3 ms·

Especially when you add HDR to the mix, I think it's still extremely difficult to get a high quality screen recording, if only because it's so hard to get the e

Especially when you add HDR to the mix, I think it's still extremely difficult to get a high quality screen recording, if only because it's so hard to get the exposure right.

Retr0id 2y ago
You could record multiple exposures and merge them after the fact (and I agree the result would likely be subpar, but better than it's ever been at any previous point in time)
- Wowfunhappy 2y ago
  Yeah, I guess it really depends on what your standards are. It's certainly getting better but I have trouble imagining anyone would consider this a good solution. At minimum, if this was what pirates had to resort to, then I would think the DRM has done it's job, in that it very significantly degraded video quality for the pirates.
sudosysgen 2y ago
Modern dedicated cameras have far more dynamic range than any HDR TV in practice. The movies have to be recorded somehow :)
- Wowfunhappy 2y ago
  > The movies have to be recorded somehow :) I'd imagine they do this via huge (non-consumer level) cameras as well as by professional editors and graders who spend countless hours on the process. But that doesn't really contradict your point. I don't know. I've never seen a good screen recording but I don't download pirated films so perhaps I've never seen an instance of someone really trying to get it right.
  - sudosysgen 2y ago
    The cameras you can buy used for a couple thousand dollars have essentially the same sensors as huge cinema cameras, if not better in this application assuming you'll take stills. Professional editors and color graders have to lower the dynamic range, because there is basically nothing that can get as bright as, say, the sun, and because basically no display can sustain peak brightness over the screen, which introduces an EOTF transfer curves, reducing the peak brightness and thus dynamic range. You're right about pirated films, but that's because they're typically recorded in a run of the mill cinema while it's playing, not in controlled conditions in front of a carefully calibrated screen-camera combination taking a photograph of every frame.
  - geerlingguy 2y ago
    My A7C II ($2000-class mirrorless) has a sensor with far more range than any monitor I've ever been able to afford.
kuschku 2y ago
You'd think so, but I've already run into a situation where DRM broke our screen capture for a live talk recording and I simply set up a camera to record the screen. With a little bit of work (display a few calibration targets and build a quick and dirty LUT to match your display) you can get really convincing results.
- 3eb7988a1663 2y ago
  It was good enough for the moon landing. The video feed from Apollo 11 was some special format that was specially decoded onto a particular monitor. There was a camera pointed at the screen to rebroadcast the feed globally.

Especially when you add HDR to the mix, I think it's still extremely difficult to get a high quality screen recording, if only because it's so hard to get the exposure right.

Retr0id 2y ago

You could record multiple exposures and merge them after the fact (and I agree the result would likely be subpar, but better than it's ever been at any previous point in time)

Wowfunhappy 2y ago
Yeah, I guess it really depends on what your standards are. It's certainly getting better but I have trouble imagining anyone would consider this a good solution. At minimum, if this was what pirates had to resort to, then I would think the DRM has done it's job, in that it very significantly degraded video quality for the pirates.

sudosysgen 2y ago

Modern dedicated cameras have far more dynamic range than any HDR TV in practice. The movies have to be recorded somehow :)

Wowfunhappy 2y ago
> The movies have to be recorded somehow :) I'd imagine they do this via huge (non-consumer level) cameras as well as by professional editors and graders who spend countless hours on the process. But that doesn't really contradict your point. I don't know. I've never seen a good screen recording but I don't download pirated films so perhaps I've never seen an instance of someone really trying to get it right.
- sudosysgen 2y ago
  The cameras you can buy used for a couple thousand dollars have essentially the same sensors as huge cinema cameras, if not better in this application assuming you'll take stills. Professional editors and color graders have to lower the dynamic range, because there is basically nothing that can get as bright as, say, the sun, and because basically no display can sustain peak brightness over the screen, which introduces an EOTF transfer curves, reducing the peak brightness and thus dynamic range. You're right about pirated films, but that's because they're typically recorded in a run of the mill cinema while it's playing, not in controlled conditions in front of a carefully calibrated screen-camera combination taking a photograph of every frame.
- geerlingguy 2y ago
  My A7C II ($2000-class mirrorless) has a sensor with far more range than any monitor I've ever been able to afford.

kuschku 2y ago

You'd think so, but I've already run into a situation where DRM broke our screen capture for a live talk recording and I simply set up a camera to record the screen. With a little bit of work (display a few calibration targets and build a quick and dirty LUT to match your display) you can get really convincing results.

3eb7988a1663 2y ago
It was good enough for the moon landing. The video feed from Apollo 11 was some special format that was specially decoded onto a particular monitor. There was a camera pointed at the screen to rebroadcast the feed globally.