Skip to main content
I
itstyler
Known Participant
March 2, 2021
Question

How to install the QT Gamma Compensation LUT into the export dropdown?

  • March 2, 2021
  • 2 replies
  • 21638 views

Is there a way to install the QT Gamma Compensation LUT into the program so that it shows up in the Lumetri Look/LUT drop down in the export window? (screenshot attached for clarity) It's frustrating to have to navigate through a folder structure to load that LUT every time I export when there SHOULD be a way to add it to the drop down for easy access.

 

All of the available options currently displayed in the drop down appear in the "Creative" folder within Premiere (Contents>Lumetri>LUTs>Creative), but they are .itx files, and the .cube files I've added don't show up in this specific drop down, but DO show up within the Lumetri window while coloring. I can't make sense of why this would be unless this drop down is referencing a different folder I can't find?

 

Thanks!

    2 replies

    R Neil Haugen
    R Neil Haugen
    Legend
    March 2, 2021

    There is a specific way to add LUTs for the standard Lumetri drop-down options in the Basic and Creative tabs, shown in the following chart. NEVER ever ever add anything to the program/package file area where the 'shipped' LUTs/Looks are stored. ONLY to the locations in the chart below.

     

    The folders in the shipped program files area are accessed by a relative search by the three apps ... PrPro, AfterEffects, and MediaEncoder. They will access by position ... the third one down, not by the name. And the folders for all three apps must be identical. Hence, don't ever touch them.

     

    The folders you create at the locations shown in the chart are added to the 'included' ones by computer alpha-numeric sorting order. So I add a prefix to all mine ... like "01 A LowSat Neut". This causes my additions to always show up before any of the included (I've only like twice used an included LUT/Look) ones in the drop-down list.

     

    And I've got groupings ... with a two-digit prefix I could have up to 99 main groups, and within groups, 26 slots. Seems enough.

     

    I would add a caution to using that export LUT for the Macs ... and it is of course something they mentioned when it was first "published". That will help the file look 'proper Rec.709' on a modern Mac with a Retina screen outside of Premiere Pro, due to the odd mis-application of color standards chosen by Apple for their ColorSync utility's Rec.709 settings.

     

    However ... on every other screen out there in the wild, which is to say 85% or more of screens, that file may well look too dark and over-saturated. Ain't nothing me, thee, or any pro colorist out there can do about it.

     

    So the choice is ... look like you want it to on Mac screens, or on most other screens. This is what colorists deal with all the time. They normally simply produce to the standard, and let it go. They don't deliver to the Mac 'standard', even though I think it's pretty safe to assume more b-cast colorists are running Macs than PCs. That's what they all teach. Including the folks I work for and with daily. Produce to proper standards, it will pass QC (quality control) machines, and will look ... relatively ... like all other pro-produced material on any individual screen out there.

     

    I can guarantee you, any movie you watch on your Mac was produced to full Rec.709 standards for b-cast, and not the Mac settings. So what you see of professional work was not produced using something like that gamma correction LUT.

     

    Mis-applied color standards mangle everyone. It's "life". Sadly.

     

    Neil

    Everyone's mileage always varies ...
    I
    itstylerAuthor
    Known Participant
    March 15, 2021

    Neil,

    Thanks for taking the time to share such a thorough response! I'm getting into the weeds with the color issue now though and am thoroughly perplexed. haha I did a test, starting with a control clip (an FS7 Slog 3 XAVC-I clip) and exported from Premiere Pro as ProRes 422 without touching the clip in Premiere. Now, the control clip and the ProRes clip OUGHT to be practically identical as it's more or less a transcode, but they look different. The ProRes render is washed out compared to the original clip (I'm viewing through Finder on Mac), despite being viewed with the same application. HOWEVER, when I bring the ProRes render back into Premiere and compare to the original source clip, they look nearly identical! My eye can't see a difference, but you can tell them apart with the vectorscope. How in the world could this be? It seems that if the issue truly only existed in the displaying in Premiere Pro then when looking at the export compared to the original with a different application, they should still look the same... but they don't.

     

    I'm very confused where the issue is here, but hopefully all of the above made sense... I'll include screenshots of the two clips mentioned, though there are several more in the folder that I didn't mention because it would take forever to explain. BUT it's probably worth noting that a screenshot of the unaltered original clip in Premiere looks practically identical to an export WITH the QT Gamma Compensation LUT applied.

     

    I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this!

     

    Thanks,

    Tyler

    Ann Bens
    Community Expert
    Ann BensCommunity Expert
    Community Expert
    March 2, 2021

    How to install Luts

    FAQ: Premiere Pro Lumetri Color Custom LUT directo... - Adobe Support Community - 4785911

     

    and please next time:

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