LUT Software - Combining LUTs

[Brendan H. Banks]

Really excited by the IPP2 updates and looking to create some custom LUTs to use in camera. I shoot Epic-W and was shooting RedLogFilm + 33pt creative LUT from VisionColor. Loving this combo but the new IPP2 stuff is such a great place to work from -- I'm hoping to combine some of the new IPP2 preview LUTs with some other creative LUTs to make a single cube to use in camera, and then also as a base for grading. I haven't really dabbled at all with LUT software but I am definitely looking to get into it a bit.

My main thing is that I would love to be able to import multiple LUTs, stack them, and export a single CUBE at different point variations. I know there are a good number of LUT creation tools, but I'm looking to tweak LUTs I trust for different scenarios instead of starting from the ground up. A bonus would be to also tweak or change the intensity of certain LUTs (in a similar way you can adjust the creative LUT in the new Lumetri panel).

I'm currently on Windows 10 after switching from OSX so a Windows program is what I'm looking for. It looks like Lattice is a great tool, but sadly is OSX only. It seems to be almost exactly the correct tool, though on a different OS. Any and all recommendations are welcome! Thanks.

 

[Michael Tiemann]

If you have friends who are handy with software, buy them a cup of coffee and ask them "hey, can you help me install pylut on my computer?"

https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pylut

 

[Brendan H. Banks]

If you have friends who are handy with software, buy them a cup of coffee and ask them "hey, can you help me install pylut on my computer?"

https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pylut

Oh wow that looks super interesting. I do have a buddy who is a professional programmer who I might be able to have help me out. Was thinking of something a little more out of the box but this is definitely a cool option.

 

[Anthony Berenato Jr]

You can also use an app called Lattice. it's a bit on the expensive side, but still worth all the money if LUTs are a part of your workflow:

https://lattice.videovillage.co


EDIT: I need to learn how to read, sadly. Didn't realize you were on a Windows computer ! Check to see if an app called 3D Lut Creator can combine LUTs together on the Windows side.

http://3dlutcreator.com

 

[jake blackstone]

Concatenating LUTs is a really bad idea...

 

[Brendan H. Banks]

Concatenating LUTs is a really bad idea...

Yeah I was actually thinking it's not really the right way to hand off for a grade. My biggest one is being able to preview the RWG+L3G10 to REC709 LUT and my REC709 Creative LUT together in camera when shooting. Do you think it's harmful to shoot with that as a preview LUT while using both input and creative LUTs when it comes to the grade?

EDIT: OH, or did you mean in general using an input with creative LUT is a bad idea.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Really excited by the IPP2 updates and looking to create some custom LUTs to use in camera. I shoot Epic-W and was shooting RedLogFilm + 33pt creative LUT from VisionColor. Loving this combo but the new IPP2 stuff is such a great place to work from -- I'm hoping to combine some of the new IPP2 preview LUTs with some other creative LUTs to make a single cube to use in camera, and then also as a base for grading. I haven't really dabbled at all with LUT software but I am definitely looking to get into it a bit.

My main thing is that I would love to be able to import multiple LUTs, stack them, and export a single CUBE at different point variations. I know there are a good number of LUT creation tools, but I'm looking to tweak LUTs I trust for different scenarios instead of starting from the ground up. A bonus would be to also tweak or change the intensity of certain LUTs (in a similar way you can adjust the creative LUT in the new Lumetri panel).

I'm currently on Windows 10 after switching from OSX so a Windows program is what I'm looking for. It looks like Lattice is a great tool, but sadly is OSX only. It seems to be almost exactly the correct tool, though on a different OS. Any and all recommendations are welcome! Thanks.

You have no idea what each LUT does at numerous points on micro levels of the signal and what the outcomes may be while you are playing with highly specific and highly relative image transformation predefining and affecting a lot of things. Regardless of the options, I suggest using as basis only what is designed for that camera and applying on top of that only what you can immediately see and remove or adjust if problematic. Whatever you make based on an image preference is unlikely to work the same way on other imagery because your decisions are based on one outcome and not what is defining that outcome. The more complex modifications you make on original basis, giving you the image aesthetic you appreciate, the less likely it is going to work properly across different scenarios.

If you hand off material to a colorist with a LUT burned in, run for cover and don't get back.

I'd listen to Jake here.

 

[M Most]

The largest tentpole features normally use one LUT (placed in the path as an output lut) and a CDL (placed in the path prior to that output LUT) for dailies. And that's it. No "creative LUT," no concatenation, no stacked transforms. Nothing but a CDL (which can be changed on a shot by shot basis if necessary) and a "show" LUT. The only additional transforms might be input LUTs to convert other cameras to the "working" colorspace of the primary camera. If that's good enough for them, it's should be good enough for anyone.

 

[Tom Gleeson]

I would not worry too much just be patient as Red is only using the IPP2 LUT as a temporary measure while they hammer out the specifics. Soon enough (I hope) Red will update their Firmware, RCX and their SDK and IPP2 will be built in and the use of LUT's will go back to "creative looks"

 

[Paul Sage]

Really excited by the IPP2 updates and looking to create some custom LUTs to use in camera. I shoot Epic-W and was shooting RedLogFilm + 33pt creative LUT from VisionColor. Loving this combo but the new IPP2 stuff is such a great place to work from -- I'm hoping to combine some of the new IPP2 preview LUTs with some other creative LUTs to make a single cube to use in camera, and then also as a base for grading. I haven't really dabbled at all with LUT software but I am definitely looking to get into it a bit.

My main thing is that I would love to be able to import multiple LUTs, stack them, and export a single CUBE at different point variations. I know there are a good number of LUT creation tools, but I'm looking to tweak LUTs I trust for different scenarios instead of starting from the ground up. A bonus would be to also tweak or change the intensity of certain LUTs (in a similar way you can adjust the creative LUT in the new Lumetri panel).

I'm currently on Windows 10 after switching from OSX so a Windows program is what I'm looking for. It looks like Lattice is a great tool, but sadly is OSX only. It seems to be almost exactly the correct tool, though on a different OS. Any and all recommendations are welcome! Thanks.

If you want to concatenate LUTs or prepend/append adjustments to them (and don't need more precision than 33point), make your desired node tree in Resolve, right click on the thumbnail of the shot your working on and select "generate 3D LUT". Doesn't work with shapes, etc..
This will generate a 33point 3D cube you can use as a viewing LUT.

Resolve is used on set often by DITs to make LUTs (for monitoring or dailies, but not baked into the source footage of course ).

 

[Marc Wielage]

Concatenating LUTs is a really bad idea...

I think Jake is very wise.

I think better advice for Brendan is to actually color-correct the picture, rather than relying on LUTs. It is possible to have a DIT on set generate a custom LUT that will at least get you in the ballpark for editing. But I wouldn't use it for anything beyond that.

Don't forget that many LUTs -- particularly the so-called "look LUTs" -- can be very destructive in terms of black and white clipping. LUTs are not the answer; very detailed color-correction is the answer.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

The largest tentpole features normally use one LUT (placed in the path as an output lut) and a CDL (placed in the path prior to that output LUT) for dailies. And that's it. No "creative LUT," no concatenation, no stacked transforms. Nothing but a CDL (which can be changed on a shot by shot basis if necessary) and a "show" LUT. The only additional transforms might be input LUTs to convert other cameras to the "working" colorspace of the primary camera. If that's good enough for them, it's should be good enough for anyone.

All true - EXCEPT - recently, the new, emerging trend is - the output lut IS the "creative lut"

The "show" lut is - P3 or 709 delog "tweeked to taste". Some more creative than others - some, simple subjective contrast and rolloff adjustments.

MOST shows I am aware of are now using CDL + "creative/output LUT" - aka "show" lut.

For the record ... I hate when people say "it's should be good enough for anyone". I remember very clearly when a flcikering black and white video tap was "good enough for anyone".

Personally, given the sensitivity, dynamic range and resolution of today's top of line cinema cameras - coupled with readily-available image processing tools - leveraging a creative LUT to effectively "create your own, custom film stock" is not only an obvious, logical step - it's a very powerful creative tool that wasn't easy to implement or correctly understand previously.

CDL + CREATIVE LUT is going to be the new norm.

As more cinematographers understand they can make their own custom, digital film stocks - that will react and represent colors and contrast the way they want ... they aren't going to go back.


Evolution - like it or not:

CAMERA > LAB IMAGE PROCESSING> EDIT > CREATIVE GRADE/FINISH

CAMERA > ON-SET/NEAR-SET IMAGE PROCESSING> EDIT > CREATIVE GRADE/FINISH

CAMERA / IMAGE PROCESSING > EDIT > CREATIVE GRADE/FINISH

 

[Brendan H. Banks]

Thanks for all this great information. I probably should have been more clear in the original post: I am looking primarily for a single LUT I can use in camera to get a good idea on set of a particular look that I like to use for the given content. The LUT I would hand off to the colorist is so they can get an idea of what I was going for on set, and give them an idea of a great place to build the image up from RWG+L3G10 to our look.

Great example is when I shot a piece in Detroit a while back -- we shot Epic Dragon and I did a one-light on my laptop quickly each night of the shoot and cooked up proxies for the edit. I got up early and went to the post house to deliver the drive as well as interface with the colorist before my flight out to another shoot. I let the colorist know a little bit about the look we want to achieve and told him about the one-light. We got on the phone the next day to discuss a pass he had made and he said having that information from my really quick color pass was incredibly helpful to getting it to a good place quickly, for our tight turnaround. He, of course, went back to RedLogFilm to begin his grade and my reference proxies were very helpful for him to build the image back up in a similar way to how I intended. In most cases, I am not afforded the luxury of a full DIT doing color services on set or having enough time at night to go through each and every clip myself. Having a stylized LUT that I use on set to get something of an idea of what we're going for while shooting, and then being able to pass along that information to a colorist I most likely won't meet in person is very valuable to preserving the image I'm intending to create.

Not trying to set and forget a LUT at all, but I have a set of emulation stock LUTs I use in combination with one another while on set to help with so many decisions that get made. I also want to apologize if some of my terminology is off. Not trying to skip taking the time to color, in fact I'm trying to give the colorist more time to work creatively by giving a great reference to a starting point.

Tom - yeah I'm hoping that's the case but I also am not sure I've seen it said anywhere that this will happen. It seems like it would add another step in the pipeline in the camera which I'm not sure is possible. Have you seen anyone from RED say that this was definitely happening? I haven't read every single post on the topic but am trying to stay up on it between shoots.

Paul - thanks so much! I actually didn't know that about resolve. That pretty much will cover my needs while testing.

 

[M Most]

If you're just trying to give a colorist a reference, just give them images. LUTs are unimportant. The result is important. If you're trying to communicate a photographic intent, use a photograph.

 

[Björn Benckert]

If you're just trying to give a colorist a reference, just give them images. LUTs are unimportant. The result is important. If you're trying to communicate a photographic intent, use a photograph.

I think you miss the point here. You can not create graded images in the camera all you can do is look at the content that you record, see it trough luts as you do and then that lut is stored in the same folder as the r3d. So simply there will be a lut and there will be an r3d. It´s not really the future to render the colorist a baked file from each scene so he can see it as, it was shot is it? To me its much better to forward the raw file and the lut no?

No matter if you when grading are using that lut or not it still works very well as a reference, no?

 

[Aharon Rothschild]

https://www.rogerdeakins.com/post-the-di/luts/
Roger Deakins has one LUT that he likes to use on monitor and there are CDL adjustments upstream.
@ Brendan it sounds like you wont have indivudual adjustments
scene to scene so you might create a Day and Night on set LUT with a colorist using a look you like on similiar material. These can be very helpful on set expecially when you have a few to work with.

 

[M Most]

I think you miss the point here. You can not create graded images in the camera all you can do is look at the content that you record, see it trough luts as you do and then that lut is stored in the same folder as the r3d. So simply there will be a lut and there will be an r3d. It´s not really the future to render the colorist a baked file from each scene so he can see it as, it was shot is it? To me its much better to forward the raw file and the lut no?

No matter if you when grading are using that lut or not it still works very well as a reference, no?

This has nothing to do with future, past, or any timeframe. It has to do with communicating a visual intent. What's being described sounds simple, but I have to say that I have seen it messed up in more ways than you can imagine in practice. Changing the metadata, using a different gamma/matrix setting, looking at a monitor that isn't properly calibrated, all of these things and more can ruin what seems to be a "simple" approach. Capturing the monitoring output, or simply rendering one frame from the resulting file and making it look the way you want, produces something far less ambiguous and more to the point for a colorist. But each to their own.

 

[jake blackstone]

I think you miss the point here. You can not create graded images in the camera all you can do is look at the content that you record, see it trough luts as you do and then that lut is stored in the same folder as the r3d. So simply there will be a lut and there will be an r3d. It´s not really the future to render the colorist a baked file from each scene so he can see it as, it was shot is it? To me its much better to forward the raw file and the lut no?

No matter if you when grading are using that lut or not it still works very well as a reference, no?

No, the future is here and now and it is not using LUTs whatsoever. Instead of LUTs transforms are used, like the ones used with ACES. FilmLight has a workflow from Prelight to Daylight to Avid with Baselight Editions to Nuke with Baselight Editions and finally to Baselight all using the same common non destructive tools- BLGs. Nothing is ever get's baked in and everyone is on the same page. And, unlike LUTs, BLGs don't have a limitation, where they can only be used with primary adjustments. With BLGs you're free to use masks, keys, color transforms etc.

 

[Paul Sage]

Thanks for all this great information. I probably should have been more clear in the original post: I am looking primarily for a single LUT I can use in camera to get a good idea on set of a particular look that I like to use for the given content. The LUT I would hand off to the colorist is so they can get an idea of what I was going for on set, and give them an idea of a great place to build the image up from RWG+L3G10 to our look.

Great example is when I shot a piece in Detroit a while back -- we shot Epic Dragon and I did a one-light on my laptop quickly each night of the shoot and cooked up proxies for the edit. I got up early and went to the post house to deliver the drive as well as interface with the colorist before my flight out to another shoot. I let the colorist know a little bit about the look we want to achieve and told him about the one-light. We got on the phone the next day to discuss a pass he had made and he said having that information from my really quick color pass was incredibly helpful to getting it to a good place quickly, for our tight turnaround. He, of course, went back to RedLogFilm to begin his grade and my reference proxies were very helpful for him to build the image back up in a similar way to how I intended. In most cases, I am not afforded the luxury of a full DIT doing color services on set or having enough time at night to go through each and every clip myself. Having a stylized LUT that I use on set to get something of an idea of what we're going for while shooting, and then being able to pass along that information to a colorist I most likely won't meet in person is very valuable to preserving the image I'm intending to create.

Not trying to set and forget a LUT at all, but I have a set of emulation stock LUTs I use in combination with one another while on set to help with so many decisions that get made. I also want to apologize if some of my terminology is off. Not trying to skip taking the time to color, in fact I'm trying to give the colorist more time to work creatively by giving a great reference to a starting point.

Tom - yeah I'm hoping that's the case but I also am not sure I've seen it said anywhere that this will happen. It seems like it would add another step in the pipeline in the camera which I'm not sure is possible. Have you seen anyone from RED say that this was definitely happening? I haven't read every single post on the topic but am trying to stay up on it between shoots.

Paul - thanks so much! I actually didn't know that about resolve. That pretty much will cover my needs while testing.

Sounds totally reasonable.
Aside from communicating your "look" intentions to your colorist, there are other benefits to having a simple ballpark viewing LUT on set (one for day and one for night).
For example, if the "look" your going for has a dense mid to low end, it could be helpful to see this as a preview on a calibrated monitor on set just in case you need to add some more fill light to certain parts of your frame in lower light scenes.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Thanks for all this great information. I probably should have been more clear in the original post: I am looking primarily for a single LUT I can use in camera to get a good idea on set of a particular look that I like to use for the given content.

If it's with a Red Camera (like a Dragon), then I would just use DragonColor and DragonGamma for dailies, monitor with that on the set and have the editor use those images, and then furnish that to the colorist as a ballpark look. Know going in that you'll have much, much more range in final color. I personally don't believe this is something you need to overthink, provided you have a calibrated monitor on set.

One important consideration is that people use a lot of power windows in post these days, confining very specific kinds of exposure and color to various parts of the frame (large and small), and none of that is possible with LUTs. The windows and masks can have a drastic effect on the final look of the image.

I frequently will drag along the editors' temp version as a reference, so that I can show the director, "there's what you had originally, and here's where we are right now in color correction." That way, they can see how far we've gone from their original look (even if it's just very subtle). If necessary, it's always possible for the editor and director to request a "temp version" that goes a little further in terms of color, even prior to the final color correction. Often this is necessary just to match scenes in cases where it wasn't possible to match the lighting on location, particularly with varying weather conditions.

No, the future is here and now and it is not using LUTs whatsoever. Instead of LUTs transforms are used, like the ones used with ACES. FilmLight has a workflow from Prelight to Daylight to Avid with Baselight Editions to Nuke with Baselight Editions and finally to Baselight all using the same common non destructive tools- BLGs. Nothing is ever get's baked in and everyone is on the same page. And, unlike LUTs, BLGs don't have a limitation, where they can only be used with primary adjustments. With BLGs you're free to use masks, keys, color transforms etc.

That's true, unless you're doing all your post with a company that doesn't use Baselight. You could theoretically use any system for on-set dailies and a similar system for final color, not necessarily Baselight. I like Baselight for a lot of things, but there are always alternatives, sometimes with very good reasons for using them (including cost and logistics).