Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hi There,
Months ago I found a download here I think for the QT Gamma Compensation LUT ... I just updated my mac and now the file is a .cube and I don't know how to change it to a usable file again. Help? Does anyone know where I can find the file again to download & use?
Why are you still trying to use that LUT? Have you tried the QuickTime/gamma 1.96 option in Premiere's color management?
Oh, and have you properly setup all the color management settings now in the 24.x series?
As nearly everyone who's posted here having troubles has unfortunately not set their color managment up consistently. Well, very understandable, as so many things are new.
Although I do wonder why so many Apple users expect Adobe to somehow magically fix what Apple chose to break ... and
...Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Dear Neil,
I did exactly what you said, the rsult is:
i have color banding
the dark grey color in the down area is not that visibil
conclusion: am totally confused
i just uploaded a podcast worked as web 2.2 and exported asi mentioned previosly , looks like washed up no colors and flat
am really confused .
my monitor was Rec 709 and 2.4 Gamma, now am swetching back to SRGB and working on 2.4 , knowing for sure is what am seeing on my premiere pro display is not what am going to have after i export from premiere pro in HEVC with gamma compensation filter applied.
am working on PC, if you suggest me a workflow, you simply saved me a 1 year course that am going to do on Davnici Resolve ,, am really tired of this
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hey, color can be so freaking confusing and frustrating! Every so often I need to re-do my calibration, and I always put it off too far because i hate the entire calibration process. It's mind-numbingly boring, and it's so darn easy to miss something ... and have to redo the entire half hour process you just 'completed'.
And then running that profile pass, Colourspace using Resolve as the TPG ... to check the calibration. And the resultant chart is ... just ... not quite ... close enough. I've got to tweak something, and do the whole flipping thing again.
Typically takes at least a half day for me. I've had colorists tell me if I did this righteously every 3-4 weeks, I'd get it down to an hour and a half, two hours. Haven't done that yet.
Banding can come from two things ... as especially with an H.264/HEVC export, the block method that is used for compression will cause both blocky artifacts and banding if the data rate drops below what is needed for any part of an export.
What I mean by "block" is the encoding process looks at say 4, 6, 8, 9, or 12 pixel "blocks", and if they're all within a point or two between R, G, and B values, they save data rate by turning the entire block to X/Y/Z rather than their original pixel values. So a smooth gradient is now a series of 'small' ... but noticeable ... jumps.
So how do you know what bitrate and encoding process (Main, High, what profile 4.1, 5, whatever ... ) is needed?
Test. Export, and if you get banding/blocking artifacting, up the bitrate or process encoding level.
The other way to get banding is normally with 8 bit media ... with only the 255 value levels black to white ... stretching any part of that clip much for color correction, or for color space changes, can cause visible 'breaks' where there isn't a couple neighboring 'levels' anymore.
That is why it is incredibly important that all 8 bit media be exposed as close to "perfect" for that job as possible, and to have been properly white-balanced in camera to also be close to final white balance. As any needed visual changes to exposure, contrast curve, and white balance can result in banding at times.
I will add that some cameras that say they produce "10 bit" ... produce extremely thin 10 bit. You do hardly any pushing of that in color, you get blocking/banding/aritfacting. Which you shouldn't with really correct, full 10 bit media.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
let's put a side the color banding...
about the project color settings, do you recommend follow:
color space broadcast 2.4 and export with Gamma compnesation effect ?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
i like the video how its displayed in 2.4 project , once i export it without gamma filter, its looks like washed out without colors, once i export it gamma compensation filter, its looks like darks.. am totally cofused
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Are you on a Mac? If so, does it have "Reference modes"?
And if on a Mac, what does that look like in say VLC as compared to QuickTime Player?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I work on PC ,, i use to have rec709 color on monitor ,, am switching back right now to srgb
if you want,, i can sent you 2 links for the same video : one worked into a project of web 2.2 and the other one on project broadcast 2.4 used gamma compensation effect on export :
this is web : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m56UY6Ngc_M
this is sample of broadcast 2.4 with gama compensation effect on export: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjh83BHKMVg
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
On your own monitor, make sure the settings are both in the GPU if available and on the monitor, 'auto' or 'video' levels for Rec.709. Do NOT set anything to 'full'. Nvidia's GPUs have a control panel available on the computer, and you can mess with video settings there. Again, do not set that to Full.
And if the monitor has them, do not set those to 'full' either.
The other thing I can comment about is ... what cameras are you using? Do they have a 'full' setting for Rec.709 media? If so, do not use that. It is incorrect for Rec709 media, and it does nothing to get wider dynamic range or more levels, it just changes how the levels are encoded to the file.
And ... all monitors and TVs expect Rec.709/YUV (Y/Cb-Cr) media to be encoded 'legal', and automatically 'expand' the display of that to full. So if your media is full to begin with, then you get too much expansion of data, perhaps dark/crushed shadows and blown whites.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
as cameras, am using the sont fx6 , s-log 3
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
For the camera, which gamma curve? And XAVC Intra or Long?
I presume in Premiere's color management you have auto detect log and auto tonemapping on, Display color management, and viewer gamma 2.4, sequence is 2.4?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Right off, auto detect log should be on. That's interactive with auto tonemapping, by the way.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
am keeping the auto detect log color space off because i add the phantom lot ( log to rec 709 )
isn't better ?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
When are you applying that ... at the export? Because if so, no that is not a correct place.
Color space conversions need to occur as part of the working space process. Need to be visible as you are working. Or you cannot possibly get a correct output.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
For sure , yes exactly this what i do , i apply the lut log to rec709 on the lumetri creative panel ,, some time i keep it 80% or little or more little less depends on desired color i want
is that ok ?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Which precise LUT ... and got from where?
And I'm curious why you prefer that over the tonemapping in Premiere. And ... if you don't have auto detect log on, I'm not sure auto tonemapping does anything useful.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
phantom luts - Fx6 Phntm ARRI LUTs-G6 - Neutral Fx6
seems that by auto detect log and auto tone map looks better
may i had old and not updated workflow !!?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
LUTs and tonemapping are different paths that can be attempts to get to similar places. But tonemapping is based on algorithms not pre-cooked charts, so more options of if this then that not that can be incorporated. And at times it can be safer for your pixels.
So I do recommend trying the detect log/tonemapping pairing and seeing if that gets you to as good or better a starting space. In my testing, for most media, it does. For some high-end work, they do need to still use very specific LUTs for specific cameras.
The conversion LUTs, just like the tonemappings from various makers, all have a certain amount of aesthetic choices in them. None are "the only proper and correct view of this camera's sensor" ... they are all one potentially useful view of that camera's sensor output/internal math processing.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Dearest Neil,
You Just saved me totally 🙂
looks like with monitor advices you gave it to me and auto detect log + auto tone mapping every thing is totally different right now 🙂
Million thanks are not enough 🙂
the only issue that i have to dig deeper for now is the color banding on youtube 🙂
Again : Really Thank you so much
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hey, it's just nice to help things get out better for people! This stuff can be so flipping complicated ... sheesh. You just wanna get stuff out, right?
And for banding on YouTube that you don't see on your computer before upload, that's typically a recoding issue as to what they do to it after they get it. Wait at least 12 hours to a day to check as they can take some time to fully recode stuff ... which they always do.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
i will try that and i will let you know about it
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Is it possible, that the Link/Download doesnt work anymore? 😞
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I am also trying to find the LUT download! The link no longer works -- I'm getting a "Something went wrong" error. 😞
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
You can make your own, pretty easily. Far faster than trying to find and download one. And actually more useful for your media. It actually takes longer to read how to do it ... than to do it.
With the Display Color Management (DCM) preferences option on, go to the Color workspace, with the Lumetri panel and the Lumetri scopes visible.
Do your color correction as you normally would in Premiere.
Now use the Lumetri tab 3-bar menu options to add another instance of Lumetri. This will appear in the Effects Control panel below the one where you corrected your clip. You might even name them separately.
Or you could add an Adjustment layer, over the clip, and use the Color workspace while the AL is the selected clip. Either way does the same thing.
In the second Lumetri instance, either 'below' the first on the clip, or in the AL, you will drop the shadows and some of the mids tones. There are several ways to do this, use whichever one is most normal for you. I'll list the different ways to do this here in bulleted separate points.
Now ... export, and check the view of that file in say Qt Player against the image in Premiere.
If the file is too light still, darken a small amount more. If too dark, lighten a small amount. If saturation is different, adjust Sat until they visually match.
Once you've matched, go back into Premiere. With the second instance of Lumetri active ... go to the 3-bar menu system at the top of the Lumetri tab.
Click on the tab, and select "create LUT" ... however it's phrased. Save the LUT in the proper locations listed for user added LUTs ... I prefer the Program{package} files/Adobe/Common/LUTs folder area.
Whichever of the two listed places you choose, you may need to create subfolders if you haven't already. "Technical" will go to the Basic tab's Input LUT dropdown list, "Creative" to the Creative tab's dropdown Look list, "Input" for color management purposes.
Now ... will you be applying this only at export, as is likely? Then any of the folders will work, as you navigate to the folder it's in during Export.
And now, you've created your own, precisely set conversion LUT, which will do a better job for you than the Adobe created one would anyway.
Of course, on using that ... your clip will now be way, way too dark on any broadcast compliant system, and on most PC and Android devices, many TVs.
But if all you care about is how it looks on Apple controlled screens, this will float your boat.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Thank you so much for this unexpectedly quick reply and detailed breakdown! For some reason I have an aversion to fixing technical issues "by eye," when it seems that a precise colorspace transform is what the situation calls for. (Also I don't trust my own eyes lol. I guess my non-calibrated monitor isn't an issue as we're only making tweaks relative to another source on the same screen.) In lieu of some magic LUT that just pops everything into place, this method will certainly get the job done. I'll try it out -- thanks again. 🙂