Selected luts not applied to Media encoder

[RG500]

I have added a LUT to the drop down menu of Lumetri basic. You can select this and the lut is applied. If you quick export within Premiere the LUT is applied to the export. If however you send the export to Media encoder, the export does not apply the LUT. Can't imagine why this happens. If I apply the LUT from an external source rather than the drop down menu the LUT is applied when exporting via Media Encoder.

PP 23 and latest version of Media Encoder.

[R Neil Haugen]

Because you added the LUT to the ones included with the app. Users should never, ever! add LUTs to the Premiere, AfterEffects, or MediaEncoder internal folders!

Because you then get exactly what you just got.

There are two different paths users can use to add LUTs in such a way that you add them once, and all three apps access them. Search the help for user LUT locations.

I prefer the location:

Program [Package on Macs] files/Adobe/Common/LUTs ...

... and then use the appropriate subfolders so they show on the drop-down list where you expect to use them. You may need to create these subfolders before adding the LUTs.

• Input (for Interpret Footage color management Input LUT slot)
• Technical (for Lumetri Basic tab Input LUT slot)
• Creative (for Creative tab Look input LUT slot)

Neil

[McKian]

This is frustrating to me because this entry pops up in google as the first solution for this issue and it doesn't feel like it actually solves the issue for me. I'm not sure how to get Media encoder to link up to the same LUT's now that I've moved them to the Common Folder.

For me I just moved the luts to the internal folder of Media Encoder and restarted my computer and it started working again. It's not ideal since I have to do it every time Adobe updates their software but there doesn't appear to be a better solution coming from Adobe.

[R Neil Haugen · Accepted solution]

Do NOT put LUTs in the program's internal LUT folders ... that's not only not recommended, it will lead to really screwy behavior.

There are the two user-added LUT storage locations ... they do publish that in the help documentation. Not that it's a fantastic help file, this is there.

The Program{package} files/Adobe/Common/LUTs folder is the easiest for me. With subfolders I created as above.

After adding any LUTs to the subfolders, you have to relaunch Premiere, or any other of the three apps Ae, Me, or Pr. They only scan those folders for contents on program launch. 

And if they are not seeing them on re-launch, it's normally 1) the LUT type isn't usable, like many Resolve created LUTs; 2) there's a name issue or some other file header issue;  3) nearly all other problems are a folder permissions issue between the OS and Premiere.

Some LUTs can be made usable if you know how to open them in a text editor, and simply remove some extra unneeded verbiage in the file header. There's one line typically added by Resolve that gunks Premiere, but I can't remember which it is at the moment.

[McKian]

Putting them in the internal LUT folder's works for me. It feels like duplicating the exact folders they have in program is just going to lead to chaos in trying to get things looking in the right place.

I don't understand how you get Me to link up to those folders and use them for LUTs instead of their native folders. I can easily select them in Pr but I don't see any option on how to do it in Me. 

Adobe really needs to fix this. It's just sad that this continues to be a problem for years.

[R Neil Haugen]

If you put them in with the program's own LUTs, then ... you must have the identical LUTs in every program.

Because they do not use LUTs from their internal folders by LUT name, but by the relative positions of the LUTs in the folders in a computerese alphanumeric sort process.

Ergo ... fifth LUT down, not Albany_Blue ...

Whereas, if  you correctly place them in folders that Premiere, AfterEffects, and MediaEncoder are all designed to look ... then they work across all apps.

I can access and get applied the many LUTs I've created by all three apps. Across version series, since prior to 2019 versions, from the one set of folders.

You can't do that in your process. You will have to ensure that every folder has precisely the same number and name of LUTs in them across all apps. A ton of work there.

[McKian]

Ah, I'll check that out. Weird that it works that way. It really is a failure on Adobe's part to not have the LUT's in there already.

[R Neil Haugen]

I don't know that I'd call their design a failure. As I don't know all the reasoning. And yea, it seems kinda odd at times.

But they clearly have this designed so that the apps all have their own, matching, internal list ... applied  by place in the list ... and the user-added external locations.

And it works ... as long as you understand how it works, and your computer allows it to work. And stuff gets done.

[McKian]

That is pretty much the definition of failure. It doesn't work unless you go out and google the way to trick your program into working. They have done a bad job and you have to fix it for them. If I bought a table and it was broken and I had to spend hours fixing it then it isn't exactly a good table. Especially for the incredible amount Adobe charges. 

[R Neil Haugen]

A complex, complicated professional level application tends to require some time by the user to learn how it works. That's tge same no matter the app.

It's like the way so many new users don't understand what an NLE playhead actually does, and are shocked that there's an "extra" frame on an export.

There's a lot of things to learn.

[McKian]

That's like comparing that you have to learn how to adjust your seat in a new car to having to dig beneath the hood and replace part of your wiring. It is no where near the same thing and Adobe should have fixed this years ago. If Adobe doesn't know how to actually make a program the works consistently than they have a lot to learn.

[R Neil Haugen]

Human perceptions are fascinating, as we are all different from each other. We are all diverse, because the reality is we don't know how to be otherwise.

To me, your analogy is backwards. Messing in the program folder is going under the hood. I don't know other apps where one adds things into the program files folders.  And this has been set like this, and included in all the help and tutorial stuff, since 2017 at the least

There is a rather large difference ... to me, at least ... between something that works very consistently if different than some expects, and one that work inconsistently.

The things like user keyboard settings, presets, all of that, are outside the program files. Which might not be what you expect, but is how the entire app is written.

And is entirely consistent with the behavior for other user added things.

Understand, I've complained repeatedly about the plethora of places user stuff is stored. Sort of all other the drive. THAT I would like to see modified, down to one folder where all user things are stored.

Neil

[McKian]

I was comparing your playhead reference to adjusting the seats and anything involving adding things to folders as messing under the hood.

Yeah, Adobe is just frustrating with the things they never think to fix.

[R Neil Haugen]

I work for/with/teach pro colorists, mostly based in Resolve. And most of them have a long list of things they've wanted changed in the color page of Resolve for years.

Yea, we users and the program devs often have different views of the things that need changing. But then, we users have totally different views of what change is needed anyway. An aisileway discussion at NAB with five editors will have five different versions of what needs change first.

With others not wanting anything off another's list to happen. Humans being human, of course.

[McKian]

They have a duty to create a program that works especially considering what money they receive. Having the program look in a different folder for LUTs so the program works isn't controversal or hard for them to do.

[R Neil Haugen]

But ... it does work, as designed. I've got an icon on the desktop for the top folder for LUTs strorage I use. It's the access for either adding to or removing them.

Works very well.

My only quibble is that they have too many places for users stuff, which to me should all be under one main folder ... easier for backing up/migration & etc.

[McKian]

I honestly don't understand what you are going on about. We are here on an entry discussing how to fix a failure in the program and you are saying at least it works after we fix it as if that is a good thing? It works very well? No. No it doesn't. It feels like you are turning to Mary Todd Lincoln and asking her how the rest of the play was. You have missed the entire point. If it worked well we wouldn't be talking about this at all. The entire point is that it doesn't work well!

Your entire reasoning is that these programs are difficult and that we can eventually fix them for Adobe. Please stop apologizing for them because they need to be told to their job.

[Kevin-Monahan]

Hello @McKian,

Thanks for your concern about this feature. Neil is correct about that location of the LUTs for all Adobe digital video apps to have access to the same LUTs. You should not install them in the app folder. The team is aware of the problems with the design of this feature and are actively working on improving it. Sorry that I have to ask for your patience on that. If you have suggestions about how the feature should work, feel free to file a feature request here. Hope the info is useful.

Thanks,

Kevin

[McKian]

Will do!

[R Neil Haugen]

I'm not apologizing for Adobe, and I don't give a hoot for corporations. I work in both Premiere and Resolve on a daily basis, and am used to pro video post apps. All of which have their intriguing design difference. Adobe and BM are quite capable of looking after themselves.

And I fully realize that though I have opinions, and experience, they are mine and no one else's. As ... we are all different.

You seem to think that because you don't like it, and want it different, it's broken. But to me, that's a personal point of view, as are mine. And you are most welcome to it! We're all different, and all have different views.

But don't expect one other human to ever fully agree with your viewpoint. I certainly don't expect that. The Adobe staffers know my viewpoints, which oft do not coincide with theirs. Which is fine. I'm only one person, as are you.

But you see, I've heard people say the exact same thing about Ae being layers ... that's a broken design. Or nodes ... such as Resolve and Fusion ... being a broken design. And insist that by "broken" they mean it should not ever be that type of design.

There is no reason whatever that Adobe, BlackMagic, or Filmlight uses your suggestion. It clearly is a design thing, a choice that can be made. Having the outside location for user's personal stuff, is to me a very valid choice, as they do not want users mucking around the Program files folder for the app. I don't know of another app that does, off hand.

That it isn't obivious ... yea, that's quite an accurate assessment.  That they've got stuff put in several locations rather than one, that's an accurate thing. And a problem for most users.

I wouldn't still say broken ... but a design choice I disagree with.

[McKian]

Nah. You can give some grace to technology being complicated but when you have an easy fix error that causes confusion that is a design failure. Read the post from the original person. They applied a LUT within Premiere and it didn't transfer to ME. 

It's not complicated. It's not a different viewpoint. It's not a design choice. It's not a suggestion. It's a failure to create a program that works reliably. 

[R Neil Haugen]

Well, we can agree to disagree, which is of course entirely human. 

I'm not a fan of having users do things inside any program's program folders. Even Resolve expects users to have an outside-Resolve place to store your LUTs, that Resolve then adds to the list of LUTs.

So ... do you feel that Resolve is also broken? Bad design? Just curious.

Neil

[McKian]

Nah. We can disagree about taste. This isn't a matter of taste or design choice as you want to put it. This is the program failing to do what it tells you it is doing. You have to find and research a way to fix it because it is far from obvious. 

I can't speak about Resolve because I don't use it.

[R Neil Haugen]

If one doesn't understand how a complex, complicated app functions ... one must learn then how it functions. We can ask for as much intuitive behavior as possible, but even that is a bit less than usable for many.

Because how we each may anticipate something functioning is very, very different.

For another example ... I've been told since the late 80's that the Apple OS is so superior, so much more intuitive. And over that time, I don't know how many computers I've used in my shop, let alone personal ones. But all of mine have been PCs.

Largely because, to me, the Apple OS is simply unfathomable. I can barely get a program to open, let alone work on the blame things. And yes, I've spent a few hours on them.

Which is only one of the reasons I never assume that beacause I didn't "see it!" at first, that something is designed wrong.

And of course, this is another area where all the colorists I know and work with roll their eyes about  ... editiors. The colorists expect there'll be a ton of learning. Hard work to get the app their using down, and to master the craft. Buying expensive hardware & plugins.

Editors, to them, are ... well ... expecting things to be handed to them. Complain about the need for hardware half as capable (and a quarter the expense) the colorist's need, complain about buying $20 plugins when the colorists have several $600 suites in addition to their software ... and on.

Well ... I, personally, resemble that statement ... 

[McKian]

If you want to blame yourself when they fail to make a program that works without you have to jury rig solutions that's on you.