Best LUTs for Weapon?

[Brody_B]

Sorry Brian, I would recommend the typical luts you find on the internet and use them as a base, then color from there, then create and save your personal bests. vision-color.com and mluts are decent starting points.

 

[Kris Tait]

I think it's a rediculously poor idea of making an example of how people don't share knowledge out of Phil. Are you serious? Phil has single handedly contributed more than the entire community combined. That's just ridiculous.
I'm a big advocate of sharing knowledge and helping share my findings and things I discover along the way, it's a rewarding feeling. But imagine for a second when you take someone like Phil for example who has a very large following, and he were to release one of his custom made LUTs. Well it wouldn't long before 100k videos on YouTube all had the same grade carelessly applied to it. And he could kiss that look goodbye. Serious, it's in everyone's best interest that people like Phil don't just hand out their LUTs. M31 ring a bell?
It takes a lot of expertise, experimentation, critical thought and above all time to develop your own signature look both in camera and in post. And Phil has shared more than enough of his findings so that the entire community stands to benefit from it. That's a lot of time saved for us. He's exactly the opposite person people should be pointing the finger at. It's embarrassing to read the level of self entitlement that some people have.
Phil, thanks for the upload. I'll try spotting it in some of your recent work. I've sent you a pm.
Dont get me wrong, sharing a LUT here and there isn't what I'm ranting about. But brewing a shitstorm because people as accomplished as Phil won't fork out the secrets behind his work like a short order cook is rediculous. You'd also get a hell of a lot farther by simply asking, with a pinch of manners and respect on top. As you can see, woopti, there's an image attached to his response. Demanding information like a spoiled brat probably isn't the best approach.
Sorry for the rant. But this one made my blood boil. bloody hell....

 

[Michael Hastings]

I think some people have missed my basic point:

It seems clear that the "out of the box" look of the Alexa is significantly preferred in the industry - to the detriment of ALL of us that own Red cameras. The perception that REDs can't achieve or are too difficult to achieve that look hurts all Redusers - and it's a real thing - not a trivial perception that can be easily dismissed.

It also appears that through the use of LUTs some Redusers and presumably Panavision are getting pretty close to that desired "out of the box look".



I personally, (and I think there are thousands of others like me) don't shoot enough to justify spending a great deal of time testing and learning the ins and outs of LUTs, just as I don't have the time or inclination to learn how to write plugins for my photo or video editing programs. And even that isn't really comparable - it is really just trying to get a look out of a RAW camera so we can be competitive.

It would be nice if we had more options from RED but so far it doesn't seem that we have quite gotten there.

I was simply suggesting that it might be in the larger interest to share those - since it seems that REDs are often the second choice unless there is a need for the compact size (e.g. 3D) or the extra resolution for reframing.

I certainly didn't mean to call out Phil - his contributions have been tremendous, but I also don't think we should be painted as rank freeloaders for making the suggestion.

 

[Marc Wielage]

It seems clear that the "out of the box" look of the Alexa is significantly preferred in the industry - to the detriment of ALL of us that own Red cameras. The perception that REDs can't achieve or are too difficult to achieve that look hurts all Redusers - and it's a real thing - not a trivial perception that can be easily dismissed.

I don't think this is necessarily true. What I hear from producers is generally just whining about the number of hours needed to transcode material for dailies and editing copies. If they can just immediately start editing with the files created by the camera, then they're happy. Pros understand that getting 9 hours of of material prepped for editorial and dailies will take overnight.

There is a false belief by some neophytes that a magic LUT will give you the evasive look you're desperately seeking, but the reality is that you have to start with great lenses, great lighting, and a competent DP. And in truth, an experienced colorist can give you the look you want, optimized for the actual footage you've shot. You can't get that with a canned LUT. And I don't buy that LUTs can recreate what negative film does; I think that's just a crock. To me, nothing can beat a hand-crafted color correction optimized completely for the specific material in the project.

While I personally don't use LUTs, I think Red's basic color science makes sense these days, and I think the starting point of RedLogFilm works very well for most projects. Even a straight RedColor/RedGamma doesn't look that bad just for live monitoring on the set and dailies. My advice to clients is generally, "this is the worst your images will ever look; it'll just get better from here on."

I totally agree that it's not good business to just give away looks and creative work that's part of the artist or technician's craft. I think when you hire a graphic artist, you don't get to own their Photoshop or Illustrator files... you get the end result. When you hire a sound mixer, you don't get the Pro Tools sessions... you get the mix. And when you hire a colorist, you get a render... not the color-correction session. In no case are the artists and technicians anxious for you to pull back the curtain and examine the machinery.

 

[Kris Tait]

It sounds like the answer to your problem is that you have one camera but you want another. But most people who shoot Red, want Red. Red's signature look is precisely why I buy them. It seems a massive waste of time to shoot on one camera with the sole intention of grading it to look like another. But I think this notion that Arri has a more desirable look is something a lot of people are picking up from what they've read rather than what they themselves have experienced. Seems like a lot more hype than anything else. I'd put my money on the fact that 95% of the professional film community would be hard pressed to truly differentiate the two in a blind test between the latest sensors.
If you're so intent on the look of a certain camera, isn't it silly to be shooting on another and complaining about it?

I think some people have missed my basic point:

It seems clear that the "out of the box" look of the Alexa is significantly preferred in the industry - to the detriment of ALL of us that own Red cameras. The perception that REDs can't achieve or are too difficult to achieve that look hurts all Redusers - and it's a real thing - not a trivial perception that can be easily dismissed.

It also appears that through the use of LUTs some Redusers and presumably Panavision are getting pretty close to that desired "out of the box look".



I personally, (and I think there are thousands of others like me) don't shoot enough to justify spending a great deal of time testing and learning the ins and outs of LUTs, just as I don't have the time or inclination to learn how to write plugins for my photo or video editing programs. And even that isn't really comparable - it is really just trying to get a look out of a RAW camera so we can be competitive.

It would be nice if we had more options from RED but so far it doesn't seem that we have quite gotten there.

I was simply suggesting that it might be in the larger interest to share those - since it seems that REDs are often the second choice unless there is a need for the compact size (e.g. 3D) or the extra resolution for reframing.

I certainly didn't mean to call out Phil - his contributions have been tremendous, but I also don't think we should be painted as rank freeloaders for making the suggestion.

 

[Brody_B]

Oh my, you "don't shoot enough to justify spending a great deal of time testing and learning" then thats why you hire a colorist. Lol there is not a magic lut that turns your Red into an Arri, but lets just say there was, your expecting people to give you something that would put them out of a job. i suppose if you want the Arri look "everyone is preferring over Red", then you'll probably have to sell your S-W and put down a deposit on alexa, problem solved.

BTW. I bought my Red cause I like the look over Arri plus the many other advantages, but Its gonna take a while for the rest of the Industry to get that lol, the new industry standard 8k Panavision Weapon will change all that shortly I believe.

 

[Brody_B]

But I think this notion that Arri has a more desirable look is something a lot of people are picking up from what they've read rather than what they themselves have experienced.

Bingo!

 

[Derek Carlson]

Anybody able to give a resource of where to go to get a good Kodak 5219 emulation? I'd like to have something to build a LUT off of rather tthan from scratch. Thanks.

 

[Mike Nagel]

But I think this notion that Arri has a more desirable look is something a lot of people are picking up from what they've read rather than what they themselves have experienced. Seems like a lot more hype than anything else. I'd put my money on the fact that 95% of the professional film community would be hard pressed to truly differentiate the two in a blind test between the latest sensors.

Arri has the best debayer hand down. Because they got the best color science alongside the best sensor. Everything else is better at RED, and has been since day one.

Another "problem" is that it takes RED quite some time to get the best out of the sensor - release of new color science, getting that into SDK in ur fav sw, new fw upgrades, new OLPFs (that try to fix sensor issues), full body Weapon upgrade to fix other Dragon sensor issues etc etc etc

so by the time u finally get the best most out of the sensor, u're already on the next sensor, and starting all over. with Arri, u have way less of all that hassle.

I loved the (graded) MX look - but major, major issues under mixed lighting. Dragon a big step forward, still issues - been discussed a million times.

Arri has the cleanest, best debayer since 2010 to get the best neutral starting ground. That's why so many of the big and nominated movies are shot on that cam, again a cam that only has disadvantages compared to RED other than the color - which simply takes more time in post with RED. still clearly, many top professionals take that as the main reason to shoot on that cam. a cam which doesn't even produce 4K in 2016. still top choice - by far.

90% of movies shot on RED look like crap (mostly MX, it slowly gets better with Dragon). Undeservedly so (because even if it's horribly shot there is way more potential in the RAW), but they look like crap.

What does that tell you ? that they have no clue about post - or not enough time/money. and RED takes more time and knowledge in post. Arri doesn't.

DareDevil - although entertaining show - looked horrible. It makes me kinda angry how they can shoot on Dragon and then use DC/RG4 presets which look like sh*t (and are maybe good enough for dailies) and the dreaded green yellow haze is everywhere... what a colossal waste of potential.


peeps want a clean, neutral starting ground after debayer - no extra hoops, no gauntlet... that's what LI at PV is trying to provide, that's what Arri provides. Peeps don't necessarily want the inherent "Arri look" which is kinda boring IMO.

 

[Medavoym]

Classy answer from Phil.
Thank you Sir.

As I said - I was talking about a principle. Not about a person.
I politely stand by my comments.
And I appreciate Phil stating his side of the argument politely.

 

[Derek Carlson]

Arri has the best debayer hand down. Because they got the best color science alongside the best sensor. Everything else is better at RED, and has been since day one.

Another "problem" is that it takes RED quite some time to get the best out of the sensor - release of new color science, getting that into SDK in ur fav sw, new fw upgrades, new OLPFs (that try to fix sensor issues), full body Weapon upgrade to fix other Dragon sensor issues etc etc etc

so by the time u finally get the best most out of the sensor, u're already on the next sensor, and starting all over. with Arri, u have way less of all that hassle.

I loved the (graded) MX look - but major, major issues under mixed lighting. Dragon a big step forward, still issues - been discussed a million times.

Arri has the cleanest, best debayer since 2010 to get the best neutral starting ground. That's why so many of the big and nominated movies are shot on that cam, again a cam that only has disadvantages compared to RED other than the color - which simply takes more time in post with RED. still clearly, many top professionals take that as the main reason to shoot on that cam. a cam which doesn't even produce 4K in 2016. still top choice - by far.

90% of movies shot on RED look like crap (mostly MX, it slowly gets better with Dragon). Undeservedly so (because even if it's horribly shot there is way more potential in the RAW), but they look like crap.

What does that tell you ? that they have no clue about post - or not enough time/money. and RED takes more time and knowledge in post. Arri doesn't.

DareDevil - although entertaining show - looked horrible. It makes me kinda angry how they can shoot on Dragon and then use DC/RG4 presets which look like sh*t (and are maybe good enough for dailies) and the dreaded green yellow haze is everywhere... what a colossal waste of potential.


peeps want a clean, neutral starting ground after debayer - no extra hoops, no gauntlet... that's what LI at PV is trying to provide, that's what Arri provides. Peeps don't necessarily want the inherent "Arri look" which is kinda boring IMO.

So I take it you aren't a fan? Why are you on a RED forum if you despise the very thing that makes a RED a RED, the color science and image? Go troll an ARRI forum.

 

[Ben Scott]

Daredevil looks brilliantly grimy you Philistine.

 

[Jacob Ryan]

+1 ...

I think it's a rediculously poor idea of making an example of how people don't share knowledge out of Phil. Are you serious? Phil has single handedly contributed more than the entire community combined. That's just ridiculous.
I'm a big advocate of sharing knowledge and helping share my findings and things I discover along the way, it's a rewarding feeling. But imagine for a second when you take someone like Phil for example who has a very large following, and he were to release one of his custom made LUTs. Well it wouldn't long before 100k videos on YouTube all had the same grade carelessly applied to it. And he could kiss that look goodbye. Serious, it's in everyone's best interest that people like Phil don't just hand out their LUTs. M31 ring a bell?
It takes a lot of expertise, experimentation, critical thought and above all time to develop your own signature look both in camera and in post. And Phil has shared more than enough of his findings so that the entire community stands to benefit from it. That's a lot of time saved for us. He's exactly the opposite person people should be pointing the finger at. It's embarrassing to read the level of self entitlement that some people have.
Phil, thanks for the upload. I'll try spotting it in some of your recent work. I've sent you a pm.
Dont get me wrong, sharing a LUT here and there isn't what I'm ranting about. But brewing a shitstorm because people as accomplished as Phil won't fork out the secrets behind his work like a short order cook is rediculous. You'd also get a hell of a lot farther by simply asking, with a pinch of manners and respect on top. As you can see, woopti, there's an image attached to his response. Demanding information like a spoiled brat probably isn't the best approach.
Sorry for the rant. But this one made my blood boil. bloody hell....

 

[Spencer Weaver]

@Phil Holland,

Thanks so much for sharing your perspective. I especially appreciated your example of teaching someone to paint vs. painting someone else’s painting. Very well put.


Learning more about “how to paint” with lighting / color grading / LUTS / is my passion and I would love to learn more.


The first step of learning is learning how to learn and what to look for and watch. And you and some others in my life have really helped me to see colors and light and shadow… and how they all dance together.


Thanks for sharing!

 

[Phil Holland]

Just to jump back into these stormy waters

A couple things. You guys know me and know I'm primarily a RED shooter. I'm heavily invested in the system, but I also believe in the system after rather thorough testing. I'm also doing what little I can to help make the system better and also inform those hopefully on how to achieve high quality images out of the camera.

As such I've had criticisms along the way and a good chunk of those have been cleared up.

Color. Oh yes. Glorious color.

There was a time specifically when this whole RED/Arri argument was extremely valid. Those were the days of the Mysterium-X sensor. A good sensor, but much like the Alev III sensor found in Alexa, MX had a difficult time handing IR contamination. You can make nice looking motion pictures, but there was certainly more to be desired.

When RED released the Dragon Sensor everything changed. Color DRASTICALLY improved. I really can't stress this enough. The images are richer, the Dynamic Range increased, and there is/was much more color within the image. And the big thing on top of all that was the much improved IR Cutting/Blocking within the camera itself.

Then with Weapon and the arrival of DSMC2 bodies we got even more improvements. Much more powerful and essentially bleeding edge hardware with a few optical path improvements. All of this has led to even better image quality. And now that there's Intermediate Codec support built in, dual simultaneous REDCODE RAW recording at that, you are seeing RED tackle many things people have been asking for.

Where the cameras are now is very, very good. They are not "hard". Not at all. Much like all systems if you want to squeak out the best from it, it certainly pays to have a deep knowledge of the camera. But overall if you can use a smartphone you can use these cameras. And I'll add another, if you've shot film you can shoot easily with these cameras.

 

[jake blackstone]

I don't use LUTs. LUTs is yesterday's news. RCM (Resolve Color Management) is the variation of the ACES, which allows anyone to create images that are REPRODUCIBLE by anyone without a need for secret sauce. ACES and RCM instead of LUTs uses transforms, which are more precise and they are publicly available to anyone. Transforms are akin to open source, instead of proprietary LUTs. RCM even allows you to choose, say ARRI Wide gamut and you then can grade Red material, as if your original material was ARRI, even though you're shot Red. Anyway, if you're working with Red Dragon, just select RC4/RLF for Input color space, RC4/RLF for the timeline color space and finally select Rec-709 for the output color space. Done, no LUTs, easy...
All this color workflow openness only proves, that even though anyone can have the same tools, doesn't mean, that they'll achieve the same results.

 

[Phil Holland]

I don't use LUTs. LUTs is yesterday's news. RCM (Resolve Color Management) is the variation of the ACES, which allows anyone to create images that are REPRODUCIBLE by anyone without a secret sauce. ACES and RCM instead of LUTs uses transforms, which are more precise and they are publicly available to anyone. Transforms are akin to open source, instead of proprietary LUTs. If you're working with Red Dragon, just select RC4/RLF for Input color space, RC4/RLF for the timeline color space and finally select Rec-709 for the output color space. Done, no LUTs, easy...

In contrast, by using LUTs (which can be alarmingly precise if you so desire and if your software supports it) it allows me to forward a single file that is compatible with nearly any color or grading suite.

Either way, at the end of the day you developing a lot. Whether you are doing it per shot, scene, project or not.

Only downsides are power windows (especially animated grade work!) and various other minutia not passing their way through.

 

[Brody_B]

I don't use LUTs. LUTs is yesterday's news. RCM (Resolve Color Management) is the variation of the ACES, which allows anyone to create images that are REPRODUCIBLE by anyone without a secret sauce. ACES and RCM instead of LUTs uses transforms, which are more precise and they are publicly available to anyone. Transforms are akin to open source, instead of proprietary LUTs. If you're working with Red Dragon, just select RC4/RLF for Input color space, RC4/RLF for the timeline color space and finally select Rec-709 for the output color space. Done, no LUTs, easy...
All this color workflow openness only proves, that even though anyone can have the same tools, doesn't mean, that they'll achieve the same results.

And I am now off for the next 10-20 hrs getting this all learned up and figured out.

 

[jake blackstone]

In contrast, by using LUTs (which can be alarmingly precise if you so desire and if your software supports it) it allows me to forward a single file that is compatible with nearly any color or grading suite.

Either way, at the end of the day you developing a lot. Whether you are doing it per shot, scene, project or not.

Only downsides are power windows (especially animated grade work!) and various other minutia not passing their way through.

Not really. There are many variations of LUTs for different software manufacturers. Usually .cube will work, but it's not guaranteed. Only ACES can guarantee universal acceptance. If you're using a Daylight for dailies, then the mechanism is to use BLGs, which again it's a variation of TCS (Truelight Color Spaces, that is based on transforms). But in that case EVERYTHING comes across, including windows. But use of windows in dailies is highly irregular.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Not really. There are many variations of LUTs for different software manufacturers. Usually .cube will work, but it's not guaranteed. Only ACES can guarantee universal acceptance. If you're using a Daylight for dailies, then the mechanism is to use BLGs, which again it's a variation of TCS (Truelight Color Spaces, that is based on transforms). But in that case EVERYTHING comes across, including windows. But use of windows in dailies is highly irregular.

I think Phil means it´s easy to translate so it fits to any grading suite, if there is a lut that can not be transfered so it fits the grading suite, then I would say there is likely something wrong with the lut or the suite. But often it´s not a one click solve. But mostly less than 3, like open, transform, save.



"Lattice" does the transforms between most formats.