←back to thread

HDR‑Infused Emoji

(sharpletters.net)
274 points tabletcorry | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.66s | source
Show context
donohoe ◴[] No.43718958[source]
I used (abused) HDR in an editorial project last year. We were working with an amazing illustrator doing a take on series of stories exploring the intersection of faith, storytelling, and technology.

As the early versions of the images emerged we thought we could used HDR to provide more or a aura to some elements. We tried to make it subtle and not overwhelm.

This example is my favorite:

https://restofworld.org/2024/divinity-altered-reality-muslim...

I think it worked well - and this technique would have been useful. We tried something similar but could not get it to work.

Our method was to use a stretched HDR video in the background.

Here are the steps I used:

In Photoshop create white image to proportions required. Save as MP4:

  File > Export > Render Video
Save as "sample.mp4"

With the MP4, generate a HDR version in WEBM:

  ffmpeg -i sample.mp4 -pix_fmt yuv420p10le -color_primaries 9 -color_trc 16 -colorspace 9 -color_range 1 -profile:v 2 -vcodec libvpx-vp9 sample.webm
With the plain MP4, generate the HDR version:

  ffmpeg -i sample.mp4 -pix_fmt yuv420p10le -color_primaries 9 -color_trc 16 -colorspace 9 -color_range 1 -profile:v high10 -vcodec libx264 sample.mp4
replies(15): >>43719036 #>>43719131 #>>43719345 #>>43719699 #>>43720179 #>>43720199 #>>43720827 #>>43722189 #>>43722257 #>>43722975 #>>43723823 #>>43726376 #>>43727100 #>>43727364 #>>43729227 #
ValveFan6969 ◴[] No.43722257[source]
This is a lot of technical mumbo jumbo for a simple thing like brightness. HDR is a gimmick like 3D TVs. The best image quality is not the one with the most colors, which is entirely pointless, but instead a simple image, with no fancy features that only serve to distract the eye.

Like in the famous case of the Apple logo in the 1990s. Steve Jobs, when asked why he uses a black and white Apple logo instead of a color one, said - "color will only distract the eye from what's important".

replies(5): >>43722634 #>>43722655 #>>43722764 #>>43722788 #>>43722865 #
1. alwa ◴[] No.43722865[source]
I feel like the whole emoji example might favor your point of view, but that, delightfully, grandparent commenter’s example is one of the better counterpoints I’ve seen.

Selectively deployed, a glint of extra brightness, above and beyond the “100%” baseline, simulates the glints and shimmers that draw our eyes naturally—in this case, in the same manner as gilt on the physical counterpart to the books they’re depicting. It fits in cleverly with a long tradition for that specific context.

Where I agree is with the idea that brighter-for-brighter’s-sake is not better after a certain point, any more than color-because-we-can. And it seems, as far as I can tell, that uniformly cranking up the full frame brightness into the HDR range is not The Done Thing, at least in film and design, at least so far. Possibly for compatibility with the wide range of displays stuff will end up on.

replies(1): >>43722947 #
2. recursive ◴[] No.43722947[source]
Hm, so you're saying we're going to be using browsers that give authors/publishers another ability to "draw our eyes naturally"? What could possibly go wrong. I'd be turning it off now if I had hardware that supported it.
replies(1): >>43723157 #
3. alwa ◴[] No.43723157[source]
I kind of felt like Apple’s was the right approach, for that reason: they’d tend to support it in high-end video but not so much in image content. Although it sounds from downthread like that might be changing?

If the tech does seep into ads, as I guess it must eventually, I’ll be right behind you in turning it off…