I woke up to early again yesterday and ended up driving up the North Cascades Highway in Washington (it finally opened for the summer!) for a bit of hiking and photography.

This is my favorite from the trip; this is Diablo Lake, from a public viewpoint, played back at 10x so you can see the motion of the clouds and shadows. It's in HDR, if you have a HDR monitor or TV handy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dEGteivB0o

I shot this from the Diablo Lake Viewpoint, which was *full* of tourists. I left one of them in the video, although at 10x you'll miss her if you blink.

#photography #diablolake #pnw #video

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

Let's see if this still actually uploads right. Getting HDR stills out of Davinci Resolve doesn't work quite right -- you get a sRGB-tagged JPEG that *should* be Rec.2020 PQ (or whatever you're using). You can 'Assign Profile' in Photoshop, but *nothing* online seems happy with PS's Rec.2020 PQ profiles. Not Google Photos, not FB, not Mastodon.

Yeah, not right, but not terrible, either.

Even *Photoshop* doesn't like dealing with images in their Rec.2020 PQ color profiles. It's difficult to convert them to anything else without completely smashing the highlights.

This annoys me. We really should be standardizing on either Rec.2020 PQ or *maybe* Rec.2020 HLG as the next online color standard after sRGB, but instead Display P3 seems to be kind of slipping in instead. If I can get an image that looks okay in Display P3, then ~everything online is okay with it and doesn't try to squash it to sRGB. Every browser that I've tried is fine with Rec.2020 PQ images, but conversion middleware almost uniformly chokes on it.

Presumably a big part of this is because of a fundamental problem with the PQ brightness model.

PQ was defined by cinema people. Unlike everything else that I've ever worked with, its brightness levels are "display referred". That is, the standard actually says how bright (in nits) any specific gray value should be displayed. This makes perfect sense in dark theaters, but doesn't make any sense at all for most non-cinema uses. Imagine watching Youtube on your phone in bright sunlight or in bed at night, and having the screen be the same brightness in both cases, because that's what the standard (technically) requires.

Pretty much every other transfer function (Gamma, HLG, etc) is either explicitly or implicitly "scene referred". They tell you how bright the original scene was, and kinda leave it up to the display (and user's preferences) to determine how bright they should be displayed.

Practically speaking, though, pretty much everything that isn't in a theater ends up being displayed relative to a semi-standardized gray tone. Using SDR's "full white" (#ffffff in 8-bit color) as a reference point is usually easiest when doing HDR.

IIRC, PQ originally defined SDR white as 100 nits, and later moved to 203 nits. PQ was designed to be able to fit deep blacks up to a 10,000 nit white into a single 12-bit value without visible banding.

What I really want is a way to (reliably, compatibly) create image files that use Rec.2020 primary colors (because they're pretty close to the full range of human color vision) with the ability to show brighter highlights than SDR, but with a reasonable fallback for SDR displays. Practically speaking, there's no reason that Rec.2020 PQ *can't* do that, if you pretend that it's scene-referred just like everything else.

It just doesn't actually seem to work in practice today.