Talk:High dynamic range

This article uses American English dialect and spelling. According to the WP:ENGVAR, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:High-dynamic-range imaging which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Scope of HDR pages

Currently, there are 4 category of pages about HDR. — SH4ever (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Category	Main page	Topics belonging
A	Page A	General overview about the whole process from acquisition to display Topics that do not belong to other categories
B	Page B	The HDR capture technique
C	Page C	HDR formats related to HDR displays (HDR10, Dolby Vision and others) Related topics
D	Page D	HDR Rendering

Discussion

Please, discuss about the scope without discussing at this stage about the current or future topic naming.

• Please, read this disambiguation page before commenting. — SH4ever (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This follows the current most important subject of the pages instead of the current naming. (A discussion about titles will come later). This categorization is already mostly respected. It allows the distinction between the topics sharing the same name. Each topic can have enough space to be developed and its multiple aspects. — SH4ever (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC) and 15:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

HDR pages's title

Wikipedia title requirements

Wikipedia ask for:

• Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
• Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
• Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
• Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (See § Conciseness, below.)
• Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.

Read more about Wikipedia naming conventions here: Wikipedia:Article titles.

Title propositions

	Page B	Page C
Option 1 (previous)	High-dynamic-range imaging	High-dynamic-range video
Option 2 (current)	High Dynamic Range (photography technique)	High Dynamic Range (display and formats)
Option 3 (new proposition)	HDR capture technique	HDR displays and related technologies

Before starting the discussion, I invite you to read the explanation I have wrote about HDR's multiple meanings and writing.

— SH4ever (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion 1: Stop using option 1

If you rode my explanation, you should understand why I believe there is no discussion over the fact that we should stop using option 1.

They are a lot of misconceptions about HDR. ITU gives some example here. ITU is a far more reliable source than most websites. Option 1 is based on misconceptions and is spreading them. It has created a mess on Wikipedia. Peaople do not know where is the right page to go. The pages dicuss topics that do not belong to them. There are so much Wikilinks that target the wrong page. Cleaning up all of that has become a time consuming nightmare. I tried to do my best but there is so much more work to do.

I totally oppose to the use of option 1.

— SH4ever (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

My main reasons for stoping to use "high dynamic range video" as the title of page C<nowiki> are the fact that this contradicts current Wikipedia pages and also outside sources. Here are evidences and explanation. — SH4ever (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Evidences and explanation about why we should stop using the title "high-dynamic-range video""

* High dynamic range (HDR) is a video and image technology — Page C HDR came in 2014, first in the video industry and then in the gaming industry.[5] More recently, it has also entered in the still picture industry.[6] — Page C It's also coming for the Web. Check the "Still images" and "Web" of the "Adoption" section of page C. It's the same technology than the rest of the page. The page-C-HDR technology is more common for video but if you read the page, you can see that its subject really is the same technology that can also be used for other than video. In addition to that, not all HDR video belong to the technology discussed in page C. Here, by the term "computationnal HDR", Qualcomm refers to the HDR technique discussed in page B. By the term "4K HDR" it refers to the technology discussed in page C. Their latest high-end SoC is capable to do both for video. ...staggered HDR [sensors] can capture three images, all with detail in different parts –bright or dark –of the scene. Qualcomm Spectra 580’s triple concurrency can merge all of these images together to bring you one final image with incredible dynamic range. This technique has been available for photo capture. But for the first time on Snapdragon you’ll be able to capture 4K HDR with computational HDR. — Qualcomm document Qualcomm further write the following which refers to the page-C-HDR: Photo capture will also get new HDR capabilities with 10-bit color depth. Snapdragon 845 debuted 10-bit color depth for video capture, known as 4K HDR. It could capture 4K HDR video in the HLG and HDR10 formats. Snapdragon 855 added 4K HDR video capture in HDR10+ format and Snapdragon 865 addedvideo capture in the Dolby Vision format. Qualcomm Spectra will be able to capture photos in 10-bit color depth in the HEIF format. With Snapdragon 888 you’ll be able to capture photos in over a billion shades of color. — Qualcomm document The Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra already has the "HDR technique" capability (page B). It achieves that thanks to the Smart ISO Pro capability of its modern sensor and the Qualcomm SoC it uses. It's expected that in a near future, all future high-end smartphones will have that capability for video which I refer to the "HDR technique" as page-B-HDR is a technique while the page-C-HDR technology is a way of representing the color and the luminance of images, not a technique. Hope that make things clear. — SH4ever (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion 2: What titles should we use?

Now that we have ditched option 1, we can discuss about other options. Put up your opinion about option 2 and option 3 or propose new options.

The goal: Find which title meet Wikipedia's requirements the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SH4ever (talk • contribs)

I didn't realized we had decided to ditch option 1. It doesn't seem that bad to me, even if the titles don't precide delineate the contents. Option 2 seems nutty, with its over-capitalization and complicated parentheticals. Option 3 or something like it might be OK if that's how we agree the content splits up, but I think it would be better to expand the acronym to the hyphenated compound modifier like we use in option 1 presently. Dicklyon (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Use of capitalization: 'high dynamic range' vs 'High Dynamic Range'

There is a debate over the capitalization.

My opinion depend on the topic we are talking about. I defend the following:

• Topic A: high dynamic range (shouldn't be capitalized)
• Topic B: High Dynamic Range (should be capitalized)
• Topic C: High Dynamic Range (should be capitalized)

This follow reliable sources. Here are examples of reliable sources that use capitalization for topic-C-HDR:

Similar use of capitalization already is already respected on other Wikipedia pages such as: HEVC, AVC, HEIF, AVIF, PNG.

— SH4ever (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

References

I don't think there's a debate. Per MOS:CAPS, we don't cap what's not consistently capped in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

SH, take a good study of WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. There's no reason to be capitalizing things like dynamic range and color gamut even where an acronym is being defined. I've undone some of your over-capitlizing moves. I suggest a WP:RM discussion if you want different titles for those. Dicklyon (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, The capitalization is okay per Wikpedia MOS. Please wait a bit and I will explain you in details. The topic is tricky. — SH4ever (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Still waiting. I see you've been compiling an argument in a draft essay. Your reasoning for never use "high dynamic range" without capitalization when we are specifically talking about topic C. is pretty shaky, since plenty of good sources do exactly that. Some specific standardized formats have proper names, but there are plenty of high-dynamic-range formats that don't have proper name, or that have other proper names than what we're talking about. Dicklyon (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry for the wait. This took me time.

Can you give examples? I might not have been clear in the current version of my text but they are two kind of "high dynamic range formats". One kind is new and is discussed in page C. Example of type-C-HDR formats are HDR10, HDR10+, Dolby Vision, HLG10 and PQ10. Other formats such as log formats and raw formats do no belong to topic C. Those are high dynamic range formats in the meaning A. The most major difference is that the new ones are directlty used by displays.

As a matter of comparison, HEVC and AV1 are both high efficiency video codings. However AV1 is not HEVC (High Efficiency Video Coding). We should write HEVC with capitalization just as we are already doing it. It's the same for topic-C-HDR.

— SH4ever (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's a book that p.184 speaks of "high dynamic range (HDR) imaging formats" and on p.192 "LogLuv encoding for full-gamut, high-dynamic range images". And here's one that consistently uses lowercase in its discussions of HDR images and their formats. Here's another. Most books don't divide up the space quite like you do, which is one way but not a way that's obviously taken from sources. Capitalization is pretty inconsistent, and don't see how you can conclude that it's caps for topic C as distinct from the others.

This is exactly what I said. None of the examples you gave belong to topic C. They all fall into the same category as raw formats and log formats that I previously stated. None of those are directly used by displays. The image is either converted to SDR or to HDR (in the meaning of topic C). When you see a source like [one] talking about High Dynamic Range, it doesn't refer to the meaning of high dynamic range you gave examples. It refers to the meaning High Dynamic Range discussed in page C, the only one I say it needs capitalization. I would like Wikipedia to have a page about the examples you gave. There is plenty of things to develop. That would go into a new page distinct from the current as it is a distinct subject. Currently there is only a short phrase about that in the formats section of page A. — SH4ever (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

So show me examples of what you mean, and how that relates to the scopes of our articles High-dynamic-range imaging and High-dynamic-range video. Are you trying to narrow the latter to be about formats named "High Dynamic Range"? Dicklyon (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you know a source that describes AV1 as a "high efficienty video coding"? Dicklyon (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I just said that as an example as AV1 is video coding that have high efficiency. In fact, it does even have a higher efficiency than HEVC (from what I rode). — SH4ever (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's a paper with lowercase throughout, for technology, content, formats, etc. Here's another. And another. Dicklyon (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you see the capitalization in the introduction of [the page you gave the link?] — SH4ever (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I see they cap it where defining the acronym, and in the title-case title, but not otherwise in sentences, as in the abstract. Read MOS:CAPS; those are not relevant to our style choice. Dicklyon (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Not the abstract, read the "introduction" section. — SH4ever (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It's okay per MOS:CAPS for the same reasons as HEVC, PNG, etc... — SH4ever (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not OK. I already acknowledged that they cap when defining acronyms, in "CONTRARY to previous television standards, i.e., Standard Definition (SD) and High Definition (HD), which increased the number of pixels (both temporally and spatially), Ultra-High Definition (UHD) increases the quality of those pixels by using Wide Color Gamut (WCG) and High Dynamic Range (HDR) technologies." I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean they think that Standard Definition and High Definition and such are proper names. Per MOS:CAPS, since none of these terms are consistently capped in sources, we don't treat them as proper names. I can't find any context where "High Dynamic Range" is a proper name, though it's often capped in marketing materials. Dicklyon (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I gave plenty sources here.

OK, let's examine those (I'll add my observations over the next several hours as I find time). Dicklyon (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

1. Caps only in title and in defining acronym: "High Dynamic Range (HDR)"; no other uses in sentences to show whether they would cap it.

2. Hard to interpret; mixed. "PQ/HLG High Dynamic Range formats" but "Hybrid Log-Gamma (HLG) high dynamic range (HDR) static images" and "Perceptual Quantizer (PQ) high dynamic range (HDR) static images". If the first one is topic C, what are the other two?

3. Only in defining acronyms: "AV1 Image File Format supports High Dynamic Range (HDR) and Wide Color Gamut (WCG) images as well as Standard Dynamic Range (SDR)." and not clearly topic C anyway.

4. "HDR stands for High Dynamic Range and refers to a technique that ..." may be topic B. Probably just capped for defining the acronym.

5. "High Dynamic Range (HDR) offers broadcasters and content creators limitless expressive possibilities." and "Produce in High Dynamic Range (HDR) and maximise the appeal of all your content..." – doesn't seem like topic C. Probably just capped for the acronym definition.

I can't see any support in these for your contention that "high dynamic range" would need to be capped in sentences on topics B and C. Dicklyon (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

References

The cap writing consistently means the HDR of either topic C or B.

Wikipedia accept HEVC with caps but look here at the paper that defines HEVC, no caps are used !

The story is the same with High Dynamic Range when it refers to topic C. The only difference is that "high efficienty video coding" is a term only used about HEVC while "high dynamic range" is used for topic C and other topics. — SH4ever (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

When you use capitalization, you are refering to something that doesn't have the same meaning as the words "high dynamic range" without capitalization. Just as when you write "High Efficiency Video Coding" vs "high efficiency video coding". — SH4ever (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 9 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: retracted – temporary hold on this requested move. Easier step by step discussions will be taken instead. SH4ever (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure)

• High dynamic range (display and formats) → High Dynamic Range (display and formats)
• High dynamic range (photography technique) → High Dynamic Range (photography technique)
• Standard dynamic range (display and formats) → Standard Dynamic Range (display and formats)

– Explanations can be found in this discussion and in this one. SH4ever (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose and Procedural Close please, since the "from" titles are new ones that are essentially repeats of moves of articles on which similar moves had already been objected to. The moves need to be proposed based on the longstanding titles, not the brand new ones that the proposer just created. Plus the article that the discussion is on is not part of the proposed moves. Dicklyon (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the 3 recent moves. This section can be deleted and started over from there. Dicklyon (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

You didn't have that right. There was no objection over the "from" titles. Objection were only about the cap which I didn't used for the "from" titles. My move to the "from" titles was uncontroversial as I discussed it. You didn't discuss, you didn't give any argument. You cannot make undiscussed controversial moves even if you move to old naming. — SH4ever (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose moves and support Dicklyon's sentiment. This is such a complicated procedural mess with so many procedural problems that there's not even a way to get input on it. If somebody has move ideas, start by opening suitable discussions with suitable time for input at the article(s) in question. North8000 (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support Temporary oppose: As the page have been moved since I created this RM, it has become too much complicated to directly discuss about this RM. As I proposed it previsouly and propose it now again: let's do this in a easy step by step process. — SH4ever (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

There is now a consensus on at least closing this as a temporary decision. — SH4ever (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

This close needs to be redone correctly. The RM above is still open. Dicklyon (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I followed what I read on this page. Sorry if I didn't do it correctly. This RM isn't correctly closed as a more appropriate one has been opened to do it in a easy step by step process. Can you or someone else do it correctly if it's not ? Thanks. — SH4ever (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I'm wrong, it's not still open. But the closing comments are in the wrong place. No matter. Dicklyon (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I fixed it now. Dicklyon (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal (Wide dynamic range)

I propose to merge Wide dynamic range into this page. "wide dynamic range" and "high dynamic range" are synonyms. SH4ever (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It looks to me like High-dynamic-range imaging or High-dynamic-range video would be a better target to merge to than High dynamic range. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

And there's not much content to merge since I deleted most of the text that was directly copied from the cited sources. Needs work. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Merged Wide dynamic range to the alternative target of High-dynamic-range imaging;   Y Merger complete. . Klbrain (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Undiscussed controversial moves

I won't go into an edit/move war. I simply want to remind that none of my moves were "undiscussed controversial move" while all the moves to the old page naming were clearly both undiscussed and controversial. My last move was discussed here and wasn't controversial as I didn't use capitalization and the only objection was about the use of capitalization. — SH4ever (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Per the definition at WP:RM#CM , those moves were clearly at least "potentially controversial"; and while my main complaint was the capitalization, I expected an RM for the other changes, too. Sorry if I hadn't made that clear. Dicklyon (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

You hadn't been clear. You didn't stated any objection about the non-capitalized while I asked here if anyone had objection. Can you add it now under the appropriate discussion section? Thanks. Together we are stronger. — SH4ever (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Third opinion

Context

1. The dispute is about title naming of pages related to high dynamic range.
2. The term "high dynamic range" refers to multiple distinct subjects that share the same name.
3. There are a lot of misunderstanding and misconceptions about high dynamic range. Not everything in current Wikipedia pages is good.
4. This disambiguation text should help.

— SH4ever (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Dispute summary

This page is about capturing light. This other page is about storing and displaying light and colors. Both pages are for both image and video. We cannot name one "image" and the other one "video". — SH4ever (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Dicklyon has moved the pages to their old name. ("imaging" for the first page and "video" for the second page). I propose to move the first page to "High dynamic range (photography technique)" or "(capture technique)" and the second page to "High dynamic range (display and formats)" as a temporary step. My proposition is a compromise to no allow serious inaccuracy as a temporary step. I also accept any other temporary proposition as long as it doesn't have major inaccuracy issue. We would then have all the time we need to agree on what would be the most perfect title. — SH4ever (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

My POV in this is that I applaud SH4ever's intentions and efforts to clarify this space, but that he's going about it wrong in a few ways: 1. Unjustifiable over-capitalization of High Dynamic Range and such; 2. Re-definition of the scope of the different topic articles by relatively complicated parenthetical disambiguators where the existing natural disambiguation seems more pleasant (an RM discussion is needed to see if he can get a consensus for those changes); and 3. adding all the framing/clarifying text to the disambig page rather than to the broad-concept article High dynamic range where it belongs. Dicklyon (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

My temporary proposition isn't about 1 and 3. Can you also add your point 2 under the appropriate discussion section? Thanks. — SH4ever (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

You just had Anythony Appleyard move High-dynamic-range video again to your preferred over-capitalized title, so I think my item 1 is indeed part of this dispute you're seeking a third opinion on. Dicklyon (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Point 2 also need to be added to this other discussion section. — SH4ever (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 10 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus (with no prejudice against more specific proposals in the future). (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

---

• High-dynamic-range imaging → ?
• High-dynamic-range video → ?
• Standard-dynamic-range video → ?

– Step by step discussion about page's naming. First step: Discuss here about the scope of the pages. SH4ever (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Suggestion – Work on the broad-concept article High dynamic range first, as a place to make an organization/outline of the topics. Once that is accepted, we can see how these articles relate and whether they need name changes. To get some more eyeballs on that page, you should perhaps make an RFC about your changes and general naming/topics proposal, and announce it on the relevant Wikiprojects (that's not an appropriate subject for an RM discussion, which is seen by people who care about style and naming but likely not much about the topic area). And give up on the caps – there's no way any of these are going to be capitalized in Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• Also – When you're ready to propose new title for some of the pages, do the RM on the talk page of one the articles you propose to move, not here. Dicklyon (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Wrong requested move

I opened this requested move but I was wrong. Per Wikipedia policy, the current legitimate title for this page is "High Dynamic Range (display and formats)". The technical request which led us to "High-dynamic-range video" was wrong and canceled (source). Anyone objecting "High Dynamic Range (display and formats)" should open a proper RM from that tile instead of forcing the move to "video". SH4ever (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Even though I have been a watcher and participant, this is a confusing situation which I'd need to spend much more time to figure out. Point being is that it is unlikely to obtain the required feedback. IMO proposed changes and discussion regarding them should be located and centered at the page(s) involved. North8000 (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you North8000 for letting us know that. I spent too much time now to continue over this for now. But now that I have confirmation there is at least someone willing to get more involved if wasn't confused so much, I will take my time and find some easy way to explain this in a few weeks. Best regards. SH4ever (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

That might give you a glimpse with what we are dealing with: The terms "white house" and "White House" are not the same thing and shouldn't be confused with each other. If you paint the white house in black, you will get a black house. If you paint the US White House in black you will get a black White House. Behind the term HDR, hides multiple meanings. They shouldn't be confused with each other. You can have a low dynamic range HDR video. Some people call that "fake HDR". This is indeed very confusing situation. I hate that the new tech that have appeared since 2014 is named HDR. That only did bring confusion. — SH4ever (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation by case might work sometimes, but depends on whether sources make the distinction consistently. I don't think that's the case here. And the claim about "the current legitimate title for this page" is not the long-stable (status quo ante) page title. Get off it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.