KODAK Eastman T100 5247 LUT around???

[Miltos Pilalitos]

Does anyone know if there are LUTs for older film stocks like the Kodak5247 around?

I googled the subject without any luck and KODAK's website isn't very helpful on that regard. I found technical papers on that particular stock but no information about any LUTS.

Considering how old the stock is... I am not even sure if it is even possible for accurate LUT creation but you never know.

any ideas?

 

[Robino_J]

There is one included in Synthetic Aperture for After Effects (all versions) and you could export it to any LUT format from there. Only thing is that it's probably a 2D LUT

 

[Tom Van]

Not Kodak5247 but maybe these other Kodak film stocks will help...

http://juanmelara.com.au/print-film-emulation-luts-for-download/

 

[jake blackstone]

Resolve V10 with Genarts OFX plugin called Film Effects. It has most popular positive and negative film stocks, including some not that common, like B/W stocks and Polaroid.If you're looking for the Kodak and Fuji LUT emulators for Resolve, that were circulating here a while ago, they are Autodesk LUTs, that are automatically installed, if you instal Smoke. So, all you have to do is to buy Smoke or ask a friend, that has one:001_smile:

 

[Miltos Pilalitos]

There is one included in Synthetic Aperture for After Effects (all versions) and you could export it to any LUT format from there. Only thing is that it's probably a 2D LUT

Thanks, I didn't know that. As you can understand I am looking for a 3D LUT but I will check this out.

Not Kodak5247 but maybe these other Kodak film stocks will help...

http://juanmelara.com.au/print-film-emulation-luts-for-download/

Thanks, I am aware of those. Unfortunately they are not what I am looking for but useful nevertheless.

Resolve V10 with Genarts OFX plugin called Film Effects. It has most popular positive and negative film stocks, including some not that common, like B/W stocks and Polaroid.If you're looking for the Kodak and Fuji LUT emulators for Resolve, that were circulating here a while ago, they are Autodesk LUTs, that are automatically installed, if you instal Smoke. So, all you have to do is to buy Smoke or ask a friend, that has one:001_smile:

I have tried The Genarts Film Effects OFX plug in but I am not sure how accurate it is. Also, it doesn't have that particular stock (the list jumps from 5246 to 5248). I didn't know that Autodesk includes 3D Luts with Smoke. I don't know anybody who uses smoke anymore so there is nobody to ask and check it out.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I transferred tons of 5247 back in the day, and I remember it as being a plugged-up, dense, but chromatic kind of look. There is no "LUT" per se -- it's a look, rather than a LUT. Note that 5247 was a negative film and not a print stock, and the final look was more a combination of those two looks than anything else.

I much, much preferred the look of the later 5219 negative stocks, which were infinitely kinder to black detail and grain. I was not sorry to see 5247 go when it was discontinued in the mid-1980s. I think people have a weird nostalgia for these ephemeral looks because of something they imagine in their heads, not something that actually existed in reality. Screen some old 1970s and early-1980s movies shot on 5247, and you'll see the reality that the films were soft and grainy. But capable of good color under optimum lighting and a great exposure.

I think the look can be simulated pretty closely given a custom curve that crushed the blacks slightly, plus a slightly pumped-up saturation setting. And grain is just grain. The older pre-T-grain stocks have grain the size of canned hams, so it isn't very subtle.

 

[Miltos Pilalitos]

There is something in the look of that mid eighties films shot on 5247 that I would like to adapt for a project I am working on. It was a grainy and soft stock but I love its colors!

 

[Marc Wielage]

The problem is, so much of the look of those stills are the result of the scan and the colorist. The look is ephemeral, boiling down to the creative choices by the colorist and the person supervising those transfers. In other words, you're seeing a modern-day HD interpretation of that negative, not what it looked like projected on print in 1983.

 

[Miltos Pilalitos]

The current color interpretation of those films might be affected by today's colorists and new tools but even then... their look doesn't look like anything current image acquisition and their color handling produces.

No matter how able someone is to alter and enhance colors, the source material and the way it interpreted color will always matter I think.

 

[Marc Wielage]

No matter how able someone is to alter and enhance colors, the source material and the way it interpreted color will always matter I think.

I would agree only in that it's the cinematographer that makes more of the difference than anything else. I've often said, you can take well-shot material and make it better, but you can't take poorly-shot material and make it good.

I think the lighting, the choice of lenses, and the exposure all had a lot to do with why those movies looked like they did; my gut feeling is the 5247 might be the smallest part of it.

I think a lot of people are looking for a "one-button click" solution to recreating a look, and I don't think it's that easy, particularly with the look of a specific era. And I also remember tons of shows that looked like crap that were shot on 5247, particularly for TV. Again, the lighting made all the difference.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Also remember 5247 is a negative, that before it was viewed and also possibly scanned was turned into a positive So basically you would need a red logfilm to kodak 5247 neg and thena lut going from 5247 to (what ever print stock they used back then)....

As it is the print stock usually adds more than half the character of a film and is what you very often see scanned / digitised I think you should look for both

 

[Miltos Pilalitos]

All you said is good advice. Thanks.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Also remember 5247 is a negative, that before it was viewed and also possibly scanned was turned into a positive So basically you would need a red logfilm to kodak 5247 neg and thena lut going from 5247 to (what ever print stock they used back then).... As it is the print stock usually adds more than half the character of a film and is what you very often see scanned / digitised I think you should look for both

I believe they were using Kodak 5385 for print stock in the 1970s. By the time I started color-correcting in 1979, we began to use low-contrast print stock for TV transfers, which was 5738. You could technically project this in a theater, but it'd look a little "mushy" and flat unless it was timed down about 6 points. By the end of the 1980s, most shows stopped cutting on negative and printing and just scanned the negative and cut video (similar to how it's done today).

There is a difference in the "character" of how the image looks between a theatrical print, a low-contrast print, and the negative. Even the interpositive has a different feel. I have had projects (though I'm reluctant to say which ones) where we had to mix all of these for the final home video release. In some cases, we had to determine the lowest common denominator -- usually the theatrical print -- and then degrade the other images to match it. Otherwise, it would stick out much too much.

I was a big fan of the 1990s Kodak Vision Premiere print stocks, which looked dynamite compared to the old print stock of the 1970s and 1980s. To me, it was infinitely cleaner, less grainy, and had much deeper blacks, but it tended to "pop" the color a little more, which not everybody liked. Even a 1970s or 1960s movie printed on Vision Premiere had a different look, so what Björn says is true: both the negative stock and the print stock created the look, though I stills say the DP determines 75% of the look.

 

[Patrick Zadrobilek]

Kodak 5247 simulation LUT

Kodak 5247 simulation LUT

Hi all,

I have created a LUT based on the look of the Kodak 5247 film stock as it is presented to us. I tried to be as close as possible to the look of the late 70s, early 80s movies look.

The LUT manages the colors and contrast (dynamic range) from the filmstock's look. I used a Canon C300 Mark II c-log2 as base and it should work with similar flat gammas as well and needs material that is prepared with a BASE look - also avalable for free at my blog here: http://ntown.at/2017/02/20/list-of-most-popular-canon-sony-panasonic-camera-base-luts/

There is also a example gallery at the bottom of the link.

The LUT is available at my blog's WebShop here: http://ntown.at/shop/ntown-ntek-1047-filmstock-5247-emulation-lut/

Hope you like it

Cheers,
Patrick.

 

[Sabovic Adis]

There is something in the look of that mid eighties films shot on 5247 that I would like to adapt for a project I am working on. It was a grainy and soft stock but I love its colors!

You sure it's the 5247 You're after - not the makeup, acting, framing, blocking, scenography, art design, lighting etc.? Can't see much resemblances, although they all used the same type - o' -negative. :biggrin:

I believe they were using Kodak 5385 for print stock in the 1970s. By the time I started color-correcting in 1979, we began to use low-contrast print stock for TV transfers, which was 5738. You could technically project this in a theater, but it'd look a little "mushy" and flat unless it was timed down about 6 points. By the end of the 1980s, most shows stopped cutting on negative and printing and just scanned the negative and cut video (similar to how it's done today).

There is a difference in the "character" of how the image looks between a theatrical print, a low-contrast print, and the negative. Even the interpositive has a different feel. I have had projects (though I'm reluctant to say which ones) where we had to mix all of these for the final home video release. In some cases, we had to determine the lowest common denominator -- usually the theatrical print -- and then degrade the other images to match it. Otherwise, it would stick out much too much.

I was a big fan of the 1990s Kodak Vision Premiere print stocks, which looked dynamite compared to the old print stock of the 1970s and 1980s. To me, it was infinitely cleaner, less grainy, and had much deeper blacks, but it tended to "pop" the color a little more, which not everybody liked. Even a 1970s or 1960s movie printed on Vision Premiere had a different look, so what Björn says is true: both the negative stock and the print stock created the look, though I stills say the DP determines 75% of the look.

Some Horrible Truth things there, Marc! :thumbsup:

 

[Marc Wielage]

You sure it's the 5247 You're after - not the makeup, acting, framing, blocking, scenography, art design, lighting etc.? Can't see much resemblances, although they all used the same type - o' -negative. :biggrin: Some Horrible Truth things there, Marc! :thumbsup:

I'm here to speak the Horrible Truths. Note that 90% of the people who say they create these LUTs that resemble film never seem to specify how they compare it to film. The only way to do it would be to shoot this specific stock right next to a digital camera, then scan it under controlled conditions and do an A/B comparison. Even then, you're chasing shadows: there's too many factors that ultimately create the look. It's not a LUT, it's a whole bunch of things: lighting, makeup, art direction, lenses, but mainly the skill of the DP. And there are chaos factors created by the negative itself: which specific batch, what exposure was used, how it was developed in the lab, and so on. I've seen different batches of the same Kodak emulsion wind up looking wildly different from each other, especially when people screw up.

"Digital to negative film" are bullshit, there's no two ways about it. I think there is a way to create LUTs that will predict how a digital image will look printed out to film, but this has to be calibrated through film recorders and labs. It's not a straightforward process and it's not a look per se.

 

[Sabovic Adis]

I'm here to speak the Horrible Truths. Note that 90% of the people who say they create these LUTs that resemble film never seem to specify how they compare it to film. The only way to do it would be to shoot this specific stock right next to a digital camera, then scan it under controlled conditions and do an A/B comparison. Even then, you're chasing shadows: there's too many factors that ultimately create the look. It's not a LUT, it's a whole bunch of things: lighting, makeup, art direction, lenses, but mainly the skill of the DP. And there are chaos factors created by the negative itself: which specific batch, what exposure was used, how it was developed in the lab, and so on. I've seen different batches of the same Kodak emulsion wind up looking wildly different from each other, especially when people screw up.

"Digital to negative film" are bullshit, there's no two ways about it. I think there is a way to create LUTs that will predict how a digital image will look printed out to film, but this has to be calibrated through film recorders and labs. It's not a straightforward process and it's not a look per se.

Couldn't agree more, Marc!

But, where's this look-alike "business" coming from? :biggrin:

 

[Marc Wielage]

I have created a LUT based on the look of the Kodak 5247 film stock as it is presented to us. I tried to be as close as possible to the look of the late 70s, early 80s movies look.

Here's the problem: you're basing the look on what you see based on film transfers, so you're looking at not just the film, but also the scanner that digitized it, then you're seeing the color-correction that the colorist did. It's kind of like basing a look on a photograph of a painting: it's not the real painting at all, it's just a photograph of one. And it also doesn't look the way the print did in the theater. You're not seeing an intrinsic look -- you're just making up a bunch of math to justify what you think it looks like.

There are (I swear) 20 people out there on the web selling LUTs that they claim makes digital cameras look like a specific Kodak negative. It's misleading at best and fraudulent at worst. My objection is that you're selling this as one thing without any real science to back it up. I would have absolutely no problem with anybody selling or giving away a LUT and saying, "hey, this looks real cool." Then it becomes just a subjective judgement -- newer, cooler, neater, nicer, better. But Kodak 5247 was a real thing, and it's more than just a LUT. So much of the final result depended on the way it was used, even 5247 didn't always look like 5247. It looked wildly different shot by different DPs under different conditions. There was no one look for this stock.

It's kind of like creating a chemical formula for a paste-like substance, and then saying, "this will taste exactly like the soup, the salad, the steak, and the desert that your grandmother used to make." What? I'd have a hard time believing you could even reproduce one of those things chemically. But it's all guesswork and smoke & mirrors. There's no science here. And I still maintain that 90% of this could be done within any top-of-the-line color-correction system today, assuming you worked with a good colorist.

And with that, let me bring in Adolf to have the final word...

 

[Marc Wielage]

But, where's this look-alike "business" coming from? :biggrin:

I think two things are going on here:

1) there's a trend for some people (particularly neophytes) who want to believe there's an instant fix or a one-click solution to complicated problems, and that includes fixing pictures. The reality is that it takes lots of time and talent and experience to make pictures look good, and that goes both for the DP creating the images in front of the lens as it does for the colorist who works on the image in post. There are no fast, easy solutions.

2) LUTs are very inexpensive to make, and I seem them selling for anywhere from free to $9.95 to $700 out there on the web. There's a big business of people who buy these things erroneously believing the LUT will make their project look like a $100 million Hollywood movie. But my opinion is that they're selling smoke, maybe smoke and a dream.

I think LUTs are useful as part of the workflow process, I think they're fine if you want to come up with one look that works temporarily to view your material on the set and deal with in the edit, and it's also helpful for VFX people who need to match the look of an ongoing project. Do you need it for the final? Not really. Will it make it look like a 40-year-old negative stock? Not really. Will it make it look different? Yes. Is it better? That's a subjective opinion, but mine is no -- I think there are better ways to get the image you want.

My joke is, all we do is just keep turning the knobs until the picture doesn't suck, then we move on to the next shot. The LUT doesn't do that: it treats every shot the same, and the problem is, every shot is different.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Resolve V10 with Genarts OFX plugin called Film Effects. It has most popular positive and negative film stocks, including some not that common, like B/W stocks and Polaroid.If you're looking for the Kodak and Fuji LUT emulators for Resolve, that were circulating here a while ago, they are Autodesk LUTs, that are automatically installed, if you instal Smoke. So, all you have to do is to buy Smoke or ask a friend, that has one:001_smile:

Here is a link to a free flame 2018 free trail 30 day install. It comes with those luts and even when you uninstall the software the luts stays on your machine.


http://www.autodesk.com/products/flame/free-trial

There is also a free student license for flame so if you are in school I think requesting such is not a bad idea. It´s quite a usefull program if you learn it and autodesk is now really making a strive to 1. get more users on board 2. develop flame further. 3. make it more available and aiming for bigger user group on subscription instead of the uber over priced / few users tactics they where running before. So not only for these luts its a good thing to have on your computer and for those that learn how to use it the paid for subscription at 500 bucks a month is really good deal. Since 2012 flame been trough a complete rewrite which been a bit of a rough ride for every one involved but now they very much got to a point where they are not rewriting any more but actually dropping in quite a few updates in every new release. 2018 v2 that will be released at NAB time will be a huge step forward. So a good time to jump onboard is now.