Why Do My Premiere Pro Exports Look Washed Out? [QT Gamma Compensation LUT]

[NickiDoane]

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?

[Moderator edited subject line. This issue relates to how a video exported from Premiere Pro might look different from how it appeared inside Premiere Pro. After export, the video may appear "too light" or "washed out". ]

[NickiDoane]

Nevermind having a moment - it's fine.

[chrisw44157881]

i am not aware that the lut doesn't work with mac. premiere reads the file so it should still work.

download lut here:

https://community.adobe.com/t5/premiere-pro-discussions/quot-why-does-my-footage-look-darker-in-prem...

just place it in location here:

https://community.adobe.com/t5/premiere-pro-discussions/faq-premiere-pro-lumetri-color-custom-lut-di...

and render out with lut.

[zensei24321378vihf]

Is this still a thing that needs to be done in July 2022 with latest Adobe?

[R Neil Haugen]

That of course, depends.

As the need ... or use of that LUT ... is caused by the Mac OS color management utility ColorSync applying a non-standard gamma to Rec.709 video files.ColorSync, for some reason, uses a 1.96 gamma.

So Rec.709/SDR video files are displayed with lighter shadows and mids on a Mac, than they would be if displayed with the "normal" Rec.709 gamma of 2.4.

Premiere always attempts to operate by the Rec.709 standards, including it's internal monitors which are not 'controlled' by ColorSync. So the image typically is darker within Premiere than outside on the same Mac computer.

That LUT will essentially push the midtones and shadows a bit darker in the exported file, so that when viewed on a Mac, outside of Premiere, the file will look more like it did while viewed in Premiere.

But of course, then outside of the Mac-sphere, on a non-Mac system, that file will now be a lot darker than it appeared on the Mac within Premiere. Because on non-Mac gear, the Rec.709 video file will probably be displayed with a correct 2.4 gamma.

So ... the choice is between two imperfect things:

• A bit light on a Mac, but "normal" outside of Mac displays without the LUT.
• "Normal" viewed outside Premiere on a Mac, but too dark outside of the Macs.

That dilemma can't be "solved" by a version change with an outside app like Premiere or Resolve. The need/use of the LUT could only be changed by a change of the standard used by ColorSync.

Neil

[Aadnan26492056qqa9]

Could have made it easier for everyone uploading to youtube. Could have been a toggle and not a random file that's not even provided by premiere from the get go.

[R Neil Haugen]

True.That would have been a lot easier for the users.

Although ... when you apply that to a file, you do understand it's going to look a lot worse ... very dark/contrasty and over-saturated ... on all non-Mac screens, right? For example, if you have any scenes that are relatively dark to begin with, the shadows will simply crush.

Which is why my colorist buds ... mostly Mac people of course ... are furious with Apple over creating this problem.

Neil

[defaultqjtdlqoon3z5]

Dear Neil, 

We understand that you have strong convictions about the way you believe color space should be accomplished. However, we must consider the bigger picture and the fact that a much larger group is already working towards completing and editing videos in a certain way specifically for Apple products. It is important for us to work together and come to a compromise rather than insisting on doing things solely our own way.

While we respect your beliefs and opinions, it is a little bit selfish to insist on doing things only your way when there are so many other people involved in editing. By coming together and finding a solution that works for everyone, we can ensure that the task is completed efficiently and effectively.

From the thousands if not tens of thousands of people who edit video for devices, we urge you at adobe to consider the benefits of working together and compromising in order to accomplish meaningful this important task. We are the paying customer. Let's put aside our individual desires and focus on the greater good to fix this adobe color space issue so that exports look like the edits... It is time. It has been years.

[defaultqjtdlqoon3z5]

For anyone finding this forum. The fix listed above with the Gamma Correction Lut still does not accomplish the desired result of maintaining your color grading. If adobe can render a preview that is vivid it should be able to create an export that is vivid as well. 

[R Neil Haugen]

What a bizarre response ... let's review the situation.

The "normal" standard for Rec.709 is to apply the camera and display transforms. That is the regular & expected method in all pro broadcast applications.

Adobe applies that universal standard to the media.

Apple chooses to work differently, and does NOT apply the display transform. Which is why the same file looks different outside of full Rec.709 color on a Mac ... or anywhere else.

That isn't opinion, it's just the practical "what is".

Now, how is Adobe supposed to solve that? I'm quite serious here.

What do you want Adobe's video people to do about this, being as they have no control of what Apple chooses to do whatever.

So again ... how is Adobe supposed to fix a choice by Apple?

Neil

[R Neil Haugen]

To "default"s second post ... that same video will have full saturation and shadow depth if viewed on a full-on Rec.709 setup.

It is only when viewed with an incorrect display gamma on a Mac that it will seem to be lighter in shadows and low-saturated. As if you send that file to me or anyone with a full Rec.709 viewing system, it will look as it does within Premiere on your Mac.

Neil

[Alan 5555]

Well @R Neil Haugen ,  I have found that is not actually the case.  The same happens with Windows as well.  Furthermore that file that you are saying will look way darker outside the mac sphere does not look darker outside the mac spere.  if I export a file without the compensation LUT and upload to say, Frame.io and then move outside the mac sphere and check how that file looks by checking on an Android tablet or phone / or iPhone it stillo looks brighter than it should on all devices which I'm afraid leaves your theory incorrect.  I wish it didn't.

[R Neil Haugen]

I work for/with/teach pro colorists. I've been doing so for years now. So both at NAB and online, I'm part of discussions with many of the top colorists and also the color management/calibration experts like the main person at LightIllusions/ColourSpace.

NOTHING I've posted here ... well, very little ... is personal information. It comes from the top industry experts in both theory and practice. And believe, pro colorists tend to have both theory and practical interests.

It sounds like you are insisting that the same file will look the same when viewed on a display with two widely varying tranform/gamma functions. 

Over the years, I've tested a ton of files sent by Mac users with or without the Adobe "gamma compensation LUT" ... and that is both in Premiere and Resolve studio, which I use daily.

On a highly calibrated and profiled monitor. I didn't just run a calibration, but also ran a profile pass, with ColourSpace using Resolve as the TPG, and providing me with charts of the after-calibration results. I do not work with it unless the profile shows calibration with that all-important low delta-E numbers.

My setup is based on broadcast specs ... sRGB primaries, Rec.709 profile, gamma 2.4, brightness 100 nits in a pretty darkened room with a measured bias light level on the wall behind the 'reference' screen. That's my viewing situation.

Using appropriate CM settings in both Premiere and Resolve, I get identical view and scopes displayed in both apps.

I've never had a submitted file from a Mac user with the added LUT that displayed 'correctly' on my screen and scopes. Ever.

Conversely, the files that were instead simply exported from Premiere without the LUT nearly always are pretty decent. They weren't produced on a full b-cast setup, but for most general use, they'll probably work fine.

And the discussions of NCLC tagging, and/or what "should!" be the standard, all of that, are long, detailed, and at time mind numbing. But at the end of if, if any Mac user sets their monitor to the new option of "HDTV Video (Rec.709-Bt.1886)" ... the issue seems to go away.

Magical, that? Use the same standard, why suddenly ... there isn't a problem!

[toran_rp]

Big specs guy Neil.  But they look different within the program and then when the export is done (outside Adobe program).  So still an issue.  what's the short, simple solution?  no one has time to write or read on this platform as much as we have here.  Please give quick easy fix, and we can all get back to work.

[R Neil Haugen]

There isn't a "short fix", nor can there be. Physics are what they are, so is math.

So as long as Apple runs two different views of "Rec.709" ... gamma 1.96 on most machines, gamma 2.4 on those with Reference modes using the HDTV setting ... we'll have the problem. If Apple chose to make all non-reference mode Macs use gamma 2.4, the problem goes away.

But that's the problem ... different display gammas for some Macs. Nothing you or I can do will change that.

Which is why no profesisonal broadcast or streamed shows are graded at gamma 1.96. None. They're all graded at to-spec sRGB, 100 nits monitor brightness in a semi-darkened room, display gamma 2.4. All professional media is graded to that standard.

[jonathang66658574]

Its sad That Capcut or final cut don't have this problem exporting. Vides Looks the same as in the program. I don't understand why Premier makes things so complicated.  IDK smh

[Größen33335763suua]

Well that Dilemma can be solved by using Davinci Resolve^^ because Davinci Resolve does it correct.

So i ask again the Question: Why does Adobe dont change their program?

Its a Worldwide Problem with this, users even make LUT Files to correct this, and that even dont work for windows. For that Price u have to pay for Adobe Premiere Pro u get something like this? Its ridicolous.

[R Neil Haugen]

I don't know what part of reality some people have trouble understanding. And note, I work for/with/teach pro colorists, mostly based in Resolve. I use Resolve quite a lot, and ... as I work for/with and teach pro colorists ... I have been around "this discussion" with top tier colorists and the folks that make the calibration software used by the colorists for their spendy monitors.

Over the last five or so years. Hours of presentations and discussions, both at NAB and online. Hours of reading white papers and tests ad infinitum.

 I know the issue. And the frustration that Resolve based pro colorists have with Apple ... and they're mostly Mac geeks. So ... again, here's the history of this issue.

When Apple came out with the Retina monitors and then ColorSync, for some unknown reason they built in the assumption that the OETF function of the camera ... essentially gamma 1.96 ... was the appropriate display gamma. (Boy, does that lead to some down-the-rabbit hole discussions ... )

After Apple came out with their odd 1.96 display gamma, the Resolve devs added an option called Rec.709-A, and yes, specifically, A is for Apple. Why? Very simple.

Because the entire 'broadcast world' used a screen (display) gamma of 2.4 with Rec.709/SDR media. And yes, that specifically included Resolve.

The "Rec.709-A" option was their attempt to make 'basic' Mac users happy. Even if the result wouldn't fly in professional broadcast usage. Btw, Mac has a ton of user options that users shouldn't use, normally ... because they'll mess up your media. But they seem to feel hey, you wanna mess yourself up, have at it ... 😉

(And this is a constant humor dicsussion among colorists, tales of users setting screwy things then wondering why it's ... darn ugly ... )

So did Adobe create the problem? No.  And prior to Apple's odd display gamma, Resolve didn't have the Rec.709-A option either.

So Resolve tried to give users an option to make them happy ... even if it was not "correct" ... which was the option for Rec.709-A for Apple. The problem being, a show you worked on set to Rec.709-A might well not pass the QC machines, but hey ... again, that's your problem, not theirs.

Adobe took a different direction. They kept the broadcast standard within their system, but decided on using that "gamma compensation LUT" at export as a way to allow Mac users to set their media to Apple's unique view if they chose. Essentially a different route to allow users to get to a similar result.

Neither approach was "right", both allowed users to create a file that might well not pass QC machines, but hey ... again, that's your choice.

Now, with the 24.x release, the Premiere devs have included a user settable viewer gamma for the Program monitor. You can choose 2.4 (broadcast), 2.2 (web), and 1.96 (QuickTime), the latter being the one to match your Mac's odd Rec.709 setup.

So ... Adobe is giving you now what you supposedly want ... use it!

Although ... be aware! ... Apple has recently introduced another issue ... being Apple, of course. It's actually a 'fix' for their own mistake, but it's an additional option apparently on most newer Macs.

It's to set the screen display to "HDTV" ... and if you do, you get full-on Rec.709 with display gamma of 2.4.

So ... use the 1.96 viewing gamma all you want! Just understand, on most PC/Android and pro systems, you media will not look what you would consider "correct". But past that, it won't even look "correct" on all Macs, because some Mac users are now setting theirs to "HDTV". Which gives a correct display gamma for Rec.709 'standard' setups.

Ain't life a joy?

[happybelated]

I'm on Mac, and Adobe's LUT does not produce the same grade as their program's display window. It's darker, but not even comparable when it comes to the color and look of the media. Adobe has still yet to offer a half-decent solution to this problem, obvioulsy keeping in mind that the world isn't just going to move to PC.

[R Neil Haugen]

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 quite uniquely so. As it isn't just "PCs" ... it's all of broadcast standard systems that Apple chose to ignore.

The issue is two parts, a display transform and a color space transform. Apple chose to apply the listed camera transform for Rec.709 as the display transform, of gamma 1.96. Which "the standard" says is supposed to be a mathematical tranform using the bottom of a gamma 2.4 curve, which is what everything else uses for Rec.709 display.

And I found out recently, from the testing of a noted color scientist type, that clearly the conversion applied to Rec.709/sRGB files by ColorSync on the Macs doesn't properly remap the sRGB colors within the P3 of the monitor space either. So that is where the slightly desaturated view comes in.

You can't display a file with two separate gammas, and a poorly done color space transform, so it looks similar on systems using those two differing displays. And that means that you cannot produce a file to look 'exactly' the same on a Mac Retina (without Reference mode) monitor and any broadcast spec display.

In fact, a Mac with Reference modes, using the HDTV setting, will see the same gamma 2.4 display for Rec.709 video as any other b-cast spec system ... including TVs.

So it's really a pick your poison for users. If you need to pass broadcast QC, you gotta use a display to correct on, that is correctly set for Rec.709 with gamma 2.4.

If you worry only about Mac users without reference modes, in web viewing, then probably the QuickTime gamma 1.96 setting is what you want. But do so knowing that all Macs with reference modes, and all non-Mac screens, will see a very different image. Probably too dark, crushed blacks and maybe clipped whites, and over-saturated.

Or do what most colorists do, and as expected, the majority of them are total Mac geeks ... and ticked as Hades at Apple. No professional media is produced at the gamma 1.96 setting ... period. All professional Rec.709 media is produced with a monitor setup to sRGB,. D65, 100 nits brightness, gamma 2.4.  (Occasionally gamma 2.2.).

[master_finder98BC]

WHAT???? I appreciate that you tried to explain this to people. But for the layman, this makes absolutely no sense, and you might as well be explaining rocket science to us. Also, you didn't even give a solution, or if you did, I completely missed it.

[R Neil Haugen]

As has been said over and over a bazillion times ...

There is no solution possible!!!!!!!1

You cannot display an image at two separate gamma settings and 'see' the same image. PERIOD.

Apple ... but only on Macs without Reference modes! ... shows one image.  With lighter shadows, and the hues poorly mapped to the monitor's P3 native color space.

Macs with Reference modes and all other devices from broadcast spec systems through Android through PCs to TVs ... show a different, darker-shadow image. With more correctly mapped hue values.

The Rec.709 standard, with the addenda Bt.1886 section, has been specified for many years now. Apple chose not to follow that, but only on Macs without Reference modes.

Everything else uses the full standard.

And past that, all screens will vary from every other screen out there. NO two screens, even "identical" ones, are ever actually identical. It isn't physically possible. And anyway, the same screen out in daylight, then showing the same image in a darkened room ... you will see the image differently. Because what matters is both the screen image and your ambient viewing environment.

Change either, you change the perceived image. Period.

Just try to understand this important thing ... colorists do not buy the high-end Grade 1 Reference monitors, a very specific and expensive group of monitors by specs ... then buy calibration gear costing more than your entire system ... and carefully setup their room both brightness and viewing background ... so that you will see what they see.

It is not physically possible.

So why spend all that money and time?

Simple ...because then, in relative terms ONLY ... their produced media, on other screens, looks relatively like other professionally produced media on that screen.

And they know that no one, no matter what the distribution form is ... theater, streaming, broadcast, whatever ... will see exactly what they saw when grading.

Because it simply cannot happen.

That's the problem.

[Michael Muench]

Hey Neil, 

but you can't export Gamma 2.2 from Premiere Pro since the the Color Managment is only a display but not an export option. So we can only export Gamma 2.4 at the moment. Using that LUT helps you to export something color corrected for Social Media for example that comes in with 2.2 Gamma. Then PP will turn it into 2.4 and when you add the LUT on export you will at least get a fake 2.2 again that looks like the original. 

[R Neil Haugen]

I'm not sure what you're thinking there ... Premiere doesn't export 'to' anything, actually. Just the expected, nearly universal standard for Rec.709 video images.

The way it works, you set the display and do the corrections, and the file is exported to standard Rec.709 specs. Which is what most hardware expects.

"The Web is 2.2" ... is only true for still images. Most players of video such as VLC, PotPlayer, and Firefox, will use 2.4 for Rec.709 video ... on any monitor. 

Now ... there's an issue most get wrong, and that is that you should always grade Rec.709 with a gamma 2.4 display setting ... WRONG!!!I

The specs clearly state that colorists working in the recommended near-dark room ambient lighting environment should use gamma 2.4 for the display transform. True.

But anyone working doing color corrections in a normally lit ambient room environment is SUPPOSED to use a display transform of gamma 2.2.

Because in testing, the crucial factor is the ambient light as one is working. Why the darker room recommendation?

Because one sees image color saturation better with the darker room lighting. That's it.

Gamma 2.4 display transform is the generally recognized standard, as set decades ago in the specs, by nearly everything except Macs without Reference Modes. Even Macs with Reference mode, set to HDTV, use gamma 2.4 for the display transform for Rec.709 video.

Yes, in Resolve, you can use the "Rec.709-A" tag ... and "A" is as stated, for Apple ... which puts a non-standard NCLC tag in the file header that most Macs will then for some unknown reason see and set the display transform to gamma 2.4.

But that is not specified for that use, most non-Mac gear doesn't "see" that tag and do anything with it, and non-Mac gear that does respond to that tag can do weird stuff. It's not a great solution either.

The biggest thing that using the gamma 2.2 "web" display setting will accomplish, is when grading in a normally lit room, you will probably set a closer luma (brightness) view of the image, while working, to have it relatively be closer to that set by someone working in a darkened (but not quite black!) room at gamma 2.4.

[jonathang66658574]

Mine always shows darker and more colorful on premier, on export it's always lighter, So I gave up and tried a couple of exports til I got it right. You shouldn't have to do that.