Premiere pro latest Colourspace management updates has destroyed old projects

New Here ,
Jul 01, 2022 Jul 01, 2022

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

The latest version of premiere pro brought the new colourspace workflows for HLG and PQ etc, however, multiple projects of mine are now unusable and unfixable in a reasonable timeframe - some not at all. This is TV commercial work which was graded and interpreted with various camera rushes.

In particular footage from internal Sony FX6 .mxf files shot in SLOG3.cine gamut are now incorrect when reinterpreted to rec709. Multiple people in other forum posts have tried to say that overrising the interpretation to rec709 fixes the issue, but IT DOES NOT. However footage taken from the same camera but via a shogun recording in Prores looks fine and exactly the same as always. So something has gone horribly wrong on the Adobe end cos I have tried every combination of Colourspace settings for footage, project, sequence and even messed with LUTs to try recreate the previous look that the camera gave me in viewfinder. It has not worked, creating a noisy image with incorrect gamma.

 

This needs fixed immediately, why are we paying for this crap?

 

TOPICS
Editing , Formats , Import , User interface or workspaces

Views

104

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Community Professional ,
Jul 01, 2022 Jul 01, 2022

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Have you used the Sony S-log3.cine option?

RNeilHaugen_0-1656711364168.png

 

And I'd be happy to see if I could replicate what you're getting with those specific files. So giving a link to access a file, and including a screen grab in your reply of the specific image problems would be ever so helpful.

 

 

I've worked with several Sony mxf/S-log3.cine files provided from several different sources without troubles.

 

That said, the grading done in previous versions quite like needs to be redone. Their new Pr2022 has a completely new underlying color system ... everything is different. Why? It had to be.

 

The old system was totally based on Rec.709 standards. The only capability for working with HDR files was through a cadge they created to call the higher dynamic range (tonal values) and wider color gamut (chroma/color values) data as "over-range Rec.709" ... and that simply had to get replaced with a full system that can handle any expected tonal/chroma data values.

 

Unfortunately in my view, they didn't have a totally complete system ready at launch, which has caused a lot of troubles. With workarounds for much of it but only if you knew why and what to do. Which too many users didn't.

 

They've got more of it out in the current 22.5 shipping version, a couple more parts in the current public beta ... but it's still a hodge-podge feel to too many parts of CM.

 

Which is why among other things I've put in a request for an actual, real-life COLOR MANAGEMENT PANEL. Yes, I'm shouting!

 

We need one panel we can have up any time we want, that has all color management (CM) options ... settings, defaults, and overrides.

 

Neil

 

Color Management Panel

 

 

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jul 19, 2022 Jul 19, 2022

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hey Neil,

 

By default yes the mxf files are interpreted that way, but it's still wrong when compared to the prores files. See below that my LUTs no longer work correctly on MXF files yet do with the prores files

 

 

How footage should look (prores from atomos using the usual FX9 alistair chapman 709 LUT I use:

 

Survitec Norway most slx.00_08_24_16.Still001.jpg

 

 

MXF default import interpretation:

 

255e9915-212a-44fa-a16a-edc8dc99bab7.jpg

 

This is the MXF after applying the usual FX9 alistair chapman 709 LUT I use with default SLOG interpretation detected above:

 

Survitec Norway most slx.00_06_21_09.Still004.jpg

 

 

 

 

Trying to reinterprate the mxf as 709:

 

Screenshot 2022-07-19 163740.jpg

 

This is the MXF after applying the usual FX9 alistair chapman 709 LUT I use

 

Survitec Norway most slx.00_06_21_09.Still005.jpg

 

 

Thanks

 

 

 

 

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jul 19, 2022 Jul 19, 2022

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I forgot to say, you maybe can't see but the skintones and generally the gamma / everything is wrong - washed out, bleachy and not aesthetic. Something's gone wrong with how premiere deals with the MXF files now since last update. Also, I'm getting multiple crashes per week and RAM usage problems...

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jul 19, 2022 Jul 19, 2022

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Another reply sorry- Here is how premiere auto interprets the MXF files without any LUTs etc, again looks absolutely terrible and wrong

Survitec Norway most slx.00_06_19_05.Still008.jpg

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Community Professional ,
Jul 19, 2022 Jul 19, 2022

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I'm wondering about applying the LUT in the Input slot in the CM controls, and then using the S-log3 settings also. There are times they expect multiple things to be done, and it's still not particularly clear.

 

And that may not work at all, I don't know.

 

If you had a clip you could dropbox with a link, I'd be happy to test on my gear.

 

Neil

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jul 19, 2022 Jul 19, 2022

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thanks for replying Neil - that suggestion just made the LUT effect double up, so to speak. Like 709 plus 709 on top again..

Here is an mxf straight out of cam and a prores

https://we.tl/t-C0T9lRhImA

 

Thanks

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Community Professional ,
Jul 19, 2022 Jul 19, 2022

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thought that might happen, but their new system is at times not ... obvious. Some things you just gotta try every option.

 

Downloaded the file here now.

 

Neil

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Community Professional ,
Jul 19, 2022 Jul 19, 2022

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I've had mxf clips where their transform worked beautifully, but ... this ain't one of them.

 

I had to bypass the S-log transform and go to the Rec.709 override. I could quickly normalize the file then, but ... that may not of course be what you're used to.

 

After using the Rec.709 override, if I were going to use a LUT for further shaping, I would use it via the Creative tab's dropdown in Lumetri. And use the Basic tab's tonal/sat controls to "trim" the clip's exposure/shadows/whites/contrast/sat into the LUT.

 

Neil

RNeilHaugen_0-1658276825551.png

 

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jul 19, 2022 Jul 19, 2022

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thanks for looking further into it. Do you mean each clip would require a base grade custom made to try match how it should look? Bearing in mind this MXF file is straight out of the Sony FX6 internal cards on a gimbal, the other being the exact same camera, shoot, day etc but from shogun via SDI out on the shoulder rig.

 

It should look in Premiere how it looked in my viewfinder...and it's not even close. I can't match it either. Something's gone terribly wrong with how Adobe interprets SLOG 3 in this new update.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Community Professional ,
Jul 19, 2022 Jul 19, 2022

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Um ... no camera made has a truly accurate screen, not even the $70G Red & Arri rigs. If someone needs to check, one typically has a calibrated external monitor on set. And even then, that's normally to check with false color or zebra.

 

The goal with camera screens is to get them to 'useful' to see that your shot is captured decently for framing & such. I've yet to see a screen that comes close to as nice as a well shot, well graded file looks on a good display.

 

So your and my expectations probably differ some.

 

And it's pretty easy to apply "bulk" corrections to groups of clips that are the same camera and shot under pretty close circumstances. Takes a lot of the shotmatching work away.

 

Neil

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jul 20, 2022 Jul 20, 2022

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

What is rec709 vs rec709 (scene) ? Scene may have fixed my issue on new import. Old imports seem to be acting funny though.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Community Professional ,
Jul 20, 2022 Jul 20, 2022

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

LATEST

Rec.709 has two components ... the"camera" bit, and a display bit that was added when we went from the old cathode ray tubes to modern screen tech. Cathode ray screens 'natively' applied the gamma, and Bt1886 copied that result and applied it to the camera capture.

 

So technically it's Rec.709 with the Bt.1886 addition that is the normally accepted full Rec.709.

 

Scene-referred means leaving off the "display-referred transform", in this case, the Bt1886.

 

Neil

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines