Is content still created in SDR and mapped to HDR these days?

[75hsidb89]

Is it still the most common/likely content mastering flow to create in SDR and then map to HDR or is some content created in HDR and mapped to SDR?

I probobly answer my own question when I say that it doesn't make much sense to develop/create in HDR and remap to SDR because there is only one SDR standard for the vast majority of content out there (sRGB/Rec.709), but there are multiple HDR standards. I've yet to see something like "mastered/created/developed in HDR400 (or HDR1000)", but I don't keep up with news in this area either.

 

[MaZa]

Is it still the most common/likely content mastering flow to create in SDR and then map to HDR or is some content created in HDR and mapped to SDR?

I probobly answer my own question when I say that it doesn't make much sense to develop/create in HDR and remap to SDR because there is only one SDR standard for the vast majority of content out there (sRGB/Rec.709), but there are multiple HDR standards. I've yet to see something like "mastered/created/developed in HDR400 (or HDR1000)", but I don't keep up with news in this area either.

Are you talking about games or movies? Game engines have worked internally in HDR for ages, it is what allows special effects like "HDR" (not the display format but the GPU effect like Bloom) to work but what the end result is depends on the developer. Some phone it in and just show the same image as SDR but in HDR container without making full use of the extra range, at best boost the highlight brightness. Sometimes it is even worse than SDR because they did not map the image to match the SDR image and now gamma is completely out of whack and black levels are elevated. But then there are games which do make full use of HDR like Ghosts Of Tsushima and Indiana Jones.

 

[Carlyle2020]

HDR 400,1000,1500 are specifications for displays.
And i would not buy anything below 1000 nits minimun.
Rather 1500 - which you can get for 1000 bucks in 50 inch.

HDR400 simply means:
As a monitor i am not capable to display HDR.
But i can cheat my way to something that resembles HDR by boosting gamma and black levels to a point, that my manufacturer can´t be held accountable in court for lying outright.

Color matching for HDR 400 is wastefull and if hear that somebody did it, at least i know who not to ever hire.

 

[criccio]

"mastered/created/developed in HDR400 (or HDR1000)",

Multiple things here.

First, these standards aren't HDR content formats, they are performance ratings for displays.

HDR content formats would be things like Dolby Vision or HDR10/10+.

And the short answer is some games are, some games aren't. HDR scene on PC is the wild west still. There are so many ways to go about using it, be it in game offering or various inverse tonemapping options through things like RTX HDR, SpecialK, Windows AutoHDR, Lilliums inverse tonepapping and Plumbo's AutoHDR.

For the past two years I've got myself in the deep end with this stuff and it really comes down to the specific game that determines what methods work better. Primarily I'm either using in game HDR or RTX HDR simply from an ease of use perspective. Recently I started playing Battlefield 1 again and while the game has "Dolby Vision" support, it looks terrible. I've disabled it and instead have RTX HDR enabled and am quite happy.

 

[Dan_D]

HDR 400,1000,1500 are specifications for displays.
And i would not buy anything below 1000 nits minimun.
Rather 1500 - which you can get for 1000 bucks in 50 inch.

HDR400 simply means:
As a monitor i am not capable to display HDR.
But i can cheat my way to something that resembles HDR by boosting gamma and black levels to a point, that my manufacturer can´t be held accountable in court for lying outright.

Color matching for HDR 400 is wastefull and if hear that somebody did it, at least i know who not to ever hire.

I've always considered HDR400 to be the same as "no HDR at all "

 

[kasakka]

I've always considered HDR400 to be the same as "no HDR at all "

I'd call it "limited HDR". If you had an OLED or mini-LED that was capable of only HDR400, then it would still have highlights etc brighter than SDR.

The problem is that you can get a HDR400 sticker on your display by basically "this display can accept HDR signal" level performance. Displays with like 0-16 dimming zones can be considered HDR400 capable, and obviously perform like crap.

Of course VESA is to blame here by not having more rigorous standards because there's a vested interest from display manufacturers to be able to advertise HDR.

 

[sethk]

Hdr400, HDR1000 etc are vesa performance standards but going back to the original questions intent, SDR content is usually targeting the limited colors in the SRGB or rec 709 color space. HDR content (even on a hdr400 monitor which is potato-spec for HDR) targets wide color spaces rec 2020 or DCI-p3. So the same RGB values passed to the monitor (eg 255,0,0) are expected to show different color hues and saturations in these color spaces when passed into a display in HDR mode. This is separate from the luminance differences that everyone focuses on for HDR modes.
Most pc monitors switch target color space when passes a hdr10 signal. If you force it into SRGB color space or clamp down to primaries to approximate srgb targets while in HDR mode (I can on my monitor) all the colors look very different than they should.
Windows 11 has a mode where it actively translates sdr color space content into hdr wide color spaces in desktop mode if you want to leave it on all the time, with mixed results depending on your display.
I would say most web content and youtube videos are still SRGB targeted rather than rec 2020 unless marked HDR.

 

[kalston]

Most HDR content (as in movies and games) makes little to no use of extended colour space, if you watch any HDR content analysis done with hardware tools (like HDTVtest and some other channels, mostly Youtubers doing it).

Not saying it never happens, but I think realistically when HDR makes a noticeable difference it's unlikely to be the extended colours.

 

[Sycraft]

I've always considered HDR400 to be the same as "no HDR at all "

Depends on which HDR400 spec. VESA decided to make it confusing. For the regular DisplayHDR specs that apply to LCDs then yes, it is more like HDAren't. Not only is it not that bright, but it doesn't require any zones for backlight dimming so you really get zero HDR effect at all. All it means is that the display can take a HDR signal. However they alos have a 400 spec for OLEDs that is called DisplayHDR True Black 400. With that, you get real HDR. While it isn't that bright, it is still truly HDR since it requires an OLED and the high dynamic range that gets you.

They should have better naming for them to differentiate it, but there you go.

 

[Dan_D]

Most HDR content (as in movies and games) makes little to no use of extended colour space, if you watch any HDR content analysis done with hardware tools (like HDTVtest and some other channels, mostly Youtubers doing it).

Not saying it never happens, but I think realistically when HDR makes a noticeable difference it's unlikely to be the extended colours.

Most of what you get ends up being super washed out with light sources or anything that's supposed to glow being ridiculously bright. Rarely does this end up looking better than standard images.