4 ms·
A bit of a let down that the video demoing SDR->HDR conversion is itself only published in SDR. Makes as much sense as demoing a colorization tool in a grayscal
by zamadatix 3y ago
A bit of a let down that the video demoing SDR->HDR conversion is itself only published in SDR. Makes as much sense as demoing a colorization tool in a grayscale video!
- rado 3y agoRidiculous. Like when James Cameron promoted Avatar HDR with an SDR YouTube video, while YT is perfectly capable of HDR playback.
- babypuncher 3y agoAt least as of a couple of years ago, HDR support on YouTube has been pretty bad[1]. I know they've been working to improve things since, but I kind of don't blame people for walking away from that mess. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwDWQyBF9II https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwDWQyBF9II
- rado 3y agoThanks, will check out LTT's gripes, but I've been watching the following HDR channels forever and they look great: https://www.youtube.com/@SeoulWalker https://www.youtube.com/@SeoulWalker https://www.youtube.com/@Rambalac https://www.youtube.com/@Rambalac https://www.youtube.com/@Relaxing.Scenes.Driving https://www.youtube.com/@Relaxing.Scenes.Driving
- m4rtink 3y agoCan´t recommend Rambalac enough - I have pretty much re-traced his steps multiple times during our Japan trip a couple times & it really helped with orientation. :) Also some of the walks are really interesting & really gives you the context of various places in Japan. :)
- eurekin 3y agoThe real issue is it's either HDR or good SDR, but not both at the same time
- dansky 3y agoI'm also glad that Rambalac is back as he quit a few months ago. I've recently also started uploading 4K60 HDR content to YouTube [1] and it takes up to one week more time for them to encode than the SDR version. You can include your own LUT instead of YouTube conversion which seems to help. Here's an article and LUT [2] + a video [3] with valuable info. They allowed me getting DJI Pocket 3 HLG recordings to HDR10. [1] https://youtu.be/0S8hw8Lrvlk https://youtu.be/0S8hw8Lrvlk [2] https://www.wesleyknapp.com/blog/hdr https://www.wesleyknapp.com/blog/hdr [3] https://youtu.be/4izJfgRtkZE https://youtu.be/4izJfgRtkZE
- jiggawatts 3y agoIt’s still bad. Even as a totally amateur videographer making short clips of my holidays, YouTube is not good enough. HDR processing takes months! The SDR down conversion is “potato quality” even to my non-expert eyes, let alone a Hollywood colourist. Etc…
- dansky 3y agoInstead of YouTube's HDR->SDR conversion you are free to use your own conversion LUT with mkvmerge. As I posted above, here are some links for info: - Workflow and a valuable LUT: https://www.wesleyknapp.com/blog/hdr https://www.wesleyknapp.com/blog/hdr - Some DaVinci Resolve Settings to use on SDR monitors: https://youtu.be/4izJfgRtkZE https://youtu.be/4izJfgRtkZE (though I upload 4K60 HDR at 37.5Mbit) which is enough for me slow content.
- jiggawatts 3y agoThis only allows a single LUT for the entire video. For comparison, Resolve will perform Dolby Vision tone mapping from HDR to SDR on a clip-by-clip basis.
- rado 3y agoHLG still not good enough?
- sharperguy 3y agoAt this point, with any new model I think it makes sense to wait until you can run the model on your own input before making any assumptions based on cherry picked examples.
- kelseyfrog 3y agoI guess. There's a lot of details we don't know that would change the calculus on this. To use a analogous workflow, it could be like saying, "It's pointless to shoot video in 10-bit log if it's going to be displayed on Rec.709 at 8-bits." It completely leaves out available transforms and manipulations in HDR that do have a noticeable impact even when SDR is the target. Again, we can't know if it's important given the information that's available, but we can't know if it's pointless either.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- CamperBob2 3y agoYouTube tends to post a downscaled SD version first, then they encode and post the higher-res versions when they get around to it. This can take days in some cases. Meanwhile the creator catches the flak...
- unsane 3y agoCreators don't publish videos until the high-res versions are done processing.
- zamadatix 3y agoYou don't need high res for HDR on YouTube (144p HDR is a thing there oddly enough) and the 4k version had already processed when I posted that comment (with no change since in HDR availability). Usually media announcements/large channels pre-upload the video so it's ready when they want it to actually publish to avoid that kind of issue though.
- dannyw 3y agoThey probably use 144p for automated systems like ML recommendations, moderation and content ID.
- jiggawatts 3y ago4K processing takes just minutes, but HDR processing can take over a month to… never. There is no indication of this at all, no progress bar or eta. Just check manually every few days! This is why everyone is giving up on HDR, it’s just too painful because the content distributors are all so bad at it, with Netflix being the sole exception.
- BlueTemplar 3y agoSounds more like you should be giving up on YouTube.
- kevingadd 3y agoHDR video playback in the browser is pretty unreliable unless you're on a Mac.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ffsm8 3y agoIt's also pretty unreliable on Mac too... It's more reliable then on linux though, and windows has been doing "auto HDR" for videos for years, so kinda hard to tell when something is HDR or not there.
- devwastaken 3y agoHDR through YouTube appears to work fine even on my non HDR certified HDR monitor.
- zamadatix 3y agoIn what way? I've been doing it without issue on PC longer than I've even owned a Mac.
- jiggawatts 3y agoFirefox has zero HDR support, as an example.
- mysteria 3y agoIf they were serious about showing this tech off they should've provided a video file download. Also indicate that it's a HDR file and should only be viewed on a HDR display. Youtube is just making this look bad as people won't see a difference.
- zamadatix 3y agoYouTube supports HDR video, no need for a separate download.
- Sparkyte 3y agoI am frequently disappointed by such videos.