AVS Forum banner

821 - 840 of 9410 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,208 Posts
Someone with HDR check it out!

The dumb mode is the one giving the closest yellow color comparing to HDR, by far !
You can see it even better in the next scene of the video.


EDIT : The first scene of this video is also very interesting to test the different modes: http://4kmedia.org/samsung-travel-with-my-pet-hdr-uhd-4k-demo/
The blue color of the sky is completely different. The scientific mode alone seems completely wrong comparing to HDR.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,208 Posts
I did not test with a projector, but with a HDR OLED TV to see which mode would be the best for a SDR TV.
I tested with a target peak nits from 100 to 400 nits, trying to match the HDR version.


2) Please compare "scientific" vs "scientific + surface". We need to test if the "surface" variant is useful at all. When using the Arve curve, it won't do too much because Arve tends to not touch pixels near diffuse white at all, anyway. But when using the BT.2390 curve, it should make a difference, at least sometimes. In your tests please look out for pixels that are around maybe 200-400 Nits. Highly saturated colors should receive a different amount of tone mapping (luminance reduction) when using "scientific" vs "scientific + surface" mode. If you can't find a visible difference in any content, please let me know, too, that's also useful information. Please test the "surface" option with "scientific", not with "dumb", because when testing the "surface" option with "dumb" you would test other things at the same time, which would not be useful for me.
Yes, "scientific + surface" is a lot better than "scientific" alone. I could not find any negative impact and the "+ surface" variant fix the luminance problem that the "scientific" mode alone has.
It is a very good thing, because the "scientific" mode alone is the worst of all IMHO.


3) Please compare "dumb" with "dumb + surface". This is not for testing "surface", though. Dumb mode has the IMHO negative attribute of already touching some pixels which are way below diffuse white. So, the key thing you're testing here is that "dumb" alone will modify some pixels well below diffuse white, while "dumb + surface" should not. Can you see this difference? Please check any pixels below 200 Nits. I expect it should not be too hard to see a difference. I hope "dumb + surface" changes things for the better? Because I think it's really not a good property of the dumb mode to already modify rather dark-ish pixels.
The "dumb" alone is the closest to the HDR colors for me. With the "+ surface" variant, the colors are less bright/vibrant (less HDR style), the hue is changed (not for the best) and I do not see any improvement about this.

4) Please check the various hue and saturation correction options for the dumb mode. You can use either the straight "dumb" mode for this test, or the "dumb + surface" mix. But please don't test this with the other mixes, because the other mixes have scientific mixed in, which to some extent masks the dumb mode color correction. Anyway. So do you like the new dumb mode color correction quality? Which combination of hue and saturation correction do you like most? In theory 100%/100% should be best, of course. But I'd still like your honest opinion.
Straight "dumb" mode without surface or any correction works the best. I do not like any color correction.

5) Please compare "scientific + surface" with "dumb + surface", using 100% hue and saturation correction (!). When using full color correction, these two modes should look somewhat similar, but there should still be visible differences. Which do you prefer?
"dumb + surface", using 100% hue and saturation correction is a bit better in color fidelity. Tested against the HDR version with the "Life Untouched HDR10" video ( http://4kmedia.org/life-untouched-hdr-uhd-4k-demo/ ) at about 2min12s on the flowers colors.

6) Finally, after you've completed tests 1) - 5), please feel free to test and compare any combination of options that looks useful to you and let me know which is your most favorite.
I would choose "dumb" alone, without any correction, for both cases.
With other modes comparing to straight "dumb", it seems that there is too much color saturation, and it is more and more visible as the peak nits is reduced. The "scientific" mode alone being the worst.

I can now post images if necessary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
There is little difference between dumb and surface versus scientific and surface for most titles.
Not exactly true, a lot of scenes there is little difference sure but in brighter areas there is a decent amount of difference between the two. Look at scenes with sky and clouds specifically (first scene in World of HDR) you'll see the sky change color.

It seems like maybe there should be attention placed on dumb and dumb + surface specifically as they appear to be the closest matches to HDR. Perhaps a sort of half way point between the two.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,948 Posts
I did not test with a projector, but with a HDR OLED TV to see which mode would be the best for a SDR TV.
I tested with a target peak nits from 100 to 400 nits, trying to match the HDR version.
First of all thank you for your feedback. You're the first to complete (almost) all of the tests I asked for, I appreciate that!

"Trying to match the HDR version" seems to indicate a small misunderstanding on your side, though. Your OLED does not show you the original HDR content untouched. What you see is LG's tone mapping algorithm. Please don't fall for the big trap which is thinking that the LG tone mapping algo is the golden reference standard we all need to duplicate. It is not. So you should not try to find a mode in which madVR duplicates what your OLED shows in HDR mode. That's not the right approach.

Yes, "scientific + surface" is a lot better than "scientific" alone. I could not find any negative impact and the "+ surface" variant fix the luminance problem that the "scientific" mode alone has.
Which luminance problem do you mean?

The "dumb" alone is the closest to the HDR colors for me.
No. What you're probably saying is that madVR's "dumb" tone mapping algorithm is the closest to LG's internal tone mapping algorithm. Which honestly means that LG's tone mapping algorithm must be pretty bad.

With the "+ surface" variant, the colors are less bright/vibrant (less HDR style), the hue is changed (not for the best) and I do not see any improvement about this.
If the hue is changed that should count as a positive thing because whenever uncorrected dumb mode shows a different hue, I can guarantee you that the reason for that is that dumb mode corrupted the hue.

"dumb + surface", using 100% hue and saturation correction is a bit better in color fidelity. Tested against the HDR version with the "Life Untouched HDR10" video ( http://4kmedia.org/life-untouched-hdr-uhd-4k-demo/ ) at about 2min12s on the flowers colors.
Interesting. Can you post a screenshot which shows this?

I would choose "dumb" alone, without any correction, for both cases. With other modes comparing to straight "dumb", it seems that there is too much color saturation, and it is more and more visible as the peak nits is reduced.
Does it not bother you at all that dumb mode has pretty dramatic hue shifts (away from the director's intent!) and random desaturation effects? I'll give you a little example of the random desaturation problems:

Prestige Dumb 1000 Nits - | - Prestige Dumb 200 Nits - | - Prestige Scientific 1000 Nits - | - Prestige Scientific 200 Nits
Harry Dumb 1000 Nits - | - Harry Dumb 200 Nits - | - Harry Scientific 1000 Nits - | - Harry Scientific 200 Nits

As you can see here, at 1000 Nits there's barely a saturation difference between Dumb and Scientific tone mapping. But go down to 200 Nits, and suddenly Dumb tone mapping becomes awfully pale, while Scientific properly maintains the saturation. The only difference between 1000 Nits and 200 Nits tone mapping should be a perceived brightness/gamma difference. But saturation should feel the same. It does so for me with Scientific tone mapping. But with Dumb tone mapping there's a heavy desaturation effect which gets stronger the more tone mapping is applied.

I could also show many screenshots for hue corruption problems becaused by Dumb mode, but these have been posted in this thread already, so no reason to do that again, I guess.

it seems like maybe there should be attention placed on dumb and dumb + surface specifically as they appear to be the closest matches to HDR.
What do you mean with "closest match to HDR" exactly?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
410 Posts
It's late here, so I'll just drop a few quick screenshots of some scenes from Starship Troopers, which show the differences between the different curves.


I don't use 480 as it dims the picture too much for my liking, but as Madshi has requested it, I've complied. These shots are set to 480. The more that I lower that value, the more desaturated the dumb (with dumb mode post processing set to none) will be.


I will add another post outlining my viewpoints to the structure that Madshi has requested.




Dumb mode (with dumb mode post processing set to none)








scientific













dumb and surface (with dumb mode post processing set to none)












scientific and surface










scientific and dumb and surface












Dumb mode (with dumb mode post processing set to none)










scientific








dumb and surface (with dumb mode post processing set to none)







scientific and surface







scientific and dumb and surface



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,208 Posts
Interesting. Can you post a screenshot which shows this?
Here you are, dumb VS scientific @ 200 nits:



The petals on my LG HDR TV are violet and not blue. So LG is wrong ? How to find the true ? :D

I will read your post again tomorrow and answer, now I need some sleep :nerd:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
What do you mean with "closest match to HDR" exactly?
I meant the closest appearance of HDR content on an SDR screen compared to an HDR screen, but then I did read your reply to Neo.. So guess that's out the window.
Perhaps seeing how multiple HDR televisions look with particular scenes might help? I have access to Sony, Panasonic, LG and Samsung televisions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,948 Posts
@madshi: There might be an alternative to the expensive Dolby mastering display. Projecting onto a much smaller screen area. Someone here suggested that a while back and I tried it briefly and got incredible brightness which allowed me to set my peak brightness high enough to view 1000 nits titles without tonemapping, i.e. with a pure hdr-sdr LUT done by displaycal. I used a 1/10 of my actual screen size (0,3 m² instead of 3m²) , which looks fine at target nits 150-200 and the highlights very amazing. No black left of course, but black is no issue atm.

As I understand seeing unconverted HDR is one of the big issues right now, so this trick might bring some valuable insights.
Forgot to reply to this.

Yes, you're right, and it's actually a pretty good idea!! :) The main problem for me is that I only have 1 projector. So I can only set it up to either fill the screen, or to simulate a Dolby Pulsar. I may even have to physically move it to be able to get the projection area small enough to get enough brightness. And that means I can't directly compare the original HDR content (in the overbright little window) to my tone mapped result. For that I'd probably need 2 projectors sitting next to each other.

Hmmmm... That said, maybe I can add a special mode to simply lower brightness a lot, so I can still use the little ultrabright window to also show how tone mapping would look like. Then I could switch back and forth with a key shortcut or something. Hmmmm... Might be worth considering!

It's late here, so I'll just drop a few quick screenshots of some scenes from Starship Troopers, which show the differences between the different curves.

I don't use 480 as it dims the picture too much for my liking, but as Madshi has requested it, I've complied. These shots are set to 480. The more that I lower that value, the more desaturated the dumb (with dumb mode post processing set to none) will be.

I will add another post outlining my viewpoints to the structure that Madshi has requested.
Thanks. Looking forward to your other post.

5) Please compare "scientific + surface" with "dumb + surface", using 100% hue and saturation correction (!).
"dumb + surface", using 100% hue and saturation correction is a bit better in color fidelity. Tested against the HDR version with the "Life Untouched HDR10" video ( http://4kmedia.org/life-untouched-hdr-uhd-4k-demo/ ) at about 2min12s on the flowers colors.
Interesting. Can you post a screenshot which shows this?
Here you are, dumb VS scientific @ 200 nits
Your screenshot is with hue and saturation correction disabled, which doesn't match what we were originally talking about (see quote history).

Anyway.

The petals on my LG HDR TV are violet and not blue. So LG is wrong ? How to find the true ? :D
That's easy: Use Dumb mode, but with 1000 Nits instead of 200 Nits. You'll see that at 1000 Nits both Dumb and Scientific mode agree that the petals should be blue. But if you switch to 200 Nits, suddenly Dumb mode turns them violet. So YES, if your LG shows the petals in violet, then your LG definitely gets this wrong.

Please understand that I've analyzed many cases where hue between Dumb and Scientific mode didn't match. And every single time so far, Scientific mode produced the correct hue, and Dumb mode was guilty for screwing it up. Sadly, sometimes what Dumb mode does may look more natural, subjectively. E.g. Dumb mode desaturates a lot, especially at 200 Nits, which hides flaws like overcooked (too high saturation) encodings, or tinted whites/grays. But really, do we want to use an algo which randomly changes colors from blue to violet (or from green to yellow), or which often applies too much desaturation? Or do we want to use an algo which is faithful to the colorist's intent?

A big problem here is that it seems that actually most displays out there today simply use Dumb mode. It's easy to understand because it's extremely simple to implement, and it doesn't look too bad, subjectively. Except that it screws up hues all the time, and desaturates too much. Oh well, and sometimes (for very pure primary colors) it doesn't desaturate at all, which is all wrong, too.

But, on the positive side, Dumb mode has very nice highlight preservation/detail.

I meant the closest appearance of HDR content on an SDR screen compared to an HDR screen, but then I did read your reply to Neo.. So guess that's out the window.
Perhaps seeing how multiple HDR televisions look with particular scenes might help? I have access to Sony, Panasonic, LG and Samsung televisions.
The problem with that approach is that pretty much all HDR TVs out there currently apply very very low quality tone mapping. So you simply can't use any of them as reference.

The only way to see the HDR sources as they were intended is to make sure no tone mapping is applied at all. So e.g. in madVR you could use a peak brightness target which matches that of the studio mastering monitor (e.g. 1,000 Nits or 1,100 Nits or 4,000 Nits, depending on the movie), and to switch madVR to "Clipping" instead of "BT.2390". Obviously the image will be very dark that way, so you still can't see the movie as it was intended. The best workaround might be ((( atom )))'s trick (see above), but you'd need a projector for that.

In any case, choosing rather high peak values for tone mapping gets you nearer to the true HDR image. So if you're not sure how the image should really look like, try at least 1,000 Nits or even more and compare. If you do that, I bet you'll find out that at 480 Nits (or 200 Nits or even lower), Scientific usually gets nearer to (a brighter version of) the 1,000 Nits image than Dumb mode.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
943 Posts
It's late here, so I'll just drop a few quick screenshots of some scenes from Starship Troopers, which show the differences between the different curves.


I don't use 480 as it dims the picture too much for my liking, but as Madshi has requested it, I've complied. These shots are set to 480. The more that I lower that value, the more desaturated the dumb (with dumb mode post processing set to none) will be.


I will add another post outlining my viewpoints to the structure that Madshi has requested.




Dumb mode (with dumb mode post processing set to none)








scientific













dumb and surface (with dumb mode post processing set to none)












scientific and surface










scientific and dumb and surface












Dumb mode (with dumb mode post processing set to none)










scientific








dumb and surface (with dumb mode post processing set to none)







scientific and surface







scientific and dumb and surface


I would say scientific+surface is probably the best option..

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
410 Posts
[FONT=&quot]A look at [/FONT][FONT=&quot]some explosion scenes from Mad Max
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Dumb mode (with dumb mode post processing set to none)[/FONT]







[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Dumb mode (with dumb mode post processing set to 100/100)[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]scientific [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]






[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]dumb and surface [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot](with dumb mode post processing set to none)[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]dumb and surface [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot](with dumb mode post processing set to 100/100)[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]scientific and surface[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]scientific and dumb and surface [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot](with dumb mode post processing set to none)[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]








[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]scientific and dumb and surface [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot](with dumb mode post processing set to 100/100)[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]



[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Dumb mode (with dumb mode post processing set to none)[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]









[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Dumb mode (with dumb mode post processing set to 100/100)[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]scientific [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]





[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]dumb and surface [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot](with dumb mode post processing set to none)[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]dumb and surface [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot](with dumb mode post processing set to 100/100)[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]scientific and surface[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]scientific and dumb and surface [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot](with dumb mode post processing set to none)[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]







[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]scientific and dumb and surface [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot](with dumb mode post processing set to 100/100)[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


1. Please compare the 3DLUTs posted by fhoech to the "scientific" mode, using a pure power curve of 2.2 with 480 Nits target. Can you see a difference? If so, is either of the 2 better than the other, or is it "win some lose some"?
I've never loaded a 3DLUT profile, so I'll need to read about this before I can answer this question (sorry)

2. Please compare "scientific" vs "scientific + surface". We need to test if the "surface" variant is useful at all. When using the Arve curve, it won't do too much because Arve tends to not touch pixels near diffuse white at all, anyway. But when using the BT.2390 curve, it should make a difference, at least sometimes. In your tests please look out for pixels that are around maybe 200-400 Nits. Highly saturated colors should receive a different amount of tone mapping (luminance reduction) when using "scientific" vs "scientific + surface" mode. If you can't find a visible difference in any content, please let me know, too, that's also useful information. Please test the "surface" option with "scientific", not with "dumb", because when testing the "surface" option with "dumb" you would test other things at the same time, which would not be useful for me.
I prefer scientific and surface, to scientific alone. The latter just oversaturates the image a little too much. The differences between the two are more profound with a lower target nits setting, and when the default madvr setting is 200 iirc, I believe that should be taken into consideration.

3. Please compare "dumb" with "dumb + surface". This is not for testing "surface", though. Dumb mode has the IMHO negative attribute of already touching some pixels which are way below diffuse white. So, the key thing you're testing here is that "dumb" alone will modify some pixels well below diffuse white, while "dumb + surface" should not. Can you see this difference? Please check any pixels below 200 Nits. I expect it should not be too hard to see a difference. I hope "dumb + surface" changes things for the better? Because I think it's really not a good property of the dumb mode to already modify rather dark-ish pixels.
I'm looking at the image of Scarlett Johansson's face from The Prestige (this scene: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-digital-hi-end-projectors-3-000-usd-msrp/2954506-improving-madvr-hdr-sdr-mapping-projector-25.html#post56293720 )


I'm not sure what you wanted '[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]dumb mode post processing set to', so I've had a look at picture with it set to 'none' and '100/100'[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]At target nits 480, and [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]dumb mode post processing set to none[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]: there is a subtle difference noticeable on her skin around her right eye. Dumb is a little brighter than dumb and surface, I can't complain about either setting looking 'wrong' though.
[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]At target nits 480, and [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]dumb mode post processing set to 100/100: [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]there is a subtle difference noticeable on her skin around her right eye. Dumb is a little brighter than dumb and surface, I can't complain about either setting looking 'wrong' though.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]At target nits 200, and [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]dumb mode post processing set to none[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]: The difference is more profound. Dumb alone is lighter than dumb and surface. Dumb and surface has more of a warmer glow. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]I can't complain about either setting looking 'wrong' though.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]At target nits 200, and [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]dumb mode post processing set to 100/100: [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]The difference is more profound. Dumb alone is lighter than dumb and surface. Dumb and surface has more of a warmer glow. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]I can't complain about either setting looking 'wrong' though.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


3. Please check the various hue and saturation correction options for the dumb mode. You can use either the straight "dumb" mode for this test, or the "dumb + surface" mix. But please don't test this with the other mixes, because the other mixes have scientific mixed in, which to some extent masks the dumb mode color correction. Anyway. So do you like the new dumb mode color correction quality? Which combination of hue and saturation correction do you like most? In theory 100%/100% should be best, of course. But I'd still like your honest opinion.
There are so many customisable options with relatively minor incremental steps, so it is difficult to notice any significantly discernible difference when progressing in order. I'm looking at the skin tones from Starship Troopers:


At 480 nits: I'm looking at dumb at none, dumb at 50/50, and dumb at 100. There certainly are differences. Although it is hard to say what my preference is at this time. Perhaps 50/50.


At 200 nits: I'm looking at dumb at none, dumb at 50/50, and dumb at 100. The differences are more profound. I dislike none for this title as the sky, and skin tones are too desaturated. At 100/100, the skin tones are perhaps a bit too saturated. I prefer 50/50.




5.Please compare "scientific + surface" with "dumb + surface", using 100% hue and saturation correction (!). When using full color correction, these two modes should look somewhat similar, but there should still be visible differences. Which do you prefer?
On Starship Troopers at 480 nits, I can't see any difference between the two. When set to 200 nits, there is a subtle difference, but it is minimal.

For Mad Max: Fury Road explosion scenes, at 480 nits, I can see a difference, scientific and surface is a little lighter than dumb and surface at 100/100. Can't really say that I have a clear preference for either though. When set to 200 nits, the difference is a little greater. Again, scientific and surface is a little lighter than dumb and surface at 100/100. Can't really say that I have a clear preference for either though.




6. Finally, after you've completed tests 1) - 5), please feel free to test and compare any combination of options that looks useful to you and let me know which is your most favorite. I should add that in the end, I would prefer to offer only 2 modes in total:

A] One mode which produces best quality for well mastered movies/videos. Theoretically, good candidates might be:

- any scientific variant?
- dumb mode mixed with surface and/or scientific with at least some (preferably much) color correction?

B] One mode which helps making overcooked badly mastered movies/videos bearable. Good candidates might be:

- same as A) but with some added manual desaturation?
- dumb mode mixed with surface and/or scientific without or with just a little color correction
My personal preference is any of those with the surface variant added. So either, dumb and surface, scientific and surface, or scientific and dumb and surface. When the '[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]dumb mode post processing set to none', the [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]scientific and dumb and surface is in between dumb and surface vs scientific and surface, so that might be a good compromise. I'm largely basing this from the skin tones from Starship Troopers, the differences between the 3 surface variants are more noticeable for Mad Max, but I don't really know which one is 'correct', the explosions are also fleeting. Skin tones are more prominent and distracting.



When the nits is set to 200 and '[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]dumb mode post processing set to none'[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]: again, I prefer any of those with the surface variant added. Probably, between scientific and surface, or scientific and dumb and surface. When the target is 200, I dislike scientific (it saturates the image too much), or dumb (it desaturates the image too much i.e. skin tones/ sky (although it looks okay for the explosions scenes in Mad Max)), the least out of all the options.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,948 Posts
@Fer15,

thank you very much for your feedback, appreciated! :)

I'm wondering if we should try to find a couple of movies/scenes which are known to be "mastered well" or "overcooked". So we can properly judge which algorithm looks good in either of these cases. Right now if we pick random movies to test the algos with, there's always a certain insecurity about whether the specific movie was mastered well or not. But then, how can we judge which movie was mastered well and which wasn't? I suppose one good idea would be to use ((( atom )))'s idea to turn a projector into tiny sized torch mode, and then watch the HDR movies without any tone mapping. Then it should be possible to judge which movie looks natural and which looks overcooked, no?

Waiting for more feedback, how about e.g. @Javs and @Soulnight? And of course Manni01, when he returns from his journey.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,948 Posts
For anyone who doesn't know how to use the 3DLUTs provided by fhoech, here's a very small guide:

1) open the "hdr" tab in the madVR settings
2) select "convert HDR content to SDR by using an external 3DLUT"
3) click on the folder button for "BT.2020"
4) select whatever fhoech 3DLUT you want to test, e.g. BT.709 gamma 2.2

Done.

Now you can switch between the DisplayCAL 3DLUT and madVR's pixel shader algo simply by switching between the two "convert HDR content to SDR by [...]" option in the madVR "hdr" settings tab.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,208 Posts
"Trying to match the HDR version" seems to indicate a small misunderstanding on your side, though. Your OLED does not show you the original HDR content untouched. What you see is LG's tone mapping algorithm. Please don't fall for the big trap which is thinking that the LG tone mapping algo is the golden reference standard we all need to duplicate. It is not. So you should not try to find a mode in which madVR duplicates what your OLED shows in HDR mode. That's not the right approach.
I really thought that the HDR version was the one to match when testing, and I had no idea the differences would be so dramatic with a bad tone mapping algorithm.
What is the right approach then? For movies can we compare with the SDR bluray for instance or do we just try to find the most pleasing/natural result for everyone?

Which luminance problem do you mean?
I am not sure "luminance" is the right word, but here is an example between SDR bluray / dumb / scientific / scientific + surface:



The strange thing is that the HDR version on my TV is completely different, more like orange-red (somewhere between "dumb" and "scientific+surface" in saturation intensity I would say).

No. What you're probably saying is that madVR's "dumb" tone mapping algorithm is the closest to LG's internal tone mapping algorithm. Which honestly means that LG's tone mapping algorithm must be pretty bad.
Yes, the the hue is the closest, more saturated on some colors and less saturated on others, but it looks the closest overall for me.

Does it not bother you at all that dumb mode has pretty dramatic hue shifts (away from the director's intent!) and random desaturation effects?
Yes, dumb is far from perfect, but I have the same problem with scientific on some colors, and it is a lot worse sometimes.

For instance between dumb 1000 nits / dumb 200 nits / scientific 1000 nits / scientific 200 nits:



Source: http://4kmedia.org/sony-bravia-uhd-hdr-4k-demo/

EDIT : The same thing happens with flames in movies, they do not look like real flames anymore with scientific modes with the desaturation of the yellow color.

Like this (SDR bluray / dumb 200 nits / scientific 200 nits):



And dumb 1000 nits / scientific 1000 nits for comparison purpose:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,948 Posts
I really though the the HDR version was the one to match when testing, and I had no idea the differences would be so dramatic with a bad tone mapping algorithm.
Well, this might be splitting hairs, but I already disagree with the wording you're using. When you say "the HDR version" that sounds as if what your OLED shows is to be considered to original reference HDR version, but it's not.

I know it's something people need to wrap their head around first. But official HDR displays are not really all that different from old SDR displays. The key difference is that official HDR displays have a firmware which supports tone mapping. There's no secret sauce. The display's aren't physically built in a different way, like different OLED materials or something. It's all just tone mapping in the firmware. Ok, maybe manufacturers are pulling some extra things to squeeze a bit more brightness out of their technology, so they don't have to tone map as much (as they would otherwise have to). But still, in the end the key thing an official HDR display has is just a firmware which supports tone mapping.

So if you let madVR convert HDR video to SDR, basically you're comparing madVR's tone mapping algorithm to LG's tone mapping algorithm. If you fully embrace that fact, it should be easy to understand that we can't start with the assumption that LG implemented a perfect tone mapping algorithm, and madVR did not. Actually, I'm hearing from various insiders lots and lots of complaints about the very bad quality of the tone mapping implementations of most TVs out there today.

So in the same way you wouldn't assume that your OLED must be better at upscaling compared to madVR (for whatever reason), you also shouldn't assume that your OLED must be better at tone mapping compared to madVR.

What is the right approach then? For movies can we compare with the SDR bluray for instance or do we just try to find the most pleasing/natural result for everyone?
That's the tricky question!!! Actually, when this thread started, we noticed that the green spear scene in Batman vs Superman had a strong yellow tint with Dumb mode, and was fully green with Scientific mode. At that time some users argued that the Batman vs Superman SDR Blu-Ray shows the same yellow tint. So it must be the colorist's intent that it should be yellow, right? But here comes the catch: If you play the HDR Blu-Ray with madVR set to 1000 Nits, the green spear is fully green with both Dumb and Scientific mode. So obviously the HDR master has the spear encoded as green. But if you switch to 200 Nits, suddenly Dumb tone mapping shifts hue to bright yellow, which makes no sense, but that's what Dumb mode does.

So why does the SDR Blu-Ray have the same yellow tint? The reason seems to be that the software/algorithm the movie studio used to tone map the HDR master for the SDR Blu-Ray also produced the same yellow hue shift. So again, is this the colorists intent, then? No, because the HDR Blu-Ray master does not ask for the yellow tint, and we received the information that studio mastering HDR monitors do *not* do any tone mapping at all. So we know for a fact that the colorist who graded the HDR version of Batman vs Superman did see a fully green spear on his monitor, not a yellow spear.

So what does it all mean? It means that we can't trust what the official HDR TVs do. We can't trust the SDR Blu-Ray encodings, either. The only truely objective way to verify the true hue is to render the video without any tone mapping (e.g. by using ((( atom )))'s trick). Or, for a quick approximation simply switch to Dumb mode, then compare e.g. 1000nits or even 2000nits to 200nits. The 1000nits or 2000nits image should show the true hue. The 200nits image may contain very strong hue shifts. If your HDR TV (or the SDR Blu-Ray) has similar hue shifts as the 200nits dumb mode image, then there's a very very high chance that your HDR TV (or the SDR Blu-Ray) suffers from using a bad quality hue shifting tone mapping algorithm, which you then clearly can't trust.

I am not sure "luminance" is the right word, but here is an example between SDR bluray / dumb / scientific / scientific + surface
Ah yes, that looks like a convincing argument pro "surface", thanks!!

The strange thing is that the HDR version on my TV is completely different, more like orange-red (somewhere between "dumb" and "scientific+surface" in saturation intensity I would say).
Dumb mode has a tendency to hue shift red into orange (or in extreme cases even into yellow), orange into yellow, green into yellow and blue into purple.

Yes, dumb is far from perfect, but I have the same problem with scientific on some colors, and it is a lot worse sometimes.

For instance between dumb 1000 nits / dumb 200 nits / scientific 1000 nits / scientific 200 nits:

Source: http://4kmedia.org/sony-bravia-uhd-hdr-4k-demo/
Yes, I fully understand your problem with what Scientific mode is doing there. But you also see that Dumb mode very strongly shifted the hue from orange to yellow there, right? Scientific mode in contrast to that kept hue roughly correct, but made the image very very pale. The problem is that when you have a very bright and very saturated pixel, which your TV simply can't handle, you have to do *something*. Whatever you do, it comes at a cost. You could reduce brightness, you could reduce saturation, or a bit of both. But it will always hurt image quality. Dumb mode shifts hue, but maintains more saturation, which may subjectively look "better" in this image, but it's very far from correct.

There's probably still room for improvement with Scientific mode. Maybe we should allow for a little bit of hue shift, in the hope to maintain more saturation in situations like this. That's why I have the option to use e.g. Dumb mode with 50% or 75% hue correction, which may be a reasonable compromise in these situations? Or the "scientific + dumb + surface" mix mode, maybe?

EDIT : The same thing happens with flames in movies, they do not look like real flames anymore with scientific modes with the desaturation of the yellow color.
Let me point you to something interesting here: If you double check these images carefully, you might notice that the yellow parts of the 1000nits images actually turn white in both the Dumb and Scientific 200nits images. However, the parts which are orange or light red in the 1000nits image turn yellow in the Dumb mode image, while they stay orange or light red in the Scientific image. Can you confirm that?

The curious thing here is that the Dumb mode 200nits image looks nearer to the original 1000nits image because the Dumb mode 200nits image still has yellow, orange and red pixels in it, while the scientific 200nits image only has orange and red left. Right? But actually the yellow pixels in the Dumb mode 200nits image have an incorrect hue, because the video file has encoded those pixels to be orange/red! So it's a lucky accident here that Dumb's hue shifting problems actually help making this image look closer to the 1000nits image. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Or let me try to explain it in a different way: Let's imagine the whole flames stuff would actually be encoded in the movie as red, not as yellow. That's not the case here, but let's imagine it were. In this situation the 1000nits image would be all red, not yellow, with both Dumb and Scientific mode, correct? Now what would happen at 200nits? Dumb mode would turn some of those pixels yellow once more, while scientific mode would not. In that case the yellow pixels would not be welcome in the Dumb mode 200nits image, right?

But what you've noticed here is the main argument pro Dumb mode that was also posted by several other users: The hue shifting behaviour of Dumb mode is predictable: Red turns into orange, orange turns into yellow. Which is actually making fire and explosions look nicely natural after tone mapping. So Dumb mode looks great for fire and explosions. But what it does is actually incorrect, on a technical level. And in other scenes, such hue shifts are not really welcome. We want to see the colors the director intended us to see, don't we?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,823 Posts
I think you are overestimating the amount of work done by many manufacturer with many "official" HDR displays. :)

With JVC, at least the early HDR model I have, I can guarantee you that all they do is select a BT2020 gamut and select an s-shaped power gamma that emulates PQ Gamma. There is no "magic sauce" whatsoever. The hue/color you get isn't by design, it's simply what you get when you select a marginally wider color gamut with BT2020 saturations, and apply to that a PQ Gamma emulation.

Now what would be interesting, as we said already, would be to know if the way HDR is implemented on the grading monitor is just as bad, in which case doing it it as badly on the consumer display would be correct, as it would be closer to what the colorist/director saw during grading.

This is with displays able to go up to 1000nits of course. Other issues are specific to tone-mapping down to lower values. I don't think anyone is grading a title to 4000nits or even 1000nits wondering how it's going to look like if tonemapped to 200nits. 600nits, probably, because that's the minimum for OLEDs to get the HDR Premium certification (or whatever it's called, I forgot), but they don't care about computer monitors or projectors with 200nits or less, so most likely they are not looking at what's happening if you tone-map below 500-600nits using the "dumb" way.

So we're back to this question: by being more clever than dumb, is scientific closer to the director's/colorist intent, or further away?

I haven't look yet at the recent implementation because I'm still away, but I don't think there is a clear winner based on the screenshots posted. In some cases, dumb looks more realistic (it could be, as you said, by sheer luck rather than by intent), in others it's scientific that's more convincing. Note that I don't say more faithful, because as you noted unless we know what the colorist saw during grading on the grading monitor, there is no way to assess this.

Also it's clearly a moving post because as grading monitors improve, so will HDR improve and we have no idea what's going to happen as consumer displays improve too.

I certainly agree with you when you say that we shouldn't take the results produced by any HDR display as a reference, but given the absence of reference for consumer HDR10 reproduction (unlike Dolby Vision), the only thing that I'm concerned about, at this stage, is is there anything in the tonemapping result likely to distract me from what I am watching. And I have to say that with all its incorrectness, I was NEVER distracted by dumb results, while there are many scenes that looked "wrong" with scientific (at least initially). Not wrong because they are different from dumb, just wrong because it would be hard to imagine that it could be the director's/colorist intent to make them look that way.

So it's a very complex issue to resolve. I have to say that in fhoech's 3D LUT, I didn't find any objectionable results, so I'm hoping that I'll feel the same with some of the new modes that you are now offering. As in different than dumb, but better. For example, getting more saturation on skies sounds like a clear improvement to me. If we can get this in a mode without getting distracting artifacts (such as apparent clipping/loss of details or "weird" hues), then we probably have a winner.

Of course, I try to be open-minded, but you can't "undo" hundreds of hours of "dumb mode" watching. That's what I'll try to assess film I haven't watched before, to see if some scenes "jar" instead of reacting to the fact that they don't look like what dumb produces, if that makes sense.

Very much looking forward to testing the latest as soon as I can (not until next week-end at the earliest). :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,948 Posts
I think you are overestimating the amount of work done by many manufacturer with many "official" HDR displays. :)
Agreed, but many users seem to start with the exact opposite view, namely that "official" HDR displays are somehow considered to be reference and whenever madVR differs, madVR must be wrong.

Now what would be interesting, as we said already, would be to know if the way HDR is implemented on the grading monitor is just as bad, in which case doing it it as badly on the consumer display would be correct, as it would be closer to what the colorist/director saw during grading.
But we already know that!!!

Kris Deering reported earlier than all mastering monitors simply clip and do no tone mapping at all. Which practically means, as long as the content doesn't exceed the mastering monitor's abilities, the colorist should have seen zero hue shifts. Nothing like Dumb mode at all.

So we're back to this question: by being more clever than dumb, is scientific closer to the director's/colorist intent, or further away?
Have you read ((( atom )))'s suggestion?

So it's a very complex issue to resolve. I have to say that in fhoech's 3D LUT, I didn't find any objectionable results, so I'm hoping that I'll feel the same with some of the new modes that you are now offering.
Same hope here. That's also a reason why the first point in my "things to test" list is a comparison of madVR's tone mapping compared to fhoech's 3DLUTs.

Very much looking forward to testing the latest as soon as I can (not until next week-end at the earliest). :)
Looking forward to your test results! :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,823 Posts
Kris Deering reported earlier than all mastering monitors simply clip and do no tone mapping at all. Which practically means, as long as the content doesn't exceed the mastering monitor's abilities, the colorist should have seen zero hue shifts. Nothing like Dumb mode at all.
Hopefully MadVR's tonemapping has progressed in the latest implementation so that we have less (if any) of these jarring scenes/artifacts. Otherwise I guess I'll have to find a way to watch HDR content on a grading monitor to convince myself that the original intention is to produce some of the results I've seen in the past.

Because until now, it was a bit like choosing between two evils, one you know is wrong but doesn't distract you (dumb), another you know is more correct (or less wrong) but distracts you more (complex/scientific).

Have you read ((( atom )))'s suggestion?
Yes, it's not really something new, it's been suggested in the past to produce a higher brightness, but like you zooming wouldn't be enough, I would have to move my PJ very close to the screen to get good results, so that's not an option at the moment, even for temporary testing.
 
821 - 840 of 9410 Posts
Top