Originally Posted by Neo-XP
Yes, I can reproduce that one too. Like the one from Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, it should also be "easy" to fix with immediate HSTM adaptation on gradual FALL increase/decrease.
I guess bad artifacts can happen the other way around if a scene starts from a full white image.
I have found an extremely bad artifact on Oblivion with HSTM On.
I uploaded a small sample here: https://www.mediafire.com/file/lp6l2l9c0hb5hcp/HSTM_artifact.mkv/file
New best "balanced" settings for me today (the middle ones):
More tests tomorrow, but I am already 99% happy with these.
Thanks. I'll give the balanced one a try. Are you still using DT 60 with these? It would be great when you post settings to include that as well, as I never know if maybe you made a small change there too.
Originally Posted by Manni01
DT doesn't seem to make much of a difference over 65 (for example in the latest build I can't see any difference between DT75 and DT100), so I'd try Neo's latest balanced settings (ending with 175) with desat 1. Do not desat can really look overcooked depending on the mastering of the title and your peak nits.
I know what you mean about overcooked. If you have Lego Batman, try a scene or two from there with Do Not Desaturate. It's overcooked to an extreme, I suppose because it uses very saturated colors to begin with. At any rate I'm sure this will be fixed once Madshi puts out the Desaturation update.
I haven't checked Shazam yet, but if it's a high nights title (such as The Meg or Mad Max) the impact of do not desat is very significant. If you do use do not desat (I'm trying to at the moment) make sure that you disable pretty fire, because it's not necessary anymore.
Personally I wouldn't use do not desat with 45 nits peak, because you need to compress the nominal range and highlights a lot, all the time. I would stick to desat 1.
If I had 200nits peak, I think I would have little issue with do not desat. With 110nits, it's fine most of the time, but there are times where it's too much.
Thanks. This makes sense. It also makes me wonder if having such low nits (45) gives a different result than what others report with their testing but using a much higher peak nits setting. I think Madshi say it shouldn't matter much tho, except perhaps with the saturation as you point out.
Also it could be in the film itself, or in your friend's mind if you asked them and the comment didn't come unprompted. Personally, unless we're talking about the obvious blooming artifact we've reported, I don't think anyone would detect anything with HSTM without an A/B. The changes (at least here) are not that obvious if you use a sensible curve. So if you're happy with your current settings keep them until you notice something. At the moment I'd say it's more likely to be do not desat than the HSTM settings (if there was anything).
Well, that's just the thing. I didn't ask them before the movie to keep an eye out for anything that seemed odd, and didn't bring up anything after the movie either. I wasn't even thinking about it at that moment. Then on the way out my friend said "Hey, by the way, I noticed..." and my first thought was nah he must have just imagined something, especially since I didn't notice anything odd. But after thinking about it for a sec I realized that he could have been describing an artifact from HSTM (or Do Not Desaturate).
I asked him today to describe in more detail what he saw, and he said that he thought the boys face in some outdoor scenes had a bit of a "metallic sheen" to it, that it "looked a little like makeup with glitter". So now I'm wondering if the video processing was so exceptional that it was revealing the actors makeup in those scenes.
Because I don't think a HSTM artifact would look like that (I'd expect something more like a hotspot or unnatural lighting pattern or unnaturally bright relative to the surrounding lighting). I need to go back and watch the film and try to find what he's taking about to evaluate it further and see if its a real artifact or something in the film.