Phantom LUTS

[Doug Jensen]

After reading this thread and seeing all the praise for the Phantom LUTs I decided to give them a try to see what I was missing. I spent a couple of hours this afternoon playing around with them on some FX6 footage I shot yesterday and a bunch of stuff I'd already graded earlier this summer. I mostly used the "Neutral FX6" LUT. Ultimately, I don't see what the fuss is about. I still prefer the results I get using Sony's Venice LUT called: S-Log3-S-Gamut3.Cine_To_s709_V200. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the Phantom LUT, I'm just saying I already have basically the same thing. The two LUTs are quite similar right ouf the box, but you can easily grade them to look about the same. So what am I missing? Has anyone else tried the S-Log3-S-Gamut3.Cine_To_s709_V200 LUT and preferred Phantom instead? If so, I'd like to know what you are seeing that you like better.

 

[NorBro]

You're mostly just paying for convenience for a faster workflow because you can grade footage to look like any LUT that's sold. (Or tweak LUTs you've bought to look like other LUTs that are sold.)

 

[drboffa]

Doug: I've used the Sony LUT in the past, although I was never a big fan of it. I have no doubt you can get great results with it, but as a starting point it often felt too far from a look that I liked. Generally I used Alister's LUTs over the Sony LUT, as I felt the former did a better job of taking out some of the green cast in my footage when I was shooting with my Fs5. I will add that I hadn't tried the Sony LUT since getting my FX6 (until today).

For comparison I went back in and used the Sony LUT on one of the shots I shared earlier. This also gave me a chance to look at my node tree—to my surprise the only other correction was a very slight White Balance adjustment! All the other nodes (contrast, exposure) were untouched. So in this instance (admittedly, a rare case) the Phantom LUT alone was nearly enough to get me to a finished look. BUT: it turns out I was also using a previous version of the Phantom LUTs, which I'd purchased for use with my Fs5.

Curiously, I prefer the old Phantom LUT. And I'd agree that the current Phantom isn't all that far from the Sony LUT. But I think there are some differences in color (skin, for example) that make me lean toward the Phantom LUT. Whether I'd be able to pick that LUT out in blind testing is another story...

I don't believe any LUT is magical, but for me the Phantom LUTs are reasonably priced and (generally) get me closer to a finished look faster. I'm happy with just about anything that saves me time and makes my work look the way I like it.

For comparison, the first image is the Sony S-Log3-S-Gamut3.Cine_To_s709_V200 LUT; the second is the FX6 Phantom LUT; the third is the Original (FS7/Fs5) Phantom LUT. The only other correction to all three is the slight WB adjustment (pre-LUT).

 

[Bassman2003]

I have never heard of the Sony branded LUT you mention Doug since I only have the mirrorless cameras. I am sure it is nice. I just like the subtle tonal changes that make the Sony footage a little less clinical (not that this generation of cameras is clinical...) and closer to the Arri spectrum as the author intended. Great value for ~$40 imho. Might try the Sony LUT when I have some free time.

 

[Andy9]

If you're shooting Sony log and you've never tried making primary colour adjustments in Catalyst Browse (free), you should. At least give it a go. You can export a LUT for Premiere or whatever that includes any adjustments you've made. It gives you access to all of the camera metadata. It can also look really nice - if a bit punchy and over saturated but that's easy enough to change.

I compared it recently to a load of other options (including Cinematch ARRI emulation, Sony LUTs, Alister Chapman LUTs) and, at least for the project I was working on, it stood out in a good way. Something about the skin tones and colour separation. I was surprised.

 

[ahalpert]

Great value for ~$40 imho.

Not as good value as the Sony LUT

 

[cyvideo]

Around seventy percent of my post is for other clients. For them due to time and budget constraints I am usually using technical LUTs on their S-LOG3 footage. If I have the time to do a lot more tweaking of images, I'd much prefer to use Transforms to establish the correct base, usually 709, before going on to artistic "looks". What I have observed over time is the quickest way to reach a "Look" for a client is to stop on a representative frame of their shoot and slap a bunch of different LUTs on it, asking "What do you like then?" Give 'em a choice, and they will nearly always make a choice. It's like a box of chocolates. That's human nature, they'll choose one.

The most commonly chosen one, after starting with the Venice v2 LUT and a number of other 709 LUTs as samples, and is the one that keeps popping its head up as a favourite is the now seven year old Bert Degraeve" SLog3_Arrilook709_filmlike." I have dozens and dozens of various breeds of S-LOG3 to 709 LUTs, and this one just keeps raising its head. I've given up trying to work out exactly what it is that seems to make people choose it, but it sure grabs more attention than any of the others I have. One thing I do know about it is that on a correctly exposed S-LOG3 image, it handles the highlights and highlight roll-off better than the Sony Venice v2 LUT. There are obviously other differences, but from a quick technical observation, that's the first thing I notice. So no real need to put an earlier node in just to correct those highlights. Like DJ, I got the Phantom LUTs because so many people raved about them. I've even had people bring them in for me to use... then go away with something else. Go figure.

Below is Kodak's 100% correctly exposed digital test image, or rather, three of them. The first one is the raw reference, the second is with the Sony Venice v2 LUT and the third one with Bert Degraeve's SLog3_Arrilook709_filmlike LUT. On a decent 709 monitor, the first thing you should notice from an objective technical standpoint is the highlights in the hair and how they are handled differently by the two LUTs shown here. Then there are the obvious but reasonably more subtle tonal and color differences, which are a more subjective observation by their nature. Hope the upload is good enough to discern the differences.

Chris Young

https://vimeo.com/153091201

Comparisons

 

[Doug Jensen]

Chris, I agree the bottom one is the winner. Can you post a link to the LUT you are recommending? I don't mind paying if it is a commercial product.

 

[Doug Jensen]

Curiously, I prefer the old Phantom LUT. And I'd agree that the current Phantom isn't all that far from the Sony LUT. But I think there are some differences in color (skin, for example) that make me lean toward the Phantom LUT. Whether I'd be able to pick that LUT out in blind testing is another story...]

My testing didn't involve humans, so maybe my opinion would be different if I looked at your tests.

 

[Bassman2003]

Thanks for posting Chris. Do you have the ability to add a fourth version with the Phantom neutral LUT to see a comparison? It would really hit at the heart of this thread.

 

[drboffa]

Doug, you can buy the Arrilook LUTs mentioned in the Vimeo video linked by Chris (there are a few different packages).

It turns out I *also* have these LUTs! I bought them years ago but preferred the Chapman LUTs and totally forgot about them. So here's the series: Sony LUT, Phantom (current gen for FX6), Arrilook (standard, originally for FS7/Fs5, etc), and Phantom (old gen for FS7/Fs5).

The differences in the first three are subtle, but if you look at the highlights it *does* seem like the Arrilook from Degraeve has a gentler highlight roll off (e.g., in the blanket lower left and the skin on the forearm by the fox's ear).

 

[Doug Jensen]

Dave, thanks for posting. Of these four images, I prefer #3 (best highlights on the arm) and then #1. So which LUTs exactly am I looking at? Is the one you call "Arrilook" the one that is built into Resolve called "Arri Alexa LogC to Rec709". I use that LUT almost as much as I use the Sony V200 LUT.

 

[NorBro]

As far as ARRI goes, they have a few slightly updated ones than the one built into Resolve but they crush the image a bit more (in my experience):

https://www.arri.com/en/learn-help/l.../lut-generator

 

[Doug Jensen]

As far as ARRI goes, they have a few slightly updated ones than the one built into Resolve but they crush the image a bit more (in my experience):

https://www.arri.com/en/learn-help/l.../lut-generator

You're right. I'm in the middle of grading some footage right now so I generated a new Arri LUT . . . it looks exactly the same as the old Arri LUT, but with just very slightly darker blacks.

They both look better than the Phantom FX6 Neutral, in my opinion.

 

[NorBro]

Although no one ever said this was the answer (at least as far as I know), I think it's because ARRI quietly improved the DR on the ALEV III sensor over the last 12+ years. [Blackmagic does the same thing.]

So the more modern systems from the last few years (besides the ones using LogC3 or LogC4) opposed to 2010 might be getting a bit more of a flatter image that the newer version works better with.

 

[drboffa]

Dave, thanks for posting. Of these four images, I prefer #3 (best highlights on the arm) and then #1. So which LUTs exactly am I looking at? Is the one you call "Arrilook" the one that is built into Resolve called "Arri Alexa LogC to Rec709". I use that LUT almost as much as I use the Sony V200 LUT.

Happy to do so.

#3 is the Arrilook from Bert Degraeve, which is linked to here: https://vimeo.com/153091201 ; the base pack can be purchased here: https://bertdegraeve.gumroad.com/l/kUKX

#1 is the standard Sony Venice LUT that you mentioned earlier.

 

[Doug Jensen]

I'm really liking the new Arri LUT I generated an hour ago. I'm re-grading a bunch of stuff I worked on yesterday and thought was done. Part of the regrading is because of the LUT and part of it is just because I'm looking at it with different eyes today.

 

[Bassman2003]

Thanks for the 4-up comparison. I am drawn to #2 as the skin tones have a bit of magenta in them. #3 borders on a green tint with my monitor. All solid though with #4 being pretty amped up!

 

[drboffa]

Thanks for the 4-up comparison. I am drawn to #2 as the skin tones have a bit of magenta in them. #3 borders on a green tint with my monitor. All solid though with #4 being pretty amped up!

Glad you found it useful!

#2 is the current Phantom for FX6 LUT.

I should note that #3 (the Arrilook by Degraeve) also has a version that pulls some green out of the image to address this issue (which was more of an issue with the older FS cameras, I believe). But I wanted to do apples-to-apples as much as possible so I went with the standard version of that LUT.

 

[scorsesefan]

I've been using the Arri Log-C to Rec 709 for years on my slog3 footage. Any downside considering it wasn't particularly designed for Sony cameras?