Dragon Color science emulate film?

[Björn Benckert]

jup when client is bored they can sit and play with an ektacrome lut together with the DIT...

 

[Filip Orlandic]

You can see how FujiFilm 3510 print out LUT affects DSC GrayScale generic image.

Phil's Dragon R3D


RedColor3/RedLogFilm + FujiFilm 3510 3dLut

RedColor3/RedGamma3

 

[paulherrin]

May as well put a Canon lens cap on my Scarlet because same difference, right?

i do this all the time in the field without experiencing any problems. obviously, the red looks a lot better...

film-luts look good if that's what you're going for.
grading is a good idea no matter what you're going for.

i don't know how many times i've said it, but i think it's silly to try to copy the thing that's copying the other thing - as the end all be all!

so, as appropriate... in addition to copy/paste-look and video/dcinema-look can we please start talking about eyeball-look and brain-look and imagination-look?

 

[Alain M]

How about HLS filter to be able to push individual color Saturation, Hue, etc...? That would be sweet too!

 

[Marc Wielage]

so, as appropriate... in addition to copy/paste-look and video/dcinema-look can we please start talking about eyeball-look and brain-look and imagination-look?

That's essentially the thing. People forget that so much of the look boils down to the emotion of the scene. It's not always about numbers and colorspace; it's about feel. A LUT is going to give you a calculated value, not always what you intended. And it's still just a starting point for the final. There's no real math for human emotion.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Isn't that a misuse though of a print-out LUT? The point of such a LUT isn't to apply a "look" so much as to let you know how your image will change so that you can grade out the 'artifacts' of the print-out process as part of your grade. I always find it a bit curious when people use print LUTs as a final 'look'. The correct workflow would be to apply the LUT and then grade your input image back to "neutral" or whatever look you're trying to go for? I would go full circle: apply the Fuji LUT and then re-white balance and black balance to neutral.

But yes, definitely sign me up for .cube support in RCX (+1000 for in camera). I've generated .cubes from most of the basic FilmConvert film stocks and white balances for consistency between software packages. It would be unbelievably awesome to just drop one of those into my camera and see Vision 3 straight out of the SDI tap.

 

[paulherrin]

technically, yes it is... but it's become increasingly popular to use stock LUTs for 'film-look' presets. lots of plug and no play going on and getting called 'grading' - i don't care what you do to your image or how you get it where you want it, but the problem with these preset-filter-things (see instagram) is that, in some wild effort to be a creative copier of things that once were (i.e. being artsy), everything starts looking exactly the same and blurry and fuzzy. that's what happens with homogenized sources. exactly how it was when i first went to art school - everybody trying to look 'different' was basically doing 'different' the same way - eventually they realized what they were buying into and found their own means of artistic expression.

there's nothing wrong with traditional techniques or classical looks, just don't kid yourself about the creative process. as a youngster i've seen and survived some of the worst: yo-yo fads and beanie-baby fads and pokemon card fads and on and on. the hipster/vintage/film-look fad will fade and we'll have another. can't wait... :skep:

 

[David Battistella]

I don't know what you mean by RED should strive to look like RED.

It all starts with their sensor and that is RED's sensor and not Canon or ARRI. What I mean is that RED has a RED aesthetic no matter what you do to it, so I mean that they should squeeze the most out of there technology, not strive to make it look like something else (like film) because it is not, and that is generally matchable and achievable with post tools.

They should only concern themselves with creating the best image with their tools, not shape their sensor to fall into a REC 709 spec (for example).

Battistella

 

[David Battistella]

To me it would be great if RCXP could import 3dLUT files. Then I can make a grade in any program and just export it and have it with me on shoots and such and get the transcodes done with it applied on top of whats goes on in REDCXP. Basically a final log2lin user prefered lut that lets me use redlogfilm or any other setting underneath the lut. Also ofcourse Red cine should be able to create 3Dluts.

I agree that this would be a good thing if they moved to a LUT standard, and I guess you would want to import that into the camera as well? the way camera looks can be exported from RCX. Can this be done with ARRI or F65 (not sure) ?

Danger here again is misuse and the resulting FUD that goes along with the "look" of RED.



Battistella

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

thing is, LUTs, at least for me, not a colorist at all - though sometimes I have to play as one if a project can't afford a pro - is a good starting point for color grading.

It may seem as a good starting point for color grading because in the start it seems to achieve "something", some relatively defined aesthetic which without the context and all by itself can seem as pleasing, and it is achieved with less effort, but it is actually the worst possible starting point.

A good starting point would be playing with colors, defining the emotion and trying to adapt to it. Not adapting to the image transform pre-defined by someone else which pre-determines and limits many grading routes.

At first, it was a total mess. Than I fixed things like hue, saturation, contrast bla bla and it became better than a no-LUT color grading would be.

When you fixed the hues, contrast, saturation etc you practically defeated the purpose of that LUT and just used some of its properties to offset more from the factual looking digital material.

The reason that result may look "better" or may look "like film" is not because it precisely does, it is because it looks less like digitally acquired/less medium aesthetically affected/almost sterile looking image, and in general, mind has only two main references. If you would have never seen any round fruit except a water melon and an orange, the first time you'd see an apple it would look like an orange but a differently colored smoother one.

Which is the same perceptive effect with most "film look" plugins made over the years. Which do not look like film.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

It may seem as a good starting point for color grading because in the start it seems to achieve the more desirable result with less effort but it is actually the worst possible starting point. A good starting point is playing with colors, defining the emotion and trying to adapt to it. Not adapting to the pre-defined transform.

It depends on the LUT. A RC3 -> Vision3 LUT gives you Vision3 as a starting point. Lots of DPs love Vision 3. Where you from there for emotion and color and tone is still up to you.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Isn't that a misuse though of a print-out LUT? The point of such a LUT isn't to apply a "look" so much as to let you know how your image will change so that you can grade out the 'artifacts' of the print-out process as part of your grade. I always find it a bit curious when people use print LUTs as a final 'look'. The correct workflow would be to apply the LUT and then grade your input image back to "neutral" or whatever look you're trying to go for? I would go full circle: apply the Fuji LUT and then re-white balance and black balance to neutral.

But yes, definitely sign me up for .cube support in RCX (+1000 for in camera). I've generated .cubes from most of the basic FilmConvert film stocks and white balances for consistency between software packages. It would be unbelievably awesome to just drop one of those into my camera and see Vision 3 straight out of the SDI tap.

Yes that is very important and people tend to do it the other way around. It's no good practice to alter the colors after applying the lut. The way they are intended to be used is as a final node of your grade. So important to alter the colors upstream of the print lut while looking at the result at the end of the node tree. If used in that order you will notice that your dynamic rounding will improve and colors will behave and turn out more towards how fuji and kodak color paper prints and film prints look.

And I think not many would argue against the fact that Kodak and Fuji are the two most successful companies so far when it comes to color science. Their work and development might have been all analog and revolving around celluloid and silver, but still most DP's an people working with pictures would claim that those two companies nailed their color science better than any one else so far even though they both are struggling at the moment. But that has very little to do with the quality of the color science they developed... more to do with the cost and hassle to use film.


In Filips example above the film print example looks unbalanced and has a warm tint. Basically that due to the fact that the the redlog source node should be piped to a Exposure / CC node then to the filmprint lut. The Exposure CC node should then be altered so that the picture looks balanced after the filmprint lut. Then, at least to me that result image would look smashing in comparison, more fidelity more vibrant colors etc just like film. But as it is done now that image got a white balance that was correct for the REDGAMMA3 color science and thats not making the most of it. Just like a white balance suited for a certain Print lut probably does not make REDGAMMA3 look it's best.

Basically film or film print luts are not yellow looking, if thats the result you see then your input is not cold enough.

Attached a picture in red log film and then graded to be balanced after a Kodak239CUSPclip lut white in the background guys scarfs are still white downstream from lut.. I think I altered pretty much everything as contrast gamma etc. but still it's very possible to stay with colors balanced.

 

[Matthew Glover]

newb question here about coloring. Do professional colorist even bother with luts? Do they use them as a starting point and change them on the way? Or is it all from scratch? Just a little confused. From what iv heard most tend to not use Luts.

 

[paulherrin]

can't speak for everyone but personally in my workflow i do not. typically lut's are used for technical/viewing purposes.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

newb question here about coloring. Do professional colorist even bother with luts? Do they use them as a starting point and change them on the way? Or is it all from scratch? Just a little confused. From what iv heard most tend to not use Luts.

Everyone uses LUTs. REDGamm3 is a LUT. It takes the linear output from RED and maps it to something approximating sRGB. If you're working in sRGB (video) space then there is a LUT behind the scenes converting it to linear for output from the LCD (LCDs as is real life in linear). If you're working in log space then there is a log -> sRGB framebuffer LUT-> linear LUT (the last bit somewhere in the monitor). If you're working directly in linear colorspace then your OS wants the framebuffer in sRGB space so there'll be a linear -> sRGB LUT (Which is then by your monitor converted back to linear). If you are planning on outputting to film you should have a printing emulation LUT on your viewer. If you're working in ACES space there is an ACES -> sRGB lut for your framebuffer.

At the very least though there is a RAW -> REDColor 3DLUT somewhere in your pipeline if you shoot red. RED calls it the "SDK" but the "SDK" is ultimately a decryption algorithm, tied to a JPEG2000 reader + audio sauce, tied to a debayer algorithm tied to a 3DLUT.

To quote Yoda, LUTs are all around us... they surround us, they penetrate us... they... bind the universe together?

 

[paulherrin]

you're complicating the question, gavin... but i commend anything that brings yoda to the discussion, although that was obi-wan and it's the galaxy...

whether the force of luts ripples across the multiverse is an entirely separate matter which should be discussed by the council.
these aren't the droids you're looking for...

 

[Matt Fleming]

you're complicating the question, gavin... but i commend anything that brings yoda to the discussion, although that was obi-wan and it's the galaxy...

Ooops

[Luke can't levitate his X-Wing out of the bog]
Luke: I can't. It's too big.
Yoda: Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship.

 

[Gabriele Turchi]

newb question here about coloring. Do professional colorist even bother with luts? Do they use them as a starting point and change them on the way? Or is it all from scratch? Just a little confused. From what iv heard most tend to not use Luts.

if a colorist use emulations LUTs it is a bad sign... to emulation LUTs are the cheap way to achieve something that should be achieved properly manually .
emulations LUTS (even if color corrected before and after ) gets you at BEST @ 80% of the potential (of the specific look you are going for ( let's say kodak ) + and most of the times cause problems (specially in the shadows ) , doing it manually (if you know what you are doing ) would get you 20% further.

Personally i can tell when a print LUT is applied to a digital camera quite easily .

without mention the fact that now that luts spread over the forums, now " all footage "look "the same" ... like if an image does not need an interpretation 0color wise) but it need that same mathematical translation and look...
anyway my 2 cents

 

[Phil Holland]

without mention the fact that now that luts spread over the forums, now " all footage "look "the same" ... like if an image does not need an interpretation 0color wise) but it need that same mathematical translation and look...

That's why some folks don't share theirs

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

you're complicating the question, gavin...

if a colorist use emulations LUTs it is a bad sign

I actually think I'm de-complicating the question. The question is whether people use LUTs and the answer is "of course they do" everybody does. Whether you use REDColor3 or you use Vision3 the result is exactly the same... you're using a LUT to start with. REDColor3 is as much an "Emulation LUT" as is "Vision 3" so to say that using a LUT as a starting point is a bad sign is nonsense since EVERY piece of RED footage runs through a LUT as its first step. If you see something bad in an film LUT it's a bad LUT. Gabrielle, I assume you use REDColor 3. Congrats, you just used a LUT to move RED's natural response curve into something RED thinks is more pleasing.

Everybody has a starting point. Everybody. There is nothing intrinsically good or wrong or bad or unique about using a specific LUT. For every person who starts from Vision3, 100 people are starting from RC3. If you can pick out who starts from Vision3 color science you should also be tired of the 100 other people who start from RC3 color science.

Also if a colorist or compositor isn't using print-emulation LUTs and they plan on creating a 35mm projection print then they are going to get an extremely unexpected result.