Guiding Principals

[dilljib]

Hi Roger,

Across your films if I had to describe your images, I would consistently use the word “full”. You appear to use the entire capacity of the sensor from darks to lights, and fill out every crevice it has to offer. No one else seems capable of creating images quite like this. This of course comes from your years of expertise and wonderful taste, but I wonder if you could go into detail about your approach in two specific areas: general light level and show LUT. I find that at certain times in ones journey they internally decide what is right and what is wrong regarding certain techniques and these become the pillars of their decision making and ultimately produce their unique aesthetics.

1. After reviewing many of your in depth summaries (Look at Lighting), it does seem that you like to work with a general light level that is higher than what would be there naturally – but of course shaping it to look appropriate for the subject matter. I’m curious if [that’s true and, if so] you adhere to a general principal around this, and what that might be?

2. What are your guiding principals for developing a show LUT? What are you looking for in contrast, darks, lights, saturation? I would find it incredibly fascinating to see an image of yours with your show LUT (and no further grading) next to the same image with a standard LogC to REC709 LUT.

Thank you

Topic

[Stip]

He used the same LUT on all movies since shooting digital with Alexas, afaik created in collaboration with Joachim Zell of Arri, based on print film data sets.

It is the most wanted LUT in history and I don’t think you’ll ever see a side-by-side comparison frame with a standard conversion 😉

[dmullenasc]

Far too much emphasis is placed on LUTs — 99% of the look of Roger’s cinematography is composition and lighting, and 1% is the LUT.

Study how he composes and lights his scenes and stop thinking about his LUT.

[dilljib]

I can’t speak for the other user who commented, but I definitely appreciate what you’re saying David. I asked the question as I did, because I’m curious what the direction to a colorist is for creating a show LUT. There must be value in creating one, otherwise everyone would use the standard 709 LUT, so I’m curious what are the details of those conversations and how it pushes the image in a different direction from 709. And, regarding my lighting question, I’m deeply interested in light levels and exposing to get the image out of the noise floor – especially because I feel like there are trends these days of shooting with “only existing light” and it just doesn’t seem to me that that is actually how the masters of our craft operate.

[dmullenasc]

The show LUT is a personal choice. You need a basic conversion from log gamma to a display gamma (Rec.709 or P3) just to view the material with something close to a normal contrast.

But how far you tweak that from the standard is up to you, your taste, and the look desired for the project. Ultimately the LUT is just for monitoring on set and for generating dailies — you’re going to have total freedom to change things in the final grade if necessary.

Lighting should be a creative act more than a technical one. If you’re worried about working too close to the noise floor, then select a lower base ISO. If you want to light for more contrast, darker shadows, or a deeper stop, etc. then light for that because that’s the look you want, not because of some technical reason like wanting to stay above the noise floor. Your base ISO should keep you from getting too much noise unless you try lifting the shadows for more detail in post. So don’t do that, light for the amount of shadow detail you want.

[Roger Deakins]

I don’t remember using a LUT on Jesse James or No Country for Old Men. Of course, I didn’t because I was shooting on film. Was the look of 1917 any different? Did the LUT make it look like it did?

[dilljib]

I apologize if any offense was taken. This was not my intention. I do not mean to suggest that your craft could or should be reduced to an instagram filter that I can download and magically create images that take a career of dedication to create.

I do think there is a common denominator across those three projects, which is that they all successfully support the story, themes, and characters with their individual looks. However, I would not dare say that they look the same. As I said before, I think the consistent descriptor across all your images is “full” and my intention was to dig deep into this one element of the many that contribute.

I did not preface my question with everything else I spend my time researching, learning, and practicing like composition, exposure, lighting, design, and color; but I am focused on those things in proportion to their significance for sure: garbage in, garbage out. Someone described the color grade as a spit shine – which I appreciate as a car guy. A spit shine on a rusted car is useless. I’m not suggesting it’s the most important or even a large component of the end product, but it (LUTs and color grading generally) does have an effect on the final product, and therefore I would like to understand it to its fullest. Perhaps I can restate my question as: Do you have foundational elements that you carry with you to every DI for every project or is every element reconsidered from zero per project? If you do carry tenants from project to project, what are your guiding principals regarding contrast, shadows, mid tones, highlights, and saturation?

Thank you very much for your time and sharing your wisdom.

[Author]

Replies