The HDR Misinformation Dossier

Compiled by Jon Pais/Daejeon Chronicles | Supporting the upcoming manifesto: The HDR Creator’s Companion 🎉

The Problem

High Dynamic Range (HDR) video is plagued by persistent myths, technical misunderstandings, and pedagogical malpractice. Worse, when confronted with evidence, prominent figures and organizations consistently double down on their errors rather than correct them. This stifles creativity, misleads creators, and erodes trust in HDR technology.

This Dossier Documents:

A curated record of verified incidents where influential voices in cinematography, color grading, and online education disseminated significant HDR misinformation and refused accountability. Each entry links to detailed reporting.

Entries require primary-source evidence. Anonymous allegations or student testimonials are excluded to maintain rigor. Submit public materials demonstrating technical inaccuracies with industry impact.

PREFACE: THE PATTERN OF DISMISSAL

Industry Pushback: A Case Study in Deflection

The Incident:

• We shared a post on LinkedIn featuring Sarah Priestnall’s summary of the 2025 SMPTE “Ask the Colorist” panel, which she moderated. Her summary noted that “many DPs are still not lighting or shooting specifically for HDR – often because they don’t have access to HDR reference monitors on set or in editorial. Until that changes, the full expressive range of HDR will remain underused.”
• In the accompanying commentary, we argued that the decision not to use “the full expressive range of HDR” is a creative preference, not a technical limitation.
• John Daro, a panelist at the event, replied publicly: “Jon, not sure which one of us said that but I definitely don’t agree with the quote… Curious about your misunderstandings.”

Tactical Analysis:

1. Strategic Ambiguity: The response (“not sure which one of us said that“) is an attempt to shift the burden of attribution to the critic and create uncertainty as to the statement’s origin.

2. Condescension: The phrase “Curious about your misunderstandings” is a form of passive-aggressive communication. By framing the critic’s view as a “misunderstanding,” the speaker immediately positions themselves as superior. It shifts the burden of proof to the critic, who now has to explain why they “misunderstood” something.

3. The False Dichotomy: The assertion that “Light is just that, story is a different conversation” contradicts the entire foundation of cinematography itself; light is the story.

4. The Unwitting Admission: The claim: “The productions I work with can have whatever gear they prefer.” Translation: “We have the technical capability, but we prefer the constraints of SDR,” confirming our analysis was right on the money.

5. The DARVO Playbook: Daro’s response follows the manipulative DARVO playbook: Deny the premise, Attack the critic, and Reverse Victim and Offender, positioning himself as the one being misrepresented.

Why This Matters:

This pattern is a suite of tactics designed to avoid substantive engagement, protect professional territory, and insulate inaccuracies from correction. The battle isn’t only over facts, but over the very right to question them.

Daro’s own public statements conform precisely to the practice we identified in our commentary:

Jason Bowdach: “Got it. So it’s not totally different than essentially once you grade an SDR version moving into the HDR container and making sure. I mean, it’s that concept of maintaining the contrast ratio, you and the DP, the DP set on set, and that you guys established originally in your grade and then just moving into HDR. Sort of the same concept, right?”

John Daro: “Totally.”

From Color & Coffee: From Burritos to Hollywood Blockbusters: A Chat with Senior Colorist John Daro, 6 Feb 2025

The podcast host sums up Daro’s grading philosophy, which is the definition of SDR in an HDR container.

Addendum: The Dolby Endorsement

Thomas Graham, Head of Dolby Vision Content Enablement, publicly endorsed John Daro’s evasive response. This speaks volumes, confirming what we’ve always suspected – the institutional gatekeepers of HDR have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo while marketing the technology.

The Contradiction in Practice

Dolby’s marketing prominently features acclaimed cinematographers who use the Dolby Vision pipeline solely to preserve a low dynamic range aesthetic.

• Armando Salas, ASC: Focused on preserving “black, super dark, dark, and less dark.” This is all about the shadow fetishism that masks creative stagnation.
• Erik Messerschmidt, ASC: Messerschmidt, whose statement prioritizes consistency, shares Salas’ obsession with shadow detail.

“I bet you’ve probably heard this one too: ‘I want my HDR to look like my SDR.’ This is a very reasonable statement. We have this look we’ve crafted over months or years; we’re in love with it. It was imagined, filmed, edited, and reviewed under it. Then we get to the grading suite, turn on the HDR switch, look at both, and the natural inclination is to say, ‘Let’s make the HDR look like the SDR.'” Samuel Bilodeau, Dolby Laboratories

This is the very definition of SDR in an HDR container.

The Pipeline Is The Product

This is no accident. Dolby’s business model relies on accommodating an industry averse to change, and that includes advising colorists on how best to preserve the low-con SDR look in the HDR master. 

Category 1: Fundamental Technical Misrepresentations

Misrepresenting Core HDR Concepts:

Charles Poynton, PhD (Sept. 2020) – Publication of Foundational Error

Affiliation: Independent Consultant, Color Science Authority, SMPTE Fellow

Source: Journal of the Society for Information Display, “Comparing Displays Using Luma Contours and Color Volumes”

• ❌ The Claim: “Rec. BT.1886… specifies the same primaries as BT.709.”

• The Reality: This is a profound misrepresentation of both standards. ITU-R BT.1886 defines only an EOTF. It contains no normative specification for color primaries. The primaries for HDTV are exclusively and normatively defined by ITU-R BT.709. The verb “specifies” is a definitive term in standards language; its use here is incorrect and highly misleading.
• Impact: This error, published in a technical journal, lends false credibility to a common industry misconception and actively miseducates readers seeking authoritative information. It establishes a pattern of conflating EOTFs with color spaces.
• Status: Published and unretracted. Pre-dates and provides context for his 2025 LinkedIn comments.

Charles Poynton, PhD (2022) – “BT.1886 (‘BT.709’) Gamut” Conflation

Affiliation: Independent Consultant, Color Science Authority, SMPTE Fellow

Source: Luminance, brightness, and lightness metrics for HDR. 30th Color and Imaging Conference Final Program and Proceedings. Society for Imaging Science and Technology (2022). 

• ❌ The Claim: “HDR programming is mastered with wider color gamut, usually DCI P3, wider than the BT.1886 (‘BT.709’) gamut of SDR.”
• ✅ The Reality: This phrasing is a direct conflation. It incorrectly attributes the definition of a color gamut to BT.1886, a standard that solely defines an EOTF. The color primaries (the gamut) for SDR are exclusively defined by ITU-R BT.709. The parentheses misleadingly bundle BT.1886 as the primary entity possessing the gamut, reinforcing the false concept that BT.1886 is a container for colorimetric properties.

• Impact: This demonstrates the persistence of this conceptual error in peer-reviewed conference literature, cementing a misleading model for academics and practitioners.

• Status: Published and unretracted. Fits the established pattern pre-dating the 2025 LinkedIn comments.

Charles Poynton, PhD (Aug 2025) BT.1886 “Color Space” Misrepresentation

Affiliation: Independent Consultant, Color Science Authority, SMPTE Fellow

• ❌ The Claim: “BT.1886 already has primaries, D65, and 2.4-power EOTF, ie everything you need for a DISPLAY colorspace.”

Full Quote:

“BT.709 defines an OETF – so, appropriate for cameras – but does NOT define an EOTF – so, inappropriate for displays. There’s no need to “add the white point D65 and the EOTF gamma 2.4” to BT.709 because BT.1886 already has primaries, D65, and 2.4-power EOTF, ie everything you need for a DISPLAY colorspace. So just call it BT.1886. Nontechnical people (directors, producers) use the term “BT.709” without a clear idea of what BT.709 means. Don’t try to change them. But when technical people are communicating, the correct term is BT.1886, and to say “BT.709” is just sloppy.” Charles Poynton, PhD.

• The Reality: A profound misrepresentation of international standards. ITU-R BT.1886 is solely an EOTF; it defines a transfer function and contains zero specifications for color primaries. The primaries and white point for HDTV are exclusively defined by ITU-R BT.709.

• Why It’s Misinformation:
• Contradicts the ITU’s own definition of BT.1886 as a “reference electro-optical transfer function.”
• Violates ISO 22028-1 definition of a color space, which requires primaries, a white point, and a transfer function.
• The ICC explicitly states that BT.1886 is an EOTF.

Standards documents are the ultimate authority – and they unanimously refute the idea that BT.1886 is a color space. 

• Impact: Weaponizes academic authority to shield a common industry misconception, perpetuating technical illiteracy and muddying the precise communication required for accurate color reproduction. Validates identical errors made by others (e.g., Yedlin, Bañuelos Cuéllar).

• Status: Unretracted (as of Aug 2025)

Addendum I: Refinement Under Pressure (Sept 2025)

Following public critique, Poynton has subtly altered his phrasing regarding BT.1886, though his underlying conflation persists.

New Statement: “Display of camera log data through BT.1886 EOTF (with BT.1886 informative annex primaries and white) is not appropriate processing.”

• Analysis: This phrasing replaces the definitively false claim that “BT.1886 has primaries” with a more technically guarded reference to the informative annex. While this acknowledges that primaries are not in the normative body of BT.1886, it still misleadingly implies a unique or defining relationship between BT.1886 and those primaries. The primaries and white point remain exclusively defined by ITU-R BT.709.
• Status: A tactical refinement, not a retraction. The core misconception-that BT.1886 can be treated as a full display color space-remains unaddressed.

Addendum II: Peer-Reviewed Accuracy vs. Social Media Misinformation (July 2025 – Post-Publication)

Despite the accurate terminology used in his July 2025 peer-reviewed paper, Poynton continued to promote the conflation of BT.1886 and color space concepts on social media afterward, demonstrating a persistent commitment to the misleading narrative.

• Evidence of Accuracy (July 2025): In the paper “Modeling the HDR Display With XCR” (Poynton et al., 2025), the authors correctly and unambiguously identify the source of primaries:

“The inner color volume is an SDR display with a peak luminance equal to 200 cd/m² in the BT.709 color space.”

– Caption for Figure 5, Poynton et al. (2025) This aligns with international standards: BT.709 defines the color primaries and white point; BT.1886 defines only the EOTF.

• Evidence of Regression (Post-July 2025): Following the paper’s publication, Poynton returned to making misleading claims on LinkedIn, including:
• Asserting that “BT.1886 already has primaries, D65, and [an] EOTF” (Aug 2025).
• Referring to “BT.1886 informative annex primaries” (Sept 2025), a phrasing that misleadingly implies a unique relationship between BT.1886 and those primaries, which are, in fact, exclusively defined by and sourced from ITU-R BT.709.
• Analysis: This inconsistency reveals that the accurate usage in the peer-reviewed paper may have been a tactical refinement for a technical audience, rather than an abandonment of the flawed conceptual model he continues to promote to a broader industry audience on LinkedIn. The core misconception—treating BT.1886 as a defining container for primaries—remains unchanged in his public rhetoric.
• Status: Active Misinformation. Demonstrates a pattern of maintaining two conflicting positions: one technically accurate for academic contexts, and another that perpetuates industry confusion.

Addendum III: Evidence of Conceptual Regression (2014 vs. 2020/2025)

• The Finding (2014): In his 2014 publication “Deploying Wide Color Gamut and High Dynamic Range in HD and UHD,” Poynton accurately described the relationship between the standards, correctly referring to Rec.709 as the color space (defining primaries and white point) and BT.1886 as the gamma (EOTF) for the display. This demonstrates a past, correct understanding of their separate roles.
• The Regression (2020 onwards): By September 2020, in “Comparing Displays Using Luma Contours and Color Volumes,” Poynton’s language had shifted to a misleading formulation, framing “HD program material” with respect to “the studio reference or mastering display standardized in BT.1886”. This evolved into the explicit 2025 claim that “BT.1886 already has primaries… ie everything you need for a DISPLAY colorspace.“
• Analysis: This timeline reveals that the contemporary misinformation is not a simple, persistent error but a regression from a previously accurate technical understanding. This shift strengthens the case that the current conflation is a deliberate rhetorical stance, adopted despite knowing the correct definitions.

Addendum IV: Documented Correction – A Return to Technical Accuracy (Late 2025)

• The Breakthrough: Consistent Accurate Terminology
• After years of documented mischaracterizations and months of sustained critique, Charles Poynton has begun consistently using technically accurate language when describing the relationship between BT.709 and BT.1886 in his public communications.
• Evidence of Change
• Multiple Consecutive Accurate Posts:
• Post 1 (Oct. 2025): Correctly referenced “BT.709/BT.1886” as separate components
• Post 2 (Oct. 2025): Elaborated with precise technical distinctions between standards
• Key Accurate Statements:
• “People who speak of ‘Rec. 709’ video are almost invariably referring to display-referred image signals that have the primaries and D65 white of BT.709; the pure 2.4-power EOTF of BT.1886; the 100 nt reference luminance of ST 2080-1“
• Clear separation: “BT.709 specifies chromaticities of reference primaries and white… BT.709 does not specify an EOTF“
• Significance: Shows that the gates of technical authority are not impermeable to factual, well-documented critique.

Rob Brennan (Oct. 2025) Misrepresenting HDR’s primary purpose 

Affiliation: Technical Account Manager at Epson

Key Offense: Conflating a complementary feature (WCG) with the defining feature (Expanded Luminance Range).

Claim: HDR’s primary benefit is a wider color gamut, with brightness merely acting as the “vehicle.” 

Quote:

“Why was HDR successful in terms of mass adoption and 8K wasn’t? The answer to that really goes back to the artistic expansion that HDR provides. Usually, when we’re talking about HDR, we tend to focus on brightness. But that’s not actually the most important thing that it delivers. Its brightness is a vehicle. Essentially, it delivers more color potential to film creators, to TV creators, to game studios. The idea is that, when HDR was first essentially formulated and what it would be in a format and was presented to the American Society of Cinematographers, they immediately got very excited because it’s just a larger pallet of color that they can use, that directors and directors of photography can use, however they choose to use it to create more and different and varied kinds of content. So that’s really where the pressure for HDR to be successful came from.” The Front Row Podcast

• Reality: The ITU-R BT.2390 report explicitly states that a “key differentiator from SDR is the ability for more accurate rendering of highlights.”
• SMPTE’s definition of an HDR system emphasizes conveying “the full range of perceptible shadow and highlight detail,” with “sufficient separation of diffuse white and specular highlights.”
• Ahistorical: ITU-R BT.2020 was published on Aug. 23, 2012, four years prior to ITU-R BT.2100 (July 4, 2016). The fact that SDR BT.2020 was commercially stillborn while HDR (using the same color primaries) flourished is irrefutable proof that the luminance range is the killer feature, not the color space. 
• Industry Practice: If creators were truly desperate for the Rec.2020 color gamut, we’d see a massive push to use it. 
• Analysis: Brennan inverts reality. High luminance is not just a “vehicle” for color; high dynamic range is, as the name implies, HDR’s core feature. The wide color gamut is optional.

Jean-Michel Gilbert (Dec. 2025) Echoing the “container” fallacy

Affiliation: Senior Rendering Engineer, NetEase Games

Quote:

“I will beg to disagree on the fact that the actual peak luminance of the content matters. When I talk about HDR, I am personally interested in the container, the lower black point, the wider gamut, and up to a certain limit, the extended white point because it helps with image structure. However, I always focus on wide gamut first because you haven’t seen red on a screen until you have seen HDR red. Heck, the Rec. 709 gamut cannot even reproduce the deeper shade of reds that are available in a crayon box and people still trick themselves in thinking that SDR is good enough. You don’t need high peak luminance for that demonstration.”

Analysis: Gilbert reduces HDR to no more than a container for LDR aesthetics, frames peak luminance as unimportant and conflates a complementary feature (WCG) with the defining feature (expanded luminance range).

Status: Unretracted (as of Dec. 2025)

Steve Yedlin (Jan.2025) and The Relative Contrast Myth

• ⚠️ The Claim: “Only SDR faithfully reproduces relative contrast”.
• The Science: The OOTF (Opto-Optical Transfer Function) inherent to SDR workflows (Rec.709 + BT.1886) alters contrast by design, per SMPTE/ITU standards. PQ (ST.2084) was engineered specifically to preserve absolute luminance relationships, directly countering Yedlin’s assertion.
• The Reality: Consumer displays break BT.1886 —> SDR contrast is arbitrary.
• The Fallout: Discourages filmmakers from adopting HDR.

—> Full analysis

Steve Yedlin fundamentally misunderstands color science. In “Debunking HDR,” he claims:

BT.2100 = ST2084; Rec.2020 = Rec.1886 + wide gamut; sRGB = Rec.1886 + different gamma; and ‘monitors convert Rec.1886 to Display P3’

Truth: These statements are physically impossible.

—> Full analysis

Senior Colorist Darryn Mostyn (Sept. 2024) botches explanation of Scene-Referred vs. Display-Referred workflow.

Credentials: Professional UK Broadcast Colourist with 16 years grading experience on DaVinci Resolve (for BBC, Netflix, Amazon, ITV, Sky)

• When confronted, obfuscates, deletes comments. 
• Harm caused: Novices misuse CSTs
• Status: Unretracted (as of July 2025)

—> Full analysis 

Cinematographer Steve Yedlin (June 2023) has been conflating transfer functions with color spaces for years.

Direct Quote:

“Let’s compare two different color spaces. You know, like a Mac computer uses Display P3 color space and most HD TVs or HD monitors are gonna use A COLOR SPACE CALLED REC.1886 – which is colloquially, and incorrectly, called 709, but whatever – these two color spaces…” – Steve Yedlin, ASC

• Steve Yedlin (Jan. 2025) claims BT.2100 = ST2084.
• Fact check: BT.1886 is an EOTF, not a color space. SMPTE ST2084 (PQ) is an EOTF.
  Rec.2100 is the ITU-R standard for UHDTV (HDR/WCG), defining—among other things—Rec.2020 color primaries, white point, and EOTF options (PQ/HLG).
• Harm caused: Colossal mistakes like these have fueled an epidemic of color-spec illiteracy.
• Status: Unretracted (as of July 2025)

—> Full analysis

A number of filmmakers and colorists have been infected with Yedlin’s pernicious color-spec illiteracy.

• The critical need for Color Spec Literacy
• Harm caused: Color science terminology illiteracy is spreading like wildfire throughout segments of the industry.

—> Full analysis

Daniel Bañuelos Cuéllar ESCALATION: Gaslighting Tactics  (July 2025) 

Credentials: DaVinci Resolve Certified Trainer 

Key Offense: Weaponizing “anti- gatekeeping” rhetoric to shield technical misinformation.

Documented Pattern:

• ❌ “Rec.2020 is Rec. 1886 with wider gamut”
• ❌ “Display P3 maps from Rec.1886″
• DARVO Tactic: Denies errors —> Attacks critics as “bullies” → Frames self as victim (70+ LinkedIn likes)
• Hypocrisy:

Public: “Don’t correct ‘Rec.709′ usage!”

Private: “People who say Rec.709 are wrong—it’s Rec.1886.”

Impact: Equating rigor with elitism to evade accountability. Demanding accuracy ≠ gatekeeping.

—> Full analysis

DaVinci Resolve Certified Trainer & HDR Workflow Expert Daniel Bañuelos Cuéllar (June 2025) conflates transfer functions with color spaces, aggressively doubles down despite documented evidence, calling foundational concepts ‘semantics’.

Direct Quote:

“Display P3: the color space of Apple monitors, which in many cases simply map from Rec.1886. Rec.2020: it is Rec.1886 with a wider gamut. sRGB: it is almost the same as Rec.1886, but with a slightly different transfer curve. It is used a lot for images on the web (JPEGs, etc.).”

• Fact check: The above statement contains numerous staggering inaccuracies. Display P3 is a color space. BT.1886 is an EOTF standard. A color space and an EOTF are independent components. One does not ‘map from’ the other in the manner suggested, etc.
• Why this matters: Misunderstanding fundamentals can result in costly re-dos. 
• Status: Unretracted (as of July 2025)

—> Full analysis

Alister Chapman (Nov. 2025) – Pedagogical Malpractice

Affiliation: Sony European Imaging Ambassador, Filmmaker, Educator

Platform: Facebook, LinkedIn

• Core Violation: Weaponizes institutional authority to promote claims that contradict industry standards
•  Documented False Claims:
•  Data Efficiency: “PQ is wasteful of data” and has “poorer gradients than BT.1886”.
•  Color Science: “Saturation is not different between HDR and SDR”.
•  Tonal Range: “No difference in shadow range or contrast” and “Shadow range and detail is identical” between SDR and HDR.
•  Terminology: Persistent conflation of color spaces with transfer functions 
•  The Reality: All the above claims are contradicted by the definitions and analyses in ITU-R BT.2408 and ITU-R BT.2390.
• Impact: Actively misleads filmmakers seeking authoritative information. 
• Status: Unretracted (as of Dec. 2025)

—> Full analysis

Oliver Mackenzie —(Dec. 2025) – Foundational Misconceptions

Affiliation: Host, Digital Foundry

Platform: DF Direct Weekly (YouTube)

Core Violation: Uses the authority of a premier technical gaming channel to promote falsehoods about HDR standards and operation.

Documented False Claims:

• Display Fundamentals: Claimed “High brightness displays can display HDR and SDR signals,” conflating brightness alone with HDR capability. 
• Technical Definitions: Claimed that  BT.1886 (an EOTF) is a color space.
• Contradicts Physics: Argued that PQ ST 2084–an absolute standard—becomes “relative” due to in-game calibration and tone mapping.
• The Reality: The claims misrepresent established technical standards.
• Impact: Misleads audience, potentially shaping incorrect consumer expectations.

Status: Unretracted (as of Dec. 2025).

—> Full analysis

Category 2: Gatekeeping & Undermining Creative Value

Joshua Pines actively undermines HDR’s creative value.

Direct Quote:

“One of the problems is they [SDR/HDR] look different. So what we wound up having to do is to sort of cater to both. And I think over time, they’re really coming back closer together. The HDR and the SDR, they really don’t look like they’re in different worlds.” – Josh Pines, Color Scientist

• For Pines, that SDR looks different from HDR is a problem.
• Why this matters: ‘Merging’ SDR/HDR butchers both formats. HDR ought to look different from SDR.

—> Full analysis

Category 3: Promoting Harmful Workflows

Pipeline mismanagement

Senior colorist Matt Wallach (June 2025) promoting SDR-first workflows isn’t ignorance – it’s institutionalized malpractice.

• Evidence: Wallach used an SDR-first workflow on Don’t Look Up (2021) even though it only received a limited theatrical release before becoming available on Netflix just two weeks later.
• Why this matters: When HDR is an afterthought, it becomes a technical conversion, not artistic intent. Preserves outdated workflows.

—> Full analysis

“Feelings, Vibes, Energy”: On the Dolby Creator Talks Podcast, DP Adam Newport-Berra (June 2025) reveals in just two words how not to shoot HDR:

• Glenn Kiser: If you know that something’s going to be finishing in HDR or Dolby Vision, does that affect any of your decisions during production – how you light and shoot?”
• Adam Newport- Berra: “Not really.”

—> Full analysis

Clearing up widespread Rec.2020 PQ ST2084 (P3-D65 Limited) confusion. Matthias Tomasi, (July 2024) an accredited colorist, refuses to correct erroneous color management information.

• Tomasi leads fellow colorists astray with an incorrect node structure for Rec.2020 (P3-D65 Limited):
• Evidence: “Set your display rendering (this could be a CST node or ACES node or custom DRT) to go from DWG/DI to P3-D65 ST2084 1000 nit. Add as a last node a CST that goes from P3-D65 ST2084 1000 nit to Rec2020 ST2084 1000 nit, with Tone Mapping and Gamut Mapping set to None. Set your mastering display to P3-D65 ST2084 1000 nit.”
• Fails to correct or admit to blunders.
• Harm caused: Deliverables fail QC; colorists lose time, money and clients.
• Status: Unretracted (as of July 2025)

—> Full analysis 

Category 4: Doubling Down & Refusing Accountability

Refusing Correction Case Studies:

YouTuber Patrick Tomasso (Feb. 2025): Weaponizes misinformation for engagement.

• ⚠️ Claim: “There is an element to digital cameras that I think is contributing to this grey, sludgy aesthetic and it’s three little words: High Dynamic Range.”
• Fact check: Tomasso is conflating HDR with poor execution. When mastered correctly, HDR actually enhances contrast and color depth.
• Clickbait HDR myths
• Primary Impact: Viral anti-HDR narratives (“grey, sludgy aesthetic”). Weaponizes followers to harass critics.
• Amplifiers:
  Luke Riether (plagiarized thesis → debunked here)
• Status: Unretracted (as of July 2025)

—> Full analysis

Team 2 Films / Leon Barnard (May 2025): A misinformation gaffe-machine

• Blackmagic Design Certified Training Partner teaches faulty color management.

—> Full analysis

YouTuber Patrick-Pierre Garcia (May 2025) misleads public about HDR:

• ❌ Claim: “Dolby Vision works in 12 bits.” Garcia adds that HDR10 and HDR10+ are mastered in DCI P3, while Dolby Vision is mastered in Rec.2020.
• Fact-check: Most commercial content is mastered in P3-D65. Dolby Vision is streamed in 10 bits, not 12. Netflix derives the HDR10 and HDR10+ deliverables from the Dolby Vision master.
• Why this matters: Demonstrates a pattern where authority figures prioritize ego, clicks, or brand over factual accuracy, even when presented with evidence.
• Influencer deletes comment, refuses to correct falsehoods, doubles down.
• Status: Unretracted (as of July 2025)

—> Full analysis

Category 5: The Silent Treatment

The “Yedlin Shadow Experiment”:

Cinematographer Steve Yedlin (Jan. 2025) definitively put shadow dogma to rest but the industry clings to the myth regardless.

Evidence: “I’m going to make a change here. See that change? I can see it. I’m not saying it’s not there. It’s kind of subtle, right? It’s getting a little milky. So, based on that definition that they’ve got going there, that is a one thousandfold change in the contrast of this shot. Because the white is staying the same and the black is going from .0001 to .1. We see why that’s absurd.” – Steve Yedlin

• Industry response? Silence. Because admitting the truth would invalidate 20 years of SDR dogma.
• Why this matters: HDR fails to realize its true potential.

—> Full analysis

Category 6: Historical Revisionism

Color scientist Joshua Pines (Sept. 2023) implies that as a species, humans are programmed for low dynamic range (LDR) imagery.

Direct Quote:

“For eons, as a species, we’ve been obsessed with taking real world high dynamic range scenes and reproducing them on low dynamic range display devices.”

• Reality Check: High dynamic range is the human visual system’s default condition; SDR is the aberration. The prevalence of LDR imagery has historically been due to technical constraints, not a biological imperative. 
  Pseudoscience attempts to ground the reactionary position in false biology. 
• Refers to HDR as a “gimmick” (like Smell-O-Vision).
• Why this matters: DPs and colorists don’t have to change decades-old practices.
• Status: Unretracted (as of July 2025)

—> Full analysis

In Conceptos Clave Para Comprender Debunking HDR (Key Concepts to Understand Debunking HDR), Edi Walger (June 2025) claims that HDR breaks with a ‘visual code’ that has prevailed for centuries.

• Walger’s Art-Historical Illiteracy Claim: “HDR breaks with Western visual codes.”
• Reality: Rembrandt didn’t choose limited dynamic range—he worked around it. 
• Harm: Erases art history to frame HDR as “disruptive,” discouraging creators from leveraging its capacity for more authentic representation.
• Amplifiers: Cullen Kelly (debunked here)
• Status: Unretracted (as of July 2025)

Charles Poynton (2020) disseminates historically inaccurate information about Rec.2020.

Affiliation: Independent Consultant, Color Science Authority, SMPTE Fellow

Direct Quote:

“The BT.2020 developers appreciated that color processing would be necessary in all consumer devices; their goal was to standardize interchange or container primaries, not native device primaries.”

• ❌ Core Offense: Falsely claiming Rec.2020 was “never intended as native primaries” despite direct contradiction from its architect, Dr. Kenichiro Masaoka.
• Impact: Poynton’s authority (David Sarnoff Gold Medal) lends credibility to anti-HDR rhetoric, enabling critics to cite Rec.2020’s ‘impracticality’ to dismiss HDR’s gamut advantages. 
• Evidence: Comparing Displays Using Luma Contours and Color Volumes. Poynton, LeHoty. Information Display (2020).
• Masaoka Correspondence, IEEE and Optics Express papers directly refute claims that Rec.2020 was intended solely as an interchange container. It was explicitly designed as a mastering color space, not merely a container. 
• Status: Unretracted (as of July 2025)

—> Full analysis

Category 7: Gaslighting

“Rec 709 IS absolutely a colour space. BT.1886 is a gamma transfer function (not a colour space). The gatekeeping, bragging and real brutal bullying in video production and colourist space is a very real thing as a leverage to expel unknown presences.” LinkedIn Comment on Daniel Bañuelos’ Post

A commenter correctly debunks Bañuelos’ malpractice (calling BT.1886 a “color space”) then immediately pivots to calling such precision “brutal bullying.” The simultaneous defense of precision and attack on precision isn’t just illogical – it’s the gaslighter’s signature move.

THEIR CLAIM: Precision bullies newcomers

REALITY: No documented cases exist

THEIR CLAIM: “Rigor is exclusionary!”

REALITY: Teaching “Rec.2020 = Rec.1886 + gamut” actively excludes newcomers by teaching them unworkable lies.

The commenter inadvertently proved our point: they used precise terminology to debunk Bañuelos – while attacking precision as “bullying.” Translation: “My corrections are valid, yours are oppressive.” By that logic, all technical standards – SMPTE, ITU – are “bullies” for defining terms. Bullies aren’t those upholding standards – the bullies are the ones weaponizing false victimhood to protect ignorance.

—> Full analysis

Prinyar Boon (Aug. 2025) – Dismissal of Fact as Opinion

Affiliation: RODE; Formerly PHABRIX, Dolby Europe Ltd.

• The Violation: Professional gaslighting. Dismissal of a verifiable, standards-based fact as “opinion” to protect a false narrative.
• The Claim: Asserted that the objective superiority of PQ over BT.1886 is subjective: “Each to their own opinions I guess.”

• The Reality: ITU-R BT.2390 Figure 14 irrefutably demonstrates PQ’s superior efficiency. This is data, not debate.
• The Deflection: When challenged, Boon pivoted to an unrelated argument about 8-bit SDR banding—a classic gaslighting tactic to avoid addressing the original, failed point.
• Why It’s Gaslighting: As a former Dolby expert, he knows the standard’s meaning. His claim is a deliberate tactic to devalue factual discourse and shield influencers from accountability.
• Status: Unretracted (Aug 2025).

Jeroen Stessen ESCALATION: LinkedIn Derailment (Aug 2025)  

Tactic: Pivoted article comments section to illogical SDR desaturation narrative

Quote: “bright colors do not need to de-saturate (towards peak white)…”

Flaws:

• Confuses gamut clipping with luminance roll-off  
• Irrelevant to article’s HDR spatial contrast thesis
• Action Taken: Comment deleted (no engagement).
• Violation: Off-topic gaslighting.

Jeroen Stessen (July 2025) Technical Gaslighting via Authority

Affiliation: Philips/V-Silicon (HDR standardization, 2014–present)

Modus Operandi: Stessen weaponizes credentials to distort SDR/HDR fundamentals, forcing professionals to “question their grasp of reality.” His tactics include:

• Denial of BT.1886’s modern purpose: Falsely framing it as a CRT relic. 
• Misattribution of PQ: Erasing Dolby’s role in SMPTE ST 2084.
• Dismissal of display noncompliance: Ignores the fact that consumer devices rarely follow BT.1886.

Direct Quote:

“BT.1886 just describes the EOTF that every CRT has implemented since God’s dog was a puppy. And when Poynton and we gave a different formula for the ST.2084 (HDR) EOTF, it became obvious that the first part of that is also a gamma law. EOTFs do not have a linear toe slope, contrary to OETFs like Rec.709. But who would use a standardized OETF ? It can always be overruled by creative intent. But you cannot ignore the viewers’ displays.”

• Misrepresentation of BT.1886’s History & Purpose

• CLAIM: “BT.1886 describes the EOTF CRTs used since forever.”
• REALITY CHECK: BT.1886 was standardized in 2011 as a modern EOTF for flat panels (LCD/OLED). It emulates CRT gamma but explicitly adapts to a display’s black level – a variable irrelevant to CRTs, which had fixed gamma curves. BT.1886 is not a CRT legacy standard as Stessen claims.
• False Attribution of SMPTE ST 2084 (PQ) (erasing Dolby’s role)
• CLAIM: “Poynton and we gave a formula for ST.2084.”
• REALITY CHECK: PQ (SMPTE ST 2084) was developed by Dolby, not Charles Poynton.
• If Stessen is suggesting that Poynton/Stessen’s team proposed an alternative to ST.2084, that’s irrelevant here: Dolby’s PQ is the standardized EOTF for HDR10/Dolby Vision.
• Equating PQ to Gamma
• CLAIM: “The first part of ST.2084 is a gamma law.”
• REALITY CHECK: Stessen’s claim mirrors Yedlin’s playbook: conflating technical terms to fuel confusion. PQ is a perceptual quantizer based on human vision science – not a gamma curve.
• Overlooking Real-World Display Behavior
• CLAIM: “You cannot ignore viewers’ displays.”
• REALITY CHECK: Consumer displays rarely follow BT.1886. Most default to gamma ≈2.2 or proprietary curves, creating unpredictable contrast shifts that sabotage creative intent.
• Status: Unretracted (as of July 2025)

Steve Shaw (CEO, Light Illusion): Gaslighting Industry Standards (June 2025)

Direct Quote:

“While there are some errors in the words Yedlin used, and the presentation is rather over-long, the gist of what he says is totally correct. By comparison, many of [sic] attempts to debunk his presentation are riddled with inaccuracies and errors and show a serious lack of understanding as to the realities image presentation, how the HVS works, and how a relative colour space and EOTF works vs. absolute. There really seems to be a ‘debunk at all costs’ attitude by some, regardless of the actual realities. (Or they really just do not know what they do now know…)”

• Defending Technical Illiteracy: Shaw dismisses Yedlin’s conflation of BT.1886 (EOTF) with color spaces and the false equation of Rec.2100 = ST.2084 as mere “errors in words.” 
• Calls evidence-backed critiques “debunk at all costs” while providing zero examples of alleged “inaccuracies”.
• Harm Caused: Workflow Sabotage. Erosion of Standards: Shaw’s stance emboldens amateurs to dismiss SMPTE/ITU specs as “optional.”  
• The Ultimate Irony
  Light Illusion’s business model relies on strict adherence to color science – yet its CEO dismisses foundational errors as “word slips.”
• The Contradiction in Plain Sight
  “BT.1886 is not designed for any specific brightness of viewing environment. It is based on the black level of the display. We do not recommend it at all.” – Shaw on BT.1886, Light Illusion Forums (2019)
• Translation: BT.1886 corrupts creative intent by tethering contrast to the black level of display hardware – not viewing conditions.
  “Aside from conflating terms, Yedlin’s ‘Debunking HDR’ is totally correct.” Shaw on Yedlin (2025)
• The fatal flaw: Yedlin’s entire argument hinges on SDR (using BT.1886) preserving “relative contrast as authored.” Shaw’s own stance eviscerates this foundation.
• Status: Unretracted (as of July 2025)

—> Full analysis

Stephen R. George, Jr. (July 2025), Entertainment Technology Specialist

• Affiliation: Sony/Technicolor/ARRI/20th Century Fox
• Violation: Professional Gaslighting & Institutional Deflection
• Evidence: “At this point the field of image standards has become so opaque, crowded and cumbersome that there is a real risk that some arbitrary standard owned by and named after a corporation will overtake everything… People aren’t going to learn the difference between gamma, white point and color space unless you just tell them the separate values.”
• Harm caused: Perpetuated Yedlin’s labeling BT.1886 (an EOTF) a ‘color space’; Rec.2100/ ST2084 conflation; devalued SMPTE/ITU-R authority; encouraged technical apathy.
• Status: Unretracted (as of July 2025)

—> Full analysis

Michael Jonas (July 2025), Product Leader | ALEXA Mini Camera Architect

• Affiliation: ARRI (12 years)
• Violation: Defended Steve Yedlin’s conflation of color spaces with transfer functions while:
• Reframing criticism as “disrespect” toward Yedlin’s credentials.
• Reducing a 137-minute presentation (covering color science, display tech, creative intent vs. technical standards, human perception of tonality, faulty conversions, viewing environments, grading philosophy, etc.) to a single misleading soundbite (‘Why encode absolute values?’).
• Dismissing SMPTE/ITU-R distinctions as irrelevant to “creative intent”.
• Ignoring ARRI’s own documentation on SMPTE compliance.
• Evidence: “You may not like what Steve is presenting and/or the way he is presenting it, but implying that he does not know what he is talking about is pretty disrespectful – given his body of work and the fact that he usually manages his color pipelines himself and writes his own colormetry software (he is the only DP I know doing that). His argument boils down to: Why do I need to encode for HDR with absolute values (PQ) – and sometimes even a special grade – when 99.9% I don’t need or want it for my creative intent. The answer may still be: because standards have a wider range than just the kind of cinematography DPs like (eg sports etc) – but honestly I have never understood why absolute level encoding (PQ) is a good idea, when almost every output device has brightness controls and viewing environments vary?”
• Harm caused: Perpetuated Yedlin’s labeling BT.1886 (an EOTF) a ‘color space’; Rec.2100/ ST2084 conflation; devalued SMPTE/ITU-R authority; encouraged technical apathy.
• Status: Unretracted (as of July 2025)

David Neal (July 2025)
Affiliation: Head of Production: Bristol Film School
Offense: Publicly acknowledged Yedlin’s technical errors while:

• Defending mislabeling as “industry shorthand,” normalizing illiteracy.
• Dismissing HDR’s creative value with false equivalence (“not inherently better”).
• Gaslighting critics by framing technical rigor as “dismissing artistry.”

Direct Quote:

“Yes, it includes a few technical inaccuracies… but in most real-world HDR workflows… his shorthand reflects how the industry treats these specs. The more important point is that HDR isn’t inherently better.”

Why This is Gaslighting:

• Institutionalized Ignorance: Claims professionals “commonly misuse” terms like BT.1886 = color space (false; SMPTE-compliant workflows strictly distinguish EOTFs vs. gamut).
• False Equivalence: Compares unmapped HDR to “carefully crafted SDR” (disingenuous; HDR requires different artistry, not less).
• Straw Man: Implies critics prioritize “specs over artistry” (reality: we demand specs to serve artistry).
• Status: Unretracted (as of July 2025)

Category 8: The Cult of Personality: Enablers & Profiteers

Cullen Kelly (Aug 2025) – Monetization of Misinformation

Affiliation: Colorist, Trainer, Entrepreneur (DCTLs, Masterclasses, Genesis Plugin)

• The Action: Publicly praises Steve Yedlin’s “Debunking HDR” demo and methodology, lauding him as a “filmmaking rebel” who overturns “dogma or convention.” Uses this endorsement to announce Yedlin’s contribution of a film grain emulation to Kelly’s commercial Genesis plugin.

Quote:

“Steve is a filmmaking rebel. He DGAF about the common rhetoric of the industry — his drive for the exact image he wants overtakes any dogma or convention. That’s why his Display Prep Demo, Resolution Demo, and recent Debunking HDR Demo have made such waves, and that’s why his work looks so damn good.” Cullen Kelly

• The Reality: Kelly performs a masterful sleight of hand, reframing Yedlin’s documented egregious errors as virtuous iconoclasm. The “dogma” he dismisses is the shared lexicon that enables the entire industry to function.
• The Irony: Kelly has recently reversed his long-held positions to align with Yedlin:
• On Film Grain: Just two years ago, Kelly publicly stated he was “done with” film grain (“I would be very happy to never see film grain again.”). He now markets it as a key feature upon Yedlin’s involvement.
• On HDR: Kelly was once a prominent proponent of HDR. Since associating with Yedlin, he parrots his anti-HDR talking points.
• The Impact: This isn’t advocacy; it’s opportunism. Kelly’s principles shift to align with the influencers he can commercialize. 
• Status: Active promotion and commercialization.

Yedlin’s Errors Are Not “Rebellion”:

• Claiming Rec.2100 = ST 2084 isn’t bucking the system. It’s like mistaking a car for an engine.
• Comparing BT.1886 to PQ at 8-bit isn’t iconoclastic; it’s intellectually dishonest.
• Calling HLG “just yet another SDR colorspace” isn’t ignoring convention; it’s an outright falsehood.

—> Full analysis

Dado Valentic: Commercial Exploitation of Misinformation (Aug. 2025)

Affiliation: CEO, Color Intelligence; Master Colourist and Instructor 

Violation: Commercializing the “SDR-First” dogma. Marketing a DCTL product as a solution to a problem created by the very misinformation he endorses. When confronted with factual errors, he deflected, attempting to reframe a clear-cut issue of technical falsehoods as a subjective debate on “creative freedom.”

Direct Quote:

“HDR as a technology is fundamentally designed to empower creatives and artists… There is no law or rule that dictates a “right” or “wrong” way to apply a technical specification or functionality… So let’s allow the creatives to do their work—and rest assured, HDR will succeed on its own merits.”

The Impact: Valentic publicly praised Steve Yedlin’s “Debunking HDR” presentation as “absolutely amazing,” despite it being riddled with objectively false claims. By endorsing it, he lent his credibility to technical misinformation, including:

• ❌ False Claim: Misidentifying BT.1886 (an EOTF) as a “color space.”
• ❌ False Claim: Falsely equating Rec.2020 with “BT.1886 + wider gamut.”
• ❌ False Claim: Claiming Rec.2100 = SMPTE ST 2084.
• Evasion of Accountability: When confronted, Valentic failed to address a single specific falsehood. He pivoted to a generic defense of “creative freedom,” implying technical accuracy is optional for educators and those in the film industry.
• Intellectual Dishonesty: His argument that “there is no right or wrong way to apply a technical specification” is a profound misrepresentation of the purpose of international standards (e.g., ITU-R BT.2390, Rec.2100). These standards exist to ensure accuracy, consistency, and interoperability—the foundational principles of a technical craft.
• Monetization of Misinformation: Valentic used his endorsement of Yedlin’s work to market his own DCTL product, which promises to maintain an “SDR look” in HDR deliverables.
• Status: Unretracted. Actively promoted. (As of September 2025)

Roger & James Deakins: Legitimizing Misinformation via Platforming (June 2025)

Affiliation: Cinematographer; Co-hosts, Team Deakins Podcast

Violation: Using their influential platform to endorse and amplify Steve Yedlin’s “Debunking HDR” presentation, falsely framing it as a credible exploration of “truths and myths” despite its documented technical falsehoods.

Direct Quote from James Deakins:

“Joining us for this conversation is the cinematographer Steve Yedlin… He’s also a wizard at the technical side of things, having put together demonstrations that include a look at the truth and myths behind Resolution, and most recently an extensive look at HDR.” 

The Impact:

• Misleading Endorsement: The Deakins’ description of Yedlin as a “wizard” and their uncritical promotion of his work lends significant credibility to presentations that contain objectively false claims, such as misidentifying BT.1886 as a color space or falsely equating Rec.2100 with ST.2084.
• Amplification of Disinformation: By platforming Yedlin without challenging his errors, they contribute to the normalization of technical misinformation within the filmmaking community.
• Erosion of Technical Standards: The Deakins’ framing of Yedlin’s presentation as an authoritative “debunking” obscures the fact that it actively undermines internationally recognized standards (e.g., ITU-R BT.2390, Rec.2100).
• Status: Unretracted. Actively promoted (As of September 2025).

Category 9: The Intimidation Playbook

Incident: Charles Poynton‘s LinkedIn Private Message (August 2025)

• Summary: Following public correction of the “BT.1886 color space” claim, Poynton shifted to a private channel, employing a mix of threats of professional ostracization, tone-policing, and an appeal to authority in an attempt to suppress further criticism.
• The message serves as a textbook example of how factual challenges are met with social pressure.
• Status: Documented.

—> Full Analysis

The Pattern is Clear:

This dossier isn’t just a list of isolated incidents. It reveals a systemic issue across the entire film industry:

1.  Dissemination: Influential figures spread technical inaccuracies.

2. Amplification: Myths are repeated and gain traction.

3.  Confrontation: Errors are documented and presented.

4.  Doubling Down: Refusal to correct, often accompanied by deflection or dismissal.

This culture of misinformation harms:

*   Creators: Who struggle with flawed advice.  

*   The Technology: Whose potential is artificially limited.  

*   Audiences: Who don’t experience HDR as intended.  

*   Trust: In educational resources and industry expertise.

The Antidote is Coming: The HDR Creator’s Companion

My upcoming work, The HDR Creator’s Companion, goes beyond exposing myths. It systematically:

*   Debunks the core misconceptions documented here.

*   Provides clear, evidence-based technical foundations.

*   Empowers creators with accurate knowledge.

*   Champions HDR’s true creative potential, free from artificial constraints.

Stay Tuned for the Release. It’s time for clarity.