Color Space Question... using Lagarith Lossless Codec.

Hi all,
I use the Lagarith Lossless Codec for all my source editing files importing into Premiere Pro and for exporting to my encoder I use.
My question is this. I found that most of my sources are in YUV color space, so when I prep them for editing using VirtualDub, etc... I export them to Lagarith Lossless Codec in the YUY2 color space setting. The size difference between using RGB and YUY2 is enough to make me want to just use YUY2. So when editing those prepped files in YUY2 in Premiere Pro and them exporting the in the same YUY2 color space configuration, does it degrade in quality at all? I heard somewhere that Premiere Pro ONLY edits in RGB color space. So am I really messing up here or is it safe to do what I am doing?
Thanks in advance!

Premiere Pro will keep the color space of the original media. And many of the effects can now also operate in YUV space (They are marked by the YUV icon.) However, any effects you use that are not marked with that icon will force an RGB conversion.

Similar Messages

Recommended color space to use with my D50

Hi -
I'm pretty new to Mac and I'm now finding time to work with digital photos taken with my Nikon D50. Having read up on some things, I realize Mac OS and iPhoto can match the color space of the imported photos as an attempt to keep colors consistent between camera, computer, and eventually the printer. I was wondering what is a recommended color space to use when shooting. Nikon offers 3 choices - IIIa ( sRGB with a boost to green ), Ia ( sRGB ) and II ( Adobe RGB ). I believe their IIIa is my default and I have not changed it. I've noticed, however, that when I took a picture of my daughter in her prom dress outdoors in natural sunlight, it rendered it's magenta color as more red than magenta. Would Adobe RGB be better ? I read some articles here on color and I believe somewhere in the article it said the Adobe RGB color space has a broader color gamut than sRGB.
Any opinions ?
Thanks in advance,
Bill

I don't have a Nikon (I use Sony's) and I find my cameras output matches up well with sRGB. iPhoto seems to use sRGB as well. Adobe RGB comes up very saturated, too saturated for my taste. When I use Adobe. I set Adobe to sRGB as well.
Magenta is a tough color and many fabrics reflect infrared and/or uv band and some camera sensors can pick that up. You may find the same effect with flowers.
Gamut depends more on where you plan to output the images. A broader gamut is not always the best thing for displays but may work well for printing. Personally I find sRGB works well for me.

HSB Color Space Question - How Many Colors Are There In Photoshop

Hello guys, I have a sort of basic question that I have been trying to figure out for a few days.
I am trying to find out how many colors there are in the Color Picker when the Hue radio button is selected.
I know there are 256^3 RGB (#Hex) colors, and I am trying to find some relationship when I am coloring with HSB color space in Photoshop.
It just confuses me because the Hue slider goes from 0-359 and the S and B goes from 0-99...
So how many HSB colors in Photoshop are there? Am I missing out on some colors by using HSB color space in Photoshop as oposed to using RGB?
Are there the exact same amount? Are there more and there are duplicates in HSB space mode?
Thank you all for all your help, much appreciated
Travis

misterfowly wrote:
I know there are 256^3 RGB (#Hex) colors, and I am trying to find some relationship when I am coloring with HSB color space in Photoshop.
It just confuses me because the Hue slider goes from 0-359 and the S and B goes from 0-99...
So how many HSB colors in Photoshop are there? Am I missing out on some colors by using HSB color space in Photoshop as oposed to using RGB?
The deficiency of such mathematical models is that they do not take into account noise and human perception. In an 24 bit RGB space (8 bits per channel) there may be 16 million colors, but this assumes that there are 256 discrete levels in each color channel. You could increase the number of colors by using a 48 bit space. In practice, noise will reduce the number of discrete levels, and this will vary with the camera and ISO used in that camera. For example, consider the Nikon D5000 as evaluated by DXO. At base ISO the camera can resolve only 21.8 bits of color information and this decreases to 15.6 bits at an effective ISO of 2079 (camera ISO setting of 3200).
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Nikon/D5000
Then you have to consider how many of these colors can actually be differentiated by the human visual system. If you can't see a difference, it really doesn't matter.These differences are difficult to quantitate. One such effort uses MacAdam ellipses shown in this Wikipedia article on a CIE 1931 xy plot. How many of these ellipses are contained in the CIE xy space? The DXO site has similar ellipses for real world camera images.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacAdam_ellipse
See this RIT FAQ for a more sober real world analysis. The actual number of colors is in the millions, but likely not 16 million.
http://www.cis.rit.edu/mcsl/outreach/faq.php?catnum=1#219
In a real world situation, I would not be overly concerned about differences between the RGB and HSB spaces, but one could increase precision by using a 48 bit space.

Color Space Question For Printing

I have multiple newbie questions so please bear with me
Normally when working in photoshop, I tend to use the RGB color space as I need the use of filters and other effects not available in CMYK, Now when printing flyers E.g A4 Sized I tend to save the PSD in RGB (Without Flattening) and then importing it into a CMYK color space in illustrator and then exporting as a PDF, as illustrator gives me the option to create bleed as well as trim marks, I have never exported a PDF from photoshop as it always gives me the option of photoshop pdf which is kinda heavy.
My question is, is the process I use okay for printing? or do I first need to convert it into CMYK? or just export from photoshop itself? Also, the other reason I use illustrator is if i'm making a business card with two sides, since text is better exported from illustrator.
Could anyone tell me a simpler process for creating for digital print? Especially if I need to do some items in illustrator as well.

>> images are still a bit washed out with a warmish/ yellow cast to them, particularly, my black and white images
Here is a simple test to help evaluate if the monitor profile is reasonably good:
Open a RGB file in Photoshop (flatten if not already flattened).
Press M key> Drag a selection> Com+Shift+U (Desaturate).
Com+Z (to toggle back and forth).
If the unsaturated selection looks neutral you've got a reasonably fair monitor profile.
If selection has color casts (not neutral) -- you have a bad monitor profile
+++++
Here is a simple test to help evaluate if a bad monitor profile is whacking out your Photoshop color:
Monitors/Displays (control panel)> Color> highlight AppleRGB or sRGB (don't run Calibrate), quit and reboot.
If the Photoshop colors are back under control, then the problem was most surely a bad monitor profile go back into Monitors/Displays> Color and Calibrate a good profile highlight (load) sRGB, or preferably, the monitor's OEM profile as a starting point.
If you are using a puck, it is likely defective; or your monitor hardware is the culprit...search it on Google by model number

Color Space Question

I've imported a jpg created in photoshop with embedded sRGB profile(via Save for Web), but when I soft proof to Lightroom's sRGB profile I see out-of-gamut colors. Is Lightroom doing something with the imported color space?

It's a bug. In both ACR, LR and Photoshop. Of course it show no OOG colors but shouldn't. Ignore it. In fact, the OOG overlay which predates Photoshop 5 with real soft proofing isn't at all useful.

Color space question for photoshop cs on mac os10

I'm sure this has been beaten to death here before. I've been dealing with color space issues for months now, and I'm about at my wits end.
I realize that I should be saving in sRGB in order to get the same looking photo on the web that I get in photoshop. I go image-mode- convert to profile- destination space- profile: srgb profile. I've tried saving for web. I check "ICC" when I do that. When I just save an image as a jpeg (from a tiff), I check the box that says, "embed color profile." Still, my images look washed out on my website (which I made with iweb)- which I'm trying to put my images in a new web interface (flash palette) and my images STILL look washed out. The weird thing is, I NEVER have this issue when I upload images to photobucket or to the photography forum that I frequent.
What the heck am I doing wrong??
Thanks,
Hope

>> images are still a bit washed out with a warmish/ yellow cast to them, particularly, my black and white images
Here is a simple test to help evaluate if the monitor profile is reasonably good:
Open a RGB file in Photoshop (flatten if not already flattened).
Press M key> Drag a selection> Com+Shift+U (Desaturate).
Com+Z (to toggle back and forth).
If the unsaturated selection looks neutral you've got a reasonably fair monitor profile.
If selection has color casts (not neutral) -- you have a bad monitor profile
+++++
Here is a simple test to help evaluate if a bad monitor profile is whacking out your Photoshop color:
Monitors/Displays (control panel)> Color> highlight AppleRGB or sRGB (don't run Calibrate), quit and reboot.
If the Photoshop colors are back under control, then the problem was most surely a bad monitor profile go back into Monitors/Displays> Color and Calibrate a good profile highlight (load) sRGB, or preferably, the monitor's OEM profile as a starting point.
If you are using a puck, it is likely defective; or your monitor hardware is the culprit...search it on Google by model number

Srgb color space question

Does Lightroom convert jpg files to srgb color space when exporting?

LR converts them to the colorspace specified on the Export panel. There are several choices, including sRGB. You may need to expand various sections to see the option.

Basic Color Profiles Question (using PNG's)

Hi,
I've read up on color profiles, and I must admit, it all seems a bit complicated to me.
I've tried saving images with sRGB color profile, Adobe RGB, and even NO color profile.
While each test has yielded various saturation levels (sRGB seems more saturated than Adobe RGB), the one single constant in all of them is that IE displays more (too?) colorful images than FF.
I understand that IE doesn't color manage while FF does, but that hardly explains the results I'm getting. If I don't color manage a document, shouldn't it display the same way in IE and FF? And how to explain that the sRGB profile documents are more saturated in IE than the Adobe RGB ones, if IE cannot read color profiles? And why does FF display *both* sRGB and Adobe RGB as less saturated than these same images in IE?
Thanks.

Actually, Photoshop DOES embed a profile in a PNG if you use Save As, not Save for Web. Go figure.
[ admin - it was an oversight, that some bored engineer undoubtedly has addressed by now ]
Microsoft shows no sign of interest in advancing the state of the art of computing, and I mean that in the most serious, somber way. There's no evidence that Internet Explorer will ever take into account a monitor profile.
And no, there's no way to make Firefox and IE match on anything but an sRGB monitor. Sorry. This is one reason why I have set up an sRGB reference system myself.
-Noel

Print & color space question

Have an illustrator cs6 file I just sent to a client for printing. It has linked rgb and CMYK files. When I sent the file I forgot to convert the rgb images to CMYK. They were linked psd and tiff files. Don't have direct contact with who will print. Do I need to worry about the RGB images outputting poorly? Or will Illustrator handle the conversion ok just in case printer doesn't check the files carefully.

You haven't said a word about what kind of document it is or what kind of images it contains.
For all anyone trying to advise you knows, it could be a $60,000 press run of a poster for the next blockbuster movie. Or it could be a $60 run of a flier for the local Girl Scout troop. Or anything in between.
The image may be a commissioned studio portrait of the hottest current rock star. Or it may be a simple geometric graphic for which no one but you knows the "correct" color anyway.
I'm not being a wise-guy. I'm making a point that far too many people who sweat blood over color calibration overlook entirely: How color critical is it? That's the first and foremost consideration regarding any practical answer to your question.
Designers have been placing RGB images in documents destined for process separation ever since the 80s, and the vast majority of the time, for most practical purposes, the automatic conversion to CMYK comes out fine.
It's quite doubtful that anyone is going to hold a spectrophotometer up to your printed piece and then publicly crucify you as a color-ignorant dolt. (There are plenty of such dolts sweating blood over hair-splitting color calibration, all the while oblivious to the far more dramatic improvement possible with a little color correction.)
It's probably just fine; but so far only you know how color-critical the job is.
JET

Using lossless codec with air tunes / airport express

i recently installed an airport express so that i can listen to my itunes library on my stereo. i have connected the airport to my stereo using a toslink cable. most of my library is encoded at 192kbs or 128 kbs aac files. i was hoping that if i encoded music using the lossless codec that i would be able to match the sound i get from my cd player through the stereo. my early tests have not worked well. if i compare a song in my itues encoded at 128, 192, 256 and lossless they all sound basically the same when played through my stereo using airport express. none of them sound as good as the same song played through my stereo from the cd player. the cd player is hooked up via a digital coax and both the cd player and the airport express are programmed identically in the stereo (using the stereo uplink sample). my asumption was that since both sources are digital (assuming that itunes to express to toslink remains digital) and that from what i have read the lossless codec is indistinguishable from a cd in playback that the two would sound the same. however the cd sounds much louder and fuller.has anyone had a sucessfull experience where the airport express has matched a cd in playback quality? any thoughts / suggestion? thanks.
ian

hi james. my understanding is that i am feeding a digital signal from itunes to ax to my stereo and that because i am using a toslink optical connection from the ax to my stereo the signal remains digital until the stereo's internal dac converts it. this is essentially the same process that is happening with the cd player. the digital coax feeds a digital signal to the stereo where the stereo's internal dac converts the signal. so the question becomes why with a lossless codec would there be any difference in sound quality if the digital signal is being processed exactly the same way in the stereo? my only answer is that i am not receiving a pure digital feed from the itunes to ax to stereo path. somewhere it is being stepped on. any thoughts?
ian

Color space conversion YUV 4:2:0 - ??? - 4:2:2 - 4:2:0 ?

Hello all,
My "workflow" is:
1. Import H264 L5 @ Main YUV 4:2:0 video from Canon 5Dmk2 (1080p)
2. Finalize the sequence in Premiere (PRO CS4)
3. Export the footage as "Uncompressed Microsoft AVI" V210 at 10bit YUV 4:2:2
4. Feed to x264 H.264 encoder via Avisynt to convert / frameserve at YV12 (YUV 4:2:0) as required by
the H264 (use Avisynth ConvertToYV12) to get the "raw" H.264 L4.1 @ High YUV 4:2:0 video stream
(5. encode aac, mux with subtitles, and h264 video to mp4 container)
Question is:
a) While converting between the color spaces as above, what kind of quality loss I am experiencing?
b) Any thoughts on how to do this smarter, or if I am outright ruining the footage before it gets to its MP4 container?
c) Is there any way to export the video frrom Premiere (PRO CS4) as uncompressed YV12 (YUV 4:2:0)
(and yes; I know I could use bundled MainConcept H.264 codec, but I like the control x264 gives, and _arguably_ it may produce better looking footage at the same framerate / settings)
Looking forward to hearing some expert advice on the matter at hand!

Thanks Jim.
I gave UT a shot. However I had it crashing few times in encoder. Then googled for alternatives and there seems to be a whole bunch of YV12 capable lossless codecs out there: Hyffuyv, Lagarith, MSU, Snow, and FFV1. I tested some of them, and Lagarith seems to do the trick for me (in Lagarith, setting "prevent upsampling" flag maybe worthwile). So I am now to: 4:2:0 - ??? - 4:2:0; that is:
1. Import H264 YUV 4:2:0 video to premiere
2. Work with the video in premiere and export using "Microsoft AVI - Lagarith lossless codec" to YV12 AVI (YUV 4:2:0)
3. Use Avisynth to frame serve AVI to x264 (only line in avisynth script is AviSource ("inputYV12.avi") )
I wonder what color space Premiere works internally to apply all the effects and everything..
Again - Thanks for making me think alternatives here!!
PS. for v210, I do not have card, but I can export in v210 from premiere. Then I can either use VirtualDubs build-in v210 codec (or YUYV had I exported to that) to convert back to something else. There is also a video for windows codec for v210 that I tried (google: drastic v210) you could use.

Rendering Chroma 4:2:2 with color space 0-255

Hello Everyone.
Just as a warning I'm fairly new to video editing, so I will probably not say this right. I have a screen recording that I used FRAPS to collect, and then I packaged it into an .AVI container w/ a lararith codec , and a 24bit RGB color scheme in video dub. I have then opened and edited that video in Premiere Pro and want to export it. The problem that I'm having is screen recording has a LOT of color between 0-16 and 235-255, so any broadcast color space I use makes the video look awful. I was wondering if anyone knows how I can render out with a 0-255 color space and a decent chroma subsampling (my guess is 4:2:2).
Thank you everyone for your help.

No, you are asking the right question, and I understand your problem. I just can't recreate it.
I just took a really wild Quicktime video I downloaded from Videoblocks.com that isn't anywhere close to being broadcast safe, and I exported it to a Windows Media file.
The first picture is a screenshot from the video. (it is a set of lower thirds in one video - I am just supposed to use one at a time of course.
The second picture is the Reference monitor from frame 12;24
I exported the sequence to a Windows Media file and then imported it, putting it right on top of the other video on the sequence so I could make sure to be on the exact same frame. The third picture is the reference monitor from the WMV file on the sequence. As you can see, there is not much difference. Some, but you have to look closely.
So, my question to you, since I do not use FRAPS, is what are your sequence setting? Did you just drop a clip on the New button to create a new sequence with the exact right settings? And, are you making the mistake of using the renders to help you export?
The problem is that I don't understand your source material. I guess I could download FRAPS from somewhere and give it a try? I am just a bit busy with other things today.

Correct export color space for wide gamut monitors.

Running a photography studio I have 4 typical scenarios of how clients or end users will see my photo work. I create and edit the photos using LR 3 on a HP 2475w (wide gamut) monitor. I'm aware that there are color shifts, but trying to figure out which export color space to use to be most consistent.
A) Wide Gamut monitor using color managed software or browser such as Firefox.
B) Wide Gamut monitor NOT using color managed software such as IE 8.
C) Standard monitor using color managed software or browser such as Firefox.
D) Standard monitor NOT using color managed software such as IE 8.
A) gives the best results and that's what I run myself. No matter the color space that I export (sRGB, aRGB, or my custom calibrated ICC) the images appear to be correct 100%
B) gives mixed results...the hosting site for my photos seems to oversaturate a bit when I view the photos in their preview size which is what my clients see, when I view the original photo in full resolution (this feature disabled for my clients to avoid them downloading full rez copies of images), then the images appears a bit dull (70%). When I try this same scenario using aRGB export, it looks better (90-95%). When I export it using my monitor profile then the photo is spot on 100% however my monitor profile shows the photo incorrectly when viewing it using the standard Windows Vista photo viewer, it appears lighter and less saturated which I guess I expect since it's not color managed.
C) On a standard monitor the photos all look the same regardless of color space export so long as I use a color managed browser such as Firefox.
D) This gives pretty much the same breakdown of results as scenario B above. At the moment, it appears that when I use my custom ICC profile which is the calibration of my monitor...I get the best web results.
However my custom ICC profile gives me the worst local results within my windows viewer and when my clients load the photos on their machines, no doubt they will look just as bad on theirs regardless of which monitor they use. So aRGB seems to be the best choice for output. Anyone else do this? It's significantly better when viewing in IE on both Wide Gamut and Standard LCD's when compared to sRGB.
I would guess that my typical client has a laptop with Windows and they will both view the photos locally and upload them on the web, so it needs to look as close to what it looks like when I'm processing it in LR and Photoshop as possible. I know that a lot of people ask questions about their photos being off because they don't understand that there's a shift between WG and non-WG monitors, but I get that there's a difference...question is which color space export has worked best for others.

I am saying that since images on the internet are with extremely few
exceptions targeted towards sRGB. It is extremely common for those images to
not contain ICC profiles even if they really are sRGB. If they do not
contain ICC profiles in the default mode in Firefox, Firefox (as well as
Safari btw, another color managed browser), will not convert to the monitor
profile but will send the image straight to the monitor. This means that on
a wide gamut display, the colors will look oversaturated. You've no doubt
seen this on your display, but perhaps you've gotten used to it. If you
enable the "1" color management mode, Firefox will translate every image to
the monitor profile. This will make the colors on your display more
realistic and more predictable (since your monitor's very specific
properties no longer interfere and the image's colors are displayed as they
really are) for many sites including many photographic ones. This is most
important on a wide gamut display and not that big of a deal on a standard
monitor, which usually is closer to sRGB.
It seems you are suggesting that for a wide-gamut display it is better to
try using your own monitor's calibration profile on everything out there,
assuming on images posted with a wider gamat it will get you more color
range while there would be nothing lost for images posted in sRGB.
Indeed. The point of color management is to make the specific
characteristics of your monitor not a factor anymore and to make sure that
you see the correct color as described in the working space (almost always
sRGB on the web). This only breaks down when the color to be displayed is
outside of the monitor's gamut. In that case the color will typically get
clipped to the monitor's gamut. The other way around, if your original is in
sRGB and your monitor is closer to adobeRGB, the file's color space is
limiting. For your monitor, you want to make the system (Firefox in this
case) assume that untagged files are in sRGB as that is what the entire
world works in and translate those to the monitor profile. When you
encounter adobeRGB or wider files (extremely rare but does happen), it will
do the right thing and translate from that color space to the monitor
profile.
Wide gamut displays are great but you have to know what you are doing. For
almost everybody, even photographers a standard gamut monitor is often a
better choice. One thing is that you should not use unmanaged browsers on
wide gamut displays as your colors will be completely out of whack even on
calibrated monitors. This limits you to Firefox and Safari. Firefox has the
secret option to enable color management for every image. Safari doesn't
have this. There is one remaining problem, which is flash content on
websites. Flash does not color manage by default and a lot of flash content
will look very garish on your wide gamut display. This includes a lot of
photographer's websites.

Setting color space in "Open with External Editor"

This has been touched on in the forums, but I wanted to ask the question outright: Can you set the output color space to something other than AdobeRGB when you use "Open with External Editor"? I can't find any way to change it... I like to work in ProPhoto, I saw some like to work in sRGB.
Regardless of how the presets are set in the Version Export or the Presets, it will only come in to Photoshop as AdobeRGB.
Anybody know?
Ted

This has been touched on in the forums, but I wanted
to ask the question outright: Can you set the output
color space to something other than AdobeRGB when you
use "Open with External Editor"? I can't find any
way to change it... I like to work in ProPhoto, I
saw some like to work in sRGB.
Regardless of how the presets are set in the Version
Export or the Presets, it will only come in to
Photoshop as AdobeRGB.
Anybody know?
Ted
Well, to answer my own question, I now have it on good authority, actually the best authority, so good I can't say WHO, that there is NO way to specify a color space when using "Open in External Editor". Other than writing a script.
Hopefully this is an oversight, and will be in the next update!
Ted

Lossless codec?

I'm a bit confused on how to begin with a lossless codec. I was recommended to use one so I can export peices of my project then re-import them without losing quality. But all that I know about codecs is that I download them, and they help me use certain file types.
How do i specify to premeire that I would like to use a lossless codec once I have downloaded it?
Also does anyone reccomend a certain type of lossless codec, and is there a danger of it messing up my other codecs? This is why I haven't touched it so far.

Jeff,
If starting with footage that is already highly compressed (most camera formats today), something like Lagarith might be overkill, creating unnecessarily large files.
I agree with Jim Simon. When one already has a heavily-compressed file, the LAST thing that they would want is more compression. That is the ideal time to use lossless, regardless of file size.
As an example from a slightly different dicipline, if I was handed a JPEG Still Image, the last thing that I wanted to use as an intermediate was another JPEG. It was TIFF, or more often, PSD.
Why take heavily-compressed material, and then apply ANY lossey compression to that? You have already lost part of the collected data, so why lose more? That is a prime time to NOT compress with a lossey CODEC again.
I disagree here.
Hunt

Color Space Question... using Lagarith Lossless Codec.

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for