YouTube to support HDR video, more 360° content.

[Timmy-P]

Base article:  http://mashable.com/2016/01/07/youtube-keynote-ces-2016/
Article that I found myself, but refers to the above source:  http://techcrunch.com/2016/01/08/youtube-will-join-netflix-and-amazon-with-support-for-hdr-video/
Earliest source I could find on the matter:  http://9to5google.com/2016/01/07/youtube-gopro-hdr-video-scooter-braun/
 
I'm surprised nobody posted this yet, so here you go:  YouTube will be supporting HDR (to play catch-up with Netflix and Amazon's video service) and more 360° video in the future, which should be fun to see.  The following is from the second link provided, Tech Crunch:
 

YouTube will be joining Netflix and Amazon with support for HDR (high dynamic range) video, the company announced this week at CES 2016. The news was briefly mentioned during an onstage conversation about 360-degree video taking place between Robert Kyncl, YouTube’s Chief Business Officer, GoPro CEO Nick Woodman, and VRSE CEO Chris Milk.
Along with the news of a partnership between GoPro and YouTube focused on bringing more 360-degree content to YouTube’s platform,  Kyncl also casually mentioned that YouTube would soon support HDR video as well.

 

 

The article then delves into what HDR actually is, but LMG already has that covered a tad more in-depth:

 
 
Anyway, Tech Crunch has the back-half of the article detailing how it's going to need some help on the hardware side of things:

The format... will require an HDR-compatible TV in order to view HDR content. However, a number of TV manufacturers at CES announced their plans for HDR TVs, including LG, Sony and Panasonic.
 
YouTube tells us that, on CES’s show floor, partners including Samsung, LG and Hisense were showcasing YouTube in 4K HDR by displaying videos from NASA and Karmin.

 

 

Adding eye-candy and extra formats is great and all, but like most things such as this, the implementation of it will make or break the quality of the feature.  Too much or too little HDR will turn some users away; if you have ever played a game that goes overboard with Post-Processing effects such as Motion Blur or Depth of Field, you'll know what I'm talking about.

 

So, what do you guys think about either the HDR or 360° video?

 

EDIT:  Apparently 360° video is already a thing, however they announced a partnership to expand on that.  My apologies.

[Enderman]

what?

 

there already are 360 videos on youtube...

[mynameajeff]

what?

 

there already are 360 videos on youtube...

Not in HDR

[SurvivorNVL]

I have so much anticipation for HDR, and OLED.  This is going to be a great year.

[ALwin]

HDR video?  Great, another buzz word gimmick.

 

The only way to actually see all that extra dynamic range would be if the monitor/screen supported color depths greater than 10 bits.  If a monitor cannot support a big color depth and wide gamut, all the colors will be compressed into what is available on the monitor.  Same with contrast ratios.  Everything about the display panel used on the monitor/screen would have to be improved.

[EpicAdom]

snip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FruoKnCXbc

[Prysin]

HDR video?  Great, another buzz word gimmick.

 

The only way to actually see all that extra dynamic range would be if the monitor/screen supported color depths greater than 10 bits.  If a monitor cannot support a big color depth and wide gamut, all the colors will be compressed into what is available on the monitor.  Same with contrast ratios.  Everything about the display panel used on the monitor/screen would have to be improved.

actually HDR is important.

 

if you see a HDR image vs non HDR, even on normal monitors there is a huge difference.

 

here is an example:

[ALwin]

I have so much anticipation for HDR, and OLED.  This is going to be a great year.

 

We have cameras, at mid to high end consumer level prices, that are capable of capturing photos and videos with 14+ stops of dynamic range.  HDR is a technique used to try to recreate the dynamic range of film (about 13 stops) when early digital sensors were only capable of 6-8 stops of dynamic range.  But with more current digital sensors capable of capturing more than 13-14 stops of dynamic range, HDR has become just a gimmick.

 

Additionally our eyes are capable of seeing about only 10-14 stops of dynamic range at a given moment.  The main reason our eyes appear to have a very wide dynamic range is due to its ability to adjust to changes in brightness quickly and smoothly.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm

http://petapixel.com/2015/05/26/film-vs-digital-a-comparison-of-the-advantages-and-disadvantages/

[ALwin]

snip

 

With proper editing, whether it's a single image or an exposure bracketed image edited using HDR techniques, any image can be enhanced to show details.  The RAW sample and the HDR sample you compared shows only a difference between a RAW image that appears FLAT and an image that's been edited to enhance the finer details.

 

What I am talking about is, a monitor that's only capable of showing 60% sRGB will never be able to see the full range of colors compared to a monitor capable of showing 100% Adobe RGB.  So if someone takes a photo or video using a camera capable of capturing 100%AdobeRGB colors, the viewer who is using only a 60% sRGB screen will not see any improvements.  Another analogy would be, I have a video camera capable of recording video in color, but if some of the people who view my video owns only a B&W television set... there's not point is there to say how vibrant the colors in my videos are.  They would have to go out and buy a color TV before they see the results.

[Timmy-P]

what?

 

there already are 360 videos on youtube...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FruoKnCXbc

 

You two aren't wrong, and I edited the OP:  YouTube is acquiring partnerships to expand on it.  I already updated the OP on the matter.  Sorry about that!

 

HDR video?  Great, another buzz word gimmick.

 

The only way to actually see all that extra dynamic range would be if the monitor/screen supported color depths greater than 10 bits.  If a monitor cannot support a big color depth and wide gamut, all the colors will be compressed into what is available on the monitor.  Same with contrast ratios.  Everything about the display panel used on the monitor/screen would have to be improved.

 

I wouldn't agree that HDR is merely a gimmick, however I have already mentioned in the post that TVs would need to specifically support it.

[ALwin]

I wouldn't agree that HDR is merely a gimmick, however I have already mentioned in the post that TVs would need to specifically support it.

 

The reason I call it a gimmick is because digital sensor technology has advanced enough to now be able to match or exceed the dynamic range of film, which HDR techniques were initially developed for image creators (photographers and film makers) to try and mimic with their digital cameras.

[Prysin]

With proper editing, whether it's a single image or an exposure bracketed image edited using HDR techniques, any image can be enhanced to show details.  The RAW sample and the HDR sample you compared shows only a difference between a RAW image that appears FLAT and an image that's been edited to enhance the finer details.

 

What I am talking about is, a monitor that's only capable of showing 60% sRGB will never be able to see the full range of colors compared to a monitor capable of showing 100% Adobe RGB.  So if someone takes a photo or video using a camera capable of capturing 100%AdobeRGB colors, the viewer who is using only a 60% sRGB screen will not see any improvements.  Another analogy would be, I have a video camera capable of recording video in color, but if some of the people who view my video owns only a B&W television set... there's not point is there to say how vibrant the colors in my videos are.  They would have to go out and buy a color TV before they see the results.

the thing is, i do photo editing, and i can tell you that getting the "HDR" look, to be good, you gotta work the sliders. or else some things get over-saturated.

on average, it takes 30 minutes of tuning to make an image look good but believable as HDR...

 

now imagine EVERY FRAME having that processing done in less then 16.66 milliseconds. Because that is what it takes to get 60FPS

[ALwin]

snip

 

I've been taking photos for over 20 years, kid.  And I have played around with HDR with my early digital cameras.  But with more current models, the dynamic range of the sensor is wide enough that I no longer need to spend more time on HDR.

[Timmy-P]

The reason I call it a gimmick is because digital sensor technology has advanced enough to now be able to match or exceed the dynamic range of film, which HDR techniques were initially developed for image creators (photographers and film makers) to try and mimic with their digital cameras.

 

Alright... So I'm taking you're saying this from a photographer's point of view, or capturing images?  What about the reverse, eg rendering images that aren't already available?  I know a few games (Source games are all I can think of right now) feature HDR in rendering, does HDR still have a place on the other side of the pond?

[Prysin]

I've been taking photos for over 20 years, kid.  And I have played around with HDR with my early digital cameras.  But with more current models, the dynamic range of the sensor is wide enough that I no longer need to spend more time on HDR.

on a SENSOR. yes

for stills, SURE

 

for video, its not that simple. you gotta deal with A LOT more compression and decoding stuff. Which in case of say YT, usually means notable degredation of your product.

[ALwin]

snip

 

With games or other stuff where the image has to be rendered out, the GPU or whatever is used to process/render the image has to be capable of rendering at higher color depths.  It doesn't depend on the monitor for viewing, unless the game or application has be programmed to detect the capabilities of the display and limit itself so that it can run more efficiently in order not to waste processing power.  Most GPU's these days are capable of rendering 10 bits per channel color or greater.  If the game is programmed to only support 8-bit color (think of the old Nintendo, NES, system) or the GPU can only process and calculate 8-bit color, it won't utilize the full capabilities of your monitor, will it?

 

The games that support "HDR rendering" I doubt they are actually rendering out multiple versions of the same image frame, each with different exposure values and then recombining them for that "HDR" look.  Maybe I'm wrong on this matter, I don't know how the game developers programmed the game, but it could also be that turning on that "HDR" option in the game is just telling the game to tell the GPU to render out each frame with a better color depth or brightness/contrast ratio.

 

snip

 

For video, it depends on a few things:

• sensor
• codec and bit rate

The Sony PXW FS7 I own has a sensor that is capable of 14 stops of dynamic range.  It uses a 600 mbps XAVC H.264 codec when recording at 4K, which is very high.  On a 64GB memory card I can only record around 15 minutes of 4K50p footage, which tells you how "bloated" the files are.  When recording, I can be 1-2 stops off either direction on the exposure but because of the wide dynamic range of the sensor and the very low compression of the file on the memory card, I can bring back a lot of detail that falls in the highlights or shadows in post production.

 

As for Youtube, it's designed to be able to support the widest number of "consumers" as possible.  So obviously if the viewer of a Youtube video wants to view the highest quality available, he/she has to have a sufficiently fast enough connection to the internet and a display capable of viewing that quality in the video. I.e. watching a 4K Youtube video on a 1080p monitor, obviously the viewer is not going to see the full potential of that video.

 

I'm not saying don't use HDR.  I am saying, don't think of HDR as that amazing magical thing that makes everything look perfectly better.

[azurezeed]

And we also need more HDR monitors

[LAwLz]

HDR video?  Great, another buzz word gimmick.

 

The only way to actually see all that extra dynamic range would be if the monitor/screen supported color depths greater than 10 bits.  If a monitor cannot support a big color depth and wide gamut, all the colors will be compressed into what is available on the monitor.  Same with contrast ratios.  Everything about the display panel used on the monitor/screen would have to be improved.

Have you not heard about all the HDR talk going around at CES (and slightly before as well)?

The UHD Alliance has announced a new certificate/standard called Ultra HD Premium. That is probably what YouTube will add support for. Here are the requirements for that:

 

 

Distribution

Any distribution channel delivering the UHD Alliance content must support

• Image Resolution: 3840x2160
• Color Bit Depth: Minimum 10-bit signal
• Color: BT.2020 color representation
• High Dynamic Range: SMPTE ST2084 EOTF

 

Either that or something similar.

[Sauron]

...isn't hdr something that's already in the video file? why does youtube need to add "support" for it?

[LAwLz]

...isn't hdr something that's already in the video file? why does youtube need to add "support" for it?

Because YouTube re-encodes everything that is uploaded. If I upload a 10bit file to YouTube the file my viewers will see will end up being 8bit.

[Sauron]

Because YouTube re-encodes everything that is uploaded. If I upload a 10bit file to YouTube the file my viewers will see will end up being 8bit.

 

but hdr is more aboutwhich colour it shows, not how many it shows, isn't it?

[Lynx]

HDR?, well the price of such monitor for still unknown, and look like it woud be expensive

but since AMD also talk about it as a gaming feature that would come with their GPU,

maybe there would be a reasonably priced monitor

[Humbug]

 

If you are interested in next-gen AMD GPUs watch the whole video.

Otherwise HDR part starts at 3:50.

[qwertywarrior]

im still confused about HDR

and image with HDR has 10 bit color right ?

thats it right ?

 

because HDR pics look like over saturated crap when i google "HDR pictures"

 

so im not sure what is happening i have a 10 bit panel and 10 bit pictures dont look like HDR pics i see on the net

[ALwin]

In photography, HDR is not about color depth, but about what range of details a camera sensor/film is able to capture between the darkest and brightest part of the scene.

 

For a display such as a computer monitor or a television screen, they are using "HDR" as a buzzword.  What they are actually doing is trying to make monitors with a higher color depth and wider color gamut as a base standard.  Currently on the market for most consumers, unless they are willing to pay at $1000 or more for a quality monitor/screen, most displays have a gamut of between 60-100% sRGB and way under 90% Adobe RGB and roughly 8-bit color.

 

They also want to make sure that the firmware/software/applications/operating systems that render/display images on the screen support at least 10-bit color.

 

 

snip

 

A lot of people who do "HDR" photos, most of them do a really bad job at applying HDR.  Hence the over saturation.