But LUT parameters for one person, or even one shot, will be quite specific to the characteristics of that footage or shot, exposure, curves etc. Yes, you could turn something into a preset and use it for quick swathes of changes for similar footage you've shot or 'looks' to stuff you've already done. The primary use of a LUT is to apply a bunch of specific parameters to a film/video file that would usually expose/colour it correctly to a specific colour space.
There's a lot of misinformation about the web regarding LUTs and people who make out that they know what they're talking about.Ī LUT is not a magic bullet and is not designed by its nature to 'grade' footage. I don't know why people seem to think they need them. My recommendation to anyone is to shoot in normal mode if they're not sure what an altered gamma curve if for.Īs for LUTs. Maybe I didn't find yet the best LUT for grading in the daylight.ĭoes anyone know a good LUT for this propose?
#Cinema grade color grading center how to
On the daylight, most of the time I got much better results with a Normal profile than a graded D-Cinelike video, so I am little bit confuse how to use my device. I was able to grade very nice low light shots using D-Cinelike, but I am not sure if the result was as good as I was shot the same video in the normal mode. I am not experienced also in this field and I would like to find if the D-Cinelike would give me at the end a better quality of video compared with the regular Normal mode. But that is strictly a taste thing." do you mean that you prefer to use the Normal Mode instead of the D-Cinelike? But that is strictly a taste thing.īy "I personally think that the Pocket's log curve is quite pleasing as is, in a certain exposure range. I personally think that the Pocket's log curve is quite pleasing as is, in a certain exposure range. It may still look a little light at either end, but may give a pleasing mid tone detail that's worth forgoing the incorrect top and bottom. Some log curves are not bad to look at, as is, and may well be a look that works without a grade. CineLike VS S-log3,2,1 or whatever, all look different, it's just someone's opinion of a log curve.
You also have to take on board that every version of a log curve is different from manufacturer to manufacturer. Most people are better shooting with a standard 709 gamma response as most inexperienced grades end up making a log variant look like a crushed/blown 709 anyway. Any time I try it just looks like a mess, because it's a job that requires a skill I don't have. I've been working in video post for over 20 years and am still to see anyone other than an experienced colourist make a grade look correct. They usually end up grading and making things look crushed or blown out as they strive to make their washed out image look better with a typical 709 gamma/colour space response. Most of these things usually look quite bad because most people don't have the expertise to grade. When I say to look right what I mean is the typical gamma levels that you'd expect when watching 709 material, black looks black not grey and white looks white not some off variant. The main problem with any log gamma is that you are going to record a noisier picture compared to 709 because you're not using the entire dynamic range, if the system is inherently 709, after you inevitably grade the picture to look right for 709.
0 kommentar(er)
