Cary Knoop
Veteran
Not in my mind.
I don't understand why anyone would be defending Sony's HDR workflow in 8-bit position.
Just saying...
GH5 Any regrets buying gh5 in light of A7(3)
- Thread starter bzz
- Start date
I don't understand why anyone would be defending Sony's HDR workflow in 8-bit position.
Just saying...
I think the only defense may be that HLG is supposed to be for broadcast so that SDR and HDR sets can view. Reason for BBC and NHK to develop. Broadcast is 8 bit now and I suspect for some time too. So they view that both SDR and UHD HDR would be broadcast in 8 bit ?
I thought the whole reason for the HLG format in the first place was to allow 8-bit SDR TV sets to display an acceptable image from 10-bit HDR content.
...has absolutely NOTHING to do with either Windows or Mac 10-bit display drivers. VESA standards are a relic of the DOS era of PC-compatible graphics. Apple and Microsoft provide built-in support for 10-bit graphics pipelines at the operating system device driver level:
https://imagescience.com.au/knowledge/10-bit-output-support
As I said I think both BBC and NHK want to broadcast HDR content and have users with whatever type of set see the best picture. Since in my mind broadcast will stay 8 bit whatever the source what the users gets is 8 bit. If the set is HDR it will see the flag and set up correctly if SDR it wont see anything and just play the picture up to rec709. At least that is my current understanding. Getting HLG from the internet or directly of course could be 10bit. Not sure what will happen with cable but I think the cable distribution like broadcast is 8 bit so not sure why they would change either.
Looking at BBC's own HDR/HLG documentation, they keep talking about 10-bit TV signals enabling HDR broadcasts. They only mention 8-bit TV signals when referring to the old SDR broadcasts...
BBC Research and Development: High Dynamic Range Television and Hybrid Log-Gamma
Agreed in the main because the source infrastructure has been 10 bit for a long time. However I think the delivery is very different. I was talking about the terrestrial transmission received by users and their 8 bit TV's. The whole point I thought was to allow these TV's to play these signals so don't they have to be 8 bit for that to happen. The approach of using 10bit HEVC is great but what happens to all the people with old TV's that they are trying to keep. Or will they need a box to downconvert. Issue still applies to internet if most displays are 8 bit anyway. Advantages only come with new displays that are true 10bit and wide colour gamut. I am not trying to defend 8bit and still as others confused by Sony HLG on the AX700, NX80 and Z90 that in UHD are all 8bit. I assume that the Z90 could record 10 bit 4:2:2 in HLG ?
Last edited:
cyvideo
Veteran
Yes I see my comments have opened a range of viewpoints. This is good. That’s why I prefaced my remarks by saying... “Just saying.” Don’t interpret my comments as a defence of Sony’s 8-bit HLG. I was just pointing out the current state of play with regards to HDR and HLG.
I fully understand all the following comments and in most part wholly agree that 10-bit 4:2:2 or better is the way to go. Over the last few years all our production has been 10-bit 422 based be it 709 or LOG in either HD or UHD and in all cases other than for direct broadcast it has been 50p. I agree with one of the posts that from a 50p base in either HD or UHD you can generate almost any format required. Like for TV broadcast the main delivery requirement is still MPEG-2 based XDCam 50Mbps for delivery. Sad to say 1080i still is the dominant delivery spec for most FTA TV broadcasts.
Getting back to the HDR question I brought up the point why I believe Sony is sticking with, as they state, 8-bit HDR in their lower end cameras. That was all I was trying to point out and I supported it with reasons I feel Sony may well be taking into consideration.
Sony say quite bluntly state if you want 10-bit HLG then yes they can supply it, they have the cameras and workflow available. For many of us this HLG question now comes down to budget, the nature of our work and the ROI.
Why I flagged VESA specs as a standard comes from a very simple point of view. At the moment VESA are the only industry based organisation that have clearly stated a set of standards and have outlined what is required to meet those standards. On the other hand the display industry body, the “UHD Alliance” have released a set of specs for UHD that are just not being adhered to in any shape or form by the majority of UHD TV makers. To a brand they are trying to push their own individual ‘standards’ and as many in the press have found out they are not very forthcoming on how they are reaching those HDR specs. Understandably as they are trying to protect their own IP and currently as it stands there is no mandatory spec that these manufactures have to comply with. They state 10-bit as part of the UHD Alliance spec but do not state how that is to be achieved. It still allows dithering. As is pointed out in some quotes from Digital Tech Consulting, Inc’s article on the HDR conundrum.
“VESA’s approach goes farther than the UHDA’s Premium program by identifying not only the top level of performance a high-end television should achieve, but the criteria required for positioning a good and better television as well.
It also makes it harder for manufactures to intentionally obfuscate the use of components like high-bit panels (10-bits and higher are required for 4K Ultra HD) that can reduce or eliminate problem artifact issues such as banding in color gradations (false contouring). This highly visible annoyance can be only partially addressed with inexpensive dithering processes instead of using more expensive and more effective hardware-based remedies. Yet, some manufacturers continue to use dithering without true 10-bit panels in cheaper Ultra HDTVs.
Meanwhile, the UHDA continues to try and coalesce its members around the UHDA Premium certification and logo, and consumers continue to be encouraged to down-sell themselves on increasingly price-eroding TVs labled 4K HDR with no overt frame of reference to base it on."
Article here:
http://www.dtcreports.com/weeklyrif...-categorizing-hdr-performance-for-4k-uhd-tvs/
Ron Evans post #27 encapsulates the whole transmission thing. Whilst broadcasters remain in the H.264 and MPEG-2 transmission domains we won’t be seeing much HLG which is based on HEVC-10 going live to air. HLG is BBC’s and NHK’s development to allow HDR live transmissions. Sure direct TV and a few others are delivering HDR over cable and web but you are not going to see much in the way of live HDR on those streams from the likes of BBC and NHK. Whilst 99% of broadcasters remain in the H.264 domain we will not see 10-bit delivery for a number of reasons. The first being that there is NO 10-bit 422 spec in the H.264 Hi10P specifications, 8 or 10-bit yes but it only supports 4:2:0. This Hi10P spec in 4:2:0 is being used by the majority of broadcasters worldwide who use H.264 for transmission.
Secondly it’s going to be a long time as Ron indicates before the general public have changed to UHD TV’s that are true 10-bit panels with HDMI 2.0b/2.1 and that have HEVC 10-bit 4:2:0 decoders, yes 4:2:0 as the current HDR/HLG standards are 4:2:0 not 4:2:2.
As far as HLG goes it really is a compromise. Hybrid HLG’s premise is an attractive one: a single video signal that renders SDR on legacy displays but HDR on displays that can handle this. HLG, BBC and NHK say, is compatible with existing 10-bit production workflows and can be distributed using a single HEVC Main 10 Profile bit stream.
The problem with HDR/HLG isn’t so much on the capture side nor on the rendering side – current professional digital cameras can handle a greater dynamic range and current displays can produce a greater contrast than the content chain in between can handle. It’s the standards for encoding, storage, transmission and everything else that needs to happen in between that are too constrained to support HDR.
To sum up agreed 10-bit 4:2:2 or higher is the way to go for HDR. Sony obviously see no reason to go to that level currently on what are ostensibly their consumer / prosumer cameras.
Chris Young
I fully understand all the following comments and in most part wholly agree that 10-bit 4:2:2 or better is the way to go. Over the last few years all our production has been 10-bit 422 based be it 709 or LOG in either HD or UHD and in all cases other than for direct broadcast it has been 50p. I agree with one of the posts that from a 50p base in either HD or UHD you can generate almost any format required. Like for TV broadcast the main delivery requirement is still MPEG-2 based XDCam 50Mbps for delivery. Sad to say 1080i still is the dominant delivery spec for most FTA TV broadcasts.
Getting back to the HDR question I brought up the point why I believe Sony is sticking with, as they state, 8-bit HDR in their lower end cameras. That was all I was trying to point out and I supported it with reasons I feel Sony may well be taking into consideration.
Sony say quite bluntly state if you want 10-bit HLG then yes they can supply it, they have the cameras and workflow available. For many of us this HLG question now comes down to budget, the nature of our work and the ROI.
Why I flagged VESA specs as a standard comes from a very simple point of view. At the moment VESA are the only industry based organisation that have clearly stated a set of standards and have outlined what is required to meet those standards. On the other hand the display industry body, the “UHD Alliance” have released a set of specs for UHD that are just not being adhered to in any shape or form by the majority of UHD TV makers. To a brand they are trying to push their own individual ‘standards’ and as many in the press have found out they are not very forthcoming on how they are reaching those HDR specs. Understandably as they are trying to protect their own IP and currently as it stands there is no mandatory spec that these manufactures have to comply with. They state 10-bit as part of the UHD Alliance spec but do not state how that is to be achieved. It still allows dithering. As is pointed out in some quotes from Digital Tech Consulting, Inc’s article on the HDR conundrum.
“VESA’s approach goes farther than the UHDA’s Premium program by identifying not only the top level of performance a high-end television should achieve, but the criteria required for positioning a good and better television as well.
It also makes it harder for manufactures to intentionally obfuscate the use of components like high-bit panels (10-bits and higher are required for 4K Ultra HD) that can reduce or eliminate problem artifact issues such as banding in color gradations (false contouring). This highly visible annoyance can be only partially addressed with inexpensive dithering processes instead of using more expensive and more effective hardware-based remedies. Yet, some manufacturers continue to use dithering without true 10-bit panels in cheaper Ultra HDTVs.
Meanwhile, the UHDA continues to try and coalesce its members around the UHDA Premium certification and logo, and consumers continue to be encouraged to down-sell themselves on increasingly price-eroding TVs labled 4K HDR with no overt frame of reference to base it on."
Article here:
http://www.dtcreports.com/weeklyrif...-categorizing-hdr-performance-for-4k-uhd-tvs/
Ron Evans post #27 encapsulates the whole transmission thing. Whilst broadcasters remain in the H.264 and MPEG-2 transmission domains we won’t be seeing much HLG which is based on HEVC-10 going live to air. HLG is BBC’s and NHK’s development to allow HDR live transmissions. Sure direct TV and a few others are delivering HDR over cable and web but you are not going to see much in the way of live HDR on those streams from the likes of BBC and NHK. Whilst 99% of broadcasters remain in the H.264 domain we will not see 10-bit delivery for a number of reasons. The first being that there is NO 10-bit 422 spec in the H.264 Hi10P specifications, 8 or 10-bit yes but it only supports 4:2:0. This Hi10P spec in 4:2:0 is being used by the majority of broadcasters worldwide who use H.264 for transmission.
Secondly it’s going to be a long time as Ron indicates before the general public have changed to UHD TV’s that are true 10-bit panels with HDMI 2.0b/2.1 and that have HEVC 10-bit 4:2:0 decoders, yes 4:2:0 as the current HDR/HLG standards are 4:2:0 not 4:2:2.
As far as HLG goes it really is a compromise. Hybrid HLG’s premise is an attractive one: a single video signal that renders SDR on legacy displays but HDR on displays that can handle this. HLG, BBC and NHK say, is compatible with existing 10-bit production workflows and can be distributed using a single HEVC Main 10 Profile bit stream.
The problem with HDR/HLG isn’t so much on the capture side nor on the rendering side – current professional digital cameras can handle a greater dynamic range and current displays can produce a greater contrast than the content chain in between can handle. It’s the standards for encoding, storage, transmission and everything else that needs to happen in between that are too constrained to support HDR.
To sum up agreed 10-bit 4:2:2 or higher is the way to go for HDR. Sony obviously see no reason to go to that level currently on what are ostensibly their consumer / prosumer cameras.
Chris Young
jonpais
Well-known member
The bottom line is that 10-bit would require more powerful processors and better heat management and would also take its toll on battery life, issues that Sony has only recently come to grips with in their 8-bit consumer cameras, as well as what Chris points out, they are protecting their higher end cameras. As far as major TV manufacturers go, Samsung, Sony, Panasonic and LG all belong to the UHD Alliance, but it’s also true, as Chris points out, that some of them still engage in deceptive or misleading marketing, inventing new terms that sound like HDR certified but are not. It is also the case that we don’t necessarily want or need reference monitors that adhere 100% to the specs set out by the UHDA for television sets. Lastly, although HLG was created for live broadcast, some of us see it as a convenient way to capture and deliver HDR to YouTube and Vimeo.
jonpais
Well-known member
rogar-BlackEye(DBG
cyvideo
Veteran
Poor old Sony, don't blame them, or any of the others for that matter
In part you can thank your lovely world leading EU VAT's for that plus the fact that the bulk of importers have to pay in US$'s before they can execute an order from Japan as 99% of trade with japan is still transacted in the US$. American importers don't have to buy currency with built in safety margins to cover the associated exchange rate vagaries and fluctuations that can happen with currencies. I know here in Oz when Sony put in an order with the factory it's a forward order that is comprised of the forward orders from the dealer network and it all has to be paid for up front or by way of an irrevocable letter of credit drawn on a bank for the agreed amount. Using a letter of credit there are certain swings and roundabouts. When delivery takes place if the A$ has appreciated a little then the dealers pick up a few more cents. Conversely if the A$ had dropped against the Greenback the dealer margin shrinks a little. With luck the orders arrive in a couple of months or so. The US $ still being the major trading reserve currency has significant advantages when it comes to international trade. Long live the Greenback. Imagine where we would be if the Chinese Yuan becomes the dominant reserve currency... hmm!
Chris Young
You're wasting your time. Everybody knows why Sony leaves off 10 bit/422/4k60p/30 min record limit, are just protecting the product line.
filmguy123
Veteran
I think you are confusing delivery with acquisition, as your post revolved around 10-bit display panels, UHD tvs, broadcast delivery, etc.
I know only a handful of people who are interested in the GHx line for 10-bit delivery. It's the 10-bit acquisition that is the magic, and after you've gone to working with footage acquired in 10-bit, you realize how truly lacking Sony's 8-bit acquisition formats are.
DaveyRoberts
Member
A7III Pros:
- better autofocus
- better low-light
- better dynamic range
- lighter body
- larger full-frame sensor(for shallower DOF)
GH5 Pros:
- 10bit 4:2:2 codecs
- ALL-I codecs
- 4k DCI
- anamorphic modes (open gate 5k)
- anamorphic de-squeeze
- load 4 custom luts for v-log l preview
- better IBIS
- lighter lenses
- 4k 60fps
- 1080 180fps
- variable frame rates
- waveform & vectorscope
- smaller m4/3 sensor (deeper DOF for same aperture)
- full-size HDMI port
- syncro scan
- less rolling shutter
- fully articulating touchscreen
- better autofocus
- better low-light
- better dynamic range
- lighter body
- larger full-frame sensor(for shallower DOF)
GH5 Pros:
- 10bit 4:2:2 codecs
- ALL-I codecs
- 4k DCI
- anamorphic modes (open gate 5k)
- anamorphic de-squeeze
- load 4 custom luts for v-log l preview
- better IBIS
- lighter lenses
- 4k 60fps
- 1080 180fps
- variable frame rates
- waveform & vectorscope
- smaller m4/3 sensor (deeper DOF for same aperture)
- full-size HDMI port
- syncro scan
- less rolling shutter
- fully articulating touchscreen
Last edited:
In DXO camera tests the Sony A7SII, A7RIII, A9 cameras show a dynamic range of 11 F-stops at ISO 2500. ( I would expect the same performance from the new A7III camera )
The GH5s has 12 F-stops of dynamic range at both of it's native ISO speeds, which would give it 12 F-stops at ISO 2500.
I think Davey the ability to punch in while recording is a big thing to allow you to check focus...this is a big deal imo but still would not swap for a Sony