ProRes renders look flat compared to timeline

Hi There,
My rendred ProRes 444 files look flat when viewed in Quicktime compared with the timelines in both DaVinci and Premiere.
The footage went from a Canon 5DIII 14bit raw (ML Hack) –>CinemaDNG –>DaVinci Resolve –>ProRes 444 –>Premiere –>ProRes 444 export
The rendered ProRes files  from both DaVinci and Premiere look flat when viewed in Quicktime (or the finder) so assume this is a Mac OSX or Quicktime issue - has anyone else seen this?
Cheers
Ben

Hey Kevin,
Thanks heaps for the reply, not sure exaclty which systems details you're lookoing for but here are the basics:
- MBP 15" Retina
- 10.9.1
- NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M 2048 MB
I discovered that my sequence wasn't set to ProRes 444 but still see the same issue after fixing this - see below for screen shots. I'm sure the forum will compress the example images (and change the colour) but hopefully you'll see that the Premiere (and DaVinci) screen grab is slightly richer and warmer in the red of the cup, the coffee and the drop focus background.
Cheers
Ben
Premiere:
Quicktime:

Similar Messages

  • When converting an image from raw to jpeg , the jpeg can look flat compared to the original raw image . Is there anything I can do about this ?

    When converting an image from raw to jpeg , the jpeg can look flat compared to the original raw image . Is there any way to prevent this ?

    Hi Joe , Thank you for your quick response . I am viewing the jpeg in Microsoft Picture Manager and Flickr. It 's not always really noticeable , but for example if I shoot into the light with dew on the grass , the dew glistens in LRoom and I'm happy with the shot but when I convert it to jpeg ,it looks dull. I have changed the setting to sRGB - from Adobe 1998 ,but don't see much difference.  Kind regards   Alberto.

  • H264(Youtube/Vimeo Preset) export looks flat and desaturated- H264 Gamma?

    All my h264 output both quickitme and mp4 looks flat and desaturated after export compared to to the program window.This happends with both cs5.5 and cs6.
    I know there is some h264 bug with Quicktime but  its flat on Youtube also( in Safari) I thought this gamma issue has been sorted out?
    How can I output my files to youtube so it looks the same as my Program monitor on youtube? I know all screens are different and you need a color calibrated montior( I have that) but why the shift?
    It just does not seem that anyone has an answer. x264 does not work... anything else? QUickitme x does not have the ability to do the "opacity fix"
    How will i get that my output on my client screen will not be so flat. ( I know it wont be exactly the same (as TVs in a showroom) but the difference between the video inside premier and outside is VAST!
    I dont want to "fix" it by addinga contrast and saturation layer and them on a Windows machine maybe its then overly contrasty?
    I'm on 17" MAcbook PRo Using anexternal calibrated NEC Monitor.
    Did I miss a major answer on the web somewhere?

    So what do you guys do? Just add an extra layer of process ( I have added a fast color correction Adjustment layer and clipping the black at 10 and the highlights at 245 and putting the saturation at 120. Its a thumbsuck though...
    How on earth do  people who colour grade on Davinc or Lustre etc output there stuff to Vimeo.(Yes I know it goes to film or TV , but what about thier showreel?) It also uses H264? Is there ANY codec I can use to upload to Youtube that will look like my program monitor?
    It is facinating how these companies provide all these wonderful tools and in the final polished output you cannot get it too look llike it looked inside the product! Baffling!
    If I had a Windows machine would I have this problem?

  • 2012 processing very flat compared to 2010...

    There are some differences in LR4 over LR3.5 or better said with 2010 processing against 2012 that I do not totally understand neither like.
    For example, when import RAW files from the 5D MKIII they look totally diferent once loaded in LR than what they look on the Canon software or the JPgs out of the camera. They look very flat, like missing contrast.
    shoud not Lightroom render the RAW images as similar as possible from what the camera or vendor render them with their software? if I select the 2010 processing, they look a lot more similar to what the Canon software renders and don't look flat at all.
    Also, bright and contrast are gone, what is the equivalent of that now?
    Thanks

    There are 2 options
    1. learn how to use the 2012 tools for your images
    2. keep working with 2010 and miss out on so many powerful tools
    3. aperture / bibble / ACDSEE / zonerStudio
    I'm loving 2012, but it took about 200 photos from various scenarios to get my head around being able to set the shadows to more than +20 and not get noise like I would if I set the fill to more than +15.
    The same applies for  boosting the whites and even lifting the blacks to +20 or more. Yes eventually you will get noise from pushing the blacks to more than +70 and the shadows the same, but hit auto, look at the photo and provided you have a well calibrated monitor, and time to experiment, you will learn to really work much faster with a more versatile tool.
    Of course if you really don't want to use 2012 you can choose option 2, which is to not render the images in the 2012 calibration, but then you are missing out on a great tool.
    Rob Cole has written reams and reams of posts about his experiences with  2012, he's had trite responses and unkind comments as he's documented his struggle with 2012. As you can see above, he's now a convert and loves it.
    If you want to quickly learn to love 2012, push the clarity up to over 40, lift the blacks from wherever they are by 5-15 points and see the localised contrast just sing.
    Its particually fabulous for male sports features - not so kind on female faces and skin.
    Back to your comment about rendering images similar to the jpeg compressed and oversaturated oversharpened approximation of the photograph that you carefully composed. Nope, the jpeg is compressed, depending on your settings, over saturated and often over sharpened, its colour is often way off and a RAW image is largely a white canvas to work from.
    Hit Auto tone and Auto White Balance and work from there. I find the Auto Tone can sometimes go crazy, other times its pretty close to where I want to be.
    At the moment, I'm trying not to push the clarity above 15, but sometimes, it just has to be >40.
    Play with it, dont consider that +20 shadows for one photo is the same as +20 for the next, cos its all relative - which is frustrating to begin with. However as photography is an art, nothing should be absolute.
    It does take time, but like the models, its worth it

  • 3/4 Tones Look Flat "Grungy"

    ASIDE from the need for adequate capture sharpening (canceling out exteme highlights and shadows from capture sharpening) the 3/4 tones still look flat and rather grungy compared to other convertes such as C1 Pro and DPP. This problem goes back to ACR 2.
    P.S. Before the pod children start barking at me I suggest you all educatute your silly a.. selves. Take a look at Out of Gamut: Thoughts on a Sharpening Workflow by Bruce Fraser...better yet since I am sure you all don't own books I will quote Mr. Fraser when he discribes capture sharpening. He states as follows....
    "At this stage, it's important to treat the highlights and shadows very gently, otherwise they'll get blown out and plugged up, respectively, in the subsequent sharpening rounds. The Blend If: sliders in the Layer Options dialog box are invaluable for constraining the capture sharpening to the midtones -- you can access these by choosing Layer Style>Blending Options from the Layer menu, or by simply double-clicking on the layer in the Layers palette. Figure 2 shows the layer blending options set to protect highlights and shadows, focusing the sharpening on the midtones."

    Thanks Michael, it's and excellent read and been my roadmap to sharpening even before I purchased Photokit Sharpener (your a champ Jeff) years ago.
    I do want to make a correction or a reevaluation to my observation of "Grungy" 3/4 tones. I understand now why back in version 1.(something) you guys turned up the default Luminance smoothing for the conversion and changed it back after everyone complained. I had my defaults in Lightroom 2.x set per ISO and camera and had things set up to apply no (zero) luminance smoothing at base ISO (100). After some testing I see how at base ISO a very small amount of luminance smoothing lets say 4-5 totally cleans things up in my final prints and actually micro detail is better defined. I have adjusted my defaults accordingly and problem solved.
    But I do still have to reiterate the need for "legitimate" capture sharpening in Lightroom. It's a great app this is just such a "buzz killer" that one has to roundtrip for a prints to capture sharpen in Photoshop in my case with Photokit Capture Sharpening. The new print sharpening in Lightroom 2.x however is great and that's how I go (thanks again Jeff). There really is no subjective excuse for this one. And where I get pissed is when it's shot at me through the teeth. The only analogy that comes to mind would be that some morons fabricate a SUBJECTIVE "bugaboo" about granular sharpness in the darkroom.
    Look, if its a programming nightmare to add blending sliders to this iteration of Lightroom at least add a "switch/option" in the detail tab now labeled "sharpen midtones only" and add a hardcoded gosub in the code.

  • Imported composition is/looks flat in current project when i rotate the camera in the current projec

    Hi
    I've created a moving particle composition in say project A. In this composition as I rotate the composition with camera, it looks fine.
    However when I import this composition into project B, ie import project A to B. and try to rotate the composition, it looks flat. It also looks flat when I copy composition into another composition within project A.
    Does it imply that I need to twig the original composition in Project A to align with B before importing?
    Was wondering what's the best way to get round this flatness issue. Greatly appreciate all comments

    "Messy" is a very relative term as is "Main Composition". I never found this to be any issue and I'm happily pre-comping Particular and other stuff all the time. There is no magic recipe and I find that a lot of this simply depends on your experience level vs. the specific requirements of a project. The real trick is to simply keep things separate to a point and in fact not trying to do everything in one bold stroke. Many people are simply getting too wired up over that 3D stuff too early in the process and then get themselves in all sorts of pinches because despite some Particular fairy dust the rest of their project is 2D stuff, if you get my meaning. Or in other words: It's all about structuring your work suitably. If you can provide more specific info on the project. I'm sure there's some pointers we can offer...
    Mylenium

  • 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

  • B&W Images Look Flat on Export?

    Hi...
    For some reason, when I export my images...especially my black and whites...they have a flat quality to them. I have to open them up in PS and work Levels or something to make them look as good as in LR. There's always blank space at the right end of the histogram that I have to crop.
    Any ideas why? I really like the idea of doing all my post in LR now.
    Thanks!

    My B&W exports always look exactly like they do in LR. Are you viewing them in a color managed application? What color space are you exporting to? For B&W there is no reason to use anything else than sRGB. ProphotoRGB has a gamma of 1.8 (instead of 2.2 for sRGB and aRGB), so if you export to prophoto and you view it in a non-colormanaged app, your exports will look flat.

  • ProRes quality inferior to AVCHD on timeline?

    I'm doing a large project, mixing codecs.  A lot of the material is AVCHD.
    I want to standardize all the material to ProRes 422 (HQ).
    I converted a bunch of the AVCHD files to ProRes 422 (HQ).  The resulting Quicktimes are fine, very clean, when opened singly in Quicktime.  When I import them in Premiere Pro CS6 and put them on a timeline ... and play full screen, it looks as if they are needing rendering ... there is a on odd choppiness or bias-issue on the sharp edges.  Looks like an old SD codec.
    I'm just switching from FCP7 to Premiere Pro, so maybe I'm missing something in the process.  Though the conversions from AVCHD to ProRes were done with Adobe Media Encoder.
    Ideally I want to be able to work in ProRes, moving back and forth between Mac and PC.  Half the people involved are using Premiere Pro in Windows 7, and the other half are using PP in Mac.
    Any suggestions would be most appreciated,
    Thank you,
    Ben

    I'm just switching from FCP7 to Premiere Pro, so maybe I'm missing something in the process.  Though the conversions from AVCHD to ProRes were done with Adobe Media Encoder.
    Ben
    Don't transcode anything... edit with your native files, regardless of OS.
    You need to break the FCP "everything needs to be ProRes" mindset.
    You are needlessly costing yourself time and media quality.

  • Prores renders disappearing while working in project. Please Help?

    Hi There,
    I am having a problem when I render a sequence, creating all the video preview files and as i continue to work on the sequence, or task switch and come back to that sequence, the render files are disappearing (ie. going from green to yellow or red) and having to be re-rendered before export.
    General
    Editing mode: Custom
    Timebase: 29.97fps
    Video Settings
    Frame size: 1920h 1080v (1.0000)
    Frame rate: 29.97 frames/second
    Pixel Aspect Ratio: Square Pixels (1.0)
    Fields: Upper Field First
    Audio Settings
    Sample rate: 48000 samples/second
    RENDER:
    Quicktime
    Prores422
    1920x1080
    Max Render Quality (Checked)
    Composite in Linear Colour (Checked)
    Footage being rendered and going offline is prores422 1080i60 from an EVS XT-3 with a three way colour correction, and brightness/contrast filters on it
    I am trying to work in an end to end prores workflow with the EVS XT-3 (hence the necessity for prores all the way through)
    Preview files:
    Prores422
    I am running Premiere Pro CC on an AFP connected NAS over gigE (jumbo frames enabled on all components, Mac Mini running OSX server 10.8 fibre connected to a Sonnet RAID)
    Have tried with projects set on local drive and also on NAS.
    It appears to be something with the generation of peak files that is throwing the renders off each time? Even when you re-render. They then appear to go back offline.
    Any help or ideas would be great!
    Thanks
    Chris

    Hi smith,
    Something tells me that the files are getting confused. If new times are written into the regeneration of peak files by the server, then those files cannot be relinked. I'll look around for some answers, I know I have heard about this problem before somewhere.
    Kevin

  • 1080p footage looks horrible in 720p timeline

    Hello! I have 1080p footage that i want to bring into a 720p timeline. When i bring it in, scale it to 75% and render, the result is horrible! What is a recommended workflow to use 1080p footage in a 720p timeline?
    Thanks!
    Kyle

    "Horrible" is relative, a bit meaningless.
    Since we don't know how much you understand about what you're doing, or what you expect as far as quality, or where you are viewing your results, try not to take this personally.
    You are throwing away a full 35% of your pixels so, yes, it's going to look a bit soft. Additionally, you are squooshing all of those lost pixels into new mooshy pixels.
    The only way to maintain a pixel-to-pixel relationship is not to scale you footage but to crop it. Anything else compromises the image quality because of the processing. You must be viewing your rendered output on a full resolution monitor suitable to the task before deciding your scaling or processing operations are really "horrible" or they just appear that way as an artifact of the presentation.
    bogiesan

  • Audio flat-lines in timeline

    Today my large project will not play audio from the timeline, on any of the edits. The audio is flat-lined.
    But here is the strange thing: very few clips play fine in the timeline, but there are a few that do. When I play any individual clip, the audio is fine, plays normal with no problems.
    So its inside Premier. It can't be hardware.
    If I take a clip, the identical one that is used in the edit, that will not play audio, and put it from the bin into the same timeline, the audio plays fine.
    So something is happening to the audio clips after they have been in the time line for a while. A rendering issue??
    SO very annoying and frustrating.
    I found this post in the support history a few times, but nobody has come up with a solution yet.

    System specs?  Versions?  Help us help you.

  • Poor quality photos after rendering in Premiere Elements 10 timeline

    I've imported my photos from Photoshop Elem. 10, at 720x480 res., 72 ppi, jpeg files. and the photo quality is blurred and pixelated and rendering the timeline doesn't seem to help.  I checked the flicker removal box...I'm not sure that helped much either.  I did a number of these photo videos in an old Premiere application and never ever had this problem, so I'm not sure what's going on. The photo in the preview looks just fine.   I'm doing this video for my daughter's wedding, so want it to be of the best quality.   Can anyone give me any hints.    

    This is rather a PS, on display of DVD-Video on HD TV's. Just did a SlideShow of ~  4000 x 3000 pxls. Still Images, Scaled to 720 x 480 in PS w/ Bicubic Sharper. It was output to a DVD-Video. When I tested it on my laptop with an HD display, the Images looked just OK - DVD resolution w/ no up-rezzing chip involved. However, when I played that same disc on my Panasonic BD player (w/ up-rezzing chip) on a 42" LED TV, things looked great. Only little problem was that in one Image, I got a bit of "glimmer" in some roof tiles - that Image had been slightly over-Sharpened. My bad. As the glimmer was only in one Image, and its Duration was 05 sec., I let it go, as I doubt that anyone else will even see it, when fed to two very large Diamondtron screens in a semi-dark event hall.
    The gist of that is that when played on the multi-drive onto my laptop's 17" HD screen, w/ no up-rezzing chip, the Images were just OK - nothing special, and I knew those Images intimately. However, w/ up-rezzing chip in the BD player, and displayed on a much larger screen, the overall quality improved greatly.
    Good luck,
    Hunt

  • Why does SD 16x9 (m2v) looks soft compared to ProRes422 LT

    Thanks for reading this post and ik you can help me carifying this topic, thanks again...
    Here is the problem...
    I start from a mp4 file (H.264 1920x1080 ACC 29,97 fps 13,08 Mbit/s), convert it to ProRes 422 (Proxy-LT-HQ) with Compressor 3.5.3
    This conversion look great, the LT and HQ versions. The Proxy is not that good but that is normal.
    If I look at the ProRes422 HQ version with QuickTime or MPegStreamClip it look great. Even if I resize to SD 16x9 resolution 1024x576, it looks great.
    But now comes the problem. After rendering to a m2v file it looks bad. Soft, blured, no details. Is this normal or is there something I can do...
    Settings for mp4 --> ProRes :
      - Apple ProRes 422 HQ
      - Automatic Gamma control with NO interlaced (source is progressive)
      - No Frame Controle
      - No filters used
      - No geometry settings
    Setting for ProRes 422 hQ --> SD 16x9 m2v. But this takes houres for 5 min of video
      - m2v SD DVD PAL Progressive 25 fps
      - Quality 7,7 Mbps Best for motion estimation
      - Frame control ON
      - No filters
      - No geometry
    Please can somebody help me...

    Some questions/comments:
    What are you trying to accomplish and where did the MP4 come from?
    Your expectations are probably way too high for DVD SD compression; if you want higher quality for TV playback, the best option is to invest in a blu-ray burner.
    How are you juding the MPEG 2 quality? Viewing on a computer display will not provide accurate representation of image quality (invariably will look worse); evaluate image on a TV monitor to see how it will really look. 
    There's no upside to using 422HQ -  just bigger files - particularly if it's going to end up as an MPEG-2 file. Use ProRes.
    "Hours for 5 min of video" is not good, but hard to put into context without knowing what your system is.
    Russ

  • Help -- output looks flat

    What am I doing wrong?
    On my timeline, my images require slight adjusting, but look crisp with a nice dynamic range. When I output to H.264, for example, the video looks dull and flat.
    What's happening?

    Thanks, Joe for your input.
    No, there were no color correction effects, just some minor tweaking with the levels.
    No, this problem was seen acroos the timeline in every video upon export to H.264.
    Yes, I have an external monitor that is color calibrated. Both monitor are extraordinarily close in color.

Maybe you are looking for