Question about Editing in 1.96 (QuickTime)

[MemoryLeak]

I've been editing brand videos for social media and websites for a couple years on a 2021 Macbook Pro (in P3, no reference modes).  Up until this point, I've been using a QT Gamma Compensation Export LUT + Display Color Management to get accurate colors on my export.

I recently discovered (Thanks to the Adobe Forums) that if I set my viewer gamma to 1.96 quicktime, my Program Monitor will be accurate to my final export without any export luts.

My coworkers, however, have pointed out that setting the viewer gamma to 1.96 takes a fair bit more editing to make our footage look properly saturated and contrasty.  We used to be able to send b-roll sequences with just a LOG to Rec709 LUT, and throw the QT gamma compensation LUT on Export, but now our exports look washed out on our macbooks without any coloring.

So my question is, is there any benefit to editing in 1.96 Quicktime on a Macbook, versus editing in 2.2/2.4 and applying a QT LUT on export?  So far it's been more work in the coloring stage to get my footage looking good, and I'm not convinced I'm getting any better quality out of my color.

[Carlos Ziade]

Depends on the platform you are posting your exported videos to,

usually social media have their own automatic color management ...

@R Neil Haugen  will always have better advices when it comes to grading

[R Neil Haugen · Accepted solution]

This is a total pick-your Poison situation, and thanks so much, Apple ...

ONLY Macs with Retina screens but without Reference modes will use a display transform for Rec.709 media of essentially gamma 1.96. They also, from some high-end colorist's testing I've seen, don't correctly remap the hues/values of Rec.709 within the native P3 space of the monitor.

{But use VLC or Potplayer, or Firefox browser, on those Macs ... you will normally see Rec.709 files with Bt.1886 applied ... on the same screen, a very different image.}

So there's two issues ... a brighter shadow region due to the different display transform, and a visual saturation issue due partly to a lighter image being visually less saturated, and partly due to a poor performing color transform.

The rest of the world uses a different display transform. The Rec.709 standard include the Bt.1886 addendum, which specified the (essentially) gamma 2.4 display transform for Rec.709 media. Who is "the rest of the world"?

All Macs with Reference modes set to HDTV, all broadcast/streaming specced systems, most Android devices, most PCs, most TVs.

So Apple isn't consistent even with Apple devices.

So how do you want to handle this?

Using the comp LUT makes a darker file, that's "normal" on Macs with the 1.96 display transform, but too dark and oversaturated for the rest of the world. 

Using the Viewing Gamma 1.96/Qt option results in a similar file. As the Program monitor in Premiere will match the transform outside Premiere on Macs with this affliction, you will grade the image accordingly.

And again, the file will be 'normal' on similar Macs without Reference modes, but too dark/saturated everywhere else.

BlackMagic has an option called "Rec.709-A" and yes, A is for Apple. They found that including a certain NCLC tag ... that doesn't actually HAVE a specified value in the Standards! ... causes Macs without Reference modes to use essentially gamma 2.4 to display the file. On first glance, this seems a good solution.

But ... that adding of the "unspecified" NCLC tag causes other apps/systems to show the files too dark.

So it's a bit of a mess, really, and you need to pick where you want your image to look closer to how you saw it.

Understand though ... something pro colorists are taught right off: no one will ever see the exact image you saw when grading, no matter the screen or device, no matter how delivered.

So ... you can't fix gramma's green TV is an old saying in broadcast. Pick your poison.

[MemoryLeak]

Wow, that was so helpful, and a lot to think about!  I really appreciate you taking the time to write that out.  I always wondered why VLC looked different that QuickTime Player, and that explained it so well.  Thanks for your help.

[R Neil Haugen]

The typical pro colorist has more spent on monitors, breakout boxes/cards to them, and calibration gear/software than most editors spend on their entire computer setup. Because if you aren' absolutely, empirically certain your monitor is giving a pretty solid image, nothing else matters.

But even then, even with a monitor that profiles out to pretty near perfect, that doesn't ever mean anyone else will see what you see. Ever.

Because every physical screen is actually a bit different than any others. They cannot manufacture screens without small to notable differences from one panel to the next.

Then you have all the hardware bits that connect to the panel and to the device sending the image to the screen. With firmware/software controlling them. None of those hardware bits are pefectly identical in operation, and every device type will have different firmware/software controlling the operation of that screen.

As has been oft demonstrated, you can take two pretty high-end monitors, side by side, calibrated and profiled by the same setup, fed identical signals from a breakout box ... and you will still see at least small differences between the two images ... in that same room, viewed together.

The image on a tablet on a park bench at noon of a sunny day, and in the darkened bedroom that night, will actually, visibly, be different.

So how much you actually sweat over this is a choice. Colorists are trained that you do what you can on your screen only to get your material looking ... in relative terms!!!!! ... like other pro produced media on any screen it's viewed on.

NOT to get that screen to match what you see. As you simply cannot do that.