I think I have a Premiere-only solution: place the 30p video into a 30p timeline, nest, and place that nest into a 24p timeline. To adjust the position of the 5th frame removal, alter the start of the 30p video in the nest.   I'm playing around with some of the early public-domain cartoons to see how they were made (how many drawings per seconds and so on). The only copy I have of Warner Bros first animation, Sinkin in The Bathtub, from their Looney Tunes Blu-ray, is in 30p with duplicated 5th frames. They often only drew 12 or maybe 8 frames per second, so there are frame repeats anyway. It gets confusing trying to work out which is an actual repeat, and which is an artificial 24p/30p repeat. ... View more

Thanks. Another correct solution. ... View more

This is in response to WobertC query about the Epson V700.   My idea is always to scan: with no corrections by the scanner scan everything as if it was a positive edit in PS.   The values of the sliders should be set to 0 and 255, that way you guarantee a full-range scan. Straight-line curves for any other options.   Before I started scanning slides and negatives in 2012, I spent 18 months testing scanners and techniques, then wrote a lengthy document covering the Nikon Coolscan and Epson V700. You can download it here, password "Kodachrome".   I have recently made extra notes on scanning negatives with the Epson. Gmail me at gdburns if you want a copy. ... View more

Thanks for the response. I thought nobody had responded, since I didn't receive an email. I just tried the attachment and it downloaded okay. Screen shots would not really show the problem. If the attachment can't be downloaded by others, I'll upload to MediaFire. Here are more details about the problem, with reference to the attachment. It will be difficult to explain the process, but I'll give it a go.   I use several adjustment layers so that I have fine control over each. Curves 1 adjust for maximum contrast without loss of levels. I could apply further adjustments within Curves 1, but fine control is lost, so I add Curves 2. Curves 2, which shows the histogram with Curves 1 already applied, starts as a straight line. By looking at the histogram shown within Curves 2, I can make further contrast adjustments as required. For example, I decided that BC301 (a B&W negative taken in 1947) needed to have darker shadow areas, so based on the histogram, I lowered the curve in the shadow area so that the straight line section roughly parallels the rise in the histogram. Experience has taught me that doing so is a good starting point. Lowering the shadows has improved the contrast in the rest of the image (important for the people in the photo), but it also means shadow detail has been lost. To correct for lost shadow detail, I generate a mask on Curves 2 that selects a certain amount of the shadows. I do that via an Action which brings the Threshold layer into play tempororily, I adjust the Threshold, and then the "action applies the mask. Then I adjust the Density and Feathering of the mask, to make sure the shadows have depth but are also showing a suitable amount of lost detail. Note that the mask can only deepen the shadow areas (by lowering the Density). Sometimes Step 4 hasn't fully recovered the lost shadow detail. To remedy that, the Action also adds the Curves 2 mask to the Shadows layer (but inverted) to enable me to bring out the shadows even further by adjusting the curve in the Shadows layer. This was not necessary in BC301, so I have deleted the Shadow layer mask in the attachment.   The problem for me is, once the mask is added to Curves 2, is that I can't see the real histogram coming in from Curves 1. In the attachment, the histogram for Curves 2 (with the mask active or not) is truncated and starts at about level 50, whereas without the mask it goes down to 0. A truncated histogram makes it more awkward to make further adjustments to Curves 2 – if I need to. The workaround is to move the mask to another layer above, as a temporary store while I adjust Curves 2. ... View more

Thanks for all the helpful suggestions, some of which I have tried with success. ... View more

You're a clever fellow – you answered a question I didn't even ask. Now I can adjust the density and the feathering at the same time. Just what I've been looking for!   Re the less steep curve. Very much a matter of taste and me trying to reflect the lighting conditions at the time. Looks like the sky was heavy with cloud above, but there are breaks in the sky above the mountains. The sun was behind the photographer. Those dark areas at the bottom of the range: different vegetation or cloud shadow? I've just been to the area (Lake Pedder, now flooded by a hydro electric dam) to mimic some of these photos from 70 years ago, so I know the dark areas are caused by cloud shadows. That's why I had a very steep curve to increase the contrast and deepen those shadows – but the foreground bush was thrown completely black.   Now I have yet another method to correct for a common problem in these negatives: lack of contrast, and correcting for that gives lots of ugly blacks.   Thanks again. I'll incorporate this technique into my Action. ... View more

Duplicate and copy. Works! Why you can't copy the original I'll never understand. ... View more

Just to be clear: I have asked two different questions, but responders keep getting them mixed up. One is about grayscale differences; the other (this thread) is asking can PS preserve a Channel Mixer setting when converting RGB to grayscale – and the answer is "It can't".   Something I forgot to mention previously because I am dealing here with only B&W negatives: when I use Channel Mixer, one of the settings I tick is "Monochrome", so I am only dealing with grayscale images within an RGB file. Why do that…?   The workflow I have been using stems from dealing with scanned slides. I was assuming I could use the same workflow, just add a Channel Mixer layer to select the best channel from the B&W neg scans. However, since PS can't keep my selected channel when converting to grasycale mode, I'll have to put together a new Action specially for negs.   Re the comments: In addition, you have adjustment layers that have no meaning in grayscale, like Channel Mixer. How did you expect that to be translated to grayscale? Stop and think about it. Agreed that Channel Mixer has no meaning in Grayscale, but I was using it in RGB, and when I selected the Green channel, PS showed me a grayscale image of the green channel. And a grayscale image is perfectly acceptable in a grayscale colour space. I still can't see any reason why PS couldn't ask me, when I want to change modes, when I have ticked the monochrome option: "Do you want to turn the Channel Mixer layer into a new grayscale layer, or do you want to delete it?"   Maybe my understanding is wrong, but I see a Channel Mixer layer as just another image layer that has been mixed together from underlying channels. Under what circumstances, given a "monochrome" setting, would problems occur if a Channel Mixer layer was converted to a new grayscale layer in grayscale mode?   But you cannot keep adjustment layers! You have to flatten. Again, this has nothing to do with Photoshop. I disagree. I have just changed modes from RGB to grayscale, kept all the adjustment layers (except the Channel Mixer layer which was substituted with the Green channel), and the images are identical. Five layers were involved: three Curve layers (for contrast adjustment) a Clone layer (non-destructive cloning) and a Flare layer, to counteract a small problem when using a Nikon Coolscan to scan high-contrast slides. The images before and after the mode change were identical.   If you use VueScan  you can scan in grayscale, and choose to use only the green channel for the scan. VueScan supports most scanners on the market, but not Imacon/Hasselblad. Problem is: sometimes the red or blue channels give better results, so I always scan in RGB and select the best channel. One example I recently came across was part-discolouration of the negative, either during original processing in the 1951, or through age. Choosing the red channel made the discolouration almost invisible.   Anyway, thanks for all the feedback. I've learnt quite a bit, some rather esoteric, but all most important for my dealings with B&W negatives.   PS doesn't allow a Channel Mixer setting to survive a mode change. To retain the look of an image when changing modes, the original and destination modes must have the same gamma. Channels use the gamma of the Working Gray, which must be the same as the image gamma if the same look is to be retained when copying and pasting a Channel to a image layer. ... View more

I forgot to mention one thing: all test files, including the jpg2000, were lossless.   Re the Image Pyramid suggestion, it is not an option in my PS.   The randomness/noise suggestion is most likely the answer. I have just converted the 8-bit tiff (originally from 16-bit, 38.6MB) back to 16-bit and it only increased from 11.5 to 16.5 MB. All those padded zeroes compress really well.   This tells me that converting from 16-bit to 8-bit is a good test of whether the original is really 16-bit. ... View more

Thanks for the detailed response, but I would rather not flatten. The reason is: I am scanning about 300 historically significant negatives from the 1950s – photos taken by two men of bushwalking in Tasmania. One of the fellows (now deceased) has just had a feature named after him, and the other has first ascents to his credit. Images will end up as part of a Blu-ray. So until the AV is finalised, I want to retain all layers in case I need to re-edit. I save a flattened 1080P, 8-bit version for working with inside Premiere, because Premiere will choke if I give it large tiff files (100-200MB). But for archiving, I'd rather retain all adjustment layers.   These are not well exposed photos in general. Over exposure is the main problem, and for a negative I find that difficult to correct. I work in 16-bit because of the extreme corrections, but that makes the file sizes huge, not helped by the files being in RGB, with two of the channels superfluous. A typical neg is below.   Normally I do not need to keep the red and blue channels: they are not as sharp as the green. But that is not always the case. Occasionally the red or blue channel has a better look.   To begin an edit, I first check out which channel to use by viewing at 100% for sharpness. I then apply an Action which adds six layers, one of which is a Channel Mixer so I can select the channel to use (usually green, but sometimes red or blue). Sometimes during the edit, it becomes obvious that the Green channel, even though sharper, has other imperfections not visible in the other channels. So I change channels. When the edit is complete, I'd like to save the file as grayscale with only the chosen channel. To save space.   That's why I'd like PS to be respect my chosen channel – otherwise I'll have to manually bring the chosen channel into play at the end of the edit and then delete the background. But it seems PS wasn't set up for that type of manipulation.   So, is there a way in PS for retaining my chosen channel and deleting the others when I convert to grayscale?           ... View more

After trying it, the gammas of Epson RGB and Epson Gray (both varieties) must be slightly different as I can't get them to match.   But if I convert to Adobe RGB and use Gray 2.2, the shadow difference disappears. Same if I choose sRGB and sGray. I didn't realise converting to grayscale would be so involved.   This thing about channels using "working gray" explains another anomoly I came across before I started this thread. During testing, I copied the Green channel and pasted it above the Color Mixer layer (which was set to the Green channel). I assumed that the pasted Green channel and the Colour Mixer layer would give identical results. They didn't. When I alternated between the two, there was an obvious difference in brightness. Now I know the cause: one was in Epson RGB and other in my working gray.   To sum up: the difference I was seeing was not due to changing modes, but due to the difference in gamma between Epson RGB and my destination gray space.   Thanks Mr Fosse. ... View more

Thanks to D_Fosse, I think I understand where the problem arises. The scans come in as Epson RGB, but the individual channels are represented in my working gray – and the gammas might differ. I noticed that there are two Epson Gray colour spaces (1.8 and 2.2) under colour settings, which must have been installed with the scanner software. If I choose the right one, maybe this slight difference in shadows will disappear.   I'll try it. ... View more

Just to clear things up: this is a different question to the one in the other thread. My question here (nothing to do with grayscale differences when changing modes) is:   Given a multi-layered RGB Tiff file, is it possible to tell PS to mix channels a certain way, and for that mixture to survive a mode change? Meaning: if I change modes, the information in the green channel, for example, is the only image info present.   I suspect the answer is no: PS designers never thought anyone would want to do that. ... View more

Hi Chris, Thanks for the suggestions, but they're more directed to the other thread. In this one I'm asking whether I can ask PS to respect, when converting to another mode, what I've already asked it to do, namely use only the Green channel. I would have thought that when converting to grayscale, PS should be smart enough to know that I had already selected the Green channel via Channel Mixer, and applied only that during the conversion.   But it ignores my selection during the conversion. I think this is a design flaw. PS should come up with a message along the lines of: "You have selected only the Green channel. Channel Mixer will be tossed. Do you want the Green channel only"   I was hoping to be able to tell PS to toss the other channels in one step. ... View more

The link in the first line of my post has example files (from another thread). If that doesn't work, let me know. ... View more

I may not have been clear about what I meant by RGB Curves adjustment. I am not adjusting colour in these tests, just the contrast – by altering the Master black slider and the Master white slider. I am not trying to match colour at this stage, I am trying to match the dynamic range.   Basically: the untouched DPX files out of the scanner, and when put through Resolve and Adobe Media Encoder and converted to ProRes 422 (once again, untouched), come to me looking sus. But when the levels are adjusted by the operator (no fancy colour grading) the ProRes 422 files are okay at my end. ProRes 4444 should be even better.   I don't understand how the operator, in Resolve, can remove what appears, in my Premiere, to be clipping at the bottom of the DPX files, when I can't do it in Premiere. Maybe it has something to do with the 10-bit log DPX files not being interpreted properly by my Premiere. If someone can download and drag the DPX files to a timeline inside a recent Premiere, and the bottoms are not clipped, then it will be proven that my Premiere is lacking. ... View more

Mr Haugen     I haven't looked into the GPU, Nvidia, drivers and Mercury thing, but I can if it is essential.   Background     All scans below are taken from a test film, the only 8mm film I own, taken by a family friend in 1979. After the tests prove okay, I'll be asking the real film to be scanned, an historic 1969 film taken of a scientific survey of Lake Pedder, a beautiful lake that was flooded in 1972 for hydroelectric development. That's why I'm being picky about the scan.   Test Scans     I have obtained the DPX files for the test film and have uploaded several relevant items in the hope that someone more knowledgeable than me can work out what's going on. For the Pedder film, I'll probably be asking the operator to adjust levels in Resolve (his normal workflow) before he exports to ProRes 4444. But in the meantime, I want to find out why the operator using Resolve can do something that I can't do in Premiere, both of us using the same DPX files. This is a learning exercise and these are the downloads…   DPX Files – Ten files (171 MB) straight from the scanner. If you like 100 files (2GB), click here.   ProRes 422 Files – two excerpts of test files provided by the operator. On a PC he brought the scanner DPX files into Resolve, exported as Quicktime lossless, then used Abobe Media Encoder to export to ProRes. For the ProsRes file called Test Excerpt (orig) he made no changes. For the ProRes file called Text Excerpt (graded) he did a levels adjustment in Resolve before exporting.   RGB Parades  – two screen shots of RGB Parades on my iMac. RGB (422 graded) – the ProRes 422 graded video as seen in Premiere RGB (DPX) – the DPX video as seen in Premiere.   The Problem When I bring Test Excerpt (orig), Test Excerpt (graded), and the DPX files into Premiere CS6, this is what I see: the DPX files and Test Excerpt (orig) are washed out and have flat bottoms in RGB Parade Test Excerpt (graded) looks fine. Remember it's not really graded, just levels-adjusted in Resolve.   No matter what RGB Curves adjustments I make in Premiere to the DPX files or Test Excerpt (orig), I cannot obtain anything that looks as good was what the operator obtained by adjusting levels in Resolve.   If anyone has the time to download and import the three video files into Premiere, I'd be very interested to find out if you can make the DPX files and Test Excerpt (orig) look the same as Test Excerpt (graded). I'd especially like to see that flat bottom go away.   Thank in advance to anyone willing to help.     ... View more

Thanks for the response, Neil.   I'm not convinced, being a newbie to DPX, that it's going to be "very easy to apply a corrective LUT or to manually adjust the contrast/saturation". This brings up a few questions, which because I'm new to this, may not be sensible questions, and maybe I shouldn't be using DPX. This DPX-workflow PDF has almost completely put me off using DPX. It just looks so complicated. Still, it's all a learning experience. What I'm expecting to learn though, is that DPX is not for me. Here goes anyway…   Ques 1 Inside a properly configured DPX file, is there information inside that file (LUT data?) that tells Premiere how to generate images on the timeline that look exactly as they looked on film? i.e. that the log encoding is reversed and made suitable for my iMac display. Or do I have to go looking for the "reversal data" and hope that I find the correct data?   Ques 2 A different way of asking Ques 1. I know that Premiere can generate ProRes files, but… if I import a DPX sequence, can Premiere generate a ProRes file in linear space (if that is the correct terminology) without me doing anything other than selecting ProRes 4444?   Choosing ProRes for export brings up very few options. The only option that seems to have any connection to "log" encodings is under Codec Settings which has one option of offer: Gamma Correction -- Automatic or None.   Ques 3 Does the export option Gamma Correction -- Automatic, automatically and correctly linearise a DPX when exported to ProRes? ... View more