Maybe it’s just me but I find “HDR-style” color just outright ugly.
I’ve seen stock footage and a lot of stills with this look. It’s just horrible.
You want to get that detail in those blown out skies? Sure. Something outside those windows, sure. It’s not a pleasing style of image, imho.
Is no one else troubled by this ghastly trend?
4 Likes
I love the look personally. I also love splinters, stubbed toes, being flicked on the inner thigh, and headaches.
Jk.
It’s ghastly.
2 Likes
Sometimes it’s an interesting creative look, but it’s just not how we actually see, so it feels “crispy” and surreal. But like anything, it’s an artistic decision I guess.
Personally I’m way more sick of “orange & teal” color correction…
1 Like
This just bad comp with unmatching exposures. It gives me the same feeling when a director makes me add clouds on an overexposed white sky.
3 Likes
Okay these are beautiful. Also, I think you look like one of them
1 Like
Agree.
There seems to be a real trend in television shows, I have been watching (Ted Lasso, The Morning Show), to do window comps with an unrealistic exposure. It has been really bugging me. Almost takes away my complete enjoyment of Ted Lasso!
2 Likes
Are you watching it HDR or SDR?
SDR (not even 4K) here. Do you think they were done HDR
Just checked and they’re both available in HDR on Apple TV. So maybe it is the way they have been converted to SDR. Would love to compare them on an HDR TV.
I can’t say I’ve noticed abuse of this look on actual tv shows -and I did watch Ted Lasso- but I think it all started with the “Lux” filter in Instagram which made you skies super dramatic and people latched onto this as a way to get more likes. Fast forward and we now have HDR being abused. It’s like any gimmick, if you abuse it, it becomes obvious and thus annoying.
Another example is vignetting. It has a definite benefit but if you push it too far it becomes self-evident which defeats the purpose.
Yes, it’s an artistic choice but there’s already lots of crap art.
Just saying… 
agree.
1 Like
holy yikes hahaha, there’s some real “treasures” in that thread!
1 Like
honestly when I first heard about HDR TVs I almost threw up. As this kinda thing is what I knew as “HDR”
its really not HDR, its HDR data squeezed into SDR range , it only shows what the camera can capture vs how stupid low dynamic range our displays are 
3 Likes
I’m wondering, yeah. I don’t always notice stuff like that, but the hdr version seems fine. They might have an overly aggressive tone mapping situation for the SDR.
Or I’m just blind. 50/50 odds on that. Haha.
1 Like
I would expect that, properly used, HDR tv would allow us to see smoother ranges -like our eyes can- and not like @finnjaeger points out in “a ridiculously low dynamic range that normal displays have.”
Of course, that inherent limitation can be used artistically to one’s advantage but sometimes is just a pain in the arse, like shooting against the sun or with a huge window behind and so forth
Yeah. There are some egregious examples on Netflix, either strongly backlit or night scenes with practicals in them where the brightness is so extreme you can’t see anything else in shot.
it seems as though folks are generally getting better at it as I can’t think of any awful examples in the last year or so, or maybe I’m just watching less Netflix.
@andy_dill Did you watch the show called Ratched? It has the best use of HDR grading I have seen yet.
oh yes, I saw Ratched, very good and eye-catching. I didn’t really see any HDR artifacts as such so, it’s either my old tv or it was tastefully done
in general bad SDR downconversions are most often just not dolby vision, also TV manufacturers all do their own wonky way of creating dynamic metadata when there is none.
Just google “why does HDR looks so dark/bad” or similar… we arent even close to getting this thing off the ground.