Sure, looking at the "Limited Color Range Recording & Rendering" vs "4K Upscale - Full Color Range Recording in 4.4.4 & Rendering" the blacks look crushed in the full range one- there is no shadow detail. Yes that will make the colors look more saturated and increase midtone contrast but it's not a good thing. You also lose some detail in the brightest highlighs.
To see color differences with just the color depth as a variable, try a picker like "Color Cop" https://colorcop.net/
I'd use a scene or image that has areas of a single color so you can compare like with like.
For a test pattern VEGAS has some in "pluges" under generated media. There may be others you can download.
@RogerS what if you compared the full range 420 vs 444 full range?
We shouldn't be looking at "full range" on YouTube to begin with.
We shouldn't be looking at "full range" on YouTube to begin with.
why? there is no apparent downside to it, as long as you remember to record in full range also
The video appears crushed compared to the limited range one. I assume the limited one matches the source? Anyway, if they're not matching each other something is wrong (range flag not set or not read?) and there are too many variables for me.
I'd encourage you to do comparisons locally of the rendered files to remove YouTube as a factor.
Then try outputting a few frames from the rendered videos (444 and 420), bring them into a good tool like Photoshop and really compare them closely using the color pickers to sample like colors in each and see if they vary. Feel free to share your results with screenshots!
well you can try and compared the 420 full vs 420 limited in my playlist, they look the same, dont compared the 444 full to 420 limited, 444 is more of an experiment to see how it looks on YT :)
We shouldn't be looking at "full range" on YouTube to begin with.
YouTube does an automatic Limited- to Full-Range conversion whether it needs it or not. So you should only render limited-range for YouTube. Which is the Vegas default.
Reference forum discussion around Full vs Limited range:
https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/vp18-notes-on-the-8-bit-full-level-option--122749/
We shouldn't be looking at "full range" on YouTube to begin with.
YouTube does an automatic Limited- to Full-Range conversion whether it needs it or not. So you should only render limited-range for YouTube. Which is the Vegas default.
@Howard-Vigorita do you have any actual proof of this? i have been trying to google what youtube does to the uploads, but cant find a good answer, how do you know this?
also im not sure i trust the "youtube downloaders" i tried one and downloaded my 4k upscale, but in the mediainfo it says its only 1920x1080?? in the video inself in stats for nerds, it is 4k....
Try uploading pluges with different settings. (32-bit video using a levels Fx to make one computer range and one studio range).
Then use color cop to read the color numbers on the screen.
Youtube re-encodes everything you upload to suit their fancy for their favorite delivery format. Thus, 4.2.0.
@john_dennis hmm...can you explain why its looks better watching it on my oled smart tv compared to the 420 rendered vids?
The Rosenthal Effect? That's why we use objective criteria, otherwise known as test data.
Recommended reading. The research here began 13 years ago . . .
https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/pc-to-tv-levels-a-comedy-of-errors--107325/
YouTube does an automatic Limited- to Full-Range conversion whether it needs it or not. So you should only render limited-range for YouTube. Which is the Vegas default.
@Howard-Vigorita do you have any actual proof of this? i have been trying to google what youtube does to the uploads, but cant find a good answer, how do you know this?
I found out by pulling up a Vegas preview of my project and lining up YouTube browser and Vegas previews next to one another. Maybe YouTube fixed their lack of range detection since I tried it last... you might want to check it out again and see.
I found it helpful to put YouTube's display in Theater Mode so the browser window could be resized to put the YouTube frame right next to the Vegas preview, sized identically. Did the same comparison using a viewer. Had to configure MPC-HC for a limited- to full-range view transform to get a match. As described here.
Spoiler Alert:
Your source video for these tests was not Full Range, it was not Limited Range, but an unexplored terrain I have to call "Twice-Limited," as was explained in the link I gave you.
This was probably caused by a setting in your Graphics Card Properties, also covered.
When you encoded to Full Range for upload to Youtube, you kind of negated the previous error, and it looks "better."
"If" you had uploaded Full Range video from a believable Limited source to Youtube, it would have been horribly clipped:
Clipping Indicators:
The tendency to skip the critical tests needed between observation and conclusion is probably the biggest source of misinformation on the internet. Your expectations control your impressions.
This is probably the last time I'll do this. I know some will disagree and some won't understand. That's ok, If even one person gains a little insight, a purpose will have been served.
Not wishing to embarrass but to stimulate, the above post will be deleted tomorrow.
@mark-y dont delete anything, i am very much a rookie on many of these points, alot of the deep nerd talk in this thread goes over my head because i dont fully understand it yet.
Ok. Welcome to the Vegas Forums, and please continue posting. With your curiosity, you will become a valuable contributor here. In fact, you may be able to help bridge a gap that has existed for a long time. . .
The history of the Full vs. Limited range conflict isn't pretty. You almost have to put your head inside the analog era of television to understand where this mess all came from, and the clumsy fixes that were put into place.
Unfortunately, we're stuck with it.
https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/pc-to-tv-levels-a-comedy-of-errors--107325/
Youtube re-encodes everything you upload to suit their fancy for their favorite delivery format. Thus, 4.2.0.
@john_dennis hmm...can you explain why its looks better watching it on my oled smart tv compared to the 420 rendered vids?The Rosenthal Effect? That's why we use objective criteria, otherwise known as test data.
Recommended reading. The research here began 13 years ago . . .
https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/pc-to-tv-levels-a-comedy-of-errors--107325/
just took the time i read it proper, but it is from 2017, hasnt the tech gotten abit more "accurate" now?
Spoiler Alert:
Your source video for these tests was not Full Range, it was not Limited Range, but an unexplored terrain I have to call "Twice-Limited," as was explained in the link I gave you.
This was probably caused by a setting in your Graphics Card Properties, also covered.
When you encoded to Full Range for upload to Youtube, you kind of negated the previous error, and it looks "better."
"If" you had uploaded Full Range video from a believable Limited source to Youtube, it would have been horribly clipped:
Clipping Indicators:
The tendency to skip the critical tests needed between observation and conclusion is probably the biggest source of misinformation on the internet. Your expectations control your impressions.
This is probably the last time I'll do this. I know some will disagree and some won't understand. That's ok, If even one person gains a little insight, a purpose will have been served.
@mark-y please keep going, im learning alot very fast, its just alot to process and understand :) hence why i do so many different test vids and upload them to my YT, dunno if you seen my vegas pro 21 rendering etc, playlist, my channel is in my singnature
one of the things that has surprised me the most is how the same YT video can look some different depending on which platform you watch it on...
and for anyone interested, this is the tv i watch YT and other streaming services on when im not nerding with vegas or gaming :) https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/b8-oled#test_179 its not pro calibrated, but i did do my own visual calibration using some settings i found online a long time ago
another note, i dont do any type of "real" life video, its purely software meaning OBS Studio and sometimes shadowplay, so no fancy camera or anything like that, i have my samsung s21 and thats it :)
just took the time i read it proper, but it is from 2017, hasnt the tech gotten abit more "accurate" now?
Nope, it has gotten much worse.
HDR, HLG, LOG (VLOG, CLOG, SLOG, etc.), and all the rest gives the average hobbyist about a 1 in 1,024 chance of getting something right, by my estimation. Not for those with weak constitutions. Or weak math skills.
just took the time i read it proper, but it is from 2017, hasnt the tech gotten abit more "accurate" now?
Nope, it has gotten much worse.
HDR, HLG, LOG (VLOG, CLOG, SLOG, etc.), and all the rest gives the average hobbyist about a 1 in 1,024 chance of getting something right, by my estimation. Not for those with weak constitutions. Or math skills.
well im a simple man, i "just" want the best quality looking video for youtube, primary gaming videos, hence why i try so many different test to see how/if any difference there is, im very nerdy about the small details and i know that YT is very not consistent about how they display content, so some times it is about winning the lottery
and for anyone interested, this is the tv i watch YT and other streaming services on when im not nerding with vegas or gaming :) https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/b8-oled#test_179 its not pro calibrated, but i did do my own visual calibration using some settings i found online a long time ago
I have a LG C2. In filmmaker mode the videos I produce look as expected on it (played directly from USB drive). In other modes it's too contrasty and saturated. Which looks great at first but isn't the intent and can be very unrealistic.