Inspiring

Answered

How do I keep Premiere from changing the gamma of an image in a rendered video?

Forum|Forum|5 years ago
November 5, 2020
14 replies
7723 views

When I'm in Premiere, the image looks normal, but when I render the video, the image looks like the gamma has been turned up and it seems a little more washed out. I can't seem to represent a nice fade to black. Pure black shows up black, but anything else shows up lighter than it should be.

Here is an example of this happening. The darker image is the original, and the lighter one is what Premiere renders in the final video. Depending on your monitor settings, this may be a little hard to see in the examples I provided.

Either way, is there a setting somewhere that can stop this from happening? This problem started showing up in v13.

Thanks.

Export

This topic has been closed for replies.

Correct answer Kizzume

As was noted by Francis Crossman in the post on this forum when they "dropped" the correction LUT, that was only for Mac users that wanted to change the image to appear outside of Premiere (or properly managed color management) on a Mac sort of mostly. It was announced on this forum, as it was released, as 1) a one-way trip, and 2) that it would cause issues for non-Mac viewers then on other gear.

So that gamma change LUT was released as a response to demands from Mac users, with full warnings. Your comments about it are understandable (how could anyone assume that without knowing the full history?) yet incorrect. Both as to why it was released and the "Adobe" attitude about it.

As far as Resolve "solving" anything ... I've just followed two different, lengthy disourses by colorists and color management types on color management ... and color managment is a mess that is simply not handled well period.

As one put it, from extensive testing that makes yours look very basic ... nothing that the user can do will generate a file from Resolve that will be seen correctly across apps and players and systems. He ended up listing a bunch of different scenarios, all of the "do X and it will look correct on Y, Z, and Q but awful on P using S or D ... " nature.

So there were some combinations where if your user was going to be viewing the file on X with Z player, or Y with D app, you could use Q settings for Resolve's export. BUT ... if someone was going to be looking at on X with M player, you needed to export with a different setting.

To get his various people seeing something mostly sort of what he was doing in Resolve, he needed to do up to three different exports for the variuos people to use, and track which version he sent to whom. He's not a happy camper.

You are most welcome to use Resolve. I use it some myself, as I need to be familiar with it due to the fact that I teach colorists how to work in Premiere, and I need to know how they do things in Resolve. I've not had a chance to test the new 17.x version, which sounds interesting as they finally really updated the color stuff, first time since the 15.x release.

But in general, for me, the interface is a pain and I greatly dislike the edit page especially. A good friend love love loves their edit page, and more power to him. We're all different, and in the end, all these apps are fancy hammers.

Use the hammer that works for you. And competition in offerings is a good thing.

Neil

It looks fine when I'm importing psd files and bmp files, but looks gamma shifted when I import jpg and png files. At least I've figured out the cause of the whole issue. This is definitely a bug. I'll likely create an entirely new thread to report this issue.

R Neil Haugen

Legend

But the answer to Premiere changing the gamma of the outputted files shouldn't be "just adjust the GPU and your monitor to make it so 8,8,8 looks the same as 0,0,0 and you won't notice the problem".

Clearly, I've not communicated my concern about the monitor settings. Because I was not talking about fixing it after the issue, but preventing the issue from happening. As if one works with a monitor set to 'full' within Premiere, and adjust things according to how they look ... one will adjust things too high on the bottom end to keep from crushing things to black.

And after export, wonder why one's blacks are milky.

However, when you listed your current settings for video media as correctly set to limited, that took care of my concern. Again, never ever suggested as a work-around, but trying to get to the bottom of the problem.

I exported your PNG file as both ProRes LT and checked it within Premiere, and as a png. Here's the png file I got.

On my system, there was no movement in the scopes or on the reference monitor when I went from your original to the ProRes LT or the exported png file.

It will of course be interesting to see how the file comes into your system.

Neil

Everyone's mileage always varies ...

KizzumeAuthor

Inspiring

It's exactly as I've been saying. Premiere changes the gamma.

I imported your image you attached into Photoshop and checked each color bar to see what the new values were, and notated them in red.

R Neil Haugen

Legend

You didn't answer what your GPU card setting is for video range ... full or limited? As I said above, if it's set to full, that would cause about precisely this situation. And yes, it would matter what setting is used by the GPU to send data to the monitor, or in some monitors, the setting inside that monitor.

As has been demonstrated in several apps especially Resolve be a number of colorists when teaching about color management. And also the color management specialists who make the software to calibrtate the pro colorists systems.

The more I've read through this thread, the more I think a setting in either your GPU controls or your monitor is incorrect. It would give exactly this result.

And I cannot replicate this on my machines, neither my laptop nor my desktop. The laptop isn't fully calibrated of course, the desktop is and profiled. Exports of both video and still media exhibit the same tonal range after export as before, when brought back into Premiere. And when played on the screen in Potplayer and VLC.

Neil

Everyone's mileage always varies ...

KizzumeAuthor

Inspiring

Just one more clarification: Workarounds for this issue wouldn't ever have been created if it wasn't a problem for other people in the first place. Now, if it's just something you don't notice because you have your monitor set a certain way, that's not proof of anything at all.

KizzumeAuthor

Inspiring

If your computer and monitor are set as you say for limited range, then that answers that question. I wanted that specific information as that would cause what you're been getting. So we can move past that.

Sometimes, some of this is difficult to both explain and follow. Pat Inhofer over at MixingLight.com did a somewhere around 15 minute tutorial in Resolve a couple years back showing how the settings of the GPU/monitor and color prefs in the app when set to full vs limited caused problems. For quite a few people seeing his work through examples using a bars & tone clip while changing things, exporting/reimporting, viewing in other apps.

He also pointed out why that showed how crucial using scopes were to check for such inaccuracies.

I'm in a meeting (stupid online meetings ... ) at the moment. When I get to the studio later today I'll test out that image on my gear.

Neil

Thanks. I look forward to that. I hope the meetings go well.

I just wanted to point out again that it doesn't matter what I have the GPU settings for my monitor set for, and then quit and restart Premiere after I make the changes, Premiere does the same thing to the images regardless. It's why I'm pulling out my hair over your responses to this.

I absolutely acknowledge that these ranges look different depending on the settings. Yes, absolutely. But the answer to Premiere changing the gamma of the outputted files shouldn't be "just adjust the GPU and your monitor to make it so 8,8,8 looks the same as 0,0,0 and you won't notice the problem". It shouldn't matter whether I can adjust my settings so I don't notice it--I don't want the problem to be there at all.

As I've said many times, this was never a problem in v12. Last year I tinkered with v13 and didn't like it--it's slower on editing, it has the panel placement issues (it doesn't fully remember where I place panels, so every time I open a new project, I have to drag panels around), it crashes more, and most of all, it has this gamma issue. I hoped that v14 would fix those things, but all those problems remain. And again, I've tested this in DaVinci Resolve, and it doesn't have these gamma issues. DaVinci Resolve has AAC audio issues in Windows, everything sounds like a 128kpbs or 96kpbs mp3. Sure, I can export as a mov and use uncompressed audio, but not all websites take that format. That's the only reason I didn't switch to Resolve. Blackmagic is even more stubborn about fixing issues than Adobe is.

If Adobe didn't take away the ability this year to install earlier versions than one whole version number, this wouldn't be a problem. I'd be using v12 and would be happy about it. I loved v12! I hate v14--and now, to fix the issues in v14, I'm supposed to either use an LUT or a gamma adjustment layer, both of which result in the image looking darker than the original. If the workarounds worked right, I may have complained a little, but I certainly wouldn't have complained nearly as much. At leat there would have been a workable solution. As it stands, there is no workable solution other than using different software completely.

Anyway, thanks for your response. Again, I hope your meetings went well. I look forward to seeing if you have the same luck using the image I created.

R Neil Haugen

Legend

Full sympathies.

Something I don't think we've talked of in this thread, what do the scopes, particularly the Waveform (YC no Choma mode) show for the original image? Are the blacks down to black in the scope or lifted a bit? It has occured to me that if your monitor was set to 'full' range 0-255 for Rec709 in the video card settings, you would get about exactly this result if you then set the image by visual black in Premiere.

Many users think that they want full black to white, so the video card should be set to 'full' or 'data' range for video, rather than the 'limited' or 'legal' range. Which is actually backwards. Nearly all video media is 'limited' range unless it is 12-bit DPX or HDR. The monitor will then display the image 0-255.

But if you have it set for 0-255, and work in Premiere, the monitor will actually be taking the area at file level of 16 to black ... so if visually you set 'blacks' in Premiere, and export ... you now have a file with 'black' set about 32, which the monitor will drop to around 16.

Set the video card correctly for video to show in limited/16-235, and re-work with the file in Premiere, and it will fix the problem.

So ... curious about your video card's setting for video range.

Past that, I've just read through a LONG post on the LGG (LiftGammaGain) forum, a mostly pro forum of mostly colorists. A guy did a TON of testing of NCLC tag use in Resolve, to 'flag' exports so they would look similar across platforms/players. His system was a typical colorist system with highly calibrated/profiled Grade 1 Reference monitor. Everything up to full b-cast standards.

It was an intense, dense set of testing he performed, I'm guessing setting up to start was 2-3 hours of work, and doing the entire set of controlled tests was a couple days. He worked both on a new Mac and in Windows. Using all browsers and services, and several players plus the OS included players to test the output.

The end conclusion: color management is a freaking MESS. With any particular X setting of the NCLC tags, the image was correctly displayed (and his included charts and ramps so there were very tight measurements that could be made) in one or two things, but was not in others. It was a mix & match, pick your pick, there simply wasn't a setting he could export to that would look correct on any one system across services, browsers, and apps.

Very frustrating ... maddening ... infuriating. It should NOT be this impossible.

Resolve gives you the export options to set a few things differently for NCLC tags, which Premiere doesn't. I've argued with the program heads & engineers to get them, but they've said it simply wouldn't be any panacea. Well ... it would be something that some users could use for their specific needs.

But as that guy's testing shows, they are right: it wouldn't be a panacea like everyone wants.

Neil

Everyone's mileage always varies ...

KizzumeAuthor

Inspiring

"Something I don't think we've talked of in this thread, what do the scopes, particularly the Waveform (YC no Choma mode) show for the original image? Are the blacks down to black in the scope or lifted a bit? It has occured to me that if your monitor was set to 'full' range 0-255 for Rec709 in the video card settings, you would get about exactly this result if you then set the image by visual black in Premiere."

I don't use scopes to analyze this stuff, I use actual color value numbers. It doesn't matter which setting I have set for video playback. Premiere changes the images regardless. Again, since v13. Before v13 it was always just fine.

Here are examples of what happens between the originals and what happens to the images when I run them through Premiere. The images that only have text on the left are the original images. On the images that has text on both sides, the text on the left shows the original values, and the text on the right show what the values become once they're ran through Premiere.

As an example, the color 1,1,1 becomes 9,9,9 after it's ran through Premiere.

S

salvo34

Inspiring

focus more on what you CAN do rather than what you CAN'T do.

🙂

S

salvo34

Inspiring

Andy knows what he's talking about so please watch the video thing he posted. I didn't but I don't have a dog in this happy dog run, Your issue is very complicated at it's core, re: gamma gamut and color. So, using 'workarounds' to fix things is a good idea. Switching to resolve would cost you a year in learning curve, and money for new hardware ( like SDI out to video monitor etc.)

You would need tens of thousands of dollars to do that and spend a year learning the resolve program(s) cause they are now combined ( edit, color, sound, FX, etc. ). Different animals.

I worked on movies my whole life as a grip ( lighting, set construction, rigging) in NYC and video playback and DIT stations and pro camera crews were some of the best in the world. The equipment is extremely expensive and 'rentals' is a big market ( or vendors if you do playback). This is a hobby for me now and I am in the same boat as you re: home computer stuff and available NLE stuff.

You know what my main impression is from your posts ?

a) I like either one of your sample images ( which when you go from film to jpg is introducing new values maybe )

b) I just want to see the story you tell cause what I see it on is a different screen from what you have.

I hear the frustration you have but trust me, you are wasting your time being mad at adobe if there are ways to fix it there. We are just users like you. Nobody ( NOBODY) here programs the stuff or has any infuence on that stuff. So we all work with what we have and choose the tools that work for us as INDIVIDUALS.

🙂

good luck !

KizzumeAuthor

Inspiring

"Switching to resolve would cost you a year in learning curve, and money for new hardware ( like SDI out to video monitor etc.) You would need tens of thousands of dollars to do that and spend a year learning the resolve program(s) cause they are now combined ( edit, color, sound, FX, etc. ). Different animals."

That's actually not true about cost. Yeah, I'd have to dish out $300 for the studio version of the software if I want better render speeds, but their software doesn't require a bunch of extra hardware. Sure, that hardware can make things easier, but it's not required.

It definitely requires learning new software, and I especially dislike their "node" interface, it's cumbersome, clunky, and inefficient.

"I hear the frustration you have but trust me, you are wasting your time being mad at adobe if there are ways to fix it there."

But they don't actually fix the problem, they just slightly cover it up and offer other problems with the image. Any of these workarounds make the whole image darker. Nothing, as of so far, makes it look like the original input files. To me there's no excuse for Adobe making all exported/rendered files look different than the originals.

"We are just users like you. Nobody ( NOBODY) here programs the stuff or has any infuence on that stuff. So we all work with what we have and choose the tools that work for us as INDIVIDUALS."

Well, it seems there are some Adobe employees that come here too, but yes, in general, what you say here is true.

My big issue is that everything was fine until v13, then the panels issue came up (where saved workspaces put panels in completely different places and I have to drag panels to other screens every time I create a new project), as well as this gamma issue. I really don't want to chance putting pirated software on my computer, but it might end up being my only reasonable choice. It's quite unfortunate that Adobe has this subscription model that disallows installing older versions.

EDIT: BTW, I did watch the video, and I offered images showing that it makes the whole thing darker than the original.

Anyway, thanks for your input.

A

Andy 1968

Inspiring

DaVanci Resolve does the same thing when played on the Quicktime Player or YouTube. If you drop your rendered video in the Premeire Pro timeline does it look correct? If so everything is working correctly. Dropping luts on the video clip will not work because YouTube and Quicktime do not have the same color space. You can use an adjustment layer as seen in the video below. Simply enable it at the time of rendering. It is that simple.

https://youtu.be/K7EGNJop_HE

KizzumeAuthor

Inspiring

No, it doesn't, actually. I just tested it. Davinci Resolve does NOT have this issue. Am I really going to have to switch to Davinci Resolve because y'all want to pretend there's not an issue in Premiere since v13?

S

salvo34

Inspiring

between virus stuff and u.s. vote stuff, and economy, I really am bored very often, so I like socializing a little on the forum.

I have my nvidia set to 'nothing'. No influence. Let the program control the color etc. Those cards are game cards, basically. Useless IMO and destructive. The only thing I want is the signal shot from the camera, and then the " program" will control the color and levels. Then I can use my scopes and monitors to get where I want in post.

I have to admit I am an idiot and often shoot stuff that is not happy in the editing program so I have to make adjustments to what I THINK IT SHOULD BE according to what was real life when I shot it, etc.

But telling a story is not based on technology alone these days....cause the editors are so advanced you can believe they can do anything. That's how the software maker sells the product to you.

==========

It should be easy for the standards people, vendors/manufacturer's/OS people to get a small group together and DEAL with this. And we users would all have a straight-forward, easier time of things. GRRRRRRR ....

SMPTE, ETC.

R Neil Haugen

Legend

Color management crud is confusing, and though one can say much is counter-intuitive, that doesn't even begin to cover how illogical it all it in current applications within and between OS, applications, cameras/devices, screens, players, browsers, TVs, and on and on. Some of my colorist friends who again deal with this as a massive pain-point with nearly every client they work with are hopping mad all the time.

It should be easy for the standards people, vendors/manufacturer's/OS people to get a small group together and DEAL with this. And we users would all have a straight-forward, easier time of things. GRRRRRRR ....

Back to "what is" ... video is nearly always limited range, except for a few of the 12-bit format/codec combos that are more typically image-sequence formats. And the really odd thing about setting the GPU cards as to what they send to the monitor ... it seems like 'full range' means what it displays ... but no, that's how it treats the input data for a video file.

It will always take whatever it sees as "0" to 0. It will always display 0-255.

So the video card must be set to Limited in what it feeds the monitor. And yea, like what, probably everyone else starting out, I "thought" it should be full ... and learned the hard way that no, it should be limited.

Then it will show 16-235 video on input, which is the standard for again 99% of Rec.709, as 0-255 for output on the screen.

When you had it set to full, it was mapping 16 down to 0. So you set your image in Premiere to look "correct" ... with Premiere working to be all proper. You then had to lift the values of black up so they looked correct ... then after exporting, in other apps or re-imported back into Premiere, you had a lifted file.

It's weird, it's maddening, it SHOULD NOT be so freaking complicated and stupid. And I could rant about that all day long.

Neil

Everyone's mileage always varies ...

KizzumeAuthor

Inspiring

I just think it's unfortunate that I can't get v12 anymore, where none of this was a problem. They seem to like making "improvements" that aren't actually improvements, just like Microsoft does with Windows 10.

Adobe has still never fixed the problem where workspaces don't properly remember where things have been docked--every time I open a new project, I have to drag something from one screen to another. They've known about this since v13 but they never fixed it.

I don't understand their logic in disallowing people to install versions earlier than a full version number. If I could just use v12, NONE of the problems associated with v14 would be an issue. Shame on me for upgrading my computer, right?

Kevin J. Monahan Jr.

Community Manager

Sorry for the issue, Kizzume. I think I read that you are using Windows 10. Can we get more info here? Do you have a NVIDIA GPU? I have heard of gamma shift issues occurring due to monitor control panel settings not being set correctly. I will see if I can track down the exact fix, but my spidey sense is tingling around your installed hardware and its settings being amiss. Full hardware specs might also help so that others can chime in with their settings. and hopefully we can get the planets aligned. I don't think this is a Premiere Pro issue, but I'm ready to file a bug on your behalf should be get some kind of repeatable behavior.

Salvo, I will take a glass of good cab with that mid-rare filet. Come to think of it, make mine a rib eye. Here's to NYC. I miss that place. Great steaks. Great wine.

Cheers,

Kevin

Kevin Monahan - Sr. Community and Engagement Strategist – Adobe Pro Video and Audio

KizzumeAuthor

Inspiring

Hi, thanks for your response.

I have a Ryzen 9 3900x 12 core

32gb ram

nvidia GTX 1060 6gb

I don't imagine this honestly has anything to do with my nvidia settings, this is what Premiere v14 outputs. When it comes to the original images I supplied (you have to scroll down to see both of them after you click to enlarge), the original image (the one on the bottom) I created in Photoshop and Sterling, and the image on the top is what Premiere outputted as a jpg (it is not a screenshot of what my video player shows, it's literally a jpg that I had Premiere render).

This is absolutely a Premiere Pro v13 and up issue. Before I upgraded my hardware, I was running v12, and when I tinkered with v13 I saw this issue and just stuck with v12. After I upgraded my hardware, I found that Adobe had taken away the option of installing that old of a version.

Here is an image of when I export as a jpg, then run that exported file through Premiere and export it as a jpg again, and do the process 6 times. It's not my monitor settings, it's not video card settings, it's Premiere. The LUT file that's supposed to be a workaround for this problem only covers this problem up, the image is still degraded, the LUT just makes it less obvious.

And thanks again for your response.

R Neil Haugen

Legend

The LUT that they have for gamma issues wouldn't work for this, you are quite correct ... because that LUT is made specifically to work to migrate something into Apple ColorSync version of Rec.709, to be viewed outside of Premiere, on the Mac system. The Mac color utility applies an odd gamma to Rec.709. And so that LUT has a gamma that as stated will mess the image for viewing in any 'normal' setup.

What are your color settings in Photoshop? Base sRGB is typically the best option for sending to Premiere.

@Kevin-Monahan ... Premiere has been known to have a slight gamma/chroma shift at times with a couple specific format/codec combinations. Is there anything in the stills area that we should be aware of?

Neil

Everyone's mileage always varies ...

S

salvo34

Inspiring

they wont know the diffence cause they dont see the original standard and your export to delivery.

YOU are the only one who sees that dfference, basically. So don't sweat it and just tell story.

Show more replies

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded