Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Kodak 2393 LUT emulation

Jake If you mean just making the effect in post, I think he's asking for an on camera LUT.

I like a LUT built into camera, because I can light for the image I'm imagining. With a LUT I can alter and massage the light to maximize its effect for what the the final intended look will be.
 
I could be wrong, but to me it seems he's looking to apply Kodak 2393 to his image in RCX.
Applying all these looks in camera, to me, feels like an overkill. Whatever happened to the old B/W video tap and a bit of imagination?:-)
 
Jake I doubt most of the users here ever had to work with a B&W video tap on a 7" Sony BVM monitor :-). ID love to know how many redusers have ever even loaded a Bolex much less a 35mm Arri 435 mag or anything analogue. ID bet not many.
 
Federico Rizzo said:
I want to save graded Rmds. It seems Rcx is the only way. It would be nice using LUTs. Some suggestions?
Click to expand...

If you want to see the look In-Camera while on set, well, you'll have to approximate it; there is no LUT importer in RCX, since that's just not how the metadata works. LUTs are basically an array of data that says "If the input is 1, change it to 2; if the input is 3, change it to 5 . . . " and on and on. Except, rather than list out all possible numbers, they generally only list, I think, about 17 points, and extrapolate from that to get a curve and to be able to figure out every single input and output. The metadata curve in R3D files only has 5 points. It is not intended for use with LUTs.

That's for on-set.

If you're talking about post production, then forget trying to do it in RCX, and just do it the proper way in a grading program, as Jake points out.
 
Nick Pasquariello said:
If you want to see the look In-Camera while on set, well, you'll have to approximate it; there is no LUT importer in RCX, since that's just not how the metadata works. LUTs are basically an array of data that says "If the input is 1, change it to 2; if the input is 3, change it to 5 . . . " and on and on. Except, rather than list out all possible numbers, they generally only list, I think, about 17 points, and extrapolate from that to get a curve and to be able to figure out every single input and output. The metadata curve in R3D files only has 5 points. It is not intended for use with LUTs.

That's for on-set.

If you're talking about post production, then forget trying to do it in RCX, and just do it the proper way in a grading program, as Jake points out.
Click to expand...

As I understand the look settings that are possible to create and lift to the camera are pretty much what is called 1D lut's where as the kodak stuff is 3D lut's. I guess graeme could actually make it so that the camera could display using a 3D lut. However today that's not possible, and it's not possible to mimic a 3D lut with a 1D lut. What you could do if you absolutly want to see your material on set trough a 3D lut is to use a "lut box" that takes 3D luts and use that on the SDI signal going to your ref monitor and also set the camera to redlogfilm... Today thats probably your best option.

But my advice would be more to try to focus on getting an image with proper exposure than trying to see how it looks trough a chain of color changing algorithms. Better to take a frame or such and try to grade it on a computer as to much fiddling with colors around the camera usually turns into... more fiddling with colors around the camera. Better to shoot with the camera and do color timing someplace else. Just as I hate when people, and epsecially DP's (that should know better) ask if the onset screens are calibrated and such. Then I usually turn the screens to black and white and ask them how they calibrated their monitors back when they shot film...
 
Björn Benckert said:
Just as I hate when people, and epsecially DP's (that should know better) ask if the onset screens are calibrated and such. Then I usually turn the screens to black and white and ask them how they calibrated their monitors back when they shot film...
Click to expand...

Yeah, me too...but clients/producers will always like/ask for a calibrated image...and...an image with an approximate LUT applied even more.
 
What frustrates me is those same inexperienced clients wonder why the set is taking so long, in the same breath as they ask for crew-time wasting activities like fiddling with what should be left for post on set.
 
Robert Ruffo New said:
What frustrates me is those same inexperienced clients wonder why the set is taking so long, in the same breath as they ask for crew-time wasting activities like fiddling with what should be left for post on set.
Click to expand...
I see a lot of that, too. It takes a very bright, experienced DP working in tandem with a good director to understand what has to be fixed on set, vs. what can easily be fixed in post. Generally, it's easier to take light away than to add it in post (as one example). If 2 hours of post work can save 30 minutes on the set, I say do it in post.

I think getting a few LUTs a day is all anybody should need. I'm bewildered that anybody thinks they have to build complicated looks, shot by shot, right on the set. To me, that's far too time-consuming -- but a near-set solution can work fine, especially to create a ballpark look that can be fine-tuned later. If you have lots of time, then more power to you.
 
Loading actual LUTs in-camera & in Red Cine X would be nice.

What I've done is matched the LUT (by eye) using the curves in Red Cine X. You can load this look in-camera to get a close approximation of what the LUT will do (or just make your own).

The colors aren't very accurate, but it could help to judge the contrast of the image (compared to using REDgamma3).

attachment.php


attachment.php


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Looks.zip
    Looks.zip
    2.5 KB · Views: 0
  • RG3.jpg
    RG3.jpg
    75.4 KB · Views: 0
  • Curve.jpg
    Curve.jpg
    82.7 KB · Views: 0
  • LUT.jpg
    LUT.jpg
    83.8 KB · Views: 0
Yes, there are several full-featured color-correctors that will let you approximate the look of a LUT to a point. Where it gets complicated is film-out display LUTs and stuff like that, which has to be calibrated with each lab. For better or worse, that problem is going away.

Vision Premiere 2393 typically has deeper blacks and more saturation than regular print stock, but only slightly. I'd guess maybe 6-7% more, not a big deal. "Print Look" for digital generally has meant "more contrast, slightly crushed" in years past.
 
I just used it on a pilot. We lit to the LUT, it depressed the darks in a nice way, and forced us to fill in a bit. It's low noise and has great color look. We got nearly finished looking footage in camera. I'm really happy with it.
 
Great!!

Great!!

John Schick said:
Loading actual LUTs in-camera & in Red Cine X would be nice.

What I've done is matched the LUT (by eye) using the curves in Red Cine X. You can load this look in-camera to get a close approximation of what the LUT will do (or just make your own).

The colors aren't very accurate, but it could help to judge the contrast of the image (compared to using REDgamma3).
Click to expand...


Thanks John, that's great stuff. One question. Would you advice for adjusting the FLUT control, or the Exposure control in FCPX for overall brightness / lifting skintones, etc adjustment?

Thanks and kind regards,


Martin Beek.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top