a Thumbdrive, connected it to a Samsung SmartTV that's HDR compatible and it both Tagged it as HDR and in ST.2084. It looked like I would have expected it to look as well.

    Edit:

    This is the screengrab without the "FULL RANGE" selelected. Be sure to change from "AUTO" to "FULL"

    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #45  
    Senior Member jake blackstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,975
    Quote Originally Posted by rand thompson View Post
    Here are the H.265 settings I used. I placed the file on a Thumbdrive, connected it to a Samsung SmartTV that's HDR compatible and it both Tagged it as HDR and in ST.2084. It looked like I would have expected it to look as well.

    Edit:

    This is the screengrab without the "FULL RANGE" selelected. Be sure to change from "AUTO" to "FULL"

    unless it changed, home TVs are Quad HD resolution and not DCI, so your image will get cut off as exported.
    Jake Blackstone
    Colorist
    Los Angeles
    MOD Color Web Site
    Demo Reel
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #46  
    Senior Member rand thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    7,942
    Jake,

    So 25601440 would be the best setting? I did notice a very slightly squeezed in image. Thanks for the info! I'll try some new settings then.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #47  
    Senior Member jake blackstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,975
    Quote Originally Posted by rand thompson View Post
    Jake,

    So 25601440 would be the best setting? I did notice a very slightly squeezed in image. Thanks for the info! I'll try some new settings then.
    No, Quad HD resolution is 3840x2160
    Jake Blackstone
    Colorist
    Los Angeles
    MOD Color Web Site
    Demo Reel
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #48  
    Senior Member rand thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    7,942
    Quote Originally Posted by jake blackstone View Post
    No, Quad HD resolution is 3840x2160
    This is what I was going by. But I get what you were saying.

    Last edited by rand thompson; 10-21-2020 at 04:10 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #49  
    Senior Member jake blackstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,975
    Quote Originally Posted by rand thompson View Post
    This is what I was going by. But I get what you were saying.

    I have no idea where you got this from, but it's pretty much outdated and Quad HD definition is plain wrong. HD term is pretty meaningless, it can be almost anything up to 1920x1080, Quad HD means 4 times 1920x1080 and 4k (DCI) means 4094x2160.
    Jake Blackstone
    Colorist
    Los Angeles
    MOD Color Web Site
    Demo Reel
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #50  
    Senior Member rand thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    7,942
    Jake,

    When you said Quad HD, I really hadn't heard that terminology in a while so I looked it up and that was what kept coming up. But Hey, I got it from a source on the internet so........But I understand what you mean now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts