In this analysis, we expose the foundational error underlying Steve Yedlin’s critique of HDR: a systematic pattern of conflating fundamentally different technical concepts.
While our previous work documented his conflation of EOTFs and color spaces, this piece identifies the core problem: reducing the HDR format to a mere color space.
“When it comes to “formats” (i.e., colorspaces) as opposed to hardware, with the exception of one thing (how we use the excessive screen brightness available) which is a trade-off more than an advantage, the things that are actually different about HDR compared to SDR are all detriments, not advantages. They’re only dressed up as advantages by misinformation.” Steve Yedlin, Debunking “HDR” (2025)
Conflating Formats With Color Spaces: Reality Check
Yedlin Quote: “formats” (i.e., colorspaces)”
❌ CLAIM: HDR and SDR = color spaces
FACT CHECK: False. A color space defines how colors are represented (like Rec.709, P3), while a video format is a system of which color is just one component.
It’s the transfer function that determines whether a format is SDR or HDR, not the color primaries.
HDR formats (HDR10, HLG) are capable of far greater dynamic range than 8-bit gamma formats and require specific display technology, a suitable EOTF and higher bit depth to be fully realized.
HDR is an end-to-end process that encompasses everything from acquisition, storage and processing to transmission and display, whereas decisions about final color can be postponed until as late as the postproduction stage.
If formats and color spaces were indeed interchangeable, there would be no need to compose, light, monitor or grade any differently for HDR. It is impossible to obtain optimal results in HDR using SDR workflows.
The key differentiator between low dynamic range video and HDR is unequivocally not color space. The industry has always understood HDR and Wide Color Gamut as two distinct—though complementary—concepts.
In actual practice, many, if not most commercial HDR productions are restricted to Rec.709 colors, only occasionally making excursions into P3 or Rec.2020 territory. Colorists are free to use as much, or as little, of the available palette as they see fit.
“The goal in supporting UHD class displays isn’t to simply generate content targeted directly to the native BT. 2020 color space with a dynamic range that tops out at 1000+ nits. The goal is to create a great game that looks fantastic on the majority of displays that your customers have (sRGB-based) and to enhance your pipeline to also produce images that make good use of these new, better displays.” – Evan Hart, UHD Color for Games (2016)
In fact, NVIDIA (2016) explicitly advised authoring content within the sRGB color gamut, a practice that is still widespread today, not only in the gaming industry, but also in streamed narrative content, where studios mandate a P3-D65 deliverable.
Yedlin’s false premise that HDR is a ‘colorspace‘ allows him to sideline the discussion of dynamic range and reframe the entire debate around his subjective preferences for color.
The industry’s architects never shared Yedlin’s confused framing. They saw HDR for what it is: a quantum leap in representing light and contrast. The wide color gamut was an optional feature.
The conflation of “video formats” and “color spaces” fits a larger pattern in Yedlin’s gravely flawed methodology:
- This is the same pattern we see when he conflates an EOTF (BT.1886) with a color space.
- It’s the same pattern when he conflates a single component (SMPTE ST 2084/PQ) with an entire production standard (Rec.2100).
- It’s the same pattern that leads to invalid tests, like judging a 10/12-bit system in an 8-bit container.
Dismembering HDR
⚠️ Ignorance of the system. Yedlin severs display technology (“hardware”) from the HDR format.
Direct Quote: “formats” (i.e., colorspaces) as opposed to hardware”
Reality Check: The “format” (e.g., HDR10 or Dolby Vision) is inseparable from the “hardware”.
The HDR signal does not, by itself, improve a display’s intrinsic capabilities, magically endowing it with greater peak brightness, contrast and color.
Discussing HDR as a signal divorced from display technology is as nonsensical as discussing water while removing the hydrogen atom: the substance is no longer water.
Ignorance of Highlights
“Extra dynamic range is required to allow good discrimination between diffuse white and true highlights. A display with an HDR range allows for highlights that are substantially brighter than diffuse white.” – Evan Hart, UHD Color for Games (2016)
The “excessive screen brightness” (i.e., the range above diffuse white) Yedlin dismisses as a “trade-off” is a key capability of the HDR standard and its chief appeal to consumers.
“A High Dynamic Range System (HDR System) is specified and designed for capturing, processing, and reproducing a scene, conveying the full range of perceptible shadow and highlight detail, with sufficient precision and acceptable artifacts, including sufficient separation of diffuse white and specular highlights.” – SMPTE
Yedlin confuses peaks in his 200-nit masters for highlights. 200 cd/m2 is reference white, virtually identical to SDR’s peak luminance. Highlights in HDR are typically 5-10X higher luminance than diffuse white.
“In traditional photography, the term ‘highlights’ is sometimes used to refer to any detail near white, such as bridal lace, which may entirely consist of diffuse reflective surfaces, [while] in HDR literature, the use of ‘highlights’ is intended for the specular or emissive regions in an image since that is a key feature opened up by HDR.” – ITU-R BT.2390
A persistent theme in Yedlin’s discourse is confusing his frankly idiosyncratic personal preferences for facts. This analysis reveals that for Yedlin, the HDR format is ultimately just a container for his low dynamic range aesthetics.
The Daejeon Chronicles 
Leave a Reply