Re: [Avid-L2] Using Resolve to add Lut to Camera Log C Render time of Red Rocket vs GTX-680?

 

If you don't remove the LUTs do they show up in the Luster or Resolve or does their presence corrupt the aaf so it is unusable.  I would think they could remove the aaf LUTs in their grading tool but I don't know for sure.  What flaw specifically happens with the LUTs left in?

Typically the DITs give us DNX 36 with LUT baked in and DNX 220X for the full rezz.  Given I'm on Ver. 5.5.4 I can't add the LUT in Avid so I prebake to save time.  Oliver pointed out this might add some degradation to the media as opposed to just color correcting the raw and compensating for the LUT with the color correction.  I get a little iffy about all the pulling and stretching I have to do when the media is not pre LUTed, perhaps pulling setup down -40 and pushing gain to 150 and more on some shots isn't adding more noise/degradation to the image than pre LUTing the media and having more modest correction values in Symphony but for the sake of expediency it's what I've been doing. 

I'm not around on the production side of things but back in the film days wasn't the "Look" determined by the lighting, lens choices with filters and the film stock.  I know the dailies usually got a one light print and color timing was done later in the post process.  Is it the speed at which changes can be made using LUTs on set that makes them more efficient.  I realize that with camera raw file formats a viewing LUT is required to make the image viewable on the set monitors but how elaborate are DPs making LUTs for individual scenes etc...?  I would think that the video village isn't always the most suitable environment for making critical LUT adjustments but I'm not on set.  In practice how strictly are the on set LUTs adhered to in post?  They seem like a rough starting point but so far I don't work on many projects that involve LUTs  so I don't know what the common approach to LUTs is in post on features or episodic work.  In practice do these LUTs save time in the long run?

---In avid-l2@yahoogroups.com, <jay_mahavier@...> wrote :

well, actually there is a good reason to not use the LUT feature in MC.  On our shows we are not doing the grade in MC/Symphony.  The grading work goes to an outside vendor and depending on which one the grade is done in Luster or Resolve.  So we do our offline in DNx36.  When you use the LUT feature in MC and go to make a AAF for transferring to Luster or Resolve you have to first remove all the LUT settings so you can do the link back to the ProRes4444 camera masters.  So when I do that everyone on our Unity system sees the LUT go away and starts to bitch.  So after I make the AAF I would have to go back and reapply the LUT to all the shots.  Now, if I'm lucky, the show is using one master look LUT and that would be the only thing I need to apply to all the clips, but I'm not a lucky guy is seems.  So at the very least, each scene has it's own LUT.  And often there are different LUTs for different setups with in the scene.  DPs do love their look LUT toys.  So it becomes a huge PITA.  Easy solution?  Bake the LUT in while making the offline media.  If you decide that the on set LUT looks like crap just reprocess that media through Resolve.

As a note we are about to upgrade to v8 so maybe some of this will change.

Jay

On Jan 8, 2015, at 6:59 PM, oliverpeters@... [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

BTW - why are you baking in the LUT to a master-quality file? Are you planning to grade with that? (Not a good idea.) You could add the LUT within MC if you wanted to.

- Oliver

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: bigfish@pacbell.net

---

Reply via web post

•

Reply to sender

•

Reply to group

•

Start a New Topic

•

Messages in this topic (11)

Visit Your Group

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___