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 Shane]

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.