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 :)

skintone

Björn Benckert said:
They have during these hundred years of development tried to come up with the perfect blend to bing out the skin tones and extend the tonal difference in their picture presentation. It's actually also so that the fuji prints are developed to keep skintones nice for asian, as their market was bigger over there were as kodak was aiming more towards the more pale faced americans.
Click to expand...


Fascinating! I love getting history lessons.
 
Very cool. I'm looking forward to checking it out.

mikeburton said:
My company "Pretty Moving Pictures" had the pleasure of working with Paul Cameron on setting up the workflow from the camera back. Dane Brehm was the DIT and with Paul's approval Dane and I tried to make Dead Man Down be the first major feature to record ArriRaw on the Gemini 444 recorder. Unfortunately, that wasn't quite production ready when we entered into production so Codex ended up recording the ArriRaw instead. Dane used our mobile lab systems to backup, grade and send 3D LUT's to our Dailies facility via Scratch Labs. Very cool show to be a part of and it looks great. I think CO3 is doing the color but I could be mistaken.
Click to expand...
 
Mike P. said:
Was any other tweaking done to this Shervin (e.g. made bluer to enhance the day-for-night)?

While I think it's a little too blue for my personal taste (unless you did more than just add the LUT), it's insane how much more differentiation the LUT puts between white and skin tone... That's awesome. And with cheap LEDs you say? Colour me intrigued.
Click to expand...

The blue I think I oversaturated to make it look a bit colder and to give it more seperation from the actors face... I think it definitely gives a feeling of night time this way. On the other hand, I could easily make this daytime by just throwing on the LUT and doing a gamma/shadow shift. I just went for the night look just to see how flexible it was given that the LUT is balanced for daylight sources and not necessarily muddy source (Like a cheap Chinese LED with a crappy CRI).

I threw on some vignetting in that scene and brought the saturation a bit lower... it looks ALOT more like night now. Loving what you can do in Resolve with a simple LUT and some knowledge of colours...
 
you could probably try desaturating it and bringing the levels and contrast down... you don't necessarily need any more blue tint
 
I just want to jump in and say I love this thread. Lots of great information here.
 
No offense but some people in this forum spend so much time with the Red Camera, that they soon forget how film really looks. Why I have to get rid of that nice blue color cast in the mid-low shadows that the LUT is giving me?
What the LUT is doing is nothing but an accurate representation of the film stock I am trying to emulate.. Like Bjorn said, no because I received a Fedex package that is labeled RED Epic camera, necessarily have to look Red..

See how gorgeous this colors look even with the blue color cast..
 
Pablo Moreno said:
No offense but some people in this forum spend so much time with the Red Camera, that they soon forget how film really looks. Why I have to get rid of that nice blue color cast in the mid-low shadows that the LUT is giving me?
What the LUT is doing is nothing but an accurate representation of the film stock I am trying to emulate.. Like Bjorn said, no because I received a Fedex package that is labeled RED Epic camera, necessarily have to look Red..

See how gorgeous this colors look even with the blue color cast..
Click to expand...

Totally agree with you Pablo. I'm an advocate of digital replacing film, and it begins with making the digital stuff you've shot look like film stock. Sure the blues and skin tones might be exaggerated, but that's the beauty of 16bit RAW and a colorists imagination... you have twiddle and tweak until it's perfect.

If you like the digital look of the current RED color science, sure by all means shoot and grade with that in mind, who are we to say a film look is better than a digital one?

Hands down these LUT's are beating the living sh*t out of what RC3/RG3 do in my opinion for that stylized look. No offense to Graeme as clearly he wasn't going to make a color science that mimicked a certain type of stock.
 
Wow. Very informative. Thanks Pablo!

Pablo Moreno said:
No offense but some people in this forum spend so much time with the Red Camera, that they soon forget how film really looks. Why I have to get rid of that nice blue color cast in the mid-low shadows that the LUT is giving me?
What the LUT is doing is nothing but an accurate representation of the film stock I am trying to emulate.. Like Bjorn said, no because I received a Fedex package that is labeled RED Epic camera, necessarily have to look Red..

See how gorgeous this colors look even with the blue color cast..
Click to expand...
 
no offense, i'm just suggesting that there are options beside using 'film-look' up tables... there's some really great looks popping up in this thread and i love it. blue is one of my favorite colors. if you like some blue in your image and you want a film-look i'm totally cool with that and i love it and i've used it quite a bit and will continue to do so. but, there are alternative philosophies - personally, i'd rather imitate the eye than imitate the thing that's imitating the eye. just me, just sayin' - do what you do, it appears to be working :)
 
paulherrin said:
no offense, i'm just suggesting that there are options beside using 'film-look' up tables... there's some really great looks popping up in this thread and i love it. blue is one of my favorite colors. if you like some blue in your image and you want a film-look i'm totally cool with that and i love it and i've used it quite a bit and will continue to do so. but, there are alternative philosophies - personally, i'd rather imitate the eye than imitate the thing that's imitating the eye. just me, just sayin' - do what you do, it appears to be working :)
Click to expand...

Well, it sounded like a rant, my sincere apologies, like you said, there are alternative philosophies..

By the the way, you are in Johnson City, I am in Georgetown.. we can grab a beer sometime.. :drool5:
 
Pablo Moreno said:
Well, it sounded like a rant, my sincere apologies, like you said, there are alternative philosophies..

By the the way, you are in Johnson City, I am in Georgetown.. we can grab a beer sometime.. :drool5:
Click to expand...

haha, no worries :)

that's awesome, didn't even notice! next time i'm headin down to chattanooga i'll let you know (or if you're up this way).
 
Pablo Moreno said:
What the LUT is doing is nothing but an accurate representation of the film stock I am trying to emulate...
Click to expand...

Don't forget it's not only emulating the print stock but the entire process after it leaves the DI. From the film print process including any lab specific variables right through to projection including bulb colour temp and also the projectionists ill treatment of the film. Ok, that last bit is a joke...

Not that this is a bad thing since any film we see projected at the cinema has gone through this process, so in some ways this is what film looks like...

For a more accurate emulation of the film look, checkout Filmconvert. As far as I know Filmconvert only emulates the neg stock and not the print process.
 
paulherrin said:
our planet revolves around the sun. i'd say it's a safe bet to shoot or filter for daylight. other spectrums are pale in comparison. that being said, i haven't had any technical problems with tungsten lighting and i shoot it alot, but sunlight cannot be beat. light = life, same is true when creating an image. just don't ignore the shadows, may even want to peer into them and see if you find a dragon.
do you guys filter in mixed/tungsten lighting these days?
Click to expand...

I stopped using color correction filters the day I stopped shoot film and started shooting RAW.

35mm film being the ultimate colour baked format, you had to correct color through the lens in so many ways. Mixed lighting was also very hard to manage.
When I do have alot of mixed lighting within a shot, I tend to colour balance the shot (afterwards) to suite all the different colour temps and wipe all the corrected shots together as one perfect white balanced shot.
I have shot some hideously bad shots over the years when shooting film were I was stuck with Sodium vapour, fluro, tugsten and daylight lightning all at once. In those days it was captured as multiple colors and burnt into the film, Even though we tried to correct as best as we could in TC... it was still a mess to clean up.

Now days... we have so much control in RAW, that you can be caught in ugly lighting situations and not even worry. So so easy to grade out. :) I'm digging it.
 
mikeburton said:
LUTs created for emulating a film out with a program such as Cinespace or Light Illusion are meant to specifically replicate what your images would look like when printed out to that print film whether its Kodak 2393 or Fuji
Click to expand...


A print out LUT doesn't preview how your footage would look on film, they just translate accurately to film what you see on the screen, you only use them at the end of your node tree and when you are ready to print. When you use them you will notice that your colors got all messed up on your screen, but they will look just fine on film.

Bjorn LUTs are not print out LUTs, and they were intended to give you the look of a specific film stock, (On screen). That's why the info in the name ( Redlogfilm--->Kodak 2393 ) means, your footage has to be in the Redlogfilm gamma environment in order for you to see correctly the output, which is the Kodak 2393 look (again, on the screen monitor only), think of this as another grade or effect. You still have to use a print out LUT to transfer to film whatever you see on your calibrated screen. (these are the ones that you have to get from the lab).
 
Pablo Moreno said:
A print out LUT doesn't preview how your footage would look on film, they just translate accurately to film what you see on the screen, you only use them at the end of your node tree and when you are ready to print. When you use them you will notice that your colors got all messed up on your screen, but they will look just fine on film.

Bjorn LUTs are not print out LUTs, and they were intended to give you the look of a specific film stock, (On screen). That's why the info in the name ( Redlogfilm--->Kodak 2393 ) means, your footage has to be in the Redlogfilm gamma environment in order for you to see correctly the output, which is the Kodak 2393 look (again, on the screen monitor only), think of this as another grade or effect. You still have to use a print out LUT to transfer to film whatever you see on your calibrated screen. (these are the ones that you have to get from the lab).
Click to expand...



No Pablo you mistaken, Those are actually so called print out luts. And there are also luts to reverse them. So basically if you shoot out C-Log, Cineon log DPX or Redlogfilm with no lut applied in a film printer on the given film stock then thats how that file will look / should look on you positive. So they are actually simulating the film positive according to Kodak and Fuji.

The name REDLOG---Kodak2393 is not right though it should be just LOG not redlog as they are not red log specific, that name must been given in the conversion here.
 
you guys might enjoy looking into some cg lighting - especially if you do most of your work grading... very soon (if not already) grading and lighting in a 3d package will be fully merged. heck... go listen to roger deakens talk about 'rango' or 'how to train your dragon'

'yes, let's stick a 12k outside that window and bounce it off the floor, that will give his iris a nice ground reflection,' says the dp to the colorist... on set.
 
paulherrin said:
you guys might enjoy looking into some cg lighting - especially if you do most of your work grading... very soon (if not already) grading and lighting in a 3d package will be fully merged. heck... go listen to roger deakens talk about 'rango' or 'how to train your dragon'

'yes, let's stick a 12k outside that window and bounce it off the floor, that will give his iris a nice ground reflection,' says the dp to the colorist... on set.
Click to expand...

Well, for that we'd need to get more scene info by capturing surface normals and spec / diffuse reflectivity (oh wait, Debevec is working on it!)
...and grab some depth info (oh wait, Kinect et al!)
...and / or we'd want to capture a full light field (oh wait, that 28K sensor RED said they're working on should handle it if you stick microlenses on it!)

Yeah, totally will never happen :P

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Björn Benckert said:
No Pablo you mistaken, Those are actually so called print out luts. And there are also luts to reverse them. So basically if you shoot out C-Log, Cineon log DPX or Redlogfilm with no lut applied in a film printer on the given film stock then thats how that file will look / should look on you positive. So they are actually simulating the film positive according to Kodak and Fuji.The name REDLOG---Kodak2393 is not right though it should be just LOG not redlog as they are not red log specific, that name must been given in the conversion here.
Click to expand...
Are you sure?, I just read somewhere that when you apply a print out LUT to your footage, your colors got all messed up on your screen, but they will look just fine on film after print, that's why I assumed that yours weren't, at least most of them, why they look OK on my screen? am I missing something?, my monitor is perfectly calibrated.. and when you say that they are actually simulating the film positive, you mean simulation on the screen monitor?

Edit: aren't the reverse LUTs the ones that they use for print out? :thumbdown:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top