> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel [mailto:ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org] On Behalf Of
> Niklas Haas
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 7:27 PM
> To: Song, Ruiling <ruiling.s...@intel.com>
> Cc: Mark Thompson <s...@jkqxz.net>; FFmpeg development discussions and
> patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavfi: add opencl tonemap filter.
>
> > Excellent explanation. I think I get your idea. Will refine the code per
> > your
> suggestion.
> > But still some question, will people/tools tend to fill in the mastering
> information for HLG video?
> > I currently see no document that recommend to fill the mastering display for
> HLG.
> > I only have one HLG sample download from 4kmedia.org. seems it has no
> mastering metadata.
> > Do you have any more HLG videos that show it will often be filled in?
> > My concern here is will all video players correctly parse the mastering
> > display
> metadata to decode HLG, or just skip it because most HLG video has no
> metadata?
>
> I think there's probably going to be three ways to approach this
> situation. Part of the problem is surely the fact that HLG is sort of
> designed to be "implicitly" tone-mapped. That is, the way the HLG
> standard is written, you'd just always encode things so that 12.0 is the
> brightest peak brightness, and a user with a 500 cd/m² peak TV would
> just apply the HLG OOTF tuned for 500 cd/m² on the original signal as
> received from the (e.g. blu-ray) source. Sure, the mastering engineer
> may have used a 1500 cd/m² screen to master it, but since the HLG
> OOTF-OOTF round-trip essentially constitutes a simple form of
> tone-mapping, the overall result on-screen will look more or less
> reasonable. (Certainly more reasonable than e.g. PQ)
>
> So surely there's the camp of people that believe HLG doesn't need
> mastering metadata and will therefore not include it, because the end
> result without metadata looks more or less good enough. However, I
> disagree with this result. First of all, it prevents color-accurate
> round-trips. The HLG OOTF is inherently color-distorting, so in a
> color-managed workflow with calibrated devices, this methodology will
> not be sufficient to ensure perceptually accurate reproduction. The
> second reason is that as I said, the HLG OOTF-OOTF interaction
> essentially constitutes a simple form of tone-mapping; but we can do
> significantly better. I believe our tone mapping algorithm produces a
> far better result (visually) than applying the HLG OOTF as-is,
> especially when going to an SDR display. (If you're using mpv, you can
> test this by playing a HLG source once with --vf=format:peak=10 and once
> with --vf=format:peak=1. In the latter case, the only tone mapping being
> done is the implicit HLG tone mapping). Not only are HLG sources I've
> found inconsistently encoded, but also I find that the inherent HLG
> tone-mapping tends to over-saturate the signal (similar to the result we
> get if the desaturation strength is 0.0) while also boosting the gamma.
I agree with you. Thanks for detailed explanation.
>
> So if we subscribe to the idea that we need metadata to do
> color-accurate tone mapping and reproduction, then the question becomes:
> what do we do for un-tagged sources? The obvious approach is to assume a
> (display-referred) signal peak of 10.0 (thus corresponding to a display
> peak of 1000 cd/m², i.e. the HLG reference device). But I think if I was
> to make a HLG release of my own, I would definitely try and include the
> most accurate tagging possible. For example, if we have a clip available
> in both PQ and HLG, I would use the PQ version's mastering metadata for
> HLG as well.
Where comes the "1000 cd/m² is the reference display peak"? seems no clear
statement in BT2100?
If that is true, my code is wrong to detect peak of untagged source.
if (!peak)
peak = in->color_trc == AVCOL_TRC_SMPTE2084 ? 100.0f : 12.0f;
so here I should change it from 12.0f to 10.0f?
> Finally, to put the nail in the coffin of the idea that HLG doesn't need
> metadata, we should realize that the mastering metadata isn't just there
> to help you tone map the brightness levels, it also includes the
> display's gamut capabilities - and for a good reason. When doing
> desaturation in order to fit the BT.2020 signal into a (typically far
> less than BT.2020) display response, knowing the gamut limitations of
> the signal can similarly help users do a far better job than having to
> assume the worst case scenario - for much the same reason that knowing
> the signal's actual peak brightness can help users do a far better job
> tone-mapping than having to assume a worst-case peak of 10,000 cd/m².
> Indeed, in the best case scenario (your own display's gamut and
> brightness capabilities match or exceed the mastering display's), both
> of these can just be no-ops.
>
> So if mastering metadata is beneficial at all, then we should also agree
> that mastering metadata is beneficial to BT.2020 + HLG sources, simply
> for the gamut data alone. The fact that HLG is ill-defined without
> knowing the mastering display's brightness is just icing on the cake at
> this point.
>
> > As what I do now is tone mapping from HDR to SDR, do you think it is
> meaningful to add the metadata for SDR video?
>
> The mastering metadata is still useful for the gamut information as
> explained. Since you're (most likely) encoding a BT.2020 signal that
> doesn't use the full gamut range of BT.2020, even for SDR curves it can
> be a good idea to preserve it.
>
> > And looks like using a peak of 100 in inverse_ootf() when tone-mapping to
> > sdr
> is just ok?
>
> Sure. That won't blow up, but using HLG to store an SDR signal is sort
> of wasteful/pointless. Might as well use an actual SDR curve and skip
> the inverse_ootf step altogether.
Thanks for point this out. I mis-understand the code in libplacebo, because
inverse_ootf() was also called if need_ootf is true, which makes I fail to
understand it correctly.
My fault. I have fixed it locally to remove the inverse_ootf for SDR curve.
>
> >
> > Thanks again for your kinder advice and suggestion!
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
