FS7: FS7 matching AMIRA
- Thread starter Clermond
- Start date
Liam Hall
Veteran
Yep. Ever since some bean-counter introduced the 'edit producer' post has never been the same.
Ha. This is a good thread and one that is pertinent to the changing times (at least for those of us who often juggle multiple "roles" or responsibilities ... to Ossland - just so I can understand - why not just burn in your preferred LUT into the footage if you will be handing it over? If I'm shooting for someone who doesn't know what log is or has minimal understanding - then I'd prefer my footage to stand on it's own - either via Custom or via burned in...no?
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
Baking in camera or adding the LUT in post gives my client the same end result. But with LOG footage they can tweak my footage further. So why shouldn't I go the most flexible route?
Ben Scott
Veteran
I know a whole bunch of editors who work broadcast day in day out and who will be tasked with doing everything assembly and colour wise to the images before delivery - and it would not occur to them to go anywhere near a LUT. It's not what they know and not what they are used to and they have no intention of learning anything new.
So you either find a way to make sure your footage looks good before it hits them or you bring yourself into the conversation about post.
So you either find a way to make sure your footage looks good before it hits them or you bring yourself into the conversation about post.
agree with Ben. For me, unless I'm handing off to someone I've worked with before who I know understands log footage & the way I've shot it (rated at 1000 ISO, etc)... the most flexible tweaking in post is not a good thing... I'd rather they make the usual minor tweaks to color, etc. than really screw it up
Ben Scott
Veteran
Well clearly if they've asked for log footage in slog3cine they have someone who knows what to do with the footage. I've never had that once.
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
When I tell them that either you get a set look or you get a raw file that can be molded in many directions. Which one do you think they'll ask for? LOG every time.
I don't want to argue as this is how each and everyone of us work. No right or wrong about this just different ways of looking at it.
I don't want to argue as this is how each and everyone of us work. No right or wrong about this just different ways of looking at it.
Ben Scott
Veteran
No idea who your clients are but those conversations do not take place in that way over here and I would never couch it in those terms either when broaching it. People have been successfully grading rec709 footage for years but I'd ask about any delivery requirements and if there was anything left in doubt I'd contact the editor and/or colorist if there is one and discuss preferences and best practices.
That said we can barely agree on those in here, let alone going out to post!
That said we can barely agree on those in here, let alone going out to post!
Giving the client a LUT is a no-brainer. Let's say on set you shot Log but monitor with BertLUT FilmLook and the client likes it. When you are done, give him BertLUT FilmLook because it will match exactly what he sees on set. Super simple. If he wants to, he can tweak CineEI Log till he's blue in the face, but at least you are filling your end of the bargain by giving him exactly what he saw earlier.
For me, I always take the LUT and tweak it, or start from scratch. But quite a few clients just want something WYSIWYG and the easiest way to fulfill that is just to give them the LUT. If an editor cannot figure out how to apply a LUT, they should not be editing.
For me, I always take the LUT and tweak it, or start from scratch. But quite a few clients just want something WYSIWYG and the easiest way to fulfill that is just to give them the LUT. If an editor cannot figure out how to apply a LUT, they should not be editing.
They way it should work in the future is this: when you apply a Lut in camera it should be embedded in the footage file. Once you will bring that in post it reads it Lut as default thus giving you ready to air rec709. BUT if you know what you're doing you should be able to turn it off and work ln pure log footage or in between. Embedded lut - that's the future I'm telling you.
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
The information of used gamma is already there so that sounds like a very good idea.
But isn't that the whole problem being put forward..the prod co,s request Slog,but then DONT have anyone who actually knows how to deal with it.. and the footage looks like crap when broadcast with your name on it.. so give them a LUT so they hopefully wont do that.. of course alot of prductions have people who cam deal with Slog and dont need a LUT even.. but at least as many who dont..
Last edited:
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
With S-log3 and LUT it works great handing over LOG footage and LUT. But when I shot F3 and Slog when I had no LUT things were different.
Ben Scott
Veteran
This is already in use a a Red sidecar .rmd file that accompanies an .r3d
Ben Scott
Veteran
No the problem people are putting forward is that some would rather their footage didn't look great than hand over their super secret special lutsauce.
It's my contention that it is part of your job to try to speak to someone in the know about how best to provide material to suit their workflow/experience/budget
Alexa already does this. When you bring in Alexa C-Log footage into Premiere, it just applies the Alexa LC709 LUT for you automatically. I think it's just a matter of Adobe adding a script and LUT into Premier to do that with Sony Footage. But they probably won't because Sony does not have as much pull as Arri.