Why did Adobe choose to implement HDR as a default/enabled feature?

[L_A-2]

I cannot seem to wrap my head around why Adobe chose to implement this as a default/enabled feature. I've been using Premiere for years and it has worked flawlessly, until now. I'm at a point were Im ready to try Final Cut and other competitor software. This entire thread proves the ridiculousness of this rollout. 

[R Neil Haugen]

I have my own frustrations with the rollout process, to be honest. Not all of their expectations as to how certain new default behaviors would work with certain media, especially log-encoded or HLG, have worked as they planned. Had those expectations been met "real-world", there'd be far fewer problems.

It needed more testing of those processes.

And the locations of the new CM controls spread out through the app make it difficult for users to quickly and accuratly check on things. Plus ... that bit wasn't well explained anywhere.

That said, I'm glad they are working at getting us more color management controls, which Premiere has lacked and needed. Nearly hidden around the app, but there.

And clearly, they've rolled out a completely new underlying color ... engine? ... which works "natively" with HDR media. The previous version was totally Rec.709 by underlying math, with as stated "The ability to use  over-range values to add an HDR capability." It wasn't a good capability, and required spendy additional hardware to be able to monitor the HDR signal.

Now, you can monitor with an HDR monitor as long as your OS is set to use that monitor as HDR. So this was a major undertaking, and that part of it is working correctly.

But the problems with no usable proxies from HLG clips ... such things ... yea, that's not good.

Neil

[Baffy19]

Neil, there is not only a good need to sort the Premiere color control panel in one place for the convenience of adjusting the color of frames. There it is necessary to shake up the entire working color panel. Those tools need to be updated and new ones added to fine-tune the color. For example, I lack a tool for pulling overexposed frames .RAW. I'm missing a gradient tool for painting landscape frames. I miss the modern developers' approach to the color page. It is also necessary to make noise reduction settings, grain application to frames, masks, tracking, etc. there. A large-scale update of the color page is needed, and not the addition of one or two buttons to adjust the color and rejoice throughout the year that there were functions without which we would not have lived. Understand, I know what I'm talking about and many are waiting for it. It's time to get on with it. I wrote about this two years ago. There is a lack of convenience and professionalism in the work of color. I am ready to wait for other new features that will be coming soon. Please, work out and cut a road on this issue.

[R Neil Haugen]

I make the suggestions I like, or think other users could really use. I'm quite happy to upvote Uservoice suggestions too. But as a user, I don't have any control over what they choose to do.

In fact, those types of decisions aren't up to the engineering teams either. They have a heirarchy up from program managers through M&E ... marketing & experience ... staffers. Those M&E folks use metrics to determine what the product teams should do.

Some RAW types do have panels, such as the Red RAW clips. For BRAW, you can use the free BlackMagic plugin (and get what you pay for ... ) or the low-cost Autokroma BRAW plugin, and get great capabilities. But some camera's RAW media formats aren't supported directly, and that's a pain of course.

There are masks for the Lumetri effect, so you can apply a Lumetri with a mask and feather it to create a gradient for say a sky or whatever.

You can use the track matte effect. Dupe the clip on V1 to V2 and V3, put a Lumetri on the clip on V3, use the HSL Secondary to key an area, maybe a mask of that Lumetri effect to limit it further. And leave the Secondary mask on, set to color/black.

Then drop the TM effect on V2, set the 'target' as V3, the accepted value as Luma.

Now below the TM effect on V2, you can use any color control you want including Lumetri, and it will affect only what comes through the mask on V3, and put that onto the clip on V1.

I've used a lot of TM work.

They don't have a good 'internal' noise reduction, true, but then, most of the Resolve colorists I know don't use Resolve's denoising tool either ... they all use Neat even in Resolve.

They do have a somewhat 'grain' tool for use, the better ones are now in the "Obsolete" effects bin, which is worrisome. MagicBullet has of course a much better grain tool.

Neil

[Baffy19]

Do you know what is the difference between DaVinci and Premiere/AE/ME/AU? The fact that there is no desire for development. Premiere is getting older every year and if you do not take steps to develop, then no one will need it. I don't mean about new functions, but about the development of existing ones. Here's the answer to the fact that managers make decisions. Take me to the team and I will take Premiere to a new level. What can users expect in the near future, since managers do not listen to the opinions of the users themselves. If this continues, I will smoothly switch to DaVinci. May Premiere users forgive me.

[R Neil Haugen]

Baffy,

These apps are all tools. Fancy hammers. Use whichever one works for your needs and your clients. The emotion people spend on them amazes me at times.

The two companies approach things very differently. BlackMagic provides relatively cheap software to lock people in to buying their hardware. They make their profit on gear, not software. They bought Resolve, a colorist's grading app, simply to get that section of the market buying their hardware.

And yes, I know a fair number of people with the "Advanced panel" ... $29,000 of gear sitting on your desktop to relate to Resolve through. And of course more that have the Mini and Micro panels. And they all have several other BM bits ... output cards, switchers, all of that.

I've a BMPCC4K, I'm on my second Atem Mini Pro, and between those and other things I've a drawer of Resolve licenses here somewhere.

I use Resolve almost daily. But as a fancy hammer, it's ... a right pain to me. I love the vastly wider and deeper toolset of color controls, that the user can get right granular with them.

I strongly dislike their UI, and that it is so locked down with almost no user ability to change anything. Including the mapping to any attached hardware. For example, my Tangent Elements panel.

In Premiere, that large device with about thirty buttons, twelve turning knobs, and four ring/ball combos is the Swiss Army Knife of tools. I can use it not only for color, but for audio Track Mixer for pans and levels; for graphics for resizing, rotating, placement; for general editing including resizing, rotating, and placing video elements.

And I only start with the mapping that Tangent provides, and make my own to suit. I have done that with their Ripple also, for when I'm on my laptop. Awesomeness.

In Resolve, that big panel is locked down so tightly that only half the controls (if that) are 'lit' and functional at any one point in time. The way they've organized the use of it is ... odd ... to me, and takes a lot of figuring out and use to learn. Clearly, they don't really want anyone to use anything but their own kit.

And again, their UI is as locked down as my Elements panel.

It's a different approach. But as they've followed Adobe into the "we want to be everything for everyone" concept, Resolve is getting more and more buggy. The 17.4 major release for example, which had the same results as the Pr2022 rollout.

Most users working away without issue. A certain large subset working but with annoying workarounds for problems. And a decent sized set of users totally hammered, needing to revert to a previous version to be able to work at all. Yup.

It's what happens when you try to work all media on all workflows on all kit out there.

Compare that to say Baselight. It's still a turn-key model. You buy the computer from them ... it's three options, around $12k/$15k/$20k or something like that. Baselight is the ONLY software you will use on that computer. Period.

And you pay around $1700/year for a license to use that computer and the software.

Now, you get incredible color controls and absolute stability and performance. And yes, I know people working on Baselight systems too.

Pr2022 has same major changes, including they've completely rebuilt the underlying color "engine" or basis or whatever you want to call it. It was totally Rec.709 with "over-range" ability to work with HDR dynamic range and color gamuts. Clearly now, it works agnostically between HDR and Rec.709. That itself ... is a huge change.

They didn't stick the landing though for usability, that's also clear. But that will come over the next couple months most likely. Francis Crossman has posted here that they are working on getting tonemapping to replace much of the current override functions, and that will make a huge improvement.

I started with PrPro CS6. This app is not hardly the same thing. Bits of the UI look similar, and that's about it.

I prefer the current usabitlity of Premiere over Resolve for my work. But that is "current". If at some point, I prefer the then-current Resolve over Premiere, well ... that would mean changing which is the primary app. Life happens, you know?

A good friend LOVES the Resolve UI, hates Premiere's. We look at each other and shake our heads, you know? But it's nice he's got Resolve, and I'll take Premiere. For now.

Neil

[Baffy19]

Okay, Neil, your words will turn out to be prophetic and far-sighted. I remain in the Adobe team, with the intention and hopes of Francis Crossman, who promised a radical revision of the tools. I am very happy about it. I said that because they don't report to me like you and I'm not aware of the ideas. Let's hope for improvements to existing tools. Let there be Adobe. But, I don't forget about DaVinci, I keep it to myself )