Any free LUTS for kodak negative and print stocks?

[Andrae Palmer]

Looking for some LUTS to test with Flanders Scientific monitor in DCI-P3 color space. Wondering if there are any free ones available. Specifically looking for Kodak 5219, 5207 and 5213.

**** Update: Didn't realize the nature of these LUTs work with hardware calibrators. Looking into Cinespace now.

[Jose Lomeña]

For what do you need cinespace?. If your monitor has dci-p3 it must be calibrated in the factory. You only need a lut to apply in davinci to the display out, or all outs...
Or do you want to do the luts yourself?

[Andrae Palmer]

I have the Flanders Scientific LM-2461W calibrated with a spectroradiometer. I need a LUt for the Davinci Resolve display out to emulate Kodak 5219 stock. While reading about Cinespace I was told that the monitor has to be profiled. I assume that's how the emulation LUTs work.

[Jose Lomeña]

Andrae, do you found the price of cinespace?

[Barend Onneweer]

Cinespace needs to know the output of the monitor and the intended output after calibration, and it will create a transform LUT.

In theory you could also calibrate the monitor to let's say DCI P3 and just use a generic P3 Lut as a starting point for Cinespace but since your monitor will never be 100% on spec you'll get better results by creating an actual profile of your monitor and creating the LUT based on that profile.

[Andrae Palmer]

The Flanders LM-2461W comes with a DCI-P3 color space managed by the onboard Color Fidelity Engine that's a 64x64x64 3d LUT. What I need now is the Cinespace software and the hardware calibrator for my monitor. I don't need a LUT to emulate DCI-P3... what I need is a LUT to emulate kodak film stock based on the unique profile of my monitor.

[Luis Otero]

Try this http://www.motionfx.gr/order-now-lut.html

[M Most]

Andrae, what exactly are you trying to do? The stocks you mentioned are negative stocks, not print stocks. What is being shot, and what are you trying to do with it?

[mikeburton]

Andrea, usually in a DI environment you are creating LUT's to preview your intended deliverable ie film, DCI, REC709, XYZ. With film LUT's such as Kodak 2383 print stock usually this is used to preview accurately based off your specific monitor profile what your images will look like when printed back to film and more specifically that particular print stock. Different labs you work with will also recommend that you work with them specifically to generate a LUT that matches the intended print stock used for film out to maintain accuracy. In the DI you'd apply the LUT and then you have the option to burn it into your render or if your printing back to film render DPX files without the LUT applied.

[Andrae Palmer]

Thanks for the knowledge Mike. What if I wanted a LUT to see what it would like on a negative film stock? That's originally what I intended. Of course I would also love to see what it would like on the print stock. I'm new to this workflow and right now just investigating possibilities. It's not for a current project.

[M Most]

Thanks for the knowledge Mike. What if I wanted a LUT to see what it would like on a negative film stock? That's originally what I intended. Of course I would also love to see what it would like on the print stock. I'm new to this workflow and right now just investigating possibilities. It's not for a current project.

If you're talking about Red original, if you go through a good lab, what it will look like on film is basically what it looks like in digital projection, the only real difference being slightly denser blacks. There is no simulation necessary. Many service bureaus and labs, including many of the major ones (EFilm, Technicolor, and FotoKem all come to mind) have very well honed inverse LUTs that will produce film prints that are effectively identical to the DCP, and will even do butterfly projection between the two to prove that to you. Film targeted DI paths are best used with film original, as the colors are inherent in the medium. When you are dealing with an electronically captured original, your best shot at bringing out the intended color pallette is to stay in the digital world, targeting the DCP or video version depending on your primary distribution menthod, and doing a film recording as a secondary target via an inverse LUT approach. This is how many digitally captured pictures are being done today, even at the largest DI companies.

So my advice if you're not dealing with material shot on film is to forget about all that stuff and let whomever is responsible for the film recording deal with it. Work in a properly calibrated P3 or Rec709 environment and make it something you and the client are happy with, with the understanding that it can properly be maintained regardless of the delivery medium.

[Luis Otero]

What if I wanted a LUT to see what it would like on a negative film stock?

Just talk to Evangelos at http://www.motionfx.gr/order-now-lut.html Being able to get within 3% of WYSIWYG is awesome. We will be competitors, but is the best advise I can give you re: your aspirations.

[Marc Wielage]

In addition to what Mike Most says above, bear in mind that almost every film-out facility has in-house standards for display LUTs and output LUTs. In other words, if you color-correct at eFilm and output at Company 3, or color-correct at iO Film and output at Technicolor/Hollywood, things will change -- even if they're using essentially the same Arrilaser recorders and identical software. You need to calibrate the workflow to ensure that there are no surprises with the final filmout.

I think the o.p. needs to talk to the actual film-out facility and find out what their requirements are. If this is a small indie film job, most LA firms I know of have the ability to take a Rec709 image and use a lin-to-log converter to get it into film color space, but it does need some tweaking here and there. It's not an automatic, "one size fits all" adjustment.

[Barend Onneweer]

The Flanders LM-2461W comes with a DCI-P3 color space managed by the onboard Color Fidelity Engine that's a 64x64x64 3d LUT. What I need now is the Cinespace software and the hardware calibrator for my monitor. I don't need a LUT to emulate DCI-P3... what I need is a LUT to emulate kodak film stock based on the unique profile of my monitor.

That's also not what I was saying. If the Flanders calibration to DCI-P3 is accurate - the profile of the monitor isn't unique - right? So for the ballpark idea you could use P3 as a starting point. Cinespace will probably cost you about 5k.

But if you're serious about a calibrated film-out workflow there's no point in calibrating to negative stock. You'll need to calibrate to the entire process chain including output stock. These days if you're doing less than 20 copies a lot of facilities will bypass the negative and print directly to positive stock.

But unless you're seriously investing in this workflow you're probably best off talking to the lab and supplying them with a known quantity material (i.e. Rec709) and do a tweak pass on their calibrated screens before doing the print.

Barend

[M Most]

... almost every film-out facility has in-house standards for display LUTs and output LUTs. In other words, if you color-correct at eFilm and output at Company 3, or color-correct at iO Film and output at Technicolor/Hollywood, things will change -- even if they're using essentially the same Arrilaser recorders and identical software...

I get your point, and agree with it. However............

In the interest of accuracy, the above is probably a bad example because Company 3 doesn't do their own film recording and never have (they do their own film scanning, though). The vast majority of their film recording is done at EFilm, with some done at Technicolor depending on the studio involved.

In the interest of accuracy. Plus the fact that I just wanted to mess with ya.....

[Ido Karilla]

If you're talking about Red original, if you go through a good lab, what it will look like on film is basically what it looks like in digital projection, the only real difference being slightly denser blacks. There is no simulation necessary. Many service bureaus and labs, including many of the major ones (EFilm, Technicolor, and FotoKem all come to mind) have very well honed inverse LUTs that will produce film prints that are effectively identical to the DCP, and will even do butterfly projection between the two to prove that to you. Film targeted DI paths are best used with film original, as the colors are inherent in the medium. When you are dealing with an electronically captured original, your best shot at bringing out the intended color pallette is to stay in the digital world, targeting the DCP or video version depending on your primary distribution menthod, and doing a film recording as a secondary target via an inverse LUT approach. This is how many digitally captured pictures are being done today, even at the largest DI companies.

So my advice if you're not dealing with material shot on film is to forget about all that stuff and let whomever is responsible for the film recording deal with it. Work in a properly calibrated P3 or Rec709 environment and make it something you and the client are happy with, with the understanding that it can properly be maintained regardless of the delivery medium.



Surly I am less experienced then most of the posters here.


But unless you want a "digital" look on your film I would suggest working in LOG while using a film out LUT while grading, this will allow you to achieve the extra "film look" that make the difference, at least for me.

[M Most]

But unless you want a "digital" look on your film I would suggest working in LOG while using a film out LUT while grading, this will allow you to achieve the extra "film look" that make the difference, at least for me.

That was in part exactly my point.

Times have changed. Things have changed. Making something look like something it's not inevitably creates a lot of compromises and potential problems. Trying to shoehorn the color pallette of a digital camera like Red's products into that of photochemical film is not only short changing what the digital camera can produce, it's causing something less pure to emerge. Lots of compromises have to be made in order to minimize the cyan lowlights and other problems, as well as create believable flesh tones. Believe me, I've tried to do it many times, which is part of a learning process. What I learned is something I suspected from the start but needed to prove to myself: digital capture has its color pallette, and film has its color pallette. They are not the same, and they shouldn't be. They represent two different choices, at least as long as we still have both of them. If one wants a digitally captured piece to look like film, I suppose you could go that route, but I don't consider it either desirable (because of the compromises) or optimal.

The look of film is familiar and well established, but it is not the ultimate aesthetic be all and end all. It is simply the product of the only real medium we have had until rather recently for capturing high resolution motion images. "Film" != good, and "Digital" != bad. They are what they are. If one really wants film, they should try to find a way to shoot film. Anything else is a considerable visual compromise, even if it initially feels like a cool experiment. Each medium needs to be allowed to shine on its own if it is to shine at all.

[Ido Karilla]

That was in part exactly my point.

Times have changed. Things have changed. Making something look like something it's not inevitably creates a lot of compromises and potential problems. Trying to shoehorn the color pallette of a digital camera like Red's products into that of photochemical film is not only short changing what the digital camera can produce, it's causing something less pure to emerge. Lots of compromises have to be made in order to minimize the cyan lowlights and other problems, as well as create believable flesh tones. Believe me, I've tried to do it many times, which is part of a learning process. What I learned is something I suspected from the start but needed to prove to myself: digital capture has its color pallette, and film has its color pallette. They are not the same, and they shouldn't be. They represent two different choices, at least as long as we still have both of them. If one wants a digitally captured piece to look like film, I suppose you could go that route, but I don't consider it either desirable (because of the compromises) or optimal.

The look of film is familiar and well established, but it is not the ultimate aesthetic be all and end all. It is simply the product of the only real medium we have had until rather recently for capturing high resolution motion images. "Film" != good, and "Digital" != bad. They are what they are. If one really wants film, they should try to find a way to shoot film. Anything else is a considerable visual compromise, even if it initially feels like a cool experiment. Each medium needs to be allowed to shine on its own if it is to shine at all.

I totally agree about the compromises involved.
But since we are at a transition stage, and aesthetics are influenced by what we are used to consider as aesthetic, on a "blind" check ( with the audience I have and limited by my skills) digitally captured images processed through a film out lut ( color palate and gamma response) are more appealing to the viewer then staying "digital" all the way images.

Excuse my long sentences but English is hard for me to brake.

[Dermot]

Mike nailed it, ask your lab/filmout facility for their lut, there's not a "standard" lut that can be trusted.....

That said Steve @ DigitalPraxis had some downloadable LUT's on his site a while ago, for testing only - don't know if they are still there, but maybe worth a look?

d

[Andrae Palmer]

Thank you all. I've learned a lot of concepts in this thread. Didn't really understood how complex this stuff was until now.

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

Andrae, Ido for years is using my services, as well as Luis... if you want the cheapest solution just go to the generic LUTs that I provide and you have it all... otherwise the digital only consulting package will give you access to CineProfiler also... Check out the movies we have done with Ido... http://www.motionfx.gr/client-work.html

Mike is correct to go to your filmout facility for that, but most of the time there is a conflict of interests and these (Filmout DI facilities) guys don't serve others easily... especially if the free service includes the secret sauce...

There is where I fall in to the picture...

Also to work in the limited gamut of video and then use inverse to go back, like "do it in REC709 and we will fix it" attitude... is not quite productive as if you use the wide gamut of film calibrated environment and then just convert to video or DCP... you know better, that we Pro DI houses, we use film first and then everything else... As about compromises... I see more the opposite way... Rce709 and the film... the way video and DCP is encoded doesnt allow the same depth of colors like film does... you aslo know that...

On the other hand, yes, the digital is here to stay... film dies, lets try to forget how it looks is a new approach... an approach I don't agree with...

If everyone see the differences in this page they will understand why film as a primary grading target is better...

http://www.motionfx.gr/workflows-lut.html

[M Most]

... to work in the limited gamut of video and then use inverse to go back, like "do it in REC709 and we will fix it" attitude... is not quite productive as if you use the wide gamut of film calibrated environment and then just convert to video or DCP... you know better, that we Pro DI houses, we use film first and then everything else... As about compromises... I see more the opposite way... Rce709 and the film... the way video and DCP is encoded doesnt allow the same depth of colors like film does... you aslo know that...

What you just said is theory, the theory being that a wider gamut by definition produces a better image. But that theory fails to take into account the simple fact that the colorimetry of a digital camera and the colorimetry of film stock are very, very different things. The colors that result from digital capture are not the same as the colors that result from film capture, and mixing those colors via a grading process yields its best results when one isn't constraining and corrupting the original color pallette in the name of creating a facsimile of the other. I did a number of DI's in which we took digitally captured footage and forced it through a film targeted path, and I've done others in which we stayed in the digital realm, correcting in a P3 environment. And without exception, the results were clearly superior using the digital to digital path because the colors were purer and a lot easier to control. The theory that film's wider gamut has to produce a better image regardless of the originating source is simply not borne out in actual practice because the greyscale and colorimetry of film are completely unique to film as an originating medium. Trying to shoehorn non-film images into that pallette results in a lot of compromises when compared to treating those images as they were meant to be treated, in their own color space. That's one of the primary reasons why Red themselves do not advocate it, and it's the main reason why I don't. It's also the main reason many recent pictures like The Social Network did not go that route. Besides, all of this is quickly becoming a moot point. Digital projection is finally achieving the kind of penetration levels that were predicted 3 years ago (prior to the financial meltdown), particularly in the US. The onslaught of 3D, regardless of what thinks of it, is helping to rapidly obviate the notion of film as a primary deliverable target. It is quickly becoming the case that the digital cinema version of any feature release is likely to be the most widely viewed in cinemas, with all viewings beyond that also being in digital formats almost by definition. To me, the days of film being the primary target are already largely gone.

[Philipe Ratton]

As usual, great knowledge being spread for free, I just love reduser !

[Marc Wielage]

In the interest of accuracy, the above is probably a bad example because Company 3 doesn't do their own film recording and never have (they do their own film scanning, though). The vast majority of their film recording is done at EFilm, with some done at Technicolor depending on the studio involved.
Good point -- touche.

I think we're rapidly getting to a world where the film-out kinda doesn't matter. Ten years ago, I predicted this would happen by 2020; now, I think it's happening a lot sooner.


Trying to shoehorn the color pallette of a digital camera like Red's products into that of photochemical film is not only short changing what the digital camera can produce, it's causing something less pure to emerge.
What's always surprising to me are the "illegal" colors you can see in digital projection with a 3D LUT, but they don't make it to the print. Massive changes in saturation, very bright magentas, and strong greens are among the biggest offenders to me. I can think of a couple of features (none that I did) where the directors went nuts because they kept running into a "you can't get there from here" situation.

There are also color space situations on film that you can't quite do in digital, so it kinda depends. My own experience is that it's not a problem getting a digital camera to fit into film color space, but you do sometimes run into dynamic range issues. (Haven't done an Epic project to film yet, so maybe this will prove me wrong.)

[Luis Otero]

Andrae,

The results we have experienced having Evangelos as your consultant and co-pilot are second to none. Just go to his web site and see the outcome of their procedure. We have been able to go to a level of cinematic images that I only used to dream about. Now we are there in just few months.

He is a very knowledgeable filmmaker (filmmaker = any person that works at any level of a film production) and is not biased, and is not afraid to help you to persist until you get to the same level than other people that have been around for years.

So, do not dismiss that option since the results you will achieve will pay back in no time.

I will post tomorrow some still as examples of our results. (doing this via iPhone is a pain...).

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

Mike, what I can say from my own real filmout and DCP experience, that is NOT derived as a second tier knowledge, since I own the film recorders and I personally do all, LUTs, film emulsion calibrations, density measurements, projectors accreditation's etc... I can say for sure that if you grade for digital targets you will NOT be able to go to film with no big compromises... it might sound theories to you, but for me its not, its every day business...

What we discussing is similar to the differences between Vinyl Disk audio supporters and CD's... we all know the plus and minuses... As Ido said, there is not even one time that we did an unmarked projection with both workflow's and the film grade method didn't won the job...

I know that if I have a well calibrated display device along with a film grading environment then with the resulted DPX files, I can do whatever I like with a click... All that for the typical low end short for a student all the way up to, have Variety writing "Marked by disquietingly beautiful imagery" and win Sundance awards and be in the short list for Oscars...

What I can say is that, for me theory, is proven... (and REDfilmLog is a king...)

[M Most]

I can say for sure that if you grade for digital targets you will NOT be able to go to film with no big compromises...

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this and leave it at that.

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

Mike, It seems that if we where in an audiophiles store, I would buy a lamp (audio tube) driven amplifier and you would get the latest digital drive amplifier... Even though as an engineer I have build and played around with both types of amp's, I know why the lamp is better, even though my instruments show the digital... because my ears say different thinks...

Yehh, it seems subjective but it isn't... have you heard the word "rich in harmonics" or lamps sound smother? that's the difference between the two... something equivalent is happening with image... imperfections are always the essence of art...

Yep, we have to agree we disagree.

[Luis Otero]

Andrae,

As I promised yesterday, some low resolution samples:

[Luis Otero]

And these two: the first is removing the reference color for camera preview on set, and get a perfect Cineon file (RedColor2 and RedlogFilm: you got to love it! :w00t:); a dream for a colorist: low saturation, maximum dynamic range. The second is just a conceptual, quick grading to show that you can take such image to wherever you want.

[Andrae Palmer]

Mike, what I can say from my own real filmout and DCP experience, that is NOT derived as a second tier knowledge, since I own the film recorders and I personally do all, LUTs, film emulsion calibrations, density measurements, projectors accreditation's etc... I can say for sure that if you grade for digital targets you will NOT be able to go to film with no big compromises... it might sound theories to you, but for me its not, its every day business...

What we discussing is similar to the differences between Vinyl Disk audio supporters and CD's... we all know the plus and minuses... As Ido said, there is not even one time that we did an unmarked projection with both workflow's and the film grade method didn't won the job...

I know that if I have a well calibrated display device along with a film grading environment then with the resulted DPX files, I can do whatever I like with a click... All that for the typical low end short for a student all the way up to, have Variety writing "Marked by disquietingly beautiful imagery" and win Sundance awards and be in the short list for Oscars...

What I can say is that, for me theory, is proven... (and REDfilmLog is a king...)

Thank you Evangelos and Luis. Great to hear Your reports. Love the samples Luis.

[Luis Otero]

...Love the samples Luis.

Thanks, Andrae. This is a product of pure collaboration: Evangelos guiding us to get that qualification as the guru (yes, the GURU, and if anyone disagree with it is out of his mind), Josh Schnose (our great colorist), and myself as supervising colorist. Well, and also receive beautiful images captured by an awesome DP (Jose Cassellas) is just priceless.

Again, being within +/-3% of error is a sweet thing. By following very methodically the proper procedures to get the images to behave 100% as Cineon, then grading with the DCI LUT customized by Evangelos to fit perfectly our projector and room, then we just use conversion LUTs, also customized, for film-out, DCP, Rec.709, and sRGB with the assurance that all versions are perfect for their respective outlet, and completely legal.

One thing: Evangelos does not compromise on quality, and he is so kind in transferring all his knowledge acquired over MANY years running a true post-house Certified lab by Kodak. What else a poor-man filmaker can dream on...:emote_happyhappy:

[Andrae Palmer]

Just noticed that you are based in Florida Luis... does Evangelos live in our great state too? Both of your experience on this workflow is so valuable. Whenever I get beyond the experimentation stage will definitely remember Evangelos for services/consultation.

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

Its also Florida here in Greece.... Nice weather, sunny... lots of debts, but who cares... US is in the same loophole... as everyone... the weather though is perfect... i wish guys to was there with both of you... but skype can be my eyes and my ears... Thanks Luis and Andrae...

[Luis Otero]

Just noticed that you are based in Florida Luis... does Evangelos live in our great state too? Both of your experience on this workflow is so valuable. Whenever I get beyond the experimentation stage will definitely remember Evangelos for services/consultation.

Andrae,

No, his Post House is in Greece, so everything is done via Skype, and we schedule the sessions based on the fact that there are 7 hours difference. However, this has never been an issue for our communication or sessions.

I am in the Orlando area (Winter Park), but far from Mickey and his gang... If you would like to stop by our modest studio, just contact me to set-up a date and time so you can experience/experiment with the workflow. That will be great...!

Regards,