![]() ![]() While they may not fit your intended look, a log to Rec. (Images courtesy of Tashi Trieu) Advantages to Grading in Rec709 Diagram 2 – Scene Referred Grading with a color transform at the end of the pipeline. Output Referred Grading with no LUT, but viewing in a Rec. What’s important to note is that from here you can then turn off your LUT and export a log master, which can help you down the line. In Diagram 2, we have a LogC to Rec709 transform LUT at the end of the pipeline, and we are making grades before (under) this LUT. This is a perfectly acceptable way of doing things but can limit what you do if you ever have to master in a larger colorspace, and if nothing else, can cost you some time if you ever have to master in another format, especially when other colorists are involved or you don’t have access to the original project files. ![]() In Diagram 1, we are taking a LogC image and viewing in a Rec709 colorspace. Now let’s look at two ways of grading an image: Output referred imagery does not carry a relation to real world exposure values, meaning that it’s an interpretation of what is happening. If an image is encoded in RAW (literal sensor data) or Log (a compressed and efficient encoding which gives about the same information as RAW) then it is scene referred However, this is not to say that it is how our eyes respond to and interpret light - only how light itself is measured. Scene referred imagery is essentially anything that has a direct correlation to the way light behaves in the real world. Scene Referred vs Output Referredīefore going any further, let’s take a look at the differences between scene referred and output referred workflows, two generalized ways of encoding image data. In the same vein, the common use of these LUTs are why many people are under the impression that each make and model of camera has a specific, inherent “look” – but the purpose of the raw or log capture is to record the scene’s exposure information as accurately as possible. ![]() 709 LUTs because it’s not how they want the final image to look. Many colorists and DP’s reject manufacturer supplied Rec. These LUTs are purely creative and are basically the camera company’s guess at what they they think will make the footage look best. RED has released a few transforms from REDlogFilm to REDgamma3 and REDgamma4, while a third party has reverse engineered the complete set and produced inverses as well, which can be downloaded here. These are often free and are released from each camera manufacturer for their log profiles.ĪRRI has a LUT generator that’s accessable here. In general, creative LUTs can be useful in a pinch but really aren’t something you necessarily need to spend your money on Camera manufacturer supplied conversions, such as Log to Rec. FPEs are very difficult to replicate from scratch. Typically these LUTs are nothing more than just a basic grade, but they can sometimes be more involved, such as with Film Print Emulations (FPEs). Whether you choose to use a LUT or not depends on your personal choices and workflow as well as the needs of the project. The mystery and misunderstanding of LUTs seems to have led to high demand of creative LUTs and thus creating a strong marketing strategy for many small companies and colorists to sell grades and looks. They are not algorithms that interpret your footage dynamically. ![]() LUTs contain pre-baked transformations, but the files themselves are ignorant of your source and destination colorspace. There’s nothing dynamic or changing about them. Creative looks can be created in just about any color correction software, including Resolve, Baselight and Speedgrade among others. Any transformation that converts from camera log (or scene-referred) to Rec.709 (or output referred) falls in this category. More relevant to this discussion are creative transformations, which are purely creative and intended to produce a subjective look. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |