Why the LUT is a good starting point for coloring

[Ed_David]

No matter the camera one shoots on, slog1, 2, 3, clog, BMCfilm, log-c - you need to get it to a point that is a good starting point.

So having a LUT takes out a ton of guess work.

From there you can really start to tweak.

 

Having a final LUT - a la film print out - is what Juan Melera does - and I think that's a great strategy .  But like all things in art, there is no one way to do it.  Some people don't use LUTS, some do.  And none of it is wrong.

People who make fun of people who use LUTS - well, whoopee do.

I know of a film editor who just started editing randomly and now he edits giant Hollywood movies.  He learned on his own.  No film school.  He was training to be a chef.

There is no right path to get anywhere. Just takes an open mind and a lot of patience and practice.  10,000 hour rule.  On that note I know a very prominent Hollywood DP who got his start shooting soft-core videos for Playboy.  Do you know who this is?  

[jcs]

LUTs have value for sure. That said, getting a good look out of camera is the best place to be. A log gamma for recording is good, along with a nice LUT while previewing/shooting if possible. In post, a simple curve which puts the shadows, midtones (skin), and highlights (filmic) in the right place is all that should be needed to get a great look. This is where Canon and ARRI shine- the colors tend to remain true when adjusting levels in post (by whatever means). After shooting with mostly Sony and Panasonic for a few years, I'm happy to be back shooting with Canon (C300II). Sony has gotten better (the A7SII is decent), and Panasonic isn't too shabby either (GH4). However Canon and ARRI (and perhaps now also Red/Dragon (haven't shot with it yet, but it appears their color science is vastly improved)) take far less time in post to get looking good, specifically skintones. LUTs, especially 3D LUTs, can do surprising things (good and bad) and care must be taken to avoid burning time in post.

You used to shoot soft-core for Playboy?

[Jimmy]

LUTs as a starting point are great... Especially if you create a LUT/preset yourself that works for that camera, lighting, skintone etc...

I think people get a bit pissy about LUTs because, like effects and filters before hand... Some folk just drop any old LUT on footage and use it as their end point, not start point. This leads to certain looks getting overused and tired.

[Oliver Daniel]

No matter the camera one shoots on, slog1, 2, 3, clog, BMCfilm, log-c - you need to get it to a point that is a good starting point.

So having a LUT takes out a ton of guess work.

From there you can really start to tweak.

 

Having a final LUT - a la film print out - is what Juan Melera does - and I think that's a great strategy .  But like all things in art, there is no one way to do it.  Some people don't use LUTS, some do.  And none of it is wrong.

People who make fun of people who use LUTS - well, whoopee do.

I know of a film editor who just started editing randomly and now he edits giant Hollywood movies.  He learned on his own.  No film school.  He was training to be a chef.

There is no right path to get anywhere. Just takes an open mind and a lot of patience and practice.  10,000 hour rule.  On that note I know a very prominent Hollywood DP who got his start shooting soft-core videos for Playboy.  Do you know who this is?  

I like LUTs. 

Whatever tool helps me get the best out of the images, and works for the project, I will use. Even if it's teal and orange.

If your method works for you, your audience and clients - who gives a damn what other people think? 

[Gpanazio]

No matter the camera one shoots on, slog1, 2, 3, clog, BMCfilm, log-c - you need to get it to a point that is a good starting point.

So having a LUT takes out a ton of guess work.

From there you can really start to tweak.

 

Having a final LUT - a la film print out - is what Juan Melera does - and I think that's a great strategy .  But like all things in art, there is no one way to do it.  Some people don't use LUTS, some do.  And none of it is wrong.

People who make fun of people who use LUTS - well, whoopee do.

I know of a film editor who just started editing randomly and now he edits giant Hollywood movies.  He learned on his own.  No film school.  He was training to be a chef.

There is no right path to get anywhere. Just takes an open mind and a lot of patience and practice.  10,000 hour rule.  On that note I know a very prominent Hollywood DP who got his start shooting soft-core videos for Playboy.  Do you know who this is?  

[Ed_David]

LUTs have value for sure. That said, getting a good look out of camera is the best place to be. A log gamma for recording is good, along with a nice LUT while previewing/shooting if possible. In post, a simple curve which puts the shadows, midtones (skin), and highlights (filmic) in the right place is all that should be needed to get a great look. This is where Canon and ARRI shine- the colors tend to remain true when adjusting levels in post (by whatever means). After shooting with mostly Sony and Panasonic for a few years, I'm happy to be back shooting with Canon (C300II). Sony has gotten better (the A7SII is decent), and Panasonic isn't too shabby either (GH4). However Canon and ARRI (and perhaps now also Red/Dragon (haven't shot with it yet, but it appears their color science is vastly improved)) take far less time in post to get looking good, specifically skintones. LUTs, especially 3D LUTs, can do surprising things (good and bad) and care must be taken to avoid burning time in post.

You used to shoot soft-core for Playboy?

Wally Pfister did, who shot the Batman triology and Memento for Chris Nolan.

I think Clog originally was rough on the c300 - well dynamic range compromise.

Overall it's never just clear and simple - c300 also was top heavy.  I'm excited to test out the c300markii.  but dynamic range, sensor photosites, compression, type of log - all tons of factor that influence a camera.

Is it good to get a camera that out of the bat looks nice - sure - but if you are coloring it or going to a colorist, then you may have other priorities with the camera you use.

native ASA.  how it handles tungsten/daylight/mixed lighting.  motion.

etc etc

[benymypony]

Some people (colorists ?) think that using LUTs is like using an Instagram filter to color correct a photo… I’m not of that opinion. Some LUTs are very useful (convert LOG to Rec.709, fix a camera color defect, emulate a print film, etc). Some LUTs are famous because they give a "fashionable" look, like the M31 by VisionColor. I love this LUT but all colorists will tell you that skin tones are carrot color and this teal-orange look has been overused. Also a LUT can be destructive if not properly applied. A LUT can be applied as final touch over a custom color grading, or as a base. Some pro colorists like Juan Melara or cinematographers like Frank Glencairn uses LUTs.

[TheRenaissanceMan]

That's actually how color correction is supposed to work. You apply a correction LUT to transform your footage from the captured color space to your delivery color space (usually Rec709 or P3), then apply your tweaks within that color space. Then, once your footage is corrected, you apply your grade. 

[Bioskop.Inc]

I always thought that you were meant to get your footage to a neutral point (adjusting exposure & getting rid of any colour cast etc...) & then add a LUT for quick'n'easy colouring. But i suppose with all these different types of Log footage, it has become just too time consuming to do things manually & LUTs have given people a quick way to skip some important steps.

I'm only using FilmConvert, as I like what it does to the footage (highlights etc...) & not always what it does colour-wise, so I find myself combining different layers in order to get the right colour space.

Everyone takes a different approach, I suppose.

[Ed_David]

I think Juan Melera has an export lut - which is the answer print - 2393 - and then he sees the final output and in essence is tweaking the image before it gets to the final print.

He does a primary grade to neutralize white balance, get things where they want.  

I usually shoot slog - and I convert it to cineon color space which is basically arri log-c color space.  After that I start to tweak overall look. 

Then onto secondary corrections - isolating the skin tone, getting that where you want it.  Also you can do highlight offsets on the skin and make the lips the correct feeling saturation.  And then power windows, on the face, on the windows, background, etc etc.

But yes, I think just like there are a million ways to light a scene and shot them, there are basic ideas and it's really a free-for-all at this point.

Just as it is with editing.

When I started I was on a path to editing.  But now I see people much younger than me crushing it - doing so well, already editing - editing fast and just cranking out beautiful stuff and they just jumped into it, they didn't know what they were doing, they just started.  Balls to the wall.

And why not do that with coloring?  So we don't think there is only one way to do it.

I agree with many, the filmconvert look is start to get a little overused like magic bullet back in the day.

but shit, to each their own on how they want to grade.