New Color Grading Tool Coming to FCPX

[Marc Wielage]

Yes there has been a saturation of LUTs in the marketplace. I suspect some of the newer one's are merely looks or presets, but I believe their popularity is because the word LUT has become sort of a buzz word and also due to their interchangeability with many systems. Yes they were originally designed for speed and to tackle complex issues of matching a film print with a DI suite, but a couple of companies have recognized that they could be used to emulate film. Am I saying this is the end all be all solution to matching old celluloid? I'm not, I'm just saying that with film being nearly dead some have sought by various means to transform the cameras native color space/color profile to something more reminiscent of film. Do I think big Hollywood does this? I don't know.

I can tell you for a fact that none of the Hollywood post houses I'm aware of (Technicolor, Deluxe, eFilm, CO3, Modern Videofilm, Level 3, Encore, etc.) use commercially-available LUTs per se. All of them develop custom viewing and output LUTs, and many colorists (I'm reluctant to say most) use a vast array of pre-fab looks as Powergrades, at least for those facilities using Resolve. I had lunch with a friend of mine at another facility a few weeks ago, and when I asked him if they were using any LUTs, he practically did a spit-take -- and this is a guy who's worked as long as I have in LA and also has hundreds of colorist credits on IMDB, as we both do. His feeling was that LUTs in this situation are ridiculous. A week later, I spoke to two top engineers at one of the biggest companies in town, and they laughed as well. My hand to god, this was the response.

Frankly, do I care if a lot of individuals or companies create LUTs out of their bedroom and it's a race to the bottom on price? No I don't care, because in the end the market determine's the true value of a product and that's the beauty of a free market system. The end user/client will determine which experiences or expertise are worth paying for and isn't it a blessed thing to be a creative and do what we love for a living?

That is true in a sense, but I'm saddened by the misinformation by people who are essentially selling a "fast 'n' simple" way of changing images that is not really color-correction. And speaking as a guy who actually worked with real film for 30 years, I can say I've never encountered a LUT that could truly transform a digital image into something resembling a specific 35mm negative or print emulsion -- even the ones that Kodak developed for their in-house Wildstar system, which I used for 2 years at Cinesite, or Technicolor's LUTher system, which I used on and off for 10 years at Tech/Hollywood. All of this stuff was smoke and mirrors. But I am a believer in viewing LUTs for some kind of transforms, and you do need a real film emulation LUT when recording out to film. Everything else is merely a creative choice, and much of what I see out on the net represent bad choices.

I have absolutely no problem with people selling looks on the net marketed as looks -- as Mr. Riddle does. Those at least people can watch the demo and decide if they work or not. But I do wince when anybody (like the o.p.) essentially says, "I have a simple system designed to let unskilled people do their own color correction." I have the same problem with people trying to mix sound in editing systems and doing VFX composites in editing systems. Sure, you can do it... but it's so much better to hire experienced people with great software instead.

 

[Denver Riddle]

That's more like a discussion and I get a similar response from my business and development partner who is an industry expert on color transforms. So I appreciate your take and your background is duly noted.

To be candid, I think that perhaps the jury may still be out because you have color transform experts and color scientists that are both developing these things commercially and you have others scratching their heads.

Then you have colorists that say, LUT what!?! And budding filmmakers applying LUTs to all their stuff and both are caught in the middle.

I agree with you there are better ways to match the color representation of film than with LUTs and it is only a small piece to the overall puzzle as DI has been going on for now fifteen years and it is the colorists expertise that shapes the final grade.

This obsession with film will either continue or eventually die out.

Who knows what the discussions will be in five years.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I agree with you there are better ways to match the color representation of film than with LUTs and it is only a small piece to the overall puzzle as DI has been going on for now fifteen years and it is the colorists expertise that shapes the final grade.

We're in total agreement there, Denver, and I agree with this philosophy.

I would add that it's also the cinematographer's vision, and often the DP or the director pushes me in directions I never would have expected had I been left to my own devices. Sometimes what seems obvious to me is perplexing to the client and vice-versa, but we always find a way to make it work. I also always, always keep in mind it's their film, not mine, and I work very hard to give them the look they want. Hell, if somebody insisted on using a LUT, I'd shrug and say, "sure -- let's try it." But if I could give them the same look by hand, I'd show them that and move on.

Film per se is not a look but just a medium. There's been a debate on what "the film look" is for more than 40 years, going back to Mark Schubin's many essays in Videography magazine and many, many technical articles in the SMPTE Journal and in American Cinematographer. I think most people have moved on to finding a look that works for the story, and it's not necessarily about making it look like film... it's more like complimenting the lighting and pushing the story forward, while solving any lighting or exposure issues during production. Half my work these days has nothing to do with LUTs, but more about emphasizing and deemphasizing different things in the frame through lots of power windows. As you know, none of this is a button -- it's trial and error, analysis, trying to bring out the best in the image while preserving the DP's approach and keeping it all consistent.

 

[David Battistella]

Denver,

It's not cool to post private email correspondence in a thread. Have these conversations privately.

Battistella

 

[jake blackstone]

Jake I wish you would have just said something. Frankly I couldn't recall what it was you were referring to until I had to search back through our correspondence to realize what was upsetting. If you're referring to a demo video I made over 2 years ago for Resolve where I implemented the "Dragan" effect which I had a clue to but you gave me the name for it I apologize I didn't give you credit, it was never my intent to make you feel slighted. I suppose I didn't think to give you credit because I was crediting the original author Andrzej Dragan though I agree that using one of your images as an example of the effect without permission wasn't in the best taste. For that please accept my sincere apology and consider my explanation.

I think perhaps you may be thinking that I gleaned the information from you for the sole purpose of using it as a tutorial which further couldn't be from the truth. I was working with a client then who had a particular look they were wanting and THEY pointed me in fact to your work as an example. I had a clue to the look but I thought I would reach out to you anyway having a good past correspondence.

So, let me get it straight. Your client asked you to do a look specifically based on my work. You contact me and ask for help. I helped you with the explanation. BTW, there was much more, that just the name of the effect, i actually walked you though it. You never mentioned to me, that you were doing a job. All you wanted to know, is how the look was achieved. Nevertheless, armed with that information you did the job, then miraculously you also decided to do the tutorial on that look, while using my image in your tutorial. And you still insisting, that you came up with all this on your own and it didn't dawn on you, that it may be a good idea to at least give a attribution? And you still wondering why we're no longer communicating?

 

[Denver Riddle]

I'm clearly being censored here NOT for the sake of privacy (sharing the actual correspondence between myself the client and Jake) but because it's not favorable to Jake's grasping accusations. Jake wants me to credit him instead of the original author for an effect that i shared in a tutorial highlighting the new features in Resolve 9 (over two years ago) called the "Dragan" effect by Andrzej Dragan a Polish photographer. A client of mine reached out to me asking me how to achieve the effect and the CLIENT shared a link to an example of it which was Jake's work. I described to my client how to achieve the effect but that I would ask Jake for further details since I knew of him and liked him. Jake's response was simply to tell me the name of the effect and to just Google it. That was it... Jake cannot furnish any proof of his assistance beyond that.

Jake is grasping here and he's clearly intent on damaging my reputation. I have apologized where I could and have tried to reason with him I have even given him my private email and Skype name in private exchange so we could work it out face to face as opposed to 1's and 0's. He has no interest in that however and so I am bowing out of the conversation as I have no interest of trading barbs back and forth because I have seen where these type of threads go.

I am however saddened David that all the other points and opinions expressed were also deleted besides the private email correspondence in question. I should like to share the original post with the private email correspondence being omitted. I should think that's fair.

Original Post:
===========================================================
Jake I wish you would have just said something. Frankly I couldn't recall what it was you were referring to until I had to search back through our correspondence to realize what was upsetting. If you're referring to a demo video I made over 2 years ago for Resolve where I implemented the "Dragan" effect which I had a clue to but you gave me the name for it I apologize I didn't give you credit, it was never my intent to make you feel slighted. I suppose I didn't think to give you credit because I was crediting the original author Andrzej Dragan though I agree that using one of your images as an example of the effect without permission wasn't in the best taste. For that please accept my sincere apology and consider my explanation.

I think perhaps you may be thinking that I gleaned the information from you for the sole purpose of using it as a tutorial which further couldn't be from the truth. I was working with a client then who had a particular look they were wanting and THEY pointed me in fact to your work as an example. I had a clue to the look but I thought I would reach out to you anyway having a good past correspondence.

The following is the correspondance with the client and our IM:
# # #
OMITTED
# # #

When I was higlighting the new features of Resolve 9 a month later I thought that the Dragan effect (though just becoming popular in grading) was already common knowledge as it already had a name and you told me to just 'google it'. Here is the video: http://youtu.be/tAbaIfMYys0?t=1m22s

Now please forgive me if this is not the instance you're referring to, if it's something else I want to know.

I recognize that this was probably borne all out of a misunderstanding and communication is always key, but we could have worked this out if you'd just reached out at me. I would have given credit as an annotation next to your image or in the description or even blocked the image out entirely with an annotation if you didn't want it used.

I always desire to be fair and seek reconciliation where possible. Of course I'm not perfect and mistakes are made. I'm really trying to be a descent guy here. If you are so interested in my 'professional' work I'd love to swap stories and trade good banter back and forth but this discussion is turning negative and if you just want to trade barbs back and forth then I will just bow out of that. Feel free to contact me via email Jake.

I obviously don't spend a lot of time here on reduser but I've submitted the real name request per David.

If you want to have a discussion about "magical LUTs" and all the other grading products that have saturated the market (the points here I mostly agree with) then let's talk about them. But to trash budding artists for using a LUT, preset or to say one isn't a 'working colorist' is just simply elitism; talking down on someone else to make yourself feel better but I digress.

Yes there has been a saturation of LUTs in the marketplace. I suspect some of the newer one's are merely looks or presets, but I believe their popularity is because the word LUT has become sort of a buzz word and also due to their interchangeability with many systems. Yes they were originally designed for speed and to tackle complex issues of matching a film print with a DI suite, but a couple of companies have recognized that they could be used to emulate film. Am I saying this is the end all be all solution to matching old celluloid? I'm not, I'm just saying that with film being nearly dead some have sought by various ways to transform the cameras native color space/color profile to something more reminiscent of film. Do I think big Hollywood does this? I don't know. But there is a great deal of sophistication and detail that goes into creating these just as there were when labs were creating LUTs to match the DI suite for the film out. Don't believe me? Well consider the fact that the color scientist and original founder of VisionColor worked at Dolby laboratories and was recruited to go live in Japan to work for Canon. Another LUT company inked a deal with Adobe Systems and their proprietary work is found in some of the Adobe software.

Frankly do I care if a lot of individuals or companies create LUTs and it's a race to the bottom on price? No I don't care, because in the end the market determine's the true value of a product and that's the beauty of a free market system. The end user/client will determine which experiences or expertise are worth paying for and isn't it a blessed thing to be an artist and to do what you love for a living?
============================================================

 

[David Battistella]

Denver,

You might think you have been prejudged here. You have not.

You have broken a bit of a code by including personal e-mail into a public forum. That does not go over well here.

Further, you reposted your initial post.

I'm leaving this thread, leaving only the pertinent stuff, and leaving reputations in tact. If you feel you have a defamation of character suit, contact your lawyer but don't have these petty fights out in the open guys.

That includes all parties.

I'm closing this discussion right here.

Battistella