[FFmpeg-devel] SDR->HDR tone mapping algorithm?
harish.krupo.kps at intel.com
Tue Feb 12 16:13:33 EET 2019
Thanks a lot for your comments. Please find my reply inline.
Niklas Haas <ffmpeg at haasn.xyz> writes:
> The important thing to consider is what constraints we are trying to
> solve. And I think the expected behavior is that an SDR signal in SDR
> mode should look identical to an SDR signal in HDR mode, to the end
> This is, of course, an impossible constraint to solve, since we don't
> know anything about the display, either in HDR or in SDR mode. At best,
> in the absence of this knowledge, we could make a guess (e.g. it's
> roughly described by sRGB in SDR mode, and for HDR mode it roughly
> follows the techniques outlined in ITU-R Report BT.2390). Better yet
> would be to actually obtain this information from somewhere, but where?
> (The user? ICC profile? EDID?).
Being the compositor we already have access to EDID, which means we can make
intelligent decisions based on the capabilities of the display. Also, benefit
of being the compositor is to have the complete knowledge of all the
buffers to be displayed, thus we can make informed decisions about the optimal
output for the display.
> But the bottom line is that to solve the "make SDR in HDR mode appear
> identical to SDR in SDR mode" constraint, the curve you are trying to
> invert is not your own tone mapping operator, but the tone mapping
> operator implemented by the display (in HDR mode), which definitely
> depends on what brightness level the display is targeting (in both SDR
> and HDR modes).
If I have to explain our implementation better, we decide on the target
HDR metadata and eotf and use this for both tone mapping as well as
settting output display configuration (like setting HDMI AVI infoframes),
which means the display and the compositor are in-sync about the eotf curve.
> For an ideal HDR display, this would simply be the PQ curve's exact
> definition (i.e. noop tone mapping). But in practice, the display will
> almost surely not be capable of displaying up to 10,000 nits, so it will
> implement a tone mapping operator of some kind (even if it's as simple
> as clipping the extra range). Some colorimetric/reference displays
> actually do the latter, since they prefer clipping out-of-range signals
> over distorting in-range ones. But most consumer displays will probably
> do something similar to the hable curve, most likely in per-channel
I agree. This is something which we thought of but as these
implementations are internal to the display, we anyways dont have any
control over this.
> For an ideal SDR display, it depends on who you ask (w.r.t what "ideal"
> means). In the ITU-R world, an ideal SDR reference display implements
> the BT.1886 transfer function. In practice, it's probably closer to a
> pure power gamma 2.2 curve. Or maybe sRGB. We really have nothing else
> to do here except either consult an ICC profile or just stick our head
> in the sand and guess randomly.
In our implementation:
- When we have a combination of HDR and SDR content to be displayed we
apply proper degamma/eotf on each buffer, convert its colorspace to the
target gamut, blend both the buffers, apply output inverse_eotf of
the HDR content and then send it to display.
- If there is only a SDR buffer(s) we do not touch it and send it to
display, setting the right (SDR) avi infoframe.
Do you think this is good enough?
More details here .
> I'd also like to comment on your compositor design proposal. A few notes:
> 1. It's always beneficial to do as few color conversion steps as
> possible, to minimize cumulative errors and optimize performance. If
> you use a 3DLUT as any step (e.g. for implementing an ICC-profile
> based mapping), the 3DLUT should be as "wide" as possible and cover
> as many operations as possible, so that the 3DLUT can be end-to-end
> optimized (by the CMM).
> If you insist on doing compositing in linear light, then I would
> probably composite in display-referred linear light and convert it to
> non-linear light during scanout (either by implementing the needed
> OETF + linear tone mapping operator via the VCGTs, or by doing a
> non-linear tone mapping pass). But I would recommend trying to avoid
> any second gamut conversion step (e.g. from BT.2020 to the display's
> space after compositing).
> Otherwise, I would composite directly in the target color space
> (saving us one final conversion step), which would obviously be
> preferable if there are no transparency effects to worry about.
> Maybe we could even switch dynamically between the two depending on
> whether any blending needs to occur? Assuming we can update the VCGTs
> atomically and without meaningful latency.
We agree and thats why, while deciding the target color space in the
compositor we consider the display's supported colorspaces. This means
we will only apply one gamut conversion step per buffer which will be the
> 2. Rec 2020 is not (inherently) HDR. Also, the choice of color gamut has
> nothing to do with the choice of transfer function. I might have Rec
> 709 HDR content. In general, when ingesting a buffer, the user should
> be responsible for tagging both its color primaries and its transfer
We are adding few protocols to provide us exactly this information.
> 3. If you're compositing in linear light, then you most likely want to
> be using at least 16-bit per channel floating point buffers, with 1.0
> mapping to "SDR white", and HDR values being treated as above 1.0.
> This is also a good color space to use for ingesting buffers, since
> it allows treating SDR and HDR inputs "identically", but extreme
> caution must be applied due to the fact that with floating point
> buffers, we're left at the mercy of what the client wants to put into
> them (10^20? NaN? Negative values?). Extra metadata must still be
> communicated between the client and the compositor to ensure both
> sides agree on the signal range of the floating point buffer
> 4. Applications need a way to bypass the color pipeline in the
> compositor, i.e. applications need a way to tag their buffers as
> "this buffer is in display N's native (SDR|HDR) color space". This of
> course only makes sense if applications both have a way of knowing
> what display N's native SDR/HDR color space is, as well as which
> display N they're being displayed (more) on. Such buffers should be
> preserved as much as possible end-to-end, ideally being just directly
> scanned out as-is.
The compositor has good enough information about the system state and
considers a system wide view of all the buffers from all the
applications and comes up with a target colorspace/HDR
metadata. This means that the application need not bypass or even be
concerned about the output colorspace. Applications should just send the
buffers' original colorspace and metadata information and trust that the
compositor will take care of the rest. :)
> 5. Implementing a "good" HDR-to-SDR tone mapping operator; and even the
> question of whether to use the display's HDR or SDR mode, requires
> knowledge of what brightness range your composited buffer contains.
> Crucially, I think applications should be allowed to tag their
> buffers with the brightest value that they "can" contain. If they
> fail to do so, we should assume the highest possible value permitted
> by the transfer function specified (e.g. 10,000 nits for PQ). Putting
> this metadata into the protocol early would allow us to explore
> better tone mapping functions later on.
> Some final words of advice,
> 1. The protocol suggestions for color management in Wayland have all
> seemed terribly over-engineered compared to the problem they are
> trying to solve. I have had some short discussions with Link Mauve on
> the topic of how to design a protocol that's as simple as possible
> while still fulfilling its purpose, and we started drafting our own
> protocol for this, but it's sitting in a WIP state somewhere.
> 2. I see that Graeme Gill has posted a bit in at least some of these
> threads. I recommend listening to his advice as much as possible.
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2019 22:01:49 +0530, Harish Krupo <harish.krupo.kps at intel.com> wrote:
>> Hi Vittorio,
>> Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giovara at gmail.com> writes:
>> > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 3:22 AM Harish Krupo <harish.krupo.kps at intel.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Hello,
>> >> We are in the process of implementing HDR rendering support in the
>> >> Weston display compositor  (HDR discussion here ). When HDR
>> >> and SDR surfaces like a video buffer and a subtitle buffer are presented
>> >> together, the composition would take place as follows:
>> >> - If the display does not support HDR metadata:
>> >> in-coming HDR surfaces would be tone mapped using opengl to SDR and
>> >> blended with the other SDR surfaces. We are currently using the Hable
>> >> operator for tone mapping.
>> >> - If the display supports setting HDR metadata:
>> >> SDR surfaces would be tone mapped to HDR and blended with HDR surfaces.
>> >> The literature available for SDR->HDR tone mapping varies from simple
>> >> linear expansion of luminance to CNN based approaches. We wanted to know
>> >> your recommendations for an acceptable algorithm for SDR->HDR tone mapping.
>> >> Any help is greatly appreciated!
>> >>  https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/weston
>> >> 
>> >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2019-January/039809.html
>> >> Thank you
>> >> Regards
>> >> Harish Krupo
>> > In *theory* the tonemapping functions should be reversible, so if you use
>> > vf_tonemap or vf_tonemap_opencl and properly expand the range via zimg
>> > (vf_zscale) before compression it should work fine. However I have never
>> > tried it myself, so I cannot guarantee that those filters will work as is.
>> > Of course haasn from the libplacebo project might have better suggestions,
>> > so you should really reach out to him.
>> Thanks, will try reversing the algorithms. Sure, will contact Haasn.
>> Harish Krupo
>> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
>> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
More information about the ffmpeg-devel