Export video in color range 0-255

[NikVladi]

Is it possible to export video in color range 0-255 in HEVC or 264? How to do it?

[R Neil Haugen]

That is an improper range for nearly all video data according to international standards ... so, why you'd want to do that is the question. No properly setup system needs to have a 0-255 H.264 file to play it appropriately "on screen" in full screen-data of black to white.

In fact ... if you created such a file, on the vast majority of systems it would get played on, it would look horrid ... the shadows crushed to black, and the highlights hard-clipped to white. I can demonstrate that on my system easily. I run both Resolve and Premiere Pro, and use i1 Pro to calibrate my 'reference' monitor, and the nifty combination of Resolve/Lightspace calibration app to check by running a profile. Video media on my machine plays back beautifully, correctly.

And if I set my GPU to 0-255, I immediately get crushed blacks and clipped highlights. Plus a ton of banding.

Standard pro video media is by all standards expected to be 16-235 ... period. As in your other post. And again, a properly setup system will display that media properly black-to-white.

Neil

[NikVladi]

Neil, thanks for the answer.
I am completely new to these issues as it has become clear to everyone. I know that this question has already been answered 1000 times and many simply calmed down. But I have no peace.
But you correct me if I'm wrong.
1) Some cameras shoot at 0-255. Why, because the standard is 16-235?
2) The RGB 0-255 color space gives more shades from above and below (white and black) than the space 16-235, which gives fewer shades from above and below (white and black). The difference is 16 777 216 shades - 10 648 000 shades. I'm right?
     2.1) If paragraph 2 is not, then what is the difference?
     2.2) If point 2 is yes, then why can I work in PrPro in the 21st century and I cannot choose the color space I need in the codec, for example, HEVC that supports this for working with modern devices that also supports 0-255? Because the standard is 16-235... But the new devices can work with 0-255, almost all modern. Maybe it's time to give such an opportunity?

[R Neil Haugen]

No, you are wrong in every assumption.

Full/legal is an encoding thing, NOT a data-amount thing. Period.

The same data is encoded either way. It's just a slightly different mathematical process. As listed in the specs for many years now.

You are taking the hype of the marketing teams as factual. They don't care about nor know facts, they simply push this on noobs as it sells cameras. Messes up their new clients, but they don't care about that. You paid the money, great for them.

THE STANDARD FOR REC.709/SDR DISPLAY REQUIRES SPECIFIC THINGS. Nearly all actual monitors follow those display standards correctly out of the box, unless the user has messed with the settings.

Which are ... Rec.709/SDR in YUV ... technically Y/Cb-Cr ... in 8 and 10 bit ... is encoded in 16-235, and will be displayed in 0-255 on display. ALL full RGB Rec.709/SDR, is expected to be encoded 0-255 and will also be displayed in 0-255.

If your assumption had any merit, then the 8/10 bit YUV files would look horrible ... banding in every image. Period. They don't show banding unless you push the data around a fair amount ... ergo, they are 0-255 data encoded to 16-235, which does not entail loss of any data, as gee ... did you realize, math allows the use of a cool thing called a "decimal point" ...?

So if you create YUV files in 0-255 encoding, they will display correctly only on those screens where the user has messed their system by setting it to a non-standard setting.

NO professional or broadcast system, nor most tablets/laptops desktop computers, nor most TVs, will see a usable image. We will get heavily crushed shadows and clipped highlights.

Don't fall for hype, ok?

[rgr2]

What you wrote is completely untrue.

The image can be saved as YUV limited range (16-235) or as YUV (0-255), of course by appropriately modifying the data and setting the appropriate flag in the file.

In such a case, YUV limited range (16-235) will be (most often expanded to the appropriate output format, most often RGB (YUV 16-235 -> RGB 0-255), as well as YUV full range (YUV 0-255 -> RGB 0-255). It's just a matter of mathematics.

No banding or other types of errors occur. Both files should display the same, of course YUV full range will in theory be better due to the larger data range. But you probably won't notice it in normal use.
PS. I think most modern phones record in YUV full range.

[rgr2]

Well, I guess most modern media records in 0-255. And the vast majority plays it back CORRECTLY. I have yet to meet a receiver (e.g. TV) that plays back this color range incorrectly.

[R Neil Haugen]

I work for/with/teach pro colorists. I've been around this issue over a decade, and through the heavy discussions about this with the top colorists and color scientists. Read tons of the heavy "first source" books and manuscripts on the subject.

With that stated, you are simply wrong. NO broadcast setup is designed for YUV in full range. And no professional "cinema" camera records Rec.709 in full range. Because all the 'big' gear follows the correct Rec.709 specs, as it must to properly fit down the pipeline.

Only prosumer rigs, with marketing hype, do the YUV in full range bit. Period.

NO broadcast media is ever delivered in full range, for network/streaming use. Period.

Only HDR forms are normally in 'full' type encoding.

For the record,  the whole full/legal thing is an ancient solution to a problem long gone, and could be done away with. But ... as all the pro systems still are built around it, it is the professional requirement to follow.

[rgr2]

Of course, in this world only limited range is used. But for my own use I see no reason to limit myself to these standards. The full range is well documented, commonly displayed correctly on all kinds of displays. There is no reason to limit yourself.

Of course, in this world, only limited range is used. But for my own use, I see no reason to limit myself to these standards. Full range is well documented, universally displayed correctly on all kinds of displays. There is no reason to limit yourself.
It seems that 32-bit YUV is only full range.

[R Neil Haugen]

Anyone is welcome to do anything ... truly, as we are all different. 

One of the joys of going to NAB for me is the aisle discussions, which are endlessly varying. No two editors work alike, even in the same shop. Fascinating and stimulating to me. 

That said, though we are all welcome to do what we prefer, we all should be aware of what other users will do, and if you deliver anything for pay, what professional standards require.

I do have a question for you. Being as there is absolutely no technical gain whatsoever from encoding YUV video in full over legal ... as there are exactly the same data bits in the file, recorded in the same number of "levels" in both ... why is full range of such interest to you?

The only two guarantees of recording YUV media in full range are ...

1) you get nothing extra or more in the file and

2) on most properly setup systems, your file will have crushed shadows and clipped highlights ...

So I'm not seeing an upside here ... and that is the puzzlement for me.

You're welcome to do so, as noted.

And also understand, I think this this an ancient process that had great need at one point, but could be done away with now if the standards organizations would all agree. But as broadcast folks don't like having to change out gear, and apparently for some stations this change could be costly ... it's probably not going to happen anytime soon.

So it's a non-issue in technical terms. Just a sort of weird thing to follow along with.

[rgr2]

Of course I get more.

My sources are mostly full range (or semi-full range). I see no reason to reduce their quality by converting to limited range.

I don't know where you got that from: "on most properly setup systems, your file will have crushed shadows and clipped highlights". That's nonsense. On properly setup systems, full range will display properly -- if it doesn't, this system is flawed.

[rgr2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPtFfTIoTuI&ab_channel=TechYESCity

[R Neil Haugen]

Context is always important, right?

That video is all about gaming, not about "normal" video editing for general professional work. And for that, for simple gaming stuff, do whatever you feel is cool. Gaming is an entirely separate, and in its own way, fascinating niche.

Just understand you are doing something that isn't what was originally designed to be done. That is all I'm suggesting. And don't mis-understand or apply data..

Because that YouTube is not dealing with actual file data ... the recorded data. Only with how a gaming, screen recording or Sony A7 file, appears in their systems. And from watching some of it, their system is clearly not at all even close to proper Rec.709 specs for the display system.

HDR is a totally different thing, and legal/full questions normally don't apply there at all.

So in context of their setup and working patterns, that's all ok. Because they don't need to match standards for anything anywhere, do they?

Again, I'm talking about the actual data  of the file. You seem to think that 16-235 encoding has I dunno, maybe 219 data levels recorded to the file, compared to 255 for a "full" range?

If so, that is incorrect. The actual data recorded is normally identical. As it's designed to be done that way, and to be correctly re-mapped to the full 0-255 on display. By fully normal systems set according to the Rec.709 standards. 

But broadcast compliant systems are not systems with their screens and GPUs goosed for gaming enjoyment. Which typically have brightness and contrast levels pushed way past standard broadcast setup.

And again, that's fine for gaming uses. Totally, no problem, go for it.

Don't expect however to be able to get any broadcast compliant/acceptable deliverable off that system. They're two entirely separate niches.

Premiere is built to follow broadcast specs as a native thing. You can juice it up if you want, with the new CM stuff that's entirely possible. And I'm going to be asking about if the new CM stuff allows for full range YUV 8/10 bit files to be used as full range. 

You can do so in say the colorist's primary software tool ... because there it has always been necessary to allow a massive set of user choices based upon a wide array of professional needs. Premiere didn't need that.

But Premiere is getting more CM stuff, and maybe, the new controls can be set to work with full-range YUV files.

[rgr2]

It doesn't matter if it's a game or a movie -- the colors will look the same. You're trying to bend reality as much as you can.

[R Neil Haugen]

Nope. But I think I'm a bit more technically experienced than you. On account of working with/for/teaching pro colorists.

I have to deal with highly specific technical standards. Always.

As if you haven't calibrated and profiled your "reference" monitor, you don't have a clue how accurate your screen pixels are.

As the only monitors that are actually pretty tight to Rec.709 specs out of the box are the expensive ones referred to as Grade 1 Reference monitors. By Flanders, Sony, and Eizo mostly, running typically $7500 and up.

And that is an entirely niche market, yes. But also incredibly technically savvy. And experienced.

Pro video post requirements for the specific monitors, the proper calibration equipment and procedures , are not optional. You work under and to the standards or you don't work.

[R Neil Haugen · Accepted solution]

8-bit media has 256 levels 0-255, and those are completely contained in the standard video format/codecs used.

0-255 and 16-235 are "file" metadata issues, not image value differences. Based on the format used.

That's not intuitive is it? And that is where I, and you ... got confused. I struggled with this also. In front of colorists in person, who rolled their eyes all over until I finally "got it". Was pretty embarrassing really.

Neil

[NikVladi]

Okay, thanks, now i can go to sleep...