FS7: FS7 matching AMIRA

right but white balance needs to be corrected.

left one can be matched to right one using saturation, and small contrast tweak.

P.S I shouldn't play this game - have you read my other threads? :shocked:
 
For me, LUTs in post should be used solely to de-log and not as a final look. Given that, your left-hand image is more useful as it is flatter.
 
Ya the right image of course looks better on every example because it has more contrast and saturation and is closer to a finished look. Left one is closer to log. You'd never finish that way but could provide better colours and look once finished. Hard to compare in those examples.
 
That's why I do not hand over a LUT, least of all if they are subject to be paid.

A LUT is a first step and if you hand it over it might be misunderstood as final result
You can recommend them and give a link where to get them but if you hand over LOG
footage hopefully the recipient is a colorist and his skills will be for sure higher than mine.
Otherwise I will supply the footage with burned in LUT, either in camera or post
 
I see it different. If I provide a LUT even to a client not to skilled in grading I know the result will at least look like I saw on set and the same view I showed my client. I always point out that a LUT is a start and that further tweaking often is needed. I do this because the days of shooting with my F3 some clients just screwed the footage in post and I hated that.
 
Osslund said:
I see it different. If I provide a LUT even to a client not to skilled in grading I know the result will at least look like I saw on set and the same view I showed my client. I always point out that a LUT is a start and that further tweaking often is needed. I do this because the days of shooting with my F3 some clients just screwed the footage in post and I hated that.
Click to expand...

as I wrote above: I don't hand over LOG footage to this kind of clients
From my experience they prefer a nice/correct/mojo image
 
Clermond said:
That's why I do not hand over a LUT, least of all if they are subject to be paid.
Click to expand...

I consider my LUTs, grades and plugins I'm made my own valuable IP and I wouldn't hand it over for any money. I've encountered plenty of chancers that want you to include project files along with the deliverable, yeah, just hand over all my techniques I've taken years to develop and never hear from the company again....

Anyway, Right wins Osslund but only because that BertLUT is so horrible. Right is a tad warm for my taste but works well for the food making it inviting.
 
Clermond said:
as I wrote above: I don't hand over LOG footage to this kind of clients
From my experience they prefer a nice/correct/mojo image
Click to expand...

Preferable but if they wont pay for the extra time I have no choice but hand over LOG footage. Often I offload after the shoot is over to the clients HD and move on to the next shoot.
 
Osslund said:
Preferable but if they wont pay for the extra time I have no choice but hand over LOG footage. Often I offload after the shoot is over to the clients HD and move on to the next shoot.
Click to expand...

they don't pay for extra time to get a nice image and that's why you give them your secret sauce for free?
It's okay if you're booked as an operating owner and just offload the footage.
 
LUTs are no secret sauce are they? A year ago I was a little bit more protective but I found out that it's best to just hand over what you have and make the client happy and if they'll ask me to do the editing and grading I'll do that and charge for my time. If their budget doesn't allow for extra time so be it and then I know my footage at least won't look like crap if they use the appropritate LUT. But this is just how I work today.
 
Last edited:
Interesting.. wether to give away a much loved and tended LUT.. in the hope that your log footage isnt cocked up.. and so get more work from the client.. or they cock it up anyway.. steal your LUT and you never hear from again , as the next shoot they send out the guy who cleans the phones.. thinking your LUT will save the footage ..
 
I always provide a Rec709 and LC709a LUT when handing over log footage so they editors can work material in a colourspace they know and understand. It's incredible how few editors know how to work with log footage properly.

When I have loads of time I might even make a bespoke rec709 colour correction which is unique to that footage and then save it as a LUT and provide that as an option as well.

Part of my job is to do my best to make sure that everyone has the tools and information at their disposal to make my material do as good a job as it can do.

But people need to stop acting as though LUT creation is some dark voodoo stuff, and as though off the shelf 'look LUTs' are a one size fits all to be used and applied to any and all material all the time. You shoot something one colour, then your superfilmOMGLUT does a transform and moves the colour (to teal, obviously) and then you grade the colour back to what it SHOULD be. Kinda destructive way to push colours around.
 
Last edited:
Agree with Ben here.

You don't have to give them "your" LUT but if you don't at least give them "a" LUT I feel you risk having them do weird stuff on their end. If they have log experience not a big deal, but if they don't....

I try to stay involved in coloring after the fact in I can. I try to bill for it. If there's no budget for it I make the decision if I want to make a sacrifice and do it free on a case by case basis.
 
Yeah, at the end of the day nobody will ever in a million years blame an editor/colorist for it looking crap. They'll blame you and you'll never get a chance to defend your work cos you'll just dont get hired again.
 
I use LUTs on set, & hand them over with Log footage so the editors can understand my intent, & get busy. Colorist are less receptive, & typically roll their own.

Even on high-end commercials I'm very rarely invited to the grading sessions anymore. Seems the new normal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top