I chose a monthly payment plan. However, after the first month of using Adobe Premiere a system tried to accept the money for the next month's payment from my card. Why is this happening? And if I do not want to continue subscription? Anybody knows why it done?

ah, looks like they added eye dropper to 2015.3! I was running .2 for stability for a long time. still needs hue control, dual clip separate scopes, 2up, match clip, etc. I'll go ahead and add to wishform now.

Having the same issue, but only with certain sequences. The lagginess makes it almost impossible to edit. I'm on an iMac, so there's no H264 preference to uncheck. Does anyone have a solution for Mac that doesn't involve reverting to an older version, because that's not really a solution as it is a surrender.

And yes, I'm aware that I shouldn't have upgraded so soon, but maybe Adobe shouldn't have released the update so soon. I feel like an unpaid beta tester with each of these new releases, and the solution I've often gotten from Adobe on these boards is just not to use the thing that isn't working. And if I don't fill out the annoyingly extensive and time-consuming bug report, then apparently I can't complain. Weird how other software companies manage to fix the bugs without having the end-user fill out bug reports.

Weird how other software companies manage to fix bugs.

Hi all...here's the scenario

I am cleaning up my project bin... and there are some accidental duplicates and I wanna delete them, I got this error message.

“The selection you are deleting contains clip references in one or more sequences. If you continue these clip references will also be deleted. Do you want to continue.”

I'm not sure which of the duplicate clips are used in me sequences and there could be alot of them or maybe one or two. So when the error message pops up.. and I hit continue, it deletes clips from my sequences. I just want to clean the project bin so it won't be unnecessarily bloated.

Is there a way to make it Media Offline instead of removing the clips from my sequences by removing duplicate clips from the Project Bin.

I'm using Adobe Premiere CC 2015.4 (latest update so far at 20th Sept 2016) running on Mac OS Yosimite.

Thank you for your answers in advance.

Cheers,

Howie.

Good starting list!

Let's see ... adding to your group ...

- at the least, TWO secondaries please ... jeez!  ...

- put the Basic tab's Input LUT at the END of that tab ...

- Put another LUT/Look slot at the very end, for proper "print-film" LUT placement ...

- blending modes ...

- Hue/Hue ...

Well ... about 15 other things too but ...

Neil

Anyone have tips or experiences on tools used, or how to create custom LUTs for Canon 70D shot w/relatively neutral picture style or the like? For myself, it's not so much that I want to reinvent a wheel as much as simply understand how to play around with the experience of creating such a LUT to see not only how well I can do, but what sort of results/conveniences I can achieve.

A little background: I'm relatively new to shooting DSLR footage (not stills but video). I use a Canon 70D.

I've recently learned a little about some of the popular picture styles out there which allow one to shoot in relatively neutral footage which apparently has some benefits in post (but not always). My understanding is that the 8-bit output in many DSLRs including the 70D restrict the dynamic range that can be represented for certain types of shooting, most specifically producing JPGs in the camera, as well as .MOVs, which require lossy in-camera processing, where the picture style (in Canon terms) allows one to define what color ranges to focus on and other minutiae, all designed to describe what's important to retain in the limited space of a DSLR. I guess this allows that in-camera video capturing to most efficiently use an 8-bit space for color definitions. I assume LUTs help resolve some of that usage when ingesting.

I've learned a bit of this with quick searches some time ago but have a very general understanding, enough to produce okay results without even using a LUT in post but it would be nice to learn more, or at least be pointed in some good directions.

Oh, after searching the net and learning about a few very popular picture styles and LUTs etc., I read a very helpful interesting post somewhere I think in this forum... someone with much experience in this area pointed out to someone that shooting so-called log footage on a DSLR is not true log and that amateur filmmakers who see it that way are often hyping something that isn't all it's made to be... that, for example, reducing saturation at the time of shooting on a DSLR may produce apparently log-looking footage, but it is also certainly dropping "chroma" which cannot be recovered despite what folks hype about such. I found this enlightening but was also puzzled by how many are apparently very happy shooting more neutral DSLR footage w/apparent benefits in post... the final gist I was left with: It all really depends on the situation, where if one knows the style for the scene, and the post LUT or whatnot and it works, great... but that one style at shooting time (w/post LUT) does not guarantee any sort of cinematic look (or any other look) for all scenes/situations, and for some or many cases, may well guarantee you'll be without desired color because you've instructed the camera to drop too much while thinking a post correction can recovery what's lost... and it cannot.

So that's sort of where I'm at w/DSLR picture styles, shooting neutral (faux log), post corrections including LUTs... curious to hear thoughts or create a discussion on this.

R Neil Haugen wrote:

 

Well, I think this indicates that perhaps some of the ones in that preset group aren't particularly ... usable. I think the Lumetri panel and the presets built for cameras for it have some issues, that aren't completely 'handled' yet. ...

Do considering everything you know about the legacy LUTs or any problems you've seen with them, have you ever heard of anyone experiencing the "AE.ADBE Lumetri...GPUVideoFilter" error because of using them? Or perhaps induced necessarily after adding them? Or perhaps working around that specific error as a result of removing the legacy LUTs (other than my account above)? This is all really one question asked differently... the basis is to concretely nail down how known it is that LUT usage, as in what posted above, can lead to the "AE.ADBE Lumetri...GPUVideoFilter" error. I'm sort of inferring from what you're saying that the legacy LUTs have been known to be generally problematic, perhaps in bad aesthetics they produce, etc., but not necessarily in causing fatal rendering errors, or specifically the "AE.ADBE Lumetri...GPUVideoFilter" error.

R Neil Haugen wrote:

 

... I've found that for the most part, a few minutes spent 'building' a LUT for the cameras/situations I work, does vastly better than most any of the preset ones. And ... I don't get issues with the ones I make except in a few rare circumstances.

 

I would note ... there were far less problems dealing with any SpeedLooks, LUTs, and pre-built Looks in SpeedGrade than in Lumetri/PrPro. Which is one of the reasons I've found it frustrating that they removed the Direct Link feature at this point. I think Lumetri needs another generation of development to get close to "there". It's got some very good and useful stuff for smaller projects, but ... well ... still some issues.

 

Neil

Sounds interesting... I'd like to create a LUT simply to experiment... I created a post asking about good ways to start that process in case you have any tips you'd like to share there ... Creating custom LUTs for DSLR (i.e., Canon 70D) for use w/Lumetri?

"Using a mouse would be easier. "

It would be - but it is essential I use a tablet for many other pieces of software - Adobe Premiere is only one part of my workflow, and seems to be the only software with a wacom related bug for me. I would like to solve that.

HI there, I am trying to work the lessons in the classroom in a book premiere pro CC 2015 official release. I am running into an issue where none of the files on the disk provided are working in the modern version of CC, is anyone able to walk me through how to make these work?

wow, nice post! yea, you can make some stuff in speedgrade as a .look. I actually have a theory that I experiment with. Instead of making luts, I made an effects preset that can emulate slog2, slog3 in any fashion(this way I don't have to worry about low bit depth in sub 64 bit LUTs).premiere preset link  2015.2 CreativeCOW

As to using something like vlog for GH4(for instance) its very true that 8 bit can't be pushed too far. Does this mean vlog won't work? No, it means you can't white balance wrong, underexpose, and expect vlog to help you. it takes bits from the midtones, so you can't massively color correct skin either.

You also can't desaturate down to 10% and expect 8 bit to pull colors back in-  in post. It just won't work. The best settings to have for "grading" versus "dynamic range" is actually called prolost flat.(what phillip bloom uses, if you've heard of him) This is also better for keying as 8 bit log steals the chroma data from the midtones which is where the greens are!

setting up pro-lost flat:

Start with the Neutral Picture Style

Set Sharpness to zero—all the way to the left

Set Contrast all the way to the left

Set Saturation two notches to the left (not all the way)

there will be people that disagree with me, of course, so test both yourself, because video tests are free!

Ashley7 wrote:

 

...

 

An aside, I exported both my old "broken" Lumetri preset, as well as the new one I just created to fix things, and compared the resulting XML files , discovering some differences, but mostly all the name.

 

...

In my prior posts I noticed that a project of mine, which rendered without issue, started to fail rendering with the "AE.ADBE Lumetri...GPUVideoFilter" error 100% of the time. This started after I had reinstalled Premiere. When I replaced the Lumetri effect with a newly created one from the same Adobe SpeedLook preset, the project rendered fine. When I put back the older Lumetri effect via a Preset I had used in my prior installation, the project again failed to export/render 100% of the time with the "AE.ADBE Lumetri...GPUVideoFilter" error.

Because of this, if I encounter this "AE.ADBE Lumetri...GPUVideoFilter" error again in a different project, or in a different general situation, I'm going to immediately save Presets for the Lumetri effects in place for the render failing timecode area in question.

My goal in doing this will be to see if information retained in the presets might hint at what settings or changes might exist that cause the "AE.ADBE Lumetri...GPUVideoFilter" error appear.

I say this having looked at the Preset files, which are XML containing some base64 which is easy to decode, which means the preset XML files are helpful to see all the settings in place... and I can compare them with older ones etc.

I can't say this will reveal anything but here's where I'm going with this... The instance of "AE.ADBE Lumetri...GPUVideoFilter" error I experienced in my most recent posts is something I can concretely reproduce at will. That's great... but I'm also using a LUT Preset which I had not used in most of the prior repros of the same error which I experienced. I'm not sure what other people experiencing the error were using... Anyway, I'd like to save Presets as a way of capturing a textual representation of Lumetri effects in place when I observe a "AE.ADBE Lumetri...GPUVideoFilter" error when an 'Adobe Lumetri Preset' (such as the SpeedLook presets) is notactive... in short, my prior posts outline me doing something with a built-in Adobe SpeedLook preset active and I'm not sure if that's connected with the same failure as the intermittent one (despite the error messages being identical).. firstly because that repro presently seems to be 100% occurring, therefore not intermittent, and unlike the other instances, I can easily reproduce it.

My hunch is this "AE.ADBE Lumetri...GPUVideoFilter" error bug has flavors that persist until many project changes or rendering changes some state to allow rendering to succeed, whereas other cases have the error occurring and going away. One of the reasons I wondered about a race-condition is I saw what appeared to be more intermittent behavior compared to others who had what seemed like slightly older hardware than me... all assumptive but it's why I wondered that (i.e., older hardware error seemed to stick longer, newer hardware less so... maybe I don't have all the data and that's incorrect but with what little data I have from this thread, seemed worth keeping in mind).

Anyway, despite my prior posts using the SpeedLook preset... it's still extremely curious that I had a project that was fine with a prior installation which then failed with a "AE.ADBE Lumetri...GPUVideoFilter" error after re-installation of Premiere. That simply should not happen with an unchanged project. It means something else is changing in the system, app space to negatively effect export (or to tweak the project in a way to cause such). Simply, this clearly indicates I did not change anything yet something changed to cause an "AE.ADBE Lumetri...GPUVideoFilter" error to appear. In that respect, this instance of "AE.ADBE Lumetri...GPUVideoFilter" error feels sort of similar to the other ones. It doesn't seem like an inconsequential repro. It makes me wonder if there isn't something fragile about Lumetri configuration settings and how they are processed and other system state information.

I'm mentioning the above because, if others see this "AE.ADBE Lumetri...GPUVideoFilter" error, it might be fruitful if, before modifying a project to work around the issue, you might consider saving Presets of Lumetri effects in place on the clips where rendering fails (and before/after). You can then export those to files and perhaps provide them as part of bug reports. Just wanted to suggest that.

I'm going to submit my Lumetri preset causing the prior mentioned "AE.ADBE Lumetri...GPUVideoFilter" error as part of a new bug report now.

I've worked a bit with the ones available via the drop-down boxes in the Lumetri panel, and have to say I haven't worked with most of the ones out of the "Presets" box. The ones I've tested from the Basic and Creative tab drop-downs did work as expected.

There haven't been that many posting about that specific error, but most of them are because a LUT in use is freaking something out. And nearly all have included the ones now in the "Legacy" folder. Perhaps you've stumbled on a couple more candidates ...

And there weren't any aesthetic problems with them ... they were exiled because of technical issues mostly, and ... well ... some folks did get messed up timelines using them. I don't think protecting us users from ourselves should be the primary consideration.

And there's a couple things where they DO over-protect us. Such as ... setting the artificial "limit" for several of the Basic tab tools at 1 on the bottom and 99 on top. With some of them, you can't push things above or below those figures, nor pull things back from past those settings. Irritating.

I'll check your thread out.

Neil

R Neil Haugen wrote:

There haven't been that manyposting about that specific error, but most of themare because a LUT in use is freaking something out. ...

(emphasis in above quote added by me.)

Forgive the push for this detail... is it "many" or perhaps "any" instances of the "AE.ADBE Lumetri...GPUVideoFilter" error? Simply... have you ever heard of one single "AE.ADBE Lumetri...GPUVideoFilter" error caused specifically by the use of an Adobe built-in Lumetri Preset, in the SpeedLook or other built-in lumetri preset folders? ... Similarly, I have a hunch that "many" and "them" refers to anomalies or failures generally, but in no cases was there a "AE.ADBE Lumetri...GPUVideoFilter" error to your best recollection... that's what I'm trying to clarify.

The reason... it could become useful, as one example, in eventually determining my repro above is not really about the preset but something valid it was doing (despite the general worth or otherwise of the preset) which causes the rendering engine to either choke directly or erroneously interact with the GPU causing the failure. I want to avoid over attributing relationship with the "AE.ADBE Lumetri...GPUVideoFilter" error if it's not really there, if that makes sense.

I'm starting to get curious for how an instance of the Lumetri effect itself can have settings either leading to the failure, or perhaps change in some way, or cause something else to change once a project is reloaded such that an apparently "random" failure can occur.

I've noticed that I can actually change things about a project that don't make it dirty... such as opening a sequence or doing something which seems non-destructive. One thing I'm wondering is whether there's something about how a Lumetri effect is loaded/setup from persisted data where the resulting instance of the effect might vary depending on something in the system... or perhaps some race which can lead to differences in rendering/gpu interactions or some such. My repro above is 100% concrete each time, no variance, but I don't want to assume it's not the same issue, or one and only flavor (underneath)... because in my prior project without LUTs or those presets, I had times when the repro was apparently 100%, no variance... I had do drastic things to the project to get past it, likely eliminate the troubled lumetri instances through rendering. This might mean the 100% repro above is really the same thing just diff symptoms etc.

i cant relink files because i cant open project

Thanks for the info Kulpreet,

Well, I did all my color correcting with Magic Bullet Looks and if I take the filters off, I lose my color corrections, so thats a no right there, and I don't have enough money to get a BRAND-NEW Computer at this time.  I can try to create a new sequence by creating an XML of the sequence, but we might be running into the same issue with that right now more than ever.

UPDATED - It seems that I am able to generate a .mov file from my sequence after rendering the dynamic link material, and rendering the timeline as well, but I won't be able to render at maximum output because the dynamic link renders show up as BLACK when I do it. So yea, looks like I need a new computer than can keep up with the growing demand of 4K material.  Amazing...;-/

SHOOTING

First thing to know about shooting with most all current & past DSLR's, is you are working with 8-bit codecs. Essentially, 4:2:0, and you can look that up for a more detailed explanation elsewhere. There are a few that can do 10-bit (4:2:2) and of course, the high-end pro rigs occasionally shoot 16-bit (4:4:4). The Panny GH4 for instance has a 10-bit mode. IF you have an external recorder that can handle the work, it can put out 10-bit files. But it won't record them to disk internally.

Well ... I've worked with a bit of Panny GH4 media, shot it myself ... and it's a bit "thicker" than the 8-bit from the camera (as far as workability), but ... not as much as I'd expected. There are differences between the real-world quality of the files from different cameras that don't seem to be explained by just the details of the specifications. (And I do like working with the GH4.) I'd wanted more from the GH4's 10-bit, actually. I'm hoping to get it from the eventual GH5.

Example ... stills cameras. My D200 was a 'generation' earlier than my D3 ... and that D3 is only a 12.2 megapixel camera, compared to the 10.2 of the D200. Do just a bit of "post processing" by changing contrast, some saturation/color changes, and that D200's files "broke" bad. Artifacting, banding, macro-blocking ... this is from RAW files. Go above ISO 1600? Oh my ... no.

The D3? Same "depth" of files, just a few more pixels, right? VERY different files ... mangle those things all over the place, practically bend them backwards ... no signs of damage. BEAUTIFUL images. It isn't just the bit-depth or even just the codec. Those were vastly better picture elements ... and perfectly handled in the camera's processor prepping the recording of the image data. ISO 6400? No problem. Higher? Well ... may need a bit of hue shifting in post, and a bit of noise reduction. But still ... usable for a picky sot like me.

The D600 is a generation later than the D3, and a LOT more pixels. Vastly improved so it should be even better, right? Well ... we still use the D3 when going above ISO 3200, and well ... even though the D600 has a lot more pixels, to make a 30x40 inch print? I prefer the D3, though the D600 is quite credible at 30x40 and a bit more.

The same holds in video, especially in the DSLRs. Not all equal camera specs ... are equal in real-world work. And your comment about realizing that some people, in trying to mimic log shooting styles from spendy "pro" video cameras, go so flat that they can't recover properly ... is dead-on. You need to study the camera(s) you're working with, test it or them. Test the media. Break it. Until you know every way to break it, you can't push it as far as you can without breaking it. You can't make the most of it.

So ... shooting DSLR, in order to get as much as you can into that probably 8-bit media, you need to ...

Pick a fairly neutral "profile" to start with. You don't want anything 'hopped-up'.

Reduce contrast to the point you keep the MOST dynamic range that camera can record. It will vary between cameras. That is why you reduce contrast ... just to pull as wide a range of pixels as that camera can deliver. Don't pull the contrast down farther. You don't gain anything by it. It is NOT some spendy video-built rig with 12-bits of capability.

Sharpness ... most cameras have execrable sharpening "routines". Some cameras can work fine left a couple ticks from the bottom of their sharpness setting, some need to be all the way down as low as it goes. TEST. Any editing program has better sharpening than that camera.

Saturation ... a lot of DSLR's over-cook the reds, especially in mids/highlights. Some can do this with green or blue, but it's almost always reds. Backing down the saturation so you never get over-saturated is a good thing. It's the only reason to back your saturation down. Depending on the camera, you'll typically be about half-way between the "0" middle setting and the lowest setting before you get "there". Safe. And that's all you want, is broadcast-safe proper saturation in the reds. You can adjust everything else as needed.

Hue ... when you do a good white-balance in a controlled lighting situation, with all the lights the same high-quality 'bulb' type, and you still needed to pull secondaries on a particular hue or quadrant all the time, you might be able to adjust your camera's hue setting and get a slightly better "normal" out of it.

Some cameras have other controls ... "pedestal" and such. In most DSLR's, those are of limited use. I've not heard of any camera in the DSLR group that really had wondrous capabilities unlocked from using such controls. In testing, you might get some help in some circumstances.

So ... the end result, is you shoot as neutral as possible, using the camera controls to get as wide a dynamic range on chip as possible, protect your media from over-saturation in the reds especially, and ... one more thing.

NAIL EXPOSURE AND WHITE BALANCE IN-CAMERA.

Figure out what "works" for you for white-balance, and use it properly. I tend to use the newer ExpoDiscs for general things, and of course it must be used from the position you are shooting TO (where your subject will be) ... pointed to the primary light source. Nail the exposure setting in your camera's histogram while the ExpoDisc is on the lens (exposure spike in that histo dead-center), THEN do the white-balance with an ExpoDisc. At other times I do a simple kelvin setting. It's one or the other. Some use the passport checker things, others do other things. Do SOMETHING that gives you consistent and expectable results.

You don't have the color depth to do that much 'corrective' color-balancing in post. And considering you need to also allow a bit of 'headroom' to do creative coloring, you need to pretty much nail 'neutral' in-cam.

I STRONGLY recommend getting an external monitor for your camera that shows false color and set your exposure according to that monitor. Use the indicator for whites especially to set your exposure protecting the needed highlights. Know where your blacks are, and adjust lighting for them as necessary ... but let them fall where they will. Set ISO and exposure for those whites.

In shooting available darkness, worry less about upping ISO than underexposing. Under-exposing needed darks is BAD ... when you 'lift' them you may get macro-blocking.  A little extra noise reduction at a higher ISO setting is a lot better to handle in post than trying to eliminate macro-blocking.

LOG shooting ... some cameras now do have some form of "log", as say the Panny GH4 does, and several others. In the GH4 it was more of a public-relations thing, is my estimation. The log setting doesn't work well outside in bright situations ... LOTS of banding problems ... but it does help some in studio lighting. It is a very nice addition for studio shooting, but still ... properly set 'normal' footage from the GH4 does studio work quite well. In a GH5 ... maybe it will be a huge benefit. Maybe not.

Some other cameras, in the Canon and Sony especially, do get some additional benefit from their log settings. However, log exposure and other camera settings are rather crucial and difficult to 'check' while shooting, so you need to test and know your gear cold. They aren't a panacea.

Follow the above, and you will get the most consistently out of the camera so you can do the most in post. And yes, some very good colorists I know tell wonderful tales of getting media from Arri's and such ... that is total CRAP as the DP or camera operator didn't really know what they were doing. Or just blew it. And now, naturally, they want the colorist to fix what is pretty much ... mangled mush. Mangled mush from an Arri isn't much better than mangled mush from a Canon MkIV. But beautifully and technically perfect media from any camera ... is worth working with.

Neil

POST GENERALIZATIONS

I've got other tomes around here on this. There's a pattern to working a grading operation that colorists teach. An order and method to the madness that allows you to become more intuitive over time. And saves time.

NOTE: These are supposed to be iterative steps. Go through each step to completion BEFORE going on to the next step with any part of the project. Just ... don't wander, please? I've done that route enough ... just ... don't go there. Yoda wouldn't like it! (And Yoda would have spent a LOT of time looking at the ground shaking his head while teaching me ... just saying ... )

_______________

1) Neutralize all the media to be used.

2) Select a 'hero' shot for each scene, and balance those together so the neutralized scenes "play" like one set of eyeballs "saw" everything. There will be some differences due to time of day or night, indoor/outdoor, that sort of thing ... but your eyes expect that.

3) Shot-match the scenes so that again, each scene, from any camera/angle used, looks as if seen through that same set of eyeballs.

4) Develop and apply overall LOOKS for the scene types, and finally, the overall project.

________________

If you try to create "look" while first working on your media, say during the first step, the first passes of your media, you WILL have problems later when some of your clips won't take the grade to make them look a certain way. You may have to start the whole process over. But if you start from 'neutral', you have a pretty good idea what you have left to push things for "feel", and ... you're starting from a good mid-point.

And trying to do shot-matching ... balancing ... all the media of a scene before doing a step-2 "through-pass" of the project gets you the same issues. You will have entire scenes that need to be redone.

This should be obvious, but isn't always: after you've done 1, 2, and 3 ... you now know that project well enough to do a much better step 4. So don't waste your own time trying to start on 4 before completing everything in 1, 2, and 3.

B-roll ... is treated like any other scene element. Figure out if it is to be used as its own "scene" or as part of other scenes, and do 2 & 3 as appropriate for that decision.

A bit more detail of the four steps.

1) "Neutral" generally refers to getting to a clean, 'natural' appearing color balance, exposure, and contrast setting. Visually believable and perhaps "comfortable". For my work within Lumetri, if there are any overbrights or say, one or more channels well off from the others, I'll drag/drop an RGB Curves effect on the clip, go to Effects Control Panel, slide it up above the Lumetri effect, and use the appropriate curves to move the ends so that the three color channels pretty much line up in the scopes ... RGB Parade & Waveform, at this point. And see that nothing is below 0 or above 99 on the RGB Parade.

This tends to be a very fast way to 'neutral' for me. And I will ALWAYS do this if using a Tech LUT in that first slot in the Basic tab. Put the Tech LUT in place, then work the RGB Curves to get to neutral in the scopes. Not perfection ... just pretty close. Then touch the Basic tab controls to polish ... quickly.

2) "Hero" shots ... choose ... wisely! Go through each scene and pick the shot that seems to be in the 'middle' of the group for a quick visual feel. Sometimes, if say a scene mixes shots from different directions such that one subset  is far more lighter/darker/colorful/bland/whatever, you may need to include two hero shots from that scene, one of each subset of shots. As you work your hero shots, think of how each scene plays from the preceding scene and into the following scene, again, as it would appear to one particular person's set of eyeballs had they been just watching the scene "live". While you're doing this, having a timeline/sequence of just the hero shots allows you to watch how the scenes play in sequence more easily.

3) Shot-matching ... quite frequently, the hardest part of the whole project. Realistically, if you've only got a few "scenes" of say, interview, and a couple camera angles with a couple stills for "B-roll" ... well, that project doesn't have a step 3 does it? But if your project is full of multi-camera and completely different locale/time scenes, you've got a LOT of shot-matching to do. If you've done steps 1 and 2 well, this is a LOT easier ... including ... you won't likely find you need to start over at step 1 above. (You don't need to ask me how I know this, really ... it's rather obvious in hind-sight, you know? At least by the fifth or sixth time ... )

4) LOOK! ... Well, that's what a "look" does, is it pulls attention to the project, doesn't it? Having a totally 'natural' Look for a project, or for parts of a project, is often the best Look. At the same time, there are so many ways to use even subtle contrast or hue shifts applied say in adjustment layers to whole scenes ... or even the whole project ... that make it all seem more visually interesting, and keep your eyes ... involved.

And that's the total and complete reason for even considering having an over-all Look ... to help the eyes stay more interested in, and therefore affected by, what they see. In some mix of cerebral and emotional manners.

So ... the above is a perfectly usable ... and oft wise ... Approach to Grading. The strategy of the darkened room and the mind-set as one sets to work.

Now, tactics ...  how to handle the techniques of the job, whether in Lumetri, SpeedGrade, Resolve, Baselight, whatever ... is a very different thing isn't it?

Neil

Hi everyone,

This is a repost, since I got one reply that did not work.

I've Googeled the world for this problem, but I get a lot of 'flickering' issues that make this search very difficult. So that's why I'm posting this question. I've just moved form OSX to Windows 10 with Adobe CC 3.8.0.310 on a Geforce 1070 GPU with two UHD Monitors attached (60hz). Monstrous machine that plays 4 layers of 4K effortlessly. Everything works fine except one annoying thing.

When I select anything on the timeline by pointing and holding, the selection box flickers like mad. Only when moving though. The playhead also flickers. Also when moving a block of video or more, the flickering occurs, also on the video and audio blocks. When selecting anything in the Project Tab everything is fine, except the playhead that also flickers again. It is driving me crazy.

I've tried it without a Wacom, not fixed.

Newest Nvidia drivers are installed.

CC is up to date.

Tried lower resolutions on the monitors, that did not fix anything.

Other CC apps work fine.

Has somebody encountered the same problem and has a solution?

Would love to hear it.

Thanks!

Ward

The kind of detail you're asking for, and the assurance of accuracy, is something only the folks on the PrPro team could possibly give. And unfortunately, for a number of reasons they don't talk the back-end 'tech' of this that publicly. Most of the time. Occasionally we'll get a fairly detailed breakdown of a breakdown. Not ... often.

I can only reiterate that the vast majority of situations of getting that message I've seen have been some sort of LUT/Look file hiccup with the Lumetri engine. Some issues of this can come from the weirdness of where the LUT/Look "lives" on disc, and where PrPro and the AME encoding engine expect to find said LUT/Look. I say weirdness because many of the "built in" ones need to be only in the PrPro folders, and AME finds them just fine ... but others may need to be in BOTH the PrPro and AME Lumetri folders in the same sub-folders or AME chokes or grabs a different LUT/Look instead. Why? I don't know.

He's on third.

What's on second ... Who's on first ...

Neil

Nope. Still happening in 2015.4