Redcine-x Transcodes to Prores 4444 look WASHED OUT

[Johnny Friday]

So having difficulty with redcin-x build 221 and trascoding to prores 4444.

I'm using MacPro, redcine-x build 221, redrocket card that is running from HD-SDI dual link out into an AJA Hi5-3G that converts HD-SDI to HDMi and that is connected to my HP Dreamcolor monitor.

The monitor is set to REC 709 that has a gamma of 2.4 (not 2.2)--I suppose this is normal for REC 709 ? I have many options with the HP Dreamcolor for colorspace settings such as:
*Full; AdobeRGB, Rec.601, and a few others, but REC.709 seems appropriate.

PROBLEM:
everything goes nice while using redcine-x v221 and image looks great on my HP dreamcolor. My other monitor is a Dell u2410 that has the viewer and other workspace on it. It does not match perfect the dreamcolor, but it's not terrible. So, when making color corrections everything is good, then i go to transcode to Prores 4444 and my settings are:
Motion:
frame per second: 29.97 (it was shot at that speed)
Gamma Correction: None
Depth: millions of collors +

**When i finally get the file baked as a .mov and play it, the image/movie is very unsaturated and has a WASHED OUT look to it. It's as if all the color I put into it with the first pass of color correction was for nothing. It is quite frankly not even a close representation of the image i created.

*I also had downloaded the latest quicktime component and installed it in the redcine library. So that was done.

Anyone have an explanation or fix?

 

[David Battistella]

It sounds like the grade is not applying to the clip you are wanting to render.

To test this I set up several output settings.

One of each for prores 4444, uncompressed hd, DVCPROHD, AVID DNXHD, etc. to see how all the different codecs would render.

Create a 5 frame clip in the timeline and then render out each output setting and compare the QT files. You will see that QT handles the gamma for each differently.

As a workaround to get the gamma to match you might have to create presets for each codec that will yield a correct gamma in the rendered file.

This is a problem in quicktime in that it will randomly assign GAMMA to a specific codec even if RCX is asking it to render a specific gamma, QT will choose it's own.

I have found that PRORES is the most accurate compared to the INternal monitoring in RC-X.

It's pretty hard to get all the GAMMA settings right when there are so many output variables. You really have to test each one and figure out the "gamma offset". Plus there are many values being plugged into the render data including curves, shadow, exposure and FLUT that will have an impact on what the blacks look like, so it can be tricky to get it right, but you have to test.

David

 

[Deanan]

What application are you playing it back on?

 

[Johnny Friday]

Deanan,
I'm just playing back the Quicktime files on both Quicktime x and Quicktime pro v.7 And the look is the same on each of those....I've transcoded in the past on older versions of redcine-x and cannot recall images such as these. Just look too bright/overexposed and washed out of color.

David: I'm trying a variety of outputs now.

 

[Jordan Livingston]

Dear John,

Do you have the "Use restricted SMPTE range" check box checked in your RC-X Export Preset? If so, try un-checking it. I have found this to produce flatter results in the ProRes files than how the grade appears in RC-X.

ALSO, when you view your ProRes files, are you viewing them in the QuickTime player or in Final Cut Pro? Try viewing them in Final Cut Pro - sometimes the QuickTime player doesn't look accurate even though the files themselves look great in FCP, Color, etc.

Best,

- Jordan

 

[Johnny Friday]

It sounds like the grade is not applying to the clip you are wanting to render.

To test this I set up several output settings.

One of each for prores 4444, uncompressed hd, DVCPROHD, AVID DNXHD, etc. to see how all the different codecs would render.

Create a 5 frame clip in the timeline and then render out each output setting and compare the QT files. You will see that QT handles the gamma for each differently.

As a workaround to get the gamma to match you might have to create presets for each codec that will yield a correct gamma in the rendered file.

This is a problem in quicktime in that it will randomly assign GAMMA to a specific codec even if RCX is asking it to render a specific gamma, QT will choose it's own.

I have found that PRORES is the most accurate compared to the INternal monitoring in RC-X.

It's pretty hard to get all the GAMMA settings right when there are so many output variables. You really have to test each one and figure out the "gamma offset". Plus there are many values being plugged into the render data including curves, shadow, exposure and FLUT™™ that will have an impact on what the blacks look like, so it can be tricky to get it right, but you have to test.

David

David, first off thanks for the assistance. I tried a variety of presets and found that my best results to get the richest colors back out of QT compared to what i was grading in RCX was to choose prores 444 or 422HQ and select Gamma as "NONE" instead of Automatic. That was about my only choice in the presets other than checking "restrict SMPTE" i tried with it checked and unchecked and did not find much difference in the QT prores file that was ouput---or i might say a very slight difference....which lead me to keep it unchecked.

Dear John,

Do you have the "Use restricted SMPTE range" check box checked in your RC-X Export Preset? If so, try un-checking it. I have found this to produce flatter results in the ProRes files than how the grade appears in RC-X.

ALSO, when you view your ProRes files, are you viewing them in the QuickTime player or in Final Cut Pro? Try viewing them in Final Cut Pro - sometimes the QuickTime player doesn't look accurate even though the files themselves look great in FCP, Color, etc.

Best,

- Jordan

Jordan, I have only been viewing in the QT file and have not yet checked in FCP. And as you see in my post above, i did uncheck "restrict SMPTE" and results were slightly better.


RESULTS THUS FAR:
to re-hash, it seems in my case presetting prores4444 and selecting Gamma as "NONE" gives me a better look. HOWEVER, the QT movie is still not as nice as the RCX image i graded.

Hardware: Keep in mind, i am viewing RCX image via REDROCKET card output via HD-SDI into AJA Hi5-3G that basically converts 12bit HD-SDI to 10bit HDMI into my HP dreamcolor that is setup with the REC.709 color space. So, in essence i'm viewing the RCX images at 10bit and then when i go to view the QT movie file i created, i then switch my HP monitor to DVI input from my mac tower that is of course only 8bit --AND i am running two monitors at once off the graphics card--NOT SURE IF RUNNING TWO MONITORS MAY ALSO BE A PROBLEM....but result is that the QT images viewed on my same monitor, but at 8bit are less rich than they are viewing on RCX at 10bit. But the difference is not slight....it's quite noticeable. They are less saturated and slightly washed out...not nearly as bad as before when i had Gamma set to "Automatic".

Could there be another issue in order to get them to match completely? I don't recall having these issues in the past on Redcine v. 20.

Thanks to all for the assistance.

Jordan, I'll have a look in FCP within the viewer at the QT movie and add feedback on that as well.....and then again in color.

 

[David Battistella]

Yes,

I found that switching off automatic was an improvment. It would be good if you could look at the files from FCP in 10-bit via a KON card and you might be pleasantly surprised at the results.

David

 

[Johnny Friday]

Yes,

I found that switching off automatic was an improvment. It would be good if you could look at the files from FCP in 10-bit via a KON card and you might be pleasantly surprised at the results.

David

I wish....i know. AH---just thought of what i can do...I dont' have a Kona Card, BUT i do have MXO2 and that connects via HDMI---should work into my Dreamcolor. I'll have to check that as well. I may not get to all of this tonight....I expect tomorrow or a day later, but i think that would get things closer to a firm result one way or the other. But i must say that 8bit vs 10bit kind of sounds out there to see a big difference. You may in fact be right, but I've done quite a bit of color work via 8bit and just don't recall seeing a difference like this when viewing 10 or 12 bit. But now my eye is much more keen on CC work since i am doing it almost every day now.

 

[Johnny Friday]

Viewed QT reders in Color as well as Final Cut Pro with output to my HP Dreamcolor @ 8bit color (not 10bit like my Rocket Card ouputs).

Looks better, but still slightly less saturated than the RCX look out to 10bit monitoring.

I'm beginning to think that it really is a question of 8bit monitoring vs 10 bit monitoring. ???

Next is to try viewing via my matrox MXO2 LE out via hdmi (10bit) to see if image will look as i graded it in RCX and viewing at 10bit on my Dreamcolor.

 

[Kaku Ito]

John,

In REC709, gamma level is not specified. People choose it according to the ambient light surrounding of the room. Safe bet is 2.2 in normally lighted situation, but if you darken the room then higher number like 2.3 or 2.4 is used. For example, for DCI, the gamma level is 2.6.

In my opinion, Dream Color is over saturated when you use it with Mac.

 

[Johnny Friday]

John,

In REC709, gamma level is not specified. People choose it according to the ambient light surrounding of the room. Safe bet is 2.2 in normally lighted situation, but if you darken the room then higher number like 2.3 or 2.4 is used. For example, for DCI, the gamma level is 2.6.

In my opinion, Dream Color is over saturated when you use it with Mac.

Kaku,
I believe it is set to 2.4 last time i checked. I can lower it to 2.2 easy enough and should try that tomorrow. You may be right that it is a bit oversaturated. It was also noted as too bright, but i lowered the luminence level from 250 to 130 to match better a plasma tv---that helped a lot already. Not sure if i can do anything about saturation, but I would also need to compare it to another cc monitor.

 

[Johnny Friday]

Ok, after further review i can only say that the QT movies are completely washed out using the new redcine-x, with the QT 4.1 plugin --- in my case.

They seem to look fine on my dreamcolor (slightly less saturated than original looks in RCX); but when i email them to anyone and they view on their macs with non dreamcolor or non cc monitor they look terrible. Really unsaturated. I can make a far superior looking QT file by taking them into FCP natively and outputting them. But i loose the Rocketcard and speed.

I also tested different ouputs and different monitor settings on my Dreamcolor:
*best results are: monitor "Full"(dreamcolor setting--choices are full; rec709) using Redcolor/Redgamma(in RCX)

**When i take the files into FCP they look a bit better, in fact really a lot better than if viewing directly from QT. But this is strange as I've never seen this before when making QT movies. Now that I am using much better monitoring and control using Tangent wave, the results seem to be disasterous.

Frustrating! Any chance this can be due to the QT plugin components just not working at their best ?

 

[Kaku Ito]

You have to sort out your system. Can you list up what you have?

If you monitor over saturated display to work on grading, then the result looks under saturated in other environment then simply you tend to lessen the saturation by looking at over saturated monitor, so the render becomes undersaturated.

Any of the presets of Dream Color with Mac Pro's ATI GPU did not satisfy me even with Eyeone Display 2 calibration applied (not saying it's impossible but didn't come automatic). I ended up adjusting the saturation and color balance using Matrox MXO"s DVI calibration but that is because I had it and I'm not saying you need one.

If you have the gamma setting to 2.4 then adjust the picture according to that, in normal situation, the output will become washed out if you monitor the results in 2.2 (Snow Leopard's default) or 1.8 (Leopard's default).

 

[David Battistella]

John

I ran some tests lady night and Mae presets for all the qt codecs.

My results:
these codecs were washed out:
dvcprohd 720 and 1080
apple uncompressed 10-bit
apple prores 4444

these looked good:
prores 422 hq
prores 422 lt
prores 422 proxy

I looked at all of the files in OsX Qt player. I'll look at them today in fcp.

David

 

[Johnny Friday]

You have to sort out your system. Can you list up what you have?

If you monitor over saturated display to work on grading, then the result looks under saturated in other environment then simply you tend to lessen the saturation by looking at over saturated monitor, so the render becomes undersaturated.

Any of the presets of Dream Color with Mac Pro's ATI GPU did not satisfy me even with Eyeone Display 2 calibration applied (not saying it's impossible but didn't come automatic). I ended up adjusting the saturation and color balance using Matrox MXO"s DVI calibration but that is because I had it and I'm not saying you need one.

If you have the gamma setting to 2.4 then adjust the picture according to that, in normal situation, the output will become washed out if you monitor the results in 2.2 (Snow Leopard's default) or 1.8 (Leopard's default).

Kaku, thanks for input:
I'm running as follows:
*Mac 2.26 dual (8core)
*OS-Snowleopard 10.6.3
*Quicktime Pro v7 (I canned Quicktime X) (monitoring setup for FCP)
*32gigs ram
*ATI 4870 Graphics card to Dell U2410 monitor
*Redrocket card running out of HD-SDI into AJA Hi5-3G converting to HDMI into HP Dreamcolor
*running RCX build 221
*QT Redcode component 4.1 installed
*coloring from Tangent wave

What you say makes perfect sense if i am grading on my Dreacolor in its emulation of REC709 that has colorspace setup as 2.4---the transcodes look seriously flawed (washed out) when viewing them on my Dell that is setup monitoring over DVI at Macs Gamma of 2.2 When i switch my Dreamcolor over to DVI monitoring (still emulating REC.709) and view that same QT clip, it does look more saturated and quality IS better, but still not what I was viewing when coloring from RCX---but i am now only in 8bit with DVI not 10bit when i'm viewing from HDMI on RCX. Can 8bit to 10bit REALLY make that much difference to see by eye?

I had tried a variety of monitor emulation modes as well as transcode outputs as recomended by David and found i get slightly better looks if the Dreamcolor is setup in its colorspace "FULL" and luminence is turned down from 250 to 130-150 range. But i still have same washed out looks in the QT transcodes. I'm presuming that this SHOULD NOT be the case or would this be correct? My Dell's are not color correction monitors and nor are the Cinema display, but never have i seen such a washed out look while viewing a QT transcode on other folks systems. I was thinking that maybe since I am working on a color correct monitor for the first time then this could be the case, but I have my doubts.

 

[Johnny Friday]

John

I ran some tests lady night and Mae presets for all the qt codecs.

My results:
these codecs were washed out:
dvcprohd 720 and 1080
apple uncompressed 10-bit
apple prores 4444

these looked good:
prores 422 hq
prores 422 lt
prores 422 proxy

I looked at all of the files in OsX Qt player. I'll look at them today in fcp.

David

Thanks David,
I also tried Prores 4444; uncompressed 10bit and 422HQ: they all yielded a similar washed out look for me. What i have not yet tried is to go back to build 104 RCX to see if i get a different result. BUt i think i also need to change the QT component if i do that in order to take that out of the equation because my suspicion is that the beta QT component might be the culprit (i'm hoping). Also, i'm looking at all underwater shots with a blue background and dark subjects....So the washed out look is even more exagerated under those circumstances. ---I'd be glad to email you either a tiff from RCX or even a QTprores clip for review so you can see just how exagerated the washed out look is. I think posting here will not show the full resolution of the Tiff and how washed out it is. I'm anxiously awaiting the next build since i believe that red seems to be aware (prior posts from others) that there is some difference in saturation on transcoded clips, but some of the clips i saw posted were minor, but they also were not in the environment i work under where background of blue can seriously highlight the washed out effect.

I'll try some land shots today since all i had been working on for past few days were underwater.
Thanks David

 

[Kaku Ito]

Make sure the export gamma choice not to be "auto". I think Apple still is kinda messing with what they think it is proper to process gamma shifting.

Also, some cases REDCINE-X ouputs 0 to 1023 video range file with the picture mapped to 64 to 940 range, then when such clips is imported to FCP, FCP automatically adjusts and display correctly, but when you send the timeline to Apple Color, it opens as 0 to 1023 video range then the black area gets lifted up (this might be you are calling washed out?).

 

[Johnny Friday]

Make sure the export gamma choice not to be "auto". I think Apple still is kinda messing with what they think it is proper to process gamma shifting.

Also, some cases REDCINE-X ouputs 0 to 1023 video range file with the picture mapped to 64 to 940 range, then when such clips is imported to FCP, FCP automatically adjusts and display correctly, but when you send the timeline to Apple Color, it opens as 0 to 1023 video range then the black area gets lifted up (this might be you are calling washed out?).

Kaku,
have my export settings within RC-X set to Gamma "NONE" and that does show a marketed difference. As for the remainder of your post, that's a bit beyond my simple abilities....but i get it conceptually, however not sure how to make adjustments for this. Basically the QT should look fairly close to the color corrected image no? This should just be basic yes? As long as i have all the settings correct in RC-X and new QT component to read new color science and flut.

I'll post a tiff next so you can see how washed out...

 

[David Battistella]

Looked at all the files in FCP and here are the results.

Correct gamma compared to RC-X

PR4444
PR422 HQ
PR LT
DPX


Raised GAMMA (blacks) compared to RC-X

DVPROHD
UNCOMPRESSED 10 bit
SHEER
PR Proxy
PR 422


What a Charlie Foxtrot this is.

If I open all of these files in QT the reverse happens with ProRes.

Advice.
Before creating a deliverable. Know what software the files will be edited in. Test. test . test.

David

 

[Johnny Friday]

i thought i would test a tiff output vs a qt output to see if there was any difference. BUT, the TIFF matched the QT. So guess that at least there is conformity in that respect. I'm going to continue on with testing here.