Weapon CF vs MG 3D LUT Differences

[Michael Jensen]

The specs of Weapon (here) show a 3D LUT on the Magnesium version as 17x17x17 only. The Carbon Fiber has 17x17x17, 26x26x26, 32x32x32 and 33x33x33. Can someone explain what that means and how it'll make a difference in my footage?

 

[Martin Stevens]

You will get more precision with the 33x33x33 LUTS compared to the 17x17x17 LUTS. Think of it a bit like 8 bit compared to 16 bit images.

 

[Michael Jensen]

So things like gradations will be smoother?

 

[Tarquin Cardona]

Where it will come most into play I believe is in the quality of things like the pro rez with the LUTS baked in. The processor power in the CF is I reckon going to lead to nicer things with the pro rez in particular and if that is important to you then that's the answer. The magnesium is going to be good for someone who is going to stick more in the red raw workflow I am guessing. The 17LUT doesn't suck but I think in the land of perfect which is kind of the Red thing anyways, the 33 LUT is the special sauce.

 

[Tarquin Cardona]

So things like gradations will be smoother?

One of the things people say about Red shot well is how real everything looks. 33LUT is going to keep more of that 'real'ness.

 

[Michael Jensen]

So there is no difference in the CF and MG in the .r3d workflow?

 

[Tarquin Cardona]

So there is no difference in the CF and MG in the .r3d workflow?

From what I understand there are some slight improvements as far as IQ goes between CF and MG like a touch more in the blacks and some better compression - but overall the .r3d part of your workflow is about the same as now and pretty much on par between those two cameras. The Weapon is using the same sensor tech so what is nice about Dragon raw is nice about Weapon raw. The increase in capabilities have more impact in the pro rez speed and LUT quality. So if you are shooting and finishing in prorez wanting best right out of camera CF is giving you what you probably want and need at best expression. And of course the increased horsepower of CF paves the way for 8K should that be something you desire.

 

[Björn Benckert]

The luts on the CF will introduce noise later than the Mg. The luts for the CF is 16 bit luts and the Mg is 12 bits if I´m not mistaken. When doing heavy color warping / mapping colors in different directions and increasing a lot of contrast the Mg will break the image earlier. Thats how I thinks it work, if Im not mistaken. But the 17x17x17 luts have been used as 3D warpers for quite some time and not much to say than it works very well. the 33x33x33 luts have a more dense mesh so the are more accurate and if the images are bounced back and forth in contrast between a few such luts the original color of the image is not torn apart in the same way as a for a less dense lut. Something that can be handy if using a lut that makes the proress image look like rec709 or such and then using a second rec 709 negative lut to flatten that back out before grading... then the 33x33x33 lut would have more precervance then the 17x17x17 lut... but then again the differnce is pretty much only there for the pixel peepers.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

The specs of Weapon (here) show a 3D LUT on the Magnesium version as 17x17x17 only. The Carbon Fiber has 17x17x17, 26x26x26, 32x32x32 and 33x33x33. Can someone explain what that means and how it'll make a difference in my footage?

Depends on what you are using it for.
It won't make any difference in your footage if you don't capture live output with LUT applied and don't use it in post.
For example, you can use it just for preview purposes to get closer to the feel of the final look while you are shooting.
In post you can apply a more precise LUT if that particular transform is causing visible picture deterioration on that particular material.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Depends on what you are using it for.
It won't make any difference in your footage if you don't capture live output with LUT applied and don't use it in post.
For example, you can use it just for preview purposes to get closer to the feel of the final look while you are shooting.
In post you can apply a more precise LUT if that particular transform is causing visible picture deterioration on that particular material.

What he said.

The advantage of a 33x33x33 3D LUT is that you can use the SAME LUT on the camera and in post finishing. 17x17x17 is usually more than sufficient for monitor calibration and for live preview. You can, of course, create a high precision LUT in a post tool or LUT creation tool - that you intend to use in post - and then export a smaller size (make a 17x17x17 from a 33x33x33) in a LUT utility like LATTICE - to use in camera for monitoring.

 

[Stacey Spears]

Just to add to what Mark posted. a 17-point 3D Cube LUT works well for monitor calibration (correction) of SDR content. HDR content will most likely need a 33-point 3D Cube LUT for monitor calibration.