Your overseas editor opens the product footage supplied by a China-based crew. The metal looks harsh and the packaging looks oversaturated. The crew sees an acceptable image at its end. Before buying another grade, establish what each team is actually processing.
A camera-original file, a transcode and an approved graded export can show the same action while requiring different treatment. Asking for “all the footage and the LUT” leaves a practical question unanswered: is that LUT documenting something already baked into the delivered file, or an instruction for the next editor?
Automatic color handling still needs a known input
Adobe’s Configure clips for Color Management using Clip Modify, updated October 20, 2026, says correct source identification matters; metadata can be missing, wrong or unreadable. It also describes using an input LUT followed by color management configured for that LUT’s output. Two processing stages are therefore not automatically a mistake.
Its Color Management and Lumetri Color guidance, updated January 7, 2026, distinguishes LUTs intended for a particular look from those converting color spaces. Both expect appropriate input. These documents were checked October 28. They describe Premiere workflows, rather than proving that every application or supplier handles the same files identically.
ONCE’s proposed handoff record has three columns
Use one record per delivered file type. The purpose is to make the next team’s setup reproducible, rather than to demand an elaborate report for every shot. This is a recommended procurement method, not a claim about measured ONCE client savings.
| Column | Production team provides | Receiving editor confirms |
|---|---|---|
| Delivered file | Exact filename, provenance and current color space; identify unknowns | The actual file received, including whether a proxy or alternate export is being used |
| Processing already done | What is baked into the file versus present only in the project or monitoring path | Whether an accompanying LUT is documentation or an additional processing instruction |
| Receiving configuration | A reference excerpt and intended output description | Input interpretation, working and output settings, and additional active effects |
The camera’s recording mode is useful provenance. It does not, by itself, describe a later export. Likewise, the look seen on set does not establish what the delivered file contains. When the history is uncertain, ask for the original and export record. Do not label an image as log simply because it appears flat.
Commission a small receiving test before a batch-wide repair
For a hypothetical appliance launch, choose a short passage containing a reflective housing, colored packaging and a hand demonstration. No test result is implied here. Match the precise source and timecode to a previously approved reference output. Agree on the comparison conditions; a reference communicates intent but does not replace the source data.
Locate the first unexplained change
The supplying team states what the file contains. The receiving team documents how its project interprets that file. Work in a project copy, change one confirmed setting at a time, and retain the comparison results. Keep the output and viewing conditions consistent while diagnosing the input. Otherwise, a closer-looking frame may conceal several compensating changes.
This is also why “remove every LUT except one” is a poor blanket instruction. An intentional conversion followed by an appropriate creative look has a different purpose from repeating the same conversion. Have the editor describe each stage’s input, output and job.
Decide what kind of work follows
If correcting the receiving setup reproduces the agreed appearance, resolve the handoff and configuration. If the setup is understood but the brand now wants softer metal or a warmer room, issue a creative change request. If the discrepancy remains unexplained, continue investigating export and viewing conditions instead of assigning every difference to grading.
Buy diagnosis, setup repair and new grading as distinct tasks
A useful statement of work names the files to investigate, the processing record to deliver, the configuration to repair if needed, and the person who authorizes a new look. Do not turn “it looks different here” directly into an unrestricted full-film regrade.
Define the sample’s limits too. A successful receiving test covers that excerpt and configuration. It does not approve footage from every camera, previous supplier or transcoding batch. New file histories need their own record. Nor does an agreed setup guarantee identical appearance on all consumer displays.
For a global brand drawing on Chinese production capacity, the reusable asset is the documented handoff: what was supplied, what had already been done and how the next team received it. Ask ONCE to scope that receiving test alongside the footage delivery, before commissioning a new visual treatment. The commercial benefit is a clearer decision about which work is needed; any actual saving must be measured on the project.
For related production planning, explore ONCE’s video production guides, and include the receiving editor in the handoff discussion before the first batch is exported.
