Vegas' media generator creates full-range (0-255) images, so in 8-bit legacy mode, you have to levels-correct to 16-235 either on a clip, track, or output basis to render out levels-conformed video.

My assumption would be that a full-range solid primary color on a video timeline would be 100% saturated (or 100+ %) but the vectorscope doesn't seem to conform to that prediction. I also don't understand why different solid colors have different saturation readings on the vectorscope. I also don't understand why the vectorscope numbers don't seem to reflect the shift to 8-bit full range mode (project properties --> pixel format) but rather seem to act as if the project is still in video levels/legacy mode. ??

Vector scopes are holdovers from analog broadcast days. The percentages are based on Voltages, and the RGB values are derived from those analog percentages, so of of course you can't understand them.

Since you have no analog broadcast experience to draw on, I suggest you use the vectors as a color reference, and we have other ways to set saturation and levels in digital video production..

I was hoping Vegas' vectorscope could be useful as an objective reference to color saturation, in the way for example that the waveform is an objective measure of exposure. Ie, a means to doublecheck a subjective (eyeballs) grade to see how other monitors might interpret it. Those reticule targets have to be useful for something, right?

Analog broadcast was a good hint. I see the color bars NTSC line up with the vectorscope exactly in an 8-bit video project when 16-235 is checked. The Vegas solid colors are much more saturated than that by comparison. Adding broadcast colors Fx and then computer to studio levels preset brings the solid colors closer to the NTSC bars (if that's even helpful at this point. Rec 709 doesn't really line up well with NTSC).

Forgetting synthetic targets for a minute, try this color corrected screenshot from a video test of multiple test charts. Isolate the CMYRGB targets for the X-Rite Colorchecker Passport Video and see what the expensive Chroma du monde chart looks like on the scopes for reference.

The reticules helpfully show you the primary hues, though most printed target are at half saturation (or in the case of X-Rite not really guaranteed for any saturation) as it's too hard to make a highly saturated reflective target. So I agree the saturation values here don't seem terribly useful as an absolute reference as you need some kind of highly saturated NTSC-compliant target. As a relative reference, I use the vectorscope to doublecheck color matching between shots.

For full range media, there doesn't seem to be any change in any of the scopes going from 8-bit video to 8-bit full. I guess that's because in 8-bit video it's just WYSIWYG and for 8-bit full it's already full range so there's nothing for Vegas to do.

Interesting conversation and always happy to learn new things.

Those reticule targets have to be useful for something, right?

Yes, it's just that the indexing is not very useful. I learned analog densitometry and transferred the knowledge to digital, but for you it will just be a matter of lots of experience. Start with known values, as @RogerS has done.

Forgetting synthetic targets for a minute, try this color corrected screenshot from a video test of multiple test charts. Isolate the CMYRGB targets for the X-Rite Colorchecker Passport Video and see what the expensive Chroma du monde chart looks like on the scopes for reference.

Roger would it be reasonable to assume the X-Rite image is a good target for delivery saturation across the colors, or is that comparing apples to oranges?

Can you say more about what you mean? It is a constant reference so it is useful for matching purposes.

It's still a piece of paper, so there are more saturated colors your camera can record in a real world scene (I would assume. Try comparing to a sunset or flower under hard light.) I think its saturations are limited by printing technology.

Don't really use color charts to set saturation which I consider more of a subjective preference. Been using Pantone for years and but when they dropped support for Colorvision and partnered with X-rite, I switched to X-rite too. I find the best way to judge saturation to my liking is to 1st calibrate my monitor with the i1Studio. Then raise saturation just below when the reds or greens start to glow. Use the same device to calibrate my dye sublimation printer which can also come in handy for making my own 8" square swatches for king-sized color charts on community theater stages where each white light bulb often has a different color temp. Using a DNP these days ever since Kodak dropped support for it's 8500.

I think the x-Rite passport is kinda small... I use their 8x10 video checker chart which is fine for shooting a single person under controlled lighting. My only complaint with it is that long black band at the bottom is too glossy for anything but encouraging angling it downward but it'll still reflect the color of whatever it's aimed at.

Btw, the best support around for Color Charts is in Resolve. They have custom masks for X-Rite passport and video checker with auto color match. And if you mask the CMYRGB chart segment in their Power Window, each of the 6 components can be aligned with their Hue-vs-Hue thingy. Truth is, however, if white balance is set precisely in my shoots under controlled lighting, I never really need those things. But I still shoot with color charts and double check just to be sure. And they provide another tool to help match footage from dissimilar cameras.

Can you say more about what you mean?

The fundamental problem I have is I'm starting with such flat footage that when I add saturation, even a lot, I still tend to end up with flat output because my eyes are sort of pre-biased by the source. I've been trying to find some way to objectively measure/scope saturation so that I could do a prerender check to see if I'm hitting an objective target that's going to look appropriately saturated to people who never see the source.

I am thinking the best strategy might be to grab screenshots off youtube of professional videos I admire/find relevant and then use them as references in the last step before rendering to see if my grades are comparable or if they look flat.

I've been trying to find some way to objectively measure/scope saturation so that I could do a prerender check to see if I'm hitting an objective target that's going to look appropriately saturated to people who never see the source.

Forget it. Such "saturation targets" do not exist, as no reference exists independently of "your" source.

Absolutely the best you can do is to remove any discoloration or wash from the original, set gamma, levels, and curves judiciously and let the captured chroma levels speak for themselves. This is not trivial. Chroma differentiation is far more important than base saturation levels.

Put differently, you won't find an independent variable in a flock of butterflies.

Your constraints, therefore, consist of legal chroma limits and the confines of good taste.

Your constraints, therefore, consist of legal chroma limits and the confines of good taste.

@Musicvid - Yes indeed!

Can you say more about what you mean?

The fundamental problem I have is I'm starting with such flat footage that when I add saturation, even a lot, I still tend to end up with flat output because my eyes are sort of pre-biased by the source. I've been trying to find some way to objectively measure/scope saturation so that I could do a prerender check to see if I'm hitting an objective target that's going to look appropriately saturated to people who never see the source.

I am thinking the best strategy might be to grab screenshots off youtube of professional videos I admire/find relevant and then use them as references in the last step before rendering to see if my grades are comparable or if they look flat.

If you're having trouble getting back to a "normal" starting point, the Colorchecker Photo or Video are useful for this purpose. The manufacturer publishes values for the photo version but you can also use the corrected image I shared above as a reference. This won't tell you the most saturated possible color but will give you a sanity check.

I don't know what type of footage you are using but you could also just use a third-party correction LUT to get back to a standard saturation. I use the Leeming LUT for this purpose.

Having well-edited reference images as a sanity check is a fine idea, too. Photographers do that to "recalibrate" their eyes during long editing sessions.

Here's an example during the process of using the vectorscope to match both hue and saturation between different cameras and with a reference photo.

Here's an example during the process of using the vectorscope to match both hue and saturation between different cameras and with a reference photo.

Roger could you say a little about the fx/techniques you use to make the different camera footages to match within Vegas? Via your screenshot it looks like you've captured shots of color charts with your different cameras, but I'm curious where you go from there.

Chroma differentiation is far more important than base saturation levels.

Yes -- I could not agree more! Thank you for helping me clarify in my mind exactly what I'm struggling with: a data-poor capture. Over the years I've made tremendous strides in getting a natural look out of a GoPro, and many casual viewers wouldn't automatically realize I'm using one in my outdoor photography, but my eyes can always see how impoverished the colors are compared to the richness of nature's palate. And if I grab something like my old A7S (which shoots in 8-bit) it's immediately clear how much color data there is in a better capture. --and how much heavier the camera is :)

Here's an example during the process of using the vectorscope to match both hue and saturation between different cameras and with a reference photo.

Roger could you say a little about the fx/techniques you use to make the different camera footages to match within Vegas? Via your screenshot it looks like you've captured shots of color charts with your different cameras, but I'm curious where you go from there.

Yes, I used the reference shot I shared with you before. First I ensured the white balance matched (usually use white balance Fx), then with RGB parade on isolated the grayscale line and made sure the levels matched using color curves Fx.

Then I cropped to the CMYRGB line on each of my 3 generation of Sonys. With vectorscope on you could use color corrector secondary to match up the hues and saturation as best you can. It's a bit hard to figure out how much spill to allow so having a person holding the chart helps- you can get a sanity check and make sure all the skin tones are being affected evenly and no jarring transition in the middle, for example. This is tedious so I bought Graide Color Curves and use the hue-hue and hue-sat curves for matching. Then I save a preset in Graide for each camera model.

Another option is to do all this in Resolve which has color curves built into it and export LUTs that you can use in Vegas for each camera. Or save yourself some time and use the Leeming LUT for GoPros as he already did this work using an individually measured $1000+ chart and specialized LUT-building software. Even if you don't buy the LUT I recommend using the Leeming camera settings for your GoPro model as he tested all of them for color accuracy and fidelity.