Hey everyone, I am needing some help with my Premiere program.
The issue that I am having is that the Software for premiere is reading the color of my footage differently that how the footage truly is.
The footage the premiere is showing within the software is more saturated and seems to be already color corrected, when in fact it is not.
I'm going to post a photo below that has a side-by-side of what I am explaining. The image on the left is the footage directly from the SD card, the footage has not been imported or tampered with. The image on the right, is within the Premiere software, after I import the footage.
When My projects are complete, I export the project and open it up to view it, and it returns to the same dull saturation from its original state before import.
This leads me to think that the software is just portraying the colors differently.
When I'm editing with premiere, I would like the colors to be true to what it is, because it is deceiving while I'm trying to color correct all my footage. Please let me know if you've had this problem and know the solution. I can screenshot anything you need within the software for help.
On a system with accurate calibrated monitors ... Premiere is dead on with color. As shown thousands of times per day in pro suites, which is what it's designed to be used with.
When used without proper user-controlled color managment, yea, things go wonky.
That's beause of the system it's displayed on, not the app.
And yes, I've seen vids that were "wrong" out of Premiere, then sent to someone with a full-on calibrated setup, and gee ... that vid exported from Pr was dead-on.
We've had people here and elsewhere complaining about how bad Pr was with color, who finally setup their system ... and suddenly, there wasn't a problem anymore.
There are issues with a couple specific things, particular format/codec mis-applications by Pr. Other than that, the underlying code is correct.
So when I said "feel free to keep gaslighting people here" I didn't actually mean it. This is a real problem. Coming in here determined to defend Premiere at all costs and offer no tangible advice to people is just a waste of everyone's time. Here's the issue; no color professionals trust Premiere (there's a reason Resolve is the standard and more and more solo content creators are moving to Final Cut). It's the small non-pro or semi pro creators that just need to have some basic level of trust in the colors of their edit that need good color management from Premiere. What are almost all of them using? Macbook Pros. The fact that you have to pull up a friggin screen shot and create adjustment layers as An dy 1968 is suggesting means THERE'S A PROBLEM. It's awesome that this online community is willing to post workarounds but coming in here and telling everyone that it's their fault and the "code is fine" in nonsese. If you can't get even remotely accurate colors on a stock Macbook Pro with your software you have a ease-of-use problem. Blaming users for not being hardcore enough about color calibration is just silly. I've never met a collection of less helpful tech support people in my life as those for Premiere. Sheesh.
You are confused. Premiere Pro works like it should with some annoying bugs like any other NLE.
That being said try editing HDV interlaced video using FCPX on an iMac. It does not work. HDV is broadcast compliant in most countries as was Mini DV-25.
You stated most content creators use Macbook Pros. Where did you get that number from? I create content for YouTube all the time using a PC and I have no problems doing so.
That being said computer monitors are not compliant with NTSC, ATSC, ATSC 3 or Digital Cinema color spaces. Your video will look different on an iMac, an HP laptop or a $350 Dell Desktop. OBS, Windows Media Player, Quicktime and Blu-ray players will all display the same video a bit different. What looks good using FCPX and Quicktime on an iMac might look like crap on my PC. If you had to deliver your content on HDV tape to a TV station your FCPX rendition might not look horrible without viewing it on broadcast compliant hardware. Do you see my point?
When using Premiere Pro with products form AJA and BMD your colors and composition can be dead on for NTSC, ATSC and Digital Cinema. Demonstrate FCXP being dead on for broadcast (ATSC) using HDV tape as the delivery method using only the iMac. Do you see my point?
The products from form AJA and BMD do not help for social media because everyone's computer and sofware of choice will be different. It is like the wild west. Using FCPX and Quicktime might look good to on your computer monitor but less than 10% of the population has an iMac. Do you see my point? What does your video look like on a Windows PC? You need to worry about that more that anythng else.
You can make adustments to the computer monitor's color space using the Mac OS and the Windows OS control panels to help compensate. Most people are not trying to output content to viewed using the Quicktime Player on an iMac. 25 years ago 100% of all video content was seen on an NTSC compliant monitor (broadcast, VHS, Hi-8, 3/4 inch etc). In the year 2006 most people viewed about 90% of their video content on NTSC compliant monitors and 10% on the computer monitor. As of 2021 it is about 50/50 for most people. That being said the video below shows how you can easily compensate for different playback devices. You don't have to create a seperate version for an iMac, HDV tape, Digital Cinema etc. If you had to output for Quicktime, YouTube and Digital Cinema using FCPX or DaVinic reolve you would need to use adjustment layers a well. Do you see my point? Don't get me wrong in DR you can change a few settings at export and Premiere Pro will let you add a LUT at export but in the end you are compensating for different types of media.
"You're confused"? Yeah I guess I'm confused about why so many Adobe aplogists feel the need to preech and preen in these forums and NEVER offer actual helpful tips to other users that aren't burried in pretentious BS. I've worked as a professional editor for twenty years and I've used every major NLE at one point or other. Premiere isn't "fine with some bugs like any NLE", it's full of ridiculous ancient code and vast major usability problems. I can put up with that too, espeically becuase there's a community of people who have figured out good work arounds and are willing to help. What I can't stand are so called "Adobe Community Professionals" who come in here and troll people by talking down to them and trying to convince them that they don't know enough or aren't pro enough or don't have pro enough gear to both seek and offer advice. Just leave us alone! Adobe has some of the most aggressively unhelpful tech support I've ever encountered in all my life. If I call Sound Devices with a problem they do everything they can to fix it regardless of whose at fault, if I report to Avid I get feedback that includes zero judgement for whatever outdated system my employer happens to have at the time, but when I contact Adobe they do everything they can to paint any issue as the fault of me or my hardware when a quick google search ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS turns up that it's a widespread mass issue plaguing thousands of users (like terrible color management in the UI for example). If you don't have real tangible workarounds to post here, you're just gonna talk down to people for not having good enough gear or not knowing enough, don't post anything at all.
About Adobe's "Help" system? Totally agree with you there. It's legendarily bad. Product Support staffer Kevin Monahan tells everyone going over "there" that as soon as you get a live bod either online or phone, ask for the Video Que. As if you don't, you'll get some general :"help" staffer working from a cheat-sheet list per program.
The ... what? "Video Que"? How does any of us even know such a thing exists? It isn't mentioned anywhere in any Adobe Help information!
So ... they have a specialist group knowledgeable in the video apps, this app, PrPro, is primarily meant for professional users ... and they don't tell any users about it. Yea, it's difficult to talk about this and still be within bounds for "decorum" of this forum. Seriously.
Getting help from Adobe ... well, some have actually had good results. Not ... the majority. Sadly. And it's something most of us "regulars" jump on any staffer we can, but ... it's a decision well up past Kevin or anyone on the product teams. And yea, it's a stupid mess. Beyond belief stupid.
But for the color stuff, I wasn't apologizing for Adobe, nor giving pretentious BS. This isn't from "Adobe", the data on the color management issues between the Mac ColorSync and the rest of the world are something heavily discussed, analyzed, and quartered by color managment specialists across the industry. Here's an article from LightIllusion.com, makers of (formerly) LightSpace and their new calibration/profiling app ColourSpace.
Not connected to Adobe at all, and ... yea, their shop is mostly Mac people.
Why Master on a Calibrated Display? LightIllusion.com/ Steve Shaw
In it, he specifically talks about the Apple ColorSync problem. It isn't 'caused' by Adobe, nor by BlackMagic. Both companies try to give their users a way sort-of around the issue, Adobe with the "gamma compensation LUT" and BM with the "Rec.709A" export option in Resolve.
And yes, the A is for Apple, specifically ... and ... when that file is viewed on ColorSync using systems, it's fine. When it's viewed outside the Mac OS-sphere, it typically has the same problem as files with the Adobe "gamma compensation LUT".
It's dark especially in the shadows and over-saturated.
Will you find a mass of posts about this all over the internet? Yea, because it is a mess. And it's a mess with no reason behind it whatever ... if Apple, MS, and the major browser and applications people got together for an afternoon, and simply said "this is what we will all do with video files" it would be solved instantly.
But as long as Apple insists on doing something different than the rest of the world, it ain't gonna go away.
Most of my acquaintances in colorist work are of course Mac users.
Most of them are not Adobe users.
And they all are frustrated dealing with the mis-application of color management by Apple. With the notable exception that some of their newer iPads, with a few things turned off and/or tweaked, can hit pretty darn close to the image on their Grade 1 reference monitors. Yea, an image close to that on a Flanders rig properly profiled ... that's good.
But only some of the iPads. That's not so good.
Many people gave you helpful information but you use Quicktime, YouTube and an iMac for the end all be all standard for color correction when it is not. I bet your project would look a lot differnt on my Windows System. Wouldn't you agree? How could this be? I bet if you used products from AJA and BMD you would see a big difference. Wouldn't you agree? Why is that? Why would there be a color shift? Why would people buy products from AJA and BMD?
I asked you if you connect your video cameraa up to your TV does the image quality match your iMac 100% using FCPX, DR or Premiere Pro? You did not give me an answer. Why is that? There are color settings you can change in OS X and Windows to help compensate but it will not be 100% correct with any NLE when using a computer monitor. What your video looks like on your TV is what matter most because even in 2021 video is designed for playback on broadcat equipment not your computer monitor! Had you bothered to read my other post I stated in the year 2006 most people viewed about 90% of their video content on NTSC compliant monitors and 10% on the computer monitor. As of 2021 it is about 50/50 for most people but video equipment in 2021 is still designed for playback on broadcast compliant (ATSC) hardware (your TV) not a computer monitor. Last but not least. Most older video equipment (Betacam, VHS, 3/4" etc) recorded to NTSC REC 601 standards to be played back on broadcast compliant hardware (your TV) not a computer monitor. Broadcast compliant colors do not have the same color space as a computer monitor so compensations must be made.
Do you disagree with anything I wrote? That being said what professional work have you done over the past 20 years? Please be specific.
You claim to be a professional who also works with Avid. Try using any AJA or BMD product with Premiere Pro and Media Composer and see if the colors match on broadcast compliant monitors. Test them using the ATCS standards of 1080i and 720 60P. See how the image compares to your iMac. It does not matter if you use an iMac, a Mac Mini with Dell Monitors or a PC with LG monitors. When you out put to broadcast compliant hardware with the proper equipment they should all yield the same result because ATSC is an industry standard unlike computer monitors. Do the test and let us know the results. That being said instead of being hostile why not respond lke a professional and thank me for the suggestion because I just setup a paradigm that will remove any doubts you maye have but you should have done the test yourself before posting. Instead you want to talk about your iMac, Quicktime and Youtube. None of which are industry standards for video.
WOW! Never read such a dumb thread in my life. I am a professional Cinematographer, Editor and Colorist. I can tell you 100% that Premiere 2022 is oversaturating the color. Program to progam is nonsence. The images should look exactly the same in Premiere or DaVinci or Quicktime. Only a slight difference if your monitor is not calibrated through say a Blackmagic Decklink and it's monitor, which I have. Adjustment layer is nonsense, what over a whole feature film HA! Sorry these morons are saying so much BS - especially this Niel guy.
To be clear: the DCM option is for users running computer monitors via their GPU. Not for users say with BlackMagic or AJA breakout devices like Decklink cards.
So, with that clarification, you're saying that everyone from Walter Volpatto, Mark Todd Osborne, Andrea Chlebak, Warren Eagles, the people that make both Calman and Lightspace, are complete idiots?
And the colorists from MixingLight that Dolby Labs hired to make all the training for DolbyVision are complete ignorant hacks?
First off not sure why you think Monitor Calibration has anything to do with this, regardless if your monitor is calibrated or not, your video should not look diffrent after rendered then it did in the Premier pro editor.
Monitor Calibration has nothing to do with that, ZERO, weather you Calibrated your monitor or not, your going to be looking at your video with the same monitor settings before rendered and then after, so nothing is changed, Monitor Calibration only is good for if you are viewing a picture or video and 2 different monitors and expect the same visual experience..
I have done my research on this topic and all that i said above is 100% correct..
End of story..
I did a presentation at the 2019 NAB in the Flanders FS/MixingLight booth, for the colorists assembled there ... including Alexis Van Hurkman, who spoke before me.
On Premiere's color management.
I'd spent several hours over the phone and "zoom" with their top color engineer and their Chief Color Scientist, Lars Borg, in preparation for this. Then another hour or two in person with the engineer at that NAB. After the presentation, Alexis, among others, told me that I had clearly explained to him what had never been clear.
After that live presentation, it was turned into a MixingLight.com tutorial or "insight". And for that, both colorists Robbie Carman and Pat Inhofer wanted to verify a ton of things. So we were back to the lengthy, detailed multi-person email chains with Francis Crossman and Lars Borg. Until Robbie and Pat both had all their questions answered (and they of course can go way, way down into the weeds ... ) and had verified all on their own systems.
So I'm totally comfortable in saying what I've stated is factual, verifiable and verified by noted colorists.
What difference does one's monitor calibration have to do with it? That's pretty clear and easy. And remember, it only applies to the vast majority of users who are using their OS/GPU to feed the monitor.
Premiere is internally built to assume for Rec.709 media that the system it is displayed on is essentially a Decklink/AJA device skipping the OS/GPU, and calibrated for full-on Rec.709.
In fact, perhaps like your system. From what you commented I think in one thread earlier.
For systems running a tightly controlled Rec.709 monitor, the DCM setting is not only not needed, but perhaps not wanted. (As noted in other comments, my system is tightly calibrated so I don't use it on my desktop. My laptop needs it, though.)
The systems that run through the OS/GPU, like most PC users and especially all newish Macs, are not setup to comply with Rec.709. So the DCM switch tells Premiere to look at the OS/ICC profiles of the monitors in use, and then remap the image for Premiere's Program and Transmit Out monitors as closely as possible to Rec.709.
So again ... running a breakout like a Decklink card or AJA device to the monitor? Don't use the DCM color management option.
Running through the OS/GPU? Then ... maybe for PC users, definitely for Mac users, the DCM switch should be on.
Because then, within Premiere, you'll see a closer match to a full-on Rec.709 system than otherwise. Outside Premiere, especially on a Mac applying that odd 1.96 gamma, the file exported from Premiere will be lighter and less saturated in appearance ... but again, play that file on any Rec.709 compliant system, it will be correct.
The colorists I work for are mostly Mac based, naturally ... and they've all tested this and found it quite correct. They don't need nor want the DCM for anything going through their Decklinks to their Flanders monitors.
But ... for their computer monitors, running through the OS, they do need the DCM switch on to get an image that closely matches the one going through the Decklink.
I've got all the details about Premiere's color management system, directly from hours spent with the engineers and color scientists. Ain't no gaslighting there at all.
Next ... I'm a contributing author at MixingLight.com, a pro colorist's teaching website. Which naturally has more members that work in Resolve because that was originally a total colorist's application that has, over time, added editing/sound/graphics/vfx "pages" in an attempt to market against the Adobe 'ecosphere'. As such, I'm expected to be rather familiar with Resolve, and can work totally in that app at any time.
Of the three founders there, two are Resolve based, one has moved from Resolve to Baselight. I'm familiar with the differences between them, though I've never actually worked in Baselight.
My data on the color management issues comes from all of those sources plus Steve Shaw over at lightillusion.com, makers of (previously) LightSpace color management software and now ColourSpace color management software.
I presented the totality of Premiere's color management 'live' in the Flanders FSI/MixingLight booth at the 2019 NAB, in between Alexis Van Hurkman and the guy from Dolby laboratories who was there to talk to the colorists.
Alexis spoke on his most recent film, which was shot and graded HDR, and the Dolby guy on the DolbyVision certification process. Both watched my presentation, as did the three founders of ML and about 50 others. I was told that I had answered a ton of questions, and my comments were considered accurate.
After that, the presentation was turned into a pair of articles/tutorials on ML's website, and during that lengthy process, both Patrick Inhofer and Robbie Carman had extensive questions wanting very tightly detailed answers from the Premiere engineers & color scientist. We had numerous long, detailed exchanges until both Pat and Robbie were totally satisfied and I could finish the two articles, each with a video tutorial accompanying it.
And note, nearly everyone who watched my presentation or asked questions, besides the founders of ML, are Mac based.
Since then, there have been numerous threads on say LiftGammaGain on the whole Mac/everything-else color management troubles, and these are mostly again by Mac based pros in color correction work. Most of them have monster Mac desktops as for the colorists, a laptop is never gonna cut it. They're running rigs with 256GB of RAM, 2-4 massive internal GPUs ... in the old phrase, "heavy iron".
And none of them would ever judge color on a Retina monitor for any b-cast or streaming work. As they wouldn't on any other OS- controlled monitor. They all use i/o or 'breakout' devices to get the signal out of the computer without the OS touching it, to their grade 1 reference monitors controlled but LUTs made after their spectroradiometers have thoroughly calibrated that screen and provided the LUT that gets them to an extremely tight color/tonal tolerance level.
Those are the people I work with and learn from. They're not Premiere Pro users in general. But most need to know how to work PrPro as many of their jobs come out of PrPro and they have to be able to do a conform to Resolve.
They're heavily Mac-based.
Ain't no gaslighting on my part.
Plug your camera directly into an HD TV. Does it look more like Premiere Pro or the Quicktime Player?
All software handles color space different. If you need to deliver to a Mac that will be using a Quicktime Player the video below might be helpful. DR, AVID, OBS and Quicktime all handle the color spaces differently.
Ok well don't listen to that jerk who is being rude and thinks he knows it all, it's not really that quick time or media encoder are bad video players, becuase this happens on youtube and on google chrome too.
But there is a fix if your using both either a MAC or PC, and this will correct your problem, and in this video it explains why this happnes, and It has nothing to do with your video player being bad these idiots don't know what they are talking about, especially this guy (R Neil guy), he is not helpful and rude and tries to make others feel stupid, to make himself look like he knows what he is talking about, but clearly doesn't..
here is your fix watch the video below
That YouTube is worth exactly what you're paying for it ... nothing. Go to the second part on PC ... he is so wrong it's stunning. Such as telling people to use full range on their video card settings.
Rec.709 standards are clear: all YUV Rec.709 media is 'limited' range. The only 'full' range is the RGB media which is typically 12-bit and/or DPX. Very little video is RGB.
If you want further clarification on that, you can go the the LightIllusions.com site, and go through their documentation. They produce one of the high-end pro calibration software/hardware solutiions for color managment.
Or ... go into Davinci Resolve. Their 'auto' setting for Rec.709 media assumes that all YUV media is limited range, and that is the expected way to run the app.
So Matt tells everyone to set their computer up wrong to begin with.
Then he says PrPro uses 'full' range ... also exactly wrong, opposite of the truth.
PrPro follows strict Rec.709 standards ... all YUV media is limited, RGB is full. Which the hardware will also follow IF you leave that setting in the Nvidia card control set to limited, btw.
So ... he tells you to set the computer wrong, tells you exactly the opposite of what PrPro does, and then gives a LUT to correct his two mistakes.
Look, the stuff I rant on about color is NOT my opinion. I get it from some of the more experienced, knowledgeable people in video color management around. NOT some YouTuber.
If you don't like accurate information, well ... I can't help you.
But for those who actually want to learn, which is really all I care about, there is a ton of good material out there.
Here's a bit of information on what "full" and "limited" range actually mean. Which is not what most people "know". And certainly not understood by the creator of the YouTube referenced above.
Full vs Limited Range History
This came about from early digital imaging, mostly using tape-based systems for broadcast purposes. By encoding the signal between 16-235, it left the 0-15 and 234-255 values for encoding other data into the video stream. At that time, their equipment used that other data for setting proper broadcast settings.
It had nothing to do with displaying media at those values, but only encoding media for those values. The screen was always set to (essentially) show 16 at 0 and 235 at 255.
It's been quite a while since really anyone has used such tape-based equipment. But using 'limited range' encoding for video material was necessary in early digital cameras for matching the expectations of the broadscast systems.
And so it was established in the standards, standards that were put out for both capture and playback equipment. And that all video camera makers complied with. And even when digital tape finally went the way of the dodo, the original standards were still used.
It works when setup as expected. It seems silly or plain stupid it's still "a thing", but it is. It's the way the entire system works as a system. Follow the standards correctly, everything simply ... works.
As expected. And yes, the cameras, GPUs, and displays all understand this system and work together correctly if it is followed. Dumb as it may be, YUV encoded as 'limited' is still the only game to play for expectable results.
Working Full or Limited ... which and why?
The standards for Rec.709 media ... which is nearly everything that isn't HDR ... are still the same. And are applied to "both" kinds of media. Most cameras are set to only use YUV encoding. The other "kind" is RGB encoding, which is only used typically for 12 bit and higher formats and for image-sequence formats like DPX.
So unless you are shooting a 12 bit 4:4:4:4 file from your camera, you are shooting YUV and the camera is encoding it as 'limited' range. And there are very few cameras that can shoot 12 bit 4:4:4:4. So if you don't know about your camera, you ain't.
YUV media is all supposed to be 'limited range' encoding ... while RGB media is all expected to be 'full range' encoding. Note I say "encoding", and not displaying. The two are not interlinked. (And this is clearly something the YouTube person refereced in a previous post does not understand.)
With a properly setup color managed system for working with Rec.709 media, both 'limited' and 'full' range media will be displayed by the monitor as 0-255.
This is something to really understand: the system will automatically display YUV limited range files as 0-255, and it will display RGB full range files as 0-255. As the standards are designed to function.
Set your system to limited range ... period. Again, it will automatically correctly display media.
Working Nvidia cards with PrPro and Resolve
This is the way Davinci Resolve's color management works when input is set to 'auto', and it is what colorists are taught to do unless they have specific reasons not to. Such as media using a different gamut (not gamma) or dynamic range, which they are working into their system.
But changing those settings can cause a world of hurt if you don't know exactly why you're doing so. And unless you have specific and non-standard media to work with, you are better off staying away from those settings.
And your Nvidia card SHOULD in all cases be set to limited/16-235. It will then function correctly with both YUV 16-235 media and RGB 0-255 media, helping your display handle both in a displayed 0-255 manner.
If however, you set your GPU to 'full' for everything ... what you will end up with is dark Rec.709 shadow values, and typically totally crushed shadows for all RGB 'full range' files. Because the display will most likely then take value 16 (8 bit) or 64 (10 bit) and display that as 0.
Think about that ... you have now told your system to really drop the dark values in the crapper. It's bad enough for the YUV media, but completely mangles any RGB media you might ever view or work with.
And further, if you work on such a system, and set your media to look good on that system: guaranteed it will be off on every other system out there.
Is this different from the Mac issues of shadow values?
Yes, they are two completely separate issues.
Unfortunately the Mac Colorsync color management utility was designed to mis-apply the Rec.709 standards. There are two things that both add together to create the problem:
Those two problems piggy-back to create the difference between what is seen within PrPro on a Mac system (with the display color management system preference properly checked) and what is seen on any player that allows Colorsync to control color management on that Mac.
This includes QuickTime player and several browsers.
Being as that difference is caused by the color management of the computer running counter to 'normal' Rec.709 work, there's no way for any application to get around it. Neither Davinci Resolve nor PrPro can change this as it is a Colorsync issue.
Users on Macs with Colorsync, when using players that allow that utility to set CM, will see files differently than they will be seen on Rec.709-compliant systems. Sadly.
Everything i posted is 100% true and everyting in that youtube video is accurate..
going full range rather then limited is the way to go, because if when you render and limit the range then you notice what the OP is experiencing, i have researched this myself and tested it, i have rendered a video that was done in
Prores HQ, HQX, 444, and with in limited range, and they where all the same results.
Then i changed my settings to Full Range, and noticed the conrast was much better and i was getting the export exactly as i saw it in the Adobe Premier pro editor, not this washed out lack of contrast look.
I tested this like 10 times, and the results don't lie, what is in them videos will solve your problem.
I don't care how much technical information you know or think you know but what i posted is the correct solution and will help, all the people seeing this that tries it will be able to experience that, and will agree once they see their problem has been resolved.
This is not my opinion, IT'S A FACT!!!!!
It's the behavior you've found on your system, yes. Which also clearly shows your system is not in proper calibration.
I don't post any original thoughts on color management. Everything is from the people who design and teach color management to professional colorists. With far more knowledge than thee or me. None of this is my "opinion", nor based only tests on my system.
With a properly setup system and proper color management, the 'limited' range setting is THE only way to set things up. Because of the way it is designed to run.
Setting your system for limited only means that it will follow standards. Limited range media which is encoded 16-235 will properly be displayed at 0-255 by the monitor. Nothing will be displayed 16-235 because that is not what this means, or how it works.
And full range media (the very small amount that actually exists) will be displayed also as 0-255.
This has been demonstrated countless times by colorists using full and limited range color bar patterns among other things.
Again ... the 16-235 limited range setting has nothing whatever to do with displaying the media at 16-235. It simply recognizes that 16-235 encoded media, the standard for all Rec.709 YUV media, will be accepted as 'normal' and displayed at 0-255.
Um Wrong again, i'm an editor and photographer and cinematographer, been shooting netflix shows for years, and do some of the editing i use the X-Rite i1Basic PRO 3
and all my monitors are calibrated, that has nothing to do with it.
this statement shows you do not know what your talking about..
If i'm in premier pro and i like the way my vidoe looks then export it and it looks different after exported, using the same monitor then that would not effect it calibrated or not, because i would be looking at the same video with the same calibration, what you said was laughable..
Monitor calibration only effects a video look if you render a video and i seen it on your montior then played it on my system on my montior then i looks differnent then yes that would be monitor calibration...
Not to mention the fix for MAC's in the video the LUT was created by adobe them self to fix this, so your going to say Adobe has no idea what they are talking about, about their own software?
Ok guy give it a rest you alwready lost this arguement and reaching for BS, with this monitor calibration thing, which is really laughable i have to tell that to the guys in the studio tomorrow they will roll on the floor laughing at that one..
By the way that video posted there is already an Adobe topic on it with this post and was praised for how it help many people in adobe forum..
That 4:4:4 file may very well have been a full-range file. Much 4:4:4 media is, especially some of the ProRes encoding. Now, if a system is set correctly, full-range media and limited range media will both be displayed 0-255, as full/limited is only about encoding the data, not displaying the data.
But if the system is set incorrectly, then there will be problems with displaying either or both full and limited range media.
As to exporting on your system and it looked different outside of Premiere ... depending on your system's setup, that may be very expectable. For instance, on a newer Mac that would be the expected situation. Due to ColorSync and it's odd partial application of Rec.709 standards. And it's not my opinion that they don't apply the full standards ... their specs show that.
On my system, a PC, I can work with full-range RGB files and limited range YUV files and they both show as 0-255 on the monitor. And show correctly on the scopes. Without changing anything. Inside PrPro and in most players.
I can work in Premiere, export a file, open it in Resolve, and totally match the reference monitor image and scopes in both. Blacks are black and whites are white, and the file is encoded limited range, and my Nvidia card is set to allow the app to control range. Appropriately.
Many of my colorist friends are total Mac-geeks. And they work with their reference monitors via BlackMagic or Aja output devices to get the signal out without the OS touching it. They work in Resolve mostly (one is Baselight based). My outputs from Premiere show up on their systems totally appropriate, bars and file contents exactly as expected on their reference monitor and their scopes.
My outputs from PrPro are routinely imported by colorists onto their systems. I've never had a problem with a file being off in any way.
I probably should add ... especially if you're doing all 4:4:4 work in ProRes or DNx, and it works to have your system all set to full range and send out to Netlfix, have at it. I got no problems with it.
My point really is for most workflows and users, using Rec.709 YUV media ... all the 420/422 work, and some 444 ... following full/legal standards is wiser. And will work if everything is setup correctly.