CPF-LOG Profile with In-Camera LUT

Richard Allen Crook

Richard Allen Crook

Well-known member
Hey All!

We finished testing our CPF-LOG profile and are very happy with it. My take on using a flat profile is it's important in the 8bit compressed codec to not be THAT flat. I think the profile grades fantastic from doing simple correction to intensive grading. I am also finding it's best to light a scene and set ISO/Color Temp/Shutter/exposure to a non-flat image...then switch to the LOG profile to record. If you adjust color temp to a saturated image...you're going to be able to micro-adjust the setting. Same goes for exposure. SO MANY times I've under/overexposed stuff because I'm trying to gauge it all from a flat profile. Well no more.

So basically we're adding to the LOG/flat ideology by implementing an on-set LUT workflow. I hope you guys like it. I'm sure some won't...like always YMMV. Oh, and It says it's battle tested...but only internally at our studios. Would love to hear some feedback from some of you fellow FS100 users. :)

View attachment 48341
http://crookedpathfilms.com/blog/?p=786

PDF Version: http://www.crookedpathfilms.com/Sharing/CPF-LOG_NEX-FS100.pdf
 
Very good point about easily misjudging color temp on desaturated profiles. And I agree with you that a very flat profile is not the way to go with heavily compressed, 8-bit images. Will play with these soon. Thanks for sharing.
 
Great work Richard, can´t wait to give it a test spin.
I really love the idea of having an in camera LUT.

Frank
 
Postmaster said:
Great work Richard, can´t wait to give it a test spin.
I really love the idea of having an in camera LUT.

Frank
Click to expand...

Frank thank you so much for the kind words. You're a pioneer in FS100 profiles as we all know...really looking forward to your thoughts. We were going to include a profile intended to NOT be graded as well...but we all prefer your K-tone profiles over anything we could come up with. :)
 
Hey guys, I'm sorry about posting without samples. Perhaps it was premature to do so without a demo. We are finishing up a TV spot today and I'll have the demo up tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. :)
 
Raw, no color correction straight from camera.
CPF-RAW.jpg


Corrected and then graded.
CPF-Graded.jpg

Please download them here (to avoid browser contamination):
http://www.stancemedia.net/CPF-RAW.jpg
http://www.stancemedia.net/CPF-Graded.jpg

This isn't an end all be all test by any means it was just what I currently had time for.
Sorry for not being a bit more thorough. Seems to work good I did notice on a
red shirt it was very saturated, so much so that if you adjusted saturation of the shot
you would have to do a secondary correction on the red shirt. It would completely
blow out otherwise. It also made the shirt much more like orange than red.

I would assume it's something with the color depth settings but didn't
have enough time to investigate much. I noticed that even my custom
shoot and deliver profile made the shirt a bit more orange than red, however
my color depth settings skewed the shirt more red than orange.

Only other thing that I changed was the knee. I like a higher value to avoid
plastic looking skin if overexposed a bit. Merely a preference on this one is all.
 
One thing I noticed in your settings was that the color depth was set to -4 for red.
I remember reading Frank saying that those setting were misleading in that the smaller the number the brighter the color. ( ie a red color depth of -4 has a lot more color than a color depth of +5)

Or, did I get that wrong?
Franks Glog post
 
Chris Johnston said:
One thing I noticed in your settings was that the color depth was set to -4 for red.
I remember reading Frank saying that those setting were misleading in that the smaller the number the brighter the color. ( ie a red color depth of -4 has a lot more color than a color depth of +5)

Or, did I get that wrong?
Franks Glog post
Click to expand...

I remember this as well. I am planning to go into my own picture profile that I developed and replace
the red value from the negative value, to a positive value and see how that looks. I wonder if that is
appropriate to do to this particular CPF-LOG setting or not?
 
stancemedia said:
Only other thing that I changed was the knee. I like a higher value to avoid plastic looking skin if overexposed a bit. Merely a preference on this one is all.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that this is designed to be used in tandem with the LUT. You are supposed to set exposure to the LUT then switch over. The LOG value and the LUT value work hand in hand. By exposing to a less protected highlight in the LUT you are given more than enough room when you switch over to LOG. If you change these values...it throws off the workflow and the LUT/LOG switches are no longer useful.

One thing I noticed in your settings was that the color depth was set to -4 for red.
I remember reading Frank saying that those setting were misleading in that the smaller the number the brighter the color. ( ie a red color depth of -4 has a lot more color than a color depth of +5)
Click to expand...

Unlike the knee, you can, however, change color depth to your hearts content in these profiles...you just need to make sure settings are matched between the LUT profile and LOG profile. Here's the rundown on how color depth works. It changes the luminance in the dark color (high saturation) areas. Adjustment to the positive (+) reduces the luminance and the color appears STRONGER. Adjustment to the negative (-) increases the luminance and the color appears FAINTER. The darker a color's selected hue is, the greater the color changes. If a color were almost achromatic, like grey, white, or black, the color depth adjustment would make almost no visible difference. For example...if you point the camera at a red brick house and put the RED channel in the plus (+), you'll notice the red seems to bet much more saturated. I think these settings are the most subjective...but at least you can play with them as desired. Just make sure the settings match the LUT.

http://www.crookedpathfilms.com/Sharing/Untitled.png
(I can't figure out how to embed pictures)
 
Last edited:
I'll be honest and say that I used the LOG profile only and did not mess with the LUT
profile. When I have a bit more time I will try both, I didn't have the time to write
down another profile and sub the LUT for one -- Full up on profiles these days.

I treated it like most flat profiles and shifted over to my 'standard' profile to see what
the end product would be exposure wise. Ends up working about the same (I assume will test later).
Your settings you provided for Premiere don't seem to work on a Mac I guess?
Said something to the extent of not a supported format.

I would like to see a flat profile that pushes things away from red and then a LUT (for AE/Premiere)
that 'fixes' the color shift. Would be a good way to keep reds in control, and keep workflow
consistant. Could also be used for flat log type profiles or just standard shoot profiles.

Any reason no one does something like this? Or it's just not a priority for most as they just correct
it after?
 
Richard Allen Crook said:
Here's the rundown on how color depth works. It changes the luminance in the dark color (high saturation) areas. Adjustment to the positive (+) reduces the luminance and the color appears STRONGER. Adjustment to the negative (-) increases the luminance and the color appears FAINTER. The darker a color's selected hue is, the greater the color changes. If a color were almost achromatic, like grey, white, or black, the color depth adjustment would make almost no visible difference. For example...if you point the camera at a red brick house and put the RED channel in the plus (+), you'll notice the red seems to bet much more saturated. I think these settings are the most subjective...but at least you can play with them as desired. Just make sure the settings match the LUT.

http://www.crookedpathfilms.com/Sharing/Untitled.png
(I can't figure out how to embed pictures)
Click to expand...

Ok, that was logically how I 'thought' it would have worked....as you raise the color depth, it makes the color 'more saturated.'
Which is how come I set the red channel to a negative value. Then I thought Frank had said that it was the other way around
and the positive value was the 'less saturated' value. However, I have a hard enough time keeping what day of the week it is
straight, so I probably misunderstood what Frank was saying.
 
Here's a little video we did to attach to the blog post: http://vimeo.com/37212104

Not really scientific, it's more to show how to use the LUT/LOG workflow.

I'll be honest and say that I used the LOG profile only and did not mess with the LUT
profile.
Click to expand...

Busted! Haha just kidding. I believe you're right about the skintones and a heavy knee...makes them look wonky when they're hitting high IRE numbers. Our LUT blows out highlights a little sooner than the LOG profile so that it forces you to expose highlights lower. It'll also force you to light dark areas instead of trusting the LOG profile and thinking they're exposed properly. It'll force you to see the color temperature more accurately. Trust the workflow. Use the LUT. ;)

I treated it like most flat profiles and shifted over to my 'standard' profile to see what the end product would be exposure wise. Ends up working about the same (I assume will test later).
Click to expand...

It's not really the same. Our LUT is specially designed for previewing/exposing to and then switching to our LOG profile. The LUT highlights clip sooner than the LOG profile and just enough to make sure the clip in LOG are exposed evenly for grading. Same for the gamma, black levels, etc. I don't want to say that any LUT created by another isn't going to work, but I can't say it's the best idea either.

I would like to see a flat profile that pushes things away from red and then a LUT (for AE/Premiere) that 'fixes' the color shift.
Click to expand...

A LUT isn't designed to simply drop onto a clip and replace the color grading process. You should use the one I provided to do a quick temporary grade on dailies or proxies. A good colorist can create wonders vs what a LUT will do. I'm not sure what color shift you're referring to...but if a "LUT" can be created to correct one...a colorist will be able to do the same and then some.

Then I thought Frank had said that it was the other way around and the positive value was the 'less saturated' value.
Click to expand...

I think if you did some tests with the camera you'll see which way is more/less saturated. It's obvious to us when we shot a red brick building. Drop the R number and the reds get muted. Increase the number, they get more saturated. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top