Can't you download these files? Three dots and "download". (Edit: OK, now I see that most of the time this doesn't work.)

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Amea7tYd9h1P2EP3-iQPlXOdvjnfRe5W?usp=sharing

Thanks for sharing the Google Drive link. I'm seeing the same as you so the bug does persist. Did it used to behave differently? I never use 4444XQ so hadn't noticed it.

Loading this footage into 21.208 I can't seem to change the color range of the 4444XQ either but it doesn't look overexposed and looks identical to the other file when read as undefined/limited.

The descriptions of the ProRes formats in another program have changed. I used to have the "xq" profile, but now I have "hq" (10 bit) and "4444xq" (12-bit), among others. And I noticed that it's not working correctly (the Vfw/UTVideo codec has the same problem—everything is overexposed, too).

What is this other program? The program you used to make these files?

Still in VEGAS I don't know why the ProRes files would look identical in 21.208 but not in newer versions.

What is this other program? The program you used to make these files?

Still in VEGAS I don't know why the ProRes files would look identical in 21.208 but not in newer versions.

1. VirtualDub (newest)

2. In my 21.208 it looks overexposed.

In your 21.208 it looks overexposed because you changed ProRes HQ to full range but were unable to for the 4444XQ file? Just trying to understand your test conditions.

Both are set to Limited. Of course, with 4444XQ, it doesn't matter what you set, because it won't work.

(The setting also doesn't work with HQ files if I set the project to "32-bit video levels," but at least the image is correct.)

32 bit video levels just displays the media as it is so that part seems normal.

I took the two files you sent on an 8-bit full timeline and put one on an upper track and the other on a lower one. Toggling the tracks on and off with 21.208 do they not look the same? I'll double check again later. They look very different in newer versions of VEGAS.

I looked at them in vp22 b250. Both clips are ffmpeg transcodes from something else. Ffmpeg does not license official Apple libraries like Vegas does. Neither clip has a range entry in it's metadata so Vegas 22 picks them up correctly as undefined and treats them as limited/studio range which is the general practice. But looking at the clips with Vegas scope, they look different. The xq one is both over and under studio range. The hq is in-bounds on the bottom and only a little over on the top. I would surmise these should both be treated as full-range. Here's what I get looking at them side-by-side in pips next to scopes:

Btw, it only takes minor tweaking in cgp to match these clips up exactly in the scopes. Here's what I got doing that with everything set to full-range:

Howard, did you have success changing XQ to full range? It didn't do anything here.

Also I've seen other ProRes not have range metadata like fron Atomos recorders.

I think it's already full range. I just went into Vegas clip properties via Project Media and changed it there. The XQ waveform display did not budge, which is strange. When I did the same to the HQ clip, I did see the waveform display shift. I then changed the scopes range to match. Btw, I generally set my projects to full-range these days while rendering to limited range mp4 for YouTube compatibility, regardless of the media.

Another thing I tried was making my own XQ clip from the HQ clip with Vegas Prores presets... which worked quite well. If I had to deliver in Prores format from something else, I'd use Vegas presets instead of ffmpeg to get authentic Apple-licensed results. The Vegas generated Prores clip also lacked range metadata. Only reason I suspected it might all really be full-range was having played with Prores Raw out of a Zcam/Atomos with the first release of Vegas 19... had to do the same thing.

Both are limited range. And both have this parameter set in the frame properties.

If you don't believe in Vegas scopes, there's another way to see the effect of full-range levels. Just upload your XQ clip to YouTube and lay YouTube theater-mode preview up against a Vegas full-range project preview. And see how YouTube's limited-to-full conversion blows out skin tones in frame #14 on the runner's neck. If the levels were limited-range as YouTube demands, color and levels would look alike.

If you don't believe in Vegas scopes, there's another way to see the effect of full-range levels. Just upload your XQ clip to YouTube and lay YouTube theater-mode preview up against a Vegas full-range project preview. And see how YouTube's limited-to-full conversion blows out skin tones in frame #14 on the runner's neck. If the levels were limited-range as YouTube demands, color and levels would look alike.

Vegas's scope is unreliable because the plugin reading the file has errors. Therefore, it shows the wrong data because that's what it's supposed to show.
I showed a histogram from AviSynth—it's always 100% reliable. Resolve also shows the ranges correctly—by the way, changing the range works for both files in Resolve. They are correctly recognized as Limited, but you can change the range to Full.
Using YT for this is a very bad idea. Data may slightly exceed ranges in some places, but this is normal with compression.

Resolve scope for both files are identical:

@rgr I assume you've seen the patch but if not it addresses the reading of ProRes 4444.

https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/beta-vegas-pro-23-patch-build-302--149832/

@rgr I assume you've seen the patch but if not it addresses the reading of ProRes 4444.

https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/beta-vegas-pro-23-patch-build-302--149832/

Yes, I saw -- but I'm using version 22.

The issue of wrong exposure values in 23 is now fixed but testing again the issue you reported where HQ color range can be manually set but 4444 can't remains in 23.302. The test files are helpful if you can leave them up for a while longer : )