Nikon D300s images too bright and interlaced.

So this is my first time shooting and editing video and I'm getting some weird errors.
I'm running Windows 7, and when I view the video files after downloading them from the card, the whites all seem too bright and blown out, no matter which media player I use. When I import the videos into Premiere CS5, the whites are not so blown out and there's detail.
BUT when I'm done editing and save the file as a HD H.264 720p 24fps file, the whites are again blown out AND there's obvious interlacing.
How do I get my whites to not be blown out, and how do I get the output to be deinterlaced?

You've told others on this forum to use professional monitors.
Not everyone has access to a professional monitor. I will never have access to a professional monitor. Not everyone is a video professional and not everyone cares to be one. I just want a video that looks good on YouTube. A professional monitor is not an option.
All I know is that on the same monitor, when playing the originals and the final exported file the whites look noticably more blown out than they do when previewed within Premiere.
The D300s only shoots in progressive, but when I export from Premiere (making sure Progressive is selected) the video looks interlaced.

Similar Messages

Firefox 36 changes colors on EVERYTHING to too bright and saturated.

I have 28, 33 and now 36. All previous versions had the same and more accurate color. But, 36 makes everything too bright and saturated. Every page. Even bookmark icons. Everything.
Something must have changed. Could have changed in 34 or 35 as I skipped those,. but here in 36 is definitely an issue.
Is there a new setting I have missed?
Appreciate your replies. This is hard to view.
~Bob

Hello Bob, try '''disabling graphics hardware acceleration'''.
You might need to restart Firefox in order for this to take effect, so save all work first (e.g., mail you are composing, online documents you're editing, etc.).
Then perform these steps:
#Open Firefox ''Options'' window as follows, click the menu button [[Image:New Fx Menu]] and select ''Options'' .
#In the Firefox Options window, click the ''Advanced'' tab, then select ''General''.
#In the settings list, you should find the ''Use hardware acceleration when available'' checkbox. '''Uncheck''' this checkbox.
#Now, restart Firefox and see if the problems persist.
Additionally, please check for updates for your graphics driver by following the steps mentioned in the following Knowledge base articles:
* [[Troubleshoot extensions, themes and hardware acceleration issues to solve common Firefox problems]]
* [[Upgrade your graphics drivers to use hardware acceleration and WebGL]]
Did this fix your problems? Please report back to us!
Thank you.

Can i make the setting and keyboard background black ? , because i have vision problem and the white color is too bright and cause pain and headache for me . thanks

can i make the setting and keyboard background black ? , because i have vision problem and the white color is too bright and cause pain and headache for me . thanks

Drmikekuna wrote:
... Sony AVCHD .. Canon SD ... Logitech .. Flip Mino HD. ..
.. Certainly not the best idea for a professional but just fine for a guy who likes to edit for fun.
that's were the fun stops on a MacOs-based system ..
FC/e supports only a few 'standards': DV (as from miniDV cams), HDV (from miniDV devices), AVCHD (from most devices) and with a little trick, described on my website AVCHD-light (720p, as from many compact-stills) ..
done.
some Flips are supported by iMovie, which you can abuse as a converter tool.
but 'non video standard' (=read 'video' as 'in TV') formats, resolutions and codecs ...
a) manual conversion = less convenient
b) loss of 'quality', e.g. when you blow-up tiny 480x320/15fps into video..
FC/e is FC/pros lil' brother.. meant for a more.. adult workflow..
if you like to wrestle with multi-formats, stay with Windows/Magix/..
Windows=options, with a chance of getting lost
MacOs=convenience, with a chance of getting restricted

The PDFs I send to the customers for approval look too bright and clean! Help!!

I working for a printing company that prints on Un coated White wove. The PDFs I send to the customers for approval look too bright and clean compaired to what is going to end up on press. How can I create a PDF the better represents the more dull look of un coated stock that they will end up with. Most of them are probably using Reader to view my pdfs.

Hi Mike ,
If you could request the customers to view PDF' on Acrobat and compare the outputs .
Request the customer to change the default program viewer to Acrobat and see the results.
You may also want to check the resolution on the both ends. i.e yours and the customer' end.
Does all the customers get the same output ?
Regards
Sukrit Dhingra

Images too bright in PSE, good in Windows Picture Viewer.

Hi:
My question is this, I shot some pictures of my son last weekend, in studio,
with a Nikon D2X camera, and a softbox lightbank mounted on a Balcar
flash head. I set the camera to RAW-JPEG Fine, ISO 100, and used a
Minolta flashmeter to measure the light from the strobe. The reading was
f/8 and 2/3. The images look good in the LCD camera display, but when
I see them in my PC display, they look way too bright in Photoshop Elements 7.0,
but they look fine in the Windows XP SP3 Picture Viewer.
Why is this?. If I adjust the contrast and brightness in PSE, then they look too dark
when I check them in Windows Picture Viewer...
Also, the highlights look a little burned out in both, PSE and Windows Picture Viewer,
but the problem looks more evident in PSE. This happens often when I shoot pictures
using strobe lights.
Can you help me with this two problems?.
I have attached one of the pictures so you can take a look at it.
Thanks.

As to why the photo looks different in PSE than in Windows Picture And Fax Viewer, there are two possibilities:
1. Your display may have a color profile associated with it, either because you calibrated it with a calibrator or a profile was installed by the disk that came with your display. PSE is "color managed" and will adjust the colors of a photo based on the display's color profile, whereas Windows Picture And Fax Viewer will not. If you want fine control over accurate display of colors on your display, you'll need to calibrate it if you haven't already, and you should then only use color-managed programs like PSE to view your photos.
2. The photo you posted indicates that you've set your camera to use the Adobe RGB color space for JPEGs. The Organizer has a bug and doesn't display the thumbnails (even large thumbnails) of such photos correctly. The Organizer's Display > Full Screen (F11) and the Editor do display such photos correctly. I'm not sure if this particular photo will trigger the bug, because of the way Nikon in particular stores color profiles in JPEGs. You could see if you're getting hit by this bug by:
a. Open the photo in the Editor.
b. In the Organizer, make the photo's thumbnail as large as possible (not Full Screen view).
c. Adjust the zoom of the photo in th Editor to be about as large as the one in the Organizer.
d. Use Ctrl Tab to switch quickly between the two. If you see differences, you're encountering the bug.

Image changes brightness and contrast after importing. LR 5.3

I'm importing RAW files straight from a CF card reader into my network storage drive via LR5.3. While reviewing as it imports initially each image looks great but a few seconds after it loads onto the screen it seems like LR applies a bit of extra brightness and lessens the contrast and I lose a load of detail that was there originally. I've not touched the import settings and no filters are being applied by myself on import.
Thanks in advance.

Andrew Rodney wrote:
the initial prevew you see is wrong ... LR is showing you the correct preview ...
I think I know what you're trying to say there Andrew, but to attempt a clarification for the OP (and other readers):
* Lr's rendering may be considered "correct" in Lightroom because it's, well, Lightroom's rendering.
Given the terminology posed by Andrew, in a Nikon software environment, Lightroom's rendering would be considered wrong, and Nikon's correct. And such is the perspective that many people bring to Lr - that Nikon's rendering should be considered "correct", and Lr's rendering should "match", and to the extent that it doesn't, it's "wrong"...
The bottom line (from my perspective):
Since Lr's rendering ignores camera settings (as manufacturer's rendering ignores Lightroom settings), one needs to learn to (set up defaults and) apply Lightroom settings to have the Lightroom rendering how they want..
Cheers,
Rob

Viewing Nikon D300 images in finder

Hi, Is there anyone out there using Nikon D300 with Mac Book Pro under OSX 10.5.1?
Can you see the thumbnails? Can you see the NEF, TIFF, or PSD files in Finder?
How do you view your photos?
In Finder, if you click on one single pictures, does it close down your external drive and put you back in a clean desktop?
Is there a fix? Is there a work around?
Please help.
Yes: it works find in LR and PS, but what about Finder and iphoto / email?

The issue should only occur if you shoot raw. Currently OS X can only display/read certain RAW camera formats. These are OS level, meaning iPhoto, Preview, Mail, Aperture and others are effected. However adobe products are different because they use Adobe Camera RAW.
I would expect JPEGs TIFFs and PSDs, both thumbnails and files, to view fine. RAW files will not view from the D300, but the D200 is supported.
There is no way of knowing when support for the (not-so-)new files will be available. Rumor has it it will be 10.5.2, but only Apple knows that. You can head on over to the Aperture forum and read to see if some have work-arounds.

Photo booth images too dark and grainy

When I use Skype or want to take a photo using Photo Booth, the image is dark and grainy. It has slowly gotten worse and worse. Never had a problem with it before. Any suggestions?

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2090 How to Troubleshoot iSight

LR2.3 images too bright after import even with flat or no development opt. checked

Hi, was always experiencing too dark prints from LR in different version (currently I have 2.3 installed), done all screen calibrations whatsoever, and now that I tried to get to the bottom of the issue, I found that LR seems to brigten up images even though no processing option is welcome nor checked at all. Did some research with a particular image that exhibited a difference in brightness in comparision with CS4 (on a different PC) and PSE5 o nthe same machine of estimated 2EV. Upon correction in LR however, colors and the histogram already got distorted, so no real option here. How can I tell LR to import stuff exactly as it was shot? Any hint is greatly appreciated.
I'm not suppying any attachment to illustrate the issue now as I hope it is known (although during my recent reaseach in the internet, I only found a singly reference, that dind' help much further...).
Thanks, Kai

In the menu bar go to
Edit>Preferences>Presets> tab>Default Settings>
make sure "Apply auto tone adjustments is not checked."

Development of imported nikon raw images - too strong?

Hi everybody,
I have what is probably a basic question for Aperture 3, but couldnt help me otherwise.
I am shooting with two Nikon-cameras in RAW-format.
I kept noticing, that when I import my images into aperture, when I select the image for the very first time to view it, the machine keeps "loading" it for approx 1-2 seconds, and then the colours are quite different and also some lines.
So what seems to happen is some kind of interpretation of the RAW-image, probably i am seeing a JPG-preview image from the cam before that?
However, it seems to me that the colours get a little bit too intense, eg faces tend to get a little red quickly
Also, I just noticed that a pillar of a building, which has been quite straigt in preview, seemed to be a little more curvy after this process, so its probably some lense correction or aspheric correction working.
I do want to keep on shooting in RAW, but I have no clue, if there is any way to influence what Aperture does (automatically) with all those pictures, can you help me out?
thanks!

Check the "Raw Fine Tuning" settings in the adjustment brick.
If "Raw Fine Tuning" is not showing, add it to your default adjustments after selecting one of your raws. Then click the cogwheel and add the adjustment to your default set.
I'd try to adjust the "Boost" and "Hue Boost" sliders.
Once you are happy with the result, click the cogwheel and save the new setting as a camera default preset.
Perhaps the preset that Aperture is using for your camera is using is faulty.
Regards
Léonie

CS2 and Nikon D300 NEF

So, please correct me if I'm wrong but if I understand correctly, those of us that paid good money for CS2 will have to upgrade to CS3 to get support for Nikon D300 camera raw. If true, stuff it and I will switch to NX. Maybe we don't pay enough for PS to expect that support? No wonder people steel Adobe products, there's no respect for honest paying customers.

> I expect support for what I purchased
And, it's been Adobe's policy to support the current shipping versions of Photoshop and provide free updates. Camera Raw 4 for Photoshop CS3 has already been updated 3 times since its release in May. Since Camera Raw 2 shipped in the Fall of 03 (Camera Raw 1 shipped in Feb 03 as a stand alone product), Adobe's policy has been very clear, they will continue shipping camera compatibility and bug fix upgrades for the duration that the version is supported. Support for non-current versions (any kind of support) ends when a new version ships.
The method that Adobe has chosen for backwards compatibility is to release free updates to DNG Converter that will allow versions even as old as Camera Raw 2.4 to be able to access images shot with cameras not yet released. So, if you choose not to upgrade to CS3 (foolish in my opinion because of the major advances) you'll still be able to convert D300 images to DNG and have access to your images in Camera Raw 3.7. (note, there were 7 free updates to Camera Raw 3 over about a 24 month period)
While you might legitimately complain that Adobe has not done a real good job of communicating their policies, they've not made their Camera Raw upgrade policy a secret.
And, no amount of chatter from new camera buyers is likely to make an impact on their upgrade policy.
Anybody doing this for a living would do well to know what the upgrade and support policies of their software is and smart buyers would do well to buy their upgrades EARLY in the new release cycles as opposed to late so that they could maximize the return on their investment. Let's see, $199 (the base upgrade price) of Photoshop CS3 spread out over 18 months (the average cycles between upgrades) works out to about $11/month or about $.37/day. I would say that's a pretty darn cheap cost of doing business.
And, if Photoshop is too much for your liking, Photoshop Elements also supports Camera Raw 4 in Mac Elements 4.01 and Elements 5 & 6 for Windows. I think Elements sells for $99 (or less) although the functionality of Camera Raw in Elements is limited.

Quicktime playback bright and gray, compared to FCP or After Effects

OK, this is so confusing, I have been working with Quicktime for years but I can't seem to resolve this issue:
I bought a MacPro (Xeon) and for some reason all the clips I create in Final Cut Pro or After Effects don't play back correctly in Quicktime. That is, unless I use the 'Animation' codec, then they play fine. But the strange thing is, whether I use DVCPRO HD, DV, or H.264, they all play back too bright and gray in Quicktime. But when I import that same file into either FCP or After Effects it looks like the original composition.
SO- the color is there, it just doesn't play back properly in Quicktime. The truly strange thing is that I tested the same clips on my other Intel and my G5 and the clips play back fine on those. After reinstalling Quicktime the same issue persists on my Mac Pro.
Any ideas why this might be happening??
Thanks in advance to the wizard who can help me clear this up!
2 x 3 GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon Mac OS X (10.4.8) A Waning Positive Outlook
2 x 3 GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon Mac OS X (10.4.8)

This works out fairly well. I'll give you two options on one stage of it:
1. Go to the first frame of your troublesome movie, Command-B to Select None, then do a Copy.
2. Open Preview.app, Command-N to make a new document that looks a lot like that frame you just copied. Once you see it, do a Copy.
3.1. In QuickTime Player, Command-N and Command-V to make a single frame movie of that image.
3.2. A different way, do a Save from Preview, to make a JPEG. Open that JPEG in QuickTime Player, Option-Right Arrow to get to the end.
4. Go to the original movie, Select All and Copy. Back to the new movie, do a Paste.
At this point you either have a movie that is Video compressed for the first frame, or JPEG compressed, depending on whether you did 3.1 or 3.2. In most cases I would choose 3.2.
Do a Save As, Self Contained, and you should have a movie where the first frame gets repeated, and the movie is forced into RGB mode.

LIghtroom Auto Tone Too Dark and Loses Detail

Hi,
I'm new to Lightroom so excuse my ignorance if I use the wrong terminology or ask a question that has a relatively easy answer I somehow overlooked inside of Lightroom.
I take photos at my son's soccer games and frequently walk away with over 200 photos to adjust, crop, etc. after removing the poor composition, out of focus and other shots. One of the features that prompted me to purchase Lightroom to replace my existing tool (Capture One LE) was the way Lightroom handled colors in the Auto Tone preset. Photos auto adjusted in Lightroom with the Auto Tone feature exhibit a much more rich/vibrant color than the ones that would come out of Capture One LE for me.
However, I've noticed that Auto Tone also darkens areas of the photo to the point where a significant amount of detail is lost. For example, a shot of a player head on with a shadow across his face and front of his jersey loses facial detail around the eyes, nose, mouth and folds in the front of the jersey because the coloring is darkened to the point where the highlights are lost.
I've tried several adjustments to regain the highlights and associated detail, but am unsure if there's a better way to recover the detail (or gain the tone enhancements without losing the detail). So far, the adjustments I've tried to regain the detail have caused the colors to wash out somewhat and reduce the benefit gained with the color enhancements of Auto Tone.
Is there a better way of regaining the detail after using Auto Tone? And on a related note, is there a way to "undo" just the Auto Tone adjustment in a photo if it's not the last adjustment made, or does one need to step backward through the adjusments undoing each adjustment in order to get to the Auto Tone adjustment in order to remove it?
Thanks in advance for any direction or suggestions anyone can provide. FYI, my photos were all in RAW format (noticed a lot of other posts referring to LR Auto Tone washing out JPGs, but this isn't my issue), with a Canon 20D.
Dale

There are several ways to go, here, as always with Lightroom in this situation. I suppose one thing you can do is use Auto Tone as you've been doing, and then back down another slider or two, particularly Contrast and Brightness, that moves too far for your taste when you hit Auto Tone.
I don't use Auto Tone. It's considered a machete where deftly-wielded surgical knives get much better results. I tested Auto Tone out on a virtual copy of one of my photos of people for you to see what happens. It bumps Contrast way up, drops Brightness a bit, reduces Fill Light, and increases Blacks slightly. Yeah, that would pretty much get the results you're complaining about! Might work okay in some landscape shots in some very subdued lighting situations, but it will make family shots too harsh.
Let me suggest another approach. First, no one checklist approach like I'm about to suggest works for every photo. But when you learn how to use the sliders yourself, and not rely on the automatic and strongest ones, like Auto Tone and Contrast, your photos will look better than you even realized. Seriously! I know what you're saying:
I take 200 photos at a time, and I don't have time to play with sliders for each photo. Hear me out, though, because you do. Once you get the hang of it, you'll learn to do all this so fast, well less than one minute per keeper shot, and you'll see that it's worth the small amount of time it takes.
First look at all your Imported shots and quickly weed out most of them. Don't try to save the ones where your main subject is out-of-focus or turned away at the last second, or badly overexposed shots, or for whatever reason, aren't worth editing time because you know you have better ones... and you should weed out MOST shots (maybe at least 150) if you took 200! Be a tough editor! Hit the X key as you look at ones to cull, then click Filter by black flag until all the Rejected photos Only are isolated, check them one more time to be sure you didn't X some you want by mistake, ctrl-A them to highlight all the Rejected ones ONLY, and hit Delete to blow them all away, From Disk. Congratulate yourself, because you just saved a lot of editing time.
Assuming the Exposure was in the right ballpark, fix Color Temp first. For your first keeper shot, move that Temp slider near upper right of Develop, almost certainly to the right for Canon Raw shots, to warm the faces a bit. You probably don't want the kids' faces ruddy red, but a little warming so that white jerseys just begin to go slightly to the red side of white, makes your outdoor people photos glow. It wouldn't be surprising to see family soccer photos in the 6000-6500 range look best. If you want cold journalistic realism, leave white jerseys pure white and Temp down in the 4000-5000 range on a cloudy day or 5000-6000 range on a sunny one. Now, if one shot's right, and
if your light didn't change during the shoot (sun going in and out of clouds, sun setting, field lights turning on halfway through the game), you can fix Temp for all your remaining shots with just a couple of clicks! Leave the first shot you fixed Temp for highlighted, and ctrl-A the whole filmstrip (or, alternatively, you can just ctrl-click the ones taken in the same light). Now click the Sync button that appears near the lower right corner of Develop. A window pops. Make sure White Balance is checked, and click Synchronize. (Every field checked here gets applied the same as on the first highlighted shot to all your subsequently highlighted shots when you do this. Since you haven't changed anything else yet, you don't have to uncheck the other boxes-- it won't matter. But later, after you've made other adjustments to other shots, you might only want to leave the boxes checked for fields you do want applied the same to all highlighted photos.) When you click Synchronize, watch all the highlighted photos in the filmstrip at the bottom get a warmer color balance. You can always later make more refined adjustments to individual shots or groups of shots that go too red or not warm enough.
The next thing to fix is the Exposure. Get in the habit of constantly consulting that Histogram graph at the top of the right column. Ideally, though this isn't always possible or ideal, but generally, you'd like to see neither triangle in the upper right and left corners
lit. (When it's right, you'll still see the outline of the triangle, but it won't be illuminated.) Even better, for an average outdoor shot with a variety of light and dark tones, you want to see a nice balanced line across most of the graph, curving up from the left and down on the right. Not always possible or the best exposure for every shot, mind you, just average ones. (A silhouette shot on a beach with the setting sun in the photo is an example of a shot where the best Histogram will look the opposite of that!) Try moving Exposure slowly to the left and right and watch how the Histogram moves. Try to get the best average placement you can, and see if the photo still looks right.
Or watch your grass with soccer shots while you move Exposure back and forth. Grass should look middle green, not too bright, and not dull-muddy-dark. Or watch faces. If you still have a triangle on the upper right of Histogram, which means highlight detail is blowing out, try sliding Recovery to the right just until the upper right triangle disappears, if possible. (It isn't always possible, even with Recovery at 100.) If you still have a triangle on the upper left of Histogram (that one means shadows are muddy with no detail), try sliding Blacks down from 5 towards 0, just until the triangle goes away. Sometimes it's easier to make a triangle go away by moving Exposure a bit. If there's no triangle on the upper left, try increasing Black slowly just until one appears in the upper left, then back off a bit until it just goes away again. If there are harsh shadows, increase Fill Light to brighten shadows a bit until it looks right. Losing the triangles is a general goal but not as important as having photos look right to you. It's a juggling act. Sometimes when you remove the triangles, the grass is muddy brownish, faces look wrong, or highlights are too dull. Maybe you move Exposure, Highlights or Blacks to put one or both triangles back but leave the overall photo better.
Now just do two more things, especially as you're learning this: first, increase Clarity. Probably a bunch. If faces go too harsh on you with Clarity at a highsetting, and they can in closeup, you may want about a 20-45 on Clarity. Many photos look best with even higher Clarity settings, even 100 for landscapes. Now bump Vibrance up, probably to the left of the Clarity slider, though. Too high a setting on Vibrance makes colors looks cartoonish and fake. Are faces too ruddy or foliage too over-the-top? Back off on Vibrance.
Look at the Histogram one more time and touch up Recovery and Blacks again if needed to get rid of barely reappearing triangles.
I recommend you do not move the following sliders, generally, for 99% of your photos, anyway: Tint (just usually not needed if the camera is doing color balance correctly), and Brightness, Contrast, and Saturation, all of which are ham-handed ways of doing what you do more precisely with the other sliders. About the only time you need Saturation is to move it left with a rare shot that for some reason has too much color especially red even with Vibrance set to 0. (Maybe your camera is set to Vivid.)
Doing these things will make most of your photos look WAY better than hitting Auto Tone. And once you get the hang of it, as I said, you can do each photo in well less than one minute, and you only do this on your keepers, so it doesn't take much time.

Why do the brightness and contrast tools disappear

I just finished developing a set of photos. When I went to my next set, some of the functionality was missing namely the brightness and contrast tools. I am using lightroom 5. Why is this happening?

The images where brightness and contrast sliders are available were probably imported into Lightroom in an earlier version (probably Lr3). Back then the adjustment sliders were built around 'Process Version 2010'. When Lr4 was launched it included an updated and significantly more flexible set of adjustments sliders. This new set of adjustments is known as Process Version 2012, and is the current set of adjustments in Lr5. The images you try to edit that don't have access to brightness and contrast were probably first imported into Lr4 or Lr5. You can read more about PV2012 here Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.0 Feature Overview The overview also provides information on how to convert back and forth between PV2010 and PV2012.

Outdoor pictures too bright

Hi,
I have problem with outdoor pictures taken with my blackberry, they are too bright and often come out as a white screen. Object on screen before I take the picture it looks good but once picture is taken screen changes and picture appears as almost white screen. Indoor pictures are still good. I played with different white ballance settings but it had no effect at all. Anybody have the same problem or solution to this?
Thank you

I finally was able to find a post that resolves this issue. It turns out to be a software problem related to
OS 4.5.0.37. After upgrading to 4.5.0.69, camera is working fine again.
Here a link where to download this version
http://www.filefactory.com/dlf/f/7842a7/b/7/h/9b55728c8ca96c5f68399acabe3d4e5f/j/0/n/8100E_PBr4_5_0_...

Nikon D300s images too bright and interlaced.

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for