My renders look different on FCP 7!

Hi,
I've recently upgraded to FCS 3 & Snow Leopard.
At some point I needed to fix an old project created on FCP 6 and re-render it. The project of course opened fine, and I fixed what I needed and sent out to render (Exported QT and then compressed to Animation PAL via Compressor).
Looking at the final render, it looked somewhat odd. I then opened the previously rendered file (done in FCP 6) and played them side by side in QT7.
First of all the aspect ratios were different; although the info palette showed correct sizes for both videos (720x576), the actual size was different, as though one was corrected for 1:1 viewing and the other wasn't. Opening both movies in QTX was weirder: they had the same window size but the newly created movie seemed stretched and cropped to fit 1:1 viewing.
I then opened the movies in VLC, and lo and behold, they both were sized the same.
But the more major issue is that the newly rendered movie looks "softer". The previously rendered movie is crisp and sharp with contrasty colors, while the new one is just milder in color and detail; the difference is not extreme, but noticeable.
I cannot think of any reason why this could happen, because the render settings remained the same. I even tried playing around with different settings, as well as rendering directly from FCP, among other things, but nothing changed.
I'm fresh out of ideas, and quite frankly, pretty frustrated from this, as I need to make a tape master pretty soon.
Is this a bug in QT? FCP7? Snow Leopard? Or just some hidden setting I might have overlooked?
Your help will be much appreciated.
Thanks

In Quicktime 7 > Preferences... window you should see a bunch of options - make sure that you have checked "Use high-quality video setting when available" and "Enable Final Cut Studio color compatibility". Note also that default gamma handling in Snow Leopard is now at 2.2: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3712

Similar Messages

Photoshop cs6 3d rendering looks different

Hey
I have Photoshop via Creative Clouds and it is great
But I have one question:
Suddenly the 3d rendering looks different. Before it was some squeer boxes that appear on the screen and now they are dissapear and it is just one box with marching ants around it. How can I get it back?

That difference is because Adobe introduced the new Render Tile Size parameter and defaulted it to Huge.
Note: You should time your rendering if you decide to make a change. Using smaller tiles can mean your render times may take a lot longer, depending on the system. I find my renders go quite a lot faster on Huge.
-Noel

Export back to FCP looks different

I have a project in apple prores 422 in FCP. I sent it to color with no problems and did my color correct. Then I rendered it, and sent it back to Final cut pro. the image in FCP is considerably warmer and the blacks are clipped so there is no detail in black areas. It looks completely different in Color.
Any ideas of what I'm doing wrong? All of this is being judged on the same monitor so that's not the issue.
Thanks for your help,
Adam
Message was edited by: Adam Salky
Message was edited by: Adam Salky

The issue here, and its surprising you are coming up empty with the search because it is discussed almost hourly, is a gamma difference in Quicktime.
Up to Snow Leopard, MacOS has based their luminance transfer characteristic (gamma) coefficient of 1.8 to display graphic images on a Cinema Display or other panel. This makes sense to Apple, since they assume that almost 100 percent of their client base are using their computers for Photoshop, word processing and so on... and 1.8 is the prepress rendition that is standard industry-wide.
Broadcast video, on the other hand, uses a Rec709 gamma characteristic that is in the range of 2.2, which is more than a few percent different. It isn't your Quicktime media that is actually darker and a different color, it is the way Quicktime is decoding and displaying it within the MacOS, which is why it can look different on the same screen. Unless you instruct FCP to operate under Rec709 2.2 gamma, it will default to the system OS Colorsync 1.8 coefficient.
COLOR operates outside the Mac OS Colorsync supervisor -- it is entirely predicated on a system gamma of 2.2.
jPo

Since this morning all text in firefox look slightly different - I think it still uses the same font, but renders it differently.

Since this morning all text in firefox looks slightly different - I think it still uses the same font, but renders it differently!? I would like to have it changed back to what it was. Any help is welcome.
Some facts:
- Happens only in Firefox (IE & Chrome still look the same)
- Already did a reset to defaults
I'm using the latest version of Firefox
Screenshot can be found here: [http://www.ka-pow.net/media/images/firefoxissue.jpg link text]

Reset the page zoom on pages that cause problems: <b>View/Beeld > Zoom > Reset</b> (Ctrl+0 (zero); Cmd+0 on Mac)
*http://kb.mozillazine.org/Zoom_text_of_web_pages
Press F10 or tap the Alt key to bring up the "Menu Bar" temporarily if the Menu Bar is hidden.
Use "Firefox > Options" instead of "Tools/Extra > Options" if the menu bar is hidden.

Footage Looks Different in SpeedGrade and when rendered

Hello
I’m having some problems figuring out what my file actually look like.
Is there still a QuickTime bug that cause QuickTime to show a gamma-shifted or otherwise-screwy image?
5dMkII h.264 .mov file
The same file in QuickTime and VLC looks different. VLC version is darker and redder.
That file in SG looks even darker, and slightly redder.
Rendered out from SpeedGrade to ProRes422 (Automatic Color Adjustment switch on in SG) looks close to SpeedGrade display, but a few points redder and a touch darker.
Rendered out from SpeedGrade to ProRes422 (Automatic Color Adjustment switch off in SG) much lighter and paler than SpeedGrade display.
Same results with ProRes444.
Why do these look different?
Latest MacPro Tower
Latest OS X
64GB RAM
AMD FirePro D700 6144 MB
2x LaCie 321 monitors, calibrated with Spyder3 Elite
QuickTime Pro 7 or QuickTime Player bundled with OS
All files viewed on the same monitor
Thanks in advance for any help.

In general, it depends.
You can't be responsible for every other computer & user in the world ... even though at times they'll try and make you so. The best anyone can do is run a calibrated "shop" and know you're delivering good technical content. Test it on other calibrated systems, and over broadcast monitors if such are available somewhere you know. For clients with specific needs, TEST. Send a test over and have them check it ... for most TV use this is crucial. For say adds on movie theatre screens between shows, arrange to take a sample over before they "open" for the day and have it played on their equipment onto the screen ... see what it looks like, adjust & retest as necessary.
For web use ... that's a total crapshoot off the mark.Best you can do is again, see that your system is as accurately calibrated as you can. Set the preferences for video players on your machine to use your system's calibration rather than their internal, which will ALWAYS do something odd to the signals. But not only odd ... unpredictable computer to computer. If your system is fully calibrated, your work over the web will hopefully average out pretty decent.
For web-delivery clients, still ... do initial testing to see that they are happy with the results you give them. If on their computer they want it bluer, and ... you know that means it's gonna really be BLUE on many machines ... perhaps showing them on a laptop that it does look good as-is on another system or some sort of client education moment may need to happen. I've heard plenty of complaints that the client demanded someone deliver something too dark ... and then complained back at them because they got comments from others that the material was too dark. Love that, eh? Client demanded they change it darker even though told it would be too dark for most computers ... then groused at them that it was too dark. Right. Oh frabjous joy.
Over in the video lounge here and on a couple other sites ... the threads on Stupid Client Demands have at times been a riot and at times something to near cry over. As a 30+ year stills portrait photographer, we've had the same thing at times from clients ... a demand to just plain print their images GREEN or something. Most of which we've complied with, some we ... didn't. What an interesting variety of brains and eyes there are about the planet ...
My experience is that just doing the best I can, it looks pretty darn good on my client's tv's and computers. Some go one way or the other a bit, but in general, it works fine. And check if you've got a setting in either system controls or the Qt & VLC controls for system-managed color.
Neil

Colors in FCP looks different than when playing in QT7

The colors of the video's in FCP looks different than when playing back in QuickTime. I wonder if it can be a color management setting in FCP? I have the same problem when playing a clip in AE. I have two FCP machines, but only one of them is having this problem. Any ideas of what I can do to get the right colors back?

Have you enabled Final Cut Studio Color Compatibility in the QT Player preferences?

The way Aperture renders my Nikon RAW (NEF) files look different than...

The was Aperture renders my NEF files looks different than NX...
Ok so I use all the in camera setting/tools to the best of abilities to try and cut my editing down as much as possible but when shooting RAW I end up having to tweak every images to get them back to what they really look like... I shoot often RAW and JPG combined and when I open a NEF in NX and a JPG in PS they are identical and need very little work, when I use Aperture the NEF files are very different looking from the JPG (or NEF in NX) and every single one needs tweaking (I get more redish/pinkish skin, often a hint of green cast to (slightly off WB/tone thing) and more contrast.
Below is screenshot showing the difference between a JPG (or NEF in NX) and a RAW file in Aperture
[img]http://www.pbase.com/ray645/image/120052970/original.jpg[/img]
This is just a silly snap shot in very flat overcast light, and has the least amount of shift or difference of any image type so far, when I use strobes, shoot for a more contrasty image, gel for color and manual WB the differences are huge almost to the point that you would think you where looking at two completely different images and not the same NEF opened in different software.
How do I go about getting Aperture to render my NEF's more like what I shot like NEF in NX, JPG in anything, and even the back of the camera screen?

Thank you, that seems like will work, just having the boost turned down a bit on import has helped tremendously but I cant stop feeling like I am moving towards the "Fix it in post" mentality
I will need to get better at tweaking my images... No matter how I try I cant kill the pinking skin or the very faint green glow in blond hair or bright neutral tones without affecting other areas of the image.. I am sure I will figure it out but anyone having any tips or links that could speed up my process I would appreciate it.
The green is weird its like someone snuck a small florescent light into all my shoots without telling me, not major but enough to be annoying.
I shoot a ton of motor sports (3000 images a weekend) and shoot JPG and have gotten good at using in camera pre sets, knowing what I got and getting it right in the camera, I wish Nikon would give up the code or whatever is needed for all the info to be carried over to Aperture..... I would pay the $100 or whatever to use the NX engine in Aperture

Grade looks completely different in FCP

New to color, just graded my first Color project.
When I send the project back to FCP, the grade is totally different (on the same monitor). Much lighter and greyer.
The material is HDV 1080i and my project settings are the same as the footage.
Any ideas?
Kristjan

I get similar discrepancies occasionally with random clips within a sequence --
Either it will "redline" or I get something that is just wrong. For some obscure reason, deliberately importing the g1.mov from the render directory fixes the issue, rather than going through the communication language of the XML tour bus. Why the same clip.. the same media, the same file! looks different depending on the way it is imported into FCP utterly mystifies me, though.
JPO

Team Blog: Why does my page look different in BrowserLab?

Duane O'Brien, engineer on the BrowserLab team has a new blog post on the BrowserLab Team blog that you might find interesting. It covers when/why you might see rendering differences between the BrowserLab browsers and your local browsers. Good info.
http://blogs.adobe.com/browserlab/2011/07/11/why-does-my-page-look-different-in-browserlab /
Bruce
Bruce Bowman
BrowserLab product manager
BrowserLab Team Blog: http://blogs.adobe.com/browserlab
Twitter: @brucebowman, @adobebrowserlab

As Wyodor indicated IE is not the most advance, up-to-date browser out there.
See Roddy’s tips for making iWeb pages more compatible with IE.
OT

Create DNG Profile - Why does it look different in the DNG Editor vs LR/ACR?

Hi everyone, I am sorry if this has been covered before -- perhaps you could give me a link to the relevant info.
I have a client who shoots with a Leica DMR. The reds are way to saturated and magenta. We created a new camera profile in the DNG editor using a color-checker chart, shot at D6500 and Tungsten. Looks great, and Lightroom recognizes it. The issue: when we look at a photograph in the DNG editor with this profile, it looks much better. When we look at the same photograph in LR/ACR with the profile selected, the reds are still too saturated and magenta (though way better than without our profile). Why would a photo look different in the two applications, with the same profile?
As shown in DNG Editor:
As shown in LR:
Thank you for any light you can shed on this.
Laura Shoe

Here is an additional comparison further highlighting the magenta issue (amongst others). Shot with Leica R9 w/DMR(firmware1.3) using Leica Vario-Elmarit-R 35-70mm at ISO 100, f/4.8, 1/60. Manual WB=4912K, no Exp Comp.
Here is screen shot of same DNG image. Un-altered in either app., no presets, no sharpening, or noise reduction. CaptureOne (v4.8.3) on the left, and LR2 (v2.6)
Here is what the above screen shot looks like thru CS3:
you must click on image to see CS3 rendering - browser is not accurate
Anyone no what's going on?
PS the images were shot just shy of perfect focus to test sharpening in both apps, same levels applied to both images (C1 on left, LR on right). Here are the results:

My footage looks posterized in FCP playback

im using FCP 7 and have downloaded all the latest software updates.
my footage looks normal when i play it back on my video camera, it's normal when i watch it on quicktime, and even when i export it as a quicktime from FCP. it's also normal when capturing to my computer using the 'log and transfer' window. but when i play/preview the clips from the timeline or directly from the browser window, the footage looks distorted and posterized.
ive tried talking to apple support, ive re-loaded the program, ive tried the program with a different user account, ive trashed preferences and reloaded again... but the footage still looks posterized on FCP.
when i change the view settings, the footage looks normal on the R channel, the G channel and B channel, and even on the RGB + alpha channel, but when i view it using the RGB channel, it looks posterized, making it quite difficult to edit and colour-grade.
any suggestions on how i can fix this problem?

ok, so i dont know what i did. but after checking my colour settings in my system preferences (which i didnt change), FCP has decided to magically work! the footage is playing back normally now. yay!
i really dont know what i did to fix this problem, but it all appears to be fine now. thanks for your help!

Templates look different in FCE HD than in LT

I'm starting to use templates in LT in a project I'm working on to jazz it up a little.
I use 2 LT stock templates, modify the the background colors, adjust some font sizes, add a drop shadow here & there, do a little extrusion on some of the LT fonts, and it looks great when I save and render it in LT.
I play back the LT render file in LT and it looks just like I want it.
After I import the render file into FCE HD (3.0), place it on the time line, render it, and then finally get to see what it looks like, some of the font colors are wrong and there appears to be some aliasing happening on the fonts themselves making the whole thing look second rate - not sharp and crisp like it was in LT.
Is it a no no to extrude fonts?
I also get aliasing on the stock non-animated fonts when I change their color. In one case from black to a dark green . In this case I also put a .5 px stroke around the font to help with contrast against the background.
Could the .5 px stroke be aliasing?
The dark green also comnes out looking grungy and frazzeled.
Any help would be appreciated. This has happend in several templates now.
Ken

I have never tried importing the .ifr file from LT because I want to see what it looks like before it goes to FCE.< </div>
You get used to estimating timing and anticipating your results with experience.
Tom said that basically it doesn't play well in the time line because it gets compressed by a factor of 5 when it goes to DV AND that even though I'm using a 19" Apple Studio Display, that the display is not showing it like it would play from a DVD to a TV. < </div>
Tom Wolsky knows all this stuff inside and out.
And interlacing gets in the way or something like that, and yeah I'm so newbee my wings are still tired just getting to this hive.< </div>
We were all new at this at one time or another. Welcome tot he family.
But this brings up another question. Since exporting the sequence to a QT self-contained movie and burning it on a DVD means that it gets even further compressed into mpeg, how is that the LT scenes actually display much better on a TV (which is way larger) than in the canvas? Is that where the interlacing thing comes in? < </div>
Umm, no.
I have never really understood why video has 2 images in one frame when film gets buy just fine with one. Can you point me in the right direction to learn about that?< </div>
Different universes of time. But when film gets transferred to vidoe, those single frames get interlaced and interleaved with a process known as 3-2 Pulldown. That will give you a headache because there are many different types of pulldown.
Anyhow, why buy a video monitor if it's all going to sort itself out in the bake and shake process going to DVD? < </div>
That's a stylistic question you will answer for yourself in a few months.
And if one really should have a "video monitor" are there any decent ones that aren't megabucks? My understanding is that it's going to look different on the TV any how, correct? < </div>
It's not that easy, TV and video are different, too.
So does this mean that when we create in LiveType, we are creating a NON-Interlaced image that looks so sharp & clear on the non-interalced computer screen? And that the interlacing gets put in during the rendering process in FCE? And that interlacing makes the LiveTyp image look like it's got ants in its pants (fuzzy)on the computer screen? < </div>
There's an option in your prject settings to use NONE, LOWER or UPPER fileds for your movie. Set it to LOWER. If you use NONE< you will get a progressive render.
<div class="jive-quote">Do I have it or do I have to go back to school?< </div>
It might help but we do that every day around here. Don't sweat the small stuff but, now that you have some fundamental grounding in video basics, you could benefit dramatically from reading the LT manual and doing the tutorials one more time. They'll make some sense this time around.
Bogiesan

Why does Muse website look different Mac vs. PC

Why do adobe muse websites look different on a Mac vs. PC? www.915day.com for example. Looks great on my mac, but when you go to the PC version it looks zoomed in at least 25-35%? Why? (I have thus adjusted it to look good on a PC.) Frustratingly, to center the Logo for one platform, means to put it off center on the other. Defeats the whole purpose of Parallax scrolling. Also, who would pay so much a month to the creative cloud if they can't even offer their clients continuity? I understand there is a difference between older browsers and new, but it tests the same way even on a new browser (Windows 8 browsers). I have tried adjusting the canvas to the exact measurements of the screen on my PC but it renders the same. Also I have turned on the HiDPI just to see if that was the case. Still no fix. There is only one instance of this in the forums and it has still gone unanswered. So I am asking in greater detail why this is an issue.
Anyone?

I tried to check the site display in multiple browsers on both Mac and windows , but I was not able to verify the issue.
I believe you have already resolved the issue.
Thanks,
Sanjit

Pantone Bridge and Solid looks different on screen

Why the same Pantone Coated colour looks different on screen between the Bridge palette and the Solid palette. If I compare the same colour on the 2 printed coated palettes, they look the same

Thank you so much for responding! Here are answers & below screenshot of my Distiller settings:
Platform = Windows
Frame version = 8
Rendering workflow = I print to .ps and then distill to PDF.
What settings in Distiller? I tried the "Tag all images for color management" in Distiller with sRGB selected as the color model, but it still came out lime---however, when I chose "Convert All Colors to CMYK" it kept the green color BUT then greyed out my images!!! I have attached a screenshot of the settings---can you see it?
sRGB = The artist had no idea was sRGB was (he is not really helpful at all...).
Any suggestions on how to get my images back...? Thanks so much.

Fonts that are the same look different why?

These 2 images (the copy text within the image) are the same in every way, yet when saved as .jpg look different. Why does this happen?
I have tried saving at 100% instead of the 60%, and this helps make them a bit clearer, but still not as crisp as the image beside it. Please help. Thanks
It is always the left side images that are blurrier as well...what is up with that lol See my page
http://www.partsconnexion.com/t/eblast/bbb/bb.html

It's rather fine text, and when you save it as an image, it's alignment to the "pixel grid" may differ (from the same type/size text in similar images) by a fraction of a pixel.
Fonts have a built-in parameter called "hinting" which helps ensure that varying proximity to the pixel grid doesn't distort the glyphs of live type while they're displayed on-screen. It's a scientifically grizzly little property that dictates which portions of a glyph are always black, versus the portions that are subject to "anti-aliasing." When you rasterize the text as you have, it loses its hinting and becomes subject to "accident" in terms of pixel grid alignment, anti-aliasing, and subsequent perceptual rendering on-screen.
Considering the above, rasterizing text is somewhat of a crap-shoot and should be avoided. Your layouts could be composed with live text; and should be. Methods might differ depending on whether the end-product is an "email blast" or something that's always and only ever rendered in a browser.

My renders look different on FCP 7!

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for