Thread: Best settings for Film Emulation LUTs

Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11  
    Senior Member rand thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,417
    I would have to agree with Aaron . After further reading about these Luts from Juan Melara, This Film emulation Lut requires Redlogfilm and a Legacy colorspace, IPP2 has no place for this emulation. And like Marc, maybe this look can be recreated manually .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member Aaron Lochert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    1,027
    Quote Originally Posted by rand thompson View Post
    I would have to agree with Aaron . After further reading about these Luts from Juan Melara, This Film emulation Lut requires Redlogfilm and a Legacy colorspace, IPP2 has no place for this emulation. And like Marc, maybe this look can be recreated manually .
    Juan Melara has done just that. You can download the PowerGrade here: https://juanmelara.com.au/store/kodak-2383-powergrade

    Tutorial:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brPPM05NK_0
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Senior Member rand thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,417
    Aaron,


    Thanks! I was unaware he had a PowerGrade for this as well. He appears to be a talented colorist. However, this powergrade is just a little "too involved" and really not for me.

    Some of the approaches he uses will work but will need to be modified on a scene by scene basis. I think a lut that would involve a more mathematical remapping of the colors he had to qualify would give you much better results over a broader range of scenes. His approach, I think, would always depend on variables that may or may not be present in some scenes which would probably not give you the results you were hoping for.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hollywood, USA
    Posts
    6,335
    Quote Originally Posted by rand thompson View Post
    Some of the approaches he uses will work but will need to be modified on a scene by scene basis. I think a lut that would involve a more mathematical remapping of the colors he had to qualify would give you much better results over a broader range of scenes.
    No, you'll find that the results with a LUT will also vary widely shot to shot as well. There's nothing "magical" about a LUT: it's just a mathematical version of a color correction. You can modify the LUT before and after, but there's a point where it may still damage the signal. And maybe that's a part of the look, or maybe that's something you won't want.
    marc wielage, csi • colorist/post consultant • daVinci Resolve Certified Trainer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member rand thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,417
    Marc,


    I wouldn't ever use a Film emulation Lut anyway. If I wanted a Kodak 2383 film look I would just shot with Kodak 2383 film stock. I prefer to just grade manually and just use Luts meant to transform Log images to there respective colorspaces.

    When the first IPP2 beta Luts came out, I tried manually transforming the RWG/LOG3G10 Log image with just a combination of luma Curve, Contrast and Pivot, and Log shadow. The images looked good but I had to use a lot of "Saturation"(about 65 to 72 in resolve) to give it a decent "REC709" look which I didn't like doing. When I used the IPP2 beta Luts, I got colors which I liked much more and at the 50 Sat.


    I think a Lut and a manual grade could both be used. However in the Powergrade of Juan Melara, he seems to derive some of this look through "qualification" which I personally have been staying away from in the last year. I just don't think it's as elegant and refined as either correcting an image manually in it's entirety, not in bits and pieces. And a high quality Lut designed to give accurate colors in the first place which would give you a more consistant look in more scenarios than a manual grade that relies on qualifications which can sometimes be hit or miss.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    IMHO film luts and IPP2 are pretty mutually exclusive if you use the IPP2 tone mapping which is basically doing the same job as the print LUT but the IPP2 mappings understand the red colourspace better and handle out of whack colours better. I even sometimes convert 709 footage back to linear, grade and run the end through IPP2 tone mapping.

    I'd look at the Kodak LUT understand what it's doing and see whether you can grade similar, as Marc and Rand say - work out what it is you like about the look and work out how that was done - each shots shadows/mids/highs may be in a difference place to where the one baked LUT is looking.

    Or being a print LUT them embrace the fixed nature of it but get your image into the right space first...

    cheers
    Paul
    -------------------
    insta: @paul.inventome
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hollywood, USA
    Posts
    6,335
    Quote Originally Posted by rand thompson View Post
    I think a Lut and a manual grade could both be used. However in the Powergrade of Juan Melara, he seems to derive some of this look through "qualification" which I personally have been staying away from in the last year. I just don't think it's as elegant and refined as either correcting an image manually in it's entirety, not in bits and pieces.
    There's a lot of "it depends" to this, and there's an art in deciding how narrow or how wide to grab a key, and how to use (or not use) softness to make the key more gentle and gradual. And to some degree you can do this with curves: check out what Melara did on the Koji LUT emulation.

    And a high quality Lut designed to give accurate colors in the first place which would give you a more consistant look in more scenarios than a manual grade that relies on qualifications which can sometimes be hit or miss.
    That is not my experience, and I used every LUT that Kodak built for us at Cinesite and every LUT that Technicolor's color science department built as well during my many years there. You really have to custom-engineer the LUTs for a specific project, and even then, you wind up with situations where the LUT has to be modified, changed, or thrown out because it doesn't work. I promise you it doesn't make the look any more consistent than you can with your fingers.

    There's also some interesting tweaks you can do with DCTLs that are beyond LUTs in some ways, plus they can work in more than one color & gamma space. It's fair to say this is not a simple area. My usual tactic is to get the show looking "normal," and then start throwing in a look and a style that's intended to change the essential Rec709 look (or the P3 look if we're in a theater). That can work with additional nodes or a group grade, but there's several philosophies that can work. But to me, the colorist is what gets the look consistent, not the LUT. I just came off a project where even "identical" takes did not match and required quite a bit of manual tweaking because things changed on the set (or the weather was wildly inconsistent). A LUT wouldn't have done anything to help; it all had to be eyeballed.
    marc wielage, csi • colorist/post consultant • daVinci Resolve Certified Trainer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
    You really have to custom-engineer the LUTs for a specific project, and even then, you wind up with situations where the LUT has to be modified, changed, or thrown out because it doesn't work. I promise you it doesn't make the look any more consistent than you can with your fingers.

    When they are designed that way.

    When they are designed differently, they are more precise than what one can eyeball. And yes consistent too.
    Analog > Apollo wooden handgrip http://omeneo.com
    Digital > Primers - professional image transformation tools http://omeneo.com/primers

    imdb


    "Como delfines en el fondo del oceano
    volamos por el universo incentivados por la esperanza"

    "L'esperanza", Sven Vδth
    "It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards"
    Jung/ Carol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
    You really have to custom-engineer the LUTs for a specific project, and even then, you wind up with situations where the LUT has to be modified, changed, or thrown out because it doesn't work.

    In the most ideal case, a show LUT is designed during prep and based on camera sample images shot by the cinematographer. LUT candidates are created and vetted by the cinematographer for use during production. During production the LUT is employed on set for viewing and exposure/camera adjustments/lighting adjustments are made while viewing that result. A LUT is only one part of an image pipeline, which starts with photography and ends with grading and delivery of the final images. All of those factors need to be working together for an optimized result. When any one of them are taken in isolation it is no longer yielding the optimized result that is intended. Now, I said "ideal case" because that kind of cooperation during prep is usually only available on properly budgeted features and broadcast/streaming productions, where the personnel are already in place, production design is already in place, the post vendor is already in place, and everyone is working together prior to prinicpal photography. A colorist might be (and often is) involved in the LUT choice(s), but it is never a case of "see the material after it's shot and decide what LUT to use." That is a sure path to the problems that Marc is referring to. But it's not simply the inevitable result of using a LUT in the pipeline, it is, in most cases, rather the result of not properly developing that pipeline during preproduction. It is also true that the pipeline that is developed for dailies and VFX is not necessarily identical to what is used in the DI. Consistency from dailies through VFX is necessary to ensure that screenings of the cut sequences in both editorial and previews are consistent when the VFX are dropped in, and cuts are not jarring or distracting. Once it gets to the DI, everything is "fair game" and the DI colorist, working with the director and often the DP can do what they want, although it's often guided by what has been seen throughout the editorial process.

    The bottom line is that when everybody - both production and post production - is on the same page from the beginning, the results are usually optimal. When they're not, they're not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Senior Member rand thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,417
    I agree with everyone whom have posted.


    My specific argument was not colorist vs Lut but a power grade that relied on qualifying parts of an image to complete the entirety of a film emulation vs a Lut expertly designed to recreate the color properties of a specific film stock applied to the entirety of the image and not parts of the image.


    LUTS and Colorist can both be good or bad. A lut is only as good as its design, precision and for the purpose for which is was designed to be used. A Colorist is only as good as his years of experience dealing with many problematic footage and scenes, his creative talent and his ability to diagnose, define and properly remedy any and all problems using the right amount and targeted corrections with the proper tools. A poorly designed Lut can give just as shitty results as a bad colorist.

    A colorist can use high precision expertly designed luts to aid In say a "first pass" correction of an image or a " Technical Lut" meant to bring and image into the desired colorspace in the most optimal way from a camera"s sensor. A lut will never be able to replace the sheer creative artistry of the human imagination of a seasoned highly skilled colorist. And a half- Assed colorist will never be able to replicate the properties of a expertly designed high precision Lut.
    Last edited by rand thompson; 10-20-2019 at 08:59 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts