Debunking the Debunker: Steve Yedlin’s Color Science Contradictions Exposed

Exposing Steve Yedlin’s Contradictions on Color: P3 Workflows vs. Rec.2020 Misrepresentations  

Steve Yedlin’s “Debunking HDR” presentation misrepresents color science through factual inaccuracies, contradictory statements, and deceptive framing—particularly by attacking Rec.2020 while ignoring industry standard P3-D65. This analysis corrects his errors while emphasizing that creative flexibility—not dogma—should guide color workflows.

I. Misrepresenting Color Gamuts & Their Creative Utility  

CLAIM 1: “Wide Color Gamut… is not specific to HDR. Wider gamut is not a distinction between HDR and SDR.”

• REALITY CHECK: While BT.2020 does technically define a path to SDR WCG, it’s effectively unavailable to consumers via streaming services, which exclusively deliver WCG content through HDR formats (e.g., HDR10, Dolby Vision). (Thanks to Alex [Dolby] for clarification on the standards.)

• THE CONTRADICTION: Yedlin attacks HDR’s 10/12-bit requirement, calling it a “data hog” while insisting that Rec.2020 is an “SDR colorspace.” [1] The argument is self-contradictory, since the  ITU-R BT.2020 standard stipulates 10/12 bits. The higher bit depth is a requirement regardless of whether Rec.2020 is used in an SDR or HDR container. 

CLAIM 2: Colors within Rec.709 are “tasteful”; those outside are “garish” or “obnoxious.“

• REALITY CHECK: Subjective Bias ≠ Technical Truth: Yedlin conflates artistic preference with technical capability. P3 is a standard digital cinema color space [2]. To call it “obnoxious” is to indict cinema itself. 

CLAIM 3: “WCG is only applicable to outliers like super narrow band emissive lights [e.g., lasers].”

• REALITY CHECK: ≈64% of naturally occurring colors exist outside Rec.709.

II. Fundamental Errors in Color Science Terminology  

CLAIM 4: “Rec.1886 primaries” / “BT.1886 is a color space.”

• REALITY CHECK: ITU-R BT.1886 defines only an EOTF—not a color space (has no primaries). Also, the repeated use of the non-existent “Rec.1886″ constitutes pedagogical malpractice that causes widespread industry confusion.

III. Logical Contradictions & Omissions  

CLAIM 5: Color spaces are “perfectly convertible” because “any color within the gamut” can be matched.

• REALITY CHECK: Yedlin directly contradicts himself by later admitting that colors outside a gamut “can’t be perfectly converted.” His argument also ignores the fact that SDR’s 100-nit ceiling inevitably crushes highlight detail during conversion.

CLAIM 6: Rec.2020 Straw Man

• REALITY CHECK: On his own website, Yedlin concedes “Literally no one finishing at professional cinema post houses is going outside of P3.” By attacking the delivery container (Rec.2020), he sidesteps the actual mastering standard (P3)

CLAIM 7: “If somebody’s saying they’re getting different skin tones [in HDR], that’s absolutely absurd.”

• REALITY CHECK: This statement ignores basic display physics. Skin tones >100 nits are crushed in SDR.

IV. Methodological Deceptions  

CLAIM 8: Using a 2D CIE 1931 xy chromaticity diagram (misnamed “CIE hull”) to dismiss WCG.

• REALITY CHECK:Yedlin relies on an outdated color model. Two-dimensional chromaticity diagrams ignore luminance. Colors that appear close to the gamut boundary in 2D can be wildly out-of-gamut in 3D color volume. As Jeremy Selan noted, “Any discussion which makes use of two dimensional charts tends to be misleading.” The use of the misnomer of “hull” for the “spectrum locus” reveals a superficial understanding of the tool he’s using.

CLAIM 9: Focusing primarily on skin tones to dismiss WCG.

• REALITY CHECK: Yedlin cherry-picks data. Skin tones occupy <10% of P3 the gamut. His lightsabers demonstrate gamut limitation. Declaring saturated colors “obnoxious” imposes his personal aesthetics as universal truth.

1. The Historical Intent of Rec.2020 
   Yedlin’s labeling of Rec.2020 as a strictly “SDR colorspace” is ahistorical. The ITU-R BT.2020 standard (Aug. 2012) explicitly anticipated HDR displays and the need for a new EOTF. Parallel to this, the PQ EOTF was proposed to the ITU-R in July 2012 and was already undergoing SMPTE standardization, proving the standards body was architecting for HDR from the outset.
   
   ITU-R BT.2020, “Parameter values for ultra- high definition television systems for production and international programme exchange,” Aug. 2012. (Scope, sections c & h)
   
   D. G. Brooks, “The Art of Better Pixels,” Dolby Laboratories, 2014.
2. “The P3 gamut […] has become a de facto standard—not only for cinema and HDR production, but also for consumer and computer displays, such as Apple Display P3.” David A. LeHoty, Charles Poynton. Comparing Displays Using Luma Contours and Color Volumes. | Information Display, Volume 36, Issue 5. (Sept.19, 2020)

Sources: Debunking HDR (1:28:05); ITU-R BT.2100/2390; SMPTE ST 2084; Netflix HDR specs; [yedlin.net]