I just tested this again by uploading an AVC MP4 test chart and viewing in Firefox and Chrome on my desktop PC. RGB 16 in my Vegas preview window still ends up at 0 on YouTube, and 235 ends up at 255. So based on this very limited test, studio RGB levels still seem the best option to me.

(for interest, this comment summarised results when this was tested 7 years ago)

Thanks Marco and Nick,

thing is when some browser / player plays in studio RGB , it reallly looks like crap...

but as per your test, Nick, it looks like RGB 16 is still the way to go. Frustrating this is...

Nick, I'm still wondering...

why does my studio RGB look so bad then? It sure does not look like 0-255.

I watched on Firefox.

Is there a way to tell which browsers / players expand to 0-255 and which ones don't?

Nick, I'm still wondering...

why does my studio RGB look so bad then? It sure does not look like 0-255.

I watched on Firefox.

 

Is there a way to tell which browsers / players expand to 0-255 and which ones don't?

Look for differences in this video between 235 and 255, and between 0 and 16. And you can sample colors from your screen with a tool like http://annystudio.com/software/colorpicker/

Thanks Nick,

so how do you explain the differences in my screenshot above? I don't think I quite understand the issue here.

It should look worse in full swing then, shouldn't it??

so how do you explain the differences in my screenshot above? I don't think I quite understand the issue here.

It's a good question that drives college media students crazy; mistaking leveling for grading, which should come first.

You do have low-key subjects that do indeed benefit from a bump in contrast. One example, one result. Different subject, different result. The collateral is exactly what Nick mentioned -- clipping at [0-16, 235-255], which coincidentally are areas of less interest in your scene, thus a pleasing outcome.

We know by now that achieving that boost inadvertently through a misapplied levels filter is not a recipe for success on YouTube, although you now have an idea that a little grading (maybe drop your gamma in post a little too) would add some life to your available-light session work.

As always, defined levels compliance comes dead last in the fx hierarchy.

Just remember that "full range" and "dynamic contrast" graphics and playback switches are an editor's worst demon. Leave 'em off.

...You do have low-key subjects that do indeed benefit from a bump in contrast...

This is the key point with that particular clip. It's benefiting from the increase that the "levels expansion" is giving it, and you appear to have hardly anything in the ranges 0-16 and 235-255 that would suffer by being clipped. It doesn't matter if a small specular highlight like under the girl's chin gets clipped, but if you had large areas of near-white between 235 and 255, they would become 255 on YouTube and any detail in them would be lost.

The theoretically-more-"correct" way to add that contrast would be to add it in Vegas but limit the overall range to 0-235, for example with an "S" curve like this. In this screenshot the lower left is at 16 and the upper right is at 235:

Note that every press of the up and down arrow keys moves a highlighted anchor point by 1 unit out of 255, so it's easy to place those anchor points accurately at 16 and 235.

As always, defined levels compliance comes dead last in the fx hierarchy.

Color correction and levels compliance can be done in one hit with a Color Curves FX, which is blummin fiddly and a bit unconventional but I believe the least lossy method because individual channels don't get harshly clipped like they do with the Color Corrector FX. In this example I reduced red, especially at the bottom end, and conformed to 16-235:

Use of the video scopes is essential for doing these kind of adjustments.

Color Curves FX, which is blummin fiddly and a bit unconventional but I believe the least lossy method

Yes, preserving some rolloff is preferable to bludgeoning the endpoints. The learning path to becoming good with curves is to play with gamma a lot and observe the effects on preview and histo. A decade or so of color theory wouldnt hurt, either.

Yes, preserving some rolloff is preferable to bludgeoning the endpoints.

That's for sure! For some users, there seems to be a misunderstanding between levels and contrast, such that they think altering the ENDS of the curve is how to increase contrast (ie crush blacks; blowout whites). Far better to add an "S" shape within those points so you are adding "midtone contrast" without crushing/blowout . In Vegas you can easily place your inflection points well into the curve and accurately target contrast in the midtones.

Curves are great, but like Einstein's riddles, only 2% of us will ever get them right, and with LOTS of interesting variations!

I began color film layer masking at Technicolor in 1973, and transitioned to digital media in the late 80s-90s. But the key to mastering any of this is the Adams mindset -- honor the exposure endpoints, but don't become their slave.

Today, as then, 90% of my layer adjustments are made with gamma tool within pre-optimal endpoints; non-linear, non-log Curves adjustments are pretty much for bad lighting and artistic effects, IMO.

People like Nick learn these things from years of dealing with sensitive subject material under nonlinear location lighting, in his case under the ocean.

"For some users, there seems to be a misunderstanding between levels and contrast, such that they think altering the ENDS of the curve is how to increase contrast..."

Different Tool, Same Concept:

Try this quick simple test. Create a darker than studio levels black cat in a coal bin on a dark night (say RGB 10, 10, 10; 0,0,0) in a graphics program. Check the colors on your monitor with say, jcpicker. Saved as a.jpg, I can see like a very faintly visible black cat and jcpicker reports RGB 10, 10, 10; 0,0,0, so I guess my monitor isn't too far off. Drop it into Vegas, render it to what you usually do. My test, Vegas render as a 25pfps .mp4, jcpicker reports 10, 10, 10; 1,1,1. Not too far off to worry about. Upload to YouTube, play back in Firefox with Nvidia graphics, result faint black cat: 10, 10, 10; 1,1,1. YouTube doesn't kill the cat. You could conclude YouTube plays back exactly the RGB levels it's fed, confirming my fairly long term observations. Applying Vegas levels to output studio RGB, the levels on my monitor were 15,15, 15; 24,24,24, pale and washed out, no reason to doubt that would vary on YouTube. Naturally, there's a whole heap of variables, YMMV.

What player is your Firefox using to play YouTube videos?

I suspect the biggest variable is the player and whether it shows Full RGB or Studio RGB, and what your graphic settings are set up to allow players to do.

Rather than play with black cats there's a useful Levels file that Marco posted a few months ago. I found the thread so Marco I hope you don't mind me posting the link. It's a zip file found here. The original thread is here.

Reporting individual results here, as if they applied to every user, is futile.

Yes, I said user, because cameras and editors and upload sites and players and graphics and screens perform consistently when set consistently.

Of course the odds of that actually happening diminish exponentially with the advent of every new "feature."

They warned us all about GIGO -- seems no one paid serious attention ...

@Musicvid : Oh yes.

Reporting individual results here, as if they applied to every user, is futile.

After 16 years of getting and giving advice on this and other forums, the best we can do is plough a middle furrow. It’s not easy at all.

Do you have an NVidia card?  If you upgraded Windows or that driver recently it may have reset your Limited/Full color setting ( Video/Adjust Color Setting / with NVidia Settings / Full).  Then youtube should use Full range.  This option often gets toggled on driver upgrades.

Further if you changed codecs on your computer (say LAV codecs) settings there will also affect renders and can affect playback w/in different software.

Youtube uses full range (computer levels) if that's how your GFX card/computer is set.
 

No-one's reporting individual results as if they applied to every user, like I said, YMMV. But I'm with Marco. For me, Vegas doesn't touch the levels, nor does YouTube. Upload Marco's video as is, and tell us whether it kills the cats. And although cameras and editors and upload sites and players and graphics and screens perform consistently when set consistently, every user sets their own consistent settings. It's a crap shoot. Applying an SRGB levels output effect as a default is overly simplistic.

...Upload Marco's video as is, and tell us whether it kills the cats...

I did. It got removed for violating YouTube's terms of service (presumably because it's too short) and I got myself a Community Guidelines strike 😭 Here it is again followed by a Thai gentleman on the Bridge over the River Kwai giving us a cheerful rendition of I Love You Baby and Bad Romance:

Here, I'm not seeing any "superwhite" or "superblack" in these playback scenarios:

• Firefox 60.0 on desktop & laptop
• Chrome 66.0.3359.139 on desktop & laptop
• Huawei Mate 9 Android phone

On my desktop my AMD driver default dynamic range is "Full (0-255)". If I change that to "Limited (16-235)" it only affects playback in WMP and MPC-HC (allowing me to see the words). It does not have any effect on playback on YouTube or in VLC, Quicktime Player, Chrome or Firefox.

On my desktop my AMD driver default dynamic range is "Full (0-255)". If I change that to "Limited (16-235)" it only

Hi Nick, could you tell me where you can change such settings with AMD card/driver

Thanks !

@Adi-W I have an old AMD driver so it might be different with more recent ones. It's in the Video > Advnaced Video Color section: