Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I understand that it’s a tempting shortcut
I think you misunderstand the term “show LUT”. Roger literally shoots under one and any big movie you have watched did so too. This does not even mean that you use a LUT in post, but exporting the intended look as a LUT is the only way to get it into a camera/monitor.
“Show LUT” means a look creation. If Roger would shoot his movies with the standard Arri transformation and there would not be any look applied, his movies would feel very different.
Yes, you can’t just slap any LUT on your footage and expect it to magically turn it into something it is not – if you carefully read what I wrote, the essence is that the look needs to be created before shooting.
Usually experienced colorists do it but I mentioned some transformations above that provide a great starting point for everyone.
This is the way the industry works, you can work differently but it’s the safest way to continuity under a pre-crafted idea for a look, which is what you were asking for.
Look development of a project is usually done before shooting. Colorists call this “Show LUT”. The main driver is mostly the contrast curve and saturation, then there might be some hue rotations or tinting of shadows, highlights. This ‘look’ is applied to all scenes. The LUT is loaded into cameras/monitors and the project is shot under it. Costume or set design choices should be made under the show LUT as saturation and density changes can change a color’s appearance.
If it’s a well shot production, very little additional grading will be made in post production outside of obvious color correction to match shots within scenes. Additional grading may include changes of color temperature and tint, which have great impact on emotion but don’t change the ‘look’ itself.
Roger’s movies don’t need a show LUT because he already shoots under his own LUT, crafted by Joachim Zell of Arri and based on print film data sets – as far as I know Roger named “True Grit” as reference. It is essentially one of the best print film emulation LUTs ever created. Iirc Roger usually only makes very little tweaks to exposure and saturation in the grading suite. Everything has already been made on set using lighting, set design and costume.
If you are using Davinci Resolve, there are great, free transformations like Juan Zambrano’s 2499 pipeline or OpenDRT for clean look development.
Flex lights like Litemat are great for this since you could literally tape them to the wall if space is super tight.
Some higher end monitors can be calibrated with these devices (LUT calibration, not ICC). Lower end monitors usually not but they can have color/tint/contrast/brightness controls, so you can get them in the ballpark by dialing it in manually when comparing to a calibrated monitor.
Thank you Roger!
There’s no need for pre-flashing, or even film, today but I still find these processes, and how people used them to achieve certain goals, very interesting.
A follow up question since you mentioned ENR.
Aesthetic saturation is much easier to achieve than aesthetic desaturation in a digital pipeline in my opinion.
With silver retention techniques, do you know if there was anything special about the desaturation of colors? Was it an even process or were some colors or densities more affected than others?
Since many movies that used it then still had digital color correction afterwards, it’s not easy to tell just from looking at the films.
Wow, thank you so much, David.
The ‘black/white paint’ analogy helps me understand the impact on color.
There is an element of anarchy in these analog processes that are not present in the digital world. To be clear, I don’t think they are missing or needed, nonetheless I find them – and the way people found ways to tame, mold and then use them – fascinating.
Thanks again.
I love barrel distortion. I think it is also widely considered a “cinematic” trait as often found in anamorphic lenses.
You may want to watch Steve Yedlin’s very interesting presentation “Debunking HDR”, recoded at FotoKem; Roger and James were in attendance. You find it on his website.
Yedlin also joined Team Deakins Podcast again recently to discuss this topic as it can be very confusing (and misleading) even for professionals. I can’t include links, otherwise it won’t let me post a comment.
I think starting with your phone is perfectly fine for the following reason.
Also, I have a second question: what is cinematography really about? Is it mostly about lighting, emotions, or something else?
It’s goal is to help tell the story. The story dictates many of the decisions.
Everyone talks about Roger Deakins’ lighting but in my opinion the more critical quality is “putting the audience where they need to be”. Simplified it means where he puts the camera, and thus us, the viewer. From shot to shot and as a scene, he is one of the best, maybe the best, to do this. He could shoot a movie without lighting at all and it would still work and be terrific because of this skill.
And this is what you can study and then practice just with your phone – learn about framing and putting the audience where they need to be.
