AgX and HDR in Resolve

[ilyanevedrov]

Hi ! I have no way to configure Agx Dctl to work correctly with HDR. When I try to configure everything according to the instructions, the dctl compresses everything to 100 nit and not 1000 nit.

[sobotka]

This is a very deep discussion, and one that I’ve spent quite a large number of less than healthy hours outlining and patterning a protocol around. One that I probably should Wiki here.

My likely unpopular opinion is “HDR is a load of hogwash”¹, which follows with a thought that conventional thinking around HDR is doubly bullshit.

I approach the subject of HDR as “What is the point?”

There is one hidden and pernicious idea that a picture in the idealized state is a reproduction / simulacrum of reality. This is unequivocally false, as quite a few pieces of research have already hinted at, going back to at least 1951 via MacAdam’s Quality of Color reproduction². We can trace the false “ideal picture is idealized reproduction of stimulus” construct even further if we chase L. A. Jones’ work discussing the Photographic Reproduction of Tone in black and white photography³.

This all goes to say that a picture is not merely a simulacrum / reproduction of stimulus in front of the camera.

So what does this have to do with HDR? It means that we need to frame what we seek to achieve with HDR backwards, from the picture goal. To make this clearer, we can use the paradigm of a chemical creative film print.

For example, when considering Star Wars: A New Hope and an HDR target, should we:

1. Formulate a new picture from the stimulus in front of the camera, or…
2. Reformulate a derivative picture from the already formed and creatively approved picture?

This might seem like an obvious question, but one that isn’t typically discussed.

To this end, while I believe that we could consider either 1. or 2. above as legitimate creative choices, the vast majority of authorship would consider 2. as the logical default.

That is, the picture does not exist in the camera / render quantal catches / colourimetry, but rather is uniquely formed by way of the picture recipe algorithm.

If you wish to create HDR pictures from the generic processing, I’d avoid the idea of 1000nits or 100nits, in much the same way that a creative chemical film print does not specifically have a “nit” range beyond the implicit assumption of a theatrical presentation illumination level in a dark context. That is, the picture formation is in no way a “compression”.

The easiest way that Just Works is to route the picture you approve through an HLG encoding, as is, with the proper adjustment of primaries to BT.2020. That is, simply treat the SDR approved picture as HDR by way of the HLG encoding schema for the transfer characteristic adjustment. Note that you will need to adjust the “middle grey” point down slightly for the HDR pass. But in all cases I have tested, this will yield an HDR picture that maintains the creative integrity of the original generic “SDR” picture, with the added cognitively disruptive nonsense of HDR. In short:

1. Subtly adjust the “middle grey” to meet the aesthetic goal you seek.
2. Transform and encode the primaries to BT.2020 from your working space primaries.
3. Transform and encode to the HLG transfer characteristic from the linearized formed picture.

If one wishes to formulate a new picture from the colourimetry for HDR, that too is viable, but requires adjusting the parameterization to form a totally new picture.

Both paths are creatively viable, but I strongly lean toward the HLG approach⁴ as an anecdotally acceptable and agreeable result.

Let me know if you require aid.

—
¹ This opinion may age poorly in an era of corporations trying to sell people on upsold subscription fees and replacing their perfectly solid televisions. However, it’s one I have arrived at after many unhealthy hours of evaluating the HDR nonsense out there. It is the Big Box Electronic sales pitch of volume wars, that is utterly bankrupt with respect to how pictures operate at the neurophysiological level.

² MacAdam, D.L. “Quality of Color Reproduction.” Proceedings of the IRE 39, no. 5 (May 1951): 468–85. https://doi.org/10.1109/JRPROC.1951.232825.

³ Jones, Loyd A. “Photographic Reproduction of Tone.” Journal of the Optical Society of America 5, no. 3 (May 1, 1921): 232. https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.5.000232.

⁴ I have had several little birds with a vast amount of experience suggest that a large number of popular “HDR” titles have used this exact approach.

Could you please still consider implementing the PQ and HLG options that work natively and the correct way with the sliders/contrast?

[sobotka]

work natively and the correct way with the sliders/contrast?

1. What does ”natively” mean here?
2. What does “correct” mean here?

1. Having a preset one-click option, not having to convert manually and blindly

2. That the sliders are aware of the difference of the brightness range between Rec. 709 and HLG/PQ and the TRC/OETF value distribution, that they apply the appropriate contrast curve, that the SDR and HDR versions look close to each other without manually changing the other settings (where possible)

[sobotka]

Having a preset one-click option, not having to convert manually and blindly.

What does this mean? What is a “one-click” option?

“HDR” is literally a different picture, so I am at a loss here. What would a one-click option of a frame from Star Wars: A New Hope look like?

That the sliders are aware of the difference of the brightness range between Rec. 709 and HLG/PQ and the TRC/OETF value distribution

“Brightness” is one of the most ill defined concepts in neurophysiological terms. This sounds suspiciously like leaning into some “conventional” ideas without evaluating what it means or how it works?

In terms of neurophysiological signals, they are highly field dependent and the energies within those fields are incredibly important in terms of “stasis”. It is from this field arrangement, and the resulting signals, that we form meaning.

Notice how the series progression left to right correlates more closely with the “darker” patch B than the “lighter” patch A? Yet when from an energy analysis in the lower case, we can see that the energy is lower in all cases to the “lighter” computed swatch A.

If we are going to provide “one-click” things, we need to be very careful how the model creates new pictorial depictions.

that they apply the appropriate contrast curve

There is no model currently in existence that one can drive “contrast”, as it too is an ill-defined concept. I’m wondering what you had in mind?

that the SDR and HDR versions look close

What does “close” mean?

Having a preset one-click option, not having to convert manually and blindly.

What does this mean? What is a “one-click” option?

One click option is switching the target TRC from, say, sRGB to HLG with one button/menu with the picture adjusting automatically, like in ACES or in Resolve CST

“HDR” is literally a different picture, so I am at a loss here. What would a one-click option of a frame from Star Wars: A New Hope look like?

Measure the tone curve of the film used to film it, linearize it, maybe adjust the exposure, match other adjustments (accounting for different peak brightness where needed), convert to your target display, done. Save the grade and you'll be able to do that in exactly one click

That the sliders are aware of the difference of the brightness range between Rec. 709 and HLG/PQ and the TRC/OETF value distribution

“Brightness” is one of the most ill defined concepts in neurophysiological terms. This sounds suspiciously like leaning into some “conventional” ideas without evaluating what it means or how it works?

In terms of neurophysiological signals, they are highly field dependent and the energies within those fields are incredibly important in terms of “stasis”. It is from this field arrangement, and the resulting signals, that we form meaning.

Notice how the series progression left to right correlates more closely with the “darker” patch B than the “lighter” patch A? Yet when from an energy analysis in the lower case, we can see that the energy is lower in all cases to the “lighter” computed swatch A.

If we are going to provide “one-click” things, we need to be very careful how the model creates new pictorial depictions.

We could just make sure the 2 grades appear as similar as reasonably possible (also see below). And what about HDR-only or HDR-first projects?

that they apply the appropriate contrast curve

There is no model currently in existence that one can drive “contrast”, as it too is an ill-defined concept. I’m wondering what you had in mind?

At least don't apply the same contrast curve for different target displays, because the result would be different. Try to take the display properties into account (simply moving the middle gray slider won't help much)

that the SDR and HDR versions look close

What does “close” mean?

2 displays side by side, one is SDR, one is HDR. They should have similar lightness, midtone and shadow brightness and contrast, in-gamut saturation. This allows to create 2 versions of the grade (such as Rec. 709 and PQ) quicker. Obviously the HDR version will have noticeably brighter highlights with less luminance and color compression, but that's the point of HDR

[sobotka]

Measure the tone curve of the film used to film it

There’s only density. And density is not “tone”, given that “tone” is a cognitive computation. The demonstration I linked is an example of this.

All that a “measurement” can give us is an idea of the particular density, and the impact on the stimuli. There’s no “tone” there as “tone” is a cognitive computation, and exists solely in meatspace.

So while I’m open to the idea, the outline you’ve presented is problematic as best as I can tell.

We could just make sure the 2 grades appear as similar as reasonably possible (also see below). And what about HDR-only or HDR-first projects?

My personal vantage, as plausibly indicated by the Diffuse White Creep as folks experiment with HDR, is that all of HDR is a complete 3D upselling corporate driven grift, round two. Visual cognition does not work the way a fistful of electronics engineers seemed to think it does.

Take a look at the Diffuse White Creep, where the specification started with 100 nits, then went to 203, and now some companies including one that may or may not have a fruit in the title are authoring ~350. The point is: the house of cards of nonsense is revealing itself as nonsense.

All of that as an aside, what folks learn as they fart with “HDR” is that we still need to form pictures. So for an “HDR first” it’s no different to SDR picture formation. Remember that our visual cognition does not have an HDR mode like our displays do. We only compute and create information from the energy fields and the gradients. From that, we form inferences and further information.

All of that is to say that forming the picture remains the same. I would like to think that this is easily demonstrated. If you want to test this claim and have an HDR display handy, create the generic AgX output to your liking, then change the timeline colourspace to HLG. Presto. Reasonable enough picture, because again, I stress, the discussion around pictorial depiction hinges on the cognitive fission aspect of the fields. Therefore we don’t have some “crazy new amazing buy buy buy” medium, but rather the exact same mechanism that has been with us since the advent of painting.

2 displays side by side, one is SDR, one is HDR. They should have similar lightness, midtone and shadow brightness and contrast, in-gamut saturation.

This cannot work. Our visual cognition takes into account the entire visual field. There’s not only a spatial anchoring, but also a “slow” temporal anchoring. EG: If we are in a completely dark room and “look” at a BT.709 set of swatches on a 85% or so BT.2020 display, the BT.709 set will look perfectly fine. If we then change to “more pure” versions of the BT.709 set, at maximal “purity” of the BT.2020 display, it too will look perfectly fine.

However, if we now subsequently look at the original BT.709 set? It will seem “washed out”. And this temporal effect will last somewhere around ten minutes.

As such, when we are “comparing” we are engaging in a pretty complex neurophysiological based analysis, and that analysis cannot work in an A to B comparison. Visual cognition is not fixed, but fluid.

And this is not even beginning to suggest that we need to numerically define “contrast”, “lightness”, “midtone”, “shadow”, and “brightness”. As someone who reads an unhealthy amount of research papers, those terms are not defined anywhere and there’s no consensus on how we calculate those terms neurophysiological, let alone numerically in stimuli.

Obviously the HDR version will have noticeably brighter highlights with less luminance and color compression, but that's the point of HDR

What’s a “highlight”? If you want us to engineer such a transform, we’ll need a demarcation point of these “highlights” and somehow “handle” them. Creative chemical film does not have “highlights”. Pictures do not have “highlights”. This is conventional wisdom orthodoxy, and the “wisdom” suggested by such is glaringly false.

I’m all for including “HDR” mumbo jumbo, but the first bridge to cross is to appreciate that it’s not even a thing, but a deeper discussion.

Measure the tone curve of the film used to film it

There’s only density. And density is not “tone”, given that “tone” is a cognitive computation. The demonstration I linked is an example of this.

All that a “measurement” can give us is an idea of the particular density, and the impact on the stimuli. There’s no “tone” there as “tone” is a cognitive computation, and exists solely in meatspace.

So while I’m open to the idea, the outline you’ve presented is problematic as best as I can tell.

You seem to look at it from a philosophical/theoretical point of view, whereas I seem to view it as a real-usage issue

We could just make sure the 2 grades appear as similar as reasonably possible (also see below). And what about HDR-only or HDR-first projects?

My personal vantage, as plausibly indicated by the Diffuse White Creep as folks experiment with HDR, is that all of HDR is a complete 3D upselling corporate driven grift, round two. Visual cognition does not work the way a fistful of electronics engineers seemed to think it does.

Take a look at the Diffuse White Creep, where the specification started with 100 nits, then went to 203, and now some companies including one that may or may not have a fruit in the title are authoring ~350. The point is: the house of cards of nonsense is revealing itself as nonsense.

You can still use 100 nit diffuse white. I do, and ARRI does too. I don't know how actually improving picture quality and immersion is a marketing stunt, especially if your viewers like it, be it 3D or HDR.

All of that as an aside, what folks learn as they fart with “HDR” is that we still need to form pictures. So for an “HDR first” it’s no different to SDR picture formation. Remember that our visual cognition does not have an HDR mode like our displays do. We only compute and create information from the energy fields and the gradients. From that, we form inferences and further information.

Our eyes are always in HDR mode though, with much higher absolute brightness levels than even PQ formally encodes. Look at any real scene and ask yourself whether you have ever seen such dynamic range and colors on an SDR screen. HDR is much closer, even at "only" 1000 nits

All of that is to say that forming the picture remains the same. I would like to think that this is easily demonstrated. If you want to test this claim and have an HDR display handy, create the generic AgX output to your liking, then change the timeline colourspace to HLG. Presto.

From a linear curve? I would have to manually match it, and what settings should I even use if everything is targeted at SDR currently?

Just tag a 709 output as HLG? Won't be great, tonemapping to HLG directly is not the same as tonemapping to 709 and tagging that as HLG

Reasonable enough picture, because again, I stress, the discussion around pictorial depiction hinges on the cognitive fission aspect of the fields. Therefore we don’t have some “crazy new amazing buy buy buy” medium, but rather the exact same mechanism that has been with us since the advent of painting.

But now we have such a medium that is superior to paper, and it's already integrated into many products which are already bought, why should we ignore it?

2 displays side by side, one is SDR, one is HDR. They should have similar lightness, midtone and shadow brightness and contrast, in-gamut saturation.

This cannot work. Our visual cognition takes into account the entire visual field. There’s not only a spatial anchoring, but also a “slow” temporal anchoring. EG: If we are in a completely dark room and “look” at a BT.709 set of swatches on a 85% or so BT.2020 display, the BT.709 set will look perfectly fine. If we then change to “more pure” versions of the BT.709 set, at maximal “purity” of the BT.2020 display, it too will look perfectly fine.

However, if we now subsequently look at the original BT.709 set? It will seem “washed out”. And this temporal effect will last somewhere around ten minutes.

As such, when we are “comparing” we are engaging in a pretty complex neurophysiological based analysis, and that analysis cannot work in an A to B comparison. Visual cognition is not fixed, but fluid.

And this is not even beginning to suggest that we need to numerically define “contrast”, “lightness”, “midtone”, “shadow”, and “brightness”. As someone who reads an unhealthy amount of research papers, those terms are not defined anywhere and there’s no consensus on how we calculate those terms neurophysiological, let alone numerically in stimuli.

I'm not sure what the problem here is. Sure, the eyes always adapt, but an attempt to automatically match the grades is better than nothing

Obviously the HDR version will have noticeably brighter highlights with less luminance and color compression, but that's the point of HDR

What’s a “highlight”? If you want us to engineer such a transform, we’ll need a demarcation point of these “highlights” and somehow “handle” them. Creative chemical film does not have “highlights”. Pictures do not have “highlights”. This is conventional wisdom orthodoxy, and the “wisdom” suggested by such is glaringly false.

Here I use highlight as a general, colloquially known term, such as "AgX compresses highlights". It's true that pictures did not have true highlights because the brightness of their medium, printed, projected or displayed, was 100 nits at most. But now they do and we could utilize it. There's no need to strictly define the brightness of what is a highlight as we need to look at the image in general

I’m all for including “HDR” mumbo jumbo, but the first bridge to cross is to appreciate that it’s not even a thing, but a deeper discussion.

So I'm not sure what the actual problem is. HDR looks better and is already used in many devices. I don't see any disadvantages in implementing it, and you could always switch back to Rec. 709 if you like

[sobotka]

You seem to look at it from a philosophical/theoretical point of view, whereas I seem to view it as a real-usage issue

Rest assured I’m being the most “pragmatic” of minds when it comes to implementing these sorts of things. Folks who suggest “real-usage” really are lost with respect to how visual cognition works, let alone pictorial depictions.

We can’t design something without understanding how the mechanics work, and therefore when someone utters the term “highlight” we need to dissect what that means. What folks will realize very quickly, is that they are speaking in circles and nonsense. This is not adequate for designing algorithmic solutions.

You can still use 100 nit diffuse white. I do, and ARRI does too. I don't know how actually improving picture quality and immersion is a marketing stunt, especially if your viewers like it, be it 3D or HDR.

I’ve looked at thousands of selects of pictures in HDR. There’s no such thing as “HDR”. There really isn’t.

For someone who wants to make this claim, they are going to need to show how the visual cognition system works at a level that is better than some hand waving electronic engineering mumbo jumbo. I am reasonably confident at this point that I can showcase a research paper that can counter any such claim.

The suggestion of “improvement” is one that I reject outright. Big box shops have spinning pictures in their stores, and every one is a wretched mess.

Our eyes are always in HDR mode though, with much higher absolute brightness levels than even PQ formally encodes. Look at any real scene and ask yourself whether you have ever seen such dynamic range and colors on an SDR screen. HDR is much closer, even at "only" 1000 nits

This is sadly nonsense.

1. Our visual cognition system broadly does not have the capability of transmitting scalar values to the Lateral Geniculate Nucleus / Visual Cortex. In layperson terms, our visual cognition system does not know the absolute levels of the stimuli, as somewhere near only 1% of the entire retinal assemblies show signals that correspond to non-inhibitory responses¹. If you want a compelling demonstration of such, consider Induced Contrast Asynchrony ² that showcases how we have no such notion of “absolute” stimuli scalar levels, for if we did, the effect could not happen.
2. The visual system “contracts” and “expands” the effective “gamut” in a fluid manner due to the above point³.
3. There’s no “scalar” relationship to stimuli. Some work has located a “normalization” somewhere in the vicinity of a 30:1 range at the higher end, depending on the field assemblies, which can shift this⁴.

Just tag a 709 output as HLG? Won't be great, tonemapping to HLG directly is not the same as tonemapping to 709 and tagging that as HLG

You’ve tried it then?

You are confusing where the pictorial depiction exists as a stimuli encoding I suspect?

But now we have such a medium that is superior to paper, and it's already integrated into many products which are already bought, why should we ignore it?

It’s not superior. Case in point, imagine all of those impoverished people who could look at pictorial depictions in newsprint and somehow manage to cognize what the pictorial depiction was of?

Pictorial depiction is where the key is at, and folks simply don’t understand how it works. If one sits in a top of the line light steering projection system and watches pictures, I absolutely promise they’ll have no clue that they are watching an “HDR” picture with BT.2020 primaries after about five minutes. I’ve experienced this. Many others have. Try it.

The human visual cognition system broadly “normalizes” in a fluid manner.

I'm not sure what the problem here is. Sure, the eyes always adapt, but an attempt to automatically match the grades is better than nothing

And this simply cannot be done when comparing in an A to B situation as the visual cognition is normalizing to the totality of the field, including some “slow” temporal normalization.

Heck, we can’t even “match” two simple stimuli presentations without considering the field. For example, it is generally agreed that a satisfactory match of the following is impossible⁵.

We can get a sense as to why this is, by way of a simple demonstration showcasing how the spatiotemporal articulation fields force different cognitive computations:

Any “modification” of the pictorial depiction must make an effort to keep the field relationships, in terms of differentials, intact. This is tricky because there is currently no underlying neurophysiological model that can be evaluated against.

Here I use highlight as a general, colloquially known term, such as "AgX compresses highlights".

The vernacular doesn’t help us arriving at engineered solutions. Doubly so given that AgX does not do this.

It's true that pictures did not have true highlights because the brightness of their medium, printed, projected or displayed, was 100 nits at most.

I don’t believe that this is “the reason” at all. Pictorial depiction has little to do with “brightness” as hopefully the demonstrations have shown. Pictorial depictions are crucially dependent on the differential gradients and relational fields. Again, the retinal assemblies cannot supply scalar values to the visual cortext / LGN, so any such suggestion in relation to absolute scalar values is outright false.

But now they do and we could utilize it. There's no need to strictly define the brightness of what is a highlight as we need to look at the image in general

“Brightness” is ill defined. It’s a meatspace computation, not something that is present as a measurable stimuli. Cognitive fission / scission is the important activity here, not stimuli.

So I'm not sure what the actual problem is. HDR looks better and is already used in many devices. I don't see any disadvantages in implementing it, and you could always switch back to Rec. 709 if you like

Over the years, I’ve built up a degree of trust with respect to the concepts and experiments. If I am going to try and make something work, it is imperative that it’s not a sales pitch anchored in nonsense. Whether folks want to see the nuances or not, the idea of forming a different picture is something that needs consideration on how to do so. I reject HDR and all incarnations outright, and there’s little evidence of the claim “looks better”. Quite the contrary, in fact. But most folks are not evaluating the pictorial qualia in isolation, and as such, are seduced by the sirens of a non-comparison.

In summary, I may add the HLG approach to the repository. But currently, given how trivial it is for someone to use the DCTL and create their own as per the above description, it’s not at the highest priority given some of the other work I’m doing.

—

1. Barlow, H. B., and W. R. Levick. “Changes in the Maintained Discharge with Adaptation Level in the Cat Retina.” The Journal of Physiology 202, no. 3 (June 1969): 699–718. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1969.sp008836.
2. Shapiro, A. G., A. D. D’Antona, J. P. Charles, L. A. Belano, J. B. Smith, and M. Shear-Heyman. “Induced Contrast Asynchronies.” Journal of Vision 4, no. 6 (May 1, 2004): 5–5. https://doi.org/10.1167/4.6.5.
3. Ekroll, Vebjørn, and Franz Faul. “Basic Characteristics of Simultaneous Color Contrast Revisited.” Psychological Science 23, no. 10 (October 2012): 1246–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612443369.
4. Radonji, A., and A. L. Gilchrist. “Lightness Perception in Simple Images: Testing the Anchoring Rules.” Journal of Vision 14, no. 13 (November 25, 2014): 25–25. https://doi.org/10.1167/14.13.25.
5. Vladusich, Tony. “Simultaneous Contrast and Gamut Relativity in Achromatic Color Perception.” Vision Research 69 (September 2012): 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2012.07.022.

Ok, thanks for your answer and sorry for such a long time to reply. I hope you do continue the work even if it's only SDR though.
Also your colleague now has HLG and PQ options in 2499 DRT (https://github.com/JuanPabloZambrano/DCTL), so if anyone reads this and still wants a one click transform, you know another option now (although I'm not sure the HLG curve is correct, see my opened issue there)

[Filoppi]

I’ve looked at thousands of selects of pictures in HDR. There’s no such thing as “HDR”. There really isn’t.

I haven't followed the conversation too closely, but denying that HDR exist is like denying French people exist because our vision cannot reliably perceive the area where people are from without actually learning about it by word.

Our eyes adapt in relationship to the peak brightness in front of them, but they don't modulate their "gamma" curve.
Let's pretend one is in a dark room, with a 0 to 100 nits SDR screen, and a 0 to 2000 nits HDR screen,
the maximum contrast achievable by HDR is 20 times greater.
Let's take a mid tone of 30 nits, in SDR it will be 0.3 times the peak brightness, while in HDR it will be 0.015 times the peak.
At this point, you could fix this by changing the contrast curve of SDR, and remapping 30 nits to a value of 1.5 nits (30/2000*100, in linear space), but...
we need to be realistic here, and reason within the boundaries of the actual SDR ecosystem (monitors, tvs, ordinary projectors), thus we are limited to ~8bit, ~100 nits, gamma 2.2 (or 2.4 or sRGB) and Rec.709 color space. Changing the "contrast" curve of SDR to make it look like HDR would work, but wouldn't be "SDR" anymore as it doesn't respect any of the standards and will not be reproduced correctly by most displays (also 8 bit wouldn't be enough to preserve HDR detail in a classic 8 bit SDR packaging).

If we are discussing philosophically then... yeah there's no such thing as SDR and HDR, there's just a peak brightness that our eyes can adjust to, but discussing in these terms while we are actually developing practical tech sounds a bit useless.
It's still good to understand how perception works and that it's mostly all relative, as that helps us develop better tonemappers, but HDR is real and looks amazing within the current standards and real world scenarios. People don't always have a pitch black room, or projectors that can follow a made up transfer function to contain HDR data in a SDR format.

And, you can throw all the science you want, but I can't imagine a 100 nits projector ever giving the impression of sunny outdoors levels and ranges of brightness. There's 15k nits VR headsets being developed, it can't be all made up because these guys didn't know that if you just waited 3 minutes staring at pitch black, 100 nits would be perceived like 15k nits.

[sobotka]

I haven't followed the conversation too closely, but denying that HDR exist is like denying French people exist because our vision cannot reliably perceive the area where people are from without actually learning about it by word.

I can make a tin can with a string and insist it creates unicorns and leprechauns. Reasonable people will reject the claim that the Unicorn and Leprechaun machine exists.

Our eyes adapt in relationship to the peak brightness in front of them, but they don't modulate their "gamma" curve.

This is false.

I'd encourage folks to explore some introductory textbooks^1,2 on visual cognition that can help to dash commonly perpetuated claims. The visual system does not have a "gamma curve", as it is ultimately a gradient differential system by way of the bipolar cells³, and the pooling thereof by the retinal ganglion cells^4,5. This gradient regulation is considered a "canonical" mechanism by some visual cognition researchers^6,7. The signals are increment and decrement in nature, and are asymmetrical in response⁸, which appears to be implicated in how we segment and decompose stimuli configurations into ideas around "whiteness" and "blackness" forms.

Note how the luminance of the "blackness" and "whiteness" span the entire range of pictorial stimuli.

If we are discussing philosophically then... yeah there's no such thing as SDR and HDR

None of this is "philosophical". It is a discussion about how we cognize pictorial stimuli, which is not how a group of electrical engineers believed the system to work.

but discussing in these terms while we are actually developing practical tech sounds a bit useless.

You are free to ignore the massive research efforts around visual cognition. I'm not going to try and convince you. I can only provide the research on the subject, and suggest that the idea of "HDR" as it is presented is untenable.

Case in point, what happens when we anchor our cell phone to a fixed emission and walk from inside to outside to a higher energy exterior? Does the cognition of the form of the cell phone emission change? Can we even see it?

Gradient regulation is both global and local, and increasing stimuli does not behave the way that some folks perpetuating myths around "HDR" would like us to believe.

as that helps us develop better tonemappers,

We would all do well to interrogate what a "tone mapper" is. I've been doing so for approximately three decades now, and I can tell you I still do not have a solid handle on the implications around pictorial formation algorithms.

And, you can throw all the science you want, but I can't imagine a 100 nits projector ever giving the impression of sunny outdoors levels and ranges of brightness.

We have all gone to the movies and seen pictorial depictions of a sunny beaches! That presentation had a higher emission somewhere around 48 units of combined absolute photometric luminance.

There's 15k nits VR headsets being developed, it can't be all made up because these guys didn't know that if you just waited 3 minutes staring at pitch black, 100 nits would be perceived like 15k nits.

The human visual system does not have photoreceptors that transmit scalar discrete magnitudes of stimuli to the Lateral Geniculate Nucleus and onward to the Visual Cortex. That's a complete misrepresentation as to how the visual system broadly is assumed to operate. While no one on the planet can tell us how the visual cognition system works, we can, by the process of educated and informed reading and experiments, dismiss some conjectures by way of negation.

A few videos for the other folks who find this thread and would like to get over some of the erroneous assumptions that are all around us:

• Visual Perception | Retina, Photoreceptors, and Rhodopsin. Dr. Brunton does a solid job of highlighting that the primary output from the retina is the output of the increment and decrement pooling from the Retinal Ganglion Cells.
• Dr. Alan Gilchrist's Lightness Perception Presentation, featuring Frederick Kingdom and Alexander Logvinenko in the discussion at the end. A really fun romp over the centuries of investigation into "lightness" and "brightness", and as mentioned, features a couple incredibly experienced minds in the field toward the end of the presentation.
• Dr. Margaret Livingstone, Art and the New Biology of the Mind. A fascinating and fun romp from Dr. Livingstone, who trained under none other than Dr. Wiesel. A solid introduction to some of the theories and research around visual cognition, and relationships to how we cognize art.
• Simple Complex Cells, and the Hubel and Wiesel Nobel Medical Prize Experiment. A very brief introductory video on the opponent increment and decrement machinations of cells, featuring some footage from the original Hubel and Wiesel research from torturing cats.

And, you can throw all the science you want, but I can't imagine a 100 nits projector ever giving the impression of sunny outdoors levels and ranges of brightness.

All I can suggest is that one tries to suspend what they think they understand for a moment, and follow the incredible work of some of the most intriguing minds in the field. The rest is up to you.

--

1. Foley HJ, Matlin MW. Sensation and Perception. 5th ed. Taylor and Francis; 2009.
2. Snowden RJ, Thompson P, Troscianko T. Basic Vision: An Introduction to Visual Perception. Rev. ed. Oxford University Press; 2011.
3. Euler T, Haverkamp S, Schubert T, Baden T. Retinal bipolar cells: elementary building blocks of vision. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2014;15(8):507-519. doi:10.1038/nrn3783
4. Shapley RM, Victor JD. Nonlinear spatial summation and the contrast gain control of cat retinal ganglion cells. The Journal of Physiology. 1979;290(2):141-161. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.1979.sp012765
5. Rodieck RW. Quantitative analysis of cat retinal ganglion cell response to visual stimuli. Vision Research. 1965;5(12):583-601. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(65)90033-7
6. Carandini M, Heeger DJ. Normalization as a canonical neural computation. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012;13(1):51-62. doi:10.1038/nrn3136
7. Carandini M, Heeger DJ, Movshon JA. Linearity and Normalization in Simple Cells of the Macaque Primary Visual Cortex. J Neurosci. 1997;17(21):8621-8644. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.17-21-08621.1997
8. Whittle P. Increments and decrements: Luminance discrimination. Vision Research. 1986;26(10):1677-1691. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(86)90055-6