Jan 19, 2015
Anybody tried those?
Might as well just use the Kodak brand name.
I'm sure they're all specially optimised and completely unique... Etc etc etc.
I'm hardly blown away by the sample stills on the website - I can't see anything there that can't be very easily achieved by a quick primary balance. I think I'll give it a miss.
They seemed a step ahead of your average LUT / Magic Bullet look to me, like the looks that I spend a fair amount of time building with very subtle custom curves. The fact that they take the in-point into consideration makes me curious in a way I'm usually not with this kind of stuff.
Ok, i looked, those clips had to have been graded underneath the LUT, the green push in the "before" R3D file was total over the top otherwise
All of these so-called "look LUTs" are absolute bullsh!t.
Trying it on the site they look pretty close to Juan Melara's film luts with expanded contrast on the output.
Anybody tried those?
I guess that's a no then....
I used one that comes with Color Correction Handbook. it looks very similar to free luts that comes with Resolve, maybe has more teal color in it. personally I don't see any reasons to buy it
I don't think those are actually "Juan Melara" LUTS per se, but files posted long ago on REDuser from a scandinavian VFX guy - and I think they were originally actually stock autodesk Flame LUTs included for temporary film out emulation during VFX workflow, but I could be wrong.
all of these tend to be so similar to each other though. not much different than the ones included in Resolve now.
but hey, we're all just trying to make a buck or two right?
Correct. What is being sold in this case is the stamp of approval of Dale Grahn.
Yes, those LUTs, that he claimed were his creation and which he posted on RedUser were in fact Lustre/Smoke/Flame LUTs. I called him out on it and he hadn't denied it, because it was obvious where those LUTs came from.
I just wrote a nasty message, thought about it, and deleted it. But I will say that (in my opinion) these LUTs are just total BS.
Very few people understand how much the scanner affects any piece of film that you're trying to set a so-called LUT to. The only people I ever saw who did it right were the Kodak color scientists at Hollywood, using Spirit S/N 002 (the second handbuilt prototype), which was specifically calibrated every day with a proprietary Kodak alignment film. Without that, it's all smoke and mirrors.
I don't have a problem with people marketing technical LUTs that take a Log signal and convert it to Rec709. But I do have a problem with people saying, "use this magic LUT and it'll look just like Kodak 2383." Bullspit.
I'm on the Koji Color team. Bummed to see the name calling. No smoke and mirrors, "bullspit", etc. involved. These are print emulation LUTs built with the help of film labs, densitometry, and a couple years of hard work. The idea was to provide a set of nice LUTs that have a known provenance, unlike the pirated and mystery LUTs floating around the internet currently. Dale helped us work through many iterations of the prints and was on-site at the lab to check LAD and generally eyeball the result before it went on to the digital stage. We managed to get a hold of several Fuji print stocks before the lab ran out forever (and then shut down). We're proud to be able to provide that.
We've also concatenated the various proprietary curves provided by camera manufacturers, so you can apply a single LUT instead of stacking them. We thought that would be useful to people.
I know it's cool to talk trash about LUTs, etc. In our case, I'd just ask that you look in it more carefully before jumping to conclusions.
And if anyone has any substantive concerns about Koji - substantive please, not hand-waving or ad hominem - I'd be happy to address them.
Can't help it.
In that case, I would just recommend that folks give Koji another look. We've created a film emulation that has been vetted all the way through the pipeline, by people (well, Dale) who know what to look for. I don't know of anything else like it.
Of course film emulation isn't the right tool for every project by any means. But for many projects, we believe it will be a nice thing to have at your disposal.
And again, if anyone has any specific technical or aesthetic issues with Koji - anything at all - I'd be happy to discuss here.
Ok can you post an image with Resolve 2383 and Koji 2383 side by side. Just a log source file to the Luts, no additional grade. Be curious to see the difference.
I don't doubt you worked hard, but there's no real science there. This is guesswork and mumbo-jumbo.
I concede that there are situations where people under the gun need to throw a look together in Avid and FCP and Premiere, and this is a fast, easy way to do it. But it's not real color correction, it's not real color science, and it's all BS. Trust me: I was part of Kodak for two years and worked for Technicolor for more than 20, and all of this stuff is pseudo-science at best. And that's with the top guys at both of those firms, some of whom really, really knew their stuff.
There are such things as real calibrated LUTs designed for film emulation involved with specific stocks going out to film recorders, and those I buy. The crap out there on the net for $49.95... not so much.
BTW: for the record, I have all of the LUTs from the people out there selling under Impulz, Cineplus, Cinespace, Neumann, LUTBuddy, Filmlook, and many others, and almost all of them are silly. 100% of them can be matched with the existing tools in Resolve, except with more control and less destruction to the image.
To me, the problem with these so-called LUTs is that it creates the impression among neophytes and filmmakers that coming up with a look is merely pushing a button. My feeling is that it demeans, trivializes, and diminishes the real look of working colorists. And you're talking to a guy who has created real LUTs in Kodak's Wildstar and Technicolor's LUTher -- many, many times -- doing more than 25 digital intermediates going out to film in the last 15 years. Even there, there was a lot of back-and-forth, weaseling, and judgement calls, with endless tests and tweaking. And still, the prints had to be slightly color-timed back in the lab, because the standards for real print film coming off optical printers is very loose at best (I'm guessing +/- 5 points under the best circumstances).
Last comment: isn't it interesting to compare five different companies' "impression" of what (say) Kodak's 2383 Vision print film looks like... only they're all substantially different. Who's telling the truth? All of them? None of them? One of them? Heck, even Filmlight, Arri, Technicolor, and Deluxe have vastly different interpretations of what these looks are. This is all black art and only vaguely science in the loosest sense, and the looks will not react the same way with different footage.
There's an app for that:
Koji also supports a ton of different acquisition formats. So if you have, say, S-Log3 for some reason, it's one Koji LUT and then finish your grade. Resolve's 2383 has only one source supported, you will need to do some acrobatics to even apply their LUT. And it might not work.
Separate names with a comma.