- From: Fredrik Hubinette <hubbe@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 14:14:10 -0700
- To: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
- Cc: Lars Borg <borg@adobe.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, "public-colorweb@w3.org" <public-colorweb@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAEVbG5rVaiiw0AkbrBzNhkYUMaCMv-cnSazbBBZpNZvgJB5dFA@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com> wrote: > Hi Fredrik, > > > I think it's confusing > > to suggest that sRGB is 80 nits since almost all monitors in use today > are > > brighter than that. > > A default of sRGB 80 nits peak white was chosen as the default in > TTML2 because it is always safe when compositing subtitles onto full > screen video: it is particularly jarring when subtitles are much > brighter than the picture! > > In practice, subtitles are typically presented around 400 nits when > composited onto PQ content, i.e. luminanceGain = 4, with occasional > exceptions that are content dependent. > > I think it's fine to want 400 nits subtitles. But using luminanceGain = 4 as a way to express that, implies that luminanceGain = 1 should be 100 nits, which is the part that I think is unfortunate. > A default of sRGB 80 nits peak white might not be the right answer for > general UI/web page work. > > Agreed. > > > Would it be possible to drop the 80 lumens and just say that > luminanceGain = > > 2 is twice as bright > > as the default? > > What do you mean by "default"? Is the suggestion that, by default, > sRGB peak white be mapped to 160 nits? > > No, I meant that sRGB peak is mapped to some unknown number of nits, and luminanceGain = 2 is twice as bright as that. > Best, > > -- Pierre > > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Fredrik Hubinette <hubbe@google.com> > wrote: > > The TTLML2 gain value seems like a good idea. It is imilar in some sense > to > > the wording > > for how to deal with floats outside of 0-1 in the canvas-color-space. > > However, I think it's confusing > > to suggest that sRGB is 80 nits since almost all monitors in use today > are > > brighter than that. It seems > > like the tts:luminanceGain wording would lock legacy elements at 80 nits > > (aka "dark and dreary"). > > > > Would it be possible to drop the 80 lumens and just say that > luminanceGain = > > 2 is twice as bright > > as the default? > > > > If we really need a way to match how PQ works, it might be better to > have an > > absoluteLuminance > > tag instead. But personally I would prefer not to deal with absolute > > luminance as that is not compatible > > with how I use my TV and monitor. > > > > /Hubbe > > > > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux < > pal@sandflow.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Frederik et al., > >> > >> > Since non-HDR images are all in screen-relative brightness, it's > >> > impossible to make an PQ image > >> > which looks the same as a non-HDR image. > >> > >> One approach is to specify an (optional) gain value to scale the SDR > >> image before compositing it onto HDR images. > >> > >> This is the approach taken in recent TTML2 [1] draft, and has the > >> advantage of giving the author control because, sometimes, the white > >> point of the SDR image should be at 80/100 nits. > >> > >> [1] > >> https://w3c.github.io/ttml2/spec/ttml2.html#style- > attribute-luminanceGain > >> > >> > Suddenly all legacy apps become dark and gray, as windows translates > >> > them to 80 nits. > >> > >> Using 80 nits as the default white point for SDR images is certainly > >> safe and conservative, but not appropriate in all cases. I think this > >> is an industry discussion, which hopefully we can have. > >> > >> Hope this makes sense. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> -- Pierre > >> > >> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Fredrik Hubinette <hubbe@google.com> > >> wrote: > >> > While ICCMax does have proper ways to describe PQ, it seems to do so > in > >> > a > >> > way that is not easy to understand and implement. Recent work to > >> > support > >> > ICC profiles in chrome has focused on ICC version 2, because ICC > version > >> > 4.x > >> > is too difficult to implement efficiently, and ICCMax looks much more > >> > difficult. Since we don't know what the uptake on ICCMax will look > like, > >> > having a special bit for HDR content might not be a bad idea. > (However, > >> > the > >> > proposed magic string solution doesn't sound like a good idea.) > >> > > >> > Another problem altogether is that PQ as a transform is defined in > >> > absolute > >> > lumens. Since non-HDR images are all in screen-relative brightness, > it's > >> > impossible to make an PQ image which looks the same as a non-HDR > image. > >> > To > >> > observe this problem in practice, hook up a recent Win10 machine with > an > >> > HDR-capable graphics card to an HDR-capable tv and turn on HDR. > >> > Suddenly > >> > all legacy apps become dark and gray, as windows translates them to 80 > >> > nits. > >> > Most people quickly turn HDR off again. > >> > > >> > A better solution is probably to use hybrid-log-gamma, which uses > >> > screen-relative brightness. I'm not sure if there is an ICC(Max) > profile > >> > that describes HLG accurately though. > >> > > >> > /Fredrik "Hubbe" Hubinette (Chrome HDR Video) > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Lars Borg <borg@adobe..com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Hi Chris, > >> >> > >> >> I assume you’re looking at the profile that I created. > >> >> The profile was designed to provide a transform to/from Rec.2100 PQ > to > >> >> XYZ > >> >> D50. > >> >> The only descriptive metadata included is the profile description, as > >> >> that’s what’s being displayed in profile menus, etc. > >> >> No effort was made to add other descriptive metadata, as no such was > >> >> asked > >> >> for. > >> >> > >> >> Elaborating on some of the ICC constraints that you’re observing. > >> >> > >> >> The first thing I noticed is that there are no colorant tags to > >> >> indicate > >> >> the primaries used. > >> >> > >> >> The colorant tag will not be used by the CMM. > >> >> One tricky thing is that the colorant values in this tag will not > match > >> >> the Rec. 2100 spec. > >> >> The colorant XYZ value has to be in PCS space, so it has to be > >> >> chromatically adapted to D50. > >> >> > >> >> There is a chromaticityType tag that can indicate the unconverted xy > >> >> chromaticities from the Rec. 2100 spec. > >> >> Probably more useful. > >> >> The chromaticityType tag will not be used by the CMM. > >> >> This is purely descriptive metadata. > >> >> > >> >> Although the specification itself does list the chromaticities of the > >> >> 2020 > >> >> primaries, they are not in the ICC profile. > >> >> > >> >> They are embedded in the matrices in the A2B and B2A tags. > >> >> > >> >> The second thing I noticed was that the lumi tag indicates a peak > >> >> luminance of 100 cd/m^2 which does not sound like HDR at all. > >> >> > >> >> True. > >> >> It’s not clear from the ICC spec that the lumi tag shall express peak > >> >> luminance. > >> >> It is here set to match the luminance of the PCS white point. > >> >> A PQ value of 508, 508, 508 (/1023) corresponds to 100 nits. > >> >> This is also the reference SDR diffuse white, and was selected as the > >> >> PCS > >> >> white point for cross-media conversion. > >> >> The reason: > >> >> ICC profiles are used for converting between SDR and HDR. > >> >> No established practice exists for mapping colors between HDR and > SDR. > >> >> Reference white for SDR in the studio is 100 nits. > >> >> But many consumer SDR displays operate at 300 nits, so some existing > >> >> programs put diffuse white in HDR at 300 nits. > >> >> So the desired crossover between SDR and HDR is at 100 or 300 nits, > >> >> definitely not at 1000 or 10,000 nits. > >> >> Time will tell. > >> >> > >> >> There are A2B0 and B2A0 tags for the transfer functions. The B curve > is > >> >> linear, the M curve has a gamma of 5 and there is a slightly > sigmoidal > >> >> A > >> >> curve. I am not able to tell whether this correctly represents the > >> >> BT.2100 > >> >> EOTF and would appreciate guidance here. > >> >> > >> >> The dynamic range of the PQ curve (10^9) far exceeds the U16 code > range > >> >> available in an ICC sampled curves. > >> >> The high gamma in the M curve expands the dynamic range of the > sampled > >> >> A > >> >> curve. (Established practice) > >> >> Thus, the A curve has a dynamic range of <100. This allows for > almost 3 > >> >> significant digits in the low end. > >> >> This results in a more accurate transform. > >> >> > >> >> Eek! It looks as if a magic string is used to signal the image > >> >> contents, > >> >> and that string is the name of the ICC profile. Not only are the > gamma > >> >> and > >> >> chromaticity to be ignored, but also the contents of the ICC profile. > >> >> > >> >> Agreed. That looks horrible. > >> >> > >> >> It seems clear that a vastly better way to encode BT.2100 still > images > >> >> in > >> >> PNG would be to embed an ICCMax profile that correctly describes the > >> >> EOTF > >> >> and the primary chromaticities, and has a correct peak luminance > value. > >> >> I > >> >> assume that the flaws noted above are due to limitations of ICC v.4? > >> >> > >> >> Any obvious drawbacks of my proposed approach? > >> >> > >> >> Have you created such an ICCMax profile? > >> >> How do you encode PQ EOTF? > >> >> > >> >> 1. I assume the profile is to be used for color conversions, and not > >> >> only > >> >> to signal a color space. The current profile works in tested > >> >> contemporary > >> >> CMMs and apps. Those same CMMs fail on ICCMax profiles. I am not > aware > >> >> of > >> >> any plans to change that. > >> >> 2. No way to map the content to SDR media as the 10,000 nits value is > >> >> useless for this. The current ICC profile provides a fallback for SDR > >> >> on > >> >> existing systems. > >> >> 3. Did you find any flaws related to ICC v4? It seems the mismatch > >> >> between > >> >> your expectations and the current implementation are not due to flaws > >> >> in ICC > >> >> v4, so we can simply update the ICC profile to address your needs. > >> >> > >> >> How about adding descriptive metadata tags to a v4.2 profile? > >> >> The chromaticityType tag is already in the ICC standard. > >> >> Not sure how to indicate an EOTF in ICC. > >> >> Maybe the best is to indicate color and EOTF by name or enum instead > of > >> >> by > >> >> value? > >> >> HEVC, etc. have adopted enumerations for a closed set of color tags. > >> >> Here > >> >> the values would be 9,16,0. > >> >> > >> >> Lars > >> > > >> > > > > > >
Received on Saturday, 20 May 2017 21:14:47 UTC