Desaturated colors in Acrobat XI vs OK Colors in Acrobat 9

When I create a PDF in Indesign CC and view it in Acrobat 9 the colors look exactly like in the Indesign document. When I open the PDF in Acrobat XI (11.0.04) they look desaturated and dull. How is it going to look if I send it to the printer, like in 9 (then I won't worry and simply use that version) or like in XI (then please tell me how I can get my colors right in the PDF). I am using an Eizo Wide Gamut screen (CG241W) on a Mac with the latest version of OS Mavericks.

I've just discovered the same issue on my computer (MacMini 2.3 GHz Intel Core i7, MacOs 10.9.5, Eizo display via HDMI, and freshly updated Acrobat XI from Creative Cloud). Colors in Acrobat look different than in InDesign and Photoshop, though I checked carefully the right profile in "Output preview".
I usually use Acrobat for preflighting prepress files, and the accurate color wasn't crucial so far, but recently it turned out that calibration software from Eizo uses Acrobat's "Output preview" for validating of the calibrating. The other option would be using Photoshop (it worked fine with Photoshop CS2 on my former PowerPC machine) but for an obscure reason it crashes every time Eizo's ColorNavigator tries to switch to Photoshop CC. The validation process goes smoothly with Acrobat, but since it displays wrong colors the validation result is distorted.
All in all there are two issues: inaccurate colors displayed in Acrobat and some incompatibility between Photoshop CC and ColorNavigator (of course, I intend to write to Eizo too). Fixing at least one of them would make me more than happy.

Similar Messages

Photoshop diplays all images with desaturated colors (Images look fine when opened in other apps)

All of a sudden, when I open any image in Photoshop, the colors appear to be desaturated...In Photoshop only. When I open that same image in Window Picture Viewer, or Quicktimer, or even if I drag the image into a brower window, the colors appear fine. But in Photoshop, something is clearly wrong. Now, I can make color adjustments to the image, but when I save and reopen reopen it in another application, I can see that color changes have been made, but they still don't match what Photoshop is displaying.
The images are RGB image...I've checked the color space setings in Photoshop, and they are the default (Edit > Color Settings: North American General Purpose 2 / RGB: sRGB IEC61966-2.1 / CMYK: US Web Coated (SWOP) V2, etc, etc). I also made sure View > Proof Setup was set to: Working CMYK. I even reset Photoshop to it's default settings (by holding down CTRL-ALT-SHIFT on launching Photoshop)...But the images still appear desaturated when I open them in Photoshop...So, I don't understand how this is still a Photoshop problem...But then again, they look fine when I use any other application on my computer to open them, so it's clearly not an issue with my monitor.
The frustrating thing is, I haven't made any changes to Photoshop OR my monitor (that I know about)...Photoshop has worked perfectly for me for years, and now there's this SNAFU that I just can not figure out.
Any suggestions?
I've included a screenshot below to show the disparity between an image opened in Photoshop (on left) and Windows Picture Viewer (on right):
Photoshop image on left, with desaturated colors...Same image in Windows Picture Viewer on right, where colors appear normal.
Any and all help is much appreciated : )
Best,
-Austin

It's difficult to provide help without knowing your level of color-management expertise, but I think you've helped us some with that in post number 2.
Color management is basically this: Images and devices have certain color characteristics, and these are described by color profiles, sometimes also called color spaces.
1. You should not need to use the Proof Setup at all to view your images on your monitor. When things are set up properly Photoshop shows you accurate color without your choosing View - Proof Colors.
2. A color-managed application like Photoshop will try to show you accurate color on your display by interpreting both the image profile and your monitor profile and transforming the colors accordingly. BY DEFINITION this will look different than other applications which don't do color-management as these just pump the image RGB values directly out to the display.
Thus:
If your monitor profile indicates your monitor has a wide gamut, images with embedded profiles may appear less saturated inside Photoshop than from non-color-managed apps.
If you view images that have an embedded wide gamut profile (such as Adobe RGB 1998 or ProPhoto RGB), Photoshop and other color-managed applications will interpret that profile and the colors will likely appear more saturated in Photoshop than in a non-color-managed application.
It sounds as though the first case applies in your case here.
You can check to see what monitor profile is associated with your monitor through OS settings. I'm thinking, based on the caption buttons in your screen grab, that you've got Windows XP, but rather than go further with that assumption, I'll ask you to verify it first.
-Noel

Newbie Question My Photos print and show desaturated color

Hi I have a feeling there is a very simple answer to this. My photos which I mainly process in Lightroom 3 (with some adjustments in Photoshop CS3) print and show desaturated colors wether or not they are RAW or JPEG. I have applied camera profile settings such as landscape, to raw files but when I export them as a jpg and send to a photo shop to print they are still desaturated. Also when I send a stand alone file to a media contact it shows desaturated to them. If I deliberately adjust my monitor to Pro RGB it appears to show the true colour that others are seeing. I have attempted to over saturate to get a reasonable print but clearly this is not correct.
Proberbly an easy question for someone out there but I am having trouble resolving it.
Many Thanks
Steve

Please click on the link below and read the entire site carefully. Then follow the instructions to the letter.
http://www.gballard.net/psd/cmstheory.html
In a nutshell:
• Calibrate and profile your monitor. Set the resulting profile as your monitor profile. Never use a device independent color space (such as ProPhoto RGB, Adobe RGB or sRGB) as your monitor profile. Only use your calibrated profile specific to your monitor.
• honor the embedded profile in each file;
• when sending your images to a run-of-the mill lab, convert your images to sRGB (do not use assign profile; use CONVERT to profile) and embed the sRGB profile in them.
The above site explains it all to you.
Wo Tai Lao Le
我太老了

Why do thumbnails in Adobe Bridge CC display in desaturated color?

Running Adobe CC on MBPro 15" Retina with attached Eizo CX271 monitor, Yosemite 10.10.3, MBPro and Eizo monitor are calibrated with Color Munki Photo and running under their own color calibrated profiles. My photo files have always appeared quite similar in Bridge, PS, and LR. Now Bridge thumbnails display as desaturated and color shifted when viewed on the Eizo monitor (my primary workspace for color correction).

We are all just incompetent users here. As pointed out before this is just a user to user forum, Adobe rarely checks in.
I was hoping by now you would have gotten to the bottom of this problem and were offering a solution.

Desaturated colors in email compared to thumbnail enalrgements in iPhoto 6

The image that iPhoto creates when I use it to compose an email is desaturated compared to the image that iPhoto shows when enlarging the thumbnail. This wasn't the case with my earlier version of iPhoto (on my pismo), so it's not the photos. I use apple's Mail application. Any ideas on getting the image to maintain its original color?
Thanks -

Steve:
Check iPhoto's Advanced preferences and see if you've got the checkbox selected to add a color profile to files upon importing. If it is try this following test:
1 - take a test shot with your camera and upload to the desktop.
2 - open Mail and add the file as an attachment and leave the draft open.
3 - import the file from the desktop into iPhoto and start the email process with it.
4 - now compare the two in Mail.
I'm thinking that the profile that iPhoto is embedding may be different from the one used by the camera. You can check the profiles with Preview under the Tools->Get Info window. Generally speaking if one of the profiles is the Adobe RGB it should be much more saturated than the general RGB or sRGB.
Post back with the results.
Do you Twango?
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've written an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.

Desaturated colors in book-pdf when reopened in PS

I'm putting together a book in iPhoto. I haven't done this since I upgraded to Tiger. Previous books have been fine in terms of color management. I'm always careful to keep tabs on which color space my pictures reside in. Figuring iPhoto was a consumer oriented application and since I was not sure if it honored embedded profiles or not I've put all my images into sRGB and doing all editing in Photoshop prior to importing into iPhoto. After assembling the book in iPhoto I've always printed to a pdf file which I've then re-opened in Photoshop to double check the colors against the original images. So far this has worked like a charm. Now after upgrading to Tiger and using iPhoto 5.0.4 there's trouble in paradise. For some reason when reopening the pdf file in Photoshop all the colors have much less saturation, although the file opens in the same sRGB colorspace as the originals. The sRGB profile is even embedded in the file. Everything seems fine but still the pictures lose saturation somwhere in the process, indicating a possible color space mismatch. The color balance seems pretty accurate but the saturation suffers. I wonder if anyone has come across this and found the solution?
Thanks.

Never mind.

Bridge doesn't recognize color profiles

Dear Adobe community,
I'm using Adobe Bridge CS5.1 (4.1.0.54) and Illustrator CS5.1 (15.1.0), and I'm experiencing a very confusing and disturbing color management problem between these two applications. In short, for some unknown reason Bridge doesn't seem to respect or simply cannot read CMYK color profiles that I've applied to an artwork within Illustrator, but rather labels the file as "Untagged" and displays it with clearly desaturated colors. To illustrate the problem I've created some screenshots having Bridge on the left hand side and Illustrator on the right displaying the same illustration with various color profiles applied. That is, in each case I assigned different color profile to the image in Illustrator, saved the file and took the screenshot of Bridge and Illustrator both displaying the image. Now if you look closely then perhaps you notice that the only time I got a visual match between these applications was when I switched the file to a RGB mode within Illustrator. But even then Bridge did not recognized the correct color profile but interpreted it as "Untagged". Here are the screens:
Bridge "Untagged" vs. Illustrator "U.S. Web Coated":
Bridge "Untagged" vs. Illustrator "Coated FOGRA39":
Bridge "Untagged" vs. Illustrator "Don't Color Manage This Document":
Bridge "Untagged" vs. Illustrator "Adobe RGB":
Hope you could see the difference from these tiny images. Looking from my monitor, I can tell you for sure that they are definitely off, except the RGB versions of the illustration. This made me surmise that perhaps Bridge can only display Working RGB profiles correctly and not anything else.
Here's also my color settings, just in case…
So... Why is that??? Why are these applications showing me different results while my color settings are supposed to be "Synchronized"? Is there a way to fix this? I have tried to play around with the settings and looked for a solution in the web but to no avail. Could you please help me to find a soulution to this disturbing problem?
All the best,
Juhani

You may have used the broken global Purge Cache command in Bridge Preferences, or the cache is otherwise corrupted. Try Purging the Cache through the Tools menu in Bridge for each folder. Tools > Cache > Purge cache for 'foldername'.

Windows Vista Photo Gallery displays incorrect colors? Photoshop?

Hi all
I have two PC's running Windows Vista that I work with and both have photoshop CS3 installed, but for what ever reason on one of the PC's the Windows Photo Gallery application displays really desaturated colors when views jpg's and the like (the other PC's displays them fine).
I've googled and haven't yet found out a quality solution, lots of info on simply combining and replacing drivers and the like and nothing really set in stone from Adobe, or Microsoft etc
Any help would be great

Are both your monitors hardware calibrated? Is Windows Photo Gallery a fully colour managed application?
If the answer to one or both questions is no then you cannot expect similar results.
If the monitors are calibrated and Photoshop has identical colour settings then the images should appear similar on each computer.

Will I always get color discrepancies when lab printing images softproofed on a 75% on AdobeRGB monitor?

Hi,
I am struggling to get printed output from a professional printing service to match what I see when I softproof on my monitor. The printed image always looks considerably more green and warm, although whites are ok. Blue skies tend to get warm greenish. The printed image often looks like a warm instagram filter had been applied.
I have two (different generation) Dell U2412M monitors (Dell U2412M = Standard gamut = 71% NTSC, 74.3% Adobe RGB, 95.8% sRGB).
These are the steps I have taken to try to achieve color consistency between monitor and print:
I have calibrated and profiled with a Spyder 3 Express using BasICColor Display 5 software, previously also used the Datacolor software that came with the calibrator. After this, what I see on my monitor "looks normal" (skin tones, landscapes etc.)
I shoot RAW with a Sony NEX6, develop in Lightroom 4 using ProPhoto 16 bit color space.
I softproof in Lightroom using an ICC file provided by the printing service.
I use Lightroom to print to file tagging it with AdobeRGB profile. Either as TIFF or as JPG 100%.
I print with the direction to the printer to "not make any auto corrections to my file".
I have Windows 7 64bit.
I thought this would mean that I would get - probably not perfect - but at least a very strong match between softproof and printed image. But I do not.
Are these rather strong color discrepancies to be expected given my hardware?
Is my Spyder broken (it's out of warranty)?
Or is my workflow erroneous?

Guermantes wrote:
I am struggling to get printed output from a professional printing service to match what I see when I softproof on my monitor. The printed image always looks considerably more green and warm, although whites are ok. Blue skies tend to get warm greenish. The printed image often looks like a warm instagram filter had been applied.
I have calibrated and profiled with a Spyder 3 Express using BasICColor Display 5 software, previously also used the Datacolor software that came with the calibrator. After this, what I see on my monitor "looks normal" (skin tones, landscapes etc.)
Could be the calibration targets (how you asked to celibate white point etc). Could be the output. Could be the ICC Profile. Could be your file. You have to decide which is which.
Start here: Why Are My Prints Too Dark
Then download a good color reference file like this one: http://www.digitaldog.net/files/2014PrinterTestFileFlat.tif.zip
Soft proof and see if any green or odd color cast appear. If so, probably the profile but use it and have a print made. The output should look good (neutral in neutrals, reds that don't appear yellowish etc).
Generally speaking, if you send Adobe RGB (1998) and the other side assumes it is sRGB, you will end up with desaturated colors. This isn't the fault of Adobe RGB but rather assuming that data is sRGB which it isn't.

Invalid Color Management in Lightroom? (RAW)

I've noticed the strange thing, how Adobe Camera RAW 4.1.1 displays the same image differently in Photoshop CS3 & Lightroom 1.4.1
Here are the screenshots from both programs:
What I've got in Lightroom/develop mode:
http://www.imagebam.com/image/956c3d6537871
What I've got in Photoshop:
http://www.imagebam.com/image/17a67c6537874
Notice the reds on the face and oranges on the trees on the background. 1) Face on second, photoshop variant is more reddish. 2) The contrast differs as well!
3) There is more orange on the leaves on the second image.
That's all happens in the preview in Lightroom - if I export image as a JPEG and open it in Photoshop - the images will be the same. But BEFORE the export they're DIFFERENT! What's wrong?
(Image is shot on Sony Alpha 350, white balance and all the settings in Camera RAW are the same in two programs).

>yes they are, but in practice PDF causes lot's of bugs.
My experience is opposite in that pdf is usually the only thing that actually works for multipage documents and things containing vector graphics. For single page photos of course tiff always works, but there are lots of clueless operators that do not know their behind from a color profile.
>In my experience colors will be different even for an eye of a consumer. On some printers red will be more reddish, on others green more greenish etc. The contrast will differ either. Maybe you and we use different printers. BTW I work on Windows, maybe that's the point.
I have always had basically perfect results. There was a time when Lightroom interacted wrong with printer drivers when you used profiles inside of the program instead of having the printer driver manage for you. This has long been fixed. Of course there are subtle differences between printers and it would be good if Lightroom had some sort of soft proofing to judge this in advance. The differences are usually pretty minor though nowadays.
>Well, Noritsu, as I know, for example, uses its own color management profile, which you cannot tune even in Photoshop. If you use sRGB, it will be ignored, and you'll get a very low contrast print with desaturated color and you have to be there when it's printed to tune it with the lab assistant. Usually they do it themselves ... well... good. I have SOME good experience with Costco. But for many cases I can't get my colors and contrast without being there when it's printed. And it depends on paper - is it metallic, for example, or matte. The picture will be different. The colors will be different. And you can't check it exactly on your monitor being at home, or in office.
I tested this extensively. If you do this right, it is very hard to see the difference between a sRGB print and a print converted to the profile. With well-tuned Noritsus, you get a small difference in oranges, and a tiny difference in greens - independent of the paper you use. This is the whole point of these machines. If you feed them sRGB, they should give you great results. Maybe my local costcos is very good, but I doubt they are very different from other labs. I tried both Matte and Glossy and they both showed the same result. This is borne out by softproofing in Photoshop that shows exactly the same effect. Note that I wrote about using lab profiles with Lightroom extensively and always tell people to use the profile, but in reality it really is not that important.
See for example: http://lagemaat.blogspot.com/2008/05/great-prints-from-labs.html
If you see large differences in contrast and saturation, there really is something wrong with your calibration workflow or your lab. FOr good prints, the only thing they need to do is to turn off their auto color correction, which with most labs you can do automatically in the online submission pages. I should tell you that you do have to judge prints under good lighting. Often these differences are simply caused by one day being sunny and the other overcast when you walk out on the parkinglot and take out your prints. This is not a real difference. Use a good high color rendering index lamp of high color temperature and you will see that they were the same. My local costcos is calibrated by drycreek photos every month and the profile hardly changes at all over time.
>I don't know, Jao, maybe your point in photography is different, and you don't pay so much attention on colors. These things are subjective! Maybe you pay more attention on other components of photo. In my experience it takes lots of time to prepare a 40"x30" photo for print and then it takes more time and money to colormatch it.
Actually my work is almost always about color. Perhaps I don't sweat it as much. I'd really like Lightroom to have some kind of soft proofing though showing how anal I am about color. I don't use costcos for prints larger than 12x18 as they don't do it locally, but I usually use smugmug's lab (EZprints) for the really large prints. They color manage for you and supply a profile that you can soft proof to if you want. They also appear to scale and sharpen the prints somehow. I've always had outstanding results from them and you can send back the images that you don't like at no cost, although I have never had to do that. I also use smugmug for galleries that clients can order from directly. They have always been very happy with the prints.
>And I work in Windows, maybe your Mac does it better, maybe that's the point of my sad story. But Windows is my karma for many reasons.
The point maybe, also, you print every time on the same printing hardware in Costco - that can explain it all.
I have been happy with my costcos and with EZprints, but I doubt that it is much of an issue. As said, I don't use inkjets very often as they are so darn expensive and annoying to operate but I have never had much issue with bad prints. There is no reason why you could not get windows to behave better. The only thing that you need is to calibrate regularly. I have seen on this forum that windows tends to corrupt monitor profiles over time. The issue is always fixed by recalibrating regularly. Once every month should be plenty.

Aperture color profile

I went to Dallas Blooms, a seasonal display of magnificence. Tulips and flowers abound everywhere. Just amazing. Took lots of pictures with two cameras.
I am really disappointed. When I go to view them the first time in Aperture, there is this brief moment they look normal. Normal saturation primarily. Then it blinks quickly and reappears with oversaturations of colors, especially red.
Any idea what is happening? Is it applying some kind of automated color profile? The colors are so dramatic and overblown I'm having to retouch every picture by desaturating colors, especially reds.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Robert

I'm still having this problem. I've scanned in 800 older photos. I have to lower the red in almost every photo. I recently went to Fort Worth botanical gardens. Reds are again way oversaturated. There is this brief moment where I can see the colors all look natural and balanced overall. Then Aperture is overlaying some kind of color profile (maybe?) that causes all the colors to slightly oversaturate, especially reds.
I'm using TIFF files for the scanned pics, combination of RAW and jpegs for the botanical pics. I didn't have this problem until maybe the last 12 months or less. I'm thinking there was some kind of upgrade to Ap3 and I noticed it after that.
I'm still using my 17" MBP and thunderbolt display.
Has anyone else had this problem and any idea how to fix this?
Thanks.

Desaturated, too bright footage after rendering

Hey everyone!
I'm having some trouble with rendering out my footage(s).
They become desaturated (color loss) and bright for some reason.
I tried different render methods, codecs, formats...almost same result on each of them.
Here is a picture, it can explain better:
The original footage is much darker, and may lack of some detail, but it more colorful.
Also, the color loss/brightening is only visible on the rendered movie (doesn't matter which codec or video player I use) - usually I use h264.
I do short animations as well, in AE. If I trie to render it out in AE, I get the same result.
First time, I noticed this problem, I rendered out a 40 min footage, and something was off. I couldn't fix this issue, and for some reason, I checked some old footage. They ahd the same problem, but I did not notice it before (see below - picture).
I'm using Adobe CS6, Windows 7 64bit.
Thanks in advance!

It's not the monitor.
Be it WMP, be it Quicktime, be it whatever, it's not the monitor.
The same washed out finished product looked exactly the same on the dvd on both a PS3 with 1080p tv, to an old projector attached to an old DVD player at school as it did on my computer with said monitor.
Sure, slight changes, but still the same kind of ugly.
It's not the monitor.
It's some kind of difference in Premier to the encoder, or the players or something, or some kind of weird bug. For the last time though, trust me, it's not the monitor. In fact, the monitor's gamma was up to high, and I figured that early on and I managed to match the original footage to itself through the camera.
Even if it was the monitor, how do I get it to look decent? There is no way because play with the color and brightness gets and ugly output no matter what, because you can't even guess what it'll look like. Premier and After Effects are pretty much rendered useless to me at this point, and I keep getting told it's the monitor. It's not. I've done 100 things to check that.

Mixed Media: 720p 60 + DVCPRO 50

Hi all,
I've searched the forums looking to answer this question, and may have actually found the answer more than once but have now thoroughly confused myself into a corner, so I thought I should just post.
What would be the best method to work with 720p60 HD footage and DVCPRO 50 footage in the same timeline?
All media has already been captured; recapturing with a hardware/deck/camera-based downconvert is no longer an option. Final output is to an SD DVD, in both NTSC and PAL (for which I'll be using Natress' Standards Conversion).
I've been able to work with both formats in a variety of timelines, including Uncompressed 10-bit, DVCPRO 50 and so on, with each yielding slightly different results (letting FCP handle the rendering required). I'll be slowing down and reversing some clips, doing some desaturating, color correction, and adding grain here and there, so different combinations look better and worse depending on the sequence preset and the format of a particular clip, but none is consistently good for both formats.
I'm assuming the correct way to approach this is to standardize the formats between the two sources -- in this case I'm figuring the best option is to downconvert the HD to a friendly SD (like DVCPRO 50, for example).
Based on one of Shane Ross' posts I tried Media Manager, but I was given a warning that the frame rates didn't match and that I could either abort or preserve the framerate of the source (720p). Is the only other option a time- and drive space- costly conversion via Compressor?*
*Um, yeah, important note: I've already done a bunch of editing on this project, naively (perhaps) believing that I could go about downconverting later on, but I did this thinking that Media Manager could easily convert and replace or create a new project with the downconverted media.
Any advice would be extremely appreciated.
Did I mention my deadline is in two days?
2x2 GHz G5, 4GB RAM; 1.67 GHz 15" PB G4, 2GB RAM Mac OS X (10.4.7) SATA RAID; G-RAID (x3)

Hey Pat, thanks -- your post gets to the heart of my troubles. (Shane's does too, in the sense of technical specifics, e.g. please forgive any slightly misstated specs in what follows...)
The 16mm footage, which was originally 24 frames per second, was transferred to DVCPRO 50 (interlaced NTSC, 720x480, 29.97) before being captured (and it looks great). The few bits of DV were actually shot PAL (progressive) before being transfered to DV NTSC (interlaced), prior to capture (I had no say here, this is how I received the material -- which, by the way, looked pretty nasty).
The HD footage was shot 720p 60, which I'm understanding means 960x720, 'p' for 'progressive' and 60 frames per second. That last part has confused the heck out of me -- I know it's possible to shoot faster than NTSC's run of the mill 30fps (okay, 29.97), but for some reason I thought this was an unusual circumstance (as if it needed a special camera or tape stock or whatever). I also understand the potential benefits when it comes to shooting a higher frame rate, like if you're planning on doing speed changes (especially slow-mo), but am I wrong to think that 60fps is unusual?
Let me clarify a little. I know 29.97 is standard NTSC video, but according to the info within FCP (and in my bins), 720p 60 means 60 frames per second, not fields per second (which would indeed be 30 frames per second, or 29.97). If, however, the format was called '60i' this would mean that it was indeed 60 (or 59.98) fields per second, giving us 30 (or 29.97) frames per second. Please let me know if I've got this right.
Assuming that's correct, then the 720p 60 is never going to play nicely with the DVCPRO 50. Even if I take the clips that I want to slow down and change their speed in a native timeline (720p 60), those rendered files still won't look good back in the DVCPRO 50 timeline (progressive vs. interlaced, 59.98 fps vs. 29.97 fps). It would seem to me that the best way to deal with this is to take the 720p 60 footage, make the speed changes in a native timeline (BTW, which way: using the speed controls within FCP, or Twixtor, or some kind of Cinema Tools conversion taking advantage of the 60fps?), and then output or convert this clips somehow before placing them back into the non-native DVCPRO 50 timeline. Make sense?
My original hope was that the frame rate would be a minor concern, rendered nicely in the DVCPRO 50 timeline, and I was optimistic by how easily they seemed to mix together prior to making any speed changes. This hope was further dashed by the different results yielded by some of the film effects, like adding grain (which I now have a solution for: make all of my speed changes, finalize my edit, output a final version, then import that movie for applying additional effects, which will no longer vary according to the source footage specs, such as frame size and frame rate). I know it'll wind up being more complicated than this (for example, if I've got a cross dissolve between a 720p 60 clip and a 16mm clip (transferred to DVCPRO 50), applying a 24p film effect to the HD footage must be done independently (since the 16mm clip already has a 24p look to it), output (or rendered?), a then dropped back into the edit before outputting for final effects, such as adding grain).
Phew. Sorry if I've overstated anything, I just want to be clear. Answering any of my questions above would be a huge help... and yes, my time is running out. No pressure.
Maybe I can help things along by restating my questions (simply):
1. What is the best way to apply speed changes, including reversals, to 720p 60 footage?
2. What is the best way to insert speed-altered 720p 60 clips into a DVCPRO 50 timeline?
3. What is the best way to apply a 24p frame rate effect (courtesy of Nattress' Film Effects) to this mix of 720p 60 and DV? (None of the DVCPRO 50 requires this filter because it was all originally 16mm film, which already appears to be 24p)
Thank you for your help so far, and thanks in advance!
P.S. - Sorry, another thought just occured to me. Say my cut is locked, couldn't I also opt to output the edited 720p 60 clips I'm using from a native 720p 60 timeline, then convert these clips using Compressor and re-import them into my project?
I've read elsewhere that Compressor's format conversions are pretty spiffy, if time-consuming, but I'd only need to do this to a handful of relatively short shots. This way I could import the clips as DVCPRO 50 NTSC (interlaced, 29.97, 720x480), then apply other effects to all of the clips (like 24p, grain, etc.)...

Creating a film look in Final Cut Pro 3

I have finished editing my short in and some of the images are too harsh; please advise me on how I can get a more film like look. I shot the short on a Sony PD-150 and edited it on Final Cut Pro 3 using a G4 and running OS X. 2.6
A friend suggested using a filter like Magic Bullet, which doesn't work on OS X. 2.6. Someone else suggested rendering it in 30 frames per second but don't know how to do that in FCP.
G4 Mac OS X (10.2.x)

You're not going to be able to make magic happen with DV footage on final cut 3. Film has a generally softer and murkier look than video, so try bringing down the harsher higlights and desaturing colors somewhat. You're just going to have to play arround with the the filters and color corrector, and eyeball it on a broadcast monitor.
As far as frame rate is concerned, there's nothing you can do. DV is 29.97fps, film is 24fps. Simply changing the framerate (especially to 30) won't make it look more film like. 24 fps pulldown needs to happen in camera to achieve such an effect.
If you're interested in something like Magic Bullet (which you'll have far better luck with), you'll have to find someone who has it.
Honestly, my advice would be to worry about your film looking good more than worry about your film looking like film.

Adobe Muse: images in slideshow lose contrast/dull

I'm hoping there's an easy workaround or solution for this. When I put my images in a slideshow and view in Preview mode or publish and view in my browser, the images look flat, with dull blacks and desaturated colors. The images look fine in design mode. Also, when I have an image that is NOT in a slideshow, it looks fine when previewed or published.
I have tested the slideshow with various combinations of color profiles, embedded & unnumbered, as well as various sizes and resolutions. None of those factors change the way the image looks in the slideshow. Again, this only happens in the slideshow, not when the photo is "directly" on the oage.
I'm using Muse (2014.2.1). Currently using Mac with Yosemite, although I have had this problem since I started using Muse over a year ago.
Any help would be much appreciated!

It has that type of look to it, for sure. Where can transparencies be applied (or more importantly, turned off) to a slideshow?
Two more things I've tried:
1. I've tried changing the transition styles and settings, to see if it was just the "fade" transition creating the illusion of a shift, but no change even with longer view times or different transition style.
2. made sure that the slideshow was the top element in the layer, so there's not another layer invisibly affecting the slideshow.

Desaturated colors in Acrobat XI vs OK Colors in Acrobat 9

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for