There are few clients who truly qualify as “the client from Hell”. Clients have their own stresses that may be unseen or unknown to the editor. Nevertheless, some create extremely stressful edit sessions. I previously wrote about the color bar fiasco in Jacksonville. That client returned for numerous campaigns. Many of the edit sessions were overnight and each was a challenge.
Editing with a client is all about the interpersonal dynamics. In this case, the agency came down with an entourage – director, creative director, account executive, BTS photographer, and others. The director had been a big-time commercial director in the days of cigarette ads on TV. When those were pulled, his business dried up. So he had a retainer deal with this agency. However, the retail spots that I was cutting were the only TV spots the agency (owned by a larger corporation as an in-house agency) was allowed to do. For much of the run, the retail spots featured a celebrity actor/spokesman, which probably explained the entourage.
Often editors complain about a client sitting next to them and starting to crowd their working space as that client edges closer to the monitor. In these sessions the creative director and director would sit on either side of me – left and right. Coming from a film background, they were less familiar with video advances like timecode and insisted on using stopwatches to time every take. Of course, given reaction times and the fact that both didn’t get the same length, there was a lot of, “Please rewind and play it again.” At least on one occasion I was prompted to point to the edit controller display and remind them that I had the world’s most expensive stopwatch right there. I could tell them exactly how long the clip was. But, to no avail.
The worst part was that the two would get into arguments with each other – across me! Part of this was just personality and part of it was that they had written the spots in the hotel room the night before the shoot. (Prior planning? Harumph!) In any case, there were numerous sessions when I just had to excuse myself from the room while they heatedly hashed it out. “Call me when you’ve made a decision.”
There was an ironic twist. One quiet gentleman in the back of the room seemed to be the arbiter. He could make a decision when neither of them would. At the beginning I had assumed that he was the person really in charge. As it turned out, he was the account executive and they largely discounted him and his opinions. Yet, he had the best understanding of their client, which is why, when all else failed, they deferred to him!
Over the course of numerous sessions we pumped out commercial campaigns in spite of the stress. But those sessions always stick in my mind as some of the quirkiest I’ve ever had.
In a former life, video deliverables were on videotape and no one seriously used the internet for any mission-critical media projects. TVs and high-quality video monitors used essentially the same display technology and standards. Every videotape started with SMPTE color bars used as a reference to set up the playback of the tape deck. Monitors were calibrated to bars and gray scale charts to assure proper balance, contrast, saturation, and hue. If the hardware was adjusted to this recognized standard, then what you saw in an edit suite would also be what the network or broadcaster would see going out over the air.
Fast forward to the present when nearly all deliverables are sent as files. Aesthetic judgements – especially by clients and off-site producers – are commonly made viewing MOV or MP4 files on some type of computer or device screen. As an editor who also does color correction, making sure that I’m sending the client a file that matches what I saw when it was created is very important.
Color management and your editing software
In researching and writing several articles and posts about trusting displays and color management, I’ve come to realize the following. If you expect the NLE viewer to be a perfect match with the output to a video display or an exported file playing in every media player, then good luck! The chances are slim.
There are several reasons for this. First, Macs and PCs use different gamma standards when displaying media files. Second, not all computer screens work in the same color space. For instance, some use P3-D65 while others use sRGB. Third, these color space and gamma standards differ from the standards used by televisions and also projection systems.
I’ll stick to standard dynamic range (SDR) in this discussion. HDR is yet another mine field best left for another day. The television display standard for SDR video is Rec. 709 with a 2.4 gamma value. Computers do not use this; however, NLEs use it as the working color space for the timeline. Some NLEs will also emulate this appearance within the source and record viewers in order to match the Rec. 709, 2.4 gamma feed going out through the i/o hardware to a video monitor.
As with still photos, a color profile is assigned when you export a video file, regardless of file wrapper or codec. This color profile is metadata that any media player software can use to interpret how a file should be displayed to the screen. For example, if you edit in Premiere Pro, Adobe uses a working SDR color space of Rec. 709 with 2.4 gamma. Exported files are assigned a color profile of 1-1-1. They will appear slightly lighter and less saturated in QuickTime Player as compared with the Premiere Pro viewer. That’s because computer screens default to a different gamma value – usually 1.96 on Macs. However, if you re-import that file back into Premiere, it will be properly interpreted and will match the original within Premiere. There’s nothing wrong with the exported file. It’s merely a difference based on differing display targets.
The developer’s conundrum
A developer of editing software has several options when designing their color management system. The first is to assume that the viewer should match Rec. 709, 2.4 gamma, since that’s the television standard and is consistent with legacy workflows. This is the approach taken by Adobe, Avid, and Blackmagic, but with some variations. Premiere Pro offers no alternate SDR timeline options, but After Effects does. Media Composer editors can set the viewer based on several standards and different video levels for Rec. 709: legal range (8-bit levels of 16-235) versus full range (8-bit levels of 0-255). Blackmagic enables different gamma options even when the Rec. 709 color space is selected.
Apple has taken a different route with Final Cut Pro by utilizing ColorSync. The same image in an FCP viewer will appear somewhat brighter than in the viewer of other NLEs; however, it will match the playback of an exported file in QuickTime Player. In addition, the output through AJA or Blackmagic i/o hardware to a video display will also match. Not only does the image look great on Apple screens, but it looks consistent across all apps on any Apple device that uses the ColorSync technology.
You have to look at it this way. A ton of content is being delivered only over the internet via sites like Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube rather than through traditional broadcast. A file submitted to a large streamer like Netflix will be properly interpreted within their pipeline, so no real concerns there. This begs the question. Should the app’s viewer really be designed to emulate Rec. 709, 2.4 gamma or should it look correct for the computer’s display technology?
The rubber meets the road
Here’s what happens in actual practice. When you export from Premiere Pro, Final Cut Pro, or Media Composer, the result is a media file tagged with the 1-1-1 color profile. For Premiere and Media Composer, exports will appear with somewhat less contrast and saturation than the image in the viewer.
In Resolve, you can opt to work in Rec. 709 with different gamma settings, including 2.4 or 709-A (“A” for Apple, I presume). These two different output settings would look the same until you start to apply a color grade (so don’t switch midstream). If you are set to 2.4 (or automatic), then the exported file has a color profile of 1-2-1. But with 709-A the exported file has a color profile of 1-1-1. These Resolve files will match the viewer and each other, but will also look darker than the comparable Premiere Pro and FCP exports.
All of the major browsers use the color profile. So do most media players, except VLC. These differences are also apparent on a PC, so it’s not an Apple issue per se. More importantly the profile determines how a file is interpreted. For instance, the two Resolve ProRes exports (one at 1-1-1, the other at 1-2-1) look the same in this first generation export. But let’s say you use Adobe Media Encoder to generate H.264 MP4 viewing copies from those ProRes files. The transcoded MP4 of the 709-A export (1-1-1 color profile) will match its ProRes original. However, the transcoded MP4 of the 2.4 export (1-2-1 color profile) will now look a bit brighter than its ProRes original. That’s because the color profile of the MP4 has been changed to 1-1-1.
Gamma changes mostly affect the midrange and shadow portion of a video signal. Therefore, differences are also more or less apparent depending on content. The more extreme your grading, the more apparent (and to some, obnoxious) these differences become. If these really bother you, then there are several ways to create files that are “enhanced” for computer viewing. This will make them a bit darker and more saturated.
You can tweak the color correction by using an adjustment layer to export a file with a bit more contrast and saturation. In Premiere Pro, you can use a Lumetri effect in the adjustment layer to add a slight s-curve along with a 10% bump in saturation.
You can use a QT Gamma Correction LUT (such as from Adobe) as part of the export. However, in my experience, it’s a bit too dark in the shadows for my taste.
You can pass the exported file through After Effects and create a separate sRGB version.
These approaches are not transparent. In other words, you cannot re-import these files and expect them to match the original. Be very careful about your intentions when using any of these hacks, because you are creating misadjusted files simply for viewing purposes.
In the end, is it really right to use Rec. 709 2.4 gamma as the standard for an NLE viewer? Personally, I think Apple used the better and more modern approach. Should you do any of these hacks? Well, that’s up to you. More and more people are reviewing content on smart phones and tablets – especially iPhones and iPads – all of which show good-looking images. So maybe these concerns are simply much ado about nothing.
Or paraphrasing Dr. Strangelove – How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Color Profiles.
I’m previously written about the challenge of consistent gamma and saturation across multiple monitoring points. Getting an app’s viewer, QuickTime playback, and the SDI output to all look the same can be a fool’s errand. If you work on a Mac, then there are pros and cons to using Mac displays like an iMac. In general, Apple’s “secret sauce” works quite well for Final Cut Pro. However, if you edit or grade in Resolve, Premiere Pro, or Media Composer, then you aren’t quite as lucky. I’ve opined that you might actually need to generate separate files for broadcast and web deliverables.
The extra step of optimized file creation isn’t practical for most. In my case, the deliverables I create go to multiple platforms; however, few are actually destined for traditional broadcast or to be played in a theater. In most cases, my clients are creating content for the web or to be streamed in various venues. I predominantly edit in Premiere Pro and grade with Resolve. I’ve been tinkering with color management settings in each. The goal is a reasonably close match across both app viewers, the output I see to a Rec 709 display, and the look of the exported file when I view it in QuickTime Player on the computer.
Some of this advice might be a bit contrary to what I previously wrote. Both situations are still valid, depending on the projects you edit or grade. Granted, this is based on what I see on iMac and iMac Pro displays, so it may or may not be consistent with other display brands or when using PCs. And this applies to SDR, Rec 709, or sRGB outputs and not HDR grading. As a starting point, leave the Mac display profile alone. Don’t change its default profile. Yes, I know an iMac is P3, but that’s simply something you’ll have to live with.
Adobe Premiere Pro
Premiere Pro’s Rec 709 timelines are based on 2.4 gamma, which is the broadcast standard. However, an exported file is displayed with a QuickTime color profile of 1-1-1 (1.96 gamma). The challenge is to work with the Premiere Pro viewer and see an image that matches the exported file. I have changed to disabling (unchecking) the Display Color Management in General Preferences. This might seem counter-intuitive, but it results in a setting where the viewer, a Rec 709 output to a monitor, and the exported image all largely look the same.
If you enable Display Color Management, you’ll get an image in the viewer with a somewhat closer match for saturation, but gamma will be darker than the QuickTime or the video monitor. If you disable this setting, the gamma will be a better match (shadows aren’t crushed); however, the saturation of reds will be somewhat enhanced in the Premiere Pro viewer. It’s a bit of a trade-off, but I prefer the setting to be off.
Blackmagic Design DaVinci Resolve
Resolve has multiple places that can trip you up. But I’ve found that once you set them up, the viewer image will be a closer match to the exported file and to the Rec 709 image than is the case for Premiere Pro. There are three sections to change. The first is in the Project Settings pane (gear menu). This is the first place to start with every new Resolve project. Under Color Management, set the Timeline color space to Rec. 709 (Scene). I’ve experimented with various options, including ACES. Unfortunately the ongoing ACES issue with fluorescent color burned me on a project, so I’ll wait until I really have a need to use ACES again. Hopefully it will be less of a work-in-progress then. I’ve gone back to working in Rec. 709, but new for me is to use the Scene variant. I also turn on Broadcast Safe, but use the gentler restricted range of -10 to -110.
The next adjustment is in Resolve Preferences. Go to the General section and turn on: Use 10-bit precision in viewers, Use Mac display color profiles, and Automatically tag Rec. 709 Scene clips as Rec. 709-A. What this last setting does is make sure the exports are tagged with the 1-1-1 QuickTime color profile. If this is not checked, the file will be exported with a profile of 1-2-1 (2.4 gamma) and look darker when you play it to the desktop using QuickTime Player.
The last setting is on the Deliver page. Data levels can be set to Auto or Video. The important thing is to set the Color Space Tag and Gamma Tag to Same as Project. By doing so, the exported files will adhere to the settings described above.
Making these changes in Premiere Pro and Resolve gives me more faith in what I see in the viewer of each application. My exports are a closer match with fewer surprises. Is it a perfect match? Absolutely not. But it’s enough in the ballpark for most footage to be functional for editing purposes. Obviously you should still make critical image and color adjustments using your scopes and a calibrated reference display, but that’s not always an option. Going with these settings should mean that if you have to go by the computer screen alone, then what you see will be close to what you get!
In the “good old days” of post, directors, cinematographers, and clients would all judge final image quality in an online edit or color correction suite using a single, calibrated reference monitor. We’ve moved away from rooms that look like the bridge of the Enterprise into more minimalist set-ups. This is coupled with the current and possibly future work-from-home and general remote post experiences. Without everyone looking at the same reference display, it becomes increasingly difficult to be sure that what everyone sees is actually the proper appearance of the image. For some, clients rarely comes into the suite anymore. Instead, they are often making critical judgements based on what they see on their home or work computers and/or devices.
The lowest common denominator
Historically, a common item in most recording studios was a set of Auratone sound cubes. These small, single speaker monitors, which some mixers dubbed “awful-tones,” were intended to provide a representation of the mix as it would sound on radios and cheaper hi-fi audio set-ups. TV show re-recording mixers would also use these to check a mix in order to hear how it would translate to home TV sets.
Today, smart phones and tablets have become the video equivalent of that cheap hi-fi set-up. Generally that means Apple iPhones or iPads. In fact, thanks to Apple’s color management, videos played back on iPads and iPhones do approximate the correct look of your master file. As editors or colorists, we often ask clients to evaluate the image on an Apple device, not because they are perfect (they aren’t), but rather because they are the best of the many options out in the consumer space. In effect, checking against an iPhone has become the modern video analog of the Auratone sound cubes.
Apple color management
Apple’s color management includes several techniques that are helpful, but can also trip you up. If you are going to recommend that your clients use an iPhone, iPad, or even on iMac to judge the material, then you also want to make sure they have correctly set up their device. This also applies to you, the editor, if you are creating videos and only making judgements on an iMac (or XDR) display, without any actual external video (not computer) display.
Apple computers enable the use of different color profiles and the ability to make adjustments according to calibration. If you have a new iMac, then you are generally better off leaving the color profile set to the default iMac setting instead of fiddling with other profiles. New Apple device displays are set to P3 D65 color with a higher brightness capacity (up to 500 nits – more with XDR). You cannot expect them to perfectly reproduce an image that looks 100% like a Rec 709 100 nits TV set. But, they do get close.
I routinely edit/grade with Media Composer, Premiere Pro, DaVinci Resolve, and Final Cut Pro on iMacs and iMac Pros. Of these four, only Final Cut Pro shows an image in the edit viewer window that is relatively close to the way that image appears on the video output to a monitor. This is thanks to Apple’s color management and the broader Apple hardware/software ecosystem. The viewer image for the other three may look darker, be more saturated, have richer reds, and/or show more contrast.
Once you get past the color profile (Mac only), then most Apple devices offer two or three additional user controls (depending on OS version). Obviously there’s brightness, which can be manual or automatic. When set to automatic, the display will adjust brightness based on the ambient light. Generally auto will be fine, unless you really need to see crucial shadow detail. For example, the pluge portion of a test pattern (darkest gray patches) may not be discernible unless you crank up the brightness or are in a dark room.
Nevertheless, they do have a pleasing effect, because these features make the display warmer or cooler based on the time of day or the color temperature of the ambient light in the room. Typically the display will appear warmer at night or in a dimmer room. If you are working with a lot of white on the screen, such as working with documents, then these modes do feel more comfortable on your eyes (at least for me). However, your brain adjusts to the color temperature shift of the display when using something like True Tone. The screen doesn’t register in your mind as being obviously warm.
If you are doing anything that involves judging color, the LAST thing you want to use is True Tone or Night Shift. This applies to editing, color correction, art, photography, etc. It’s important to note that these settings only affect the way the image is displayed on the screen. They don’t actually change the image itself. Therefore, if you take a screen grab with True Tone or Night Shift set very cool or warm, the screen grab itself will still be neutral.
In my case, I leave these off for all of the computers I use, but I’m OK with leaving them on for my iPhone and iPad. However, this does mean I need to remember to turn the setting off whenever I use the iPhone or iPad to remotely judge videos. And there’s the rub. If you are telling your client to remotely judge a video using an Apple device – and color is part of that evaluation – then it’s imperative that you ask them (and maybe even teach them how) to turn off those settings. Unless they are familiar with the phenomena, the odds are that True Tone and/or Night Shift has been enabled on their device(s) and they’ve never thought twice about it simply because the mind adjusts.
QuickTime Player is the default media player for many professionals and end users, especially those using Macs. The way QuickTime displays a compatible file to the screen is determined by the color profile embedded into the file metadata. If I do a color correction session in Resolve, with the color management set to Rec 709 2.4 gamma (standard TV), then when I render a ProRes file, it will be encoded with a color profile of 1-2-1 (the 2 indicates 2.4 gamma).
If I export that same clip from Final Cut Pro or Premiere Pro (or re-encode the Resolve export through one of those apps) the resulting ProRes now has a profile of 1-1-1. The difference through QuickTime Player is that the Resolve clip will look darker in the shadows than the clip exported from FCP or Premiere Pro. Yet both files are exactly the same. It’s merely how QuickTime player displays it to the screen based on the metadata. If I open both clips in different players, like Switch or VLC, which don’t use this same metadata, then they will both appear the same, without any gamma shift.
How should one deal with such uncertainties? Obviously, it’s a lot easier to tackle when everyone is in the same room. Unfortunately, that’s a luxury that may become totally obsolete. It already has for many. Fortunately most people aren’t as sensitive to color issues as the typical editor, colorist, or DP. In my experience, people tend to have greater issues with the mix than they do with color purity. But that doesn’t preclude you from politely educating your client and making sure certain best practices are followed.
First, make sure that features like True Tone and Night Shift are disabled, so that a neutral image is being viewed. Second, if you use a review-and-approval service, like frame.io or Vimeo, then you can upload test chart image files (color bars, grayscale, etc). These may be used whenever you need to check the image with your client. Is the grayscale a neutral gray in appearance or is it warmer or cooler? Can you see separation in the darkest and brightest patches of these charts? Or are they all uniformly black or white? Knowing the answers will give you a better idea about what the client is seeing and how to guide them to change or improve their settings for more consistent results.
Finally, if their comments seem to relate to a QuickTime issue, then suggest using a different player, such as Switch (free with watermarks will suffice) or VLC.
The brain, eyes, and glasses
Some final considerations… No two people see colors in exactly the same way. Many people suffer from mild color blindness, i.e. color vision deficiencies. This means they may be more or less sensitive to shades of some colors. Eye glasses affect your eyesight. For example, many glasses, depending on the coatings and material, will yellow over time. I cannot use polycarbonate lenses, because I see chromatic aberration on highlights wearing this material, even though most opticians and other users don’t see that at all. CR-9 (optical plastic) or glass (no longer sold) are the only eyeglass materials that work for me.
If I’m on a flight in a window seat, then the eye closest to the window is being bombarded with a different color temperature of light than the eye towards the plane’s interior. This can be exacerbated with sunglasses. After extended exposure to such a differential, I can look at something neutral and when I close one eye or the other, I will see the image with a drastically different color temperature for one eye versus the other. This eventually normalizes itself, but it’s an interested situation.
You may know him as a speaker, trainer, or web presenter. Or from the long-running Digital Production Buzz podcast series. Or his 2 Reel Guys series with the late Norman Hollyn. Regardless of how, Larry Jordan is well-known by most working and aspiring video professionals. But Jordan is also an accomplished author, with several books to his credit. The latest is Techniques of Visual Persuasion + Create powerful images that motivate.
Commercials, corporate videos, or entertainment – the art of persuasion is at the heart of what every editor does. Persuasion is about convincing someone to want to do whatever action you want to have happen or to share a feeling you are trying to convey. In addition to creating persuasive messages, we ourselves are also consumers and recipients of these same communications. Therefore, knowledge and understanding is key. It is Jordan’s premise that with modern life’s faster pace, proper communication today is more like haiku than a lengthy report. Every professional needs to know how to make their presentation – whether spoken, still, or motion – succinct and impactful. This book is perfectly laid out to get that point across.
Techniques of Visual Persuasion is arranged into three sections. The first covers the fundamentals of persuasion. The second is about developing persuasive still images and the last section is about persuasive motion images. This book is arranged like a text book, which is a good thing. It’s well-researched and detailed. Each chapter starts with the goals to be covered and ends with a recap. Each is also capped off with an anecdote (like Larry starting a fire in a TV studio) or a guest contributor’s point-of-view. The pages are illustrated nicely with sidebars, images, and charts that help make the point of how and why one example is more inviting or persuasive than another.
Jordan covers a wide range of theoretical and practice advice, such as the 180-degree rule, the rule of thirds, three-point lighting, sans serif vs. serif fonts, and much more. But it’s not all just concepts. Jordan has a lengthy background in software training, including several books around Final Cut Pro and Adobe products, as well as his PowerUp series of videos.
Section two includes two chapters on the basics of Photoshop with practical examples of how to use its tools to enhance and repair still images and create layered composites. Section three goes even deeper into real-world experience. Jordan covers topics, such as suggested camera and audio equipment, interviewing techniques, how to properly record audio, and how to properly plan and produce a video shoot. This section also goes deepest into software basics, including a detailed look at Adobe Audition, Apple Final Cut Pro X, and Apple Motion.
Techniques of Visual Persuasion is a like a college film program condensed into under 400 informative pages. All of it written in a very engaging manner. I found that it’s not only a good first read, but useful to have around for a quick reference, whether you are just entering the field or have been in the business for years. Larry Jordan is a gifted presenter who can express complex topics in an easy-to-digest manner and this latest book is no exception.