t f v s r
^

LUTs: Making a Difference

There are a lot of great tools out for grading and finishing. Cineform’s First Light has been out for a while now and Red Giant’s LUT Buddy was just released. Technicolor also released their CineStyle profile for Canon DSLRs and their documentation talks about using the included LUT in the post processing of your footage.

First of all what is a LUT and what are it’s typical uses?

LUT means “Look Up Table.” It’s helpful to think of it like a math problem: R= S+L
“R” being your result or what you want to attain.
“S” being your source or what you start with.
“L” being your LUT or the difference needed to make up between your source and your desired outcome.

In all cases of LUT use, the LUT is the means to make up the difference between source and result. It’s never the result by itself. How does this play out? I’ll layout a couple probably over-simplified examples:

Color Correction

A very common example is printing your final film to…real, actual film. Print film came in a variety of flavors and styles. Each style had different nuances in color. The film lab would have all that nuance information or be able to send you a print test to work with. That would be your final result. The colorist grades a picture on his calibrated monitor but if he were to send that to print, it could come out looking far different due to the nuances of the physical film.

So in our math analogy, his graded film is “S” and his film print is “R.” He then uses the information from the film lab or on his own, creates and applies the LUT or the “L” to get him from his graded film to the print and to have it look as intended after it’s on the physical film. After applying the LUT, his graded film may look aweful on his monitor, but will come out correct on the film print.

Color Calibration

The other option our colorist could take is to apply his film information to his monitor first before starting in on his color correction so he’s grading as if his movie is already on film. It looks good to him on his monitor now, but if he were to grade the entire film and then upload it to the web or play a different project through his monitor, it wouldn’t look correct because he applied his LUT to his monitor first. While this is a common method to calibrate monitors for normal REC709 and P3 grading, that’s more advanced than I want to get in to right now.

Summary

The key takeaway here is that LUTs are not used to creatively grade a final result, they’re used to make up a difference between a source and a result. In practical application with the CineStyle profile for instance, the LUT will let you view your footage during editing more naturally than the flat, desaturated image originally recorded. However, it’s best to remove it for final color grading and rely on your properly calibrated monitor to tell you what color it is and yourself to determine what color it should be. If not used carefully, improper LUT use could screw up your footage or limit your image manipulation options in post.

Nobody says you can’t apply a LUT for a creative grade but be forewarned: If your footage doesn’t match to begin with, it’s not going to match after you’ve applied the LUT. In this instance, you’ve basically turned the LUT into a glorified color correction filter. Certainly not ideal.

*all cases assume the colorist- or you, is grading through a correctly calibrated monitor for evaluation and finishing. LUTs in no way replace proper calibration or color correction. They only assist in the process*

 

Share

  • http://blog.conigs.com conigs

    I’m far from experienced in using LUTs, but your explanation makes sense. It seems more and more people seem to be applying LUTs for ‘looks,’ which never made sense to me. Glad to know I’m not alone.

    • http://blog.jayfriesen.com JayFriesen

      Not alone at all! LUTs are pretty basic once you get the premise of them. Most circumstances never require them.

      • http://blog.conigs.com conigs

        I think products like LUT buddy aren’t going to make it any more clear. It seems like they’re using LUTs to exchange color correction info, not calibration or simulating/correcting for output. It’s a product that’s needed, I just think using LUTs for an unintended process will only confuse people more.

        • ClitnTorres

          I think the source of confusion is in the ambiguity of the math involved. A conversion is not a workflow or an organizational scheme. A conversion is just a way to change color information.

          There’s nothing wrong with using a conversion to simulate a different output format/medium. Nor is there anything wrong with using a conversion to crush blacks and bring out someone’s eye color.

          The oddity for us is that the same mathematical technique is used to perform both of those, and there aren’t rules established for which conversions go where. It’s the Wild West of color science out there right now.

          Confused (or desperate, or clever) ideas in individual workflows and techniques is what makes LUT buddy necessary. Basically, by reverse engineering all the changes made, we can collapse a complicated series of adjustments into a single representative LUT, making it easier to share and discuss.

          The “real” solution, would be to have strict rules for each step of production and post-production – basically an unambiguous workflow definition. This way, at any point, we could see, analyze, and control, each individual color decision. But the “real” solution doesn’t exist because it’s not (yet) realistic to operate with so many constraints from the get-go. Nor is it (yet) possible to manage every individual step of the pipeline in a way that doesn’t make your head explode because of the enormity of the task.

          • http://blog.jayfriesen.com JayFriesen

            I agree. This is great stuff. While there are no workflow guidelines
            we do have broadcast and d-cinema standards that define the final
            result. The best workflow is the one determined from the get go and
            followed through the pipeline. Love it man, thanks for the response.

          • http://twitter.com/illyalaney Illya laney

            The majority of the time we use LUTs for Log to Lin conversions for Alexa dailies transcodes, for monitoring on set with Alexa using Truelight, and sometimes to set a decent curve for final color with Alexa. That’s as creative as I’d like to get with LUTs because in the end, the final colorist is usually going to start from scratch.

            I work primarily in television so I don’t see LUTs being used in other situations unless someone’s trying to calibrate their plasma.

          • http://blog.jayfriesen.com JayFriesen

            Good word man. LUTs being used as intended. Thanks for the comment!

          • http://blog.jayfriesen.com JayFriesen

            Good word man. LUTs being used as intended. Thanks for the comment!

          • http://blog.jayfriesen.com JayFriesen

            Good word man. LUTs being used as intended. Thanks for the comment!

      • http://twitter.com/bill_travers Bill Travers

        thanks Jay. I’m using LUT Buddy to apply the LUT to my CineStyle footage. Then I make a freeze frame/still to have in my bin for reference when I actually grade just to keep my eyes honest. I’m finding that the LUT is doing a pretty good job at showing the scene as it was, or at least pretty close. thanks!

        • http://blog.jayfriesen.com JayFriesen

          approved

  • http://blog.conigs.com conigs

    I’m far from experienced in using LUTs, but your explanation makes sense. It seems more and more people seem to be applying LUTs for ‘looks,’ which never made sense to me. Glad to know I’m not alone.

    • http://jayfriesen.com JayFriesen

      Not alone at all! LUTs are pretty basic once you get the premise of them. Most circumstances never require them.

      • http://blog.conigs.com conigs

        I think products like LUT buddy aren’t going to make it any more clear. It seems like they’re using LUTs to exchange color correction info, not calibration or simulating/correcting for output. It’s a product that’s needed, I just think using LUTs for an unintended process will only confuse people more.

        • ClitnTorres

          I think the source of confusion is in the ambiguity of the math involved. A conversion is not a workflow or an organizational scheme. A conversion is just a way to change color information.

          There’s nothing wrong with using a conversion to simulate a different output format/medium. Nor is there anything wrong with using a conversion to crush blacks and bring out someone’s eye color.

          The oddity for us is that the same mathematical technique is used to perform both of those, and there aren’t rules established for which conversions go where. It’s the Wild West of color science out there right now.

          Confused (or desperate, or clever) ideas in individual workflows and techniques is what makes LUT buddy necessary. Basically, by reverse engineering all the changes made, we can collapse a complicated series of adjustments into a single representative LUT, making it easier to share and discuss.

          The “real” solution, would be to have strict rules for each step of production and post-production – basically an unambiguous workflow definition. This way, at any point, we could see, analyze, and control, each individual color decision. But the “real” solution doesn’t exist because it’s not (yet) realistic to operate with so many constraints from the get-go. Nor is it (yet) possible to manage every individual step of the pipeline in a way that doesn’t make your head explode because of the enormity of the task.

          • http://jayfriesen.com JayFriesen

            I agree. This is great stuff. While there are no workflow guidelines
            we do have broadcast and d-cinema standards that define the final
            result. The best workflow is the one determined from the get go and
            followed through the pipeline. Love it man, thanks for the response.

          • http://twitter.com/illyalaney Illya laney

            The majority of the time we use LUTs for Log to Lin conversions for Alexa dailies transcodes, for monitoring on set with Alexa using Truelight, and sometimes to set a decent curve for final color with Alexa. That’s as creative as I’d like to get with LUTs because in the end, the final colorist is usually going to start from scratch.

            I work primarily in television so I don’t see LUTs being used in other situations unless someone’s trying to calibrate their plasma.

          • http://jayfriesen.com JayFriesen

            Good word man. LUTs being used as intended. Thanks for the comment!

      • http://twitter.com/bill_travers Bill Travers

        thanks Jay. I’m using LUT Buddy to apply the LUT to my CineStyle footage. Then I make a freeze frame/still to have in my bin for reference when I actually grade just to keep my eyes honest. I’m finding that the LUT is doing a pretty good job at showing the scene as it was, or at least pretty close. thanks!

        • http://jayfriesen.com JayFriesen

          approved

  • Scott Simmons

    Here’s my thing about this technicolor picture setting: the majority of people shooting with this things will be throwing their edits into Color, Resolve or grading right in FCP (many without any kind of calibrated reference monitor). They have no need for a LUT. Seems like this sudden discussions of LUTs abound since this technicolor style appeared. They may be needed for some workflows but not for most, especially in the DSLR world. Right? Wrong?

    • http://blog.jayfriesen.com JayFriesen

      99% of users with this pic profile will never need the LUT.
      Technicolor included one in their download and references it in their
      user guide. While all the information they post is correct, I believe
      that a lot of people will think they need it to use the profile. And
      as we’ve all seen with this DSLR revolution, there’s a lot of
      misinformation on the web and a “shoot first, ask questions later”
      attitude.

  • Scott Simmons

    Here’s my thing about this technicolor picture setting: the majority of people shooting with this things will be throwing their edits into Color, Resolve or grading right in FCP (many without any kind of calibrated reference monitor). They have no need for a LUT. Seems like this sudden discussions of LUTs abound since this technicolor style appeared. They may be needed for some workflows but not for most, especially in the DSLR world. Right? Wrong?

    • http://jayfriesen.com JayFriesen

      99% of users with this pic profile will never need the LUT.
      Technicolor included one in their download and references it in their
      user guide. While all the information they post is correct, I believe
      that a lot of people will think they need it to use the profile. And
      as we’ve all seen with this DSLR revolution, there’s a lot of
      misinformation on the web and a “shoot first, ask questions later”
      attitude.