18:17
How did browsing Instagram at night turn into this? HDR was supposed to be like this movie color standard. What was HDR again? My TV is supposed to be HDR. Like, why isn't that blinding me? How did HDR become this retina burner? And why can't I dim it down? No brightness slider, no dark mode. And every camera seems to have this now. Like HDR or Dolby Vision, it's everywhere. Like, everybody's kind of confused about it. How is it that HDR broke the internet? and her living rooms in the process. And we bought into this thing in 2021. We started shooting and editing and publishing our videos in HDR.
You can still find those in our channel. And people hated us for it. Like I honestly thought that we were just doing something wrong. I thought I was the idiot. And we stopped making HDR videos. And little did I know that it was kind of Apple's fault. So that night, I decided to dig deep into this HDR mess. And I discovered that it's not just Instagram. It's TVs and movies and Blu-rays and cameras. All because Apple forced everyone to adopt this HDR thing overnight. And in doing so, they revealed another critical flaw in how our internet was built. I think I see it now. This was not easy, but maybe let me try to untangle this mess for you.
Okay, so for this video, we actually shot the whole video in HDR and spent weeks testing the color grade in different screens just so that we can maybe show you what HDR is all about. But we'll get there. Let's start with my burnt redness. What the hell is wrong with that Instagram feed? So, this is a good old plain and simple JPEG photo. And this is the HDR version of that photo. So, let's zoom into them. Okay, not that far. Not the bits there. What makes a pixel in one of these photos? Basically, each pixel in this image is just a recipe of three numbers. How much red, how much green, and how much blue make up that pixel in the image. Now, that's
because pixels in your screen are also red and green and blue. One set of these three colors make up one actual pixel. And if you combine all three, you get white. So these values, they're basically just telling those pixels how much light they need to emit, right? And that goes between zero and 255. That's because we use eight bits of information per color. And with an 8 bit number, you can get 256 different values per pixel. So 0 all pixels off, that's black. 255 0 that's red. Add a little bit of green and a little bit of blue and you get our logo. And for all colors maxed out, that's white. But how bright is white? How does the screen know how bright the white is? Take a look
at this gradient image that goes from black to white. If we wanted to draw this in a chart, it would look kind of like this. We have zero on the left side and 255, which is poor white on the right side. Now, that white point there, that is the brightest point on your screen. But what if you dim the screen to see the same image? What's actually going to happen is that your screen is just going to compress this line into a smaller space, which is rather simple because this is relative luminosity. It's based on values that go from zero to 100%. Now, that same happens if you plug this into a brighter monitor. That line just scales along with the brighter monitor, and so does the gradient. So, why do HDR images ignore this? Why do they break the rules?
You think your spending has gotten out of control? Give me an example. HDR is basically a diva sort of image. It basically says the brightness in this pixel is not relative to the brightness of your screen. It's whatever the image says. If the image wants 1,000 nits of brightness, the monitor must give it 1,000 nits of brightness. Okay, but what if the screen isn't as bright? Or what if the room is dark and you don't want as much brightness? Now, that in a nutshell is the root of every problem that HDR has created. Blinding Instagram feeds, weird color conversions, dim footage when you're not seeing HDR. Like, every mismatch you see is a device trying to cope with an image standard that it
isn't really sure how to display. That's also why you see the images in your feed brighter than the white in the Instagram UI. The Instagram UI is SDR. It's following what your phone screen says. The image inside of it is HDR and it's demanding those thousand nits of brightness and your phone is just doing its best to try to give it that. Why would anybody want this vest? Like, wasn't SDR enough? Now, for that, we need to dive one layer deeper. Now, this is one of my favorite beaches in Costa Rica, but the perfect example of why SDR needed to be changed. SDR makes it impossible for me to show you what I'm seeing. So the problem with trying to shoot a sunset is that you have this really bright object against this at least by
comparison this really dark environment. So you have two choices. You can either expose the photo for the sun which is going to make everything else look really dark or you can expose for the environment but this whole area around the sun is going to be really bright and that area of the photo is going to be lost. Now the reasoning behind this is that between these rocks and this bright sun there are about 16 to 20 stops of light. Stop is a photography term I'm not going to get into today but think of them like steps right there are about 20 of these steps between the darkest and the brightest point in the image. Now an SDR image with its eight bits 256 possible values per color they
can only see about this range. Now, screens of course can't be as bright as the sun, but even if they were, the file itself, it only goes from black to 255. The brightest point in this photo of the sun, it's not even like half as bright as what I saw. Now, we don't necessarily want an image to be blinding like the sun, but we've compressed all this beauty into this short, dull range, and that kind of kills the magic a little bit. And the answer to this isn't just a brighter monitor because remember we've already compressed the original dynamic range of this image to fit SDR. If we just expanded it again, we would not be getting the same contrast as we once had. But what if we could what if we could make the sun shine more, stand apart from the rocks? What if we could
do that for movies or for gaming? Would that make the experience more immersive? Like think of that double sunset in Star Wars. What if the sun shone and we could see that contrast against the desert? Or think of Gandalf of the White, how blinding that first appearance was against the dark Fangorn forest. Or think of the lighting of that scene in Jurassic Park where the T-Rex is only lit by those headlights. Could HDR really enhance our movie experience? When HDR came out, filmmakers were kind of excited about this possibility of having more colors and more dynamic range. This is Paul Carlin. Paul has credits in over a 100 Hollywood movies and TV shows, including some of my favorites. But also, HDR has been kind of a
nightmare. Film and television were kind of on completely different paths before HDR came along. We had to take, you know, all the dynamic range of film and kind of fit it into the six stops of SDR dynamic range. Now, back to my sunset photo. Our eyes, they're really good at seeing a much bigger range of stops. This is called dynamic range, by the way. Our eyes can adapt to see about 24 stops of dynamic range total. You may have noticed this when you exit a dark room into a very bright day. your eyes sort of adapt to that range. But in a single image without your pupils adapting, we can see about 14 stops, which is still a lot more than our screens and our SDR files are giving us.
Now, since the 2000s, we've had consumer cameras that can capture about 12 stops of information. These sensors can detect those 12 stops, where for years, we've had to compress those images into SDR so that we can look at the image in our screen. In a way, it's kind of like wasting all of this detail. And so that's where HDR screens became really important. It's a screen that in theory could have a dynamic range of about 14 stops, which is on par with our eyes. Okay, so I'm into this, right? Like better quality movies, like the more dynamic range. So I'm sure that all we need now is sort of like a transition period, right? Like we'll have some time. We'll we'll stream in both formats or whatever so everybody
has time to adapt and buy new devices or whatever. That is the exact moment that Apple started this mess cuz starting with that iOS version, every single photo that you snap on the iPhone is stored in HDR format by default and the world was not ready. I can literally see my DNA through my pores. My skin looks dull. It's desaturated. Suddenly, everybody had to force adapt to this technology that we didn't really understand. And Instagram was one of the worst cases because for a while, it miserably failed at displaying any HDR image. And literally, as we were shooting this video today, still there's a bug that basically broke HDR photos and made all HDR photos on Instagram look black and white. It's true story.
And what happened was that the HDR images that all of those iPhones were uploading came with this thing. This is a color profile. Think of it like an instruction manual to help screens display HDR better. But Instagram didn't know this. And in an effort to save space and optimize these images, Instagram was literally stripping away the color profiles of the images as they got published. Now, in the old SDR world, that would have been fine because when an image has no color profile embedded, screens and computers, they just default to this profile called sRGB. But sRGB was actually more like a patch than anything else. And it is a response to another douche move by Apple 33 years ago. For that, we need to dive
one level deeper on this iceberg. It's 1993. 33 years ago, the world looked like this. I looked like this. and screens kind of like this. Now, this was the wild west of color. Like, it's like the wild west of software that we live in today because we are working kind of for our tools instead of our tools working for us. And that's exactly why we've been using today's sponsor, Zo. Now, I didn't start using Zo because I wanted another AI chatbot. I tried Zo and I stuck around because I needed an actual system. Zo is your own personal cloud computer with AI builtin. And the coolest part about it is that it's not just a chat window. It has a file system, hosting, scheduling, actual integrations with the tools that you
already live in like Gmail and Google Calendar and Notion and Slack, you name it. Imagine having a personal assistant who is also a fullstack developer who's also an IT department and you can just text them like a friend. So, for example, I set up this workflow that will read my most important email. It'll check my calendar and it'll text me a daily brief with my suggested follow-ups for every single morning. And because it's a cloud computer, it runs 24/7. It does the admin work while I'm sleeping, even if my laptop is closed. It even works seamlessly when I'm traveling. So, Zo is basically a personal operations team in a box. And if you want a computer that actually knows your context, that
connects your tools, that keeps working while you're offline, you should check the link in the description or snatch this QR code over here. But back to the '90s. This is an era where films and movies, they're still captured on film. They're still edited by hand on film, not on a computer. They're literally cutting pieces of negative. But we had TVs. They were still big and boxy. And still some scientists were already working on what would soon become highdefinition TVs a few years later. Check it out. Now TVs of course were originally designed to broadcast content which was shot digitally for TV. But films were also being converted to TV. Now on the computer side, we of course had those screen monitors which I
actually grew up using. Some laptops with early LCD screens, those that you had to kind of like align to be able to see the colors. And color wasn't just important for the screens. We also had printers and scanners and the first webcams in '93. So, how do you get color to match across all of these devices? The biggest problem by far was that the screens, they were not three tiny RGB sub pixels like we do now that you turn from 0 to 255. Now, these CRT screens, they're actual glass tubes that steer electrons using magnetic fields. That's that's a whole video for another day. Now the computer was sending voltage not digital commands to generate 100% red. So a Sony or a Vonic
CRT could display the same voltage very differently. We needed a standard in television. Uh they created a standard called Rex 709 which I think was inh November of 93 which was kind of a road map for the HD TV people. The standard Rex 709 was more of a representation of what TVs were capable of displaying at the time in this gamut called Rex 709. So this Rex 709 standard was, you know, a set of rules so that TV manufacturers could make TVs that looked the same no matter where they were made. Now Rex 709 also did something very clever which would set the grounds for every screen that we've built ever since. Now take a look at this block of white. This is pure 255 white.
Now let me reduce that white by 5% and make it 95% white. Can you tell the difference? Do you see a difference here? Here it is once again. Full white against 95% white. At best, you'll notice a very subtle change. Now, check out what happens on the other end of this spectrum. This is 0% full black. And this is adding 5% of brightness to that black. See the difference here? Why is this 5% change so visible on the black end of the spectrum versus the white end of the spectrum? The thing is, our eyes are really good at detecting small changes in low light conditions. But when there's a lot of brightness, we can't really differentiate those changes very well. So, back to our little line diagram. If we go from 0 to 11 one on
this linear scale, that's going to be the smallest step possible that we can do in our 8 bit file, we get this change from 0 to 1. Do you see this? It's it's massive. Take for example the Minds of Moria sequence in the Lord of the Rings. We'd have to pick between this color, which is complete black, or this color, and we wouldn't have anything in between. So Rex 709 established that these colors would not be mapped linearly. Instead, they were going to be mapped in a curve. This curve follows the fact that our eyes are much better at noticing changes in the darker side of the spectrum. So, in a linear scale, if you wanted 1% white, we would need 333, right? That's 1% of 255. We can't have decimals cuz these
are little bits of information. So, this is 1% white. But I didn't create this white with 333 to get this color 1% white. I actually went 63. Thanks to this curve, I now have 63 different steps between full black and 1% white. That's exactly what we need for darker scenes in movies, focusing on the areas where our eyes can see a much bigger difference. So this is the infamous 2.2 to gamma curve and it was a key piece that the computer people copied to define their sRGB standard that we use on the web today. Now in computers the biggest problem that they were facing at the time was getting all of these devices to talk to each other especially for design use for printing and for
scanning. So that same year 93 Apple released this little tool called color sync which of course only worked on Mac. It's it's Apple come on but it worked as a bridge. It was this translator between all of these devices. So each device provided a color profile like a little instruction manual and then color sync did the math which is this messy computational processing to match the colors and to unify what you saw across devices. Now because of that little tool color sync Mac became the absolute undisputed king of the design and the print world. If you were doing any design work you had to use a Mac period.
The Macintosh Performer is way ahead of other computers because its multimedia really works. But these weren't Apple's golden years. Only a handful of people had a Mac and they weren't so many monitors or devices to manage. So this cross compatibility was a lot easier. The computing world was basically ruled by this guy, you know, before the island stuff. But for Microsoft to come up with a color sync equivalent, that would have been a mess, right? Cuz Windows ran on thousands of different parts. Some were premium, but some were cheap. Right? So, you had shitty graphics cards or shitty monitors
or shitty processing power. And they couldn't guarantee that the hardware could handle the processing needed to match the color profiles. So, 3 years later in 1996, Microsoft and HP, they teamed up and they took this massive shortcut. They looked at what the broadcast industry did with REC 709 and released the sRGB standard as a way to give Apple the finger. So instead of teaching Windows how to translate colors for every individual monitor like Apple did, this sRGB standard basically said, "Ah, screw it. We're not going to translate anything." In broadcast TV, there was no room for profiles or instruction manuals to decode any images or any of that fancy stuff. It was all about optimizing. So Windows did that. They optimized
using an identical gamma curve. And that standard is the root of why Instagram broke with HDR 30 years later. So what we have is these two fundamentally different approaches to solving color. On one hand you have Apple with its built-in tools to guarantee unified color. On the other hand, Microsoft that just forced everybody to speak sRGB. And so this foreshadows kind of the world where we live now. On one side you have stuff like Dolby Vision which is exactly the Apple approach. It's a set of standards to manage those HDR files to guarantee colors look a certain way but it's closed and it's paid and it's expensive.
Now, on the other hand, you have HDR management like HDR10. But which is better? Hold that thought. It's it's like a philosophical war in the end, a war of formats. And we're really just stuck in the middle. You're trying to get our photos and our movies to look right. Whatever approach you think is best, in the '90s, sRGB kicked ass, especially as the internet came around. That 56 kilobits per second modem connection, there's no room there for any color profiles in your images. We need to optimize. So, sRGB became the default language for the entire digital world. Every JPEG, every website, every meme, every early YouTube video, it all assumed that it was playing on an sRGB monitor.
Pretty much every photo on the web was published without a color profile. The internet got lazy and software developers, they realized that they didn't need to write code to read color profiles anymore. And so, that gets us back here. [screaming] All right. So, I think I'm kind of following now. So HDR images are not sRGB and they need some color profile to be interpreted correctly. So if there's no color profile included, the screen assumes sRGB and things look like It's hideous. Oh, that's not very nice. It's just a donkey. But this is a mess because at this point it's not just about getting an HDR screen. It's about the web that the code of the web and the browsers that were designed around sRGB, not
around color profiles. Now, HDR requires color management, which is the approach that Apple had with color sync. And so, Apple devices had color sync. They've carried that color management tool set for decades. So, it wasn't a problem for Apple devices to enable HDR across everything, but the rest of the web just wasn't ready. This is flashbacks, by the way, to them dropping Flash on the iPhone and then forcing everybody to HTML 5, which, by the way, was a good thing in the end, right? The web is a better place now, even though this was a painful shift. Like, I remember my first ever coding project was this Flash
remake of Bang, like the little game where you shot like canyons. It was so cool. It had different planets and everything. Rest in peace, Flash. Anyway, point is, is this painful shift worth it? Is HDR worth all this mess? This is when I realized there was another problem. Like my TV is only 400 nits bright. I just learned. And so, have I ever actually seen a properly graded HDR movie? I don't think I have outside the theater. So, I invited myself to Paul's editing room. Hello. Hey, welcome again to Elite Finishing.
I'm assuming the star screams this thing. Yeah. So, this is probably the single most expensive thing in the room. That is a Flander Scientific XMPP310. So, that is a reference monitor capable of a,000 nits. This monitor is what you would use if you were doing, let's say, a show for Netflix in HDR. And this monitor is about $15,000. There's two things about HDR. One is the luminance, the transfer function, but the other is the gamut. And this is a great representation of gamut. So here we're seeing colors you've probably never seen before because this is a much bigger gamut. This is a great example of like all the colors that you're not getting in SDR. This is the SDR, but the monitor is set up for HDR, so I need to switch it over.
Okay. So this is the SDR. Yeah. So The HDR looks way better. Yeah. I mean, you can look in the shadows here. So these shadows feel clipped, which they are. You can see here on the scopes, they're all being clipped. So there's two flavors of HDR. There's HLG and there's PQ. The PQ transfer function is a absolute value. So if this says I want a,000 nits, it's going to generate a,000 nits on your monitor. That's the biggest criticism of HDR is that absolute values is it doesn't make sense. Okay, so time to unpack what those curves mean, which man, it took me a few hours sitting down with Paul to be able to understand. This is very much the deepest part of this iceberg. So get ready for some very deep nerding on this. Remember we said that in HDR
files, brightness for a given pixel is not expressed in relative numbers. It's expressed in absolutes. In an SDR curve, values, the information for each pixel goes from 0 to 255, which tracks brightness up to 100%. In an HDR curve, values can go from zero to 1,024 cuz we're working with 10 bit files, sometimes more. That maps out up to 10,000 nits of brightness on a screen. And because those screens are much more brighter and we have a lot more numbers to fit this thing, our very good old 30-year-old very reliable gamma curve, it's not going to work anymore. We actually need a new curve now. Now, the most common curve used in HDR is called the PQ curve, which tries to do something similar to what the gamma curve did. It allows us
to store more information in the darker side of the image, and looks like this. Now, you could argue that 10,000 nits is just a dumb amount of brightness for a TV that didn't even exist when HDR was created, but the whole idea of this standard was futureproofing it. And it kind of worked because just a couple months ago, TCL demonstrated the first TV that actually goes to 10,000 nits. You know, aside from Barney's 300 in flat screen. They only sell them in Japan, but I know a guy and nobody's using all thousand nits. Nobody. And we have displays that could do it, but nobody like everybody who looks at that display at 1,000 nits, all directors and all creatives and everybody has decided like no, that's
not what I want. Now, the challenge is that if we take our normal SDR image and just scale it up in this new 10,000 nits space, we're just going to get some weird results. Everything's going to be too bright all the time. Take this example. This is the battle rug from the Lord of the Rings in SDR. Now, notice that the max luminance here is 100 nits because this was an SDR file. If we just scale this to use the full spectrum of HDR all the way up to 10,000 nits, we would get something like this. Now, I'm going to scale this to full screen now using this stretching to 10,000 nits. I don't think that anybody watching this video is going to have a 10,000 nits screen. I have no idea what's going to
happen, but I don't know, like cover your eyes or something. If you're not blind by now, you've probably seen an image that looks like Don't hurt my hands. And yet, that stretching of the values to fill HDR is what tons of movies have done. Vincent from the HDTV test YouTube channel has been running tests on some of these movie conversions. He found that the original Star Wars trilogies in Disney Plus, despite being advertised as HDR, they are not going to 10,000 nits. They're simply stretching the standard SDR versions. They were not graded for HDR. What HDR allows us to do is to have more color and more dynamic range and to have basically better looking images. So in a situation like this, this looks
very beautiful and I could still see into the shadows and I could still see the details in the shadows. So that is one huge advantage of HDR. Now let's say that I am tasked with the very important job of remastering a new release of the two towers in HDR. And I've settled that I want that Gandalf the white scene to be blinding bright like to take advantage of all the nits on those TVs. That's kind of the way I remember it in the theater, right? It was just so blinding. and it was just this big moment in the movie. Now, if I were to draw a timeline of how I graded this movie, my amateur grade might look something like this. And let's say that I borrowed one of Paul's monitors, kept the movie rather normal
with a few hundred nit spectrum except for that specific scene. What happens when this file gets to your screen? Now, assuming that you don't have that 10,000 nit monitor from TCL, how does your regular HDR screen interpret this file? One approach to do it is just clipping the brightness, which would look kind of like this. And as dumb as it sounds, some actual real HDR screens do this. As a screen manufacturer, as long as your screen can decode HDR and has a minimum of 400 nits of brightness, that's it. You can actually slap an HDR on the box. All you'll do is just clip any brightness above 400 nits. Now, our best explanation for the problems that we saw with the HDR grades on our old
YouTube videos was exactly this. Now, the correct alternative to do this is called tone mapping. Now, that means adapting the information on the HDR file to the capacity of the screen. But that's not as simple as it sounds. If I had a TV with a pick brightness of, say, 1,000 nits, and the TV just automatically mapped it down to its own capacities, well, it's just going to scale everything down based on that one super bright point in the movie. Everything in the movie is going to be really dark except for that one scene. Kind of like uh Game of Thrones season 7. Now, I don't have any proof that's what actually happened in Game of Thrones, but it did happen in Mad Max.
Once again, the HDTV test guys found that the official 4K Blu-ray release of Matt Max has this one scene where there's one blue pixel that was scaled to 9,000 nits. This was probably a mistake by the mastering team because nothing else in the film, not even the lightning, ever goes over 4,000 nits. Was an attempt at HDR grading the reason why we got a really dark Game of Thrones season 7? Well, that's a loaded question. I am not going to speculate what was happening in that color session, but as you can see, when you're in a properly, you know, designed color suite, you can adapt to the darkness of the room that you're in and you
could see details. Obviously, in this beautiful display, you could see details that you wouldn't normally see on TV at home. I don't know if I could speak to the Game of Thrones incident. I wasn't there. But I could see how somebody would be lulled into believing that the whole world has $30,000 displays and they're all going to see it as beautiful as they're seeing it. I can see how that could happen. Has HDR been a headache for you? No. Should it be? As No. I mean, as you have to master now content in both versions, I suppose. Oh, that's just more billable time.
Okay, so it's not so Okay, so let's look at some of those encoding alternatives. HDR10, you've probably seen that in your streaming services, uh, in your Blu-rays. HDR10 attaches a very simple meta data file. It's like a color profile to tell the TV about the video that it's playing. Now, it gives the TV basic details, peak luminance, average luminance, and then the TV just tone maps the entire video based on that. It's kind of like what I did with my Gandal example. and coincidentally in Matt Max which is also mastered in HDR10. Of course, this is not ideal but it is free, it is open, it is simple, it requires little processing power for the TV to decode. HDR10 is R sRGB
approach. If you're doing any serious project, you would only do it in Dolby Vision at this level. Now, this is the Apple expensive complicated color profile approach. In Dolby Vision, instead of a static metadata file on the entire movie, metadata is dynamic. You can send metadata per scene or even per frame. So the screen needs a much more powerful processor to do all this dynamic tone mapping to once again maximize the dynamic range depending on the scene. And then the monitor, if it's not capable of Dolby Vision, would default to HDR10. So P Dolby Vision is backwards compatible with HDR10, but you're not getting that clip side metadata. All the work that I did on my trims, you would never see that because there is no
Yeah, it's lost. There's no metadata. So here we are 30 years later. It's the same war with different weapons, right? HDR10 is like sRGB, open optimized. It assumes that your screen will figure it out. Dolby Vision is the color sync approach. It's closed. It's paid. It's obsessively managed. And as much as the Apple/Dolby approach has caused pain and inconvenience, you could still argue that it pays off in the end. HDR10, the original was flawed. And Dolby Vision proved that to the point where we now have HDR10 plus rising in popularity, a format with, hey, with dynamic meta data. How about HDR10 Plus? How are people feeling about it?
I mean, I don't even have a tab for that. There's no HDR tab. I mean, I don't even know how you would do that. In the real world, in the theatrical television episodic world, the Dolby Vision is the only that's the only game in town. But all of us, we're just caught in this crossfire with no clue of how this works or how HDR is supposed to work with screens that all look different that fake HDR that requires you to dig very deep into the fine print of your specs or just feeling stupid for publishing HDR videos that people can't really decode back home. We tested and retested this video on every screen that we could. Even with that, we still have no clue how it's going to look on your screen because YouTube doesn't even tell
us if it runs on HDR10, 1010 plus, Dolby, or HLG. By the way, HLG stands for hybrid log gamma. I didn't mention it before, but it's a curve that was designed to be cross-co compatible with SDR. It does a neat little trick with an alternative curve that can be interpreted as both SDR or as an HDR curve. Now, on our way back from Paul's, we stopped at a Best Buy, and we spent a good amount of time chatting with the clerk, nerding about these incredible new microRGB panels. They're beautiful, they're bright, they're colorful, they look way better than an OLED or than the mini LED, which we actually got to see side by side, and they start at like $2,500. The content playing on those screens was absolutely optimized for the
4,000 nits that they support. But remember, as Paul told us, Netflix content is mastered at 1,000 nits. Raids rarely go above 250 nits. if you're even considering spending the money on one of those panels. Check first on the content that you're going to be watching and if it's going to take advantage of it. Now, HDR is not just about nits. It is also very much about color, of course, but that is really an icebreaker for another day. Let us know if you'd like us to make that video. If you're as obsessed as I am about how movies look in your home TV, we now have a whole series of videos about that. So, check them out. Catch you on the next one.
