Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Secondary Color Correction Issue

Jan 31, 2013 10:35 PM

Tags: #secondary_color_correction

I'm trying to desaturate some red on an exit sign to make the video broadcast safe. However, after fine tuning the hue, saturation, and luma settings, other parts of the video are still affected that don't need to be. Is there a way as in After Effects where I can just select an area of the video, like a mask, so that only that area is affected by secondary color correction and not have to worry about other areas of the frame? I think I'm overthinking and missing an obvious solution here.

 
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 31, 2013 10:48 PM   in reply to Jay Saan

    You can put  a copy of the clip above the other, then use the crop effect, or a garbage matte to isolate the exit sign - which you can then desaturate.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 1, 2013 12:36 AM   in reply to Jay Saan

    Take a look at using LEVELS first if you are trying to legalise BC video only in Premiere ( ie as opposed to Da Vinci where you have more controls)

     

    Open all Scopes in yourProgram Monitor ( or a Reference Monitor) 

     

    Apply Levels to the Clip.

     

    It will automatically clip Luminance levels. (Observe that in your waveform Monitor.)

     

    Next look at the RGB Parade and try bringing Red Gammas or Red  Highlights down in LEVELS controls.

     

    Visually you should not be able notice much difference in your composite video display  even though the RGB parade scope is showing you have dropped the red luminace.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 6, 2013 12:11 PM   in reply to Jay Saan

    There is a Broadcast Colors effect.  Have you tried that?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 1, 2013 11:11 AM   in reply to shooternz

    shooternz wrote:

     

    Apply Levels to the Clip.

    It will automatically clip Luminance levels.

    And is this normal?!?

     

    I try to make an export on the legal broadcast luminance 16-235. My waveform shows an ilegal 255 so I need to use Levels to lower the luminance to 235. But, as you say, just applying Levels to the video it clips automatically the luminance levels (even if in the program monitor you can't see any change) Question: which is the luminance level now?!? It really lowered at 235 just applying levels?!? Strange...

    And if so, why once exported the video and then imported, the waveform shows me again a higher level of luminance than I initially estableshed?

     

    So finally, a question comes to my mind: does this waverform really works?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 1, 2013 12:37 PM   in reply to Jay Saan

    I wouldn't really call it a "good habit" to artificially limit your video when it isn't necessary.  Honestly if this isn't for broadcast, I'd not worry about it and just move on.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 1, 2013 1:24 PM   in reply to Jay Saan

    Tell me if my order of operations is wrong but what I've been doing is to check the vectorscope first for illegal colors, then use secondary color correction filter accordingly. Then I check the YC Waveform for a safe IRE range and adjust levels accordingly.

     

    I think using seconadary cc is the wrong tool for the task of legalising broadcast video.

     

    A broader brush can be applied to legalising Luminance and Color Luminance in individual channels.

     

    That is why I suggested LEVELS.  ( Waveform and RGB Parades.)

     

    I use Levels for all my broadcast work and they pass the very strict broadcast QC we under go.

     

    As I said...applying levels automatically clips and this is the start point.  I drop everything from there a little and then work on individual channels. ( Usually Red is the culprit).

     

    The Broadcast Filter is aweful , does not do as good a job and has limited control...so I never use it. 

    It actually can cause issues because of the way it works. ie luminance / chroma buzz in areas that get controlled.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 3, 2013 5:52 AM   in reply to shooternz

    applying levels automatically clips and this is the start point.

     

    No, this is not a start point. This is just a bug, the same that happens when you apply Three Way Color Corrector, Color Balance, Colorista II and the scopes jump without any reason. I am surprised by this answer especially because almost everyone has seen this bug including those from Adobe. Something was fixed in version 6.0.3 [Fast Color Corrector for example] but most of the other instruments/effects continue to suffer because of this bug. And Levels is one of them.

     

    The only decent way to export in the legal luminance broadcast is to use Fast Color Corrector and put 16-235. In this case the Waveform  indicate correctly the right level. But if you want to use Levels, in this case you have to put 16-235 without carring of the Waveform, because this anyway indicates badly. You can check it by doing an export and then import the video and checking the luminance again.

     

    It sounds rhetorical, but just if applying Levels to the video "it will automatically clip Luminance levels" and now the waveform shows directly 100 IRE, what sense has  this affirmation "I drop everything from there a little" if waveform shows that you are under the legal limit of luminance just applying Levels?

     

    No, when you just apply Levels and the Waveform jumps automatically to 100 IRE, in fact this is just a bug that only happens in Premiere (not in FCPX, Edius, Sony Vegas).

     

    It's not my intention to denigrate a soft or other, but if we always try to justify even the bugs, is quite possible that in CS9 find the same bugs again.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 3, 2013 11:38 AM   in reply to Hewlet_Zar

    If it is a bug as you say...I find it a useful "bug".

     

    It works in my favour as a starting point to legalising any broadcast video exports that I do in house (in Premiere).

     

    If I use Da Vinci Resolve for the task...I use Soft Clipping Controls on individual channels. This rolls off the luminance in a soft controleable curve as opposed to a hard clip.

     

    With Levels (Premiere)...I drop them just a touch lower  than 100% because the QC is very fussy about the transient luminance spikes. (especially in color channels)

     

    This lowering...displays an apparent softening of  the clipping which  I tweak  until there are no clip lines sitting at 100%.

     

    The comprehensive report,  that BM Ultra  Scopes provides us with , proves it works and image quality on screen shows it works.

     

     

    @ hewlett_zar.   What do you use or suggest for broadcast legalising your work (in Premiere)  and does your Broadcast QC accept it? ie. no rejections

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 3, 2013 8:06 PM   in reply to shooternz

    I also highly object to the Levels effect automatically messing with my IRE levels at the default setting.

     

    If I want the video broadcast safe, I will happily use the Broadcast Safe effect. I have never had anything air on broadcast television and doubt I ever will. The levels effect should do what I tell it to do, not assume that it needs to mess with the IRE of my clip.

     

    Having said that, I am also not happy with the way that the Levels effect works to reduce IRE in comparison to what the Broadcast Safe effect does.

     

    The first image is untouched, the second with the default levels effect and the third is the Broadcast Safe set to 100 IRE maximum. As you can see, the Levels effect messes with the IRE but does not clip it properly to 100 IRE. So why do it at all. Look carefully and you will see that the Broadcast Safe effect actually limits the IRE to 100 maximum.  I did not use the 7.5 setup in order to concentrate on the upper end.

     

    1.jpg

    2.jpg

    3.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 3, 2013 8:51 PM   in reply to Steven L. Gotz

    O.K..it might show the deisred effect in a WFMon a single frame... but..

     

    You need to take a close  look at how the Broadcast Safe Effect works on the image. (moving image)

     

    It is a KEY ...and a very clunky ugly one at that.

     

    Look at the image and see what it is doing to it. eg Highlights. - noisy mushy ugly stuff.  My broadcasters QC would reject it immediately  even if I let it past my suite.

     

    There is no control of Chroma Luminace issues ( usually / always  RED).

     

    No way to control "transient spiking".  Its one control does all  in BC Safe Filter. ( Set and forget.)

     

     

    Steven, every camera has the abilty to produce non legalised video levels. (Super white) Thats  a good thing and is necessary to photography.

     

    Then..I could show you clips that are BC illegal as well as same clips legalised and you would not even know the difference (without a WFM). 

     

    Legalisation is a technicality (eg bandwidth) and not an academic issue or an issue that you can even see.

     

    Dont sweat the IRE.  (Levels are your best friend)

     

    Pix direct from my camera. Can you tell which ones are BC  legal or not?

     

    eyefood-array.png

     

    food-grab-array-4x3.png

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 3, 2013 10:11 PM   in reply to shooternz
    Look at the image and see what it is doing to it. eg Highlights. - noisy mushy ugly stuff.

     

    Maybe the difference is the material we're working with, or maybe it's the difference between NTSC and PAL, but I've never seen that result when using the Broadcast Safe filter.  All it does is bring down what's over the top.  The effect has always been very subtle and, as you claim with Levels, very hard to tell any difference.  Sometimes I have to go into the WFM just to find out what part of the image is being affected.  And unless you saw the original for comparison, you'd never know the scene had the effect.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 3, 2013 10:50 PM   in reply to Jim Simon

    I am not concerned (at the moment) with the quality of the Broadcast Safe effect. If it isn't any good it should be fixed. I just don't think that the Levels effect should automatically limit the range.

     

    If I had the images side by side I could tell the difference without a WFM. Or, at least, I can when I turn the effect on and off. It can be tough on certain frames, but it all comes down to what you ask the program to do. I didn't ask it to limit my IRE. I asked it to let me manually adjust my levels and until I actually change something, it should leave well enough alone.

     

    If I want is Broadcast Safe, I will ask the program to do that.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2013 4:20 AM   in reply to Steven L. Gotz

    Look at the badges in the Effects panel.  If the effect has a YUV badge, then it preserves the superwhite luminance values.  If it doesn't, it's an RGB effect.  As soon as you place an RGB effect on a clip with superwhites, they get clipped to 100 IRE.  Your choices for color correcting (including just correcting luminance) that work in YUV and preserve the superwhites are the Fast Color Corrector, the Three-Way Color Corrector and (in an ironic twist of fate) the RGB color corrector.

     

    If you want Levels to work in YUV and not RGB, it's time to make a trip the Feature Request page.

     

    Adobe - Feature Request/Bug Report Form

     

    Jeff

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2013 5:51 AM   in reply to Jeff Bellune

    Aha! Good catch. I never understood that properly. Wow!

     

    I have been working under a really bad assumption it seems.

     

    When I am working on a project and I need an effect, I click on the "Accelerated" badge and for some reason, I thought that all of the accelerated effects were newer, more modern somehow. And my little brain translated that into 64bit and YUV.

     

     

    If I can't find an effect to do what I want, I click the badge again and look through them all.

     

    From know on I guess I click two badges. Accelerated and YUV.

     

    Thanks Jeff.

     

    OK people, mass migration over to the Feature Request page. Let's innundate them with requests. When I get a chance, I will create a web page with this plea and link to it in my sig down below each post. Maybe we can get this done now that the real problem has been pointed out to us.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2013 8:29 AM   in reply to Steven L. Gotz

    From know on I guess I click two badges. Accelerated and YUV.

     

    It's actually even more complex than that.  Not all the effects work in the proper REC. 709 color space for HD.  Many of them will limit the color range to the older REC. 601 space from the days of standard definition.

     

    And we have no badges to tell us which effects are which.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2013 10:24 AM   in reply to Jeff Bellune
    As soon as you place an RGB effect on a clip with superwhites, they get clipped to 100 IRE

    Generally speaking, it shouldn't happen, likewise it doesn't happen in AE. Converting from RGB to YCbCr or vice versa is just a math with no constrains in the equations that would cause clipping to 100 IRE...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2013 12:02 PM   in reply to Steven L. Gotz

    I just don't think that the Levels effect should automatically limit the range.

     

    Well ..in that case...dont use it...but its a desireable effect in post for broadcast purposes.

     

     

    @Jim

    All it does is bring down what's over the top. The effect has always been very subtle and, as you claim with Levels, very hard to tell any difference. Sometimes I have to go into the WFM just to find out what part of the image is being affected. And unless you saw the original for comparison, you'd never know the scene had the effect.

     

     

    I am preparing some examples (frame & screen grabs)  showing the issues of the  Broadcast Safe filter and why I cant use it.  ( Its not a NTSC / PAL or media thing BTW)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2013 12:33 PM   in reply to Fuzzy Barsik

    Fuzzy Barsik wrote:

    Generally speaking, it shouldn't happen, likewise it doesn't happen in AE.

    It's what I have said from the begining. It's not normal for the Waveform to jump by just applying an instrument/effect that is not even one of the Auto effects.

     

    It doesn't happen in After Effects, nor does it in Final Cut ProX, nor does it in Edius, nor does it in Sony Vegas Pro. Should we understand that all these softs doesn't work right, just Premiere does?!? I hardly believe it!

     

    I like Premiere, but I hate to start any CC of a video in it. Because in Premiere almost all the time the scopes jumps. When applying Colorista II something in the RGB Parade moves/jumps, when applying Color Balance something in the RGB Parade moves/jumps, when applying Levels the Waveform jumps.... It seems like in most of the situations something is dancing or jumping in the Scopes of the Premiere without any normal reason.

     

    Take for exemple Fast Color Corrector. You apply it and the Waveform doesn't automatically jump to 100 IRE. In this case, I as an editor can see how much of the level of luminance I need to lower up to 100 IRE, which is quite corectly. With the Levels the situation changis and the start is not normal. By just applying, the Waveform jumps to 100 IRE. In this case how much should we lower the luminance up to the exactly legal limits?!? Nowbody knows it!

    So that "start point" in fact is just a bad start.

     

    "Not all the effects work in the proper REC. 709 color space for HD.  Many of them will limit the color range to the older REC. 601 space from the days of standard definition." [Jim Simon].

     

    I also think that this is the real reason of all these problems, just as an engineer of the Adobe team admitted a short time ago.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2013 12:29 PM   in reply to shooternz
    I am preparing some examples

     

    OK.  Be interesting to see what you're seeing.  I'll try and do the same here.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2013 1:30 PM   in reply to Jim Simon

     

    Part one of three posts in thread.

     

    Broadcast Filter Off (Saturation)

     

    2 Screen Grabs , 1 Frame Grab showing:

     

    BC Filter Setting Off. Scope, Frame

     

    Note : top left corner of the cheesecake and the edge of the plate in the image

     

    Filter Saturationff.PNG

     

    Filter Saturation off scope.PNGImage Saturation offsm.png

    See part 2 BC Filter ON

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2013 1:32 PM   in reply to shooternz

     

    Part two of three

     

    Broadcast Filter ON (Saturation)

     

    2 Screen Grabs , 1 Frame Grab showing:

     

    BC Filter Setting ON. Scope, Frame

     

    Note : top left corner of the cheesecake and the edge of the plate in the image

    Note Chroma Luminance is still not legalised and note hard clipping.

    Note mushy ugly key and haloing.

     

    Broadcast QC would reject this and there is no more that can be done in BC Filter to improve it!

     

    Filter Saturation On.PNG

     

    Filter Saturation on scope.PNG

    Image saturation onsm.png

    See Part 3 next

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2013 1:34 PM   in reply to shooternz

     

    Part three of three

     

    Levels Effect Applied ON

     

    2 Screen Grabs , 1 Frame Grab showing:

     

    Levels Effect - White Set at 245. ( most basic and simple tweak)

     

    Note : top left corner of the cheesecake and the edge of the plate in the image

    Note Chroma Luminance and Luma ....all legalised.

     

    Levels On 245.PNG

     

     

    Levels On 245 scope.PNG

    Image levels on 245sm.png

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2013 2:28 PM   in reply to shooternz

    This might be screwed up but I took image 1 and image 3 and put them side by side to make the comparison easier for ME to see...

     

    Shooter, if this is messed up let me know..but I did this to see myself the difference ...

     

    cake1And3.jpg

     

    edit.. ps.. im sorta surprised you dont go to about 10 with the black

    output along with the 245 white output ?

     

    edit pps.. I guess I should explain that about the black output.. in print ( offset press work ) it was common years ago to do that cause of dot gain and stuff.. to limit the outputs of white and black from PS.. and to some extent the gamma stuff might have some relative stuff going on in my own head at least re: this stuff.. like TV not liking closed black and open white and all that.. though obviously this has nothing to do with print.

     

    now you made me hungry for cheese cake ! So if that was the intent of your client it worked !

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2013 2:42 PM   in reply to able123

    edit.. ps.. im sorta surprised you dont go to about 10 with the black

    output along with the 245 white output ?

     

    Rod: I was only trying to show a simple test (example)  and not a full Grade and CC

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2013 11:37 PM   in reply to Jim Simon

    To be honest, when I was shooting DV or HDV this stuff didn't matter to me. I didn't know so I didn't care. Now that I am shooting a higher quality video and I will want to put slideshows of my photographs together, this is rather annoying.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 5, 2013 12:53 PM   in reply to Steven L. Gotz

    Specifically...whats "annoying" you Steven?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 5, 2013 3:09 PM   in reply to shooternz

    Craig,

     

    Like I said, when shooting video, I never really had a need for white to be 255,255,255. I mean, really, who needs that?

     

    However, when creating videos based on photographs to be played on a PC, I might very well want white to be as white as white can be.  Yet, I might want to use levels to work on the low end. I can't do that without it changing the high end.

     

    Now that I know about this, I can just use After Effects to do the work and then either export from there or bring it into Premiere Pro for some other kinds of work. I just won't use Levels in Premiere Pro for photographs. For video, probably, sure, why not?

     

    I just don't think that an effect, without specific parameter changes being made by the user, should change anything at all. Motion doesn't change the position of the video in the frame just because I click on it.

     

    Is this a big deal for me? Probably not. Is it incorrectly implemented? You bet!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 5, 2013 5:30 PM   in reply to Steven L. Gotz

    Steven

     

    Video white .. from no matter film or still...is 100% IRE.

     

    ie white in video  = no detail, .no color...WHITE!

     

    (no color means equal amounts RGB)

     

     

    To be honest, when I was shooting DV or HDV this stuff didn't matter to me.

    It should have mattered!

     

    Its a fundamental of movie /cinematography and an essential part of video post production ...ie grade levels first.  (Shadow>Highlight>Mids) within the IRE scale.

     

    This is not just about BC QC.

     

    BTW: As far as the OP and his post.  I am trying to show why secondaries do not entirely do the task of legalising his issue.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 5, 2013 8:30 PM   in reply to shooternz

    Craig,

     

    Perhaps I am missing something since I have never fully researched this type of thing before, but it seems to me that if the image looks one way before the effect is applied and looks another after the effects is applied, then the numbers have changed. The white that was 255,255,255 is no longer 255,255,255 - how can that not be a bad thing for non-broadcast video destined for a web site? If I am playing a video with a white background on a white web site, the whites should both be 255,255,255 not 235,235,235.

     

    What I meant was, that when I was shooting DV and HDV, I just let Premiere Pro do whatever it needed to do. I trusted it. There were no badges. We didn't need no stinkin' badges. If the levels were dropped to legal limits, that was probably a good thing back then. Now I want more control than I had before. I am not ready to just trust Adobe to have my best interests at heart anymore.

     

    Now that I am shooting RAW and adjusting images before they even get into Photoshop, I have been forced to look into this stuff more deeply. I think that prior to getting a DSLR, the point of the video was just to tell a story or to share an experience. Now I am forced to look at the images in a whole new way that I truly never considered before. They have to be the way I wanted them to look when I shot them. Not what the camera thought it should look like as a JPG according to some arbitrary setting.

     

    This is a whole new me. I used to think that cameras recorded pictures and you copied the pictures to Photoshop and if you wanted to change the jpg somehow, you could do that. Now, I am shooting picures and video with a higher dynamic range and I went to a lot of trouble and expense to make that happen. The pictures should look the way I remember the scene, not the way the camera remembers it. I don't want some effect in Premiere Pro messing with that. Especially since Adobe doesn't always do it, if After Effects does do it. Right?

     

    That is the bottom line. I want more control.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 5, 2013 10:27 PM   in reply to Steven L. Gotz

    The rule of shooting and post producing  Digital Video is "trust the waveform"

     

    (There is an equivalent rule for digital audio...but lets not go there...its messy...and it confuses me and I know not much about it..but its a rule)

     

    The video rule is ...one shoots and posts within a defined limit at each stage.

     

    The dynamic range of the camera needs to be "squeezed" into this IRE range at post production time so it displays correctly.

     

    You lose absolutely nothing by doing so visually or otherwise.

     

    The IRE scale  (WFM)  represents the entire spectrum of useable ( displayeable) levels from Black to White ( Shadow to Highlight)

     

    There is no more or no less that can be displayed.  Black is black...detail is in between ( entire gray scale) ..and white 100% IRE is white ( no detail in highlights)

     

    The  Levels Effect  in Premiere does not mess with it if you dont use it.  It is not obligatory to use it.  Use Curves or whatever...but in post and shooting..one needs to understand about the tonal scale ( ie levels) and how to get the image from a camera to a video display maintaining detail.

     

    Rule of shooting digital video  " Protect the highlights"  ie protect the detail in the highlights

     

    Once the detail is gone..its gone.

     

    Same with Blacks. Fill / Lift  the Shadows. Its easy to crush them in post but you cant get the detail back if it aint there.  ( Noise)

     

    (Similarly - probable rule of audio is protect the peaks.)

     

    Your bottom line. More control? You have what ever control you want and any number of ways of doing so.

     

    Try Da Vinci Resolve  ( Lite) .. Control comes in bucket loads...but the goal is the same..."squeeze" it into the IRE scale.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 6, 2013 2:29 AM   in reply to shooternz
    ..and white 100% IRE is white ( no detail in highlights)

    Just for the record: that's not quite accurate. Surprisingly a lot of data can be contained in super-whites.

    Original AVCHD footage with super-whites up to 1.2:

    Data in Super Whites. 01.jpg

    The same frame with some exposure correction:

    Data in Super Whites. 02.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 6, 2013 2:39 AM   in reply to Fuzzy Barsik

    Can you explain how you did that.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 6, 2013 3:03 AM   in reply to Ann Bens

    In After Effects set my project to 32 bit, linearised working space for the sake of more accurate blending in case I would need some compositing work while colour correcting, applied Exposure and tweaked it a bit (set to -0.5 for this particular shot). Voilà!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 6, 2013 3:12 AM   in reply to Fuzzy Barsik

    Thanks for the explanation, I was hoping you did that in PPro.

    But I will give it a shot in AE.

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 Previous Next
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)