Really strange. Same if you alter your tv's contrast and black level?

But kind of "rewind" to this of your Vimeo example:

https://vimeo.com/95399657

If I playback this video in fullscreen I can read the white text in it again (because my grafic device is set not to map studio swing to full swing). For Vimeo (and Youtube) this only works in full screen mode and only if the grafic device is setup this way. Small playback window means: Always expand to full swing. Full screen playback means: Ask the grafic device before.

Apparently my system does do a map to full swing because I get the same results in full screen mode. But the how are you viewing it at all? It is not viewable on the original. At least not on my system.

The differences in our systems is making it viewable on one system and not the other.

I got to take a break and get some other things done. Out of curiosity I will load the video into Vegas and see if the video information is there but just not viewable on my system.

No matter what, I still need to put out videos that are compatible with the USA system. If I do not do so, the videos will not look great when others 'here' view it on a properly adjusted display and that is not what I want.

I do make sure that my displays are properly adjusted. Failure to do so is asking for failure...

O.k. thanks for testing.

By the way – I was wrong about the Vimeo full screen mode. I just had to start the video instead of watching the the first frame after calling the given url. Since Vimeo uses HTML5 I don't need to switch to the full screen mode to prevent the player from mapping studio swing to full swing (only have to ensure my browser uses HTML5).

If you do colorspace transform YUV->RGB, generally they are:
1) studio levels YUV to computer levels RGB
2) full range YUV to full range RGB
Vegas does the latter all the time in studio levels, like someone flagged every mpeg-2 or h264 video as full range input (even though AFAIK H262 doesn't mention such flag).
Vegas respects color space in your file, but it does not respect full range flag (or its absence).
Internal representation of your pixels is BGRA standard-RGB (0-255), composing works here, media generators work here, alpha is 0-255 and only scopes remind us we are still in aquantance with video.
To make things easier SCS changed 0-255 in filters settings for colors/levels to 0-1,0. But it did not help to hide the truth. And the truth is: we have no "legal" full range 8-bit projects!

To make things perfect we need only few steps from what already happened in SV 12:
1) Add 8-bit (full range). There is no need to change anything in composing engine, it already works in this mode.
2) Add few values to Color space setting in media properties: 16-235 YUV, 0-255 YUV, 16-255 YUV. Make them work in 8-bit projects for native encoders and decoders. There is a possibility to add more fine-tune settings up to custom LUT tables, but that will break next thing.
3) Add internet database of device<->color space (and other clip settings in media tab) relation (default behaviour). You can generally get device/library/mode/codec from metadata. User will be able to turn it on or off for reading and contributing to it, a bit of moderation on SCS side might help.
4) And yes, leave 8-bit (studio levels) as is for people who like it.

NLE that will by default map 16 Y' to legal black and 255 Y' to legal white
Well, why not? Why not handle source from particular camcoder in particular format according to this format settings? It's just what you want Vegas to do - handle levels sensibly!

"

Finally.

Here is my suggestion:

You don't even need to compare Vegas to other NLE's. Download the Photoshop CC trial (if you don't have it installed already). Import various video formats into photoshop, correct/grade them to your heart's content, esp. using the camera raw filter, then render out to one of photoshop's (admitedly) limited export options.

Now ask yourself, why does Vegas makes it so much harder?

I am not saying that some sort of legacy support check box doesn't make sense for users who either (1) love how Vegas handles levels or (2) routinely encounter situations where Vegas' levels handling better suits their needs.

But seriously...why does Vegas make it so much harder?

You know what real madness is?

Calling 16,16,16 black and 235,235,235 white.


>>>There was a time where FCP would screw up with dSLR footage. But once the codec got fixed, that issue was solved.
<<<<

It still does screw up a lot of things.

@Marco.

Ok, I did some more tests and the details (letters) are still in the video but at a higher level. The problem is the letters are above 100 IRE/235 which puts them out of range for the NTSC system. More below.

I also re-checked the DVD and the letters are there as well. I need to turn down the contrast on the LCD TV to see the letters. Naturally I have to turn the contrast down because the letters are at a higher level than what the contrast is normally set for.

The BIG problem is, with the contrast turned down, the TV is no longer set-up properly for all the other videos I view on it. So I could just simply leave my 16 to 255 videos alone and adjust the contrast down on the TV to make them view correctly but then all of my videos will not be the same as other videos. I simply cannot expect those who view my videos to change their TV/display settings in order to view my videos correctly. I must stay within the current established standards.

The NTSC test pattern (USA) is designed for 7.5 IRE/16 to 100 IRE/235 and that is what I must adhere to. The lowest level of the PLUGE is the only part of the test pattern that goes out of that range but I do not adjust to make it visible. In fact, proper adjustment(s) make(s) it just not visible. It is blacker than black.

Because the waveform monitor in Vegas does not have a clear 7.5 IRE marker, I set it such that 0 IRE will be used to represent 16 and 100 IRE to represent 235. I will then adjust my video levels to fit within this range. The final results are great quality videos.

The overshoot above 100 IRE/235 is hidden when the TV/display is adjusted properly.

It would be nice to have that extra range (0 to 255) for the video but the current standards, at least in my area do not allow for it and I have to go with the current standards for my videos, like it or not.

I am correct in using the Sony levels to lower the high end of my videos down to a max of 100 IRE/235. That makes my 16 to 255 cameras compatible with the standards here.

In my early days of working with videos I learned that yes, I can make them look great on an improperly adjusted monitor but then they will most likely look bad on TV's and displays that ARE adjusted properly. The purpose of the test pattern is to allow one to make sure their monitor is adjusted properly so one can put out videos that are also at the correct levels.

Also, with the great help of the waveform monitor, assuming one learns how to properly use it. The Vectorscope is also very helpful for color. But then there are those who do not want to learn all of this and would have Vegas do it all for them automatically.

Note: There is more than one type of test pattern to cover different systems. One needs to use the correct one for their system.

So for me, the Sony levels is correct. For you, it may not be. If that is the case, we are both correct but on different systems.

Thanks for re-checking the whole thing. Now we at least know the devices would or could pass all the headroom and finally it's up to the monitor setup.

The question about what's correct for the monitor setup is as complex as the whole topic.
Some would say monitors calibrated to official specs are correctly setup (than headroom would be displayed).
Some would say there are way too many kinds of surroundings and personal flavors to only permit one and only doc-based calibration of a monitor and so their monitor setup maybe would or maybe would not display headroom.

Simply speaking, I find if the pipeline before displaying preserves as much of information as possible, one could use best of both worlds (though this would exclude broadcasters with strict limitations of course).
Leave us choices to handle "correct" the way we individually see this.

.

How about this (with apologies in advance)?

Actually we have kind like this with the extension "Antares Preview Levels".

Now SCS could take this idea and the extension and build something else.

.

Yes, and its a good idea; however, it is not compatible with any version prior to 12.

@musicvid10 - ROFL. At least you didn't label it with anyone's name.