New Technicolor Profile Is Amazing

I see your point, but I guess were just at an impasse. What works for your shooting and your post workflow works for you, and thats fine. I just don't think you should be so condescending to other peoples methods.
 
videohog said:
Why not just take the default lut and apply it to every clip you shot with the Technicolor profile and boom, you're done!
Click to expand...

Try to keep an open mind. Read how others approach color correction.
This is how we learn to achieve better results.
There is no single solution to color correction, there are infinite solutions.

Here is another opinion posted on EOSHD.com/
http://www.eoshd.com/content/641-Hands-on-guide-to-Technicolor-Cinestyle-LUT-curves-and-Canon-600D

"If you prefer to make your own LUT, you can grade the image however
you please. Technicolor recommend an S-curve shaped LUT, so in
Premiere Pro CS5 for example you can use Magic Bullet Looks to change
the RGB curve since this works on the premise of a LUT. Looks also
works as a plugin but it isn't free! You can also change gain and
gamma via Magic Bullet Looks as well as the LUT curve."

Here is another opinion posted here at dvxuser.com on other options to the Technicolor LUT application /

someday/
"I tried to apply less curve to the cinestyle footage and it seems to have a better quality than using the LUT curve by Technicolor. That curve makes cinestyle look as Standard"
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?249169-Technicolor-Cinestyle-best-without-LUT
 
Last edited:
There's been a lot of talk on other boards particularly an F3 discussion group on DVINfo.net that S-log shouldn't work well on an 8bit codec, ;et alone a highly compressed one like on the Canon's. These guys have said that you should be getting banding artifacts as a result of expanding a compressed contrast range with not enough pixel depth out to a full 709 range.

Yet I'm reading here that you guys are ecstatic about this profile -- so I'm confused. Do any of you see banding say in blue skies or in other color gradients, even in faces?
Is this technicolor profile a true S-log profile that condenses all the information into a narrow range of greys that never gets anywhere near 100%?
 
Lenilenapi said:
There's been a lot of talk on other boards particularly an F3 discussion group on DVINfo.net that S-log shouldn't work well on an 8bit codec, ;et alone a highly compressed one like on the Canon's. These guys have said that you should be getting banding artifacts as a result of expanding a compressed contrast range with not enough pixel depth out to a full 709 range.

Yet I'm reading here that you guys are ecstatic about this profile -- so I'm confused. Do any of you see banding say in blue skies or in other color gradients, even in faces?
Is this technicolor profile a true S-log profile that condenses all the information into a narrow range of greys that never gets anywhere near 100%?
Click to expand...

No, it's very similar to other flat profiles in that the gamma curve is very linear and the picture style seems to be boosting the black levels quite a bit. So pretty much the best way to get increased dynamic range out of this profile is to slightly underexpose the highlights and apply an S-curve (or use the LUT) in post. It's in no way a true s-log profile which I'm not even sure is possible with a 4:2:0 codec.


tackyattack said:
I know but I don't like the look of the provided LUT. I'm looking for a customizable alternative for FCP since there is no S-curve editor.
Click to expand...

Magic Bullet Colorista II is your best bet, then.
 
Lenilenapi said:
There's been a lot of talk on other boards particularly an F3 discussion group on DVINfo.net that S-log shouldn't work well on an 8bit codec, ;et alone a highly compressed one like on the Canon's. These guys have said that you should be getting banding artifacts as a result of expanding a compressed contrast range with not enough pixel depth out to a full 709 range.

Yet I'm reading here that you guys are ecstatic about this profile -- so I'm confused. Do any of you see banding say in blue skies or in other color gradients, even in faces?
Is this technicolor profile a true S-log profile that condenses all the information into a narrow range of greys that never gets anywhere near 100%?
Click to expand...

what I've seen is that I get more noise: if I want the image to look like technicolor with LUT applied, I'm better off shooting neutral or portrait with contrast=-2, which are quite close to that, and will deliver a nicer image; the problem with that is that I can't change my mind later
check out the histograms at the bottom of this:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/picturestyles/picturestyles.html

still, I was, as you say, "ecstatic" for a couple of days, then went back to trying to get the image in camera close to what I know I want it to look in the end; other people require more flexibility, and technicolor allows that
 
videohog said:
I think the LUT IS a one fix all trick and here's why. (and why I think many don't get this)

This Technicolor profile has been designed for one purpose and one purpose only. It has nothing to do with color correction or changing the artsy "look" of your image.
It was designed to "fix" the bad parts of the H264 codec. Bad parts being the low and high end where it tends to fall apart a little. So the roll on and roll off of the "S" curve is the most important part.
Can you change the curves? Of coarse you can, but odds are, you're messing up the "fix" a little bit.
Click to expand...

At the risk of being completely wrong, I submit that you are missing the point.

The CineStyle profile is designed to capture an image with the most dynamic range. Yes, this is to compensate for a relatively weak codec. And the profile therefore gives us more data in the image -- more gradation as we get closer to the extremes.

The problem is that this image is very flat, so the LUT then takes us to an image with more contrast -- effectively the "neutral" profile, but with more detail in the extreme color values. This is why tackyattack didn't see much difference between the Technicolor profile w/ LUT vs. the Canon standard. But as people pointed out, it's the same image, just with more detail. And this is fine, if the standard, neutral look is what you're going for.

But if you want to go for a different look, then you can do so, with much more data to play with. And that's why you don't have to apply the LUT/curve as is.
 
Zech said:
I see your point, but I guess were just at an impasse. What works for your shooting and your post workflow works for you, and thats fine. I just don't think you should be so condescending to other peoples methods.
Click to expand...

First, let me apologies for coming off as condescending. That was not my intent. I am a little frustrated that so many seem to think that using the Technicolor profile and supplied LUT has something to do with color correction. (It doesn't) I don't know why people would want to complicate their workflow and increase their workload. It's a simple 2 step process, shoot with the profile, then apply the supplied lut. You now have a great looking image that is very akin to the canon "standard" profile, but with all the zeros and ones in the correct places. If you don't like the standard "Look" of this image, you now have a great image to BEGIN your color correcting/grading process.



naveenmedia said:
At the risk of being completely wrong, I submit that you are missing the point.

The CineStyle profile is designed to capture an image with the most dynamic range. Yes, this is to compensate for a relatively weak codec. And the profile therefore gives us more data in the image -- more gradation as we get closer to the extremes.

The problem is that this image is very flat, so the LUT then takes us to an image with more contrast -- effectively the "neutral" profile, but with more detail in the extreme color values. This is why tackyattack didn't see much difference between the Technicolor profile w/ LUT vs. the Canon standard. But as people pointed out, it's the same image, just with more detail. And this is fine, if the standard, neutral look is what you're going for.

But if you want to go for a different look, then you can do so, with much more data to play with. And that's why you don't have to apply the LUT/curve as is.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with everything you wrote, with the exception of the very last sentence. Why would you not just apply the lut "as is" and THEN go for a different look?
(as Technicolor suggests you do to get the most out of the setup.)

Again, If I have been too harsh or condescending to anyone....Sorry. I'll try to keep it toned down a little more.
 
videohog said:
I agree 100% with everything you wrote, with the exception of the very last sentence. Why would you not just apply the lut "as is" and THEN go for a different look?
(as Technicolor suggests you do to get the most out of the setup.)
Click to expand...

I didn't detect any harshness or condescension at all. Just a firmly held opinion :)

As to the point at hand, I get what you're saying. The question I suppose is, when you start to correct from this point (that is, after the LUT is applied), is whether or not all that data (detail) is still available. And as long as you're working in the right bpc, you're ok. That's the advantage of working in 32bpc in AE. Use the TechniColor LUT as a starting point, and if you don't like it, go from there. But if you are in anything but 32bpc and apply effect upon effect, you're just playing with less and less data, so applying the LUT means lost data.

However, that's AE. I don't know how FCP or PPro will handle these effects, and whether or not they go back to the original source, or if they work from the last effect/filter forward.
 
videohog said:
...I don't know why people would want to complicate their workflow and increase their workload. It's a simple 2 step process, shoot with the profile, then apply the supplied lut. You now have a great looking image that is very akin to the canon "standard" profile, but with all the zeros and ones in the correct places. If you don't like the standard "Look" of this image, you now have a great image to BEGIN your color correcting/grading process...
Click to expand...
My take is completely opposite as yours :)

I believe there is no perfection or any precision to be had in the use of the LUT for color correction. There is great power to be had from this style by understanding the concept of LOG based color curves and what the LUT is actually doing to the image. The value is in the concept, not the specifics of the numbers in the look up table. For me the fastest way to great production workflow is to simply create presets for certain "looks" I like using the "concept" of the s-shaped color curve and thus bypass a complete step in your process listed above. The workflow you describe above is actually three steps not two and you loose all the value of the information saved by the style before you ever get a chance to use it. Especially if you are working in a 10 bit environment. My approach for Vegas specifically skips one complete step in your process and is applying color correction and grading in a 32 bit color environment before the image has been crushed by a LUT.

From reading the PDF file and watching the interview with the fellow from Technicolor, I got the impression that that LUT has nothing to do with color correction. It is not a starting place for grading, but a way to view clips shot with the style in their "film making" environment. I'd be currious where you found info from Technicolor on how the LUT is to be used for grading? Might you have some links for further reading.

Cheers,
Pete
 
videohog said:
First, let me apologies for coming off as condescending. That was not my intent. I am a little frustrated that so many seem to think that using the Technicolor profile and supplied LUT has something to do with color correction. (It doesn't) I don't know why people would want to complicate their workflow and increase their workload. It's a simple 2 step process, shoot with the profile, then apply the supplied lut. You now have a great looking image that is very akin to the canon "standard" profile, but with all the zeros and ones in the correct places. If you don't like the standard "Look" of this image, you now have a great image to BEGIN your color correcting/grading process.
Click to expand...
I guess its just a personal preference, but I find it much easier to start with the CineStyle than it is to pull something out of the standard (cinestyle+LUT). If im just doing basic grading, then yes, I will most likely use the LUT. But if my grading calls for something more extreme or not having the "Standard" look to it, I find it easier to just grade strait to that, then setting the LUT, and grading back to what I want.

videohog said:
Why would you not just apply the lut "as is" and THEN go for a different look?
(as Technicolor suggests you do to get the most out of the setup.)
Click to expand...
I have not found anywhere where Technicolor has said that this is the correct way to do it, only that here is a LUT file you can use with it. If you have found where they say that then please let us know.
 
I recall Technicolor saying on twitter that the LUT is intended as a primary grading correction and if you do any grading manually that you probably should not apply their LUT curve also as it is intended to correct the raw CineStyle appearance...

They somehow said that in 140 characters... lol.
 
c3hammer said:
There is great power to be had from this style by understanding the concept of LOG based color curves and what the LUT is actually doing to the image. The value is in the concept, not the specifics of the numbers in the look up table. For me the fastest way to great production workflow is to simply create presets
Cheers,
Pete
Click to expand...
Well said
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top