I'll be at their booth in a bit here at NAB ... I'll run it by one of the folks there. Neil ... View more

Currrently there seem to be more issues on the Mac side than with PC's. Which, as a PC user, is still an unusual feeling as "we" used to be the left-out ones. Many issues, not seemingly a lot of knowledgeable PC support, that sort of thing. Now, most of the teams (and I've met some of them at the last couple NAB's ... which is where I'm at right now) work both PC and Mac systems forth and back daily. Cost wise, to build a powerful editing machine is perhaps half the cost in PC than Mac, not surprising as it's more open competition. Fewer major issues ... half the cost ... hmmm ... Neil ... View more

I'll be at the Adobe booth here at NAB later today ... I'll see if someone from the demo section has a comment or idea on this, or will look up this thread ... Neil ... View more

Great question ... I've seen this argued both ways, keep it native through all editing and just export to the other f-r, and as you did it, edit on a sequence set for output f-r. One of the things that was noted in one thread I remember, is that when needing to have EXACT timing for commercial breaks & such, editing on a modified f-r timeline allows one to check and remove a frame or three or four to keep timing dead-on. But ... I've not dealt with this personally. Maybe shooternz​ or Dave Merchant​ might opine on this ... Neil ... View more

Glad you're pleased. Which external compressor did you use, and how about listing the steps ... for anyone else finding this thread ... Neil ... View more

What seems clear to me, but not so clear to you at this point (it seems) ... is that you're very worried about a very tight level of proofing control on say PrPro yet feeding your delivery into a system that will throw it all over heck and gone. What is absolutely guaranteed ... after you upload that to YouTube, not one person on the planet will ever see every hue precisely as you have them in any NLE you might choose to use. How do I know that precisely? I have two good monitors here, both puck-calibrated, and they will NEVER show the same thing identically. Close, but not identical. Within PrPro, the same video player, whatever. I'm going to NAB, headed to the airport in a couple hours. I'll be spending a lot of time with colorists that use upwards of $30k gear at their editing suite, including all the out-board BlackMagic and AJA and Kona cards & boxes feeding out-board high-end dedicated scopes and their beautiful Flanders Scientific broad-cast monitors. If I mention this discussion, they'll just shake their heads. Yea, for the work they do, pulling secondaries to make sure that some company's logo and other 'trade-marked' colors are precise in the original is absolutely necessary ... and they do it righteously. But even among their gear, no two monitors will show precisely exactly what another one shows. Close ... it's something they routinely have to explain to clients, as so often they've got two-three computer monitors for working, the scopes thing, and a large monitor for clients to watch "over their shoulder" while working. Colorists talk routinely about wishing they had a way to make sure the client never EVER saw their working monitors and the client-monitor/screen together while working, as there are so often discussions about it ... and some clients are frightened that this screen is "right" but that one is "wrong". So they deliver those trade-marked colors as tightly according to precise number values as possible. And the commercial is broadcast ... but no two stations doing the broadcast will put out totally identical signals, there will be averaged variations ... and no two TV's that ever show that to the consumer will agree precisely on those oh-so-precise colors. Because the TV's are all over the flipping creation both for what they are capable of, and how they're set ... or not. BUT ... within that system, there are actual standards. And still it's more variable than seems reasonable. PrPro is used every day by thousands of broadcast professionals to put out highly technically prepped b-cast work, that is scanned for "standards" on submission to the studio and passes without issue. That's broadcast standards, something that can be set and technically evaluated. So ... PrPro is definitely a pro-level tool. Routinely used for pro-level b-cast deliverables. Accurately, reliably. There is NO such thing for YouTube submissions. Or for the internet in general. Period. It's not the same "field". People deliver H.264 files meeting b-cast standards from PrPro every day. And Lagarith, ProRes, and many other codecs as laid out by whoever they're delivering their content to. So claiming there's something "wrong" with PrPro's output isn't perhaps ... totally accurate. Might there be differences between PrPro's output that one can find with different codecs, especially viewed "in the wild" on different video players? Of course ... every player does slightly different things with the codecs it sees by any test I've ever made or seen. Partly because some codecs include specific things in them to "set" gamma and levels, and others don't. And partly because of the way the code for that player works. So I'm not disparaging your work in trying to puzzle this out, or understand it ... but the reason there haven't been other long-term users jumping in to either assist or suggest something else, is we've been through this. You're trying to do the most righteous output/delivery you can, and I understand that ... it's what I do also. But you're delivering into a swamp-land of no standards whatever ... seriously, which is what both YouTube and the Web and general-use video players are. And trying to relate what something is like after being dumped into the swamp with what it was like in a pristine state. You'd have better success in say creating b-cast standard stuff to a tv station, then watching that output on a b-cast standard fully calibrated expensive TV. But even then, you still would see variants at LEAST as great as what you show above. In a totally standards-controlled situation beginning to end. Which isn't at all what we do when we take something from PrPro and put it into a computer and play it on a general video player. Even on our own computer. Neil ... View more

There's a very subtle difference in the way it appears, and it is closer in the Lagarith one ... so fine, use that. This isn't to say there's something "wrong" with H.264 within PrPro, as it could as easily be the way that the other players interact with H.264 in general ... And even on your upper set, where there is a visible difference ... if that is all the difference that this appears on from different computers, you would be the luckiest content provider on the planet. Seriously. If I showed you one of those by itself, you walked out of the room a moment and back in, you would never be able to be certain which one I had on the screen, whether I'd changed it or not. You might have a guess, and half the time, you'd outguess yourself. Sitting staring at them compared to each other, it's obvious to you. But color, contrast, and hue are all way too relative to human brains. Use the Lagarith if you feel better, and just get to work. And that's coming from a picky sot myself ... Neil ... View more

As noted, some of the players show 0-255, some 16-255, some 16-235. Unless you can find settings in the players to change this, which some do allow, they will appear that way on your computer just as for others on theirs. So yes, you can see what they will see. They, however, will NEVER see what you see in PrPro to compare it to. You can NOT out-guess how to put out something that will appear the same on everyone else's computer compared to on a different computer/player combo ... simply not possible. Everyone will have a slightly different 'view' of your material, especially compared to what you see within a properly managed pro-level program. So you are trying to do the impossible ... and no one else putting out media in general can do this either. In order to do what you're trying to do, you'd have to have multiple outputs of everything you post, listed by output specs, AND rely on the users to know whether they 'need' the 0-255, 16-235, or 16-255 version. As I said in my last post, no one else will ever be comparing what they see with what you worked in Premiere Pro. They will ONLY see it in comparison with the other media they see on that player with the same settings as their player always uses. If it looks the same as good-quality material they see on THAT screen with THAT player, it will look 'right' to them. As in, again, it looks like their other good-quality stuff they watch. For general information, PrPro seems to run pretty much 0-255 with most codecs on export, and also seems to handle some camera's outputs that are say 16-235/255 fairly well on import, showing this as full-range material. So what you are left with ... is the same as any and EVERY other content-provider on the planet: you can't control the screens your content is seen on! You can't outguess how to appear exactly as it does on your machine in a pro-managed program. Period. All you can do is do your best to make sure that your own system is set up as calibrated as possible. No one else can do it better or differently, as again ... no provider has control over any but their own screens. ... View more

It's back to the issue ... you cannot out-guess you're clients, and you have to accept that. Remember, they will see this not in comparison to YOUR "beautiful" version, but only in comparison to all the other stuff they view in their setup. ALL b-cast quality stuff they see is delivered at the standard b-cast levels to YouTube, and viewed by users with the same issues as you're complaining about. If you deliver b-cast or near b-cast standards material, it will appear to them as the same or very similar to the OTHER good-quality stuff they get. If you deliver something that is "other" than what they get as the "good" stuff, that's what they'll notice ... if they notice anything. And at that point, yours is "different" than the studio-quality stuff they view. All broadcasters, even the good old networks, have this issue ... NO ONE controls how all those stupid tv's are setup, nor how the screens of the computers/devices are setup. They ALL deliver to their standards and have to leave folks to their own setups. So ... do you think you're smarter than the networks, cable companies, and such, at out-guessing all possible computer/device screens? If so ... there's room in various nice facilities, food provided ... locked key-passed doors ... endless days to think by yourself ... plot your takeover of the world ... watch the clouds go by ... Neil ... View more

Sounds good ... keep us posted if this does work continually. Useful knowledge ... Neil ... View more

One of the bugaboos I've just learned about is that rather than importing the PROJECT from a collaborator working on the same project ... one should use the media browser to open the project and import ONLY the sequences. Then re-connect them to media as needed. Did not know of that step ... which is a game-changer. Neil ... View more

As a possible approach ... and understand, I've never had the flickering, nor is it a common problem for most users ... you might need to re-think your color-modification/correction workflow. I think Kevin's comments about the "adjust" section being a possible cause of the problem is likely to be a large part of it. I would suggest using the color workspace Lumetri panel as several colorists have studied it, testing it with ramps and such, and decided the color science is far "cleaner" and more reliable there than with the "legacy" color correction tools. At least, use that as a base, adding other tools only for specific needs you can't easily do (or at all) within the Lumetri panel. Neil ... View more

Dot-cube's & ITX LUT's can be added to the built-in ones that drop-down in the Basic tabs Input LUT's box ... in the Program files folder for Adobe Premiere Pro, they're in Lumetri/LUTs/Technical. You can add LUT's to that Technical folder and they should appear in the drop-down box so you don't need to navigate to them. You probably will need to re-start PrPro after dropping them in there before it will "see" them. If the LUT's you've got don't appear in that dropdown list even though they're in the folder with all the other LUT's from that list ... you can apply the LUT to a "clean" (otherwise untouched clip), use the Direct to SpeedGrade command to bring that up in Sg ... then click the "Save as LUT/Look" icon ... then go to that in your Looks management browser there at the bottom, right-click on it and select 'Export as LUT", then set the parameters as to what forms of LUT you want, and if at 16, 32, or 64 size samples, and where you want that zip file put. Unzip that file, move your cube to the right folder, and it will show. As to the LUT's option on the Creative tab ... you really do have to navigate to your LUT from there. Haven't yet managed to get something I've added to show up there. Neil ... View more

Well, not that I was that much help, but glad to see you're working away! Neil ... View more

I would suggest looking to see if it's possible for those to be exported/transcoded or whatever by that software in 1080. Also, check your "captions" tab in the export box, to see what options you have there ... I don't have any captions going so my box options aren't available right now, but here's where to look ... Neil ... View more

I would check your process ... especially the 3rd party downloaders that do the extraction. As, if it is 1080, PrPro will see it as 1080. You might try "dropping" one of those srt files on MediaInfo, and in the Tree view, see what is actually IN that file ... if it's 480, well ... proof the error is in the extraction software. Media Info:        https://mediaarea.net/en/MediaInfo Neil ... View more

Happy to help ... work must get done! Neil ... View more

I think your comment about a green screen not having to be bright is something way too many people trying it don't "see". They put so much light on the screen they must have bounce back on the edges of their subject. Even yes ... brilliantly bright  ... no. And that should make it so  much easier than the reputation of the technique sounds like. Saw a bts of the final battle scene in Hogwarts last movie. They had 30 or 40 foot high green scrims running for 80 or 100 feet behind their set of ruined castle. .Lit evenly enough  but only to a very midtone level. Seemed to work ok in the final product  ... Neil quoting deleted by mod ... View more

Green screen can also be a bear to get really clean ... I know some who insist you can't do it with 8-bit cameras, only 10-bit, but I've seen righteously done green screen with rather minimalist stuff ... but again, being very careful to have the subject well out away from the background with as much scrims, go-bo's, and blocking stray light as possible. In general, perhaps the white background might be a little easier ... but if you've got green-screen available, well ... and master it ... you can make that background anything you want, which is, in all, pretty useful ... but I've just stuck with the white, hey ... the scrim is always 'up', and we know the lights/setup 'cold'. Neil ... View more

I've taken a still from the video, played a bit in both PrPro's Color workspace & over to SpeedGrade also ... although it's not as accurate of course as having the actual clip, there's enough base green tinge to your colors that I really doubt this can be cleaned up in post. So ... yea, a shooting lesson here. Had quite a few of these myself, don't worry about it ... we all have. Be VERY careful about both the quality of the lighting AND the white-balance while shooting. If this had fluorescent lighting, either 1) you didn't really nail the WB in shooting, or ... they've got too much of a set of green spikes & magenta canyons in their output to work with. Fix this issue first ... And with a white-out high-key setup like this, be VERY careful of how much blast reflected off the background gets to the lens. Lens flare is so common with this setup (which we've done in our portrait studio for 38 years now ... sort of a specialty) that you need either high-quality lenses with very low internal flare or a card held in front of the lens, with a hole just large enough for the image area to get through to the camera ... or both. And of course ... the initial exposure balance between the light coming from the background and that illuminating your subject needs to be the 'smallest' it can be and still have the background stay white. With our scrim, and it's reflectance, with film that was 1 stop more on the background than the subject ... no more, no less. Now, with our digital cameras, it's only about 2/3rds stop more light falling on the background than the subject. High-hey is a difficult thing to pull off really, really well. Yea, it's SO useful to give space for text insertions ... but you have to learn it cold. Neil ... View more

Use the Lumetri Color Workspace panel ... first, "fix" the contrast the way you want, and you can work with the sliders in the basic tab or the Color Wheels section with the luma (light/darkness) sliders beside them, or the Curves tab if you want ... take your pick. Then you can use either the color temp sliders in the Basic tab or again, the Color Wheels or Curves control to fix the greenish cast. While working color/contrast, always have the Lumetri scopes visible, especially the RGB Parade, luma Waveform, and YUV Vectorscope. The first two for interpreting the contrast & color of the image, the Vectorscope for saturation and for hue control issues. On AdobeTV, they have a number of tutorials on using the Color workspace. Adjust color with the Lumetri Color panel in Premiere Pro CC | Adobe Premiere Pro CC tutorials A screen shot of the above showing the tutorials by clicking on "Browse tutorials ... " Neil ... View more

The better permanent solution is to get the camera OFF auto settings for white-balance and contrast at least, if not going totally manual. It's one thing to try and match stills in RAW formats with auto camera settings but horridly more complex to try and fix video. Neil ... View more

It could be as little as a setting on your new iMac ... being different than one on your Retina. On the PC side, there's a setting in the nVidia control panel as shown here ... That "How do you make ... " section is crucial. If "With video player" is checked, whatever the heck any video player prefers to do with the stuff it plays to "enhance the viewer's experience" will be done. Including things like say, jumping the gamma (contrast) for more "pop", and interesting variants of what "they" think their users use for incoming material & cameras ... so it could be choosing to set 'full range' levels to 16-235, 16-255, or 0-255. And each player WILL do it differently! Changing the settings on my own beast to "With NVIDIA settings" and Dynamic (signal levels) set for Full (0-255) means I get fewer of the surprises of the delightful creators of the general-use video players. Broadcast level output has been 16-255 recently, if I've got it right, and many "pro" things use that. I think in the tape days it was 16-235 to preserve adequate extra headroom. And is going to 0-255 on pro level outputs, and as HDR comes in, what's been referred to as the IRE scale has become Nits, as a measure of signal luminance, with 0-255 Nits replacing the 0-255 IRE scale. But HDR can go anywhere from 400 Nits to 1,000 Nits. Perhaps more. The Lumetri scopes in both PrPro & SpeedGrade can handle well over 1,000 Nits when set to HDR. And it all gets back to ... if your stuff is going to be viewed on the web by who knows who, on no one knows what "device" from a smartphone to a huge workstation, with/without monitor calibration, and of course ... AFTER YouTube/Vimeo/Whoever Service has jacked around with your upload, you can't control squat. The only way to keep your sanity and keep working is make sure your own system is fully calibrated with a puck system & software at least ...  a lovely full broadcast reference monitor and BM or AJA connector parts is even better though several more thousands of buck of course ... and that the material stays within proper bounds on your scopes and when viewed over say a standard TV from maybe a DVD or something, and viewed over other computer monitors, it looks ok. You'll NEVER be able to make it look perfect on any other uncalibrated device ... period. But as long as your material looks the same as other properly prepared material (meaning BROADCAST quality things viewed on that device) ... it's the best you can do. Neil ... View more

QuickTime is a problematic ... and oft-maligned ... tool. First, it tends to show 16-235 or 16-255 (I've heard both argued) which of course takes anything that in reality is 0-255 and lifts the bottom and also ... well ... Qt has an interesting gamma setting also. Getting around that players designed-in limitations has been a puzzler for many. Around "here" it is oft argued that Qt needs to DIE. Horribly. That's why settings things like chrisw posted are needed ... to get around what Qt player does to videos. Personally, I go into my nVidia control panel, and set the following, trying to as much as possible over-ride anything Qt or VLC might do to video on my machine. Now ... a bit of experience here. Profile your monitor/s with a good puck-based software if you haven't already. (If you're setup for b-cast "safe" even better of course.) Set your video card controls for something as I've done, to remove video players from as much as possible on your own system. Test some output on other systems, especially on a well-setup TV and no, most are setup rather poorly. Way off on contrast & color. Now ... once you've found a solid sort of middle-ground, give up and let it go out. Or you will go nuts. - You have NO control whatever of the things the uploaders do to your media ... and they change settings every so often. - You have NO control over which player people will use on the 'other end' ... and most computer video players use intriguing settings, with variations in 0-255, 16-235, 16-255, and gamma/contrast/hue "interpretations" ... you can't out-guess this. - You have no control over the quality of monitor others "out there" will have, and some of them are ATROCIOUS. Bad green spikes or way over blue in the shadows in one corner & green in another and the user doesn't even notice it. - You have no control over whether they will set their monitors for the viewing conditions of the room they're in ... or profile in any way shape or form. So please understand, once your material is on the web, NO ONE will probably see it with the shadows/highlights/gamma/hue/color appearance that it is on your screen. NO ONE. EVER. Do your best diligence on being a neutral full-range creator ... and the rest is out of your control. Neil ... View more

Kevin-Monahan‌ is both an expert on FCP and of course good with PrPro ... let's see if he can be called back in to assist you ... Neil ... View more

Have you signed out/signed into the D-top app? If that didn't help, then I'd suggest downloading the Adobe CC Cleaner Tool, using it to uninstall & remove traces of the D-top CC app itself, re-boot, download a fresh D-top CC app, and sign back in, see what that shows. I realize the instructions say to use the OS installer for program uninstall, but in my experience with this, that didn't work. Very simple one-step, use the CC Cleaner Tool for both uninstall/removal of bits & pieces. https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-suite/kb/cs5-cleaner-tool-installation-problems.html https://creative.adobe.com/products/creative-cloud Neil ... View more

We other users aren't tech weenies nor experienced in the behind-the-scenes interactions of OS, hardware, & programs. So ... if RameezKhan‌ or Kevin-Monahan‌ could pop in, might be of some help. I hope. Neil ... View more

I don't think so ... though shooternz‌ or Dave Merchant‌ might have a more definitive answer ... Neil ... View more

Hello, One idea you may not have tried (not a 'fix' but easier!) ... have you tried opening the XML in a new project and then importing the Premiere sequence into the larger project? Immediately 'dump' the new project. It isn't the solution you might want, but might save a ton of work right now ... Neil ... View more