Youtube changed my colors! What to do?

[poisondeathray]

There's one other issue that hasn't been discussed. I don't know if it applies to the Mac. Under Windows, media players (like WMP, MPCHC, VLC, KMPlayer, etc.) usually send YUV sources as YUV to the graphics card and the graphics card converts to RGB using its proc amp settings (separate from the Desktop color settings). But flash players in a browser convert to RGB in software then send RGB to the graphics card. So the exact same video can look different playing in a flash player vs. playing in a media player.

yes, there are way too many points of failure or where something could go wrong

QT by default , doesn't use proc amp settings or "overlay" settings, at least not directly. You can open multiple instances without affecting appearance (which you can't do with a windows based media player configured with overlay mixer or a renderer that uses proc amp settings). You can adjust the GFX card settings and see the changes in realtime in a windows based player using overlay mixer, but no change occurs in QT player (only the desktop GDI settings affect it directly).

But I don't know how he has it set up

[poisondeathray]

My approach is more pragmatic. Experience shows that anything "Apple" has been factory tweaked to give the illusion of "better", whilst maintaining the crucial divide necessary to differentiate the product.

In layman's terms: You can count on Apple to convolve everything. It's in their genes to NOT play well with others.

While I agree with you, their "strategy" seems to pay off. Look at their stock price and market cap over the last few years. 10 years ago they were almost bankrupt. Intel was pumping money into them.

But for whatever reason, consumers buy into it.

[budwzr]

[QUOTE=poisondeathray;2047236]

But for whatever reason, consumers buy into it.

I think the "less is more" mentality started when Nike proclaimed "Just Do It", and the Apple fans threw out "It just works" as a general all around defense to not having to actually learn something all the way through.

The insidious aspect of Apple is the false image they project as a grassroots movement of the "cool people", and the way they make fun of PC users as dweebs. They massage the egos of their customer base to exploit them financially.

The average Mac user has no idea or concept outside of .mov.

[thurnau]

http://www.automotivetouchup.com/video/fender.zip

I have the file on my folder zipped up. I am sorry that I could not get it to stream live for you guys. It takes about 30 seconds to download from my webserver.

[thurnau]

Also if it helps the video was recorded on a high end Canon DSLR.

[jagabo]

The colors and levels in your original MP4 and the Youtube reencoded MP4 are the same (aside from very minor variations from reencoding).

The levels are off, as in my earlier image with the luma graph. Darks are too dark, lights are too light. The video was converted from RGB to YUV with a PC matrix rather than a REC matrix.

As to whether the original used 709 or 601 color, it's not flagged in the MPEG 4 ASP data. MPEG 4 ASP is usually 601. HD is usually 709. So it's a tossup unless you know for sure what the camera shot and what the editor did. Just eyeballing it, judging by skin tones, I would say 601 is correct. But a lot depends on the lighting and makeup (?) that was used.

So Youtube didn't screw up your video and was displaying what it was given correctly. The original video itself is screwed up. And your player isn't displaying it properly.

[thurnau]

So can it be repaired? Or what quesiton should I be asking Fire on the Bayou?

[poisondeathray]

Jagabo is correct - so if you want it to display correctly on YT, you need to fix the levels so they are "legal". Quicktime player displays things incorrectly - Your "video guy" should know these things and judge things by looking at a waveform monitor

The gamma shift workaround listed earlier doesn't work for MPEG4 Part 2-ASP, only MPEG4 part10-AVC (or h.264, or AVC). And yes you can improve it, by adjusting levels (start by hiring jagabo). Also, you will NEVER get it looking exactly like your view in QT - it's not just a linear levels adjustment - there is a non linear gamma curve adjustment, plus hue shift, but fixing the levels alone will get it looking fairly close so at least the black detail isn't crushed. You can fiddle with other adjustments if you want.

Besides the illegal levels, the compression is poor, full of macroblocks. Do you still have the original project and assets? or is this low quality video all you have left ? Ideally, you would start by fixing the levels in the editor with the original assets, and exporting a higher quality format instead of suffering more quality loss from an already deteriorated video

You basically have 2 options in the future if your intended display target is youtube or anything else non mac : 1) calibrate your mac workflow such that it correlates with the rest of the world and industry standards (guess what ... if you make a DVD or blu-ray it will look similar to youtube, NOT QT player's screwed up gamma), or get a PC based workflow.

Also if it helps the video was recorded on a high end Canon DSLR.

PS. there is a "quirck" about canon DLSR's (e.g. 7D, 5D MK II) , they are HD formats but they use ITU Rec.601 instead of BT.709 for the matrix coefficients. Also , decoding this footage through quicktime gives a noticeable poorer image (no surprise), with more noise and "blockier" pixels and poor chroma upsampling. (have a look at 5DtoRGB http://rarevision.com/5dtorgb/ for a mac solution, but there are windows based workflows that give superior results as well.) Have a look at the decoder comparison below.

The take home message here is Apple software has many many problems, but at least there are some workarounds




before correction, illegal levels


after levels correction only, legal range


quicktime view




comparison of quicktime decoder vs ffmpeg (for a green screen shoot)

[thurnau]

Thank you poisondeathray. Quicktime and especially your correction version look more natural.

[jagabo]

Funny, I was about to upload the exact same frame with histogram images! My colors were a tiny bit different than yours. I used ConvertToRGB(matrix="pc.601") to fix the levels, ConvertToYV12() for Histogram(), then ConvertToRGB() again for export. What did you use?

[poisondeathray]

well the quicktime view is taken from quicktime - it should be what you are seeing. If you look closely the levels corrected version is "off" a bit. There is a reddish hue to it. Trust me, you can never get it 100% exact looking like how quicktime decodes it through any other decoder, especially flash (like youtube). ALSO, YT will always use BT.709 when converting to RGB for display - even for SD - , so it will ALWAYS look a bit off compared to video decoded in quicktime . The main issue in your case as jagabo pointed out, is the levels (especially the black level)

If you are starting with that video, all you have to do is fix the black level and overbrights, and boost the gamma a slight bit if you wanted to get close to the quicktime decoded image, but again, I would start with original assets and project - the version you provided is pixellated and messy , and if you upload that to youtube it will get worse as it re-encodes it again

There are lot of workflow issues with Canon DSLRs to get the most out of them. If you haven't already you should browse the cinema5d.com forum and various other camera forums for tips

Funny, I was about to upload the exact same frame with histogram images!

I beat you to it this time

My colors were a tiny bit different than yours. I used ConvertToRGB(matrix="pc.601") to fix the levels, ConvertToYV12() for Histogram(), then ConvertToRGB() again for export. What did you use?

I used smoothlevels(preset="pc2tv", gamma=1.1, chroma=100) , and took image in avsp (which will use rec.601 for RGB conversion if you don't specify a matrix) .

Of course this avisynth code won't help thurnau , but he can adjust the levels in a similar fashion in FCP for example, before uploading to youtube

[budwzr]

Whew!, ya'all boys skinned that chicken purty good

[lordsmurf]

All this effort for Youtube, one of the shittiest distribution options that exists?
Really?

Does color really have to be that exacting for such a low quality distribution?
Seems like a lot of wasted effort.

[thurnau]

All this effort for Youtube, one of the shittiest distribution options that exists?
Really?

Does color really have to be that exacting for such a low quality distribution?
Seems like a lot of wasted effort.

I paid for high quality work, and this is what I got. I expect that ot looks great on youtube, on DVD, Bluray, vimeo, etc.
With that said I haven't found a better source than youtube. It has brand recognition, a lot of bandwidth, and built in traffic. For streaming on the company website it has more bandwidth than I am allowed to use on our server, and although I might prefer pay a company like vimeo they do not accept commercial videos, and other companies want too much. For me youtube might just be an excellent choice.

Besides youtube I really need my videos to look great. Great HD videos with great content separate me from the competition. I have about 13 videos and the colors all look wrong.

[budwzr]

You got a lot of good feedback and we all learned something, so it's a win-win. Although a lot of that is over my head, I enjoyed the "seminar".

[poisondeathray]

I paid for high quality work, and this is what I got. I expect that ot looks great on youtube, on DVD, Bluray, vimeo, etc.
With that said I haven't found a better source than youtube. It has brand recognition, a lot of bandwidth, and built in traffic. For streaming on the company website it has more bandwidth than I am allowed to use on our server, and although I might prefer pay a company like vimeo they do not accept commercial videos, and other companies want too much. For me youtube might just be an excellent choice.

Besides youtube I really need my videos to look great. Great HD videos with great content separate me from the competition. I have about 13 videos and the colors all look wrong.

I think it was shot and edited ok, but the post production values are very low - not only are levels clipping and out of range, it full of pixellation and macroblocking

If that MP4 file you uploaded is the end product of "high quality work", honestly, you should look into getting a refund and a new "video guy"

Remember, Youtube re-encodes everything - this means if you upload a video that is already sub-par, it only looks worse when youtube re-encodes it.

[manono]

Remember, Youtube re-encodes everything - this means if you upload a video that is already sub-par, it only looks worse when youtube re-encodes it.

I wholeheartedly agree. In addition, to optimize videos for YouTube it's often a good idea to do things you wouldn't do if keeping them for yourself in the highest quality. The idea is to make them more compressible for the low bitrate YouTube uses. I regularly run mine through FFT3DFilter before uploading. Others might prefer different 'cleaners'. And if the source is blocky (which thurnau's apparently is but shouldn't be), I like to run them through Deblock_QED first.

[poisondeathray]

The problem w.r.t. the blocks is primarily an export compression choice and low bitrate : 1280x720p30 @ 1.7Mb/s MPEG4-ASP ...not AVC

I highly doubt the original footage has macroblocking

I would start over with the original project, fix the levels, then export using AVC with an adequate bitrate...and don't judge anything by quicktime (better yet, don't even use quicktime)

[thurnau]

Fire on the Bayou told me that he was working in RGB, should he have it in YV12 instead? Are there different colorspace exports for different viewing methods?
Does something meant for DVD or Blueray be in a different colorspace than something meant for the web?

[thurnau]

The main objective was to put these videos on the website and youtube. Or embed youtube videos on my website.
Second was to make excellent full original quality backups so that anyone or fire on the bayou can come back and reuse takes for a commercial, or other videos.
Third objective was to make a looped DVD for trade shows if we host a booth again.

[poisondeathray]

Fire on the Bayou told me that he was working in RGB, should he have it in YV12 instead? Are there different colorspace exports for different viewing methods?
Does something meant for DVD or Blueray be in a different colorspace than something meant for the web?

Virtually all end delivery formats are in YV12 ; this includes DVD, blu-ray , flash for web

But most editing software work in RGB , especially if any color correction work is done

The main objective was to put these videos on the website and youtube. Or embed youtube videos on my website.
Second was to make excellent full original quality backups so that anyone or fire on the bayou can come back and reuse takes for a commercial, or other videos.
Third objective was to make a looped DVD for trade shows if we host a booth again.

ok, but what was that MP4 file you uploaded ? if that was the high quality backup or even the high quality version to upload to youtube , you're in trouble

[jagabo]

All high compression codecs work internally in YV12. Many editors only work in RGB. The problems in your video don't stem from working in RGB (though it's preferable to work completely in YV12 if possible) but from incorrect conversion of RGB to YV12 and use of an inferior codec (MPEG 4 part 2, instead of MPEG 4 part 10).

[bsharp87]

This was uploaded to Youtube a few days ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhVFaJp3kT8

The colors were definitely compromised, but it serves its purpose for me. It was shot with an HD digital camera, but Youtube compressed it some I see.

[thurnau]

My video guy did some of your suggestions, or bumped up the levels and it was quite acceptable for me. Thank you for your help guys.

here is the newest video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k7ItuiR890