Skip to main content
SONER
SONER
Participating Frequently
January 21, 2023
Question

When will Mac users be able to get export in the correct colors?

  • January 21, 2023
  • 2 replies
  • 1590 views

Premiere Pro on Mac computers has been giving incorrect colors, saturation, and brightness for a long time in video output. To fix this, it wants us to use a LUT in every export (I know we can create a preset), but this LUT file also doesn't work properly. I've been using another LUT that a Youtuber made, which is working fine. But the official Adobe Fix LUT doesn't work properly. I've experienced this on my old Intel-based Macs too. I'm also experiencing it on my new M1-based Macs. I'm experiencing it with H264 codec and also with H265 codec. I don't want to think about, research, and worry about losing that file anymore. When will this be fixed? Thank you... Regards...

This topic has been closed for replies.

2 replies

R Neil Haugen
R Neil Haugen
Legend
January 21, 2023

The problem is Apple's creation and cannot be solved by either Adobe or BlackMagic ... or any colorist or color expert on the planet. Here's the full explanation.

 

The Rec.709 standard includes both a scene (camera) transform function and a display transform function. Professional applications like Premiere Pro, Resolve, and Avid conform to and assume displays set according to the full Rec.709 standard.

 

Apple, for some reason, came out with a bizarre "Rec.709" setting in their ColorSync color management utility. It applies the scene (camera) transform to Rec.709 video files but does not apply the required display transform.

 

And that is the problem, the display of Rec.709 media on your Mac. Effectively your Mac uses a display gamma of 1.96 when the proper standard is 2.4.

 

The file itself is fine ... and will be seen correctly on any system that displays Rec.709 media correctly, using the 2.4 monitor gamma.

 

So that file displayed on my highly calibrated & profiled setup will be as you expect.

 

UNLESS ... you mod it with that LUT!

 

Or, within Resolve, use the "Rec.709-A" export option. And yes, A is for Apple, which sets a different NCLC tagging on the file, which triggers Macs to use gamma 2.4.

 

However, on most non-Mac screens, the behavior is triggered to use a dark gamma, so the result on non-Macs is like using the Adobe export LUT: too dark/oversaturated.

 

If you darken that file on export to look good on your Mac, either via the Adobe LUT or "Rec.709-A" in Resolve ...  understand ... that file will now look bad on all properly working Rec.709 compliant screens!

 

It will be too dark in the shadows, with probably crushed blacks, and way over-saturated.

 

Because there's simple math involved here: you cannot display a file at two very different gammas and get the same visual appearance on the monitor.

 

And yes, this is as frustrating for pro colorists (primarily based on Macs) as it is for you, as there isn't any "solution" possible. There are various workarounds & compromises; that's it again because you can't show the file in two different gammas & get the same visual result.

 

And ... did you realize ... your Mac is doing the same thing to all pro video media you view on that rig as it's doing to your file? Probably ... not ... as it's what you're used to seeing, so it looks 'normal.'

 

One of those things colorists have to learn from the chute: you have no control over whatever after your media leaves your machine, and no one will ever see exactly what you saw on your device. These are the two guarantees of the pro colorist Life.

 

Neil

Everyone's mileage always varies ...
    SONER
    SONERAuthor
    Participating Frequently
    January 22, 2023

    First of all, thank you Neil for everything. You're amazing. But I think we're getting off topic. Adobe is aware of this issue and released a LUT called QT Gamma Fix years ago, but this LUT does not provide proper correction. Instead of using Adobe's LUT, we use a LUT from a YouTuber and it works much better. I expect this program, which is used by thousands of people every month with a subscription system, to be more respectable. Even today, when we load a LUT in the Effect section of the export section, it still appears as 'None'. They still haven't fixed this bug. So there's nothing to defend here. It's not Apple's fault, saying Adobe is great seems useless to me.

    R Neil Haugen
    R Neil Haugen
    Legend
    January 22, 2023

    The entire reason for using/needing that LUT to begin with is Apple's fault. Please understand, it is ONLY a display issue. And only on most newish Macs.

     

    And ... when you apply that LUT, you make that clip look far worse on my Rec.709 compliant PC. And all non-Mac screens. Unusable for broadcast.

     

    Again, because there isn't anything wrong with that file until you apply that LUT to it.

     

    It's the simple difference between applying 1.96 gamma to the display of the file (Mac OS), compared to using gamma 2.4 (ALL non-Mac displays) to display the file.

     

    Neil

     

    Everyone's mileage always varies ...
      Christian.Z
      Community Expert
      Christian.ZCommunity Expert
      Community Expert
      January 21, 2023

      Here's a thought. The color space on your mac does not apply to the preview monitor on Premiere, and hence since it will affect whatever player you are using, you will see a difference between Premiere and the final export.

       

      Bring back the exported file into premiere and compare it, it should look fairly the same with the edit on the timeline. If it is, you need to play around with your apple color management settings to match it

      SONER
      SONERAuthor
      Participating Frequently
      January 21, 2023

      This doesn't seem like a very healthy and stable method, because now I will have to constantly change the color settings on my Mac and if this only happens in Premier then it is Adobe's responsibility to fix it, I think. When we look at other editing programs besides Apple's own editing program Final Cut, there is no such problem. If a program has a Mac version, it should truly be a Mac version, right?

      Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
      Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices