American Cinematographer - August 2018 - 12

PRESIDENT'S DESK
High dynamic range, or HDR, is among the latest and certainly one of the most gamechanging technologies to impact our work as cinematographers. Presented as the next best
thing - with increased contrast, extended range and the ability to handle a wide gamut
of colors - it's a huge step in image presentation. But is it a step forward or back?
I'll save you a detailed technical analysis, for which there are many articles written by
knowledgeable technicians. Instead, what has been on my mind is how this technology
changes the way we might shoot and finish our images - provided, of course, we're even
in a position to finish our images, which unfortunately is not always the case. Many previously released movies and television shows are being retransferred in HDR, and in many of
those cases the cinematographers have not been invited to participate. Even on new
projects, the cinematographer is not always invited for the coloring, whether or not it
involves HDR.
HDR is prized for its extended range and ability to see incredible definition in the
highlights. Those selling HDR always demonstrate the vivid crimson skies of sunset, or stark
blue midday skies populated with bright, puffy clouds. They love to "blind" you with flashing lights and bright colors - often an eye-piercing red. Ironically, these are the things that
we as cinematographers have usually stayed away from, preferring instead an interpretation of the visual world
around us that is less saturated and not so super-dynamic.
More often, we are looking for subtlety, for mood, for desaturated colors. We tend to be interested in the
dark side and shy away from the light - unless, of course, the light is what a particular project calls for. Being
confronted so consistently with HDR's bright side is akin to playing your home stereo only at full amplification. Social
consequences aside, you would eventually go deaf! Could HDR similarly make you blind? A friend of mine recently
watched a large-screen showing of HDR imagery that weighted its performance for a super-bright image, and yes,
his eyes were hurt. After a doctor's visit, he was ordered to a dark room for 24 hours.
In truth, HDR is not all bad if you properly control it. It has especially caught my interest in its ability to deal
with the dark side of the image. A corollary in the art world can be found in Rembrandt's paintings, which draw
your attention to the dark, where the painter's detail is rich and varied. The black outfits worn by the paintings'
subjects display an enormous variety of densities. There are subtle shades of color, and the fabric, dark as it is, always
seems to catch a subtle highlight. Additionally, the white lace collars of the era, representing the paintings' highest
brightness, appear as a muted white, with lots of fine detail.
Previously, that sort of dynamic range was not really possible to replicate in the photographic world. But now,
with HDR, we are able to reach into the darkness.
When Roger Deakins, ASC, BSC graded Blade Runner 2049 for HDR, he made sure the detail in the darkness
was rich and vivid, and he downplayed the brightness of the transfer. The result showed me that a cinematographically satisfying approach to HDR is possible after all. But, yes, it requires the complete involvement of the cinematographer to oversee the process.
Without that involvement, I'm afraid we will be left with a world of the blind, where the one-eyed will
be king.

Kees van Oostrum
ASC President

August 2018

American Cinematographer

Photo by Jacek Laskus, ASC, PSC.

The Blind Awakening

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Cinematographer - August 2018